Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 56

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW:

100 YEARS OF HISTORY


Alan J. Barnett
This paper is written in celebration of the centenary of The Psychoana
lytic Review and aims to bring to life its entire history100 years of
publication. Almost as old as psychoanalysis itself, established by Jelliffe and White as a nonorthodox journal, and guided by all its subsequent editors, the Review has maintained its original mission: to serve
as an open venue for all psychoanalytic perspectives, a free forum for
all. But the history of the Review is not without controversy. Freud
made no original contributions to the Review. The paper unveils the
Reviews rich history by looking briefly into the lives of some of its editors, the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Review (including pertinent correspondence between Freud and Brill and between Freud and Jelliffe), the years (with their engrossing politics)
that followed the establishment of the Review until its merger with the
journal Psychoanalysis (the official journal of NPAP), and the years that
followed the merger to the present, including some of the important
events that reshaped psychoanalysis. The role of the Review in promoting and reflecting almost the entire evolution of psychoanalysis is illustrated throughout.

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

original Psychoanalytic Review: A Journal Devoted to an Understanding


of Human Conduct, cofounded in 1913 by Washington psychiatrist
William Alanson White (18701937) and New York neurologist
and psychiatrist Smith Ely Jelliffe (18661945), both of whom
were interested in psychoanalysis. The other journal was Psycho
analysis: A Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychology, the official journal of
the National Psychological Association for Psychoanalysis (NPAP),
established in 1952 by Theodor Reik (18881969), a nonmedical
practitioner who was a preeminent analyst and disciple of Freud.
Because of his non-physician status, Reik was excluded from full
membership in the physician-based New York Psychoanalytic Society. Following this rejection, in 1948 he created the first psychoanalytic training institute for non-physicians, NPAP.
Upon William A. Whites death in 1937, the Review was edited
solely by Smith Ely Jelliffe, with the assistance of Nolan D. C. Lewis,
a longtime associate of Whites, who himself became editor of the
Review upon Jelliffes death in 1945. Lewis edited the journal until
1958, when the Review merged with Psychoanalysis; the journals
name then became Psychoanalysis and The Psychoanalytic Review,
with Marie Coleman Nelson as editor. After five years, in 1963, the
journal returned to the name The Psychoanalytic Review, which has
since been maintained. The journal continued to be edited by Marie Nelson, followed by Murray Sherman, Marie Nelson again, Leila Lerner, Martin Schulman, Michael Eigen, and Alan Barnett.
In the earlier years The Psychoanalytic Review published translations of Freuds and other psychoanalysts work and abstracts
from European psychoanalytic journals, as well as articles pertinent to applied psychoanalysis, regardless of the theoretical orientation of the contributor, with the Review serving as a bridge
between the psychoanalysis that originated in Europe and the psychiatry that was prevalent in America (Sherman, 1966, p. 5).
Since its first publication, the Review has played an important role
in the history of psychoanalysis as a promoter of psychoanalytic
knowledge and innovation, coinciding with almost the entire period of psychoanalysis in the United States. The Review has remained an open venue for all psychoanalytic perspectives, in accordance with its first editors intentions, striving to be as tolerant
and democratic as possible, eclectic and all-inclusive in its policies. The journal is committed to a vision of psychoanalysis as a

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

discipline based on informed psychoanalytic theory and clinical


observation, exploration of different cultures, and all branches of
knowledge interrelated with psychoanalysis.
But the history of The Psychoanalytic Review has not always
been harmonious. A journal almost as old as the entire history of
psychoanalysis, the Review never received any original contributions from Sigmund Freud, the man who developed psychoanalysis. Why did Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, choose not to
participate in the Review, and how did the journal manage to survive for a century, while other psychoanalytic journals (e.g., in Europe the Jahrbuch fr Psychoanalyse und Psychopathologiche Forschung
and the Zentralblatt fr Psychoanalyse, and in the U.S. the Archives of
Psychoanalysis2) closed within a few years of their first publication?
I will attempt to answer these questions by investigating (1) the
lives of the journals founders and the circumstances and controversies surrounding the journals genesis and growth; (2) its
merger with Psychoanalysis, which was then the youngest psychoanalytic journal and the only journal published by an organization of non-physicians, NPAP, founded by Theodor Reik; and (3)
the role of the journal in the development of psychoanalysis during the 45 years that followed the merger.
JELLIFFE, WHITE, AND THE REVIEW

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,

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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

Sketches in Psychosomatic Medicine (1939). He approached diseases


in a holistic way and as a psychosomatic therapist never ignored
the influences that the physical, chemical, biological, or psychological could have on diseases. He did not attempt to treat patients by analytic treatment only, but rather believed that the process of healing could be accelerated by using concurrent somatic
therapy. He studied psychosomatic diseases with the object in
view of trying to separate out the conflict of the Life and Death
instinctual processes that finally became encysted or segregated
in an organ or organs where the fight was carried out either as a
temporary moratorium or in the form of a final adjustment of
claims with partial or complete destruction of the organ unconsciously chosen as a site for the conflict (Jelliffe, 1933c, The
Death Instinct in Somatic and Psychopathology, reprinted in this
issue). As a scientist he was quite aware that his pioneering efforts
to understand psychosomatics could evolve (Menninger & Devereux, 1948).
According to some scholars (Brill, 1948; Menninger & Devereux, 1948), Jelliffe is considered the father of psychosomatic
medicine in America, and according to others, his psychosomatic
theories are considered too speculative (e.g., see Oberndorf,
1953). But Freud gave Jelliffe credit for his work. To counter his
critics, Jelliffe wrote, I cannot feel my own work with so-called
organic diseases can be called inconclusive speculations, as a
highly respected member of this Society [referring to Clarence
Oberndorf of the New York Psychoanalytic Society] once assessed
them. I am gratified that Freud . . . has in print and more in personal contact, valued them quite otherwise. Or as in a recent letter he has generously referred to them as that medicine of the
future for which you are preparing the way (Jelliffe, 1933a, p.
328).
Jelliffe was exceptionally accomplished, and a titan of his
time, admired by many of his contemporaries. Nonetheless, his
work is not very frequently cited in contemporary psychiatric and
psychoanalytic literature. However, his prodigious writings in the
archives of psychiatry, neurology, psychoanalysis, and psychosomatic medicine remain living proof of his achievements.

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

William Alanson White


The real individual does not reside in the bony levers of the skeleton, the delicate contracting fibres of the muscle, the wonderfully
intricate and complex functions of the internal organs, but in the
wishes, the hopes, the desires, the ambitions, the sorrows and the
joys which he experiences . . . .
William Alanson White,
October 4, 1910, remarks at the
opening exercises of the Howard
University School of Medicine

William Alanson White was one of the leading psychiatrists in


the U.S. during the first third of the twentieth century, and one of
the first American psychiatrists to write papers on psychoanalysis.
He was a prolific writer, and as the head of St. Elizabeths Hospital
(the main government mental hospital in Washington, D.C.) a
great leader, organizer, and administrator. Born in Brooklyn in
1870, while still in high school at age 15 he was awarded a scholarship to Cornell University. At age 19 he began attending Long Island Medical College, graduating in 1891. After his graduation he
worked on the staff of the Alms and Work House Hospital on
Blackwells Island (now Roosevelt Island) and at Long Island
Medical Hospital. Shortly after that, in 1892, he obtained a job as
a psychiatrist at the Binghamton State Hospital. Due to his accumulated knowledge and skill in the field of psychiatry, in 1903, at
age 33, he was appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt to be
Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital. He also accepted positions as Professor of Psychiatry at both Georgetown (1903) and
George Washington (1904) medical schools. He played a key role
in the establishment of the first psychoanalytical society in Washington (1914), formed from members of the hospital staff.
Throughout his professional life he was an active member of
many societies and president of the American Psychopathology
Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American
Psychoanalytic Association (twice), the Social Hygiene Society,
and the Washington Institute for Mental Hygiene.
While at the Binghamton State Hospital, he traveled to New
York City to the Pathological Institute of New York State Hospitals
(now the N.Y.S. Psychiatric Institute) to work with Dr. Boris Sidis,

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

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

Psychoanalytic Review. In 1914 at the Seventeenth Annual Meeting


of the American Medical Psychological Association (now the
American Psychiatric Association), White famously defended psychoanalysis when Charles W. Burr presented the paper A Criticism Of Psychoanalysis, and Francis X. Dercum, the Discussant,
closed with unsparingly caustic remarks about Freuds theories of
dream analysis and sexual etiology: Let me say that it should be a
matter of keen humiliation and chagrin that at an epoch when
psychiatry is beginning to unfold a practically limitless field for
actual scientific research, men should be found willing to devote
themselves to a cult, to an ism . . . (DAmore, 1976, p. 70, citing
Burr, 1914, and Dercum, 1914). At these remarks, White stood up
and spoke forcefully:
I am a psychoanalyst. I want the truth and I am willing to welcome
any light that may be thrown upon the situation. I appreciate psychoanalysis for I have been confused by actual clinical contact with
patients in regard to the underlying principles and meanings involved, and so I know there is an element of truth in the whole
movement, which would be extremely unfortunate for us to discard at this point. . . . I have no doubt that many hypotheses will be
laughed at in years to come as being in fault, perhaps some of
them ridiculous, but what we want is their correction at this point;
we want more light; we want more truth; it does not do any good to
call them absurd and let the matter go at that. . . . I think very
largely the difficulty of understanding the whole psychoanalytical
movement is a lack of understanding of what is meant by the unconscious; that is an extremely difficult concept to get. I have spent
many months in getting a clear idea about it . . . . (DAmore, 1976,
pp. 7071, citing White, 1914)

White published two articles on the unconscious in the Review.


(These articles, The Unconscious in 1915 and Das Es in 1930,
are reprinted in this issue, pp. 5772 and 7379, respectively.)
White also believed that hospitalized mentally ill patients can
benefit from psychoanalysis, observing that with such patients the
different characteristics of the transference could nevertheless be
exploited therapeutically (DAmore, 1976, p. 71, citing White,
1921, p. 391). When White became superintendent of the main
government mental hospital, St. Elizabeths, he put in a lot of effort to transform the facility into a high-quality hospital. At 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

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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,

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

13

in Europe in 1907, and a few more times after that, in 1912, in


1913, and after World War I (DAmore, 1976). Jung also visited
White at St. Elizabeths Hospital, where he engaged in psychoanalytic research on hospitalized patients. Its interesting to note that
both White and Jung had some similarity, in the sense that both
were working in mental hospitals (Jung at Burgholzli and White
at St. Elizabeths) and that both contributed to the intermingling
of the fields of psychoanalysis and psychiatry.
At the time when the first issue of The Psychoanalytic Review
was published, neither Jelliffe nor White had met Freud. Freud
visited the United States for the first time in 1909, at a conference
to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of Clark University in Massachusetts, at the invitation of Professor William Burnham. White
did not participate in this event as during this time he was traveling in Europe to visit particularly the various hospitals for mental
disease, the great cathedrals and the art museums (DAmore,
1976, p. 82, citing White, 1938, p. 100). Knowing that he would
not be able to participate in this conference, White responded to
Professor Burnhams invitation by expressing the desire to acquire Freuds lectures after the conference: . . . can you tell me
whether you are now sure that Professor . . . Freud and Jung will
be present? Can you also tell me whether or not it will be possible
to obtain the printed lectures after they are delivered? (DAmore,
1976, p. 82). White never met Freud, as this was Freuds only visit
to the United States. Interestingly, Jelliffe also did not attend this
conference, since during 19081909 he was traveling in Europe
(six months in Berlin and six months in Paris) as he stated in his
Odyssey (Jelliffe, 1933a): This was the year Freud and Ferenczi
and Jung came to America, at Clark University and Freud sailed
eastward as I came westward (p. 324). Jeliffe missed the opportunity to meet Freud at this time, but met him briefly in 1921 at Bad
Gastein, Austria.
Even though White and Jelliffe had not met Freud personally
at the time the Review was founded, White invited Freud to contribute with an opening paper. White in a letter to Jelliffe on September 15, 1913, mentions that he invited Freud to contribute in
a letter dated September 1913.3 However in accordance with
Burnham and McGuire (1983), DAmore (1976), and my own re-

14

ALAN J. BARNETT

search,4 Whites invitation letter to Freud cannot be located.


Freud refused to contribute to the Review, and it seems he did not
reply to White until July 17, 1914, 10 months later; to this day no
other correspondence between White and Freud has been found.
Investigating this matter further, through Dr. Ernst Falzeder
of Innsbruck, Austria, I discovered an exchange of letters that
took place a few months prior to the publication of The Psychoana
lytic Review between Freud and Brill, the founder of the New York
Psychoanalytic Society, where Freud expressed his objections to
the foundation of the new psychoanalytic journal in America. Excerpts of these letters are published for the first time in this paper.
This was made possible through the generosity of Dr. Falzeder,
who provided the letter transcripts and their English translations.5
In a letter to Brill on April 9, 1913, Freud voices his disapproval of the establishment of the Review, since he sees it as a
threat to the existence of the Internationale Zeitschrift, the official
journal of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). If
the new journal would be created, there could be the possibility
of losing American subscribers to the Zeitschrift:
. . . If Jelliffe founds a new psychoanalytic journal, his first step will
obviously be to make the request that the New York Psychoanalytic
Society be relieved of the compulsory arrangement with the Inter
nationale Zeitschrift [fr Psychoanalyse] [i.e., that all members of the
IPA, regardless of their nationality and native language, had to
subscribe to the German Zeitschrift, the official organ of the Association]. Are you prepared for this possibility? . . . . (Sigmund
Freud Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress)

Within two months, Freud recognized that the possibility of


the creation of a new journal in the English language was inevitable, and further, he writes to Brill on June 2, 1913:
. . . Unfortunately, the English-speaking journal cannot be avoided. I would like to leave the decision as to who will be its editor,
not to the [upcoming] congress [of the IPA in Munich], but to the
Americans. . . . (Sigmund Freud Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress)

Brill was the major force behind the formation of The New
York Psychoanalytic Society, which was established in February

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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)

The years 19121914 were the tumultuous time of the break


between Freud and Jung. It is self-evident that Freud did not appreciate hearing from Brill that Jelliffe was psychoanalytically
thoroughly Jung. Moreover, in a letter to Freud on April 7,
1914, Brill brings the idea to Freud that Jung may be behind the
creation of the Review, which makes Freud even more hostile toward Jelliffe and White and their new journal:
. . . As I always suspected Jung is behind the new Journal given out
by Jelliffe & White. . . . (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)

In the light of this correspondence between Brill and Freud,


it is no surprise that in his response letter of July 17, 1914, Freud
declined ungracefully Whites invitation to contribute to the Re
view, denigrating Jelliffes character, loyalty, and judgment with
respect to psychoanalysis, doubting Jelliffes theoretical tendencies, and disliking Jelliffe and Whites connection to Jung. Moreover, he believed that psychoanalysis would be better served if it
would remain centralized, which meant to be represented by
the Internationale Zeitschrift fr arztliche Psychoanalyzehe, the official
organ of the Society. He implied also that because American psychoanalysis was underdeveloped at this point, The Psychoanlaytic
Review would fill its pages with translations [that] may be commercially justifiable contributions. To fully appreciate Freuds
opposition to contributing to the Review, his letter to White of July
14, 1914 is reprinted in large part below (published in Burnham
& McGuire, 1983, pp. 195196):
Dear Dr. White:
. . . your request for a contribution to your Review surprises me, and
I will tell you why. If I am misinformed, I shall be glad to be set
right.
I am told that Dr. Jelliffe once refused to pay membership dues to
the New York Society on the ground that he had no money for a
foreign publisher. This, I feel, amounts to considering psychoanalysis from the standpoint of business rather than of science. Moreover, the Review has been founded at a time when, as you yourself
stress in your letter, it is still difficult to fill it with worthwhile contributions. The way in which the Review makes up for this deficiency with translations may be commercially justifiable, what with the
lack of copyright in America,6 but strikes me as unseemly. I find it
difficult to regard the Review as anything other than a competitor,
founded exclusively for business reasons, of the Internationale

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

17

Zeitschrift fur arztliche Psychoanalyze.7 The cause would have been


much better served if the psychoanalytic literature had been allowed to remain centralized for a good while yet, until experience
had time to catch up with interest in America. This judgment of
the Review is further supported by Jelliffes intimacy with Jung, who
in spite of his presidency has never lifted a finger for the International Association or its organs, but only pursued his own aggrandizement.
Under these circumstances, I do not feel able to help your journal
over the difficulties to which you refer. But I shall be very glad if
these lines can move you to clarify and perhaps correct the information at my disposal.8
Yours faithfully,
Freud

Further, in 1914 Freud wrote a polemic directed against Jung


and Adler, On the History of the Psychoanalytic Movement,
which was translated by Brill and ironically appeared in The Psy
choanalytic Review in 1916. His distrust and skepticism of American
psychoanalysis continued over the years, as he writes even in 1930
that American physicians and writers . . . [have] . . . a very insufficient familiarity with psychoanalysis, so they know only its terms
and a few catch words . . . . Or they make a hotch-potch out of
psychoanalysis and other elements and quote this procedure as
evidence of their broadmindedness, whereas it only proves their lack
of judgment (Freud, 1930, pp. 254255, cited by Sherman, 1966,
p. 4; italics originally given in English by Freud).
Freud understandably believed that Jelliffe was loyal to Jung,
not only because they were on cordial terms, but also because Jelliffe was translating major works of Jung. He also probably saw or
heard that the first issue of The Psychoanalytic Review opened with
Jungs work. The journals eclectic stance may also have played a
role in Freuds attitude against the Review. He already felt under
attack by Jung, Adler, and Stekel, and the free forum of the Re
view was not the kind of endorsement he felt he needed at this
time. Moreover, because of the connection that Jelliffe and White
had with Jung, Freuds hostility toward Jung and other European
psychoanalysts now extended to Jelliffe and White and The Psycho
analytic Review.
At the time the Review was published, most scholars and his-

18

ALAN J. BARNETT

torians (e.g., Burnham & McGuire, 1983; DAmore, 1976; Hale,


1971) agree that neither White nor Jelliffe was aware of the imminent separation between Freud and Jung, which it seems, was
occurring around the time of Jungs visit to the U.S. in 1912. According to Burnham and McGuire (1983, p. 193), the last correspondence of Jung with Freud was dated January 1913. Further,
Jung wrote a postcard to White dated November 11, 1913 (when
the first issue of the Review was in press or already published)
mentioning the break with Freud: We have a bad time over here.
. . . Freud discredited me personally. . . . And I had to withdraw
from the Jahrbuch therefore. Fr. is working with nice means
against all those who dont strictly believe in the dogma (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 194; located in the W.A. White Archives
and also cited by DAmore, 1976, p. 83). Ernest Jones also wrote
to Jelliffe on November 24, 1913 about the break between Freud
and Jung: It seems quite impossible for Vienna and Zurich to
come to any kind of terms, so it will be better if they separate altogether, when each can develop without personal emotions on the
lines that suit him bestand the best man win! (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 193, from the Jelliffe Papers, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C.). Also, it seems that just a week before Freud
wrote the response letter to White in July 1914, Jung and the entire Zurich psychoanalytic society had withdrawn from the International Psychoanalytic Association (McGuire, The Freud/Jung Let
ters, p. 552, cited by Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 195), marking
the total break between Jung and Freud.
Jelliffe himself, 20 years later, tried to give some explanation
in his Odyssey about the misunderstanding and controversy
that surrounded the opening paper by Jung versus Freud in the
first issue of The Psychoanalytic Review:
It was a bit of misunderstanding that caused the Psychoanalytic Re
view to open with a contribution by Jung instead of one by Freud,
some of the reasons for which are still unknown to me. Freuds reply to our invitation was not very cordial. We were not then as well
oriented to the developing differences of opinion within the inner
circles nor to certain smaller aspects of politics as now. At all events
the Review has gone its way with a certain eclecticism which has
taken into consideration a broader grasp of home environmental
factors than many of our confreres or colleagues have even as yet

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

19

understood. . . . If I claim for the moment a better ego reality


contact for our course of action it is debatable as to its narcissistic
bias. (Jelliffe, 1933a, p. 326)

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)

In letters of March 27, 1926, and March 6, 1939, Jelliffe tried


to explain to Freud his relationship with Jung and what this rela-

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)

In a letter of April 11, 1926, Freud justified his prior distrust


of Jelliffe, White, and the launching of the Review, and expressed
his satisfaction that through their correspondence hed gotten to
know Jelliffes true intentions:

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

21

. . . It is true I was at first very suspicious of you and of Dr. White,


and that my distrust carried over to the Psychoanalytic Review you
founded. The reason was that I first heard your name from Jung,
who spoke of you emphatically as his friend at a time (after the
Fordham lectures) when I was already convinced of his hostile attitude toward me. Later I met you in the company of Dr. Stekel (in
1921 in Gastein), and that again was no recommendation in my
eyes. Of course you, as an outsider, could have had no exact knowledge of these personal relations. It has given me great pleasure to
learn of your true opinions and intentions from our correspondence over the years, and I have been glad to correct my initial
misapprehension with regard to you and Dr. White. In principle I
should not be disinclined to contribute to your Review, but my production at the moment is very meager and may soon dry up altogether.
Do not fail to go on writing to me . . . . (Burnham & McGuire,
1983, p. 224)

Jelliffe and White had evidently felt ambivalent about again


asking Freud to contribute, maybe because of Freuds initial refusal to contribute to the Review, and the eclectic theoretical
stance of the journal. It took Jelliffe 16 years after the first issue of
the Review was published to do so, in a letter of September 23,
1929:
. . . We [Jelliffe and White] would both welcome . . . something
from you. Here we certainly would be united in our desires. We
have not asked you since the beginning. I believe it would be difficult to formulate any adequate explanation why we have not done
so in this long interval. Others perhaps may know better than we.
At all events the Review is forging slowly ahead, pays for itself and, I
trust, is representing psychoanalysis better and better. There is
still much room for improvement. . . . (Burnham & McGuire, 1983,
pp. 227228)

As a response, in his letter of October 12, 1929, Freud again


refused to contribute, claiming it was too hard for him to write
at that time. In the same letter he expressed his dissatisfaction
with White, as he had not received any copies of the journal for
the 16 years since the Review was published:
. . . my answer to your request [is that] I am again sorry I cannot
comply with it. It is too hard for me to write. I have published
practically nothing in the last year and a half and if I am working

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.

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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

of the Boston Psychoanalytic Society; J. J. Putnam, first president


of the American Psychoanalytic Association; H. W. Frink, first
president of the New York Psychoanalytic Society; Trigant Burrow, president of the American Psychoanalytic Association; Clarence Oberndorf, president of the New York Psychoanalytic Society (19171920), twice president of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, and associate editor of the International Journal of Psy
choanalysis; feminist psychoanalyst Beatrice Hinkle; Nolan D. C.
Lewis, future editor of the Review; Bertum Lewin, cofounder of
the Psychoanalytic Quarterly and for many years its editor; interpersonalist Clara Thompson; psychologist David Wechsler; William
Silverberg, founder and president of the American Academy of
Psychoanalysis; John Murray, founding member and president of
the Boston Psychoanalytic Society; anthropologist M. E. Opler;
William Menninger; child analyst and researcher Margaret Fries;
Robert P. Knight; Harry Stack Sullivan; Leland E. Hinsie (author
of the Psychiatric Dictionary); Dorian Feigenbaum, cofounder and
Editor-in-Chief of the Psychoanalytic Quarterly; and Sandor Lorand,
who first published in the Review in 1927 and actively wrote for
the journal for the next five decades.
Over the years, White continued his eclectic position and
maintained his purposefulness for the Review. In a letter of December 31, 1920 to Dr. Edward Reade (a Washington internist
who became a psychoanalyst), he wrote: I want the Review . . . to
serve its readers and I like, as far as possible, to have the active
workers in psychoanalysis represented in some ways in it. I have
succeeded in getting some of the best men of Europe to contribute articles and I want all of the good men in this country to do so
too (cited by DAmore, 1976, p. 87). On the other hand, while
Jelliffe was in accord with Whites tolerant position when the Re
view was established, beginning in 1920 he became more orthodox under the influence of New York Freudian psychoanalysts.
For this reason at times Jelliffe felt conflicted about the material
published in the Review. These problems were brought up a few
times in his correspondence with Freud.
September 23, 1929
. . . Dr. White and I have our differences as to some of the material
he publishes in the Psychoanalytic Review. I make no apology for it; I

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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)

In the 1930s The Psychoanalytic Review had some challenges.


During the Depression the journal was losing significant subscriptions, to the point when, in 1934, it was barely profitable. To keep
the Review published, its founders were contemplating using
funds from the Monograph Series. In the same period the Review
faced another threat. In 1932 a new journal, the Psychoanalytic
Quarterly, founded by several New York psychoanalysts led by
Dorian Feigenbaum, represented competition for the Review. Jelliffe had been friendly with Feigenbaum and taught him how to
manage/edit a journal. He was not too concerned about competition from the Quarterly, as hed been through the same kind of
experience before, when as editor of Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, the Archives of General Psychiatry was founded. However,
White was upset about the publication of the Quarterly. As if to
ward off competition, he added to the Reviews subtitle: An American Journal of Psychoanalysis and even printed the word Quarterly on the subscription form (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p.
109). Jelliffe, on the other hand, understood the benefits of a circumscribed and controlled approach for a journal, and took the
attitude the more the merrier, believing that the creation of the
Quarterly could be beneficial (letter to Paul Federn, December 12,
1931, cited by Burnham & McGuire, p. 110).
Ultimately, the Quarterlys success was not a threat to the Re
view but to the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, a superorthodox journal approved by Freud and published in England by Ernest Jones in 1920. The founding of a new orthodox journal like
the Quarterly could seriously reduce the financial support of
American subscribers to the International, and combined with the
Great Depression, could bring even more difficulties for its publication. Jones, who initially had been antagonistic to the eclecti-

26

ALAN J. BARNETT

William Alanson White, Co-Editor, 1913


1937

Smith Ely Jelliffe, Co-Editor, 19131937,


Editor, 19381945

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

27

Nolan D. C. Lewis, Editor, 19451957

Marie Colman Nelson, Editor, 1958


1968, Co-Editor, 19751976, Editor,
19771978. Courtesy of the Theodore
ReikNPAP Archives

Theodore Reik, Honorary Editor, 1958


1969. Courtesy of the Theodore Reik
NPAP Archives

28

ALAN J. BARNETT

cism of the Review and supported the Quarterly (Conci, 2010, p.


85), now became antagonistic to the Quarterly, as he saw it a direct
competitor of the International and as a threat to its dominance.
According to Burnham and McGuire (1983, pp. 111112), Jones
therefore suggested a coalition between the International and The
Psychoanalytic Review, perhaps in the form of a journal titled The
International Psychoanalytic Review. An exchange of letters between Jelliffe and White took place regarding Joness proposal.
Jelliffe wrote to White on November 8, 1933 that if no coalition is
possible, then they could try to improve the content of the journal. Jelliffe asked White if he would be open to the idea of some
changes in the Review, e.g., the formation of an editorial board
that would include some orthodox analysts, in order to attract
more good material; or to a division of the aspects of psychoanalytic activities among the journals so as to not have so much
repetition in the various vehicles of psychoanalytic thought.
White did not like the idea of a coalition with the International,
nor did he like Jelliffes suggested changes. He replied caustically:
. . . let me please call your attention to the fact that all the journals
that want to cooperate with us are bankrupt. Furthermore, I am
not willing to renounce my independence and take my orders
from anybody elsean editorial board, or whatever it may happen
to be called. I am not much on orthodoxy. Of course some of the
people involved would quietly slit my gullet with one hand and
hold out the other for a friendly grasp. I do not want to mix with
that group. More anon when I see you. My general reaction is
k.m.a., if you get what I mean. (White to Jelliffe, 9 November 1933;
cited by Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 112)

Jelliffe continued to find himself in some conflict over the


Reviews eclectic position. In a letter to White on January 2, 1934,
he admitted that he and White might not be sufficiently recognizing the sensibilities of the purer analysts who were reluctant to
have their papers published with the hoi poloi of the eclectic
content of the Review (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 110).
Several months later, in June 1934, another well-known psychoanalyst, Harry Stack Sullivan, wrote a letter to White conveying his desire to become involved with the Review. In this regard
Sullivan wrote, Both historically and fraternally, The Psychoanalyt

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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

self was 71 and battling some health issues. In letters to Freud on


August 16 and November 4, 1938, he wrote:
August 16, 1938
. . . If some time you feel you have a word for or about the Psycho
analytic Review I trust you will favor me with it. During Dr. Whites
illness, for he had been sick a year or more, the Review suffered
from lack of attention. I hope I shall be able to bring it into a more
representative position. But I too am not as young as I would like
to be and find it increasingly difficult to edit and finance all by
myself. I have had much encouragement from the new arrangements which have begun. . . . (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 275)
November 4, 1938
. . . The added work after Dr. Whites death on the Review and
Monographs also had to be put into some organized form. . . . I
must now edit, manage and finance the whole show. It is of interest
but time consuming . . . . Today I am 72 and apart from the things
mentioned [periodic articular fibrillation of the heart and aggravating signs of deafness] hardly know it. . . . (Burnham & McGuire,
1983, p. 279)

Jelliffe got help with the Review from Nolan D. C. Lewis, a


staff member of Whites at St. Elizabeths Hospital who moved to
New York in 1936 to become Director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute.
When Jelliffe became sole editor, he made certain changes to
upgrade the quality and consistency of the journals contents
(Burnham & McGuire, 1983). Since under joint editorship the
journal did not have an editorial board for peer review, in 1938
Jelliffe created an editorial board that included Brill as Associate
Editor. The rest of the editorial board was comprised of Franz Alexander (Chicago), Isador Coriat (Boston), Felix Deutsch (Cambridge), Bernard Glueck (New York), Ives Hendrick (Boston),
Rene LaForge (Paris), Philip Lehrman (New York), Sandor Lorand (New York), Karl Menninger (Topeka), Herman Nunberg
(New York), C. P. Oberndorf (New York), Geza Roheim (Budapest), and Fritz Wittels (New York). Some of these editorial board
members were Jewish European analysts who had or soon would
immigrate to the United States due to the rise of Hitler. One year
later, Clara Thompson, an American cultural/interpersonalist

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

31

joined the editorial board and remained on it until 1945. The


journal continued to be interested in the relevance of cultural
considerations for psychoanalytic theory. Previously, this theme
was highlighted in articles by cultural anthropologists Branislow
Malinowski in 1927, Prenuptial Intercourse Between the Sexes in
the Trobriand Islands, N.W. Melanesia, Margaret Mead in 1930,
An Ethnologists Footnote to Totem and Taboo, and M. E.
Opler in 1935, The Psychoanalytic Treatment of Culture. During Jelliffes editorship this link between psychoanalysis and culture was notably reflected in the publications in the Review of the
migr Hungarian psychoanalyst and anthropologist Geza Roheim, e.g. The Origin and Function of Culture (1942), and in
the rich articles on the interpretation of myth, ritual, and superstition by H. S. Darlington, e.g., The Meaning of Headhunting:
An Analysis of a Savage Practice and Its Relationship to Paranoia
(1939).
Other prominent contributors to the Review during Jelliffes
editorship include Leopold Bellak, who published his first analytic article, A Note About the Adamsapple (1942); Bernhard Berliner, who wrote an important paper on The Concept of Masochism (1942); and Edmund Bergler, who coined the term writers
block, and wrote on many psychoanalytic topics. In addition,
Rene Spitz published a theoretical article in 1945 on sensory and
emotive development, generalizing his early findings on pathological phenomena (hospitalism) observed in early infancy. Interestingly, Theodore Schroeder continued to publish in the journal
under Jelliffes editorship, even though some of his contributions
were controversial (taking into consideration that Jelliffe had become more selective in the journals content). In 1941, a special
issue was published in appreciation of A. A. Brill for his pioneer
work in psychoanalysis, his achievement as the first English translator of Freud, [and] his contribution in making the science of
psychoanalysis a most important part of psychiatry (Coriat et al.,
1941, p. 1). Distinguished contributors to this issue included
Franz Alexander, Otto Fenichel, Thomas French, Lawrence Kubie, Bertram Lewin, Karl Menninger, Hanns Sachs, and others.
Smith Ely Jelliffe died on September 25, 1945. The ownership of the Review was transferred to the Smith Ely Jelliffe Trust.

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-

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

35

Formation in Normal and Depressive Development (1946), and


Esther Menaker, A Note on Some Biological Parallels Between
Certain Innate Animal Behavior and Moral Masochism (1956).
Ruth Eissler, later to become Editor of The Psychoanalytic Study of
the Child, published her very first psychoanalytic paper, About
the Historical Truth in a Case of Delusion (1946), in the Review.
Other authors published papers for the first time in the Review
and became prominent later: Nathan Ackerman, Bruno Bettelheim, Marie Coleman (Nelson), Rudolf Ekstein, Peter Giovacchini, Arnold Modell, S. R. Slavson, and Hyman Spotnitz, just to
name a few. In addition, important papers were published by authors such as Richard Sterba, Kurt Eissler, Martin Grotjahn, and
others.
On February 21, 1958, the Smith Ely Jelliffe Trust transferred
the responsibility for continuing to publish the Review to NPAP.
In a published statement (Psychoanalysis and The Psychoanalytic Re
view, 1958), the Sole Trustee under the Trust, Carel Goldschmidt
(Jelliffes son-in-law) expressed confidence that the exacting
standards of research and scholarship for which the Reviews
founders, editors and contributors have ever stood will be maintained and promoted by the new Board (p. 2). At this time The
Psychoanalytic Review merged with NPAPs own journal, Psychoanal
ysis, under the name Psychoanalysis and The Psychoanalytic Review,
with Marie Coleman Nelson as managing editor.
NPAP, REIK, AND THE JOURNAL PSYCHOANALYSIS

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

Reik became a member of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society in


1912 and in 1915 became its Secretary (when Otto Rank resigned). He lectured in different psychoanalytic institutes and
practiced psychoanalysis successively in Vienna, Berlin (from
1928), and the Hague, The Netherlands (from 1934), immigrating to New York in 1938 to flee the spreading influence of Nazism.
The previously mentioned exodus of preeminent European
psychoanalysts like Reik who immigrated to America during the
1930s and 1940s brought not only their many years of psychoanalytic expertise, but also many years of controversy, including controversy over lay analysis (Makari, 2012). Meanwhile, most psychoanalysts in America, partly due to the influence of Brill, insisted
that all psychoanalysts be physicians, even though Freuds position was otherwise. Freud in 1926 had very vigorously supported
non-physician psychoanalysts when he published The Question of
Lay Analysis for the purpose of defending Reik (then still in Vienna) in a lawsuit for practicing medicine without a license. In this
published piece Freud eloquently reaffirmed that non-physicians
could become qualified psychoanalysts, and that what really mattered in becoming a psychoanalyst was an independent diploma
beforehand (i.e., not a prerequisite medical education) and good
psychoanalytic training.
Even within the European psychoanalytic community there
were groups of psychoanalysts that did not agree with Freuds position on lay analysis. In an attempt to resolve this issue, Ernest
Jones (who took a middle position) and Max Eitingon organized
a large-scale discussion to reach a decision about lay analysis at
the Innsbruck Congress of the International Psychoanalytic Association in 1927. Twenty-eight papers related to this issue were
published simultaneously in the Zeitschrift fr Psychoanalyse and
the International Journal of Psychoanalysis (the two official organs of
the IPA) and presented at the Congress. The decision reached
was that each national society should have its own policy. Ernest
Jones believed this compromise decision undermined the greater
need for psychoanalytic unity, especially with respect to the issue
of training. But this policy continued for years within the IPA.
For its part, the American Psychoanalytic Association persisted in

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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

Reik continued to struggle to develop his practice. He gave


public lectures at Carnegie Hall to become known to the community. He established the Society for Psychoanalytic Psychology for

38

ALAN J. BARNETT

nonmedical analysts and prospective analysts, in 1941. Around


1945 he started to teach at the William Alanson White Institute,
but only for a short time as that institute reversed its policy of offering analytic training for non-physicians; when this occurred
the non-physician analytic candidates at White went to Reik and
started to meet regularly with him. Meanwhile, young clinicians
impressed with Reiks writing began to meet with him in various
group seminars and analytic supervision and entered analysis.
This aggregate of students and colleagues became the nucleus of
NPAP; some of the original members were Ruth Berkeley, Matthew Besdine, Edward Frankel, Benjamin Margolis, Gisela Barinbaum, and Clement Staff. Clement Staff was the most instrumental in creating the NPAP Training Institute, which initially had
only two faculty members, Theodor Reik and Harry Bone (Sherman, 1988). Also, in 1948 Reik published the book Listening With
the Third Ear, which was very popular and helped move forward
the cause of nonmedical psychoanalysis as well as NPAPs mission.
Reik authored more than 20 books and hundreds of papers, including psychoanalytic studies on Shakespeare, Goethe, Mahler,
Schnitzler, and others. Reiks other books include The Compulsion
to Confess (1925), Masochism in Modern Man (1949), and The Need to
Be Loved (1963). Ritual, an early anthropological work written in
1919, made a big impression on Freud (Sherman, 1988; Reppen,
n.d.). (A paper about Reiks accomplishments by Mort Israel will
be published in a later issue of this 100th Anniversary volume.)
Only four years after the founding of NPAP, in 1952 Psychoanaly
sis was launched as the first journal published by a nonmedical psychoanalytic organization. Theodor Reik was Editor-in-Chief and John
Gustin the Editor, later followed by Clement Staff and Marie Coleman. The journal opened with a mission statement to its readers:
. . . Psychoanalysis pledges itself to maintain an atmosphere of free
inquiry. We hope to inspire and encourage original and authoritative contributions that apply psychoanalytic thinking to personality, culture, society and the arts. We welcome sincere expression
from any source that can help contribute to our unity of purpose.
. . . (Editors, 1952, p. 3)

Also in the first issue were published Freuds three letters to


Reik of 1938 (Freud, 1952, pp. 46; two of these letters have been

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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

culture. Not being antecedently committed to any orthodoxy, the


editors would not think to impose a dogmatic test upon prospective contributors. Only the following signs will be sought: willingness to follow wherever the trail leads, imagination in projecting
and integrity in testing hypotheses, rigor in conduct of research
and regard for clarity of expression. Psychoanalysis and The Psycho
analytic Review aspires to grow into a forum for the full and frank
exploration of all problems which lie at the heart of psychoanalysis
and the study of man and culture. In the words of the eminent
historian, Sir Samuel Dill, We will gladly seek illumination from
converging lights.

Beginning with 1963, the journal returned to the name The


Psychoanalytic Review. Marie Colman Nelson continued as editor
from 1958 until the middle of 1968, but remained active in the
Review as associate editor, co-editor (19751976), and editor again
(19771978).
Marie Coleman Nelson and Her Editorship
How enduring are the habits of thought that structure the imagery
of our loves and hates! Object and symbol may change, but the
expressive mode provides a thread of continuity that declares some
inner sense of stylistic identity from the cradle to the grave.
Marie Coleman Nelson, Roles and Paradigms in Psychotherapy

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-

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

41

son to understand her strong interest in human conduct and


instilled in her the desire to pursue it. So after leaving the Army
she began a six-year analysis with Hyman Spotnitz, who would
have a significant role in her analytic development, as would Margaret Fries and Joost A. M. Meerloo.
Marie Coleman Nelson met Margaret Fries while she was attending (for a short time) Columbia University. Margaret Fries
was working on a large-scale investigation of child development
called the Integrated Development Study and offered Nelson a
full-time position as research associate.
Nelson was one of the first students of the newly formed
NPAP. Because she did not have the required degree for admission, her application produced a lot of controversy in the organization. Marie Coleman Nelson explained:
. . . my application for admission had caused the first split in this
organization, because I didnt have any degrees. However, Id written and been published in in the field, and was working as a research assistant to a noted analyst in the association. I was also in
analysis. So after not knowing whether to throw my application out
or give it house room, they apparently decided to keep me around.
(Molino, 1997, p. 73)

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

jamin Nelson . . . a social scientist, perceived the implications of


the approach I had begun to describesociologically, in terms of
role theory, and historically, in terms of the analysts function as
mediator and double agent. To him, we owe the title, Paradig
matic Psychotherapy (Nelson, 1968, p. vi). Marie Nelson describes a
paradigm as a highly creative technique (Molino, 1997, p. 70)
that is a showing or saying by example. But by example we do not
mean that the therapist presents his feelings, his beliefs or his behavior as a model for the patient to emulate. We mean that the
therapist initiates, induces or prolongs modes of interaction with
the patient which promote the latters self-understanding without
manifest recourse to interpretation in the exemplary sense
(1968, p. 45). Facilitating self-understanding without necessarily
relying on discursive explanation continues to be an important
consideration in contemporary writings on psychoanalytic practice (e.g., Robbins, 2012). Moreover, Nelsons paradigmatic approach to severe character disorders in individual therapy has
been newly applied to less disturbed cases in couples therapy (see
Mendelsohn, 2013, Playing With the Couples Projective Identifications: Paradigmatic Psychotherapy With Couples, forthcoming
in this 100th Anniversary volume).
To avoid the limitations of Freuds structural model, and influenced by Hartmanns ego psychology as well as her deep interest in the social/cultural dimension, Marie Nelson became one of
the first theoreticians to introduce the notion of multiple-selves, a
concept that is very much in vogue in psychoanalysis today. In her
interview with Anthony Molino about this concept, she explained:
I think ego psychology was a necessary stage in the recognition of a
truth that Freud did not see, or did not deal with. However one
doesnt need to be stuck with the theory of ego psychology. . . . what
I see before me is not the false self, or the true selfit is selves. And
behind the selves lie the major developmental elements, the experiences, and the dominant feelings that these selves have generated,
whatever they were, with whomever and in whatever order or sequence they appeared, in terms of black and white, in terms of good
and bad, in terms of horrible and wonderful. (Molino, 1997, p. 87)

Aside from her many articles on a variety of topics, Marie


Coleman Nelson wrote a monograph with Joost A. M. Meerloo,

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

43

Transference and Trial Adaptation (1965), and edited and coedited


a number of books. Among them are Roles and Paradigms in Psycho
therapy (1968), coedited with Benjamin Nelson, Murray H. Sherman, and Herbert S. Strean; The Narcissistic Condition: A Fact of Our
Lives and Times (1977); Psychosexual Imperatives: Their Role in Identi
ty Formation (1979), coedited with Jean Ikenberry; and Evil: Self
and Culture (1985), coedited with Michael Eigen.
During Marie Coleman Nelsons editorship, the Review both
reflected and contributed to the changes gradually taking place
in the field outside of the Hartmann group. Analytic theory was
shifting from the Oedipus complex as the most important focus
of change to a study of pregenital experiences and conflicts,
which in treatment was reconstructed in the transference-countertransference, the understanding of which was becoming much
more elaborated. Psychoanalysis was extending its techniques
and its borders to include narcissistic neuroses and psychoses.
There was greater interest in the interlocking of personality and
social systems, and a growing tolerance for multiple perspectives
within the Freudian framework.
The volumes of the Review during this period (19581968)
are a treasure house of psychoanalytic writings. Articles representing this periods issues and controversies include Helen Block
Lewis, Over Differentiation and Under Differentiation of the
Self (1958); Mortimer Ostow, Affect in Psychoanalytic Theory
(1961); Jule Nydes, Paranoid-Masochistic Character (1963) (to
be reprinted in this 100th Anniversary volume); George Mora,
The History of Psychiatry: A Cultural and Biographical Survey
(1965); Heinrich Racker, Psychoanalytic Considerations on Music and the Musician (1965); Theodor Reik, The Psychological
Meaning of Silence (1968); Thomas Szasz, Psychoanalysis and
the Rule of Law (1968); and Pinchas Noy, A Theory of Art and
Aesthetic Experience (1968). A steady stream of articles explored
the nature and treatment of severe disturbances, among which
are classic papers authored by Harold Searles, Scorn, Disillusionment and Adoration in the Psychotherapy of Schizophrenia
(1962; this paper will be reprinted in a later issue of this Centenary volume); Silvano Arieti, The Loss of Reality (1961); and
Edwardo Weiss, Viscissitudes of Internalized Objects in Paranoid

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)

Following the editorship of Marie Coleman Nelson (195868),


The Psychoanalytic Review was edited by Murray Sherman (1968
1976), Marie Coleman Nelson again (coeditor 19751976 and
editor 19771978), Leila Lerner (19781989), Martin Schulman
(19892004), Michael Eigen (20042008), and Alan Barnett
(2008present). Each of the above editors (i.e., aside from Marie
Coleman Nelson) will reflect on his or her editorship sequentially
over the next five issues of this Centenary volume.

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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-

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

47

tion, which included commentaries on Nancy Chodorows Repro


duction of Mothering (1978) with participants such as Jessica Benjamin. In 1986 Leila Lerner and Robert Friedman edited a special
issue that reassessed the psychoanalytic psychology of men, accompanied by psychological and sociological commentaries on
the effects these cultural changes have had on the relations between men and women; a later paper by Beverly Bruch (1993)
reconsidered psychoanalytic views of womens sexual object
choice (heterosexual, bisexual, and lesbian).
The effect on psychoanalysis of empirical research from disciplines such as infant observation, child development, and neuroscience gained much traction during this period as an important source of data for analytic contributions, and has been a key
influence on theory development. Interdisciplinary research
formed the basis for a number of papers published in the Review,
for example, Doris Silvermans Polarities and Amalgams: Analytic Dyads and the Individuals Within Them (1996); Susan Spielers Preoedipal Girls Need Fathers (1984); and William Meissners integrative publications on gender identification (2005)
and early emotional development (2009). The integration of infant observation, attachment theory, and neuroscientific research
in the work of Allan Schore was elaborated by Ellen Pearlman in
her paper, The Terror of Desire: The Etiology of Eating Disorders From an Attachment Theory Perspective (2006).
Due to accelerating biological knowledge of brain functioning in recent years, of special interest has been the interrelation
between psychoanalysis and neuroscience. In the Review, a special
issue edited by Edith Laufer was published, On the Frontiers of
Psychoanalysis and Neuroscience: Essays in Honor of Eric Kandel (2012). Eric Kandel is one the leading authorities in modern
neuroscience, who in his seminal 1999 article Biology and the
Future of Psychoanalysis recognized the importance of psychoanalysis for the future interdisciplinary study of mind. The special
issue was comprised of essays by Mark Solms, Edith Laufer, Arnold
Modell, David Olds, Howard Shevrin, Aaron Beck (with Emily
Haigh and Kari Barber), Fred Levin, Alan Barnett, Magaret Zellner, Antonio Damasio, and Joseph LeDoux.
In this period (1968present) the lack of compatibility be-

48

ALAN J. BARNETT

tween modern interdisciplinary knowledge and some of Freuds


key theoretical concepts threw psychoanalysis into turmoil. The
dissatisfaction with Freuds metapsychology (e.g., Holt, 1989),
combined with doubts about the effectiveness of treatment procedures that most psychoanalysts relied on, set in motion a fragmentation of psychoanalysis into conflicting schools (Gedo, 1999).
New psychoanalytic journals were launched dedicated to advancing these specific schools of thought (Stepansky, 2009), e.g., Mod
ern Psychoanalysis (1976), Psychoanalytic Dialogues (1991), The Inter
national Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology (2006). On the other
hand, in response to the loss of theoretical cohesion in mainstream
psychoanalysis the major psychoanalytic journals that historically
had been orthodox, such as the Psychoanalytic Quarterly and the
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, gradually shifted in
the direction toward nonsectarian, less dogmatic editorial policies.
With almost every aspect of Freudian theory being scrutinized, the intensifying psychoanalytic conflict of these years was
well represented in the Review. In 1969, for example, a group of
papers by Gertude Blank, George Klein, and coauthors Marvin
Hurvich, Leopold Bellak, and Patricia Crawford, with Esther
Menaker as Discussant, expressed their positions on the growing
theoretical controversies over assumptions within Freudian ego
psychology/classical psychoanalysis; meanwhile, the increasing
popularities of experiential therapies were analyzed by Elizabeth
Mintz and Ruth Cohn; and the psi hypothesis was studied in a special issue on parapsychology edited by Marie Coleman Nelson
that highlighted the problems of incomplete knowledge and uncertainty in psychoanalysis.
This theoretical challenge to psychoanalytic ego psychology
was compounded by a challenge to technical ideals of absolutism,
certainty, and precision in clinical practice; psychoanalysts with
contemporary postmodern philosophical views questioned the
presumptions of objectivity and authority in standard psychoanalytic treatment, emphasizing instead the pertinence of subjectivity
and intersubjectivity. Subsequently, the Review published numerous papers that reformulated psychoanalytic ego psychology and
emended or clarified particulars of the classical psychoanalytic
treatment stance, and this is continuing to evolve. For example,

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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-

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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

1.For clarification, the International Journal of Psychoanalysis was founded in 1920


in London by Ernest Jones.
2.Launched in 1926 by L. Pierce Clark, it closed in 1927 after publishing a few
issues (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 109, n. 50).
3.A copy of Whites September 15, 1913 letter to Jelliffe referring to the invitation to Freud for a contribution is located in the White Papers, Box 7, in the
National Archives (Burnham & McGuire, 1983, p. 62, n. 46).
4.In my own research, Whites invitation letter to Freud could not be located
either with Whites papers in the National Archives, Washington, D.C., or with
Freuds or Jelliffes papers at the Library of Congress in Washington, or at the
Freud Museum in London. I started by rechecking with the National Archives
and Library of Congress. Then I continued researching this matter by contacting Dr. John Burnham at the The Ohio State University, coauthor of Jel
liffe: American Psychoanalyst and Physician & His Correspondence with Sigmund
Freud and C. G. Jung (1983), who further suggested contacting Freud scholar
Ernst Falzeder, Ph.D., at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Dr. Falzeder
could not locate the letter either in his transcripts. Then I contacted Charlotte Bruton, Agent and Permissions Manager of the Marsh Agency (London),
on behalf of Freud Copyrights, Ltd., who further suggested I check with the
Freud Museum for the missing letter from White to Freud; however the letter
is not archived there. For possible additional leads I next tried to locate the
presumed copyright holder for the William Alanson White correspondence,
the William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation, by contacting the directors of the Washington School of Psychiatry in Washington, D.C., and the William Alanson White Institute in New York; but it seems the William Alanson
White Psychiatric Foundation no longer exists.
5. Thanks to Dr. John Burnham; Dr. Ernst Falzeder; Charlotte Bruton of the
Marsh Agency in London; Dr. Jay Kwawer, Director of the William Alanson
White Institute in Manhattan; Dr. Harry Gill, Director, and William Wears,

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.

THE PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW: 100 YEARS

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

Mendelsohn, R. (2013). Playing with the couples projective identifications:


Paradigmatic psychotherapy with couples. Psychoanal. Rev., 100 (forthcoming).
Menninger, K. A., & Devereux, G. (1948). Smith Ely JelliffeFather of psychosomatic medicine in America. Psychoanal. Rev., 35:350363.
Michels, R. (2009, September 29). Giants in psychiatry. Paper presented at
American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology 75th Anniversary Celebration, Weill Cornell Medical College.
Molino, A. (Ed.). (1997). Elaborate Selves: Reflections and reveries of Christopher Bol
las, Michael Eigen, Polly Young-Eisendrath, Sanuel and Evelyn Laeuchli, & Marie
Coleman Nelson. New York: Haworth Press.
Nelson, M. C., Nelson, B., Sherman, M. H., & Strean, H. S. (Eds.). (1968).
Roles and paradigms in psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Oberndorf, C. P. (1953). A history of psychoanalysis in America. New York: Grune
& Stratton,.
Reppen, J. (n.d.) Theodor Reik (1888-1969). www.enotes.com/theodor-reik.
Rizzuto, A.-M. (2008). The talking cure and the analysts intentions. Psychoanal.
Rev., 95:729749.
Robbins, A. (2012). Playing along the porous edge of chaos and discipline: Pathways to the creative analytic process. Psychoanal. Inquiry, 32:225245.
Schafer, R. (1983). The analytic attitude. New York: Basic Books.
Sherman, M. (1966). Psychoanalysis in America: Historical perspectives. Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas.
______(1988). Theodor Reik and lay analysis. Psychoanal. Rev., 75:380392.
______(1998). Marie Coleman Nelson 1915-1998. Psychoanal. Rev., 85:485486.
______(2013). Navigating an editorship (1968-1976). Psychoanal. Rev., 100
(forthcoming).
Stepansky, P. F. (2009). Psychoanalysis at the margins. New York: Other Press.
White, W. A. (1914). Discussion of Burr. Proceedings of the American Medico-Psycho
logical Association, 21:322324.
______(1921). Internationale Zeitschrifte fr Aerztliche Psychoanalyse, 7.
______(1938). The autobiography of a purpose. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Duran and Company.

120 E. 81st St., 1C


New York, NY 10028
E-mail: alanbarnett@aol.com

The Psychoanalytic Review


Vol. 100, No. 1, February 2013

Вам также может понравиться