You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The author begins with an historical account of the development of psycho-analysis, and we would suggest that the following corrections be inserted in the next edition of his book. Freud was not lecturing on psycho-analysis in 1895, nor did Sadger, Adler, and Stekel join him in that year, but some seven or eight years later; also the Swiss interest in his work dates from 1903, not 1900. It is not true that "many members of the Swiss school (by which the author means the followers of Jung) were clergymen": only two clergymen in Switzerland have displayed a serious interest in psycho-analysis; that of Pfarrer Keller was only a fleeting one, while Pfarrer Pfister is an adherent of Freud, not of Jung. Nor is it true that "psycho-analysis found ready acceptance in Austria, Germany, and England", as those practising it know well, for even now they are in a minority of one to five million. The subject was not introduced into Holland by Jelgersma, whose interest in it dates from 1914, not 1904 as stated, but by van Emden, van Ophuijsen, and Stärcke, whose interest in it has not been "particularly on the theoretical side", for they are all experienced practitioners. The present reviewer would not feel justified, merely because he spent four years in Canada, to put forward the claim to be called an "American analyst"; and to name only White, Jelliffe, and Kempf as the leading analysts in the United States is doing an obvious injustice to Dr. Brill, who has done more than anyone else in that country to develop the knowledge of psycho-analysis.
The object of the book is to convey a knowledge of psycho-analysis to an audience ignorant of the subject, and is therefore avowedly popular. The author sees no important differences between the views of Freud, Adler, and Jung, but considers that they supplement and reinforce one another, a position which at once indicates his state of knowledge of the subject, for, whichever of the three views is the more in accord with the evi