You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
21 April 1907
Dear colleague,
It's splendid of you to ask so many questions even though you know that I can answer only a few of them. I too am coming to regard our exchange of ideas as a necessity, at least on Sundays.
I see that you have come closer to my idea that the regression to autoerotism
occurs also in Dem. p. I can do nothing without the direct impact of the material, and I am well aware that one learns more from three detailed analyses than one can ever piece together at one's desk. What I recently sent you from that source is of value only to the extent that it corresponds to what can be inferred from the material of the two other ΨN (I am sure you will understand these abbreviations and not take them amiss). On the whole I believe that we must be patient and not expect to answer certain questions until we have learned a good deal more. Still, we are entitled to conjectures, e.g., concerning cases which begin in hysterical or obsessional form. On a theoretical basis, it is easy to understand that at first the one form of defence customary in hysteria (the suppression within the unconscious of the image cathected with libidinal affect) is attempted, and then, if this does not suffice, the far more radical and dangerous method of splitting off the cathexis and retracting it into the ego. On this assumption, the case would start out as hysteria and develop into D. pr.
As you surely see, it would be incorrect to say that hysteria develops into D. pr.; rather, the hysteria is broken off and replaced by D. pr. These phrases of ours become meaningful only when we take account of certain aspects of the process of repression. Other cases can begin directly with the method of defence characteristic of D. pr.; still others do not go beyond hysteria, because somatic compliance permits of an ample discharge. An analogous example in the organic field would be the relationship between locomotor ataxia and general paralysis. As a rule general paralysis occurs only in m