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.
An anthology that attempts to be all things to all men almost never succeeds, except as a Christmas present. One always plans to reread at least portions of an 1100-page book of 91 pieces of fiction and non-fiction by authors as disparate as Freud, St. Augustine, Anatole France, Shakespeare, Philip Roth, de Sade, Lewis Carroll, Dostoyevsky, Melanie Klein, and the Brothers Grimm. The book seems primarily meant to be browsed through despite its structuring by means of such divisions as “The Early Years,” “Old Age and Death,” “Education,” “Work and Play,” and so on. The short introductory pieces by the editor, G. B. Levitas, that precede each reading focus the reader's mind on the particular human concern to be treated of in the selection that follows and show a connection with psychoanalytic theory that is not always easily apparent to the analytically unsophisticated reader. Occasionally one must disagree with the editor's views in his exegesis of psychoanalytic theory, as for example in his introduction to a selection by C. G. Jung: “There were many good reasons why Freud should have seen religion in this particular light [that is, as neurotic]. His own strict upbringing and his relation to his father led him to project onto religion ideas that reflect simply his own subjective point of view … Jung … was always aware of another power in man … He concluded that man was by nature religious and that some neuroses could only be understood in terms of this regard for the religious or numinous principle.” In a book that joins together an interest in psychoanalysis and literature, Jungian theories on religion and archetypes are bound to be welcomed by those who still insist on Jung as though he might turn out some day to have the winning theory. Readers should be warned, though, that any statement to the effect that Freud's view of religion was a result of “simply his own subjective joint of view” is simplistic, as well as being ex cathedra. To any but Jungian analysts, of