05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 23 Imágó Budapest (1 [22]) 2011, 1: 23–40 “Infantile Thoughts”: Reading Ferenczi’s Clinical Diary as a Commentary on Freud’s Relationship with Minna Bernays Peter L. Rudnytsky “We should not forget that the young child is familiar with much knowledge, as a matter of fact, that later becomes buried by the force of repression.” (Ferenczi, 1926, p. 350) 1 To juxtapose Freud’s relationship with Minna Bernays and Ferenczi’s Clinical Diary (1985) might well be described as a metaphysical conceit in Dr. Johnson’s famous pejorative definition of such comparisons as “the most het- erogeneous ideas yoked by violence together” (1781, p. 14). For, I must con- cede at once, the name of Freud’s sister-in-law is never mentioned in the pri- vate journal kept by Ferenczi in 1932, the year before his death. In order to render plausible my ensuing argument, therefore, let me circle back to the beginning of the story and offer some guideposts by way of orien- tation. I start with the premise that, if Freud did engage in a sexual affair with Minna, four years younger than his wife Martha and his own junior by nine years, the effects of this primordial boundary violation would not have been confined to Freud’s “private” life but would rather have extended to the pro- fessional sphere in manifold ways, and would indeed haunt the entire history of 1On Ferenczi as a touchstone not only for analysts who identify themselves as relational but also for those who consider themselves Independent – the former being predominant- ly, though not exclusively, American, and the latter British – see the eloquent paper by Michael Parsons (2009a) and the responses by Anthony Bass (2009), Emanuel Berman (2009), and Warren Poland (2009), and Parsons’s reply (2009b) to these commentaries. 23 05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 24 Peter L. Rudnytsky: “Infantile Thoughts” psychoanalysis. By examining the image of Freud fashioned by the Hungarian disciple who has become an inspirational figure for contemporary relational and Independent analysts,1 we shall gain an inkling of the far-reaching impact of Freud’s alleged transgression, which – if proven true – would constitute not simply adultery but also incest in both a psychological and a biblical sense.2 My second premise is that, whatever the role one ascribes to fantasy in psychic life, it makes a profound difference whether or not this affair was con- summated in reality. For, by Freud’s own theory, it is only to be expected that human beings will entertain forbidden thoughts. To acknowledge such desires in a psychoanalytic context would not be compromising. But if Freud acted on these impulses, especially with a member of his own family, to confess what he had done would have had catastrophic consequences for his reputation and put an end to any hopes of founding a movement to advance his radical ideas about sexuality and the unconscious. Thus, in the scenario I am envisaging, Freud did engage in an affair with his sister-in-law, and this left him with an all-consuming secret – something, in the words that Freud was fond of quot- ing from Goethe’s Faust, he could not tell the boys. It was the strain of keep- ing concealed what he most longed to reveal that caused this conflict arising in Freud’s domestic life to disturb his relations above all with Jung and Ferenczi, the two colleagues who sought to know him best, with ever-widen- ing ripples in the pool of psychoanalytic history. We come now to the bedrock question of whether Freud did enter into a liaison with Minna Bernays. Although I have come to believe that he did, to make that case properly would require book-length treatment and must be deferred to a future occasion. By way of a down payment, however, I can out- line why I find the evidence to be compelling. The fundamental point to be grasped is that there are not one but twoindispensable sources of information concerning this affair, and these are entirely independentof each other. Thus, if even one of these sources were deemed to be credible, then the evidence for Freud’s affair would already be very strong; but if bothwere to stand up under rigorous scrutiny, then I submit that the case would have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The first source of information is internal and comes from Freud’s own writings, especially On Dreams (1901) and his analysis of the “aliquis” para- praxis, found in chapter 2 of The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901), as well as other passages in the same book, all of which were written in the fall of 2 The Book of Leviticus makes explicit the prohibition against sexual intercourse between a man and his sister-in-law: “Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness in her lifetime” (18:18; King James Version). 24 05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 25 Peter L. Rudnytsky: “Infantile Thoughts” 1900, after Freud returned to Vienna from his summer travels first with Martha and then with Minna. It was on the basis of a brilliant exegesis of these texts that Peter Swales (1982) first advanced the thesis that Freud and Minna consummated their affair in the summer of 1900, following which Freud – like the allegedly recently reencountered but in actuality nonexistent “young man of academic background”3 (Freud 1901, pp. 8-9) who misremembered a line from Vergil’s Aeneid – evidently feared he had impregnated Minna and sent her to a sanatorium where she likely underwent an abortion. The second source of information concerning Freud’s affair with Minna Bernays is external and turns on the testimony of Jung, who, in an interview given to the American theologian John Billinsky in 1957, but not published by Billinsky until 1969, reported that during his first visit to Freud in Vienna in 1907, he had learned from Minna that “Freud was in love with her and that their relationship was indeed very intimate” (Billinsky, 1969, p. 42).4 Although I have tried elsewhere (Rudnytsky, 2006) to show the essential integrity of Jung’s evolving narratives of his relationship with Freud, the key point for my present purposes, as I have indicated, is simply that these two sources – the internaland external– are altogether independentof one anoth- er, and hence there is no sense in which Swales relies on Jung in advancing his arguments. In view of the highly charged nature of the material, it is not surprising that even distinguished scholars and analysts have lost their bearings in dealing with Freud and Minna. In their annotations to Ferenczi’s pivotal self-analytic letter to Freud on December 26, 1912, for example, the editors assert that “an attempt was made by Peter Swales... to verify Jung’s claim that Freud and Minna 3The similarity of this description to that of Freud’s interlocutor in “Screen Memories” – “a man of university education, aged thirty-eight” (Freud, 1899, p. 309) – who is univer- sally recognized to be none other than Freud himself, combined with Freud’s statement in the Psychopathology that he had “renewed his acquaintance” (Freud, 1901, p. 8) with the perpetrator of the aliquisslip, can, in my view, be construed as Freud’s private signal that he is continuing the disguised self-analysis begun in “Screen Memories” in his fictional dia- logue with “Herr Aliquis.” 4The published version of Jung’s interview with Billinsky is only the tip of the archival iceberg. In a February 20, 1970 letter to Franz Jung, Billinsky stated, “May I say in all frankness that I gave only excerpts of your father’s remarks and not the whole story as your father told it to me.” In unpublished contemporaneous notes of the interview, Billinsky quotes Jung as having said explicitly, “I learned that Freud was in love with her and had sexual relations with her.” I am grateful to Peter Swales for sharing with me these docu- ments given to John Kerr by Billinsky’s son after his father’s death. Also indispensable is Jung’s 1953 interview with Kurt Eissler, derestricted by the Freud Archives at the Library of Congress in 2003. 25 05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 26 Peter L. Rudnytsky: “Infantile Thoughts” Bernays had an intimate relationship” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri- Deutsch, 1993, p. 455). But, for the reasons I have set forth, this way of putting things is seriously misleading. Even more egregiously, Elisabeth Young-Bruehl (1988) derides Swales for presenting “an absurd theory, for which there was no documentary proof, only an old rumor launched by Carl Jung and Swales’s strange construal of one of the dreams Freud had analyzed in The Interpretation of Dreams” (p. 449). In point of fact, however, The Interpretation of Dreams was published in November 1899, before the crucial summer of 1900, and Swales does not rely on anydreams from that work in mounting his case. Thus, what is “absurd” is not Swales’s theory but the attempt of Young-Bruehl – who has confused The Interpretation of Dreams with On Dreams – to pontificate on a topic about which she is woefully uninformed.5 Without claiming to have proved that Freud and Minna had an affair, I hope I have said enough to show why I have come to believe that they were indeed “very intimate.” There are two further pieces of historical detritus that also merit consideration. The first is the by-now notorious 1898 Swiss hotel log in which Freud signed in with Minna Bernays as his “wife,” which led to a front- page story in the New York Times (Blumenthal, 2006) when the article by Franz Maciejewski (2006) reporting this discovery was published in American Imago. Although the fact that they shared a room does not mean that Freud and Minna necessarily engaged in sexual intercourse, and I concur with Swales that the rela- tionship was not consummated until 1900, the hotel log incontrovertibly estab- lishes Freud’s capacity for duplicity about his domestic arrangements; and sure- ly he and Minna could not have spent the night together as man and wife with- out at least entertaining the fantasy of being married to one another. The second piece of unexpectedly resurfaced material is found in Ferenczi’s letter to Freud of December 26, 1912, the editorial commentary on which I have criticized as inaccurate. In this letter, Ferenczi broaches for the first time the idea of being analyzed by Freud,6and recounts two dreams – one having to do with a black cat that repeatedly jumps on him, the other with a severed erect penis on a saucer – analyzing the former in depth. As such, these 5 Among many others to have engaged in irresponsible Swales-bashing is Elisabeth Roudinesco, who opines: “Taking as a point of departure a confidence that Jung claimed to have gathered from the mouth of Minna Bernays, he utilized it to ‘prove’ that Freud had had a sexual liaison with his sister in law” (1994, p. 109). But Swales does nottake Jung as “a point of departure”; and, as with Young-Bruehl’s use of the phrase “old rumor,” Roudinesco simul- taneously misrepresents Swales and casts aspersions on the integrity of Jung. 6“It was and is my intention, if you can grant me time (hours), to go into analysis with you – perhaps two weeks (maybe three) for now” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri- Deutsch, 1993, p. 450). 26 05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 27 Peter L. Rudnytsky: “Infantile Thoughts” dreams may be regarded, in Ernst Falzeder’s words, as the “initiatingdream[s] of the analysis” (1997, p. 418), though Ferenczi’s three “slices” of formal analysis with Freud, amounting to no more than eight weeks in total, did not take place until 1914 and 1916.7 As Carlo Bonomi has observed, moreover, this letter also “represents a turning point in the transferential relationship between the two men” (1997, p. 159). Partly because of his enmity toward Jung, and partly because he was engulfed in the maelstrom of his personal tur- moil, Ferenczi makes the fateful pronouncement, “mutual analysis is non- sense,” and abjures his desire for reciprocal emotional intimacy with his revered teacher in favor of the wish to be analyzed by Freud, whom he now proclaims subserviently to be “right in everything” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri-Deutsch, 1993, p. 449). After he informs Freud about the dream of the black cat, “You and your sister-in-law play a role in this dream,” Ferenczi adds in parentheses, “(next to it: Italy, a four-poster bed)” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri-Deutsch, 1993, p. 451), drawing a sketch not reproduced in the English edition. Ferenczi con- cludes his analysis of the dream by comparing Freud’s relationship with Minna Bernays to his desire for Elma Pálos, fourteen years his junior and the daughter of his mistress, Gizella Pálos, a married woman eight years Ferenczi’s senior.8As is by now common knowledge, this triangle was the central roman- 7 Falzeder is actually describing not the dreams in Ferenczi’s December 26, 1912 letter but the dream of the occlusive pessary, sent as a manuscript to Freud on September 8, 1914, shortly before his first “slice” of analysis, and published as the dream of a “patient” the fol- lowing year (Ferenczi, 1915). There are many links between the “initiating dreams” of 1912 and 1914. Falzeder connects the dream of the occlusive pessary with Freud’s dream of dis- secting his own pelvis in The Interpretation of Dreams: “In both Ferenczi’s and Freud’s dreams, there is an operation, performed by the dreamer on the lower part of his own body; in both cases the associations link this operation with self-analysis, resulting in a publica- tion” (1997, p. 423). Similarly, Carlo Bonomi ties the dream of the severed penis back to Freud’s dream of self-dissection, noting that the figure of Louise N., to whom Freud pre- sented a copy of H. Rider Haggard’s She and whose request to read one of Freud’s own works instead occasioned the dream, “was very probably Minna Bernays” (1997, p. 162; see also p. 160). (Significantly, Freud cites Goethe’s aphorism on not revealing one’s secrets to boys in this connection.) In its intertwined layers of public and private meaning, in which Ferenczi figures outwardly as the analyst of someone else but is seen by the initiated read- er to be the patient analyzed by Freud, “The Dream of the Occlusive Pessary” replicates what I have termed the “narcissistic formation” of Freud’s quintessential self-analytic text, “Screen Memories” (see Rudnytsky, 1987, pp. 76-82). 8 In 1912, Ferenczi was thirty-nine, Gizella forty-seven, and Elma almost twenty-five. See the thoroughly researched (and lavishly illustrated) biographical narrative by Berman (2004). Complementing the magisterial work of Bonomi, a comprehensive treatment of the Freud–Ferenczi relationship has been offered by Forrester (1997). 27 05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 28 Peter L. Rudnytsky: “Infantile Thoughts” tic entanglement of Ferenczi’s life: he had fallen in love with Elma after tak- ing her into analytic treatment in 1911, only to hand her over to Freud when their marriage plans collapsed. Swayed by Freud’s unyielding preference for the mother over the daughter, Ferenczi renounced Elma and finally married Gizella in 1919, her ex-husband inauspiciously dying on their wedding day. In his self-analytic letter, Ferenczi recalls how, at the age of fourteen, in what Bonomi calls an “acoustic primal scene” (1997, p. 182), he had been “terribly shocked to hear that my father, unsuspecting of my presence, had told my mother that so-and-so had married a whore” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri-Deutsch, 1993, p. 453). Ferenczi interprets the last portion of his dream as “a kind of defiant apology” addressed simultaneously to his father and to Freud. Just as he himself longs for Elma, so his father, by saying the word “whore”, had symbolically acted on his illicit desires; but so, too, in Ferenczi’s mind, did Freud betray his wife with her sister. Ferenczi makes explicit the analogy between his father and Freud: Only you have moved to the position of father, your sister-in-law to that of moth- er. [Father also said [=acted=] “whore”. = You once took a trip to Italywith your sister-in-law (voyage de lit-à-lit) (naturally, only an infantile thought!).] (p. 453; all punctuation in original). If this “initiating dream” makes manifest Ferenczi’s transference to Freud, it does so, as Judith Dupont has remarked, in surprising fashion in that “Freud is in place of the father and Minna (not Martha) in place of the mother” (1994, p. 303). The upshot of Ferenczi’s double indictment is the plea that he should be allowed to gratify his passion for his mistress’s daughter without fear of castration because both his biological and spiritual fathers are no less guilty than he: “The infantile ‘wish-fulfillment’ of the dream would thus be as follows: ‘I satisfy my forbidden sexual desires; they won’t cut off my penis after all, since “adults” are just as “bad” as “children”’” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri-Deutsch, 1993, p. 453). 2 Ferenczi does not disclose how he learned that Freud “once took a trip to Italy” with his sister-in-law, and indeed he immediately disavows his insin- uation that there was anything untoward in their relationship by calling it “only an infantile thought.” But if one seeks to reconstruct how Ferenczi in 1912 came to acknowledge harboring even a fantasy about Freud’s affair with Minna, it seems likely that the seed was planted during the 1909 voy- age to America on which he accompanied Freud and Jung. During their 28 05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 29 Peter L. Rudnytsky: “Infantile Thoughts” travels, the three men analyzed each other’s dreams; and, as Jung informed Billinsky (1969), when Freud refused to continue with the declaration, “‘I could tell you more, but I cannot risk my authority,’” the dreams that caused him to respond so defensively “were about the triangle – Freud, his wife, and wife’s younger sister” (p. 42). More specifically, the dreams had to do with Freud’s “intimate relationship with his sister-in-law,” about which Jung had been informed by Minna two years earlier, though Jung insists that Freud “had no idea that I knew” (p. 42) about this most compromising of secrets. Neither in his interview with Billinsky nor in his more circumspect public recounting of the same events in Memories, Dreams, Reflections (1965) does Jung deign to mention that Ferenczi was also on board the George Washington that brought the psychoanalytic plague to America. As a conse- quence, however, Ferenczi must have been, in Bonomi’s words, “cast in the role of a secret listener to Jung’s analysis of Freud,” that is, the auditor of another “acoustic primal scene” (1997, p. 186) preceding the overtly sexual one in his dream of the black cat. And since Ferenczi was there to witness Jung’s unavailing attempts to get Freud to open up about his tabooed love affair with Minna, it does not seem far-fetched to imagine that this preternat- urally gifted analyst might well have divined the true nature of the gauntlet that Jung was throwing down to Freud, even if the name of Minna Bernays was never uttered by either of the oedipal antagonists during their agon at this crossroads in the history of psychoanalysis. The reconstruction I have proposed of how Ferenczi came to have his “infantile thought” about Freud and his sister-in-law entails a corollary: after the trip to America, Ferenczi possessed unconsciously the great secret about Freud of which Jung was consciously aware, although Jung, unlike Ferenczi, was never able to bring himself to speak about it openly to Freud. It is there- fore no coincidence but rather a profoundly determined “secret symmetry” that Ferenczi’s most radical self-analytic letter, announcing his desire to enter analysis with Freud, was written in December 1912, the same month in which the long-simmering tensions in the Freud-Jung relationship finally boiled over into an irrevocable breach. Once the reader is attuned to Ferenczi’s unconscious knowledge of Freud’s relationship with his sister-in-law, various details in their correspondence fol- lowing the return from America take on an uncanny resonance. As a back- drop, it is important to note the following remarkable parallel: just as Freud’s younger sister Anna had married Eli Bernays, his wife’s elder brother, so too Ferenczi’s younger brother Lajos married Gizella’s younger daughter Magda, Elma’s sister, in 1909 (Berman, 2004, p. 504). Thus, in addition to being 29 05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 30 Peter L. Rudnytsky: “Infantile Thoughts” Ferenczi’s patient, beloved, and eventual daughter-in-law, Elma was also – his sister-in-law! What is more, although Freud’s triangle involves two sisters and Ferenczi’s a mother and daughter, this distinction does not preclude their sit- uations from being unconsciously conflated by both men. Martha was like a mother to Minna while Ferenczi had an elder sister named Gizella, which was also the name of Freud’s first love, Gisela Fluss, about whom he wrote at the age of sixteen to his school friend Eduard Silberstein: “it seems that I have transferred my esteem for the mother to friendship for the daughter” (Boehlich, 1989, p. 17; letter of September 4, 1872; see Forrester, 1997, p. 60). In the midst of Ferenczi’s vacillations, Freud wrote to Gizella Pálos on December 17, 1911: “his choice is depreciated by the consideration that he is automatically swinging from his mother to his sister, as was once the case in his earliest years” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri-Deutsch, 1993, p. 320) – thereby positioning himself and Gizella, as John Forrester has elucidated, “as the old father and mother,” while casting Ferenczi and Elma “as brother and sister, both abandoning the mother for each other” (1997, p. 59). Given that Ferenczi was, in his own phrase from the Clinical Diary, a “rev- erent spectator” (1985, p. 184; August 4, 1932) of Jung’s abortive effort to analyze Freud on the trip to America, what shall we make of it when, in a let- ter on October 30, 1909, he reports to Freud that Gizella had given her “Non- Plus-Ultra” coffeemaker, “which announces the end of the brewing process with a kind of bird’s chirping,” to Ferenczi’s brother-in-law, the husband of his eldest sister; and that he had interpreted this to Gizella as a “symptomatic action” through which “she had clearly made known her inclination to give her love to the brother-in-law” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri-Deutsch, 1993, p. 90; underlined in blue pencil in original)? The likelihood that Ferenczi is obliquely alluding to Freud’s “inclination to give his love to the sis- ter-in-law” increases when we read, in Ferenczi’s letter of July 9, 1910, of the “decided progress” in his “analytic association with Frau G.”: “As the ‘ménage à trois’ on the George Washington became a significant experience for me and provided the occasion for unshackling my infantile complexes, so did the visit of a sister from Italy prove to be a ferment for Frau G., which activated her heretofore inadmissible impulses of jealousy, hate, etc.” (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri-Deutsch, 1993, p.186). Here Ferenczi expressly links his “ménage à trois” with Jung and Freud on the George Washington with an erotic triangle involving Gizella – the peren- nial object of his “affectionate” current – and a female relative. In 1910, it is Gizella’s younger sister, Sarolta, and not yet her daughter Elma, who repre- sents the “sensual” object of Ferenczi’s polarized desire; but this variation on the oedipal theme brings Ferenczi’s libidinal constellation into complete align- 30 05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 31 Peter L. Rudnytsky: “Infantile Thoughts” ment with Freud’s.9 If Ferenczi were unconsciously aware of Freud’s love for his sister-in-law, this would help to explain the multiple parallels between his letter about Sarolta and his analysis of the dream of the black cat in his letter of December 26, 1912. Sarolta, like Minna Bernays, is associated with Italy; Ferenczi speaks here of his “infantile complexes,” and there of his “infantile thought.” Above all, Ferenczi activates “impulses of jealousy, hate, etc.” in Gizella by his attraction to her sister, as Freud could not have failed to do with Martha, however stoutly she turned a blind eye to what was going on between her husband and Minna. We have it on record that Ferenczi did not merely fantasize about Sarolta. As he wrote Freud on November 18, 1916, “I couldn’t resist having my way with her, at least manually,” during a visit from Sarolta the preceding day; and he recalls an earlier encounter between them that went even further: “That’s the way my actual neurosis before the trip to Rome began. I permitted myself intercourse with a prostitute – then with Sarolta –, the syphilophobia came as a punishment” (Falzeder and Brabant, 1996, p. 155). Since Ferenczi and Freud were in Rome together for two weeks in September 1912, and following that trip Ferenczi confessed to a fear that he had contracted syphilis (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri-Deutsch, 1993, p. 412; undated letter probably from October 1912), it seems safe to conclude that Ferenczi had sexual intercourse with Sarolta in September of 1912, only one month after he had “severed the last thread of the connection” to Elma (Brabant, Falzeder, and Giampieri- Deutsch, 1993, p. 402; letter of August 8, 1912). That Ferenczi lived out Freud’s fantasy does not permit us to say anything about what Freud himself may or may not have done with Minna. But once one has been persuaded by the combination of internal and external evidence that she and Freud did have an affair, it becomes fascinating to contemplate not only the homologies between Freud’s incestuous triangle and Ferenczi’s but also the vicissitudes in Ferenczi’s desire for the sister-in-law. And I think it makes eminent sense to hypothesize that what Judith Dupont has called “Freud’s uncontrolled countertransference departure from neutrality in his championing of Gizella over Elma” (1994, p. 302) may be connected to his 9Freud’s first two papers on love, “A Special Type of Choice of Object Made by Men” (1910) and especially “On the Universal Tendency to Debasement in the Sphere of Love” (1912), seem to be based in no small measure on the saga unfolding in Ferenczi’s letters, as well as on what Freud knew about the antinomies of desire from his own experience. Swales (1982) takes as his epigraph Freud’s declaration that “whoever is to be really free and happy in love must have surmounted his respect for women and come to terms with the idea of incest with his mother or sister” (1912, p. 186). 31 05_Rudnytsky(3).qxd 3/8/2011 10:48 PM Page 32 Peter L. Rudnytsky: “Infantile Thoughts” history with the sisters Bernays. Having tasted the forbidden fruit of his desire for Minna, I would propose, Freud was averse to allowing any of his “sons” to emulate the “sexual megalomania”10 that he believed to be his prerogative alone as the primal father of psychoanalysis; and this is what prompted Freud to behave as unanalytically as he did in relentlessly pressuring Ferenczi to marry the mother rather than the daughter. 3 Having completed my long preamble, I come at last to the Clinical Diary (1985) in hopes of vindicating my metaphysical conceit. Since it is clear from Ferenczi’s letter of December 26, 1912 that he had learned, probably during the 1909 trip to America, that Freud had gone on a “voyage de lit-à-lit” with Minna Bernays, is there any way that the Diary, though nowhere mentioning Freud’s relationship with Minna, might nonetheless be taken as a commentary on it, thereby casting light not only on its “psychical reality” for Ferenczi but also on the underlying question of its “material reality” for Freud himself?11 In an extensive entry on March 31, 1932 about mutual analysis, Ferenczi addresses the complications that can ensue when an analyst enters into such an arrangement with a patient who is himself an analyst, and who then choos- es to repeat the experiment with his own patients. Ferenczi writes: “when a mutually analyzed patient (himself an analyst) extends the mutuality to his own patients, then he must reveal the secrets of the primary analyst [Uranalytiker] (that is to say, mine) to his own patients” (1985, p. 74). 10Freud offers this phrase in his January 9, 1908 letter to Karl Abraham as a key to the 1895 “specimen dream” of Irma’s injection in chapter 2 of The Interpretation of Dreams, adding with respect to the women figuring therein, “I have them all!” and “there would be one simple therapy for widowhood” (Falzeder, 2002, p. 21). As Patrick Mahony pointed out long ago, it is striking that Minna Bernays, whose fiancé, Iganz Schoenberg, died in 1886—and who could therefore be viewed as a widow—“remains the only member of the Freud family who is not mentioned in The Interpretation of Dreams, and as a matter of fact she does not appear once throughout the Standard Edition” (1979, p. 23). This omission can only be deliberate given that Freud described Minna to Wilhelm Fliess in 1894 as his “closest confidante” (Masson, 1985, p. 72) apart from Fliess himself, and she became a member of his household in 1896. In Totem and Taboo, Freud states that in the primal horde “the jealousy of the oldest and strongest male prevented sexual promiscuity” (1913, p. 125), adding that the “violent and jealous father ... keeps all the females for himself and drives away his sons as they grow up” (p. 141). 11 On the distinction between “psychical reality” and “material reality,” see Freud (1916-1917, p. 368). 32