title: [The son of man. Freud's Oedipus myth].
abstract: In formulating his psychology of the unconscious, Freud makes constant reference to Sophocles' version of the Oedipus myth. The author provides detailed proof of the fundamental differences between the two versions, demonstrating that Freud's interpretation does violence to the source. Bollack marshals impressive evidence to substantiate his contention that from the early letters to Fliess all the way up to Moses and Monotheism Freud's sole concern was to point up the ubiquitous power of the unconscious (incestual desire, patricide) within the "holy" (nuclear) family, whereas Sophocles was preoccupied with an entirely different problem. In Bollack's view, Oedipus rex is the drama of the self-destruction of a royal family, a drama in which incest and murder have no very essential significance. Freud, by contrast, set out to de-mystify the fate that dogs the royal family from one generation to the next and to naturalise it into a form of unconscious behaviour--a tendency which Bollack sees as deriving from the tradition of the "drama of destiny", a genre prevalent in the 19th century.
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Bollack
mesh_terms: D005619:Freudian Theory; D006801:Humans; D007179:Incest / Q000523:psychology; D009229:Mythology; D009813:Oedipus Complex; D011573:Psychoanalytic Interpretation
vernacular_title: Der Menschensohn. Freuds Odipusmythos.