to point to
the influence of a prohibition against onanism which has been overcome.

[16] Why neurotics, when conscience stricken, regularly connect it with
their onanistic activity, as was only recently recognized by Bleuler, is
a problem which still awaits an exhaustive analysis.

[17] Freud, Selected Papers on Hysteria and Other Psychoneuroses, 3d
edition, translated by A.A. Brill, N.Y. Nerv. and Ment. Dis. Pub. Co.
Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph, Series No. 4.

[18] Havelock Ellis, in an appendix to his study on the Sexual Impulse,
1903, gives a number of autobiographic reports of normal persons
treating their first sexual feelings in childhood and the causes of the
same. These reports naturally show the deficiency due to infantile
amnesia; they do not cover the prehistoric time in the sexual life and
therefore must be supplemented by psychoanalysis of individuals who
became neurotic. Notwithstanding this these reports are valuable in more
than one respect, and information of a similar nature has urged me to
modify my etiological assumption as mentioned in the text.

[19] The above-mentioned assertions concerning the infantile sexuality
were justified in 1905, in the main through the results of
psychoanalytic investigations in adults. Direct observation of the child
could not at the time be utilized to its full extent and resulted only
in individual indications and valuable confirmations. Since then it has
become possible through the analysis of some cases of nervous disease in
the delicate age of childhood to gain a direct understanding of the
infantile psychosexuality (Jahrbuch fuer psychoanalytische und
psychopathologische Forschungen, Bd. 1, 2, 1909). I can point with
satisfaction to the fact that direct observation has fully confirmed the
conclusion drawn from psychoanalysis, and thus furnishes good evidence
for the reliability of the latter method of investigation.

Moreover, the "Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-year-old Boy" (Jahrbuch,
Bd. 1) has taught us something new for which psychoanalysis had not
prepared us, to wit, that sexual symbolism, the representation of the
sexual by non-sexual objects and relations--reaches back into the years
when the child is first learning to master the language. My attention
has also been directed to a deficiency in the above-cited statement
which for the sake of clearness described any conceivable separation
between the two phases of autoerotism and object love as