[Freud as neuropathologist, his reception in France before 1910]

Even before 1910 Freud in Paris was not unknown. His relation to Charcot first and the reception of his papers by Charcot's followers (mainly Raymond, Marie, Brissaud) later represent a particular chapter of history. This is well documented by Charcot's letters to Freud (hitherto published only in French), by Freud's French articles as well as by many medical theses (Paris, Lyon, Nancy, Bordeaux) discussing the pros and cons. Two topics were focussed. First there was a neurological dispute about Little's disease, its clinical vignette, etiologies, and its spinal and cerebral localisations. Freud argued there to be a nosographic entity. Most of Charcot's disciples, however, pleaded against the idea of an entity for such different pathological forms. This was followed by a discussion about Freuds doctrine of neuroses and their sexual origin, which Freud opposed to the French theories of heredity and degeneration. Both of the discussions were without personal encounter and without a direct exchange of views between the protagonists. Which did not cause it to be less vivid and intense. This proves Freud's standing as an internationally acknowledged expert for neuropathological aspects of the child. However, starting in 1900, Freud retired from the neurological discussion and the Paris scene. The dispute about Little's disease faded away and the discussion about neuroses became occupied by Janet's writings. The neuropathologist Freud eclipsed the psychoanalyst Freud. Hence Freud's repeated complaints not to have been well received by the French.