Rapid Fire G&A: Why Psychoanalysis?

Sigmund Freud

For all my craze about Freud and classics, I do have to admit that there are several valid critiques of Freudian theory out there. For one, Freud’s psychoanalysis is not backed in science. His theories on the “Oedipal” or the “phallic” are mere metaphors with no valid substance backing them outside of the fictional stories from which they are culled. What, then, makes psychoanalysis a worthy method of studying classics? According to the classicist Ellen Oliensis, the answer may be as easy as simply acknowledging the existence of an unconscious.

In school, we’re taught not to assume authorial intent. For instance, I can’t say that Vergil wrote the Aeneid as anti-propaganda for Augustus, despite the heaps of evidence suggesting it. Nor can I say the opposite for the same reason. I don’t know what was going through Vergil’s mind when he chose to dedicate an entire book of his epic to a Carthaginian queen, and because of that unknown factor of authorial intent, and because of that, forcing a definite claim on any literary work will face its fair share of disagreements. 

Psychoanalysis is a method of reading classical texts by capitalizing on the influence of the unconscious—the author’s and the subject’s. This does not mean that psychoanalysis is accurate. Like all things, it’s also a mere speculation.