Does every biographical subject need “psychoanalytic treatment?” No, no more than every individual needs psychoanalytic treatment. For any one, contrary to the view prevalent back in the post-war golden age of psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic treatment should be the treatment of last resort. Because it is so expensive, time consuming, and labor intensive it is much better if one can get by without it. The same general principles apply to its use in the fields of biography and history.
What are the biographical situations in which psychoanalytic understanding may be useful or desirable? First there is the subject in which overt and extensive psychopathology exists without question; Vincent Van Gogh would be one of the most obvious cases. In such cases one wants to know not only about the nature of the illness and its causes but the relation between the subject’s illness and his art.
Then there are examples of biographical subjects whom some might wish to refer to an analyst—an intermediate group—who are creative and able to function more or less but who seem quite miserable. Such as Poe and Coleridge struggling with their addictions; Charles Darwin, paralyzed with fear about presenting his ideas and obsessed with his crippling psychosomatic symptoms; Herman Melville, lost to his alternating depressive and manic moods.