Fine as an Historian

 

(Above: Fine in 1961, credit: Wikipedia)

Reuben Fine is well known, or notorious, for inaccuracy in his published chess history. For details, see for instance, Edward Winter's essay on Fine's writing. But what about other writings? Is Fine more accurate in his psychological work? 

Possibly not. Fine's movement from chess to psychology was described by Gilbert Cant as a loss for chess and a draw at best for psychology, as noted for example by Winter here. Certainly, we concur with Winter that Fine's The Psychology of the Chess Player is "inexpressibly awful." 

By chance, we happen to be reading Freud Without Hindsight: Reviews of his Work (1893-1939) by Norman Kiell (Madison, CT: International Universities Press, 1988). Fine's History of Psychoanalysis is occasionally mentioned. The impression one gets is that the book is superficial. It either simply takes Freud's word (in, e.g., letters for Fleiss) as accurate without further verification, or relies on previously published secondary accounts which Kiell says, he "perpetuated."