Inspiration and Zeal
Lou’s pattern continued as an intellectual homewrecker that used men as a career ladder. Her tradeoff was to allow her men to derive the same from her, including psychoanalyst Poul Bjerre. “To young Bjerre, Lou was inspiration personified, the mother of his yet unborn thoughts, the mistress of his youthful passion. And for a brief moment Lou was carried away by her lover’s ardor. His ideas fascinated her because they touched on problems with which she had been struggling herself. When Bjerre suggested that she accompany him to the third psychoanalytical congress in Weimar, she accepted eagerly…It was Gillot’s love that helped her find herself; through Rée’s love she gained her independence; and now Bjerre’s love led her to Freud. In each case her lover acted as a catalytic agent and was discarded as soon as the new relationship had been established.”
Many luminaries were at the congress, including Eugen Bleuler, Beatrice Hinkle, Otto Rank, Sándor Ferenczi, Karl Abraham, Ernest Jones, and Wilhelm Stekel. “The president of the Association was the Swiss Carl Jung, but Freud, its undisputed head, presided over the congress with benign authority. He was then in his mid-fifties and in the prime of his life. He was surrounded by an aura of dignity and old-world charm…Lou was introduced to Freud by Bjerre at the beginning of the Weimar Congress. She remembers that Freud laughed at her ‘Vehemently expressed desire to study psychoanalysis.’ She was only five years younger than he, but she acted like a child who had just seen a wonderful new toy and wanted to possess it. Her eagerness seemed a bit naïve. For no man knew better than Freud how devious the ways of the subconscious are and the patient labor that is necessary to uncover it…It had taken him half his life to reach his conclusions, and here Lou was, eager to appropriate them in a brief course of studies. No wonder he was amused and asked her with a twinkle in his eyes if she perhaps mistook him for Santa Claus. But Freud’s irony did not deter Lou and gradually his amusement gave way to wonder. What a strange woman she was! He had heard that Lou was a writer and knew of her close association with Nietzsche…She was obviously a thoughtful woman; indeed, listening to Lou talk, Freud was struck by the profundity of her remarks. There was no doubt about her intellectual brilliance. Even during their first meeting Freud felt that Lou understood him perfectly.”
Despite how cordial people were, the inherited divisions between interpreters of Nietzsche continued into psychoanalysis. Carl Jung also had many guests at the congress who were to be more interested in Analytical Psychology. At the time Freud was already the split with Alfred Adler which influenced Lou for a time. “Nietzsche’s name was often mentioned in informal discussions during the Weimar Congress. It was generally known that Nietzsche’s sister, Elizabeth, lived in the town and was the energetic head of the Nietzsche Archives which she had founded. Lou, of course, carefully avoided her great antagonist. And it must have amused her when she heard that two of Freud’s closest collaborators paid a visit to Elizabeth and told her that her famous brother had anticipated many of Freud’s findings. Knowing Elizabeth’s virulent anti-Semitism, Lou could see her squirm at the thought that her brother’s name was coupled with Freud’s. The ‘Faithful Llama’ was furious when she heard that Lou was in town. That Russian adventuress had given her enough trouble in the past. She had publicly challenged her, Elizabeth’s, right to be the sole authoritative interpreter of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Was she now going to drag her brother’s name into the psychoanalytic mud? Elizabeth felt infuriated that she could do nothing about it. For better or worse Lou was the living link between Nietzsche and Freud.”
Once Lou had made her connections with new idols to worship, Bjerre could only return to memories of her as he was distanced from orthodox psychoanalysis by Freud. Poul preferred to emphasize the conscious mind and expanded on dream psychology. He was also credited with introducing psychoanalysis to Scandinavia. Other areas of interest were the role of death and renewal found in life patterns as well as the psychology of marriage, and he agreed with Nietzsche’s assessment of Lou and the consequences of being entangled with her. “One noticed at once that Lou was an extraordinary woman. She had the gift of entering completely into the mind of the man she loved. Her enormous concentration fanned, as it were, her partner’s intellectual fire. I have never met anyone else in my long life who understood me so quickly, so well, and so completely, as Lou did. In addition, there was the almost startling frankness of her expression. She discussed her most intimate and private affairs with the greatest nonchalance. I remember I was shocked when she told me of Rée’s suicide. ‘Don’t you have any pangs of conscience?’ I asked her. But she merely laughed and said that conscience was a sign of weakness. I realize that this may have been bravado, but she did seem unconcerned about the consequences of her actions and was in this respect more like a force of nature than a human being. Her unusually strong will liked to triumph over men. She could be very passionate, but only momentarily so, and with a strangely cold passion. I think Nietzsche was right when he said that Lou was a thoroughly evil woman. Evil, however, in the Goethean sense: evil that produces good. She hurt me much but she also gave me much. When I met her I was working on the foundations of my psychotherapy which is based, in contrast to Freud’s, on the principle of synthesis. In my talks with Lou things became clear to me that I might not have found by myself. Like a catalyst she activated my thought processes. She may have destroyed lives and marriages but her presence was exciting. One felt the spark of genius in her. One grew in her presence.”
But being close to the fire means risking being burnt. “Our relationship lasted almost two years and was very close in the beginning. We lived and traveled together. She first visited her mother in St. Petersburg and joined me later in Helsingfors where I was giving a series of lectures. She wrote me from Berlin, from Petersburg and from Göttingen. But when I met her again in Munich in 1913 she was completely changed. She had turned away from me and had gone over to Freud. And there was, of course, young Tausk who was head over heels in love with her…In Munich Lou told me that she had burned my letters and asked me to do likewise. She did not want to have any of her letters around. I promised to do that and I kept my promise. At that time I was hurt and no longer interested in her. But today I am sorry. For the fascinating aspect of her letters was that they completely reflected her personality. They were the letters of a passionate woman who was, at the same time, a scholar and philosopher.”
In these destroyed relationships, ethical problems were not only on Lou’s side and it usually takes two to tango. Her relationship to him was very reminiscent of hers with Gillot. “In fairness to Lou it should be added that she, too, thought that Bjerre was unredeemed and unfree. She knew that he had vowed to remain faithful to his invalid wife and that he suffered from his infidelity. She thought this showed his lack of inner freedom. ‘Like a typical compulsion neurotic, he was bound by thousands of fixations and reproaches. He needed a halo. To atone for his love he had to be his wife’s nurse.'”
As Lou was drawn into the psychoanalytic world, she was immediately caught by the undertow of different factions and her reflections were luckily compiled in many different letters and correspondences. In particular with Adler, Freud felt that he was more focused on masculine protest, and less interested in repression. He was more interested in biological matters than psychology. Freud wanted to find the differences in theories and ally on the similarities, especially since he let Adler be in charge of the Vienna Psychoanalytical Society. Freud wrote to Jung that “Adler is a decent and highly intelligent man, but he is paranoid; in the Zentralbatt journal, he puts so much stress on his almost unintelligible theories that the readers must be utterly confused. He is always claiming priority, putting new names on everything, complaining he is disappearing under my shadow and forcing me into the unwelcome role of the aging despot who prevents young men from getting ahead. Adler and Stekel are both rude to me personally, and I’d be glad to get rid of them both. But it won’t be possible.”
The biggest debate was about the role of the unconscious and craving, or libido, compared to Adler’s focus on the need for power and masculine protest. Freud felt that Adler “created for himself a world system without love, and I am in the process of carrying out on him the revenge of the offended goddess Libido. I have always made it my principle to be tolerant and to not exercise authority, but in practice it does not always work. It’s like cars and pedestrians. When I began going about my car I got just as angry at the carelessness of pedestrians as I used to be at the recklessness of drivers.” After the final meeting with Adler, Freud said of him that he “isn’t a normal man. His jealousy and ambition are morbid.”
Freud’s focus on craving was because it was prior to Adler’s organ inferiority. Adler wanted to point out the biological elements of low self-esteem on how a person’s looks, their weight, height, and health, and how it can have an effect on whether a person feels like they are a loser. There’s a fear of being slighted and rejected, but Freud wanted to protect the desire in the background that wants satisfaction. Cravings are smothered by fear because rejection is a threat to survival and therefore satisfaction. Humans want to ultimately find an intimate partner for satisfaction, and so worries about being disrespected, as true as they may be, are secondary to the fright of being cut off from a full life. The Oedipus Complex for Freud is the central theme because it includes all desires that are frustrated by human interference, leading to strong ruminations about revenge and payback. Responding to slights with retaliation will provide some sadistic satisfaction, but it doesn’t solve the problem of unrequited love. Freud originally talked about sexual abuse of children, but he knew that it was necessary to explore the impact that frustrated wishes have on the psyche and add it to the overall problems to solve, so it wasn’t an either/or situation that some later critics asserted. Overt abuse exists and so do frustrated wishes.
Collaboration
At the beginning of Lou’s correspondence with Freud, she admitted that she wanted to attend the Wednesday meetings with him as well as the Thursday ones with Adler. Freud posed restrictions on members of doing the same but allowed Lou to attend both as long as she didn’t bring up content of opposite meetings when in either camp. Lou immediately brought up a lot of interesting subjects to which Freud preferred to talk about privately. She was mixing and matching the feeling of inferiority with sexual responses in the terms of masculine or feminine defenses when people feel slighted. The example she used was that of a discussion with Dr. Federn who had a “case of the physically handicapped child who regards himself as normal, whereas the child of neurotic tendency, although apparently physically sound, regards himself an inferior. Whereupon Dr. Federn more or less defended Adler’s divergent opinion on this matter, i.e., that the feeling of inferiority always has an organic basis, which for this very reason through the comparison with others turns into envy, hate and an exaggerated ego-ideal.”
Lou accepted that slights could be real or imagined in people and it would initially lead to a reaction to find protection and to avoid standing out in a negative way compared to the group. The sign of weakness would then lead to a defensive display of strength, and this leads to the conclusion that rejection from the group would be a fear of rejection, and ultimately the rejection of one’s sexual value to the group. She is further curious about the conflict of love and hate in obsession, the ability to know the borderlines between self and object, the fear of the world in paranoia, and the psychosis in the old label for schizophrenia in Dementia Praecox. Lou’s love for sublimation goes to the forefront as she views it “not a mere product of civilization, not a mere gradual turning away from the sexual to the intellectual, but has always been present
in the shape of a fruitful adjustment of both. Sublimation may be a word for health, i.e, for a creative union of both [sexuality and intellect.]”
She also wanted to learn more about other psychoanalysts, including Otto Rank, Sándor Ferenczi, and Karl Abraham, who would deviate from Freud’s orthodoxy more or less. She shared letters from Adler that increased Freud’s trust in Lou, which was pivotal, because she was allowed more leeway than other official members of the society. “The letter shows his specific venomousness, and it is very characteristic of him. I don’t believe that it belies the picture which I have given of him. Let us speak frankly (it will be easier then to continue): he is a loathsome individual.” Adler’s letter asserted that Freud’s school was stealing from him, and that he was always clear about the differences. “To me this is all proof that Freud’s school does not believe in its own doctrines, and really only wants to safeguard its investment.”
At the time Lou was writing out her own theories and Freud asked her to share her opinions.
‘Anal’ und ‘Sexual’
One of Lou’s earlier psychoanalytic papers, Anal und Sexual, was one of Freud’s favorites from her. She understood his meaning very well about how pleasure could be obtained with the activity of defecation. Freud went more in the direction of reaction formation, which is the reaction to blame for making a mess and the hyper-vigilant behavior to demonstrate opposite behavior of cleanliness. But there is also pleasure in suppression and control. “Through control of the anal urge, it carries out the first true ‘repression’ upon itself. If one were to take these almost purely biological processes and read them through the psychological terminology more appropriate to later mental relationships, one might say that it is striking how the embryonic ego first emerges under the pressure of ‘asceticism,’ and that this is what most decisively distinguishes its initial growth from the drive impulses proliferating around it. For it is only in being thrown back upon itself—through this most primitive exercise of ego upon drive impulse—that the experience of dealing with the stimulus of the drive, by holding back or by giving away, moves a shade closer to the conscious and personal.”
Sexuality Pt 2: Infantile Sexuality – Sigmund Freud: https://rumble.com/v1gtort-sexuality-pt-2-infantile-sexuality-sigmund-freud.html
It was easy in the 20th century to deride Freud’s theories, for example in John Cassavetes’ Faces, when the character Jeannie Rapp, played by Gena Rowlands, asks: “listen, do you know that Freud said if you go to the bathroom it’s supposed to be sexy or something?” Lou viewed it more like a primordial experience that an infant has to undergo as archaic as it may be. “Freud’s remarks were greeted with laughter when he drew attention to the anal pleasure the infant derives from retaining its stool. And yet it is this pleasure, through which the little ego first shows itself to be master of the situation, that began with a suppression. By bringing a positive element of auto-erotic joy to the external compulsion to negate its drive, anal pleasure reunites the child with its criticized bodily life. The experience of anal pleasure reconciles the ego with the drive and the drive with the ego; but now the drive is no longer a mere involuntary process, it is brought nearer to consciousness: the sense of pleasure derives from a state of tension. Thus the human ego finds itself inserted into a nexus of conflicting elementary forces where it works as a balancing agent between external constraints and internal urges, mediating between opposite poles which, through their opposition, enable the ego to unfold by forcing it to express the fundamental unity of desire and denial, what is and what ought to be, or—if to these somewhat anticipatory terms one would like to add that most emphatic pair of opposites, which in later development becomes the greatest antithesis of all—’body’ and ‘mind.'”
Faces (1968) – John Cassavetes: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062952/
Impulses running up against environmental prohibitions only begin with elementary pressures, but eventually include sex and aggression. “Prohibition and punishment rupture the complete, reciprocal unity of world and individual: it has been shown early on by Freud and, after him, Ferenczi and Jones, how out of this primal [craving] disappointment the first drops of hate emerge to poison the necessary and seemingly harmless wound. Among the traits that Freud attributes to the anal character, two–obstinacy and parsimony–are directed against the outside world that broke with us and rose up against us as an Other from which we sought to escape into selfhood in order to save our own skin and carry the selfish pleasure into safety. The third trait of the anal character–extreme orderliness, which can also take the form of extreme moral rectitude (a kind of moral compulsive washing)–not only turns against the outside world but internalizes the duality as well, because we have come to feel ambiguous about the anal pleasure which, although sublimated, remains intact in obstinacy and parsimony.”
The Freudian angle of view of desire goes down to the core feeling of wanting to be alone with one parent or another, usually the mother after enjoying breastfeeding and attention, and finding the father a third wheel and obstacle. Moments of union with the desired object that is unobstructed and consented to. “I want what I want and I just wish you were annihilated so I can finally get what I want.” Throughout life there’s a feeling of competition for what one desires, because those desires are imitated from others and shared with them when Others get the same idea. “This expression of [craving], which ultimately comes down to ‘incest,’ makes its first appearance in an atmosphere of sunshine and bliss, untroubled by the many murky shadows cast by the ‘education of the sphincter.’ To be sure, hate eventually establishes itself in incestuous love as well, but this occurs at one remove, as it were, often as a result of the magnifications of the neurotic’s guilt phantasies. Before there was hate, the mouth had encountered the breast in a seeming identity of ego and outside world, an identity which much later will hover above every new object [attachment] like some primal memory, endowing it with a sense of reunion. This primal sense of being one with the parent (the mother) may well shine down into the ultimate depths of life, activating the forces that form religions and that support the hope and faith of being a ‘child of God,’ while the anal [craving], overshadowed by the hateful primal experience of separation and individuation—demonized, so to say, at its root—must have as its starting point the dogma of protest: ‘I am not one with the father (the mother)’…In the first case, we learn to return to the object in loving reunion; in the second, however, a fundamental encounter with something alien is necessary for us to develop a sense of the world as an other, an object. And this, in turn, is the starting point for a third path to establishing a relationship to the world, the path by which the child arrives at one of the most important relationships in its life, for its anal eroticism enables it to become a progenitor and achieve ‘parental power.’ As the child sees parts of itself transformed into objects in the outside world without being itself diminished, the separated world is gifted back to it in a union that is even more intense than in the encounter of mouth and breast, when the object meets the subject compliantly.”
Because these early experiences leave a lasting imprint of an ideal care, where parents treat the child as the center of the universe, an ideal of love can become a hope for reunion that is not found in adulthood. Entitlement can build if there’s resistance to reality, and like the illusion of exploration that will be eternally satisfied, there’s a hope that the next object of desire will be the final one where satisfaction will be permanent. “The naïve idealism of youth, at once so moving and so brazen, that unhesitatingly associates itself only with the highest standard it can conceive, must in like manner derive the confidence of its identifications from that source. For although this idealism no doubt harks back to the ‘omnipotence of thoughts’ that characterizes the child’s mental constitution, whose power of wishing knows no bounds, it has normally experienced a sufficient number of years and disappointments to have lost some of its assurance. If youthful self-love nevertheless enthusiastically embraces the most exalted of ideals, then it may well draw its right to do so from the fact that it has performed [sacrifices], has defended itself, has borne harm, and has broadened itself through renunciation.”
Life provides opportunities to learn and adapt, therefore wishes that are more realistic are more fulfilling. “That is, unless we are dealing with pathological reactions caused by a sense of being lacking or flawed, or with cases where the formation of the ideal results from delusional compensations—rather than natural processes of mental development in the course of which conflicts have been successfully overcome and our character has emerged more clearly in the light of greater awareness (although this light is often accompanied by the shadow of unresolved repressions).” These sacrifices are a form of work that allows one to achieve more and “an analogy to this process may, after all, be found in biology, where that to which we give the name ‘life’ is characterized by such an alternation—that which becomes, that which is able to expel a portion of itself, to be expelled in turn, to attract and assimilate that which is foreign.”
Society also judges people on how well they can make these sacrifices for achievements. The anal product became the profanity-symbol for anything bad in society and life circumstances. Reputations have to be defended against. “The anal zone remains under a psychological ban all the same: for the simple reason that it is here—exclusively here—that the cause of disgust and shame has been transferred from the action and its agent to the material, to the object as such, so that, although we are no longer guilty of its taint, we still have to deal with it as if we did not deal with such things. This unique situation, this intersection of two types of judgment, this shift of accent from the person to the thing gives rise to that interesting hybrid, that curious, self-conscious, embarrassed type of contempt that is directed at everything anal: a contempt which along the way has effectively lost its moral pledge, but which remains associated with more than mere matter-of-fact disapproval or conventional disavowal. For the object of this contempt has, in its entirety, forever come to represent everything that is to be repudiated, everything that is discharged and must be eliminated from life, in contrast to life as that which confers value per se—which constitutes our very self.” With enough bad experiences early on in life, one can develop self-hatred by rejecting our products and identity. We can identify with “this iconic image of ‘impurity,’ with this object-as-metaphor.” The big danger that leads to children turning into patients is when there is no belief in oneself to learn. Identities are burnt into the mind with self-sabotage and stigma when rejection is unforgiving. “This can happen either because the original prohibition directed at the child was made in too emphatic, too threatening a manner…”
It’s easy to go all one way or another, like forgiving hardened criminals or demonizing people who show legitimate contrition. Internal battles rage within leading to pathology. Accepting human desires, which today is called normalizing, helps to heal the sense of cringe inside when desires are considered more or less harmless and common. “When these no longer legitimate drives assert themselves, they do not work in harmony with the other drives, for which they can never be anything but evil temptations; yet if they are entirely subdued, the entire being will be impoverished as a result. In most cases, the outcome will be a mix of both: the drives will assert themselves here and there, but they will be masked—hiding from disapproval, appearing in other guises in other places; it begins with secrecy, with the deception of other people, and it ends with dissimulation and disavowal before our own consciousness—all the degrees of compromise between drive and defense that Freud has uncovered.”
The real learning then is to discharge drives in a socially acceptable way so as to accept that others have desires, and if we don’t want to kill each other, we have to trade in a way that allows enough freedom for satisfaction. The mind also accepts a certain amount of tension and obstacle to keep the desire from falling into boredom so quickly. “It is the struggle between drive and restraint that first awakens anal pleasure, so too the struggles and tensions between the ego and the sexual drive bring the drive to fruition…The passionate excitation of a vigorous eroticism benefits from obstruction much in the same way as an obstacle course does.”
The waves of endeavor to achieve satisfaction then has to have that familiar sublimation pattern of tension and release to get the mind to release reward in this tamed modern world. “While these works benefit from the enigmatic transformation of human warmth into intellectual form, and the creator experiences this as a relief to his urges, it also leads him to squander and expend himself in a way that can rob him of the unifying connection to his own fundamental being. There is no direct path from ‘sublimation’ to ‘sublimation’ or from peak to peak; we must pass through the valleys between…For all ‘creation,’ be it intellectual, artistic or practical—whatever form it may take—is simply another method of rejoining the object-world with the subject (which ego development had placed in opposition).”
Sublimation – Sigmund Freud: https://rumble.com/v1gv2fr-sublimation-sigmund-freud.html
St. Vincent Teaches Creativity and Song Writing | Official Trailer | MasterClass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toD5c_OOirY
Human culture essentially flourishes along with sublimation, and ideals continually fuel interest, despite all the disappointments encountered in earthly matter. The ideals fuel continual exploration. “Whatever was disapproved of and repressed because it was too infantile, too subjective, not sufficiently welcoming toward the object that was to be embraced within it—this will be taken up intellectually, so to speak, at the super-subjective level. The result is an impassioned interest, beyond the bare necessities of existence, in the wider contexts of thinking, creating and doing. Wherever objects are idealized and drives sublimated, something lies buried, isolated as in a tomb, repressed; but in these cases there is always something more involved, too, and this additional something stands in as sharp a contrast to all that is earthly as resurrection does to the tomb…” We are able to then learn by duality by sifting between what is good and bad and also by how close or faraway an object is from the ideal. It becomes “good or “bad” even if they are not absolutely so. “The most disparaged and the most highly valued forces are inevitably mutually dependent; in the end, they come from the same root; they are so close to one another precisely because there is a distinction between them, and they rely upon one another.”
Mental health in a general way is connected to mental adaptation where a person can find tension and release that is optimum where a person can control which goals they can approach with the correct skill level. A happy life is one where people find challenges that are not devastating and impossible. Ideals are never found but good enough aims and endeavors are approached. “[This] enables us to clearly distinguish the [craving] tendencies from those concerning ego-development, allowing us to disentangle their interdependencies and points of connection in health and illness alike.” Correlation is not causation in that not all pathologies are psycho-somatic, but a scientific test would include healthy changes in one’s goal orientation and any following health improvements in the body. It’s splitting hairs, but you would have to take serious social consequences with completely unrestrained acceptance of all cravings, especially violent conflict with others. Psychologists and philosophers who worried about these consequences sided with repression and sublimation more than those who accepted more hedonism.
How to gain Flow in 7 steps: https://rumble.com/v1gvked-how-to-gain-flow-in-7-steps.html
This is why Lou preferred Freud over Jung who she felt was still too repressed. “Yet one can hardly escape the impression that when he draws on evolutionary theory (which in philosophical terms already has a lot to answer for!) to bolster an anti-sexual, moralistic standpoint, Jung is essentially returning to the old equation of the sexual with filth, knotting together the sexual and the primordially anal (a knot that psychoanalysis has made it its business to untie). This is the point at which, following the old pattern, ‘repression’ returns. If it did not, it would become clear that what is here narrowly defined and loathed as sexuality is in fact simply what sexuality inherits from the anal—a symbol, an analogy, a kind of recycled odium.”
Accepting raw desires as they arise in analysis, if one is balanced, would be accepting desires for infidelity, paraphilias, violent revenge, envy, and jealousy so as to locate what repeats and to take actions that are socially acceptable to find satisfactions or sublimated near-satisfactions. “Why it is absolutely necessary to go back, every time, to the individual psychological events, down to the lowest and deepest layers that can be explored—not to allow them to dissipate into insubstantial symbols, but rather to allow them to enable, more substantially, a full and conscious lived experience.” The confusion between authentic desire and suppression is also parsed out by Lou by using the object of desire, especially the shameful forbidden object. “Not until there is object-[attachment] is it possible to discriminate a sexual energy—the [craving]—from an energy of the ego-instincts…With regard to the forms of activity of the ego-tendency (which according to Adler is the only tendency at work in us), the integrity of [craving] can only be maintained if, even in opposition to the ego, it can still assert itself substantially.” To Freudians, they feel that his method is more therapeutic than other modalities that beat around the bush and waste the energy of patients who tense up with too much control. To be fair to the detractors, they fear wasting energy with consequences if desires are anti-social. One can be too repressed but others need enough suppression powers to avoid being an addict, and in extreme situations, to avoid being incarcerated when one becomes a physical danger to others.
Frau Lou: Nietzsche’s Wayward Disciple – Rudolph Binion: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780691618609/
Lou Andreas-Salomé – ‘Anal’ and ‘Sexual’ Psychoanalysis and History 24.1 (2022): 19–40
My Sister, My Spouse – H.F. Peters: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780393007480/
Fiebert, Martin. (1997). Fiebert, M. S. In and out of Freud’s shadow: A chronology of Adler’s relationship with Freud.. Individual psychology. 53. 241-269.
The Freud Journal – Lou Andreas-Salomé: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780704300224/
Sigmund Freud and Lou Andreas-Salomé letters: https://www.isbns.net/isbn/9780393302615/
Psychology: https://psychreviews.org/category/psychology01/