Morelly's Code de la nature, proclaimed in

1750. One may even discern in the reason-

ing of our federal judiciary a concept cu-
riously suggestive of J ean-J acques' Volontk
gdndral. Finally, the epidemic of riots, ar-
son, and looting, with the universal prev-
alence of violent crime may produce by
and by a state of mind not very far re-
moved from the great panic of 1789.
'The origin of this celebrated pen-name is un-
certain. Lanson supports the general opinion that
it is some kind of anagram.
'Acton, Lectures on the French Revolution, Lon-
don: 1910.
'De l'ancien re'gime et la re'volution. This mag-
nificent study was, unhappily, never finished. The
author died in 1856 won after the first volume was
completed.
'Reflections on History, London: 1943.
'Introduction to the Everyman edition of the
Discourses and the Social Contract, London: 1913.
'The Roots of Totalitarian Democracy, London :
1955.
'The Future of Industrial Man, New York: 1942
'Ferrero, The Principles of Power, New York:
'The Age of Reason, New York: 1961.
1942.
A well-known poet, unrelated to Jean-Jacques
or D'Alembert's foster-mother. Some satirical
verses attributed to him aroused the wrath of sev-
eral influential writers and he was driven into
exile. At the mention of his name, according to M.
Lanson, Voltaire would "fly into a rage."
lo
"The Psychology of Revolmion.
"Ferrero, op. cit.
Man, Woman, and Person
The Flight from Woman, by Karl Stern,
M. D., New York: Farrar, Straus & Gir-
OUZ, 1965. 310 pp. $4.95.
ONE OF THE most intriguing-if not the
most rewarding-fields of observation for
the student of personality is the failure of
mankind to deal with the problems of mas-
culinity and femininity. The human species
has solved many problems and, in spite of
being a very inferior animal, by the ability
to eliminate a number of natural obstacles,
has arrived at the apex of the evolutionary
pyramid, through the process of what PBre
Teilhard de Chardin calls horninisation.
We are becoming ever more confident that
increased technological know-how in all as-
pects of human endeavor, including B.F.
Skinner's pet preoccupation, the controll-
ing of man, will eventually lead to an un-
precedented security in everyday life.
Yet, wehave not solved problems issuing
from the very essence of human existence.
The problem we understand least is Man
himself. The distinguished philosopher,
Eliseo Vivas has written eloquently on be-
half of the intrinsic value of man as a per-
son? Man is not a thing, he asserts, and
pleads for the scientific recognition of the
unique nature of man. Ashley Montagu sees
the problem from a different angle: from
the point of relationships between persons.2
C.G. J ung maintained in one of his last
works: that man is in dire need of discov-
ering an integrated Self. I contend that we
spend a lifetime in search of ourselves with
more or less success4 and that mankind
*does not even begin to understand the es-
sence of human existence, the four great
issues: life, death, leadership, and sexuality.
We have created a chaos by not facing
these issues squarely. This contention usual-
ly meets with a resistant gunfire of learned
objections which run something like this:
"Ah, but science has answered most of the
important questions connected with life,
death, leadership, and sexuality. If people
would only think about these issues in
terms of scientific analysis, most of our
problems would not exist."
I beg to reply to these objections (smack-
ing of wishful utopianism) that the trouble
with living, pulsating people, existing out-
side of laboratories seems to be that they
prefer to live life instead of analyzing it.
The fact that we seem to have scientific ex-
planations of the phenomena of life does not
make a whit of difference in our attitudes
toward them. I agree with Ashley Montagu
that (for example) we are quite inept in
dealing with human relations, in spite of
our democratic institutions and legislations.8
Modern Age 83
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
The attitude of scientism has spawned
many an astounding statement from some
very important (if not very wise) people.
Only twenty-five years ago Stalin said:
A single death is an incident of conse-
qiience and pathos: death of a million is a
matter of statistics.* One of the leaders
of twentieth-century humanity hath spoken.
We did not deal any more successfully
with the issue of sexuality, or, more precise-
I?, with the questions of masculinity and
femininity. For we are just beginning to re-
alize that, as far as the totality of human
experience goes, masculinity and femininity
encompass more than sex life. he history
of man and his attitudes toward this simple
fact shows pendulum-like fluctuations. Worn-
en have been disdained, feared, wor-
shipped, adored, avoided, fought and died
for, detested, oppressed, emancipated-but
ncver understood. The recent trend in our
own culture to equalize women, i.e. to deny
the differences between masculinity and
temininity, has led only to more confusion,
more artificiality and more anguish.
Here, I a m trying to examine this confu-
sion, the factors contributing to it, and com-
pare my conclusions with those of the erni-
nent Canadian psychiatrist, Dr. Karl Stern,
whose book analyzes the same basic ques-
tion: Why is i t that man and woman can-
not understand each other as they should?
Is there or is there not a feminine
mystique, Mrs. Friedan notwithstanding? It
is not that we need more and more scien-
tific explanations. New sex surveys
and marriage manuals are published al-
most every month, dealing mostly with the
technology of sexual relationships. On the
one hand, many of us believe that never be-
fore in history was there such a degree of
sexual libertinism so widespread as in our
times; on the other hand we read more and
more animated, desperate pleas for more
sexuaI enlightenment and freedom, more
sexual rights. (What a delusion!) A finan-
cially successful, aggressive, young editor-
~~~ ~
*As quoted by Lord Mornn in his diaries on
Churchill, 1966.
publisher has written his magnum opus, his
Playboy philosophy, on this subject. He
gives US nothing new beyond crying for
more sexual liberation, as so many oth-
er youngsters do, and a concomitant prosti-
tution of the word philosophy. Frankly, I
am confused. What can be meant by more
liberation? In the days of miniskirts wom-
en reveal as much of themselves and their
underwear as the beholder can take in.
Magazines, ladies journals, Sunday supple-
ments are treating of sex openly and gush-
ingly. Sex, sex everywhere-in cars, on
college campuses, and even in churches.
One of the deleterious effects of such con-
trived freedom of discussion is that, like
the miniskirt, they leave very little or noth-
ing to the imagination. Yet, imagination
and fantasy are very necessary ingredients
for successful and satisfying sexual experi-
ences. This mania of talking everything
out, making everything completely reason-
able and leaving nothing to the intricacies
of fantasy but converting even our most in-
timate feelings and emotions into public
property is, of course, only a part of a ma-
jor pattern that I call the sterilization of our
psychic life.s
Whatever the overall picture may be.
the student of personality is still in search
of the contributing faclors: What makes per-
sons, individually or in the aggregate,
think, feel, behave in this pattern? And we
find that our earlier question, Why is it
that man and woman cannot understand
each other as they should? is compounded
by a frightening realization, namely that,
in addition to a lack of understanding, they
are drifting apart, taking flight from each
other. Alas, there is nothing new about it.
The female was always held at arms
length by the male (when not in her em-
brace). Women were, and still are in some
Oriental countries, considered inferior. On
the Indian subcontinent women are se-
cluded from the mainstream of life, from
the really serious affairs of general male
interest. The only difference between
the Moslem and Hindu attitudes toward
women is that in a Moslem culture women
84 Winter 1966-67
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
are both secluded and excluded, while
in India they are secluded but not excluded.
I n the classical Greek world Penel-
ow was considered an outstanding femi-
nine personality because of her fidelity and
wifely virtue, and not because of her intel-
lectual competence or physical prowess.
Omnipotence was an exclusively male
characteristic: Zeus needed no female
to bear his favorite daughter, Pallas
Athena. She, in turn, needed no maternal
nurture to get her through a cumbersome
and dependent childhood: she appeared
fully grown, fully equipped, complete with
her Aegis. Creation was the act of a male
god in all mythologies, theologies, and
primitive cosmogonies. Psychologically,
these archetypal symbols convey not SO
much the inferiority of woman as her na-
ture, different from the males and there-
fore mysterious to men of all ages and
cultures. All attempts in history to equalize
woman have resulted in neutralization,
consequently in failure, because the aim of
woman is inferior to man. Ashley Montagu,
however, insists that women are the bio-
logically more valuable part of the species
capital for reasons that should be obvious.
We should acknowledge that woman is dif-
ferent, not inferior. Differences are not
quantitative concepts, superiority and iyfe-
riority are. Differences are qualitative val-
ue concepts.
The history of mankind indicates that the
male mind cannot deal adequately with
values. Over the centuries we have
been taught the original badness of
man, and aggression, competition, destruc-
tion, and conquest have become distinguish-
ing hallmarks of masculinity. We rejoice
when our little boy shows aggression on the
ballfield, and egg him on when he is in a
competitive situation. Should our eight-
year-old he-man turn out to be less aggres-
sive and more docile than our preconceived
idea of maleness would warrant, we berate
him for being a sissy. We forget, of course,
that true masculinity consists of the integra-
tion of strength and tenderness.
I
I
equalization was based on the delusion that
Ambivalence toward women is not only
proverbial, it is archetypal. Even where
women were not despised or avoided, they
were at least held in suspicion, not to
be trusted. Motherly, understanding, allur-
ing, forgiving perhaps, but potentially dan-
gerous and destructive. From ancient or
contemporary goddesses with whimsical,
unpredictable natures, to Rider Haggards
She or Keats La Belle Dame S m Merci,
they all express this archetype of ambiv-
alent feelings toward women. The Hun-
garian proverb: Mans fate is woman
and the French hint: Cherck lu
femme, along with the concept of ;femme
fatale constantly remind us how formidable
woman may be. At the same time, we may
reflect that of all spoken languages it is on-
ly in Hungalrian that we find the equivalent
of wife to be, in literal translation, my
other half (fezeskg). I t @ves us food for
thought.
Fright leads to either fight or flight. The
war between the sexes may be a threadbare
cliche but a reality, nevertheless. The se-
clusion, exclusion, and outright oppression
of women are one outcome of this war, with
the victorioue male brooking no nonsense.
Some educated Pakistani explained to me
why they keep their women in purdah (be-
hind walls or curtains) and excluded from
public life. I was puzzled by this during the
seven years of my living in that country.
Since I found no explanation in the Koran,
I had interviewed a great number of intelli-
gent males and their answers were almost
verbatim unanimous, as if by conspiracy:
We believe in decent life. We want
to deal with temptation thoroughly and pre-
ventively. If you do not see the women, YOU
do not get indecent impulses toward them.
That is why we hide them. They are
our property and we guard our property:
The second half of the statement took care
of the question of exclusion.
Western man, however, should not cast
stones at Orientals for such an attitude. Not
SO long ago our women had no voting right,
no property right, could not hold public of-
fice or enter certain professions. Milady
Modern Am
85
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
wore long and heavy dresses to conceal her
figure, and any decent Victorian woman
would categorically deny possessing thighs,
legs or knees or that she perspired. As
late as World War 11, Lady Churchill
(then Mrs. C.) remarked wistfully that
men may seem eager to light a ladys ciga-
rette but they never listen to what women
have to say.*
On the other side the war of the sexes
has produced the emancipated, phallic
woman. Industrial, scientific, psychological,
and political revolutions inevitably effected
the liberation of women. One of the ear-
liest, most militant promises toward the
equalization of women may be read in the
Communist Manifesto (1848). The whole-
sale liberation of women occurred early in
the Soviet Union and more recently in
China in a truly masculine fashion.
Now women in those countries are free
to bear not only children but also arms, to
shovel snow in city streets and to do heavy
labor in factories. Only in comparatively
old-fashioned, outlying kolchoses, though,
do women pull the plows, with the men
holding the reins.
I hold that the emancipation or equaliza-
tion of women has led to their masculiniza-
tion, with a more or less complete concur-
rent emasculation of men. Comic strips like
Blondie and shows like Ozzie and Harriet
are not only catering to public taste: they
are the creations of public taste. Most tele-
vision advertising reveal femina trium-
phans placing her dainty foot on the just-
felled stone-age brute: most husbands are
Flintstones, shown as bumbling idiots who
can be knocked over with just a dash of fe-
male supremacy. It is the omniscient mother
or wife who knows not only the right bleach
but who can select, on scientific basis, the
correct toothpaste (uniting the family
again) ; the husband is incompetent, he in-
variably selects brand X. Yes, all this may
be fantasy on the screen. But it is modern
woman who is parading her equality in the
I
,
*As mentioned by Lord Moran in his diaries on
Churchill, 1966.
trousers stolen from man. No healthy male
ever appears at a supermarket in skirts (al-
though the fad or long hair is catching!).
Are the emancipated women who now
even shed the feminine mystique happier,
healthier, and more stable ; are they enjoy-
ing their independence and their denuded
femininity more than their enslaved sis-
ters were able to? Are men and wom-
en closer to each other, more comfortable?s
The reader may answer these questions for
himself, bearing in mind that the over-
whelming majority of the more than 500,
000 Americans currently treated in mental
hospitals are women. Two-thirds of old-age
home residents are lonely women, females
surviving men 3 to 1. The divorce rate is
still increasing and the chorus of discontent
is heard all over the land.
The effects of psychological enlighten-
ment run parallel to the political upheavals
of socialism in statu nuscendi. Freud, who
had a generally pessimistic view of human-
ity, has given the world a model of feminin-
ity that strikes many of us as a malignant
caricature. Some of his theories concerning
female sexuality are museum-pieces now,
in the merciless light of recent re-
search. They are at best fatuous and repre-
sent the Achilles-heel of orthodox physcho-
analytic theory (like the two kinds of fe-
male orgasm, etc.). All said and done,
Freuds portrait of woman is that of a hos-
tile, frustrated creature, bereft of manhood,
hence forever envious. Her relationship to
man is that of constant hostility and compe-
tition: her revolt is inevitable. Helene
Deutsch, a Freudian and a woman, has on-
ly slightly mitigated the dismal picture with
her statement that the essence of woman-
hood is passivity in contrast to the stormy
activism of the male.
The first medical psychologist who
has attempted to illuminate the mysteries of
femininity was C. G. J ung. With help from
his wife, Emma, herself an eminent
psychologist, he did not bog down in
the mere physiology of female sexuality but
explored the psychological differentiation
of male and female. He did not pretend to
86 Winter 1966-67
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
understand the mystery. He, of all people,
had a healthy respect for the mysteri-
ous and knew very well that mysteries are
not understood by the rational mind: that
is why they are mysteries. But he had the
honesty and courage, i n addition to an
inquiring mind, to study rather than sweep
under the rug the two kinds of knowledge:
rational and i nt~i ti ve.~ His concept of the
archetype of femininity, the Anima, sym-
bolizes the intuitive, while in women
the corresponding Animus, or rational part
of the personality, is in a more or less de-
veloped state of awareness. J ung conceives
of masculinity and femininity as opposites,
or polarities, but he insists that the relation-
ship of the opposites is not necessarily hos-
tile but potentially cooperative and cre-
ative. Neither represents completeness with-
out the other? Relations become hostile if
the male represses the feminine princi-
ple (in females the reverse applies) too
long or too consistently. Then the pent-up
unconscious components, symbolized by the
Anima or Animus, assert themselves in the
most embarrassing way, hostile to the ego,
and produce moody, unreliable, hysterical
males and the stiff, frigid, opinionated fe-
males whom the Freudians as well as pulp
magazines call the phallic woman. Thus
J ung has called attention to the age-old
simple truth that woman is different from
man but not inferior to him: they comple-
ment each other. I quote his most beautiful
statement from memory: Man takes the
world by storm. Woman becomes conscious
of the world by awakening. More subtle
and refined than the crude assertion
that woman is either envious and hostile or
exclusively passive and humble-as if hu-
mility were a crime or at least a mis-
demeanor.
Vivas, Montagu, J ung, and many others
have at least one endeavor in common: the
search for a satisfactory theory of man as
a person and not a thing. This, however, is
not possible without recognizing the validity
of poetic-intuitive modes of knowledge, rep-
resented by the feminine principle as an in-
tegral part of the human personality. Now
Karl Stem has joined the ranks of these dis-
tinguished thinkers by virtue of his message
in The Flight from Woman. He presents a
number of original theses, hard facts and
arguments not so much on behalf of
or in defense of women as in quest of
an integrated view of the human person-
ality (which is not a sex-linked concept).
Dr. Stems work, in my view, contributes
much toward the clearing of the jungle of
present-day behavioral sciences which Pro-
fessor Vivas so justly criticizes? More than
that: this work helps us to reflect and clari-
fy our thinking on the four great issues of
life, death, leadership, and sexuality.
Sterns book is an example of clear,
quiet style, based on sound medical princi-
ples without being annoyingly clinical-a
rare gift for a psychiatrist. The psychiatric
connoisseur no less than the lover of belles
lettres or biographies may find delight
in this book, provided he keeps an
open mind to accommodate a number
of original ideas. Even the amplification of
some theories of J ung is the product of
a discerning mind in a personality who has
gone through unique experiences during
and after World War 11. These have given
him a singularly deep insight into his own
nature as well as into the nature of his fel-
low humans. We know this from Dr. Sterns
earlier writings such as The Pillar of Fire
and Through Dooms of Love. Many critics
may say many things about Stern and his
work; they may raise some objections to his
views and theories and the way he presents
them (such as that he is mystic, sentimen-
tal, and a mentalist, etc.) but none can
say that he is not genuine. He shows
the characteristic that I consider to be the
only legitimate excuse for human authori-
ty: authenticity.
Stern postulates a polarity between man
and woman and insists that this polarity is
not hostile but complementary, thus re-
inforcing and amplifying some of Jungs
theories which, fifty years ago, represented
a sharp departure from the Freudian dog
ma of woman. The polarity exists with-
in the phenomenological and ontological
Modem Age
87
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
unit wecall Man, is inherent in his person-
ality and is a conditio sine qua non of inte-
gral completeness. The idea has solid scien-
tific grounding in the inevitable biological
fact of sexual differentiation, which, the au-
thor says, has been more or less deliberately
overlooked or ignored in psychology. He
takes issue with the second sex attitude of
very antithesis of her writings because, con-
trary to Mlle. de Beauvoir, he argues that
the differences between male and female
are real, biologically as well as psycholog-
social conditioning. He assures us that
contrary to what George Sand or Simone
de Beauvoir believes, biology is not a mat-
ter of an instrumentarium of circumscribed
purpose.
Sterns purpose here is not to defend
women. He feels they do not need defend-
ing. What they need is recognition of the
feminine principle in a world that has al-
most succeeded in sterilizing modern life of
anything that is beautiful, poetic and in ap-
parent contradiction to pure reason, what-
ever that may be. Sterns thesis is germane
to the issues we touched upon earlier in this
review: that we cannot even begin to under-
stand the persistent problems of human ex-
istence until we acknowledge the polarity
of the sexes as reflected in the conflict of
the two modes of knowledge: scientific or
rational and poetic or intuitive. He suggests
that the continuous human predicament is
aggravated by a lopsided, rationalistic, ag-
gressively activist attitude. It is as if femi-
ninity did not exist, or if it does, it is non-
sensical and inimical to rationality and
technicality, therefore useless. Freud, Ad-
ler, Sand, and de Beauvoir all fall into this
trap, their sincere endeavors to understand
woman notwithstanding. Contemplation, lis-
tening to the inner voice, is regarded
as a feminine trait now, yet Stem says:
Uniqueness and sanctity of the human
person can be grasped only by contempla-
tion. A good response to Vivas plea,12 I
think. The alternative is defeminization,
alienation and depersonalization of our
I
I Simone de Beauvoir, indeed, his work is the
I
ically determined and not the products of
l
I
lives with an increase of programming
of human affairs, so that we live in
a world of slow and noiseless violence.
He asserts that the concept of equality is in
danger of becoming sameness and if
that becomes complete, an immanent prin-
ciple of order is lost. Oppugnancy will re-
sult. He traces modem mans loss of
his precious psychological faculties, namely
faith and trust (pistis), to this attitude of
oppugnancy.
He treads his way deftly between the ex-
tremes of the stainless steel world of mas-
culinity and the gilded rococo ornamenta-
tions of femininity when documenting the
psychological differences between the
sexes. To illustrate and amplify his points
he scans centuries of world literature, cul-
tural history, and symbolism with an ease
of erudition that I thought had died out
with J ung. One could take issue, I suppose,
with Dr. Sterns interpretation of the
English word helpmate. On p. 147
the author asserts that the phallic woman
. . . cannot be a helpmate. He considers
helpmate to be a beautiful expression. I t
is, but it derives from a misreading of the
English Bible (A.V.). The term used
there is help meet (Genesis, 2:18).
Meet, from O.E. gernrete, conveys
the sense of fitting, suitable, appro-
priate, somewhat different in meaning
from Mate which is a M.E. word,
derived from a different root, meaning an
equal, counterpart, one of a pair, a constant
associate or companion such as a spouse or
the second-in-command of a ship. But
whatever the derivations or interpretations,
Sterns point is well taken: Woman, bereft
of femininity, transformed into what the
Freudians call the phallic woman, is
not able to play her r61e as woman; indeed
she loses her most powerful asset: feminine
humility. In addition, she loses her man be-
cause of direct or indirect emasculation.
I call this the Delilah complex. Stern pre-
sents the case of Descartes as the victim of
Sterns method of supporting his con-
tentions and propositions with psycho-
castrating women.
66
88 Whter 196667
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
biographical studies is in the best tradition
of the idiographic approach. In his psycho-
graphs of Descartes, Schopenhauer, Sartre,
Tolstoy, Kierkegaard, and Goethe, he spans
centuries and traces a sorry, declining
curve of mans spirit. The line begins with
Descartes, continues downward to despair
with Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hegel,
Marx, Freud, and ends i n the here and now
with Sartre. The common denominator of
these lives is a tragic paradox: the flight
from woman whom these +sons were
constantly searching for. Their lives and
some aspects of their work remind us of the
folk song: Sometimes I feel like a mother-
less child. Of all psycho-biographical
sketches I enjoyed Goethes most, not only
because the gigantic personality of this
great polyhistor is brought out in vivid, art-
ful detail, but because, through Goethe and
his Paust, Dr. Stem supports his con-
clusions most convincingly, namely that the
essential aspects of personality resist ob-
jectification-and I may add, defy quan-
tification and reification. Personality means
more than the sum of its component parts:
the person is a historical being.13 Historical
continuity is preserved only by the eternal
feminine, that mysterious cement that
binds the disparate particles of hard
scientific facts together as one gestalt.
Goethe wrote with the finality O true
insight: Bas ewig Weibliche zieht uns hinan.
Dr. Sterns book is not a work that dis-
penses panacea. In the tradition of the true
and seasoned physician he suggests rather
than forces the solution on his patient hu-
manity. Imbued with love and understand-
ing, he knows very well that the therapy-
Things and Persons, Eliseo Vivas, Modem Age,
Education and Human Relations, Ashley Mon-
Man and Hi s Symbols, C G. J u g (ed. ), New
In Search of Our SelvesEsjays, 2. J. Levay,
Montagu, op. cit.
Zevay, op. cit.
Montagu, op. cit.
Levay, op. cit.
Spring 1965, pp. 119 ff.
tagu, New York: Grove Press, 1958.
York: Doubleday, 1965.
Baltimore: Catonsville Corn. College Pres, 1965.
which can only be self-applied, no groups,
no government can do it-is implicit in the
nature of the ailment. Sapienti sat.
Hedda Gabler is the only fictional char-
acter dissected and interpreted in the bo&.
While G. B. Shaw, in his essay on
The Quintessence of Ibsenism (1913) re-
gards Hedda Gabler as a typical ni ne
teenth-century figure and tries to make
political hay out of her character for the
Fabian Socialists, Dr. Stern interprets her
as one representative of the aggressive
women of whom we have so much
first-hand experience these days, both in
fiction and in reality. Hedda Gabler is the
female who, hogging the road in her gadg-
et-ridden pseudo-sports car, her Medusa-
head in giant curlers, is ready to im-
pale anybody who crosses the path of her
weapon-car. She is the phallic woman.
I n our world of scientism, smartness rules
and wisdom is neglected. Pallas Athena (or
her early Eastern Christian counterpart,
Sophia) is either dead or sleeping, We, the
living, prefer to think with Dr. Stern that
the heart open to infused wisdom remains
the heart of immutable virginity and hope
that this essential, eternal femininity is only
sleeping behind the seemingly impenetrable
thorny walls of aggressive intolerance, im-
personal power struggle and poisonous in-
difference. The question for us, the living,
and for the future of humanity is this: Will
the miracle recur? Will the mystery be re-
enacted? Will Prince Charming come in
the glory of his strength and tenderness and
cut through the thicket to kiss Sophia, the
sleeping beauty, into awakening?
Will Kalokaguthia rise again?
Reviewed by Z. JOHN LEVAY, M. D.
Concerning the two kinds of thinking, in The
Psychology of the Unconscious (Ch. I) , C. G. Jung,
London. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1951.
Jung, 1965, op. cit.; Animus and Anima, Emma
Jung, New York: Analytical Club of New York,
1957.
GC
i n
Vivas, op. cit.
Vbid.
J-evay, op. ci t.
The Quintessence of Ibsenism, in Major
Critical Essuys, G. B. Shaw, London: Constable and
Co., Ltd., 1948.
Modern Age 89
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED