In 1892–3 Freud published his first substantial case history, which concerned a patient treated by means of hypnotic suggestion. For some years this has been one of the few remaining of Freud's dedicated cases histories where the patient has not been identified. More recently, however, two publications independently arrived at the conclusion that the patient was none other than Freud's wife, Martha. This paper sets out the reasons why this identification should always have been treated with suspicion, even if the real identity was not known. Nevertheless, the paper goes on to offer a more plausible identification from among Freud's known social circle. The second part of the paper questions the circumstances under which the original misidentification could plausibly have been sustained in the face of such glaring evidence to the contrary. It concludes that, among other reasons, recent tendencies in controversies about Freud's trustworthiness have the hazard of leading to unreliable assumptions about Freud...

中文翻译：

---

谁是弗洛伊德首例历史的“英雄”？弗洛伊德患者识别中的问题和问题

1892–3弗洛伊德发表了他的第一个重要的病史，该病史涉及通过催眠建议治疗的患者。多年来，这一直是弗洛伊德尚未发现患者的专用病例史中仅有的少数病例之一。然而，最近，有两个出版物独立得出结论，病人就是弗洛伊德的妻子玛莎。本文阐明了即使始终不知道真实身份也应始终以怀疑的方式对待这种身份的原因。然而，本文继续从弗洛伊德的已知社交圈中提供了更合理的识别。论文的第二部分质疑在面对如此明显证据相反的情况下，原始误认可能在合理的情况下得以维持的情况。得出的结论是，除其他原因外，最近关于弗洛伊德可信度的争论趋势有可能导致对弗洛伊德的假设不可靠。