This paper offers a reading of psychoanalyst Abram Kardiner's memoir, which tells the story of his analytic encounter with Freud in the early 1920s. The memoir describes Kardiner's dependence on caretakers, parents, and psychoanalysts, as well as painful separations that are understood in relation to his deprived childhood. These memories were revived in analysis and then reactivated in its abrupt termination. In retrospect, it can be seen that Kardiner's work of memory and mourning is tied in ambiguous ways to Freud's mourning over his daughter Sophie at the time. The present paper uses ideas on writing and translation by Derrida, Ricoeur, and Laplanche to suggest a comparative reading of the texts written by the analyst and the patient. This reading views the essence of autobiographical writing not only as a reconstruction of the past but also as a new translation, with an emphasis on the experience of loss.

No abstract

This article presents a unique collection of narratives of separation - unique because the separation here is from psychoanalysis and from Freud as analyst. These narratives were published as part of memoirs written about Freud by three of his patients. Their narratives of separation give us an innovative point of view on the psychoanalytic process, in particular with respect to the importance they place on the termination phase of the analysis at a time when Freud himself had not given it much consideration. The three autobiographical texts are Abram Kardiner's memoir (1977); the memoir of Sergei Pankejeff, known as the Wolf Man (Gardiner, ); and 'Tribute to Freud', by the poet H.D. (). These three distinguished narratives are discussed here as works of translation, as understood by Walter Benjamin (1968 [1955]), Paul Ricoeur (2006 [2004]), and Jean Laplanche (1999 [1992]). They express translation under three aspects: reconstruction of the past (the work of memory), interpreting the conscious residues of the transference (the work of mourning), and, as a deferred action, deciphering the enigmatic messages received from Freud as the parental figure. This representation of the analysand's writing suggests that the separation from analysis is an endless work of translation within the endless process of deciphering the unconscious.

A comparative reading of Freud’s canonical case study “From the History of an Infantile Neurosis” (1918) and the memoir written by the protagonist of that study, Sergei Pankejeff, known as the Wolf Man (1971a), centers on the complex matrix of meanings embodied in the act of lifting the veil. The neurotic symptom of a veil seemingly in front of the analysand’s eyes is interpreted by Freud as a repetition of his birth in a Glückshaube (German for “caul,” literally a “lucky hood”). The veil is represented as an ambivalent object both for Freud and for Pankejeff, who are enticed by the sense of a final truth behind the veil yet constantly doubt the possibility of grasping it. For Freud, psychoanalysis is the very process of lifting the veil, yet his analysand remained for him an unsolved riddle. Pankejeff, in a volume dedicated to his identity as the Wolf Man (Gardiner 1971a), created an autobiographical text that deliberately avoids telling the story of the analysand, thus drawing a veil over his story. The paradox embodied in lifting the veil is discussed in relation to Walter Benjamin’s distinction between materiality and truth and his notion of the inherent unity of the veil and the veiled (1925).