Guggenbühll-Craig, Adolf (ed.) The Archetype: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress for Analytical Psychology. Basel/New York:  Karger, 1964, Pp.  234.

… The two opening papers present the results of research: Edinger's ‘Trinity and quaternity’ is complete whereas Henderson's ‘The archetype of culture’ shows us how he has been thinking about a research which is still in progress. Edinger makes a good case for paying more attention to symbolism involving the ongoing three rather than the static four, and suggests that their eventual combination symbolizes ‘real insight’. Henderson proposes an unconscious cultural layer between the collective and the personal unconscious in an attempt to account for certain phenomena. With a deft movement which I hardly noticed at the time, he slices this layer off the collective unconscious apparently in order to introduce an archetype (other than the self) to explain the universal tendency towards the formation of culture. I am not clear as to why this seemed necessary and, indeed, I had the impression that archetypes tended to proliferate in other papers too. For instance, Strauss's ‘Archetype of separation’, though a fascinating clinical study, bothered me for the same reason. There are many archetypal patterns and situations, but it would seem an advantage to restrict the number of archetypes which account for their dynamism, or else the concept stands in danger of losing its basic meaning.

A paper that breaks new ground is Jackson's ‘Symbol formation and the delusional transference’. He is concerned with the early history of the symbol and its somatic basis. He further discusses patients who operate on a level where interpretations in terms of