suddenly occurred to her. Yesterday while cutting her nails “she had
cut into the flesh while engaged in trimming the cuticle.” This is
of so little interest that we ask in astonishment why it is at all
remembered and mentioned, and therefore come to the conclusion that
we deal with a symptomatic action. It was really the finger upon
which the wedding-ring is worn which was injured through this slight
awkwardness. It happened, moreover, on her wedding-day, which thus
gives to the injury of the delicate skin a very definite and easily
guessed meaning. At the same time she also related a dream which
alluded to the awkwardness of her husband and her anesthesia as a
woman. But why did she injure the ring finger of her left hand when the
wedding-ring is worn on the right? Her husband is a jurist, a “Doctor
of Laws” (_Doktor der Rechte_, literally a Doctor of Rights), and her
secret affection as a girl belonged to a physician who was jokingly
called _Doktor der Linke_ (literally Doctor of Left). Incidentally a
left-handed marriage has a definite meaning.
(_b_) A single young woman relates: “Yesterday, quite unintentionally,
I tore a hundred-dollar note in two pieces and gave half to a woman
who was visiting me. Is that, too, a symptomatic action?” After
closer investigation the matter of the hundred-dollar note elicited
the following associations: She dedicated a part of her time and
her fortune to charitable work. Together with another woman she was
taking care of the rearing of an orphan. The hundred dollars was the
contribution sent her by that woman, which she enclosed in an envelope
and provisionally deposited on her writing-desk.
The visitor was a prominent woman with whom she was associated in
another act of charity. This woman wished to note the names of a
number of persons to whom she could apply for charitable aid. There was
no paper, so my patient grasped the envelope from her desk, and without
thinking of its contents tore it in two pieces, one of which she kept,
in order to have a duplicate list of names, and gave the other to her
visitor.
Note the harmlessness of this aimless occurrence. It is known that a
hundred-dollar note suffers no loss in value when it is torn, provided
all the pieces are produced. That the woman would not throw away the
piece of paper was assumed by the importance of the names on it, and
there was just as little doubt that she would return the valuable
content as soon as she noticed it.
But to what unconscious thought should this chance action, which was
made possible through forgetfulness, give expression? The visitor in
this case had a very definite relation to my patient and myself. It was
she who at one time had recommended me as physician to the suffering
girl, and if I am not mistaken my patient considered herself indebted
for this advice. Should this halved hundred-dollar note perhaps
represent a fee for her mediation? That still remained enigmatic.
But other material was added to this beginning. Several days before a
woman mediator of a different sort had inquired of a relative whether
the gracious young lady wished to make the acquaintance of a certain
gentleman, and that morning, some hours before the woman’s visit, the
wooing letter of the suitor arrived, giving occasion for much mirth.
When therefore the visitor opened the conversation with inquiries
regarding the health of my patient, the latter could well have thought:
“You certainly found me the right doctor, but if you could assist me
in obtaining the right husband (and a child) I should be still more
grateful.”
Both mediators became fused into one in this repressed thought, and
she handed the visitor the fee which her fantasy was ready to give the
other. This resolution became perfectly convincing when I add that I
had told her of such chance or symptomatic actions only the previous
evening. She then took advantage of the next occasion to produce an
analogous action.
We can undertake a grouping of these extremely frequent chance and
symptomatic actions according to their occurrence as habitual, regular
under certain circumstances, and as isolated ones. The first group
(such as playing with the watch-chain, fingering one’s beard, and
so on), which can almost serve as a characteristic of the person
concerned, is related to the numerous tic movements, and certainly
deserves to be dealt with in connection with the latter. In the second
group I place the playing with one’s cane, the scribbling with one’s
pencil, the jingling of coins in one’s pocket, kneading dough and other
plastic materials, all sorts of handling of one’s clothing, and many
other actions of the same order.
These playful occupations during psychic treatment regularly conceal
sense and meaning to which other expression is denied. Generally the
person in question knows nothing about it; he is unaware whether he is
doing the same thing or whether he has imitated certain modifications
in his customary playing, and he also fails to see or hear the
effects of these actions. For example, he does not hear the noise
which is produced by the jingling of coins, and he is astonished and
incredulous when his attention is called to it. Of equal significance
to the physician, and worthy of his observation, is everything that
one does with his clothing often without noticing it. Every change in
the customary attire, every little negligence, such as an unfastened
button, every trace of exposure means to express something that the
wearer of the apparel does not wish to say directly, usually he is
entirely unconscious of it.
The interpretation of these trifling chance actions, as well as the
proof for their interpretation, can be demonstrated every time with
sufficient certainty from the surrounding circumstances during the
treatment, from the themes under discussion, and from the ideas that
come to the surface when attention is directed to the seeming accident.
Because of this connection I will refrain from supporting my assertions
by reporting examples with their analyses; but I mention these matters
because I believe that they have the same meaning in normal persons as
in my patients.
I cannot, however, refrain from showing by at least one example how
closely an habitually accomplished symbolic action may be connected
with the most intimate and important part of the life of a normal
individual.[54]
“As Professor Freud has taught us, the symbolism in the infantile life
of the normal plays a greater rôle than was expected from earlier
psychoanalytic experiences. In view of this the following brief
analysis may be of general interest, especially on account of its
medical aspects.
“A doctor on rearranging his furniture in a new house came across a
straight, wooden stethoscope, and, after pausing to decide where he
should put it, was impelled to place it on the side of his writing-desk
in such a position that it stood exactly between his chair and the
one reserved for his patients. The act in itself was certainly odd,
for in the first place the straight stethoscope served no purpose,
as he invariably used a binaural one; and in the second place all his
medical apparatus and instruments were always kept in drawers, with the
sole exception of this one. However, he gave no thought to the matter
until one day it was brought to his notice by a patient who had never
seen a wooden stethoscope, asking him what it was. On being told, she
asked why he kept it there. He answered in an offhand way that that
place was as good as any other. This, however, started him thinking,
and he wondered whether there had been an unconscious motive in his
action. Being interested in the psychoanalytic method, he asked me to
investigate the matter.
“The first memory that occurred to him was the fact that when a medical
student he had been struck by the habit his hospital interne had of
always carrying in his hand a wooden stethoscope on his ward visits,
although he never used it. He greatly admired this interne, and was
much attached to him. Later on, when he himself became an interne he
contracted the same habit, and would feel very uncomfortable if by
mistake he left the room without having the instrument to swing in his
hand. The aimlessness of the habit was shown, not only by the fact
that the only stethoscope he ever used was a binaural one, which he
carried in his pocket, but also in that it was continued when he was a
surgical interne and never needed any stethoscope at all.
“From this it was evident that the idea of the instrument in question
had in some way or other become invested with a greater psychic
significance than normally belongs to it--in other words, that to the
subject it stood for more than it does for other people. The idea
must have got unconsciously associated with some other one, which
it symbolized, and from which it derived its additional fulness of
meaning. I will forestall the rest of the analysis by saying what
this secondary idea was--namely, a phallic one; the way in which this
curious association had been formed will presently be related. The
discomfort he experienced in hospital on missing the instrument, and
the relief and assurance the presence of it gave him, was related to
what is known as a ‘castration-complex’--namely, a childhood fear,
often continued in a disguised form into adult life, lest a private
part of his body should be taken away from him, just as playthings so
often were. The fear was due to paternal threats that it would be cut
off if he were not a good boy, particularly in a certain direction.
This is a very common complex, and accounts for a great deal of general
nervousness and lack of confidence in later years.
“Then came a number of childhood memories relating to his family
doctor. He had been strongly attached to this doctor as a child, and
during the analysis long-buried memories were recovered of a double
phantasy he had in his fourth year concerning the birth of a younger
sister--namely, that she was the child (1) of himself and his mother,
the father being relegated to the background, and (2) of the doctor and
himself; in this he thus played both a masculine and feminine part.[55]
At the time, when his curiosity was being aroused by the event, he
could not help noticing the prominent share taken by the doctor in the
proceedings, and the subordinate position occupied by the father: the
significance of this for his later life will presently be pointed out.
“The stethoscope association was formed through many connections.
In the first place, the physical appearance of the instrument--a
straight, rigid, hollow tube, having a small bulbous summit at one
extremity and a broad base at the other--and the fact of its being
the essential part of the medical paraphernalia, the instrument with
which the doctor performed his magical and interesting feats, were
matters that attracted his boyish attention. He had had his chest
repeatedly examined by the doctor at the age of six, and distinctly
recollected the voluptuous sensation of feeling the latter’s head
near him pressing the wooden stethoscope into his chest, and of the
rhythmic to-and-fro respiratory movement. He had been struck by the
doctor’s habit of carrying his stethoscope inside his hat; he found it
interesting that the doctor should carry his chief instrument concealed
about his person, always handy when he went to see patients, and that
he only had to take off his hat (_i.e_., a part of his clothing) and
‘pull it out.’ At the age of eight he was impressed by being told by
an older boy that it was the doctor’s custom to get into bed with
his women patients. It is certain that the doctor, who was young and
handsome, was extremely popular among the women of the neighbourhood,
including the subject’s own mother. The doctor and his ‘instrument’
were therefore the objects of great interest throughout his boyhood.
“It is probable that, as in many other cases, unconscious
identification with the family doctor had been a main motive in
determining the subject’s choice of profession. It was here doubly
conditioned (1) by the superiority of the doctor on certain interesting
occasions to the father, of whom the subject was very jealous, and (2)
by the doctor’s knowledge of forbidden topics[56] and his opportunity
for illicit indulgence. The subject admitted that he had on several
occasions experienced erotic temptations in regard to his women
patients; he had twice fallen in love with one, and finally had married
one.
“The next memory was of a dream, plainly of a homosexual-masochistic
nature; in it a man, who proved to be a replacement figure of the
family doctor, attacked the subject with a ‘sword.’ The idea of a
sword, as is so frequently the case in dreams, represented the same
idea that was mentioned above to be associated with that of a wooden
stethoscope. The thought of a sword reminded the subject of the passage
in the _Nibelung Saga_, where Sigurd sleeps with his naked sword
(_Gram_) between him and Brunhilda, an incident that had always greatly
struck his imagination.
“The meaning of the symptomatic act now at last became clear. The
subject had placed his wooden stethoscope between him and his patients,
just as Sigurd had placed his sword (an equivalent symbol) between him
and the maiden he was not to touch. The act was a compromise-formation;
it served both to gratify in his imagination the repressed wish to
enter into nearer relations with an attractive patient (interposition
of phallus), and at the same time to remind him that this wish was not
to become a reality (interposition of sword). It was, so to speak, a
charm against yielding to temptation.
“I might add that the following passage from Lord Lytton’s _Richelieu_
made a great impression on the boy:--
‘_Beneath the rule of men entirely great
The pen is mightier than the sword_,’[57]
and that he became a prolific writer and uses an unusually large
fountain-pen. When I asked him what need he had of this pen, he replied
in a characteristic manner, ‘I have so much to express.’
“This analysis again reminds us of the profound views that are afforded
us in the psychic life through the ‘harmless’ and ‘senseless’ actions,
and how early in life the tendency to symbolization develops.”
I can also relate an experience from my psychotherapeutic practice in
which the hand, playing with a mass of bread-crumbs, gave evidence of
an eloquent declaration. My patient was a boy not yet thirteen years of
age, who had been very hysterical for two years. I finally took him for
psychoanalytic treatment, after a lengthy stay at a hydrotherapeutic
institution had proved futile. My supposition was that he must have
had sexual experiences, and that, corresponding to his age, he had
been troubled by sexual questions; but I was cautious about helping
him with explanations as I wished to test further my assumption. I was
therefore curious as to the manner in which the desired material would
evince itself in him.
One day it struck me that he was rolling something between the fingers
of his right hand; he would thrust it into his pocket and there
continue playing with it, then would draw it out again, and so on. I
did not ask what he had in his hand; but as he suddenly opened his hand
he showed it to me. It was bread-crumbs kneaded into a mass. At the
next session he again brought along a mass, and in the course of our
conversation, although his eyes were closed, modelled a figure with an
incredible rapidity which excited my interest. Without doubt it was a
manikin like the crudest prehistoric idols, with a head, two arms, two
legs, and an appendage between the legs which he drew out to a long
point.
This was scarcely completed when he kneaded the manikin together again:
later he allowed it to remain, but modelled an identical appendage on
the flat of the back and on other parts in order to veil the meaning of
the first. I wished to show him that I had understood him, but at the
same time I wanted to deprive him of the evasion that he had thought
of nothing while actively forming these figures. With this intention
I suddenly asked him whether he remembered the story of the Roman king
who gave his son’s envoy a pantomimic answer in his garden.
The boy did not wish to recall what he must have learned so much more
recently than I. He asked if that was the story of the slave on whose
bald skull the answer was written. I told him, “No, that belonged to
Greek history,” and related the following: “King Tarquinius Superbus
had induced his son Sextus to steal into a Latin city. The son, who had
later obtained a foothold in the city, sent a messenger to the king
asking what steps he should take next. The king gave no answer, but
went into his garden, had the question repeated there, and silently
struck off the heads of the largest and most beautiful poppies.
All that the messenger could do was to report this to Sextus, who
understood his father, and caused the most distinguished citizens of
the city to be removed by assassination.”
While I was speaking the boy stopped kneading, and as I was relating
what the king did in his garden, I noticed that at the words “silently
struck” he tore off the head of the manikin with a movement as quick
as lightning. He therefore understood me, and showed that he was also
understood by me. Now I could question him directly, and gave him the
information that he desired, and in a short time the neurosis came to
an end.
The symptomatic actions which we observe in inexhaustible abundance in
healthy as well as in nervous people are worthy of our interest for
more than one reason. To the physician they often serve as valuable
indications for orienting himself in new or unfamiliar conditions;
to the keen observer they often betray everything, occasionally even
more than he cares to know. He who is familiar with its application
sometimes feels like King Solomon, who, according to the Oriental
legend, understood the language of animals.
One day I was to examine a strange young man at his mother’s home. As
he came towards me I was attracted by a large stain on his trousers,
which by its peculiar stiff edges I recognized as one produced by
albumen. After a moment’s embarrassment the young man excused this
stain by remarking that he was hoarse and therefore drank a raw egg,
and that some of the slippery white of the egg had probably fallen on
his clothes. To confirm his statements he showed the eggshell which
could still be seen on a small plate in the room. The suspicious spot
was thus explained in this harmless way; but as his mother left us
alone I thanked him for having so greatly facilitated the diagnosis
for me, and without further procedure I took as the topic of our
discussion his confession that he was suffering from the effects of
masturbation.
Another time I called on a woman as rich as she was miserly and
foolish, who was in the habit of giving the physician the task of
working his way through a heap of her complaints before he could reach
the simple cause of her condition. As I entered she was sitting at
a small table engaged in arranging silver dollars in little piles:
as she rose she tumbled some of the pieces of money to the floor.
I helped her pick them up, but interrupted the recitation of her
misery by remarking: “Has your good son-in-law been spending so much
of your money again?” She bitterly denied this, only to relate a few
moments later the lamentable story of the aggravation caused by her
son-in-law’s extravagances. And she has not sent for me since. I cannot
maintain that one always makes friends of those to whom he tells the
meaning of their symptomatic actions.
He who observes his fellow-men while at table will be able to verify in
them the nicest and most instructive symptomatic actions.
Dr. Hans Sachs relates the following:--
“I happened to be present when an elderly couple related to me partook
of their supper. The lady had stomach trouble and was forced to follow
a strict diet. A roast was put before the husband, and he requested
his wife, who was not allowed to partake of this food, to give him
the mustard. The wife opened the closet and took out the small bottle
of stomach drops, and placed it on the table before her husband.
Between the barrel-shaped mustard-glass and the small drop-bottle
there was naturally no similarity through which the mishandling could
be explained; yet the wife only noticed the mistake after her husband
laughingly called her attention to it. The sense of this symptomatic
action needs no explanation.”
For an excellent example of this kind which was very skilfully utilized
by the observer, I am indebted to Dr. Bernh. Dattner (Vienna):--
“I dined in a restaurant with my colleague H., a doctor of philosophy.
He spoke about the injustice done to probationary students, and added
that even before he finished his studies he was placed as secretary to
the ambassador, or rather the extraordinary plenipotentiary Minister to
Chili. ‘But,’ he added, ‘the minister was afterwards transferred, and
I did not make any effort to meet the newly appointed.’ While uttering
the last sentence he was lifting a piece of pie to his mouth, but he
let it drop as if out of awkwardness. I immediately grasped the hidden
sense of this symptomatic action, and remarked to my colleague, who was
unacquainted with psychoanalysis, ‘You really allowed a very choice
morsel to slip from you.’ He did not realize, however, that my words
could equally refer to his symptomatic action, and he repeated the same
words I uttered with a peculiarly agreeable and surprising vividness,
as if I had actually taken the words from his mouth: ‘It was really
a very choice morsel that I allowed to get away from me.’ He then
followed this remark with a detailed description of his clumsiness,
which has cost him this very remunerative position.
“The sense of this symbolic action becomes clearer if we remember that
my colleague had scruples about telling me, almost a perfect stranger,
concerning his precarious material situation, and his repressed thought
took on the mask of symptomatic action which expressed symbolically
what was meant to be concealed, and the speaker thus got relief from
his unconscious.”
That the taking away or taking along things without any apparent
intention may prove to be senseful may be shown by the following
examples.
I. Dr. B. Dattner relates: “An acquaintance paid the first
after-marriage visit to a highly regarded lady friend of his youth. He
told me of this visit and expressed his surprise at the fact that he
failed in his resolution to visit with her only a short time, and then
reported to me a rather strange faulty act which happened to him there.
“The husband of this friend, who took part in the conversation, was
looking for a box of matches which he was sure was on the table when
he came there. My acquaintance, too, looked through his pockets to
ascertain whether he had not put it in his pocket, but without avail.
Some time later he actually found it in his pocket, and was struck by
the fact that there was only one match in the box.
“A dream a few days later showing the box symbolism in reference to
the friend of his youth confirmed my explanation. With the symptomatic
action my acquaintance meant to announce his priority-right and the
exclusiveness of his possession (it contained only one match).”
Dr. Hans Sachs relates the following: “Our cook is very fond of a
certain kind of pie. There is no possible doubt about this, as it is
the only kind of pastry which she always prepares well. One Sunday she
brought this pie to the table, took it off the pie-plate, and proceeded
to remove the dishes used in the former course, but on the top of this
pile she placed the pie, and disappeared with it into the kitchen. We
first thought that she had something to improve on the pie, but as she
failed to appear my wife rang the bell and asked, ‘Betty, what happened
to the pie?’ to which the girl answered, without comprehending the
question, ‘How is that?’ We had to call her attention to the fact that
she carried the pie back to the kitchen. She had put it on the pile of
dishes, taken it out, and put it away ‘without noticing it.’
“The next day, when we were about to consume the rest of the pie,
my wife noticed that there was as much of it as we had left the day
before--that is, the girl had disdained to eat the portion of her
favourite dish which was rightly hers. Questioned why she did not eat
the pie, she answered, somewhat embarrassed, that she did not care for
it.
“The infantile attitude is distinctly noticeable on both
occasions--first the childish insatiableness in refusing to share with
anybody the object of her wishes, then the reaction of spite which is
just as childish: ‘If you grudge it to me, keep it for yourself, I want
nothing of it.’”
Chance or symptomatic actions occurring in affairs of married life have
often a most serious significance, and could lead those who do not
concern themselves with the psychology of the unconscious to a belief
in omens. It is not an auspicious beginning if a young woman loses her
wedding-ring on her wedding-tour, even if it were only mislaid and soon
found.