Chapter I. Why History?

The recommendation that people who are interested in learning to practise psycho-analytic therapy should apply themselves diligently to the study of Freud seems at first glance to scent of the cult of the personality, to ring of the gospel, and to suggest that nothing else is worthy of study. While it is certain that the recommendation has been used in all these ways, to the detriment of students and psycho-analysis alike, there is another rationale for the advice. There is a cogent justification which has to do with the essential nature of science: namely that it is truly rational in its history. This is formed around a thread of logical necessity. To borrow an image from Freud's early writing, in the history of psycho-analysis revelations or discoveries - whichever they be - adhere to a chain of logically necessary propositions as garlands of flowers wind about a wire.

It may be objected that this does not justify its discoveries being taught as the personal history of a particular worker, even if he can reasonably be called ‘the father of psychoanalysis’, or the greatest figure in its development, or the foremost authority, etc. It will be said, as it has been said, that Lavoisier was the father of chemistry, but we do not teach chemistry by starting with Lavoisier's life, not even his laboratory life, to say nothing of his intimate personal life. It is true that chemistry's history is not the history of people; its logical necessity lies in the relation of particles to one another under varying conditions. However, when you look at the curriculum for the training of chemistry scientists you will find that it adheres absolutely, of necessity, to a sequence which corresponds to the historical development of the science.

Furthermore, it may be objected that not even artists, who are positively addicted to history, study the intimate lives of their great forbears; only their works and methods. In short, only scholars and busybodies nose about in the personal biographi