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 authors find it unjustified that symbolism, together with the theories of the Vienna School in general, often meets with such derisive consideration in Latin countries. They show by reference to three works dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that even at that time the sexual significance of symbolism was to a great extent recognised. One work by Pierius contains about 3000 examples; nevertheless, in reckoning these, it strikes the reviewer that these symbols are interpreted altogether much more vaguely than Freud has taught. Thus, for example, garden represents woman (and not her genital hair). The serpent is traced back to the Bible and to many other old documents. These old works also recognise the representation by means of opposites: thus in different circumstances the serpent symbolizes mastery, exactitude and cunning. To these old authors dreams are the realisation of a 'hope', for which Freud has only substituted a 'wish'. The authors show from their own observations on patients that here too the same symbols apply, and rightly conclude that symbolism is an eternal human possession. In conclusion they nevertheless fall into the error of thinking that by his discovery of 'pansexuality' Freud undervalues egoistic interests. Synthesis of these two currents is, however, an indispensable task of psychotherapeutic treatment—an assertion which is obviously in accordance with Freud's view, since psychogenic diseases owe their origin to the conflict of these interests with sexuality (which cannot therefore be 'pansexuality').