The Freud-Janet Controversy: An Unpublished Letter
An exhibition on the history of psychotherapy was arranged at the Wellcome Historical Medical Library in conjunction with the International Congress of Psychotherapy held in London last August.
One of the exhibits was a letter from Professor Freud to Dr. E. A. Bennet, and it aroused considerable interest as well as perplexity in some who had not heard of the Freud-Janet controversy; consequently it seemed desirable to put this matter into perspective.
Freud attended Charcot’s clinic at the Salpe’triere from the autumn of 1885 until the spring of 1886 and this turned out to be a momentous time for him.
Already he had published a number of papers on organic diseases of the nervous system, having decided to specialize in this subject.
He writes:
“With an eye to material considerations I began to study nervous diseases. . . . In the distance glimmered the great name of Charcot; so I formed a plan of first obtaining an appointment as Lecturer on Nervous Diseases in Vienna and of then going to Paris to continue my studies. . . . In those days I understood nothing about the neuroses.“‘
Enlightenment came in Paris-he learned that neurosis had a meaning-that patients with hysteria were sick in mind rather than in body.
Pierre Janet, three years younger than Freud, was also a postgraduate pupil of Charcot’s.
Later he established a reputation for his clinical reports on hysteria and psychasthenia.
On the completion of his studies abroad Freud began practice in Vienna, and slowly his name and his work on psycho-analysis became known.
His theories were harshly criticized and it was openly stated that anything of value in psycho-analysis had been copied from Janet. Wagner- Jauregg, among others, was said to have spread this rumour.2
At all events speculation continued for years.
It was following a discussion on the subject, at a medical meeting, that Freud was asked about his relations with Janet, and the letter opposite was his answer.
Zilboorg and Henry3 allude to the controversy:
“Janet is frequently classed amongst the adherents to the school of Salpetrirre, but in actuality he was far- removed from it and did not belong to the Charcot group.”
This, in itself, would not exclude Janet’s influence on Freud’s developing ideas, and it should be read in conjunction with the reference to Janet in the Introductory Lectures.
“That the symptoms in neurosis had significance was first discovered by J. Breuer in the study and cure of a case of hysteria (1880-82). . . . P. Janet independently reached the same result; in fact priority in publication must be granted to the French investigator, for Breuer did not publish his observations until more than a decade later (1893- 95). Incidentally, it is of no great importance to us who made the discovery, for you know that every discovery is made more than once, and none is made all at once.”
To begin with Freud accorded high recognition to Janet for his explanation of neurotic symptoms as expressions of idees inconscientes.
Later this appreciation vanished when Janet implied that the unconscious was nothing more than a makeshift, une faxon de parler.
A number of writers, fully aware of the importance of Freud’s discoveries, took it for granted that he had been influenced by Janet.
Thus Wittels,5 who wrote on Freud, says:
“Freud came to Paris with a mind filled with the details of cerebral anatomy . . . but at the Saltpetriere he acquired a new conception of the neuroses, one he was to continue to hold throughout life. . . A study of the works of Delbceuf, Binet, and Pierre Janet had led him far into the domain of the unconscious mental life. . . . Thus the roots of the Freud of later days reach back to 1886.”
According to Dalbiez6 ” General opinion could only regard Breuer and Freud as Janet’s disciples.” Bernard Hart7 writes:
“Mental disorder may . . . be properly attacked from the standpoint of psychology. . . . The first great advances in this direction were made by the French psychologists . . . culminating in the classical work of Janet.”
Jung8 comments on the same topic:
“His [Freud’s] great and unique merit, to my mind, lies in his discovery of the method for exploring the unconscious and, more particularly, dreams. . . . I do not wish to belittle Freud’s achievement, but I feel I must be fair to all those who have wrestled with the great problems of medical psychology and who, through their labours, have laid the foundations without which neither Freud nor myself would have been able to accomplish our tasks. Thus Pierre Janet, August Forel, Theodore Flournoy, Morton Prince, Eugen Bleuler, deserve gratitude and remembrance whenever we speak of the first steps of medical psychology.”
Janet9 himself was quite blunt and said explicitly that Freud plagiarized his ideas though he changed the terminology.
Thus “psychological analysis” (Janet) became “psychoanalysis” (Freud), and Janet’s “restriction of consciousness” Freud called “repression.”
Janet also insisted that the doctrines of psycho-analysis “originated out of the studies mby French investigators concerning traumatic memories.“10
From these observations it might be concluded that Freud was familiar with Janet’s teaching during his stay in Paris.
This would be a mistake, for Janet’s first work appeared in 1889, and in the same year Charcot appointed him to take charge of the Psychological Laboratory at the Salpetriere.11
Janet was a prolific writer and published many books in the following years, and from what Freud himself has written it is certain that he was acquainted with Janet’s views, and for a time was impressed by them, though he never met him or heard his name mentioned during his visit to Paris.
Whatever may be thought of the Freud-Janet controversy one thing is beyond question-Freud’s mature work bore no resemblance to that of Janet.
“He may be said to have found his point of departure in Janet’s theory [but he] has travelled far from that point.”
Janet taught that neurosis affected those of inadequate constitution and was due to dissociation of consciousness.
His account of dissociation and its many forms was a valuable contribution to descriptive psychiatry, but unfortunately it was never clear how dissociation worked.
Freud’s entirely different explanation of the origin of symptoms through mental conflict and repression has to all intents and purposes been accepted by psychotherapists the world over.
E. A. B.
REFERENCES
Freud, S., An Autobiographical Study, 1935, p. 18. Hogarth Press, London.
2 Jones, Ernest, Sigmund Freud, Life and Work, 1953, 1, 25.-Hogarth Press, London.
3 Zilboorg, Gregory, and Henry, G. W., A History of Medical Psychology, 1941, p. 375. Norton & Co., New York.
Freud, S., Introductory Lectures, 1922, p. 218. Allen & Unwin, London.
Wittels, F., Sigmund Freud, His Personality, His Teaching, and His School, 1924, p. 34. Allen & Unwin, London.
6 Dalbiez, R., Psychoanalytical Method and the Doctrine of Freud, 1941, 1, p. 203. Longmans, Green, London.
Hart, Bernard, The Psychology of Insanity, 1930, 4th ed., p. 9. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
8 Jung, C. G., In The Development of Personality, Collected Works, 1954, edited by R. F. C. Hull, 17, 67. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
- Janet, Pierre, Principles of Psychotherapy, 1925, p. 41. Allen & Unwin, London.
10 Psychological Healing, 1925, 1 14. Allen & Unwin, London. 11 Chapter: Pierre Janet. In A History of Psychology in Autobiography, 1930-36, 1, 127, edited by Carl 11. A. Murchison. Clarke University Press, Worcester, Mass.
12 McDougall, William, Outline of Abnormal Psychology, 1926, p. 18. Methuen, London.
#AnalyticalPsychology #DepthPsychology #CarlJung #TheUnconscious #JungianPsychology #Psyche #JungianConcepts #PsychologicalType #Archetypes #Individuation