PRIMARY AND SECONDARY NARCISSISM*

BY LUDWIG EIDELBERG, M.D., AND JAMES 1~. P2kLM'ER~ M.D.

Accor di ng t o Fr e~d, 1 t he newbor n' s r el at i on t o hi s mot her or
f, at her may be r e f e r r e d to as a pr i ma r y n.areis,sist~e i dent i fi ca-
tion. ** At t hi s ,stage, t he i nf ant does n~o,t di f f er ent i at e bet ween hi m-
sel f and t he ext er nal wo.rld. Consequent l y t he ener gy r'e:s,p.o.r~sible
~o.r t hi s emily relatio.n~ship i,s eal t ed pr i ma r y rmreits.si~stie o.r .anto-
ero.t~e ~b~do. and de s t mdo. Af t e r t he in:rant begins, t.o di f f er ent i at e
bet ween hi ms el f a nd t he ext er nal .object, t he imago, o.f t he ext er nal
obj ect he fraees and i~s i nt e r e s t e d in, is eat heet ed by obj eet l i bi do
.and destrudo., wher e~s t he im~g' e of t he ext er nal obj ect ~he r emem-
bers, ,and of t he ~self,t i~s ea.t~eeted by secondar y n,areis~sistie l i bi do
a~ad destrud:o..$ The wr i t er s do not kn,ow whet her t he to.tM mnount
o,f prhna. ry l i bi do ~nd de s t r udo ~s di vi ded and eha~ge,d into~ sec-
ondar y n,arcis.sistie l i bi do and de s t r udo ~and obj ect l~bid.o and de-
.s.trudo., nor ,doe,s Fr e u d i ndi cat e whet her a pa r t o~f t he ,orig~in~al
pri m. ary n~arei,s,sis.tie l~bi:d,o. ~and des t r udo r emai ns uneh,anged, wher e
i t is :sto.red, a nd h.ow it. becomes vi si bl e i n t he .adult. Secondar y
nar ci ssi st i c 1,ibido~ and dest ru: do may, u~ade,r cer t ai n condi t i on. s,
~Published by arrangemellt with Trc~itd de Psyvhanalyse (a new t~ndbc~ok of French
peyehoanalysis)~ Dx'. S. Naeht, editor~ in which this paper appears in French.
*~"But, whatever the character' s capacity for resisting the influences of aba~ldoned
objeet-eathexes may tun1 out to be in af t er years) the effects of t he first identifica-
tions in earliest childhood will be profound and lasting. This leads us back to the
origin of the ego-ideal; for behind the latter there lies t he identification with the
fat her ["parents"], which takes place in the prehistory of every person. This is
apparent l y not in the first instance the consequence or outcome of aa ogjeet-eathexis,
it is a direct and immediate iden*ificatlon and takes place earlier t han any object-
eathexis. But the ~)bjeet-ehoices belonging to t he earliest sexual period and relating
to the s and mother seem normally to find their outcome in an identifiet~tion of
the kind discussed, which would thus reinforee the pri mary one." (Ref. 1.)
I t appears t hat Freud reserves the term, "pri mm T identification," for what he calls
the "prehistory '~ of t he individual, which is before t he oral stage. Fenichel, however,
uses the term "pri' mary identification" as a synonym of the so-called total oral narcis-
sistic or melancholic identifications (Ref. 2).
tA_ceording t e Eidelberg (Ref. 3), "The ~on-qualitative narcissistic or ego libido has
eatheeted the three psychic agencies in quantitatively different amounts." t t art mann
(Ref. 4) also assumes t hat the libido and destrudo eathect not only the ego but the
self (total personality), t~owever, he suggests the presence of a neutral (autonomous)
energy which seems to lack the dynamic quality of the id, and which is present in
secondary narcissistic libido and destrudo.
S Jones (Ref. 5) notes: "But narcissistic libido is still sexual . . . "
LUDWI G EI DELBERGt M.D.~ AND J AMES 1~. PALMER~ M. D. 481
c ha nge part l y i nt o obj ect liLbido, and des t r udo, and viae versa. ~
Accor di ng t o Fr e ud, dyna~mic f or ces cal l ed i ns t i nct s ( Tr i ebe) ,
a r e res~ponsible f or t he mainten.an,ce o,f hovneast at i c e q~i l i br i ma.
These i n stin,cts ar e r esponsi bl e f or t he eli~nin.ation of met abol i t es
vchioh ~acc.umu~ate i n excess, and t~le: inco~rp.ovation of met ~bol i t es
w~hic.h ,are us ed u,p. Aacor di ng to t he fir,st i nst i nct t heor y, sex
i nst i nct s a r e res~pon.sible f or t he s ur vi val .of t he h u ma n r~a,ee, .a~d
a r e di f f er ent i , at ed f r om t he ego in~stinct.s, w~hich t ake c a r e o,f tile
i ndi vi dual . A:n e~amp] e of ,a f unct i on of t he ego i nst i nct s ifs ur i na-
t i on, whi l e sexu,al i nt ercour; se is relore, se~tative o,f t he act i vi t y of
t he s,e~ i nst i nct s. Accor di ng to t he fir s.t in. stinct t~heory, ego in-
st i nct s wer e f r ee of lib Mo. The f i r st ir~stinct t he or y was ,ab,andoned
by F r e u d i n f a vor o,f t he second in~stinct theo,ry, ,acco.rdin~g t o
whic]l t he ,sex in~stincYs .are ,sepaI~as f r om t he . aggr essi ve in~stincts,
a nd t he eg:o i ns tin.ets ar e endowed wi t h n~areissi'stic l i bi do and
des t r udo.
I n agr ee, ment wi t h N~c~ht/ t he wr i t e r s do not f eel t ha t Leuba' ,s
t e r m "biologic~al n,al~ci~ssi.sm, ''~ i s be t t e r t ha n Fret~d"s t er m, "pI i -
ma r y narei s, si sm. " Al l anal yt i cal concept s of i nst i nct s .are bio~logical
i n nat ur e, a nd t o u, se t he t e r m "biolo, gieal" i ns t ead os "pr~, mary"
mi ght i ndi cat e th~at s e c onda r y n, ar ci s s i s m is not cons i der ed bio-
1,ogical. The wr i t e r s ' :ob.s~er~ation, s ,are bas ed on t he s t udy of ,de-
r i vat i ves of ir~stinctu,al e ne r gy ,as pr e s e nt i n hm~an i ndi vi duMs ;
and, t her ef or e, t hey shoul d refr. ai n f r om us i ng t hei r da t a i n ref-
er ence t o ani mMs, pl ant s or ,cells. The y a r e i n a g r e e me n t wi t h
Lei bovi ci , ~ who r emi nds ~s t ha t th.eoretic~al pr obl ems s~ho~ld be
discas:sed onl y i n connectio~n wi t h concr et e ,analyti,eal c~ses. How-
ever , i ns t ead o,f as i ~g t he t er m, "n, arcis,si,san ~f t he or gan, " t he
wr i t e r s pr e f e r t o ~say t hat pr i gger y .or ~se:co~d.ary nareis~sistic l i bi do,
or obj ect libido, ma y : appear t o c~athect t he r epr e, seat at i on of .an
or gan.
Va n d e r WaMs, ~~ s~ggest,s t ha t or i gi nal l y t he ego was con-
~sidered t he is:o.uroe of n~arais:sis~, and t ha t i n 1923 (Da~ Ich und
das Es) , ~ F~eud cor r ect ed th,is s ~at e~ent by s. aying t l mt t he i d
i~s t he sourCe of al~l i nst i nct s, ther:e,~o~re ,also t he s our ce os t he
~arci.s,sistic libido. I t ~ppearls t o t he wri t e~s, however , t ha t be-
f or e 1923 F r e u d ,had ~assumed t ha t t he , s o ~ l l e d e~o in, stincts wer e
~Nunber g ( Ref . 6) says: "A f a t h e r t ende~l y st r oked t he f ace of hi s si xt een-
' mont h-ol d soa. The chi l d was obvi ousl y r a di a ~t wi t h happi ness. As soon as t he f a t he r
st opped s t r oki ng hi m, t he chi l d s t a r t e d t o stroke himself a nd ut t e r e d a deep sound
' ci-ci' , whi ch i n hi s l anguage expressed t he ut mos t t ender nes s . "
482 PRIMARY AND SECO:bTDARu :NARCISSIS/VI
f r ee of li~bido; a nd t her ef or e, t hey cannot un&er st and why van
de r W~aals t honffht t ha t F r e u d c:on~sidered t he eg'o to. be t he ,s:o~urce
o~f narci ss. i st i c libido. Nor can t he wr i t e r s , agree wi t h hi s i de a
t hat t he s e c onda r y n arc~s~si~stic li~bido r ep+esent s t he l i bi do whi ch
eLathect,s t he ego. I t appe:al~s, r at her , t hat .se eon. dary nareis;sistic
l i bi do eathect;s t he to t af pe r s ona l i t y; w,hieh me a ns t he id, ego
a n d super - ego.
I t is obvio~us t hat t he t er ms , l i bi do a nd dest rudo~ ar e ,based on
a:n e xpl a na t or y a nd not on a desc:rip~tive, appr oach. Nei t her t he
sense o,rganrs, nor in, s t r nnl ent s , servi ng ~ur sen~se organ,s, ,c~an be
us ed t o perc:eive t he p, resence o.f l i bi do .and destrndo> and to.
s epar at e naI ~i ssi st i c l i bi do fro,m ~object libido.
Thro.u.gh t he ,sense or gans, a numh. er of f act s a r e det ect ed whi oh
one t r i es t o unde r s t a nd by as.staining t hat t hey a r e d e r i v a t i v e s of
in~stinctual ener gy, whi ch cannot be seen di r ect l y. Most anal ys t s
as,stone t oday t hat s econdar y n ar, eissistic l i bi do a nd de s t r udo a r e
r esponsi bl e f or t he so-cal l ed ~ntrap~syohic f unct i ons of t he t ot al
per s onal i t y whi ch, accor, ding t o Fr e ud, ma y be di vi ded i nt o id,
ego and :s.uper-e.go. ~ T.he t e r m in~t~apsychic:, referls t o f unct i ons
of t he i ndi vi dual f r om whic,h t he extern~al wor l d is e)~cluded. The
act o.f r e c,ognitio,n .of an in~st,inctaal ne.ed, i t s evalaration, ~accept-
ance, o r r ej ect i on, t he cont r ol o,f t he body, t he memor y, a nd t he
abi l i t y t,o ,achieve a h,ar.monio~s c:ompro,mi~s:e bet ween t he i d and
t he super - ego, r equi r e a di sch, arge of se, condary n.arc~issistie l i bi do
a nd de s t r udo unde r nor~nal condi t i ons. On t he o~ther h.and, ~alk-
i ng, e a t i ng ~and ot he r ac:tivities whi ch i nvol ve .an ext er nal obj ect
~appear t o be p,ossi~bie onl y i~f, i n c~ddition, o.bject libi~do and ohj:ect
d~e,str~d,o ,are, avail, ab'le. To u,se a si mi l e as i l l ~s. t rat i on, one ma y
.say t ha t t he s e c r e t a r y o,f t he i nt e r i or uses narci~ssistic libi,do and
des t r udo, whi l e t he , secr et ar y of s t at e ( f or ei gn af f ai r s ) , u;ses obj ect
l i bi do an~d destru~do.
Thi;s r el at i vel y :sin~p.]e di vi si on , appears t o be ,complic,ated by
t he f act t hat t wo t ypes of obj ect r el at i on exist, or t hat , i n one
obj ect re~llation, tw(~ di f f er ent at t i t udes ma y be pr esent . Acco,rdin,g
to. Fr e ud, t he ~aim ~of Jh~aving an o~bject (an.aclit~e t ype) , ~n,u,st be
+Eidel~berg (Ref. 11) divides t he tor personal i t y i nt o five par t s : (1) t he id,
(2) t he represent at i on of t he body, (3) t he represent at i on of t he sense organs, (4)
t he cent ral eg% and (5) t he supeT-ego.
LUDWIG EIDELBERG~ ~r AND JAMES ~T. PALI~ER~ M.D. d~83
separated f r o~ the
type).
It ,appea~s that
:the anaclitic type,
relation. T,hat one
or make somebody
differentiated and
un.der pathological
attempt to be s~mil~ar to the object (narci~s,sistie
object t~bido and destrudo gre dissh, arged in
~s well as in the nareiss~istic type of object
is trying to become simifar to :s,o.mebody else,
else similar to 'himself, impHes that the self is
sep.arated from the external object. ~ O~1y
co.n,ditions, may one as;same that object libido
and destrudo are being d~scharged in intrapsychic fun ctions,t
and that prim:ary or sec,on:d, ary n,areissistic lib~4o and dest,rudo
are employed in object relations.
It ,appears that in projection, the statement, "He hates me,"
takes the place of, "I hate myself," or "I hate him." A n orm~al
person would as,sert that he ~s h, ated only when there is a basis
of sense-orgaxt perception.s demonstr:atir~g ihate by the external
object. It see~ns that whenever projects occurs, the patient re-
gards hi~s own feelin~s. ,a,s tho,se of ,another ~ers,on. His "resis.t-
a~ce" is caused by ,his uncons~cious ~go., which turn~s the o.rig,~nal
active aggTe,s~sive wish, "I lmte yon" or self~aggres.sive wish, "I
hate .myself," into ~a pas~sive one, "I am hated by hizn." A normal
person may control his co rtsc~ous ~ate by assumir~g that his hate
wil~l provoke and mobilize the a.ggression of the other. However,
in hi,s ,anticipation of the aggres,sion of the other individu.al, the
normal perso,n wi,ll different'rote .b,etween an anticipated aggres-
sion and an ~aggres.siwe .act on the part of the external .object. In
*ESdelberg (Ref. 12) suggests t hat t ryi ng to make the object similar to one' s
self also should be regarded as a narcissistic type of object relation. Compare views
of Spinoza (l~ef. 13), "I t follows from this proposition t hat everyone endeavors
as much as possible to make others love what he ]eves, and to hate what he hates. "
I t seems t hat the term, identification, is identical with the term, narcissistic type
of object relation. IKowever, Freud sometimes describes identification as being some-
thing different from an object relation,14 "t he choice of an object regressed to
identification," and: " F i r s t identification is t he original form of emotional tie with an
object, secondly, in a regressive way it beco,mes a substitute for a libidinal object
tie...,,15 Tim term c ~a c l i t 4 v , appears preferabl e to ' qibidinal," because identification
does not take place witheut the use of libido. Also Glover,~ holds t hat " . . . object
relations are built on a narcissistic basi s- - ar e capable under stress of regressing
to identification." B. Lewi n~ assumes t hat part i al and total objects re~resent a
narcissistic object choice.
~*Ferenczi (Ref. 18) refers to "This loving of oneself in the person of another
human bei ng--cal l ed narcissism."
t Nunberg (Ref. 19) remarks: "Another pat i ent looked at me and rubbed his fore-
head. Upon my questioning why he did this, he replied, ' You have wrinkles on your
forehead which I have to smooth out.' "
484 I~RI2c~ARY AND SECONDARY NARCISSISSI
introje~etion, t he pat i ent ' s ~s~atement, " I hat e my s e l f , " appear s in-
stea~l of " I hat e hi m. "
I n additio.n to~ t he el i mi nat i on of met~b(~lites pr oduced i n excess
and t he i ncor por at i on of met abol i t es lo~st, t he individu, al t r i es t o
elhnin, ate t he nar~cis,sistic mo.rtifications he h, as exper i enced pas-
si vel y by i nfl i ct i ng t he m act i vel y on ot hers, or on hi msel f. I t is
neees~s~ary to rec~ognize t hat wh:~t one is .doing is not only t he re-
sul t of hi s wi shes, ~hi c h he t r i es t o gr at i f y, but r epr es ent s al so
hi s r es pons e to t he st i mul i o~f e xtern,aJ obj ect s ( ot her individual.s,
anira als, pl ant s, forces o,f nat ur e etc.).
As illustr~ation, t he f(fllowing ex~ample i s off{ered: A r obber
forces me, ~at g~n poi nt t o s ur r e nde r my w.allet. My s ufferin~g,
as a r esa] t o,f t he loss o,f my wal l et is r el i eved w~hen, next day,
a pol i t e pol i ce officer, haxi ng a r r e s t e d t he robber, r et ur ns my
w,al.let and i t s .contents. I n spi t e o~f t he f act t hat I h..ave reco.vered
what I lo~ss I ~sti~l feel ,some dis~appointment at havi ng f ai l ed to
def y t he r obber rays,elf. I f an o. ld and empt y w~allet is t aken
aw.ay f r om me by a not he r cr i mi nal , I st i l l suffer, .altho~g~h I may
have pl anned to t hr ow away t hi s wal l et . W.hat a m I s~f f er i ng
f r om ? Ob~io.usly f r om any in.ability to .defy t he eri~in,~l. I t . appears
t hat a nyt hi ng whi ch forces me t o do what I do not wnnt to do
pro,du,ee,s ~a c~ar~cterist~,c sensat i on, namel y a "narcis~si~stic mor t i -
fic:ati:on," a~d .mo,bilizes t he impu,l,se t o e]:iminate t he hmmi l i at i ng
me mor y by ,an active i nfl i ct i on of :a "narci.s, si st i c mo, rtification"
on t he :aggres,sor, or on somebody else, even on mysel f.
I n Beyo~vl the Ptea.s~tre Pr~n.eiple, Fr e u d gi ves an exampl e i n
vchich a c~i l d r et ur ns home frown ~a vi,sit t o t he dent i s t and pro_
r eeds to. repea~t t he pai nf ul exp.erienc% onl y now wi t h his yo~unger
br ot her as t he "pat i ent . " Fr e n d intr(~dttced t he t er m, "r epet i t i on
compul si on, " f or t he lnechar~ism r esponsi bl e f or t hi s behavi or ,
and c on, sidereal i t to opeI~ate beyond t he pl easur e prinei,ple. Some
,a~alysts assume t hat t he chi l d i s not i nt er es t ed s i mpl y i n r epeat -
i n g t he pai nf ul exper i enee, but t hat he t r i es to. el i mi nat e t he nar -
~is,sis~e mor t i f i cat i on ,c~onne.cted wi t h i t by i t s act i ve re,petition,
as a r esul t o,f whi ch ~he may Mso exper i ence an aggre~s~sive ple,a~sure.
As l ong ,as a n~arei:s~sistic .mo rtifica~tion is aeco, mpani ed by a
si mul t aneous f r us t r a t i on o,f i n s,tinctual dr i ves, i t ma y be difficult
t o di f f er ent i at e t he unpleas~ure of t he narcis,si,stic mor t i f i cat i on
f r om t hat of t he f r us t r at i on. I f s:omebody t akes a ~a y by force
t he fo~od I ,am eat i ng, he not onl y infliets ~a n~arcissistic mor t i f i cat i on
LUDWIG EIDELBERG~ lYLD.~ AND JAMES N. PALlY[ERt iVI.D. 485
by ~his `brutal 'behavio.r, 'but i n addi t i on he pr oduces a n in~stinct
f r us t r at i o~ by de pr i vi ng me (~f my foo,d.* Consequent l y, I wi l l
t r y to r et al i at e by t aki ng back my f ood by fo.rce and el i mi nat e
t he frustratio~n of .my han~er ,by eat i ng it.
However , i f I deci de t o di et , and t her ef or e r ef use t o eat a
del i ci ous desser t ~s.erved ~by my .ho.stes, s, ,and i f s~he ,succeeds fi nal l y
i n fo.rcing me 'to eat i t agai ns t my will, I wi l l exper i ence unpt eal sure
because of havir~g ~een fo,rced, as wel l ,as pl eas ur e bee,ause o,f t he
fine, t ast e Gf t he desser t "s er ved. " My r eact i on t o t hi s ki nd of
"o,ral r ape" i~s diffi(mlt t o p.redict. Havi ng e nj oye d t he desser t ,
I ma y f or gi ve .my h(~stess f or ha~cing f or ced .me ; or I may, 'in spi t e
of t he pl easur e I recei ved, t r y to. i nfl i ct a narciss, istic mo.r~fiea-
t i on upon her, .and even find one whi ch woul d gr a t i f y some of
her frt ~st rat ed de,sires at t he ,same time. I t cannot be deni ed
t hat t he sr engt h Gf t he "repetitio~n co.repulsion" var i es i n di f f er -
ent i ndi vi dual s, ,cad may ,be ~influenced ,by ma ny condi t i ons.
I n t he pas t one Gf t he wr i t er s er r ed by assuming" t ha t t he r epet i -
t i on compul si on is concer ned only wi t h t he aggr es s i ve dri ves. ~
When somebody ~s i nvi t ed to a del i ci ous di nner , t he gues t is not
onl y i nt er es t ed i n r epeat i ng t he pl easur e by t r yi ng t o o`btain an-
ot her i nvi t at i on. He want s al so to reeiproe, ate by of f er i ng a good
meal t o t he man vcho i nvi t ed hi m. I t seems t hat t he concept of an
i ndi vi dual i nt er es t ed only i n t he el i mi nat i on ,and i ncor por at i on of
metabo,lites ks mor e sui t abl e f or an e~r~`bryo, pr ot ect ed fro~l ex-
t er nal stilnul~ i n t he ut er us, t han i t is f or a huma n bei ng ~sar-
r ounded ,by exte~rnal objects.
I n addi t i on t o nar ci ssi st i c mor t i f i cat i ons i nfl i ct ed upon us fro,m
wi t hout , we may, unde r cer t ai n condi t i ons, be over power ed by
i nt er nal st i mul i , f or i nst ance, vomi t i ng, a s udden out`burst of
anger or sex, s a dde n . super-ego demands , or s udden fatigu:e.
An anal yt i c ex~amination of t he var i ous def ens e mechani s ms
i ndi ca t:~s t hat t hey not Gnly wa~d off infar~tile wSshes, bat Ms o
deny t he p r' esence of an i nf ant i l e nar~s~sistic mort i fi cat i on. I n
pr oj ect i on, t he ~statement, " He hat es me, " is used to deny f ai l ur e
t o contro,1 one' s own .hate. T,he ext er nal narcis~sistic mort i fi ca-
tion, " I cannot c~pe wi t h t hi s hat e, " is used t o de ny t he ir~ter~al
~De Grooi (Ref. 20) st at es: "I-Ie who has achieved a real lo~e object, i f dis-
appointed or disillusioned, suffers an object loss, not a narcissistic blow." Clinical
experience seems to indicate t hat even the individual who has "ac~ev~t " ~ real
love object, will suffer, i f deprived by force of tlfis object, not only a frust rat i on
of his instinctual wishes~ bat in addition, a narcissistie mortification.
486 PRI MARY AND SECOI~DARY NARCISSIS1V[
nards,sistic mortifieation, "I cannot cope with and control my own
hate." In introjection, the st at ement , "I hate myself," is used
to deny f~ail~ure to destroy (contr~(fl) the exYernal object: "It is
not true that I failed to prevent ,him from leaving me. The fact
~s that I forced ~ to leave ,me by fai l i ng to control my own
hate." Other defense me d a l i s t s also s,how that an extelm~al
nar,eis~sistic mortification is used to deny an internM nareissistlc
mortifioation and vi ce ver sa.
25 East 86th Street
New Yo,rk, N. Y.
REF ERENCES
1. Freud, Si gmund: The Ego and t he Id. P. 39. London. 1927.
2. Feniehel, O'.: The Psychoanal yt i c Theory of t he Neuroses. P. 36. New York.
1945.
3. Ei del berg 5 Ludwi g: St ndi es in Psychoanalysis. Nelwous and Ment al I)4seaae
Monograph. P. 149. New York. 1948.
4. Hartmaam, H. : Comments on the psychoanal yt i c t heory of t he ego. Pp. 74-96 i n:
The Psychoanal yt i c St udy of t he Child, Vol. V. P. 84. New York. 1950.
5. Jones, Er nes t : Paper s on Psychoanalysis. Four t h edition. Wood. Bal t i more. 1938.
6. Nunber g, H. : Pr act i ce and Theory of Psychoanalysis. Nervous and MentM
Disease Monograph. P. 217. New York. 1948.
7. Nacht, S. : Revue Fran~al se de Psychanal yse, 4:529, 1949.
8. Leuba, J . : Op. cit., ref. 7, p. 456.
9. Leibovici, A. : Op. cit., ref. 7, p. 559.
10. Van der Waals, I t . G. : Op. cit., ref. 7, p. 504.
11. Ei del berg, Ludwi g: An i nt roduct i on to t he st udy of tho narci ssi st i c mortifica-
tion. PSYOHIt, T. QUAR~., 31:4, 657-668, Oet ober 1957.
- - : ? 3 b e r die I n , e r e und die alissere narziztis~he Kri i nkung. Psyahe, XL: 5,
672 ft.
12. - - - - : An Out l i ne of t he Comparat i ve Pat hol ogy of the Neuroses. P. 50. New
York. 1954.
13. Spinoza, B. : The Phi l osophy of Spinoza. Joseph Rat her, editor, l~s Li br ar y
edition. New York. 1927.
14. Freud, Si gmund: Gesammelte Schr i f t en. Vol. VI , p. 305. Vienna, 1925-1934.
15. : Group Psychol ogy and t he Anal ysi s of t he Ego. Hogar t h. London.
16. Glover, E. : Psychoanalysis. Second edition. Page 210. St apl et on Press. New
York. 1949.
17. Lewln, B. : The body as phallus. Psychoan. Quart. , I I : 24- 47 (33), 1933.
18. Ferenezi, S. : Sex i n Psychoanal ysi s. P. 297. New York. 1950.
19. Nunberg, H. : Op. cit. ref. 6, p. 209.
20. De Groot, J . L. : Pr obl ems of f emi ni ni t y. Psychoan. Quart. , I I : 489- 518 (492),
19.33.
21. Eidelberg~ Ludwi g: Of). cir., ref. 12, pp. 36-39.
LUDWI G EIDELBE!RG~ 1V[.D.~ AND J AMES N. PALMER~ M. D. 4 8 7
BI BLI OGRAP HY
Abraha~m, I ~ : Sel ect ed Paper s ~of Ka r l Abr a ha m. The I ~t e r na t i ona l Ps ychoanal yt i cal
Li br ar y. London. 1948.
Fr eud, Si gmund: On nar ci s s i s m: An I nt r oduct i on. Col l ect ed Pa p e r s I V. Pp. 30-59.
London. 1914.
: I ns t i nc t s and t he i r Vi ci ssi t udes. Col l ect ed Paper s, I V. Pp. 60-83. London. 1919.
: l ~our ni ng and Mel anchol i a. CoIlected Paper s, I V. Pp. 152-170. London. 1917.
@runberger, B. ; Es s ai sur l a s i t uat i on anal yt i que et l e pr ocessus de gu~ri son. I n ;
La Dynami que. Pp. 1-53. Par i s . 1956.
Ha r t ma nn, I t . : On r at i onal and i r r a t i ona l act i on. I n : Ps ychoanal ys i s and t he Soci al
Science. u 1. New York. 1947.
: Psychoanal ysi s and devel opment al psychol ogy. I n : The Ps ychoanal yt i c St udy
of t he Clfild~ Vol. V. Pp. 7-17. New York. 1950.
- - - : The mut ual i nfl uence i n t he devel opment v f ego and id. I n : The Ps ychoanal yt i c
St udy of t he Chi l d. Vol. VI I I . Pp. 9-30. New York. ]953.
: Cont r i but i on t o t he met apsychol ogy of schi zophr eni a. I n : The Ps ychoanal yt i c
St udy of t he Child. Vol. VI I I . Pp. 177-198. Xew York. 1953.
t I a r t m~nn, H., and Kr i s, E. : The genet i c appr oach i n psychoanal ysi s. I n : The Psy-
choanal yt i c St udy of t he Ghild. Vol. I. Pp. 11-30. New York. 1945.
Ha r t ma nn, H. ; Kr i s, E. , a nd Lowenst oi n, R. : Comment s on t he f or ma t i on of psychi c
st r uct ur e. I n" The Ps ychoanal yt i c St udy of t he Child. Vol . I I . Pp. 11-38.
New York. 1946.
: Not es on t he t heor y of aggr essi on. I n : The Ps yel manal yt i c St udy of t he
Child. Vol. I I I / I V, Pp. 9-36. New York. 1949.
Lewi n, B. : The Ps ychoanal ys i s of E] at i on. l~ew York. 1950.
Lor and, S. : A nar ci ssi st i c neur osi s wi t h hypochondr i ac sympt oms. Psycl man. Rev.,
15:261-277, 1928.
Na~ht , S. ; Di at ki ne, R., a nd t~avreau, J . : Le moi dans l a r e l a t i on perverse. Roy.
Fr an~ai s e de Psychan. , XX: 457- 478. 1956.