Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To save articles in ePub format for your eBook reader…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To save an article in ePub format, look for the ePub reader icon above all articles for logged in users, and click it to quickly save the article, which is automatically downloaded to your computer or device. (There may be times when due to font sizes and other original formatting, the page may overflow onto a second page.).

You can also easily save to PDF format, a journal like printed format.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Rudnytsky, P.L. (1992). Freud and Oedipus. Int. R. Psycho-Anal., 19:503-504.

(1992). International Review of Psycho-Analysis, 19:503-504

Freud and Oedipus

Peter L. Rudnytsky

To the Editors:

Although I am obliged to Professor Edward Timms (Vol. 18, no. 4, 1991, pp. 570–72) for saying that my Freud and Oedipus 'abounds in challenging lines of argument, both for psychoanalysts and for cultural historians', his review contains a number of distortions that require correction.

The most serious concerns the relation of my work to that of other scholars. According to Professor Timms, my reassessments of nineteenth-century German intellectual history would 'mean that the findings of generations of scholars have to be set aside', and he imputes to me the suggestion that 'critics like Erich Heller, George Steiner, and J. P. Stern, who have devoted a lifetime to literary studies, have somehow missed the point'. To cite only one refutation, however, I actually begin the second part of my book by quoting Heller on the 'compelling logical development' from German Romanticism to Freud, and define my task as one of 'substantiating' his insight. Nor do I, as Professor Timms alleges, say that Heller 'betrays his ignorance' in repudiating psychoanalytic approaches to Kleist, but rather (in a footnote) that he 'does not take into account the long tradition of distinguished psychoanalytic writing' on this author.

Professor Timms further maintains that my 'mode of argument is ultimately circular' because it is based on the syllogism that 'since Freud affirmed the centrality of the Oedipus myth, Oedipus must also be central to thinkers before Freud'. On the contrary, I document the preoccupation of these thinkers with Oedipus in painstaking detail.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.