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.
Unlike most books by authors who have no personal experience of mental depths, this is a book that evokes the reader's respect. It is a serious attempt, undertaken soberly and dispassionately, to evaluate the numerous theories of the unconscious that have been put forward. The writer brings some valuable qualifications to his task: an extensive knowledge of the literature, though unfortunately with critical omissions in this respect, and a clear-mindedness, a sense of fairness, and an absence of prejudice not often met with in this turbulent field. He has evidently given some close thought to his subject, and he expresses his conclusions lucidly and dispassionately. On the other hand, there are two important lacks in his armamentarium: defective knowledge and, in our opinion, imperfect critical judgement. The first of these can, of course, be remedied; as to the second, we have no means of knowing. On the whole, therefore, the book strikes one as a product of immaturity and as having been prematurely written. It would certainly have been improved had the author had personal contact with actual workers in the field.
The book covers just the same ground as Levine's, which is not mentioned. Though fuller than the latter, it is not so sure and incisive. The first half is devoted to pre-analytical theories, and is much the better one; the second deals with psycho-analysis.
The author's imperfect critical powers show themselves, not only in his final conclusions, where after all the peculiarity of the subject would excuse much, but in other respects as well, notably in his lack of discrimination in regard to various writers. Thus, he deals adequately with Janet's work, but devotes a disproportionate space to that of Sidis (who, by the way, is spoken of in the present tense instead of in the past); Rivers obtains too extensive a hearing at the expense of Jung, essential features of whose theory are not expounded; Maeder's and Silberer's views should have received