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.
Learning Theory and the Symbolic Process, by New York, London. John Wiley, 1960. pp. xi + 473. 68s.
The symbol is of central importance in analytical psychology and analysts will welcome studies of symbolism by specialists in other fields. These three books are written by an historian of religion, an art critic, and an experimental psychologist.
Eliade considers that only by the use of a symbolical method can the history of religion do justice to the phenomena and also be relevant in the modern world. While valuing the modern historico-cultural approach, in that it emphasizes the importance of the context in which a symbol is actualized, he criticizes its short-sighted specialization and its biased empirical, positivist approach. He maintains that the phenomena of religion demand a view which is both historical and ahistorical. A symbol represents a “boundary situation”, in which there is an opening into “a transhistorical world”. History thus becomes a “metapsychoanalysis” or “maieutics”, by which man can renew archaic symbols and assimilate, anew, their message, which was lost by nineteenth-century rationalism. In detailed studies of the images of the Centre, time and eternity, knots, shells, and creation, Eliade illustrates his concept of the symbol as an autonomous mode of cognition with a multivalent logic of its own. This logic extends, but does not exclude, material and analytical concepts; and, through it, the individual and society can become more whole and integrated. By symbolic experience, man can become conscious of his place in the universe.
Cirlot's approach is similar to that of Eliade. In an introduction, which includes valuable discussions of the definition, history, and interpretation of the symbol, he intimates his partiality for such metaphysical interpretations as the common rhythm of Schneider. Jung is referred to by both Eliade and Cirlot, and the latter gives an adequate, concise presentation of the concept of the archetype. He