“Both history and psychoanalysis are sciences of memory, both are professionally committed to skepticism, both trace causes in the past, both seek to penetrate behind pioues professions and subtle evasions.” So concludes historian Peter Gay in this powerful argument for why historians must apply psychoanalysis in their work.

He acknowledges the pitfalls. There have been several embarrassing works of psychohistory, including one about U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to which Freud lent his name and authority. But there have also been cases where historians learned things through psychoanalysis that could not have been learned any other way.

In my own work as a historian, I too am finding that there are things for which there is no alternative than psychology. Peter Gay’s book is a good introduction to the field and the case he makes is compelling.