ABSTRACT
Studying S. Freud’s initial steps as a psychoanalyst, the author argued that, in the treatment of Little Hans, he achieved a different and more mature position than he had in his previous therapeutic attitude towards his first female patients. As is well known, Freud was not the direct analyst in this treatment but only the supervisor, and it is thanks to this broadening of the analytic function that it was possible for him to take a more balanced and appropriate distance. Coming to the author’s conclusions, in his opinion it was precisely the denial of the decisive impact of the aspects on the history and destiny of Hans that contributed fundamentally to making him “invisible”. The studies published by J. F. Chused, “Little Hans ‘analysed’ in the twenty-first century”, and J. M. Ross, “Trauma and abuse in the case of Little Hans: a contemporary perspective”, adopt a similar approach to that of H. P. Blum.
