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 reviewer does not feel that a line by line defense of his original criticism of Dr. Jelliffe's book could possibly be of general interest. For his own part, he must reaffirm his conviction that the monograph on Oculogyric Crises is inadequate, both from the neurological and from the psychoanalytic points of view. After restudying the monograph, and rereading some of the other publications of the author to which he refers in his rebuttal, the reviewer finds himself unable to make any essential amelioration of his initial criticisms.
One can only admire the resilient spirit of Dr. Jelliffe's reply, but at the same time one regrets both the author's refusal to believe in the sincerity of the personal tribute with which the review opened and the personal tone of the counter-attack. It is fair to demand from such a monograph a clear formulation of the problems, and a clear indication of the methodological approaches to their solution. In the review itself was pointed out what Dr. Jelliffe emphasizes in his reply, namely, that it is premature to demand the answers to these problems. Therefore it was not for this that the monograph was criticized, but rather for making the questions less clear and the methods more obscure. These fundamental criticisms still seem to the reviewer to be sound.