Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
One hundred years have passed since the first issue of the first
American psychoanalytic journal was published. Indeed, in 1913,
The Psychoanalytic Review was not only the first psychoanalytic journal to exist in the United States, but also the first English-language
periodical dedicated to psychoanalysis,1 making the Review the
oldest continuously published psychoanalytic journal in the world.
The roots of the contemporary Psychoanalytic Review can be
traced to two important psychoanalytic journals. The first was the
I want to express deep gratitude to my wife, Danielle Barnett, for her major assistance in writing this paper.
Psychoanalytic Review, 100(1), February 2013
2013 N.P.A.P.
2
ALAN J. BARNETT
The founders of The Psychoanalytic Review met for the first time in
1896 at the Binghamton (New York) State Hospital, where White
was a physician on staff and Jelliffe was working as a physician during the summer to earn extra income. This meeting led to a long
friendship and fruitful scientific collaboration that lasted the rest
of their lives. Over the years, each of the two founders became a
titan in his own right, with great contributions to the fields of psychiatry and psychoanalysis.
Smith Ely Jelliffe
The discovery of the unconscious and the psychoanalytic method
of exploration . . . [is] the first genuine breach in an entirely presentcentered conception of man.
Smith Ely Jelliffe, Psychopathology and Organic Disease
4
ALAN J. BARNETT
Smith Ely Jelliffe was a prominent neurologist and psychoanalytic psychiatrist who had multifaceted interests within the
whole range of mind/brain disciplines. He was born in New York
City in 1866 and raised in Brooklyn. He completed Brooklyn Polytechnic School for Civil Engineering, but his passions for geology,
botany, and zoology led him to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, where he graduated with a medical
degree in 1889. He became Clinical Professor of Mental Diseases
at Fordham University and president of many associations: New
York Neurological Society, New York Psychiatric Society, and the
American Psychopathological Association. Jelliffe had multiple
interests and was known for his vast knowledge in many subjects
medical history, neurology, psychiatry, pharmacology, biology,
psychotherapy; he wrote a great many papers in these areas. His
first publications were on subjects such as biology, botany, pharmacology, and bacteriology; he then moved to neurology and psychiatry. He authored some 400 articles, translated numerous European psychiatric and psychoanalytic works, and wrote many
books, two of which went through several editions. For 40 years he
owned and edited the important Journal of Nervous and Mental Dis
ease, and in 1907 founded and edited with White the Nervous and
Mental Disease Monograph Series. Here he published Brills first
translations into English of Jungs Psychology of Dementia Praecox
(1909) and Freuds Selected Papers on Hysteria and Three Contribu
tions to the Theory of Sex (1910), as well as the latest translated works
by Freud and other European psychoanalysts. In 1913 he cofounded with William Alanson White The Psychoanalytic Review,
and in 1917 he published the first book in any language dedicated to analytic technique, The Technique of Psychoanalysis.
In 1907, when Jelliffe traveled to Europe to attend the International Congress of Neurology and Psychiatry in Amsterdam, he
and White together visited other European cities, such as Zurich
and Berlin. Here they had their first personal contact with psychoanalysis, when they met Jung and other European psychoanalysts.
The following year Jelliffe traveled again to Europe. He spent six
months in Berlin, where he worked with German neurologists
and psychiatrists, and met Karl Abraham, and six months in Paris,
where he observed other types of psychotherapy being practiced,
listened to lectures by Janet, and, intrigued by Dejerines insistence on the emotional factors in medicine, translated his work
on Psychotherapy (Jelliffe, 1933a, p. 323). Jelliffe gradually became
committed to psychoanalysis, especially under the influence of
Abraham Arden Brill. According to Brill, in 1941 Jelliffe wrote to
him about the impact psychoanalysis had on him: After I met you
[in 1908] and began to study psychoanalysis, everything changed.
I then knew what I wanted (Brill, 1948, p. 344). Jelliffe viewed
the discovery of the unconscious and the psychoanalytic method
of exploration as the first genuine breach in an entirely presentcentered conception of man (Menninger & Devereux, 1948, p.
353, citing Jelliffe, 1922, p. 639). Furthermore, to portray how the
unconscious enables us to perform efficiently in the present, he
utilized a metaphor from French philosopher Henri Bergson:
. . . the cerebral mechanism is arranged just so as to push back
into the unconscious almost the whole of our past, and to allow
beyond the threshold only that which will further the action at
hand (Menninger & Devereux, 1948, p. 354, citing Jelliffe, 1933b).
Regarding his personal psychoanalytic training, he had no
formal personal analysis, as didactic analyses were not available at
the time, but as Jelliffe writes, . . . my patients were analyzing me
from hour to hour (Jelliffe, 1933a, p. 327); also, for one month
during the summer for 10 years, Jelliffe and White analyzed
each other at Jelliffes home at Lake George. We were continuously at each other, our dreams, our daily acts and aberrations,
not for an hour but sometimes all day (Jelliffe, 1933a, p. 327).
Jelliffes most important theoretical contribution, psychosomatic medicine, emerged from his extraordinary knowledge and
experience in many subjects, under the influence of Sigmund
Freuds dynamic concepts as well as Hughling Jacksons hierarchical concept of symptoms, consisting of the liberation of an earlier function through the dissolution of a higher function (Menninger & Devereux, 1948, p. 352). From 1916 (when he wrote his
first psychosomatic paper on psoriasis as an hysterical conversion
symptom) until 1942, Jelliffe published numerous articles on psychosomatics in relation to diseases such as influenza, tuberculosis,
multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, parkinsonism, arthritis, and diseases
of the bone and skin. All these contributions were collected in his
6
ALAN J. BARNETT
8
ALAN J. BARNETT
a research psychologist and pupil of William James who was studying cases of multiple personality, using hypnosis in accordance
with dissociation theory. White then utilized Sidiss application of
French psychopathological theory with his patients at Binghamton Hospital, and together with Boris Sidis and George Parker,
published Psychopathological Researches: Studies in Mental Dissocia
tion (1902). He considered his work with Sidis crucial in his professional evolution, perhaps the most significant and outstanding event of my residence at Binghamton (White, 1938, p. 63);
he learned to search with abiding faith in the understandability of
psychological happenings, to believe that every mental fact had its
adequate causal antecedents . . . to base my conduct upon a philosophy of psychological determinism (White, 1938, p. 77). Thus
his collaboration with Sidis might be considered the beginning of
the important role that White was to have in psychoanalysis.
Like Jelliffe, Whites personal contact with psychoanalysis did
not to occur until 1907, when he and Jelliffe traveled to Europe to
attend the International Congress of Neurology and Psychiatry in
Amsterdam, and visited cities such as Zurich and Berlin where he
made contact with Jung and other psychoanalysts, as mentioned
before. It was this trip in 1907 that convinced White and Jelliffe to
carry out their plans to publish the Nervous and Mental Disease
Monograph Series (Jelliffe, 1937, p. 212). The series began with
Whites Outlines of Psychiatry, published in December 1907, an
enormously successful book, which over the years appeared in 14
editions. White played an important early role in the development of American psychoanalysis through writing, editing, publishing, supporting, and defending the new discipline. One of the
first American psychiatrists to write psychoanalytic papers, he
published The Theory of the Complex in 1909, and The Theory, Methods and Psychotherapeutic Value of Psychoanalysis in
1910 (both papers were published in the Interstate Medical Jour
nal). According to John Burnham (1967), Whites Outlines of Psy
chiatry, second edition (1909) became a standard text that introduced psychoanalysis to medical students, while Mental Mechanisms,
published in 1911, should probably be considered the first book
about psychoanalysis by an American (Burnham, 1967, p. 33). As
mentioned, in 1913, he cofounded, with Smith Ely Jelliffe, The
10
ALAN J. BARNETT
time he took over, the hospital was run down, poorly organized,
and overcrowded. With extreme perseverance and organizational
skill, he was able to obtain funds from the government to construct
new buildings, improve treatment, and introduce new training programs for the hospital staff. The hospital expanded to 6,000 patients. White considered this job at the hospital for more than 30
years as his purpose, since he could have gone anywhere else for
a higher income. In his autobiography he reflected that continuity
of purpose is of more importance in life than brilliance and perseverance...seems to me to have been one of the most valuable of
my assets (White, 1938, p. 30). Moreover, Whites conviction that
psychoanalysis can help mentally ill patients translated into creating in 1914 a new position on the hospital staff dedicated to fulltime psychoanalytic psychotherapy with hospitalized patients; Edward Kempf was the first to hold the position, from 1914 to 1920.
Oberndorf recognized that White was one of the most effective American propagandists for psychoanalysis (1953, p. 136),
while DAmore (1976) believed that White was not given sufficient recognition for making St. Elizabeths Hospital the Burgholzli of America. (Burgholzli was at the time one of the most
advanced hospitals in Europe, headed by Eugen Bleuler, the first
European psychiatrist to apply and develop Freuds psychoanalytic perspective in a hospital setting.) Not only was Kempfs position at St. Elizabeths modeled on Jungs former role at Burgholzli
(19001909), but psychoanalysts such as Bernard Glueck, Harry
Stack Sullivan, and others fanned out from St. Elizabeths, just as
psychoanalysts such as Jung, Abraham, and Brill had radiated
from Burgholzli (DAmore, 1976, p. 84).
White, like Jelliffe, did not have a didactic analysis, since at
the time it was not available. His personal experience with psychoanalysis was with Jelliffe when they psychoanalyzed each other at
Jelliffes summer house at Lake George. Also, in the summer of
1924, he had a few analytic hours with Otto Rank.
William Alanson White was a genial man, meticulously honest (Jelliffe, 1937, p. 216), who worked extensively to broaden
psychoanalysis in the U.S. He was extremely industrious, with approximately 200 papers and 19 books, some of the most important of which are Outlines of Psychiatry, Modern Treatment of Nervous
and Mental Diseases (published with Jelliffe), and Forty Years of Psy
11
chiatry. Above all these accomplishments, he displayed an extremely kindhearted side by devoting the richest 30 years of his
life to the growth of St. Elizabeths Hospital to provide the most
advanced care to mental patients, including analytic therapy.
Overall, both Jelliffe and White were highly humanistic men,
fiercely independent in outlook, fair, and tolerant, who, individually and together, produced numerous publications that were
very effective in integrating and substantially extending psychoanalysis in the U.S. One of these important publications was The
Psychoanalytic Review.
The Foundation of the Review and the Controversy That Surrounded It
The psychoanalytic movement in Europe in the beginning of
the twentieth century was represented by journals such as the Jahr
buch fr Psychoanalyse und Psycho-pathologische Forschung, founded
by Freud and Bleuler (the head of Burgholzli), edited by Jung,
first published in 1909, and which closed after its fourth edition;
the Zentralblatt fr Psychoanalyse, founded by Freud in 1911 and
edited by Stekel, which closed after its sixth edition; Imago, founded by Freud in 1912, edited by Rank and Sachs; and Internationale
Zeitschrift fr Aerztliche Psychoanalyse, founded in January 1913 under Freuds editorship, which became the official organ of the
International Psychoanalytic Society (Jelliffe, 1937, p. 214). In the
U.S., the psychoanalytic movement did not have such a journal to
represent psychoanalysis, and as a matter of fact at this time there
was no journal in the English language dedicated to psychoanalysis. As mentioned before, some original psychoanalytic works, as
well as translations, were published in the Nervous and Mental
Disease Monograph Series or in medical/psychiatric journals
such as the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease; other journals
that published psychoanalytic material were The American Journal
of Psychology, founded and edited by G. Stanley Hall since 1887,
and the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, founded by Morton Prince
in 1906. In accordance with Jelliffe and Whites desire to develop
a journal exclusively dedicated to psychoanalysis and to devote
the Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases to only psychiatry and
neurology, they founded The Psychoanalytic Review in 1913. This
was a joint venture. White had full responsibility for the content
12
ALAN J. BARNETT
of the Review, and both contributed their own papers and translated articles. Jelliffe wrote numerous abstracts and hundreds of
book reviews, while White contributed a number of special book
reviews (book review essays). White worked immeasurable hours
for the Review for almost no compensation, but he obtained tremendous satisfaction in publishing articles by American and European pioneers in psychoanalysis (DAmore, 1976, p.70).
The discussion between White and Jelliffe on founding a new
journal began in 1912, and they were considering possible journal
titles that included terms such as clinical psychology and psychopathology (Burnham & McGuire, 1983). For advice on how
to start the journal, they approached psychologist G. Stanley Hall,
the president of Clark University. In response, Hall offered them
a section of his publication, the American Journal of Psychology, to
edit the way they wished. They refused Halls offer and continued
with their plan for creating the new journal; in return, they invited Hall to contribute to the Review (even though his views were
not conventionally psychoanalytic). But Hall never contributed.
White and Jelliffe were very liberal in their orientation for
the journal, as Jelliffe conveyed in 1914: The Review aims to be
catholic in its tendency, a faithful mirror of the psychoanalytic
movement, and to represent no schisms or schools but a free forum for all (Jelliffe, 1914, p. 444). When The Psychoanalytic Review
was published in November 1913, its first issue opened with a congratulatory letter and paper by Jung. The paper was titled The
Theory of Psychoanalysis, based on Jungs lectures presented the
prior year at Fordham University. The full text of these lectures
was serialized in the first five issues of The Psychoanalytic Review. In
1912 Jung was invited to represent psychoanalysis at Fordham
University by Jelliffe and J. A. Maloney, both of whom were affiliated with Fordham. Jungs topic was supposed to be Mental
Mechanisms in Health and Disease, but instead he talked about
The Theory of Psychoanalysis, which was actually a deviation
from the Freudian conceptualization and the first open indication of a later sharp doctrinal variation from Freud (Jelliffe,
1937, p. 215). Also, it was on this occasion in 1912 that Jung encouraged Jelliffe and White to found the Review.
As mentioned, Jelliffe and White had met Carl Jung before,
13
14
ALAN J. BARNETT
Brill was the major force behind the formation of The New
York Psychoanalytic Society, which was established in February
15
1911. Jelliffe was not among its first members, though he became
one within a few months. In 1913 when the Review was founded,
Jelliffe intervened at the Society to make The Psychoanalytic Review
its local official organ. While this action was successful, it was
recorded by the secretary as purely . . . a favor to Drs. Jelliffe and
White (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 117). The details on how
the Review became the local official journal of the NYPS (just for a
short time) are related in a letter from Brill to Freud on December 12, 1913:
. . . At the last meeting Jelliffe asked a special favor of the society
to accept his new Journal as the local official organ of the society.
He brought this question up before and I opposed it and was upheld. This time he spoke to the various cliques before the meeting
was called and to overcome my objection they formulated the following scheme. He asked us to take his journal as the official organ
only of the local society thus meeting my objection that we are a
branch of the Int. V. [International Psa. Association] and hence
have our official journal. And he brought it [sic?] many personalities by asking the society to do him and White a special favor because he pleaded if you accept the journal as your local official
organ we should be able to send it through the mails as second
class matter, which means saving much expense. Whether that
was true or not I am unable to say but I noticed that he had the
whole society with him so I interposed no objection. He will continue to do just such things and I cannot see how I can stand in his
way. So far we are under no obligations to take his journal that is
the understanding. The funny part of the whole thing is that Jelliffe is a very ardent worker for psychoanalysis, but of course he is
thoroughly Jung. . . . ([original in English], Sigmund Freud Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress)
16
ALAN J. BARNETT
Freuds suspicions that the new journal may become the official organ of the New York Psychoanalytic Society, which could
deprive the Zeitschrift of subscribers, is reinforced by a letter from
Brill on June 9, 1914:
. . . Jelliffe is working very hard to get the local society to accept his
views, that is to break away from the I. V. [IPA] and take his journal
as the official organ. . . . Sigmund Freud Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress)
17
18
ALAN J. BARNETT
19
Between 1921 and 1939 there was much correspondence between Jelliffe and Freud, during which on a number of occasions
they returned to the controversy surrounding the founding of the
Review.
The Correspondence Between Jelliffe and Freud
Jelliffe met Freud personally eight years after the publication
of the first issue of the Review, in 1921, at the Bad Gastein resort,
Austria. This first meeting was not very amicable. Jelliffe had
called to meet him, but since Freud was rushing to go to another
resort to meet his family, they agreed to meet at the train station.
Coincidentally, upon Freuds arrival at the station he saw Jelliffe
chatting with Stekel, whom, like Jung, was in Freuds disfavor. As
Jelliffe described in his Odyssey (1933a): It was a fleeting contact. He was leaving the day I called up on him and was busily
packing. Here again my eclectic Americanism brought me some
slight disfavor. . . . As Freud came up, I left Stekel and went to
Freud . . . (p. 326). Despite this uneasy meeting, Jelliffe and
Freud began to exchange letters, a correspondence that continued for almost 20 years. It was through this correspondence that
Jelliffe and Freud grew fond of each other, and that Freud started
to recognize Jelliffes devotion to him and psychoanalysis. During
their correspondence, they reviewed repeatedly some of their
misunderstandings, such as at their first meeting at Gastein, and
all the matters that arose from the publication of the first issue of
the Review, including Freuds letter of July 1914. Related to their
first meeting at Bad Gastein, Freud writes on February 9, 1939:
. . . I know you have been one of my sincerest and staunchest adherers through all these years. I now often laugh in remembrance
of the bad reception I gave you at Gastein because I had first seen
you in company of Stekel. . . . (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 279)
20
ALAN J. BARNETT
tionship meant to him, and conveyed his feeling of being misjudged by Freud in the letter of July 1914:
March 27, 1926
. . . From 1907-1910 I spent 22 months in European clinics at much
economic stress because I became dissatisfied with the reigning
dogmas in medicine, and finally came through to a larger philosophical conception of my task. If the more immediate stimulus
came through Jung, at this time called by Maloney and myself to
Fordham, where I was professor of psychiatry, still it was your influence, via Jungs activities, to which I am most vitally under obligation.
I am saying this for, as you may recall, you asked me when I first
met you in 1921 at Bad Gastein what were my resistances, and I
told you I felt you had misjudged Dr. White and myself, and . . .
had written in a letter in response to Dr. Whites request for a paper for the Psychoanalytic Review that we had founded the Psychoan
alytic Review as a competitor to your interests.
I do not pretend to question your reactions at the time, but do
hope that your larger vision may hold us faultless even if immature,
in the sincerity of our efforts towards the main issues of the situation. . . . . (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, pp. 221222)
March 6, 1939
. . . In 1907 we met Jung, Maeder and Riklin . . . I owe much to
Jungs enthusiasm at that time. Only later did I come to any real
perception of the inner tensions in your original group. . . . .
I was hurt mostly by your letter to White in response to his request
that you give us something for the Review. Neither of us were near
enough to the Vienna group to know of the 1908-1909 difficulties
in the parent society [the reference is presumably to the dissidence
of Adler, Jung, and Stekel during 19111912].
But as both of us were definitely not commercially minded, as you
charged, the rebuff was taken without too much protest, but with
much of the spirit of the wrongly accused little boyWell show
papa we were not as bad as he thought. . . . . (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 281)
21
22
ALAN J. BARNETT
now on a new pamphlet [Civilization and Its Discontents]the continuation of Future of an Illusion in a waymy excuse is I intend it to
be the last thing I will ever publish.
As regards the A Review I think Dr. White behaved towards me in
a rather queer way. My explanation was he feels a good deal of resistance against Analysis . . . I cannot remember I ever got a single
copy of the Review. I understood, the Review was rather his work
than yours. . . . (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 229)
Jelliffe defended White, stating that White did not have resistances to psychoanalysis, and that, on the contrary, White was
more instrumental to the extension of psychoanalysis in the U.S.
than anyone else. Also, Jelliffe apologized to Freud for not sending him any copies of the Review, as he had not been aware of this
omission and would immediately correct it. On November 26,
1929, Jelliffe writes:
. . . I am quite sure that Dr. White is quite free from either personal
resistances or resistances to psychoanalysis. I can say this since I
know him so well as what analysis I have had has been from him
chiefly. . . . His whole hospital from the nurses up is all analytic
. . . He chiefly is of service as he travels a great deal, addresses
many Societies all over the States, and is greatly in demand. He
outlines the principles of psychoanalysis everywhere and has done
more for its extension over the USA than any one other individual.
I think you should know this.
As for the Review, the clerical side of it is attended to by one of his
secretaries in his off time. I wish I had known you had not received
copies. It is an inadvertence which is inexcusable, and I take upon
myself much of the blame since I could have consulted our mailing
list and seen if your name was on it or not. I am sending you copies
of this years numbers thus far issued and will see that you receive
further issues. . . . (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, pp. 230231)
Freud sent Jelliffe a postcard on December 10, 1929 gratefully acknowledging receipt of The Psychoanalytic Review, volume
16. The correspondence between Jelliffe and Freud continued
until Freuds death in 1939. Through their letters the relationship between Jelliffe and Freud expanded and deepened, including exchanges of personal information about family and health
matters and expressions of mutual affection.
23
The Years That Followed the Founding of the Review Until 1937
After its first year of publication, the Review was profitable
enough to be self-sustaining. The journal continued to publish a
wide range of articles. Paul Federn (1915) authored the lead article for the second volume based on his paper presented to the
New York Psychoanalytical Society the prior year, Some General
Remarks on the Principles of Pain-Pleasure and of Reality. There
were a good number of original articles published on psychosis
and its treatment, particularly by the psychoanalytically oriented
authors on the staff of St. Elizabeths (e.g., Edward Kempf, Lucile
Dooley, and Benjamin Karpman) as well as on other areas of psychopathology, especially psychosomatics. Jelliffe published a
number of such papers in the Review as did many other authors
better known for their work in other areas, such as Lewis B. Hill,
Karl Menninger, and Frieda Fromm-Reichmann (her classic paper on the psychogenesis of migraine is reprinted in this issue,
pp. 95102). Jelliffe and White accepted papers on applied psychoanalysis, including some pioneering articles in psychobiography by L. Pierce Clark, for example, on Lincoln and on Alexander the Great. Some translated papers of European analysts were
published in the Review, e.g, by Franz Riklin, a collaborator of
Jung at the Burgholzli, serialized in 19141915; by Otto Rank together with Hanns Sachs, serialized in 1915; by Wilhelm Stekel,
published in 1917; and by S. Ferenczi and his collaborators from
the State Psychopathic Hospital in Budapest, published in 1925.
Another translated paper of Ferenczis, originally published in
1929 on Masculine and Feminine: Psychoanalytic Observations
on the Genital Theory and on Secondary and Tertiary Sex Characteristics, was published in the Review in 1930. Jelliffe wrote abstracts on works by European analysts, and reprinted abstracts
from the Internationale Zeitschruft fr aeriztliche Psychanalyse, Zentral
blatt fur Psychoanalyze, and Imago. Later, the abstracts section continually expanded to include other journals, such as the Interna
tional Journal of Psychoanalysis, British Journal of Medical Psychology,
Psychoanalytic Quarterly, Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine, American
Imago, and Revue Francais de Psychanalyse.
Other notable American contributors to the Review during
the early decades of its history included Isador Coriat, a founder
24
ALAN J. BARNETT
25
simply state it. He assumes the chief editorial activity. . . . (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 228)
March 6, 1939
. . .White was much more lenient than I to methodological variants. . . . he had little time for individual analytic work and thus
much entered the Review that I did not like. Sometimes I was dogmatic about it and kept some matters out. . . . (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 281)
26
ALAN J. BARNETT
27
28
ALAN J. BARNETT
29
ic Review is the obvious only choice of existing American periodicals for the expression of the really American psychiatric psychoanalytic views (DAmore, 1976, p. 80). He added that he lacked
sympathy for The Psychoanalytic Quarterly and that the International
Journal of Psychoanalysis did not appeal to his group either. White
did not respond to his request. Sullivan had such respect for
White that he never became resentful towards him over this rejection; in 1938, he and others founded the journal Psychiatry.
In 1937, Ernest Jones tried again to consolidate the Interna
tional Journalthis time with the Quarterlyagain because of its
ongoing limited financial resources. He was willing to accept the
consolidation with the Quarterly under any editor or editorial
board. His proposal was rejected. He then wrote to Jelliffe, joking
that . . . the world is not entirely ruled by reason (reason being
defined as ones own view). Jelliffe responded, While there is
always waste in variant efforts, there is usually advance and new
powers. Hence I believe that so far as psychoanalysis is concerned
it will thrive better in a free and open democracy rather than in
any closed autocracy (DAmore, 1981, pp. 578579).
Through the years, even though they did not always agree on
how to run their joint publications, including the Review, Jelliffe
and White resolved their differences, often with humor, and appreciated each others friendship. Following are examples of their
playful communications. White to Jelliffe (referring to a business
matter): I have your demented letter of the 11th.... (letter of
August 12, 1925). Jelliffe to White: if you drink more of my wine
[next time you are in New York] you might become intelligent, in
time (letter of April 2, 1927) (cited by Burnham & McGuire,
1983, p. 113). Despite their differences, their friendship survived
until the end of their lives.
Jelliffes Sole Editorship
William Alanson White died on March 7, 1937, in Washington. Two years prior to his death he became ill and Jelliffe took
over most of his work to ease the pressure on his friend. At Whites
death, Jelliffe assumed editorial responsibility of the Review, thereby moving the Review from Washington to New York. Jelliffe him-
30
ALAN J. BARNETT
31
32
ALAN J. BARNETT
Furthermore, Jelliffe prior to his death asked his younger colleague, Nolan D. C. Lewis, to hold his correspondence with Freud,
including Freuds letter to White on July 17, 1914 (Freuds refusal
to contribute to the Review).9 Nolan D. C. Lewis then became editor of the Review, and remained editor through 1957. Like Jelliffe,
Lewis concurrently served as managing editor of The Psychoanalytic
Review and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.
The Review From 1945 to 1957: Nolan D. C. Lewis and His Editorship
Born in Coudersport, Pennsylvania, Lewis (18891979) has
been called the first practicing American psychoanalyst. He had a
long affiliation with St. Elizabeths under William A. White dating
from 1919. While in the position of Director of Clinical Psychiatry at St. Elizabeths (19231933), he completed his psychoanalytic
training in Vienna during 19271928, attending lectures at the
University of Vienna delivered by Paul Schilder (a major contributor to the Review after 1929) and others. While in Vienna Lewis
had two meetings with Sigmund Freud, who authorized him to
practice analysis without undergoing a personal analysis. According to Hoffer (1980), Lewis asked Freud whether he needed to
undergo analysis, but Freud merely asked him how many of his
patients had killed themselvesnone had (p. 151). A key figure
in the development of psychoanalysis in Washington, Lewis was
among the founders of the Washington-Baltimore Psychoanalytic
Society together with Harry Stack Sullivan and others in 1930.
During his tenure as Director of the New York Psychiatric Institute at Columbia University (19361953), he cofounded the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research (1945) with Sandor Rado, Abram Kardiner, and others.
Throughout his career, Lewis fused his interest in psychoanalysis
with biological psychiatry. He was Coordinator of the Committee
on Research in Dementia Precox (19351950), publishing Re
search in Dementia Precox in 1936. Also, he was one of the earliest
proponents of rigorous experiments in psychopharmacology and
among the first American psychiatrists to experiment on himself,
with the hallucinogenic drug mescaline; its sensitizing/hallucinogenic effects influenced the direction of his research on schizo-
33
phrenia, which became his specialty (Michels, 2009). The research under his direction at the Psychiatric Institute was
distinguished by its thoroughgoing approach, yet Lewis was very
interested in and tolerant of new ideas (Hoffer, 1980)a characteristic that would be evident also in his editorship of The Psycho
analytic Review.
Under Lewis editorship (19451957), The Psychoanalytic
Review remained consistent in its non-exclusionary, nondogmatic
editorial policy, even though this tumultuous period in psychoanalysis was characterized predominantly by intensified exclusionism and differential adherence to theoretical positions. This
intensified controversy was due to the transplantation of prominent psychoanalysts from Europe to the United States that occurred around World War II (Makari, 2012). Among these influential migrs, whose differing (sometimes quite disparate)
theoretical inclinations would be developed much further after
their arrival in this country, were Franz Alexander, Sandor Rado,
Karen Horney, Hanns Sachs, Fritz Wittels, Erich Fromm, Frieda
Fromm-Reichmann, Theodor Reik (later Honorary Editor of the
Review), Robert Waelder, Otto Fenichel, Paul Federn, Ludwig
Jekels, Johan H. W. VanOphuijsen, Annie Reich, Wilhelm Reich,
Edith Jacobson, Herman Nunberg, Ernst and Marianne Kris,
Heinz Hartman, and Rudolf Lowenstein. A substantial number of
these European analysts already were or would become involved
with the Review as contributors and/or on the editorial board.
Also during this period, the landscape of psychoanalytic journals in America became more complex, thereby highlighting The
Psychoanalytic Reviews broad purview and nonsectarian position.
The German-language journal Imago, suppressed in Europe in
1938 and dedicated to psychoanalytic discussions of culture, literature, and society, was re-founded in the U.S. in 1939 by Sigmund
Freud and Hanns Sachs under the title American Imago; Sachs,
who had immigrated to Boston, served as Editor. The Psychoana
lytic Study of the Child was launched as an annual in 1945, edited by
Anna Freud in London with Heinz Hartman and Ernst Kris, who
had immigrated to New York in 1940 and 1941.
Clinical psychoanalysis was flourishing in America; in fact, it
came to dominate American psychiatry in its golden age after
34
ALAN J. BARNETT
World War II. As a result, however, American psychiatry controlled organized psychoanalysis in this country, via medicalization and an orthodoxy characterized by tedious training procedures and a mechanized analytic technique. In the wake of the
exclusionary practices and rigidly applied methods of training
and technique, a wave of reactive schisms occurred within American psychoanalysis in the 1940s and 1950s. There even occurred
a split within the already split off Neo-Freudian group of cultural/interpersonalists in relation to lay analysis, led by Karen Horney who was adamantly against lay analysis and opposed to Clara
Thompson, H. S. Sullivan, and Erich Fromm, who supported it. A
long-lasting rift also occurred over the question of physician status as a prerequisite for analytic training and practice between the
powerful American Psychoanalytic Association and the International Psychoanalytic Association, which had traditionally (if not
wholeheartedly) accepted lay analysts. In 1953, the Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association was established with an editorial
policy committed to the American Psychoanalytic Associations
exclusionary and dogmatic psychoanalytic vision. Yet, over and
above all this political turmoil, there was great optimism and idealism everywhere about what psychoanalysis could accomplish.
Within the psychoanalytic mainstream advances in ego psychology provided a new emphasis on defense and adaptation; the notion of countertransference was importantly broadened; and the
scope of pathology that might be effectively treated by psychoanalysis widened. Outside the mainstream, a burgeoning interest
in psychoanalysis was sweeping American culture, with enormously popular books for the general public written by Theodor Reik
(e.g., Listening With the Third Ear, 1948) along with those by Karen
Horney (e.g., Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward SelfRealization, 1950) and Erich Fromm (e.g., Escape From Freedom,
1941).
In this period, which coincided with Lewiss editorship, a
substantial number of important authors that were to contribute
to psychoanalysis in its golden age and beyond published their
early papers in the Review. For example, in the area of ego psychology are found early contributions to the Review by Edith Jacobson, The Effect of Disappointment on Ego and Superego
35
NPAP was founded in May, 1948 by Theodor Reik with his colleagues and students as the first psychoanalytic training institute
and society created for non-physicians. Reik was born in Vienna
in May 1888 and died in New York in December 1969. He was an
eminent psychologist-psychoanalyst, a graduate of the University
of Vienna and one of Freuds earliest and most gifted students.
His graduate thesis in 1912, Flauberts Temptation of St. Anthony, was, along with Otto Ranks The Lohengrin Saga, published in 1911, among the first psychoanalytic dissertations recorded. Reik met Freud in 1910 and remained associated with
him until Freuds death in 1939; Freud was a father figure to him.
36
ALAN J. BARNETT
37
barring from its membership all non-M.D. psychoanalysts, a policy that continued, as the APsyaA did not admit nonmedical candidates for training until 1988.
Thus when Reik, a lay analyst, arrived in New York in 1938,
he was immediately confronted with this controversy over lay
analysis. Instead of being treated as psychoanalytic royalty, as he
expected because of his association with Freud, he was rejected
when he tried to become a full member of the New York Psychoanalytic Society. Rather than full membership as a psychoanalytic
practitioner, he was offered a teaching position and encouraged
to do research and to write. Frustrated, Reik complained to Freud
repeatedly about his difficulty in practicing psychoanalysis and
the hostility he perceived against lay analysts. In response, Freud
sent three letters to him, one of which was a handwritten letter of
recommendation (Freud, 1952, pp. 46):
July 3, 1938
I am surprised to learn that Dr. Th. Reik has gone to America
where the fact that he is not a medical man is likely to interfere
with his activity as an analyst. He is one one of the few masters of
applied analysis as is shown especially in his earlier contributions,
while his later work is more concerned with matters of general psychological interest. . . . Any man who is interested in the progress
of the Science of Psychoanalysis should try to lend him assistance
in the continuation of his work.
Prof. Sigm. Freud
In 1938 Freud, in his 80s, who himself immigrated to London, had his own battle with progressive cancer. On October 3,
1938, he wrote his last letter to Reik (Freud, 1952, p. 6):
I am ready to help you as soon as I get the news that I am equipped
with the omnipotence of God, if only for a short time. Until then,
you must continue to toil alone.
Cordially,
Freud
38
ALAN J. BARNETT
39
republished above). For all six years that Psychoanalysis was published, its pages were filled with fine articles from many distinguished authors such as Arnold Bernstein, Marie Coleman (Nelson), who became the editor of Psychoanalysis in 1957, Reuben
Fine, Nandor Fodor, Harold Greenwald, Donald Kaplan, Jacob
Kesten, Benjamin Margolis, Benjamin Nelson, Theodor Reik, and
Murray Sherman. Special attention in the journal was given to the
relation of psychoanalysis and contemporary culture. In this connection two special issues organized by Benjamin Nelson stood
out, one a Freud Centennial Memorial and the other a double issue called Freud and the Future. In 1956, Psychoanalysis published The Prophesies of Tiresias, by Hyman Spotnitz, written in
honor of Theodor Reik on the launching of The Theodor Reik
Clinic for Mental Health and Research (now the Theodor Reik
Consultation Center), delivered at the Plaza Hotel, New York City,
November 7, 1955.
THE MERGER, MARIE COLEMAN NELSON,
AND HER EDITORSHIP
The Merger
In 1958, Psychoanalysis merged with The Psychoanalytic Review,
under the name Psychoanalysis and The Psychoanalytic Review, with
Marie Coleman (Nelson) as Managing Editor, Theodore Reik as
Honorary Editor, Benjamin Nelson as Advisory Editor, and Nolan
D. C. Lewis as Chairman of the Board of Consultants.
Marie Coleman (Nelson), who had become the editor of Psy
choanalysis just prior to its union with The Psychoanalytic Review, is
considered the main person responsible for negotiating the
merger (Sherman, 2013). The first issue of Psychoanalysis and The
Psychoanalytic Review (Editors, 1958, p. 3) opened with a Statement of Purpose. An excerpt of this statement is here reprinted:
The present publication is the first fruit of the recently consummated union of the oldest and youngest journals of psychoanalysis . . . .
The pages of this Review are open to allwhatever their orientation, whatever their professional affiliationwho concern themselves with the promotion of the psychoanalytic study of mind and
40
ALAN J. BARNETT
Marie Coleman Nelson (19151998) was a talented psychoanalyst with a rich and diverse background, known for her great
depth and originality in psychoanalysis as well as for her sensitivity, creativity, and strong personality. She was born in Ohio and
raised in Pennsylvania. With only a formal education through
high school, she began her career as a labor organizer and for 10
years worked as an editor, journalist, and writer of farm and labor
news (Sherman, 1998). On June 14, 1944, she enlisted in the
Womens Auxiliary Army Corps, where she worked until the end
of World War II as a writer and a staff artist/cartoonist (Bernstein,
1981). While working there and looking through a stack of comic books for something more serious to read, she discovered a
copy of Freuds Introductory Lectures, which was new and untouched. When Nelson read the Lectures, she was absolutely overwhelmed by it . . . (Molino, 1997, p. 65). The book helped Nel-
41
Later, she started her psychoanalytic practice under the supervision of Joost Meerloo. She became a member of NPAP in
1951, and a Senior Member in 1954, where she supervised, taught,
and participated in the development of NPAPs training program.
Over the years as a psychoanalyst, M. C. Nelson always strived
to open new pathways to knowledge (Sherman, 1998, p. 486).
Among her many contributions, she is especially known for introducing paradigmatic psychotherapy. Her 1956 article, Externalization of the Toxic Introject: A Treatment Technique for Borderline Cases (Coleman, 1956), published in the Review, initiated
a theory and array of techniques that were greatly elaborated on
in many publications that followed, starting with Paradigmatic
Psychotherapy in Borderline Treatment (Coleman & Nelson,
1957), coauthored with Benjamin Nelson and published in Psychoanalysis. Benjamin Nelson, her future husband, was Advisory
Editor to the journal Psychoanalysis and, later, to The Psychoanalytic
Review for the next 20 years. According to Marie Nelson, . . . Ben-
42
ALAN J. BARNETT
43
44
ALAN J. BARNETT
Schizophrenia and Manic-Depressive States (1962). Evolving perspectives as well as expanding techniques were examined in such
papers as Existential Analysis and Psychotherapy (1958) by Ludwig Binswanger and Psychotherapeutic Problems in Eating Disorders (1963) by Hilda Bruch; moreover, a 1964 special issue on Recent Developments in Psychotherapy was edited by Marie Coleman
Nelson. These are but a sampling of the many stimulating contributions appearing in the pages of the Review during this time.
Aside from being a scholarly psychoanalytic contributor, a
great teacher, and an industrious editor for The Psychoanalytic Re
view, Marie Coleman Nelson influenced many clinicians through
her multifaceted personality. She was very creative, with a sharp
wit, sensitive, and always aware of what was happening around her
and in the world. Michael Eigen, a student, friend, and colleague
of Marie Nelson, eloquently captures her essential qualities: Maries aesthetic sense and vulnerable sensitivity did not get full
voice in her psychoanalytic writings, although they are present
there in a muted way. She tended to speak with a measured voice
in those writings, which never failed to instruct and inform. With
antennae ever-open to winds of change, she had one hand on the
pulse of patients, another on the pulse of societies. Contact with
her never failed to heighten my awareness of what was going on in
the world, and of how shifting cultural tendencies found expression in clinical work . . . (quoted in Lombardozzi, 2006).
Marie Coleman Nelson lived a rich life. She had a fruitful career with many accomplishments and was an inspiring model for
psychoanalytic practitioners then and today.
THE LATER YEARS OF THE REVIEW (1968PRESENT)
45
One of the important characteristics of this period is the increasing recognition by the psychoanalytic community of the impact that psychoanalysis and culture have on each other, not only
in the traditional sense of psychoanalytic interpretations of cultural phenomena (i.e., applied psychoanalysis), but also in the
sense of considering psychoanalytic growth in light of sociocultural developments and values. Such interaction importantly implicates the interdisciplinary worlds of the humanities as well as
the social and biological sciences. The interrelation of psychoanalysis and culture was always of interest to the journal, and became a salient feature beginning with its merger in 1958, and
even more so by the late 1960s, when psychoanalysis as a whole
had firmly moved in the direction of object relations and understanding the sociocultural influences on personality development
(see Kurzweil, 1992). Thus, articles were published in this period
on the effects of cultural factors on personality patterning, psychopathology, and clinical practice, e.g., Some Cultural Determinants of Intrapsychic Structure and Psychopathology (1971) by
James Hamilton; A More Positive View of Perversions, by Richard Robertiello; and Social Change and the Proliferation of Regressive Therapies (1971) by Herbert Strean. Some special issues
were dedicated to the exploration, in depth, of the interaction
between psychoanalysis and culture.
Furthermore, the journal took on a broad humanistic scope
and became a leading forum of the sociocultural psychoanalytic
perspective (Lerner, 1988). For example, Benjamin Nelson, a sociologist and Advisory Editor of Special Projects for the Review,
edited a 1970 issue on the pervasive generational conflicts of the
Vietnam era, which included lead papers by Konrad Lorenz, The
Emnity Between Generations and Its Probable Ethological
Causes, and sociologist Karl Mannheim, The Problem of Generations. Another issue edited by B. Nelson on the psychoanalytic value of sociocultural and psychohistorical frames (1976) included papers by Fred Weinstein, Freud and the Dilemma of
Late Marxism, and Ashis Nandy, Woman Versus Womanliness
in India: An Essay in Social and Political Psychology. Still other
special issues highlighted sociopolitical themes, edited, for example, by Judith Kestenberg (1988) on Child Survivors of the Holo-
46
ALAN J. BARNETT
caust (based on the Jermome Riker International Study of Organized Persecution of Children); Sy Coopersmith (2005) on abuse
of power in social structures, including psychoanalytic organizations and the analytic process; and Alan Roland (2010) on the
exploitation of paranoid anxiety in national and international
politics.
Many articles on other aspects of the interaction of psychoanalysis and culture were published, including special issues on
Psychoanalysis and the Classics of Literature (1973; 1975), and
on such diverse themes as The Persistence of Myth (1988) edited by Peter Rudnytsky; Illusion and Culture (1992), on the contribution of Winnicotts concept of transitional experience for a
psychoanalytic theory of culture, edited by Leila Lerner; and
Film and Violence (1997), edited by Robert Benton and Isaac
Tylim. A later Special Issue on Film (2007), edited by Tony
Pipolo, focused on this mediums vast potential for exploring the
myriad conflicts of identity; while a Special Issue on the Internet, edited by Michael Eigen and Evan Malater (2007), considered the Internets psychological and sociological impact, explored its creative potential, including implications for
psychoanalytic thought and practice, and invited readers to rethink possible fears and unquestioned assumptions about the medium. Paul Marcus (2007) edited Emanuel Levinas and Psychoanalysis, foregrounding this contemporary French philosophers
vision of man and the psychoanalytic implications of his ethicality.
Michael Eigen (2006) edited a special issue on Fundamentalism
and Terrorism, highlighting processes of violence in culture and
society, and their inextricable interconnection with intrapsychic
and family dynamics.
The rapidly occurring social, economic, and political changes of the times influenced the role of women in particular, within
all social classes, allowing them to participate in a wide variety of
occupations; as a result, attitudes about traditional patriarchal
family structure have become more flexible. Concurrently with
changes in womens consciousness and expectations, Freuds
views on feminine development were reformulated. The Review
published many articles reflecting these significant changes. In
1982 Leila Lerner edited a special issue on women and individua-
47
48
ALAN J. BARNETT
49
two groups of papers organized by Joseph Reppen were published, one on the merits of George Kleins overall revision of psychoanalytic ego psychology (1980), with papers by John Munder
Ross, Joseph Slap, Mark Gehrie, Morris Eagle, and Lawrence
Friedman; and another on Emanuel Peterfreunds reformulation
based on information and systems theory (1981), which included
a response by John Bowlby. Bowlby cited Thomas Kuhns book The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pointing out that new models take
hold because of their greater explanatory power and their compatibility with contemporary science. Additional papers suggested
that other sciences concepts have explanatory power for psychoanalysis, e.g., Gerald J. Gargiulo, Mind, Meaning and Quantum
Physics: Models for Understanding the Dynamic Unconscious
(2010). A delimited revision of the theory of aggression advanced
by Ana-Maria Rizzuto, Jerome Sahin, Dan Buie, and William Meissner (1993) viewed aggression not as a biologically determined instinctual drive continuously pressing on psychic structure for release, but rather as a biological capacity operating only under
conditions in which the successful dealing with an obstacle is required.
A clinical paper by Robert Stolorow and Frank Lachmann
(1981) clarified the then-current controversy over intrapsychic
conflict and developmental arrest. Further, a symposium on the
work of Robert Stolorow and George Atwood, Psychoanalytic
Phenomenology (1986), traced the development of their important organizing concept of intersubjectivity. (In issue Number 3
of this Centenary volume, Stolorow and Atwood will review the
past four decades along with the latest extensions of their theory
of intersubjectivity.) Other clinical papers advanced theories of
recent psychoanalytic modifiers (Bergmann, 2009), e.g., Anonino Ferro in a 1993 paper refined Bions conception of the interpretability of hallucinations in the context of Baranger and Barangers transference-countertransference field theory; Bruce
Fink, in a series of papers (1999, 2005, 2011), elaborated on aspects of Lacanian clinical practice; William Ansorge in a 2012 paper amplified the Relational concept of mutuality. A special issued edited by Harold Blum examined the entire area of Diversity,
Controversy and Innovation in Contemporary Psychoanalysis
(2011), highlighting the potential for the advancement of psy-
50
ALAN J. BARNETT
choanalysis under contemporary conditions, with papers by Martin Bergmann, Harold Blum, Helen Gediman, Samuel Hershkowitz, Carl Jacobs, Helene Keable, and Otto Kernberg.
While theoretical turmoil in psychoanalysis still characterizes
our field today, there is an impression by Gedo (1999) and others
of a subtle converging trend across the diverse theoretical schools
in the area of psychoanalytic practice. The converging ideas on
an effective treatment stance suggest a technique that emphasizes
the process of communication evolving in the psychoanalytic situation more than any particular interpretive content. For example, Lawrence Josephs in a comprehensive paper, The Timing of
an Interpretation: A Comparative Review of an Aspect of the Theory of Therapeutic Technique (1992), traced and integrated the
major theoretical perspectives hierarchically with respect to their
strategies of verbal interpretation and nonverbal intervention to
promote progressive emotional communication. He encouraged
further elaboration of the analysts preconscious and volitional
nonverbal interventions, tailored to the unique needs of the particular patient, as part of a theory of technique. Nancy McWilliams in her paper Mothering and Fathering in the Psychoanalytic Art (1991) did just that. She described two categories of
tone and manner in which interpretations are made that subtly
express attitudes she called devoted, experienced as soothing
(maternal), and integrity, experienced as stimulating (paternal), and she applied these ideas to illuminate the Kohut-Kernberg technical controversy. In 19961997, Henry Seiden published two papers on The Healing Presence, stressing that it is
crucial in an analytic situation for the analyst to be willing to enter
into the experience of the patients inner life in order to help the
patient grasp what his thoughts, feelings, memories, and impulses
mean to him or her; he indicated that the analyst, as witness,
serves a validating self-object function for the patient, and related
this idea to Roy Schafers (1983) notion of the analysts affirmative attitude in a different theoretical context. From still another
theoretical perspective, yet along these lines, Allan Frosch in his
paper Psychic Reality and the Analytic Relationship (2003) added that the capacity for sustained interest in a patient itself depends on the analysts belief in the analytic process, which is de-
51
rived from the analysts own analysis. Also, in a special issue The
Analysts Intentions, edited by Alan Barnett, a paper by Ana-Maria Rizzuto (2008) concluded that the foundation of all analytic
procedures is the analysts well-implemented intention to establish meaningful contact (p. 736, emphasis in the original).
Gedo (1999) and others also suggest a converging trend
across different theoretical schools around the shared idea that
patient improvement in crucial areas such as managing impulsivity and unwanted feeling states is best promoted by the analyst attending to the earliest developmental aspects of the transference.
For example, Alan Roland, in his paper Induced Emotional Reactions and Attitudes in the Psychoanalyst as Transference in Actuality (1981), highlighted patients unconscious internalized
pathological parental attitudes and emotions that may be induced
in the analyst as transference in actuality, and related this to the
evocative notion of primary process presences in Roy Schafers
Aspects of Internalization. Edward Emery, in his paper On Dreaming of Ones Patient: Dense Objects and Intrapsychic Isomorphism (1992), described a countertransference dream that
through self-analysis helped free him to contain a patients traumatized self-states being lived through in a dramatic transferencecountertransference treatment experience. Sue Carlson, in her
paper Whose Hate Is It?: Encountering Emotional Turbulence
in the Crosscurrents of Projective Identification and Countertransference Experience (2009), vividly illustrated the emotional
complications of managing reciprocal primitive transferencecountertransference processes in the treatment situation.
In all, the Review, during its later years published many special issues and a vast archive of innovative and well-written articles
(many more than I could cite in this paper) reflecting the complexity of psychoanalysis and its theoretical diversity, which has so
powerfully expanded during this period that it is now the very
factor that characterizes mainstream psychoanalysis as a whole.
CONCLUSION
In sum, I would like to emphasize that, through its pages, since its
first publication to the present, the Review was able to play an im-
52
ALAN J. BARNETT
portant role in psychoanalysis, both as a promoter of psychoanalysis and as a reflection of the fields almost entire evolution. The
Review remained faithful to its origins in serving the entire psychoanalytic community, embracing its many theoretical differences.
Established as a nonorthodox journal by its first editors, Jelliffe
and White, the Review, guided by all its editors, continued to remain through its history an open venue for all psychoanalytic perspectives, democratic and all-inclusive in its policies. In order to
help better understand the history of The Psychoanalytic Review I
have presented short biographies of its deceased editors, Jelliffe,
White, Lewis, Reik (honorary editor), and Nelson. I have also discussed the controversy that surrounded the publication of the Re
view, including the correspondence between Brill and Freud
(which has been published for the first time in this paper), and
the correspondence between Jelliffe and Freud. Last, I have discussed the years that followed the first publication of the Review
up to 1958 when the merger with Psychoanalysis took place, and
the years that followed the merger until the present. Although
its almost impossible to capture the complexity of all 100 years of
history of The Psychoanalytic Review and psychoanalysis, which are
inextricably intertwined, I hope I have touched upon some of the
historys important events and changes, such as how the Reviews
founders Jelliffe and White helped to spread psychoanalysis within the U.S., the role of the migr psychoanalysts in the U.S., the
controversy over lay analysis and the formation of the first organization and training institute for non-physicians, the mutual influences of psychoanalysis and culture, the proliferation of different
schools of thought, which still persists today, and how these aforementioned events were represented by the important contributions published in the Review.
Today the journal is keeping up with modern communication technology by participating in the Psychoanalytic Electronic
Publishing (PEP) archivean expandable online database presently comprised of some 47 journals to which the entire psychoanalytic community has access. Concurrently, every contributor,
regardless of the particular journal source of that contribution,
instantly becomes part of this professional and scientific community. Now it looks like PEP is becoming one large electronic journal that promotes inclusiveness and a greatly enhanced capacity
53
for the cross-fertilization of ideas. Although PEP offers many advantages as a research tool and effective method of information
dispersal to the professional community, it also raises the question of how the Review will maintain its individualityhow it will
remain a distinct journal, with its own scholarly format and personalitywhile at the same time remaining a part of inevitable
technological progress. I believe other editors of scholarly journals harbor this question as well. It will remain a challenge for the
editor to keep readers mindful of our journals important role, its
100 years tradition, and distinction from other journals. The
standard of publishing manuscripts of high quality while being
receptive to diverse, innovative psychoanalytic ideas should remain our key policy.
NOTES
54
ALAN J. BARNETT
Assistant Director of Academic Affairs, of the Washington School of Psychiatry; William Creech at the National Archives; Bruce Kirby, Manuscript Reference Librarian at the Library of Congress; and the staff at the Freud Museum
for their time and suggestions in trying to help me locate this letter.
5.Ernst Falzeder, Ph.D., is a psychologist and historian of psychoanalysis and
analytical psychology, fellow at the University College of London, and senior
editor for the Philemon Foundation. Former research fellow at the Fondation Louis Jeantet (Geneva, Switzerland), the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars (Washington, D.C.), Cornell University Medical School
(New York City), and Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.). He has more
than 200 publications; among others, he is the main editor of the The Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sandor Ferenczi (3 vols., Harvard University
Press) and editor of The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Karl Abraham (Karnac Books). Forthcoming: Psychoanalytic Filiations: Mapping the Psychoanalytic Movement (Karnac Books).
6.Freud was unaware that at that time the United States did give copyright protection to foreign authors (Burham & McGuire, 1983, p. 195).
7.The first issue of the Internationale Zeitschrift was published in January 1913
under Freuds editorship.
8.Freuds refusal to contribute to The Psychoanalytic Review did not discourage
White from writing a letter on October 20, 1914 to Karolinska Institute in
Stockholm to recommend him for the Nobel Prize for the section Physiology
and Medicine for the year 1915. Unfortunately, prizes were not awarded that
year due to the First World War (DAmore, 1976).
9.Nolan D. C. Lewis held the letters between Jelliffe and Freud, as well as Freuds
letter to White of July 17, 1914, for over 30 years. He sold this correspondence to
Jelliffes daughter, Mrs. Helena Jelliffe Goldschmidt, who in 1979 donated it to the
Library of Congress, where Jelliffes other papers are housed (DAmore, 1983).
REFERENCES
Bergmann, M. S. (2009). The 1993 symposium of psychoanalytic education revisited. Psychoanal. Rev., 96:405409.
Bernstein, A. (1981). Introduction to Paradigmatic Theory and Technique
A Tribute to Marie Coleman Nelson. Modern Psychoanal., 6:37.
Brill, A. A. (1948). In memoriam (Smith Ely Jelliffe). Psychoanal. Rev., 35:343
349.
Burnham, J. C. (1967). Psychoanalysis and American medicine: 1894-1918; Medicine,
science, and culture. New York: International Universities Press.
______ & McGuire, W. (1983). Jelliffe, American psychoanalyst and physician & his
correspondence with Sigmund Freud and C. G. Jung. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burr, C. W. (1914). A criticism of psychanalysis [sic]. Proceedings of the American
Medico-Psychological Association, 21:303317. [now known as the American
Psychiatric Association]
Coleman, M. L. (1956). Externalization of the toxic introject: A treatment technique for borderline cases. Psychoanal. Rev., 43:235242.
______ & Nelson, B. (1957). Paradigmatic psychotherapy in borderline treatment. Psychoanalysis, 5:2844.
55
Conci, M. (2010). Sullivan revisitedLife and work. Trento, Italy: Tangram Edizioni Scientifiche.
Coriat, I., Murray, J., & Jelliffe, S. E. (1941). To Abraham Arden Brill: Honorary President of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Psychoanal.
Rev., 28:111.
DAmore, A. R. (1976). William Alanson White: The Washington years 1903-1937.
Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
______ (1981). Psychoanalysis in America: 1930-1939. Psychoanal. Quart., 50:570
586.
______ (1983). Foreword. John C. Burnham and William McGuire. In Jelliffe,
American Psychoanalyst and physician & his correspondence with Sigmund Freud
and C. G. Jung. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dercum, F. X. (1914). Discussion of Burr. Proceedings of the American Medico-Psy
chological Association, 21:318322.
Editors. (1958). Statement of purpose. Psychoanal. Rev., 45:3.
Freud, S. (1930). Introduction to special psychopathology number of The Medi
cal Review of Reviews. In J. Strachey, ed. And trans., The standard edition of the
complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, 24 vols. London: Hogarth Press,
19531974. 21:254255.
______ (1952). Three Letters to America. Psychoanalysis, 1:46.
Gedo, J. E. (1999). The evolution of psychoanalysisContemporary theory and practice.
New York: Other Press.
Hale, N. (1971). Freud and the Americans: The beginnings of psychoanalysis in the
United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoffer, A. (1980). Dr. Nolan D. C. Lewis 1889-1979. Orthomolecular Psychiatry,
9:151152.
Jelliffe, S. E. (1914). Technique of psychoanalysis. Psychoanal. Rev., 1:439444.
______ (1922). Psychopathology and organic disease. Archives of Neurology and
Psychiatry, 8:639.
______ (1933a). AddressGlimpses of a Freudian odyssey. Psychoanal. Quart.,
2:318329.
______ (1933b). Psychoanalysis and internal medicine. In S. Lorand, Psychoanal
ysis today: Its scope and function (pp. 293306). New York: Covici-Friuede.
______ (1933c). The death instinct in somatic and psychopathology. Psychoanal.
Rev., 20:121132. [Reprinted in Psychoanal. Rev., 100:8193].
______ (1937). Obituary: William A. White, M. D. Psychoanal. Rev., 24:210230.
Kurzweil, E. (1992). Psychoanalytic science: From Oedipus to culture. Psycho
anal. Rev., 79:341360.
Lerner, L. (1988). The Psychoanalytic Review and lay analysis. Psychoanal. Rev.,
75:356360.
Lombardozzi, A. (2006). Introduction to Marie Coleman Nelsons Paths of
powerPsychoanalysis and sorcery (with a tribute by Michael Eigen). J.
European Psychoanal., 23 (2), www.psychomedia.it/jep/number 23/cole
man.htm
Makari, G. (2012). Mitteleuropa on the Hudson: On the struggle for American
psychoanalysis after the Anschlu. In J. Burnham (Ed.), After Freud left: A
century of psychoanalysis in America (pp. 111124). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
McGuire, W. (1974). The Freud/Jung letters: The correspondence between Sigmund
Freud and C. G. Jung. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
56
ALAN J. BARNETT