(T)

Freud’s second opportunity for achieving some measure of fame came in 1886 after he returned from Paris, where he had learned about male hysteria from Char-cot. He assumed that this knowledge would gain him respect and recognition from the Imperial Society of Physicians of Vienna, when he mistakenly believed would be impressed by the young Dr. Freud’s knowledge of male hysteria. Early physicians had believed that hysteria was strictly a female disorder because the very word had the same origins as uterus and was the result of a wandering womb, with the uterus traveling throughout women’s bodies and causing various parts to malfunction. How-ever, by 1886, when Freud presented a paper on male hysteria to the Society, most physicians present were already familiar with the illness and knew that it could also be a male disorder. Because originality was expected and because Freud’s paper was a rehash of what already know, the Viennese physicians did not respond well to the presentation. Also, Freud’s constant praise of Charcot, a Frenchman, cooled the Viennese physicians to his talk. Unfortunately, in his autobiographical study, Freud ( 1925 / 1959) told a very different story. claiming that his lecture was not well received because members of the learned society could not fathom the concept of male hysteria. Freud’s account of his incident, now known to be in error, was nevertheless perpetuated for years, and as Sulloway ( 1992) argued, it is but one of many fictions created by Freud and his followers to mythologize psychoanalysis and to make a lonely hero of its founder. Disappointed in his attempts to gain fame and afficted with feelings ( both jus tifed and otherwise) of professional opposition due to his defense of cocaine and his belief in the sexual origins of neuroses, Freud felt the need to join with a more respected colleague. He turned to Breuer, with when he had work while still a medical student and with when he enjoyed a continuing personal and professional relationship. Breuer had discussed in detail with Freud the case of Anna O, a young woman Freud had never met, but whom Breuer had spent many house