How can the brother have confirmed that there had been sexual relations dating further back, i.e., before those incidents he actually recalled? Yet in the Aetiology (1896c) paper, he asserted that such practices had been often prolonged beyond puberty (p. In the face of several such inconsistencies and incongruities (Eissler, 2001, pp. 156157), the second instance involves the supposed experiences of 2 patients, making a total of 3 of the 18.
These are all elementary questions that need answering before we attain the standard of proof alluded to by Mollon, even to provide satisfactory corroboration of the sexual activities. 107117), it should be evident that Freuds clinical claims in the Aetiology paper need to be treated with considerable caution, as is clear from the second instance of corroboration cited by Mollon. (Note that Freud did not state that either of these patients explicitly implicated the other in the alleged events; and in any case, such a circumstance would not have met the objective standard claimed, since it could have arisen as a product of his flawed clinical procedure.) This anomaly casts further doubt on the second confirmation.
He reported that the patient had completely forgotten a specific scene by her sisters [death]bedside and the odious egoistic impulse that she experienced at that moment, but remembered it during the treatment and reproduced the pathogenic moment with signs of the most violent emotion, and, as a result of the treatment, she became healthy once more (1910, pp. However, it is evident from the case history in that Elisabeth had not forgotten the scene by her sisters deathbed (1895b, pp. Moreover, close reading of the relevant paragraph in the case history reveals that Freud did not explicitly state that Elisabeth recalled the traumatic impulse (though his readers may well be left with that impression from the artfully composed passage in question) (pp.
157158); rather, he inferred that it was present as an unconscious memory from her strenuous resistance when he put the situation [i.e., his surmise] drily before her. 145160) exemplifies the way in which Freuds excessive confidence in his own analytic inferences results in his entwining them with factual information in such a way that readers are almost insidiously led to view the patients experiences through Freuds interpretative lens.
case, which have been shown to be misleading in several important respects.
For instance, some of the patients symptoms diminished spontaneously (Hirschmller, 1989, pp. Mollon goes on to provide a brief summary of Freuds 4 main cases in do not concern repression of memory, nor recovered memory, and are not related to childhood sexual abuse.
Moreover, Freud failed to provide some important details: Did he obtain the information directly from the brother, or was it conveyed to him secondhand?
What, precisely, was the sexual behavior allegedly confirmed?
This aim can contains several examples of patients supposedly recovering forgotten memories of incidents associated with disturbing ideas (e.g., Freud, 1895b, pp. Breuer and Freud (1895b) claimed that patients symptoms disappeared when we had succeeded in bringing clearly to light the memory of the event by which it was provoked and in arousing its accompanying affect . 1017) follows Freuds versions of events, writing that (with the exception of the case of Emmy von N.) painful emotional conflicts and dilemmas involving desire, guilt and shame (p. But for all Freuds confident assurances to the reader, it remains a fact that these are, for the most part, assumptions on his part that he has by no means demonstrated.
 As Slater (1965) has pointed out, trouble, discord, anxiety and frustration are so prevalent at all stages of life that their mere occurrence near to the time of onset of an illness does not mean very much (p. Mollons propensity to accept uncritically whatever Freud reported is illustrated by his writing in relation to Katharina that the patient agreed with [Freuds] reconstruction of the supposed traumatic idea he had inferred (p.