STEVEN MARCUS
535
Roazen literally invents things. For example, he writes that Freud "was
jealous of Tausk's opportunity to have an affair with Lou." There is
simply no evidence to justify such a statement. Whatever evidence there
is points in the opposite direction. Years later Freud wrote that he had
admired Lou immensely and had been attached to her "curiously
enough without a trace of sexual attraction." (see Jones Ill, 213 for
sources.) Roazen says things about Lou which are palpably untrue,
magnifies Tausk into being a kind of genius (which it was not) and
insinuates that Freud was really responsible for Tausk's suicide (which
he was not). Here, in a typical sentence from
Freud and his Followers,
is the way Roazen represents the relation between the two. "Each man
believed he was unique and a genius and feared being destroyed by the
other." The only thing that's wrong with this sentence is that nothing
in it is
to
the point. Whatever each may have believed, only one of them
was unique and a genius; and whatever each may have feared, neither
of them destroyed or could destroy the other.
Roazen 's disingenuous dealings in
Brother Animal
were enough
to
give one the pip, and that's exactly what they gave to
K.
R. Eissler,
who in nineteen hundred seventy-one published
Talent and Genius
in
an effort to annihilate Roazen. Eissler's work of demolition was
effective enough, but in the end it amounted to overkill. It was in
Brother Animal
that the circumstance of Freud's having analyzed his
own daughter was first made known to a general audience. In his
response to this part of Roazen's account, Eissler first states that it was
widely known all along (which it was not), but then goes on to argue
that if Freud decided
to
undertake this deviation in clinical practice
then he had to be right. This is truly putting the wrong shoe on the
wrong foot. As I've said earlier, one doesn't really know how to regard
this piece of Freud's behavior. As I contemplate it, I find myself being
struck with sentiments of dismay alloyed with some kind of horror; but
along with this puzzlement and disapproval I feel a touch of jealous
admiration for the audacity and
chutzpah
it involved. Freud was not
beyond good and evil, but in this instance he gave it a good try.
Roazen's problem as I've already implied, is that his ambivalence
is generally out of control. One of the things Freud discovered is that
there is almost no relation between human beings that is free of
ambivalence. And certainly emotions of ambivalence occupy the center
of the transference in a variety of both positive and negative forms.
What typically happens with Roazen is that he regularly asserts that
Freud is a genius, superman and prophet while simultaneously repre–
sentating him as the villain of the piece and a petty neurotic tyrant. In
