FEMALESEXUALITY

TheEarly Psychoanalytic Controversies

Editedby RussellGrigg, Dominique Hecq, andCroig Smith

KARNAC Contentg

Preface

Acknowledgments

Noteson the Editors lu

BiographicalNotes

lntrduction

Contributions to the Masculinity in Women 19 I,H.W.Van Ophuiisn

The Castration Complex 30 August Stiirckc

Manifestations of the Female Castration Complex 51 Karl Abralum

Origins and Growth of Object love 76 Karl Abralum

The Psychology of Women in Relation to the Functions 93 of Reproduction HeleneDeutsch

The Flight from Womanhood: The Masculinity- Complex in Women, as Viewed by Men and Women 107 ln KarenHorney c, )n A Contribution to the frobiem of Libidinal Development of the Genital Phasein Girls tz2 losineMiiller

The Genesisof the Feminine Super-Ego 129 CarI Miill er- Braunschweig

The Early Development of Female Sexuality 133 Ernestlones 10 Early Stagesof the Conflict 7M MelanieKlein

11 The Evolution of the in Women 159 The papers included r. hr leannelampl de Groot lnternationallournal ?; P Abraham's 'Origiru and G: 12 Womanlinessas a Masquerade 172 appeared in his SelecteJi loan Riaiere Homosexuality' appeared rr The PsychoarulyticQuarte,lt 13 The Significance of Masochism in the Mental Life of Johan van Ophuiysenple-: Women 183 women to the Dutch Psr':ro HeleneDeutsch Jones read a paper on ear Analytical Society. L4 The Pregenital Antecedents of the Oedipus Complex 195 Though thesepapens an uality, and though sorr.e n where, they have never b.efc t5 On FemaleHomosexuality 220 who has read these pap€s r HeleneDeutsch of femalesexuality. But rt s r thereare two further cons:de 1,6 The Dread of Woman: Observatioru on a Specific debate that take place b'errct Dfference in the Dread Felt by Men and Women siderableimpact ther' l'.ac c Respectively for the Opposite Sex 241 theses.The papershave a :le I(arenHorney today will alsoshow thei; ;o side psychoanalysison fer.a 17 The of the : a Contribution to the We have correcteC so: Problem of the Genital Specific to Women 253 spelling errors in the ongrn KarenHorney ly accessibleversions of :r.p the references.This rncluce 18 Passivity, Masochism and Femininity 26 been altered to volume ai'.d Marie Bonaparte CompletePsychologrcai 11."<.s Pressand the lnstitute ol 3sr 19 Early FemaleSexuality 275 The articleshave beer ;. Ernestlones of publication.The one e\.e opens the collection. Th:s :s Bibliography 2f]6 debatedin the literature ;ur

Index 293 nllict 745 Preface

Cornplexrn Women 159 The papers included in this collection wene originally published n The lnternational lournal of Psycho-Analysis,with two exceptions. 's 'Origins and Growth of Object-Love', central to the debate, : 172 appeared in his SelectedWritings and 's 'On Female Homosexuality' appearedin the first volume of the new American joumal, The PsychoaruIyticQuarterly. Th"y cover a period from Iune L917,when r rn the Mental Life of fohan van Ophuiisen presented his paper on the masculinity complex in 183 women to the Dutch Psycho-Analytical Society,to April 1935,when Emest Jones read a paper on early female sexuality to the Vierura Psycho- Analytical Society. 're Oedrpr.rsComplex 195 Though thesepapers are often referred to in discussionsof female sex- uality, and though some individual papers have been reproduced else- where, they have never before appearedtogether as a collection.Anyone 220 who has read these papers will be awaneof their importance to the topic of female sexuality.But it is not the theme alone that unifies the collection; there are two further considerationsof equal importance: the dialogue and lsons on a Specific debate that take place between the papers,from first to lasUand the con- i \ler. and Women siderable impact they had on the development of certain of 's key 5cr 247 theses.The papers have a clear historical interest, then, but rereading them today will also show their continuing relevanceto debateswithin and out- side psychoanalysison female sexuality. ntnbuuon to the We have corrected some minor typographical, grammatical and cr Specrf:c to Women 253 spelling errors in the original articles.Where subsequentand more readi- ly accessibleversions of important works are available,we have updated the references.This includes all referencesto Freud's work, which have .:'uruti' zffi been altered to volume and page number of The StandardEdition of the CompletePsychological Worlcs of SigmundFreud,24 vols. (London: Hogarth Pressand the lnstitute of Psycho-Analysis,7953'1974). 275 The articleshave beenplaced in chronologicalorder accordingto date of publication. The one exceptionto this is Van Ophuijsen'spaper, which opens the collection. This is becauseit was presentedand subsequently 2ft6 debatedin the literature, quite some time before appearingin print.

293 dgnnente Notes on the Editors rlrnel d Psycho-analysisfor permissionto Russell Gtigg is lectures in philosophy and co-ordinator of psychoana- Iytic shrdies at Deakin University. He is a psychoanalyst in piivate prac- c-crstraboncomplex." 3 (1920)pp.l-29. tice. Dr. Grigg has a PhD in and has published extensive- I ftrrininity." 16 (1935)pp.325-3-3. ly on Psychoanalysis. He is also known forhis hanslations of the seminars rn m rrledqr to the firnction of repnrduc- of JacquesLacan. surcr rn tire mental life of women.,, 1l Dominique Hecq-Murphy is a researchfellow in psychoanalytic studies at Deakin University. I Ar edipus cornplex.,,12 (1931) pp. lal- Dr. Hecq-Murphy has a Phfi in literature and a backgrotrnd in French and German, with qualifications in translating. She d $€ marulinity-complex in women, as has published in the field of literary studies and has had her own stories p32+J9 and poetry published. cqrtnb'uuqr to the problem of the genital ;-'c Craig Smith is a PhD candidate in rms an a specrficdifference in the drcad psychoanalytic studies at Deakin x qpoar scx." 13(1932) pp. 3a&60. University. He has degees in political science ito* the University of & s.nlit.'/. E O92n pp.tSe-+TZ. Melboume and Victoria University of Wellington. tes'pp2,6rn. .cn bct ' 9 (19?6lpp. 167-80. drt Oedrprrscomplex in women.,,lnt, J. n c,-:hd:nal dwelopmentof the genital hr frrsu:u rup€r-€go." 7 (1926).pp. 359_ c.rr:r.:i'compkr ln women.,' S (1924)pp, e '.i29tpp 30113. :9:: pp 1,9201

.rdv fa permrssionto publish

' \ba I t1932)pp.43+510.

Cqrrrri and DeakinUniversity for -usr rtionr repca; LtJorksol SignundFreud.2,1 Vols. r

Karl Abraham(7877 - 1925)

As a member of Freud's inner circle, the 'Committee', Karl Abraham played a prominent role in the developmentof psychoanalysis.Tiained as a psychiatrist,Abraham first met Freud in 1907and soon becamea close personal friend. Abraham established the first psychoanalytic practice in and, in 1910,founded the Berlin PsychoanalyticSociety. He quickly establisheda successfulpractice and was highly sought after as a training analyst. Among the analysts he trained wene , Helene Deutsch, Edward Glover, JamesGlover and S6ndor Rado. His untimely death in 1925prompted Freud to state that 'Abraham's death is perhaps the greatest loss that could strike us, and it has sbrrck us'. During his rel- atively short lifetime Abraham produced a number of important writings on psychoanalytictheory and practice.These have been published n The SelectedPapers of KnrI Abralum.

Marie Bonaparte0,882 - 1952)

Marie Bonapartewent to Vienna for an analysiswith Freud in 1925.She subsequently came to play a central role in institutionalising and expand- ing psychoanalysis in France, using her considerable wealth to support both the Psychoanalytic Society of Paris and the International PsychoanalyticalAssociation. ln 1938after Nazi 's annexationof Austria, Bonaparteplayed a leading role in securing Freud's passageout of Austria to Britain. She wrote widely on psychoanalysisand femalesex- uality, especiallyin relation to female anatomy.Her FemaleSexuality (1951) provides her most complete treahnent of this theme. '.

RuthMack Brunswick (1.897 - 1946)

An American, Ruth Mack Brunswick went to Vienna n 1922for an analy- sis with Freud. At that time she was married to a cardiologist named Hermann Blumgart from whom she separated while in Vienna. Though she is mainly known as one of Freud's patientsand pupils, shebegan prac- ticing as a psychoanalystin 1925.ln1926 Freud referred to her his patient SergeiPankeieff, better known as the 'WoU Man'. ln the words of Freud to his son Ernst, 'Ruth almost belongsto the family,' and in March L927Freud BiographicalNotes acted as witness when she married the composer Mark Brunswick. On tors in the determinabon of 1 Monday t4 September 1936,she filmed the Freuds'golden wedding cele- in two of her late, PoPuLarw' brations. Neurosisand Human Grott:h.

HeleneDeutsch (1884 - 1982) Ernestlones 0.879 ' 1958

Helene Deutsch spent her childhood in what is now Poland. In 1907 Freud's biographer,Ernest lo Deutsch enrolled at the University of Vienna to train as a doctor and went analysis.He was a malor hgr on to specialize in . By 1918 she had joined the Vierura of the British PsYcho-Analrtr Psychoanalytic Society and shortly afterwards began an analysis with Association and would -etr Freud. She rapidly came to prominence in the Society and in 1924 was PsychoanalyticalAssocta trat appointed head of the Society's newly established Training Institute. In Joneswas a prolific wnte: arx 1935Deutsch migrated to the United Statesto take up a position in Boston, He originally trained as a doc where she remained, teaching, writing and analysing until her death in ing into Frcud's circle arou:rd 1982.Her later views on female sexuality arc to be found in her two vol- suggestion that Fre\rd es"ebl ume work, The Psychologyof Womat 'Committee', made uP of thc lowers; and it was Jonesthet my faint-heartedness'.Or. *r Otto Fenichel(d898 - 1946) uality representa mator breal the first to term Freud's PtL Otto Fenichel was one of the younger members of the Berlin group. lished in his PaPersan .Prr Analyzed by the Hungarian analyst , Fenichel went on to Analysis. establish himseU as a highly regarded teacherand practitioner of psycho- analysis. His pedagogic reputation led to a number of positions in the 1930s,culminating in a training position in Los Angeles in 1938.Shortly MelanieKlein 0.882 - 19ffi before his prematut€ death at the age of 48, Fenichel published what has been described as a 'classictextbook' of psychoanalysis,The Psychoanalytic Klern has been one of the r.< Theoryof Neurosis, the history of psYctroanairsu p€rid, presentedshorth aft rn Vienna, but moved to H KarenHorney (1885 - 1952) S6ndor Ferenczi.After tl:e r moved again, this time to Bc Karen Homey trained as a doctor at the University of Berlin and went on rt'ith Karl Abraham. Around to train in psychiatry and psychoanalysis.She was in analysis with Karl trhnique in order to facriru Abraham and then Hans Sachs.ln resporrseto the rise of Nazisrn in 1932 also introduced new concePt Homey migrated to the United States,first to Chicago under the sponsor- choanalysts,esPeciallv rn rq ship of Franz Alexander, then to New York. ln t94l the New York rn inJancy. Hgr numerous P Psychoanalytic lnstitute withdrew her name as a training analyst and edtbon, The Wntingsof !rlt-z' instnrctor. Horney resigned and was active in founding an alternative group, the American Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis. In the United Statesher work came increasingly to emphasisecultural fac- BiographicalNotes 3

I the compos€r Mark Brunswick. On tors in the determination of psychopathology. This is particularly evident red the Frcuds' golden wedding cele- in two of her late, popular work, Tlrc Nanrotic Personalityof Our Time and, Neurosisand Human Groutth.

Ernestlonu 0879 - 1958) rd rn what is now Poland. l^ lgOT Freud's biographer, Ernest fones was a relentlesscampaigner for psycho- | \tenru to train as a doctor and went analysis. He was a maior figure in the fonnding and subsequent running ' 1918 she had joined the Vienna of the British Psycho-Analytical Society and the American Psychoanalytii eJterwards began an analysis with Association and would later become president of the lntemational srre rn the Society and in 1924 was Psychoanalytical Association for an unequalled terrr of seventeenyears, vlv established Training tnstitute. In Joneswas a prolific writer and noted polemicist in psychoanalytic matters. Sates to take up a position in Boston, He originally trained as a doctor and specializeclin psychiatry befonecom- ng and analysing until her death in ing into Frcud's circle around the same time as Karl Abraham. It was at his nirw are to be found in her two vol- suggestion that Freud established the secret irurer group known as the 'committee', made up of the 'best and most tnrstworthy' of Freud,s fol- lowers; and it was |ones that Freud described as 'a fanatic who smiles at my faint-heartedness'.On the hand, Jones'swritings on female sex- uality representa major break with Freud's position, reiecting what he was the first to term Freud's ''. Jone's papers have been pub- rt?r Etembers of the Berlin group. lished in his Papns on Psycho-Atulysis and Es*ys in Applied psycho- r Sandor Rado, Fenichel went on to Analysis, J racher and practitioner of psycho- ,cd to a nunber of positions in the bcr rn Lc Angeles in 1938.Shortly MelanieKlein 0.882 - 1950) e of {6, F.enichelpublished what has cf psvchoanalysis, TlrcP sychoanaly tic Klein has been one of the most influential, albeit controversial, figures in the history of psychoanalysis.The paper included here is from her early period, presented shortly after she had settled in London. Klein was bom in Vierura, but moved to Hungary in Lgw and entered analysis with S6ndor Ferenczi. After the counter-revolution in Budapest in 1919 she moved again, this time to Berlin, where she undertook a further analysis jt Unrversity of Berlin and went on with Karl Abraham. Around this time Klein b"g* developing the play ilsrs She was in analysis with Karl technique in order to facilitate analysis with very young children. Klein ipons€ to the rise of Nazism in 1932 also inhoduced new concepts and a new emphasis in orientation for psy- , first to Chicago under the sponsor- choanalysts,especially in regard to the emergenceof psychical processes rert' York. york In l94l the New in infancy. Her ntunerous publicatiors have appeared in a four-volurne er naste as a training analyst and edition, The Witings of Melanie Klein. s active in founding an altemative he Advancementof Psychoanalysis. creasrnglyto emphasisecultural fac- BiographicalNofes

n'i leanneLampl de Groot fl894 -1987) PsychoanalyticSocretv PsychoanalyticalAssoc:a h a feanne de Groot was a Dutch doctor who went to Vienna in 1921to have an analysis with Freud. In 1925she married Haru Lampl and moved to '-i Berlin where she began working at the Berlin PsychoanalyticClinic. It was lolwnH. W,tnn OPhu;''*t' on Freud's advice that at the end of August 1933Jeanne Lampl de Groot and family (now including two daughters) moved back to Vienna. Another memberof the D-rlc Following the arrnexation of Austria in 1938,they moved again, this time (formerly the Dutch Ea-'t t ot to JearureLampl de Groot's native Holland, where they continued their Netherlandsfrom the agP psychoanalyticwork. rology and psycfuatn',r+':th co-foundedthe D,rtch Psr::r and others,as well as org;r:L!: :c losineMtiller Q.884- 1,930) lvststhere in 1920,the f::st emigratedto the UrutedS:att Josine Mriller, n6e Ebsen, studied medicine in Freiburg and Munich. ln a numberof PsYchiatncrs: 1911she settled in Berlin where she undertook studies in biochemistry and m neuro-biology 31d ;5" c!'x completed her own researchin physiological chemistry. From L9l2 to 1915 behind plans for a researci^Pr she was an intem at the Women and Children's Hospital, specializir,g in vesand their pathologr' infectious diseases.She then moved to the Dr Friinkel-Olivens Sanatorium to complete her training in the arca of neurrclogicalpsychiatry. Her inter- est in psychoanalysisdeveloped when she moved to Berlin, where she set loon Riaiere0.883 ' 196: up her own medical practicein 1915.Her work as a doctor is said to have become increasingly influenced by her interest in psychoanalysis, and JoanRiviere was analvec :::1 more particularly in the area of early female sexuality and psychosexual nl922.In 191.9,at Jones rr\'1 development. She is probably best known for her articles on this topic. bersof the British Psvchoar.a JosineMtiller underwent an analysiswith Abraham in 1912-1913and with from a family with schoia:ir' t}.a Hans Sachsbetween L923and 1925. famesStrachey to remark class,cultured, late \ictor:a d ressmaker,Riviere imr.e r- Carl MilIler-Braunschweigfi881 - 195il analysis.Aside from her :aI her outstandingtranslahor's Carl Miiller-Braunschweig first studied philosophy and, after completing and Alix StracheY),as r+'e-. a doctoral dissertation, published several papers on Kantian ethics. He joumals which were Pub-: gave up a career as a philosophy lecturer to pursue his work in psycho- Internationallournal o.fPsz:; analysis, although his interest in Kant never abated. For example in 1953- publishedas TheInner l\';'': 1954he lectured on 'Freud and Kanh Psychoanalysisand a Philosophy of Morals'. Mtiller-Braunschweig underwent analyses with both Karl Abraham and Hans Sachsand from the 1920sonward becamea key figure AttgustStiirckl fi88A - 19:.i in the Berlin Psychoanalytic Society. Controversy surrounds the role Mtiller-Braunschweig played in accomrnodating the Nazi authorities' August Stdrcke was oi'.e demand for the 'aryanization'of psychoanalytic societiesduring the 1930s. PsychoanalYticSocietv He After the war Mtiller-Braunschweig helped re-establish the Berlin cializing in PsYchiatn'ar. BiographicalNotes

Psychoanalytic Society which was readmitted to the International PsychoanalyticalAssociation in 1951. r who went to Vienna in 1921to have l married Haru Lampl and moved to tre Berhn PsychoanalyticClinic. It was lolnn H. W. uan Ophuijsen(1.882 - 1gS0) iAugust 1933Jearure Lampl de Groot daughten) moved back to Vienna. Another member of the Dutch group, van Ophuiisenwas born in Sumatra r n 1936,they moved again, this time (formerly the Dutch East Indies) and continued his schooling in the Holland, where they continued their Netherlands from the age of thirteen. He went on to study medicine, neu- rology and psychiatry with a particular interest in psychoses.In 1917he co-founded the Dutch PsychoanalyticSociety along with August Starcke and others,as well as organising the intemational congressof psychoana- Iysts there rnt920, the first to be held after the First World War.In 1935he emigrated to the United Stateswhere he worked on the psychiatricstaff of ncdnne in Freiburg and Munich. ln a number of psychiatric institutions. Van Ophuiisen never lost his interest ndcrtmk studies in biochemistry and in neuro-biology and psychoanalysis, and when he died in 1950 he left oiogrcal chemistry. From lgl}to 1915 behind plans for a researchprogram to study the somaticcauses of the dri- t Cluldr€n's Hospital, specializing in ves and their pathology. o &re Dr Frinkel-Olivens Sanatorium of netuologrcal psychiatry. Her inter- n /1883 she moved to Berlin, where she set loan Riaiere - 1962) Her work as a doctor is said to have iu rnterest in psychoanalysis,and JoanRiviere was analyed first by Emest jones in 191s,and then by Freud i' fesrale sexuality and psychosexual n l922.In 1.919,at Jones'invitation, she becameone of the founding mem- sloh-r. for her articles on this topic. bersof the British PsychoanalyticalSociety. Bomfoan Verrall,Riviere came nrth Abraham in 1912-1913and with from a family with scholarly connectionsto Cambridg+-a fact which led JamesStrachey to remark that they had both comeout of the samemiddle- class,cultured, late Victorian box. After a brief caneeras a professional dressmaker,Riviere imrnersedhersef in the shrdy and practiceof psycho- analysis.Aside from her papers,pethaps her greatestcontribution lies in her outstanding translationsof Freud's works (in conjunction with ed philcophy James and, after completing and Alix Strachey), as well as translations from the Zeitscbift and lmago vaa.l papers on Kantian ethics. H; journals which were published under her editorial guidance in the turer to pursue his work in psycho_ lnternationallournal of Psycho-Analysis.Her collected papers have been t rEver abated. For example in 1953_ published as Thelnner Worldand loan Riviere. Psv'choandysisand a philosophy of lerwent analyses with botti Karl p 1920sonward becamea key figure AttgustStiirclcc 0.880 - 1954) tl Contrlversy surrounds the role omrnodating the Nazi authorities, August Stircke was one of the founding members of the Dutch roarulyhc societiesduring the 1930s. PsychoanalyticSociety. He completed his early training as a doctor spe- rg helped re-establish the Berlin cializing in psychiatry and unlike the other contributors listed here, BiographicalNota

Stdrtke always saw himself primarily as a psychiatrist rather than as a psychoanalyst.Stiircke produced numerous papers on issuesranglng from psychoanalysis to neurology and psychiatry, with his last paper, an intriguingly titled 'Thete Will Never Be Peacein Nomenclature', intended for publication in an entomologcal journal. Tfuoughout his r+'ori fesrale sexuality. At fust rrc social factors,he rncreasrngJ ogy of women and tlre netr ascribedthe'impenetrabie o to the 'stunting effect of or tional secretivenessand ysr 1908he made a simrlar, Cror nty ls said to be due to uil and intemal nature'.r However,much later,vr'l hfe of women is "'a dark cq fertininity' is ib€lf a ndch applicability of the oedrpai Freud says appearscontrad.r phallus for both s€xes,fr€ rt', only as it affects the mare d gul are not known to us t Jtr srnce,as fames Stracher no{ completeparallel in th€ ps) C It app€ar that the basrsfor E from the case of the httle b< accordingly.The remark usgr none of Freud's initial drxol rt'rth women pabenb-recri hrstory of . lndeed, Cq rious and the techrugueci p to which the question of fern s the key? Moreover,Jarne attention to feminine psvcho mrsleadinS.6lAlhile it s rrue I of males, such a clarm has t texts in which Freud deals r.' allty. It meanisneglectrng ti'c on compulsive actionsand u lntroduction

Throughout history people have .lly ." a psychiatrist rather than as a knocked their heads against the Er€rous paperEon issuesranglng from riddle of the nature of femininityt psychiary, with his last paper, an r 8e Peacein Nomenclature', intended purnal. Throughout his work Freud repeatedly declared his ignorance of female sexuality. At fi$t inclined to regard this ignorance as being due to social factors, he increasingly came to view it as arising from the psychol- ogy of women and the nature of femininity itself. Early on, in 1905,he ascribed the'impenetrable obscurity' sunounding female sexuality Partly to the 'stunting effect of civilised conditions' and partly to the 'conven- tional secretivenessand iruhcerity' of women.z Some three years later in 1908he made a similar, though less specific, comrnent, where this obscu- rity is said to be due to 'unfavourable circumstancesboth of an external and intemal nahrre'.3 However, much later, when the explanation given for why the sexual life of women is "'a dark continent" for psychology' is that the 'nature of femininity' is itself a riddle, Freud adopb a new caution regarding the applicability of the Oedipal model to the little girl., In point of fact, what Freud says appears contradictory: even as he rcfers to the primacy of the phallus for both sexes,he wams that 'we can describe this state of things only as it affects the male child; the corresponding processesin the little girl are not known to us'.5This last remark is a very sulprising one indeed, since, as fames Strachey notes, Freud had over many years spoken of a complete parallel in the psychosexualdevelopment of the sexes-and now it appears that the basis for this view was that he had simply extrapolated from the case of the little boy to that of the girl, changing the positions accordingly. The remark is even morlesurprising on another count. Almost none of Freud's initial discoveries can be dissociated from his early work with women patients-recall the women of Studieson Hysteria, the case history of Dora. lndeed, doesn't Freud owe his discovery of the uncon- scious and the technique of psychoanalysis to his encounter with hysteria, to which the question of female sexuality and , even female identity, is the key? Moreovet JamesStrachey's claim that Freud did not direct his attention to fot fifteen years after Dora is somewhat rnisleading.6lA/hile it is true that all Freud's casestudies of this period are of males, such a claim has to consider as inconsequential the numerous texts in which Freud deals with women or issuesrelevant to female sexu- ality. It means neglecting the women patients discussedin the IW7 article on to^pulsive actions and in the Introductoryltctures on Psycho-Analysis FemaleSennlity: TheEarly PsychoanalyticControaersies of 1916-1917,just as it meansignoring the discussionof issuesrelevant to cussions for clinical issues T*' female sexuality in his article on hysterical fantasies(1908) and hysterical both revolving around the cc attacks(1909), as well asthe 1917piece on the transformationof drives and thirties,'Female Sexuahh' the article on the taboo of virginity of the following year. In all these Introductoryltctures, whcxe rn places,and others as well, Freud is repeatedlytouching on related issues, 'Analysis Terminable anc ht and, moreover,begfuuting to articulateclaims that will subsequentlymake posthumous Oulline o.fPsv:nn their way into his later writings and that are at the heart of the controver- While some of the PaF'ers sy on female sexuality. papers,'The lnfantile Genrtal( For it is obvious that in the 1920sFreud's thinking on this issue takes the Oedipus Complex' (191{ t a new turn. Somethingchanges fundamentally, as is indicated both by his thesetwo important contnbut abandonmentof the earlier symmetry of the Oedipus complex and by his the debatetakes on a hfe ol :ts accompanyinginsistence upon the cenhality of the phallic phasefor both It is a disPute that socrt sexes-a fundamental reorientation that marks everything that Freud rnvolving psychoanalvhccrrci henceforth writes on the subjectof female sexuality.One of many conse- Hague and Paris.The contro\'" quences of this is a development that occurs in 1931 when, gradually, debate'. However, at least c'tr r Freud comesto the realisation of something that he had been unable to see dnagreement reiects thrs .Wr before: that behind the woman's entire sexual development lies the little lected here it becoms'5,elr'tot girl's attachmentto the'prc-oedipal' . He henceforthappropriately unacknowledged th rou ghcn: t. praisesthe work of women analystsand explainshis ignoranceas a prob- Abraham's clinical PaPen rr lem of counter-.That is to say,while it is true that Freud never here is the concePtthat *'ould relinquisheshis belief in the importance of for female sexuali- al developmentand eventuaUr ty; in AnalysisTerminable and lnterminablehe describesthe 'suspicion that Oedipus complex and the cast one has been "preaching to the winds" . . . when one is trying to persuade becomesclear over the ceun a woman to abandon her wish for a penis',2in his late work he neverthe- camps: those who, hke Helet less also stressesthe significancefor female sexuality of an intense and Mack Brr,nswick and Mane l enduring attachment to the pre.oedipal mother-an attachment that oppose him. Amongst the Lar marks all subsequentlove objects,includitg, most importantly, the attach- students:Karen Hornev and \ ment to the Oedipal father. What also becomes clear Yet despiteall the positive statementsand claims,nothing characteris- aUegedlymarginal figures :t es Freud's position with respectto female sexuality better than his quei- and not only in relation to tne tion: WaswiII das Weib?, What does a woman want? For classicalpsycho- courseand develoPmentoi Fr analysisfemale sexuality has remained the great riddle. And Freud seeks ality-the contribution bl FA comfort in the observationthat it has always been the same 'throughout after the publication of hrs r history'. also be mentioned that sor.e l There is however another way of viewing what Freud is doing, indi- srs such as fohan van OPi^.uu cated by the remark that'psychoanalysisdoes not try to describewhat a crucial contributions. woman is, but setsabout inquiring how she comesinto being'.nFor, how- ln a letter of SePtember1! ever many issuesthere are that arise in the course of the discussionsof rng on a versiqn of femrn:nr:r' femalesexuality, what remainsfundamentally at stakein the debate,when from the pseudo-rience of !{ all is said and done, is the issueof castration.It is the key to the little girl's dle that Freud introduces i"-rs negotiating the Oedipus complex and thus to many further aspectsof the ulation of more than a ieca nature and developmentof femininity and, in tum, it has important reper- becauseFreud quotes frorr. a ) syc hm tu Iyt i c Co ntr oaers ies lntroduction rng the drscussionof issuesrelevant to cussionsfor clinical issues.TWo crucial texts on the question of femininity, rsterrcalfantasies (1908) and hysterical both revolving arotrnd the castration complex in girls, appear in the early eceon the transformationof drives and thirties, 'Female Sexuality' and the lecture on 'Femininity' in Neru rn' of the following year. In all these lntrductory kctures, whose material is briefly re-visited five yearslater in repeatedlytouching on related issues, 'Analysis Terminable and lnterminable' and also in Chapter 7 of the ate clarmsthat will subsequentlymake posthumous Orfldne of Psychmnalysis, d :hat are at the heart of the controver- While some of the papers included in this collection predate Freud's papers, 'The Infantile Genital Organisation' (1923)and 'The Dissolution of trs Freud's thinking on this issue takes the Oedipus Complex' (1924),the controversy was really triggered by ri,amentally,as is indicated both by his these two important contributions. As a consequenceof their publication try of the Oedipus complex and by his the debate takeson a life of its own in the late 1920s. centralitv of the phallic phasefor both It is a dispute that soon takes on the proportions of a controversy n that marks everything that Freud rnvolving psychoanalytic circles frorn Vienna to London, via Berlin, The female sexuality.One of many conse- Hague and Paris.The controversy is usually referred to as the 'Freud-fones ..:.tatoccurs ln 1931 when, gradually, debate'. However, at least one recent re-examinationof the terms of the nneth:ngthat he had beenunable to see disagreementrejects this.s And indeed, when one reads the articles col- '.hre s€xualdevelopment lies the little lected here it becomesobvious that the real dispute, though it remains I nnother.He henceforthappropriately unacknowledged throughout, is between Freud and Abraham, with one of i ar.d explarnshis ignoranceas a prob- Abraham's clinical papers bei^g central to the controversy.roObject-love: :c sa\',while it is true that Freud never here is the concept that would enable a re-thinking of female psychosexu- :ar.ceof penrsenvy for female sexuali- al development and eventually a theorizing of the aficulation between the ::nzbiehe describesthe 'suspicionthat Oedipus complex and the castrationcomplex in the little girl. It gradually :t-( when one is trying to persuade becomes clear over the course of the debate that there are really two t prenus','in his late work he neverthe- camps: those who, like Helene Deutsch, JearmeLampl De Groot, Ruth rr fenale sexualityof an intenseand Mack Brunswick and Marie Bonaparte,support Freud, and those who :ed:pal mother-an attachment that oppose him. Amongst the latter are Ernest Jonesand two of Abraham's

is no causefor surprise that boys retain that obiect in the Oedipus gul's disappointnnent ai nol complex. But how doesit happen that girls abandonit and instead the primary eviderrce ior take their father as an object?zo Questions of a general run upon anatornical deshnr' C Both the 1931 paper on 'Female Sexuality', and the 1932 lecture on tl€ girl a castrated little bor' 'Femininity'are further explorationsof this topic, but rather than focusing to the male dnve whrch s on the outcomeof the Oedipus complex as did Freud's writings from 7923 opposed to active? Are tlres to 1925(wibress the precedingquotation, which was written in 1925),they ment of the Oedipus comct focus on the entry into the Oedipus complex and thus emphasize the pre- ls it ever dissolved? All th€ oedipal relationshipof the little girl to her mother: 'With the small girl it is the debate raises further. n different. Her first object,too, was her mother. How doesshe find her way *'hat castration me:rns hert' to her father?How, when and why did she detachherseU from her moth- rlhat the obiect symbolues' er?'zrThis question leads to others:'What does the little girl require of her trabon or the fear of losng t mother? What is the nature of her sexualaims during the time of exclusive an answer is-what sF'ecrJ attachment to her mother?'2zAlthough the question remains to establish F:eud keeps quiet whrie hrs how it is that the little girl changeslove objects,Freud now tracesthe diF $rng mtssing rn hrs thecn ferent stagesinvolved in this change, focusing on the reasonsfor the first an understandrng of casirat attachmentto the mother rather than working out why she should secure r the penis: castrahon Lq iN a secondaryattachment to the father. He now suggeststhat the little girl Ophuiisen's pap€r on tl^.er- progressesdirectly from an attachment to her mother to one onto the K concept.:: But if thrs s so father: consequentlyher Oedipus complex is a later developmentand one :urrplex no longer explar:rs that is often not surmounted. This means that the consequencesfor the s but one rn a s€nes of scpt Oedipus complex, the phallic phase, castration and the way they are nFht rn reductng it to au4tr.: linked are different for each of the sexes-Freud's comments about the { ne\r' direction needs :o : super-ego, mentioned above, being very much to the point. But as he rsked. implies in 7932,this further shift in emphasis is one of the main conse- l\ihat reallv foctrses the quencesof the 1920scontroversy within the larger field of psychoanalysis. r-L how does the little gul Thus, for Freud, the castrationcomplex is the secretof the distinction mi tum to her father? T'r:s between the sexes.Although he postulatesan irmate ,he does :=e:r one of Ure kev eu€sttr not assumean innate masculinity or femininity. Moreovet there is only rg6r1's.:{The most relevant 1 one libido: the male one. The papers we have included in this collection rrs stagps of sexual orFarlz are testimony to the objectionsthat are bound to arisewith a theory of cas- rrual development: tration which eschews anatomical dispositions, innate propensities, as well as issuesof identification and of a possiblepsychology of sexualdiF r.an r *54trrl Ct1r.Jr^r'rr ference,not to mention the significanceof hereditary and environmental .' F:a. C*nrtalStage factors.These obiections revolve around three axes:the nature of female . E-r:'ir- Cecrta!S:rge sexuality; the presuppositionthat fernininity is defined by a libido which fJ.r i is male and primarily phallic; and the mother

Note that all the participants in the controversy discuss this passagF And yet, here there s ais< all, that is, with the single exception of Freud. ln this clinical paper where s placed incrcasingly up*, th Abraham investigatesthe castrationcomplex in two women ('X' and 'Y') point that Freud reforrrulates with symptoms of melancholia he not only tracesthe genesisof penis envy cdipal terms: 'how' rather tu to a at the oral stage,but also suggests,by drawing parallels with By l9?5, it is with great rel' symptoms observed in men, and by teasing out some general conclusions, Complex; it is becauseof her t that both sexesfear castration-hence making a literal understanding of now outshines the mother thr penis envy somewhat redundant. tr fact, Abraham's understanding of established.In the contnb'ubc penis envy links up perfectly with Stircke's premise that weaning is the momentousturn. It moves an' primary loss. So Freud remains silent while others (Fenichel, Homey, the sexesto a dirussion of rt'i Klein, Jones,and even Deutsch) adopt some of Abraham's terms or ideas considered in isolation fror. ti (the identification with the father as caruribalistic incorporation of the an essentialismrooted rn broh phallus; object love; oral sadism as the causeof penis envy) and grapple characterizng feminiruh, Lsn with them, reiect, or develop them-perhaps most striking in this respect plex as the overdeterrtrned sr is Fenichel in 'The Pregenital Antecedents of the Oedipus Complex'.x Some argue that the conttr Worth considering here too are Abraham's discussions of partial love as rnvited to Vierura to shed g preliminary to object-love on the one hand and of identification on the between British and Vienne othet which sEemto anticipate Freud's differentiation between primary But perhapsit is moneaccurlts and secondaryidentifications. rulated, in Freud's 1931and I It is now obvious why the ernphasisof the debateshifts to the much between London and Vienru r neglected issue of the little girl's relationship with her mother, and hence *re political climate rn Eurog to the nature of female sexualiry and away from the construction of sexu- rcsearchor neconciliabon.iorrc al difference. Obvious too is the neasonwhy arguments become more he says, on the disagreements intense with Freud's insistence on the phallic phase in his work on 'The r the first in a series of erche Dissolution of the Oedipus Complex'. But it is as though the controversy trcs of psychoanalysrs.O*'ng is now taking place on two levels.It is as though Freud is now alone. For r.'as the only one, and so :l both Freud's opponents and his defenderslook for answersin biology or dcbateto be made dunng Frct anatomy even though they take object-relationsas the focus of their dis- In addition to the aUur c cussions. sst important debateto taie In point of fact Freud reactedby accusing his opponents of looking for Lf?tirne, indeed up to the rrnc answersoutside the psychoanalyticfield of inquiry disapproving of what gessionatenespons€s conrn'cnt might be called this return of biology. he time. The papers collected I Co they throw light on the ear I object to all of you [Mtiller-Braunschweig,Horney, Jones,Rado, T'. they also compel the rcader etc.l to the extent that you do not distinguish mot€ clearly and th" hght that brings back rr to I cleanly between what is psychic and what is biological, that you hose whoee names ane mris try to establisha neat parallelism between the two and that you, f.cninrnity'. It is inde€d ?uz2 motivated by such intent, unthinkingly construe psychic facts x.knowledges.hisdebt: rn b'oti which are unprovable and that you, in the processof so doing, crhers altogether, gets papers must declareas reactiveor regr€ssivemuch that without doing so cther contributors without sr is primary. . . .ln addition, I would only like to emphasizethat we hrps, that he app€arsas the tn must keep psychoanalysisseparate from biology just as we have ervchoanalysis.In 1931he ack kept it separatefrom anatomy and physiology.zo Psy c h uru Iy tic Controaersies Introduction 15 r the controversy discuss this passage- And yet, here there is also a turning point in Freud's work: emphasis n of Freud. In this clinical paper where is placed increasingly upon the mother-child dyad. [t is, moreover, at this n complexin two women ('X' and 'Y') point that Freud reformulates the question of the substitution of obiectsin not only tracesthe genesisof penis envy oedipal terms: 'how' rather than '*hy' the little girl changeslove obiects.zz risosuggpsts, by drawing parallels with By t925, it is with great reluctancethat the little girl enters the Oedipus v teaslngout somegeneral conclusions, Complex; it is becauseof her penis envy that she tums to her father who encemaking a literal understanding of now outshines the mother; the lack of symmetry between the sexesis now Ln fact, Abraham's understanding of established. In the contributions that follow the issue takes a subtle but r Starcke'spremise that weaning is the momentous turn. It moves away fiom the issue of the distinction between srlent whiie others (Fenichel, Homey, the sexesto a discussion of what defines masculinity and femininity, each iopt some of Abraham's terms or ideas considercd in isolation from the other; a diacritical approach gives way to r as cannibalistic incorporation of the an essentialism rooted in biology. It would seem that penis envy, far from s the caus€of penis envy) and grapple characterizng femininity, is now nothing other than the castration com- ,-perhaps most striking in this respect plex as the overdetermined symptom in guls. rtecedentsof the Oedipus Complex'.zs Some argue that the controversy readres its peak in 1935,when ]ones, )raha.sr'sdiscussions of partial love as invited to Vienna to shed some light on the growing disagreements qre hand and of identification on the between British and Vienneseanalysts, offers a talk on female sexuality.za eud's differentiation between primary But perhapsit is more accurateto seethe controvery sealed,if not encap- sulated, in Freud's 1931and 1932essys on the topic. In any case,a split phass of the debateshifts to the much between London and Vienna is morc than obvious in 1935.And by then, :.auorship with her mother, and hence the political climate in Europe carurot be said to be conducive to either rd away from the constructionof sexu- researchor neconciliation.Jones's visit to Vienna in 1935to read a paper, as leason why arguments become more he says, on the disagreementsbetween london and Vienna was intended tre phallic phase rn his work on 'The as the first in a series of exchangesbetrn'een the two most important cen- ex . But it is as though the controversy tres of psychoanalysis. ortitg to the deteriorating situation in Europe it it rs as though Freud is now alone. For was the only one, and so it became the last major contribution to the tenders look for answersin biology or debateto be made during Freud's lifetime. rrct-relabons as the focus of their dis- In addition to the allure of the freshnessand topicality of the single most important debateto take place inside psychoanalysisduring Freud's r acflrsrng his opponents of looking for lifetime, indeed up to the time when facques l,acan revives it, there are the : rieid of inquiry, disapproving of what passionateresporu;es contributed by analysts from all parts of Europe at ry the time. The papers collected here are significant for two reasons:not only do they throw tight on the early controversy surnounding female sexuali- 'aunschweig,Horney, Jones, Rado, ry they also compel the rcader to re.read Freud's work in a different light, not distinguish morleclearly and the light that brings back into full view the ideas or conceptsbelonging to r and wtut is biological, that you those whose names are missing from Freud's 'Female Sexuality' and isr ben reen the two and that you, 'Femininity'. It is indeed puzzling to see the partial way in which Freud thnkrngly construe psychic facts acknowledgeshis debh in both papershe mentions certainnames, ignores t vou, in the processof so doing, others altogether, gets papers by the same person confused, alludes to essivemuch that without doing so other contributors without mentioning them by name, making sure, per- uid only like to emphasizethat we topr, that he appear as the tnre and only father of this new sciencecalled iratefrom biology just as we have psychoanalysis.In 1931he acknowledgesthe work of thosewhom, except rnd phvsiology.zo 16 FemaleSexuality: The Early PsychoanalyticControaersies for Deutsch, of course, we might now see as his opponents: Abraham, but in our view more fu-nd, Lampl de Groot, Fenichel,Klein, Horney and fones. But he omits to men- researchhas an affinirv n r'-h tion those who made the most valuable contributions in conceptualterms through', resistance,ani ret'. (except for Abraham, but he is no longer alive): van Ophuijsen, Stiircke, strengthsof this collectrontlr Mack Brunswick and Riviere. ln 1932,only three contributors are named; community of psychoanalr-sr all are women, which is perhapsexplicable by the fact that the lecturepart- ty of this analytic processtsr ly aims at dissipating suggestionsof .But how should we under- onecan find what is sFec:::c stand the omissions and confusions?Is Freud, in the name of psycho- analysis,taking as his own the product of researchprompted by his own RussellGrigg findings? It is only in the light of the papers presented here in this collec- DominiqueHecq tion that it is possibleto uncover the answer to such questions. CraigSmith Given that it all happenedmore than threequarters of a century ago, our position is necessarilyat a distancefrom the cross-firingof arguments Notes within the early controversyabout femininity. But it is important to main- Srgmund Freud,'Femtnrrun :n tain this distance,for our concernis to suggestwhy the argument around * ltJ. the issueof castrationwas needed,and henceto show how legitimate the : -,:r?r Essryson lfu Tharnl .. Yz a : controversywas. Ultimately, our concem is to foreground the terms of the ' On the SexualTheonesof Cl':'C- controversy in order to presentFreud's conceptualframework from with- ' Femrninity',SE 22.113 ' the lnfantileGenital Organ:::xr in the perspectiveof the exchangesthat made it possible,as well as to sug- )ssolutron of the Oedrpus C:-1, gestnew points of view, if not new starting points, in the current re-exam- { :r.tom tcal Dstinchon Bertt'es:'fr ination of female sexuality.This is why we have adopted a chronological ' !drtor's noteto 'PsvchrcaiCr.^.req. ' ordering of what we consider as the significant material produced by the jt22252. I f..; main contributors to the controversy-all except for Freud, but it goes Intductory Lzctura SE :: : ] 'Sct for lnstancelulietMrtctrei. rrC without saying that, given the intellectual interaction that occurred from 'z-an Fradrnnc (MacmrlJan ---no around L920up to the mid-thirties, his own contributions should be read v={Ellbrieflv explainsr+'hr \t:: r alongside this collection. r ir'rumro of the debate *a \1r (Seuil: While Freud insisted on the distinction between psychoanalysisand 1rn'st Pans,1992t Krrl Abraham,'Ongrr.s r-: insisted ': Sc biology, he also on the reciprocalinfluence of psychical and bio- (192{).Repnnted belc't in --brdc logical events the course of adaptation to sexual stages.Thus even ;-.rd-\iereck 219.1930, Tn - t-, though Freud exhortedhis follow"trio keeppsychoanalysG separateirom *'ttdsn The Hogarth Press.i-l : biology, the fundamental question about sexual difference that children : -r C:mpietePxms o.lHe"t ::t^s ' ask, is also the one adults reformulate on the couch,dealing with the very --nrnmrt)".SE lql29 (errpt:ss Jr Ttreorresof C: d: nature of sexuality: are there indeed psychical consequencesto the ' Cr. Sexual r{ e penrsrn c}uldrgn ; i:5 anatomicaldifference between the sexes?zg -rrrrrtrr r::nt het'rngrt (p 21t Apart from the question of femininity, there remains one riddle - sE:: :ra;5 1e though. What was it that causedFreud's blindnessin the areaof feminin- " -::fmtrle Cenrtal OrBa::z,r:r: ' i\< ity, and more particularly his delay in recognizng the crucial mother- nr-:l'rrl Cortseguerres llr r -A-'r Cs ttre lrttle grr'1clrr:ic r daughter dyad? Was this inadequacydictated by Freud's own masculini- t tcr,icrtron.'ttough r ir. :rrr:r ty and statusas father,as, ultimately, he and otherssuggest, or by the phal- a*r.r- .: derhng rlrth Ure i=:qC locentric and patrocentricnature of psychoanalysisas he conceivedit,3) by .:rf--r:: :: r frct motlpr+coc ,t t ':. his self-diagnosedhysteria,rt by his hysterical phobia as diagnosed by trr =n:*'g. drfhc;ltr :?t:: ' :rr'-tr: r::h Fre.rd s 6(ai '- .a: Didier Anzieu?.32Perhaps some or even all of thesefeatures played a role; i I ;r:!-.: !Oin"r^l'a: tf*C :- i] r!+ra--.. '\--8ir T: €-,?n.:'-i lft Psv c hu nnlytic Co ntroaer sies Introduction 17 t now s€e as his opponents: Abraham, but in our view more fundamental is the fact that Freud's approach to Horney and fones.But he omits to men- researchhas an affinity with the analyticalprocess itself, with its 'working- luablecontributions in conceptualterms through', resistance,and refurn of the repressed.And it is one of the great o longer alive): van Ophuijsen, Stiircke, strengthsof this collection that it shows how this approachpermeates the 1932,only three contributors are named; community of psychoanalystsof his day. It is perhaps in the inseparabili- rplicable by the fact that the lecturepart- ty of this analytic processitself from the discoveriesmade in its name that of mrsogyny.But how should we under- one can find what is specificto the method of psychoanalysis. qrs? [s Freud, in the name of psycho- oduct of researchprompted by his own RussellGrigg the paperspresented here in this collec- DominiqueHecq the answer to such questions. CraigSmith rre than tfueetquarters of a centuty ago, taff€ from the cross-firingof arguments Notes t femrnrnity.But it is important to main- : Sigmund Frcud, 'Femininity', in Netu lntrcductoryLectures on Psycho'Analysis(193&t), SE rs to suggestwhy the argument around 2.:113. t. and henceto show how legitimate the : ThreeEsrys on theTheory of Sexuality(1905d), SE 7:151. :oncernis to foreground the terms of the ' 'On the SexualTheories of Children' (1908c),SE 9:211. { 'Femininity', eud's conceptualframework from with- SE 72tll3. 3 SE 19:142.ln addition to this paper,see 'Tlre s it possible, The Infantile Genital Organization'(1923e), that made as well as to sug- Dssolution of the Oedipus Complex' (192U) and 'Some PsychicalConseguences of the r' startrngpornts, in the current re-exam- AnatomicalDstinction Betweenthe Sexes'(lg?5.D. s r+'hvwe have adopted a chronological ! Editor's note to'Psychical Consequences',58 19:245. ' he significant material produced by the SE 22:?5.2. ! ersv-all except for Freud, but it goes .Vau lntroductory l.r,ctures,SE 22:149. ' Seefor instanceluliet Mitchell and JacquelineRose, Ferrinine Sexuality: lacques ltcan and tlrc :ehectualinteraction that occurred from ZtoleFreudienne (Macmillan: London, 1982),pp. 8 and 15-15 in particular, where Juliet s, hrs own contributions should be read Vrtchell briefly explainswhy'Karl Abraham'swork is crucial'.For a more radical revisionof :he dynamics of the debate,see Marie-Christine Hamon, Pourquoilx femmesaintent-elles les irsunctron between psychoanalysisand t.mmrs?(Seuil: Paris, 1992). ': 'Origins and Growth of Obiect-Love',Part ll of 'Developmentof the influence SeeKarl Abraham, crprocal of psychical and bio- i-rbrdo' (1924).Reprinted below. daptation to sexual stages.Thus even : Freud-Viereck21.9.1930, The Diary of SigmyndFreud 1929-1939: A Recordol tlrc FinnlL)ecnde :rs to keeppsychoanalysis separate from .ondon: The Hogarth Press,l992l,283. n about sexual difference that children : Tllr CompletePoems of Heine,trans. Edgar Alfred Bowring (G. Bell and Sons,1916), 260. late on the couch,dealing with the very ' Femininity', SE 19:129(emphasis added). . On the SexualTheories of Children' (1908c),SE 9:205-26,links the alleged universal pos- ndeed psychical cons€quencesto the Essronof a penis in children (p. 215)with the proposedtheory of the little girl's disappoint- 'sexes?rs 'n€nt at not having it (P.218). femrnrmty, there remains one riddle : sE 11.165-75, ;reud's biindnessin the areaof feminin- ' The lnfantile Genital Organization'(192k), SE 19:141. - l")' ln recognizing the crucial mother- PsvchicalConsequences',256. Worth noting is that the questionunderlying this statement s 'Whv does the little girl changelove obiects?' acv dictatedby Freud'sown masculini- ' ldenhfication,though a key concept, is an elusive one. There is, obviously,a conceptual h', he others mother.This probably makessense, since whether a and suggest,or by the phal- -.rffrcultyin dealing with the preoedipal f psvchoanalysisas he conceivedit,at 5t :cnstruct or a fact, motherhood is part of the whole phallic economy.Here lies and follows hrs hvstericalphobia as diagnosedby :h€ conceptual difficulty in dealing with the preoedipal, rather than oedipal, mother. Contrastwith Freud'sessay on Leonardoda Vinci.) of evenall thesefeatures played a role; I A point somewhat refined in 1933,though Freud admits then: 'We have learned a fair rrrount, though not everything,about all three.'('Femininity',lZ9) 18 FemaleSexuality: The Early PsychoamlyticControaersies

Contributionr to 20'Psychical Consequences', SE 19:251. ,Female 2r Sexuality',SE2l:ZE. IH aa 22'Female Sexuality', SE 21:235. ,, 23August Stercke,'TheCastration complex', below. 2aKarl Abraham, 'Origins and Growth of Obiect-Love', below. in:rajru.':" 2sSee below. 26'Letter to Carl Mtiller-Braunschweig'(1935),published as 'Frcud and female sexuality:a previ ously u npubl ished letter', Psy chiatry, 3a[97l):32&9. 27 Seethe passagequoted above finm 'Psychical Consequences',SE 19:251. -?,--.!':d1, C;'::':|r.::":.: zn fuf iet Mitchell, FemaleSexuality,20, :ffiid FF J'i.tL.-..1 eeWifliam I. Grossman,'Discussion of "Freud and FemaleSexuality"', Internationallournal of :i:{ zv.. t'tr Fz.z.-i:iiq Psy c ho- An a I y sis,57 (1975): 301 . t-iag-5 :{:-;rr ia": l?ll 3o Mitchell, FeminineSexuality,23. Juliet iqyr;1-- l. ra.Vlta. rr 31See fetters to Fliessof 14.9.1897,30.9.1897and 3.10.1697,inl;ttersto Fliess,26l,270and 325. -i-f:r:-. 32Didier Anzieu, b Corpsde I'oentre (Gallimard: Paris, 1981), 61. ;-{ti' :a Bt zu :r, 'g4{ 7Z :grltr irtg:r-tq::. j 3'r,,d rrr-sa'.a:f?s ?Lr l,& t :t'-{Y #.; w:,:':: :t re$ ft-. rqe,1r: :-a..'. a ff l-f'nf;.':.S :i-t!, Li .:ntd li ::&.rr.. :.:g]?:Jt:: zt1-j ir,l t I .:::-f r-1-. 7z q:ra-:r'? ':?"rr' rrt1 l': f"a :' :w :t j:sc-ssd '?s.v , -G-ij..+-^f :-''iFL!? -.:a r",'r1 5r:zs:A -t :9,i'. T't 3'&! tnx-s (Tat?:f-!:4' :a :ry :a tE :r: l=--sc '::rr:- T fnr ;rP *-?,::.:-sa: f s3i-::'? Gt- turrF-:o :rt;l: :: ir-s r 5rdlr?L--. l=r j{: a-- ti:-: , c|'rT{' t-br-: ? :q:: :}5 ftf, :lI;.t'-!-:r:E ?-l--tli

Itfct Il' :at: :-i-( i.'i?::i I hcEl 3 t:t :. :z *il|rl - t :rri:'r:r- ;'zJ t:f# :.' :z ;:az- :( ittr rts lc-; =rrta' 4+-----.I- :?-::-tt P: ffi 'teT F-ITY ailrr Sr':l:.:-!-t: