The Debate Continued

After Rolland sent Freud copies of his biographies of Hindu saints, their debate on the psychology of mysticism entered a new phase, marked by two key letters: Freud's from January 19, 1930, and Rolland's from May 3, 1931. Freud never directly responded to Rolland's letter but continued reflecting on mysticism in later works, including New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis and an essay dedicated to Rolland. The article argues that Freud's late reflections largely respond to Rolland's arguments, focusing on psychoanalytic perspectives on mystical intuition in art and religion, particularly Rolland's concepts of "mitigated" and "unmitigated" mystical introversion, while maintaining a reserved posture toward institutional religion.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Abstract After Rolland sent Freud a copy of his biographies of the Hindu saints, each man now had the other’s views on the psychology of mysticism firmly in hand, a state of affairs that led to the debate carrying over into a new phase of their correspondence. The essential letters of the latter are but two in number: Freud’s letter of January 19, 1930, and Rolland’s of May 3, 1931. Although Rolland’s letter was a response to both Freud’s analysis in Civilization and Its Discontents and his letter of January 19, 1930, it evoked no immediate counter from Freud. In fact, Freud never directly responded to the content of Rolland’s letter. However he did, with Rolland in mind, continue his reflections on mysticism in his New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1933) and in his essay, dedicated to Rolland, entitled “A Disturbance of Memory on the Acropolis” (1936). Since there is no indication that Rolland ever responded to these texts, our exegesis of the late period will be very much a Freudian affair. We will find that the bulk of Freud’s reflections can be considered as a direct response to the arguments Rolland put forward in his biographies. Indeed, if one had to characterize Freud’s position of this period it would revolve around the theme of psychoana lytic perspectives on mystical intuition in art and religion, what Rolland in his critique of Morel referred to as the “mitigated” and “unmitigated” forms of mystical introversion. However, now that Rolland had unambiguously promoted a religious worldview, so too would Freud respond in kind. We may expect, then, not only continuities with his more positive assessment of poetic-mystical “intuition” but evaluations commensurate with the more reserved posture always taken by Freud when confronted with the claims and interpretations of institutional religion.