484 THE SCIENTIFIC MONTHLY
bolic features are uncensored. Symbolism is much more common than is ordinarily supposed. All early language was symbolic. The language of children and of savages abounds in symbolism. Symbolic modes of expression both in art and in literature are among the earliest forms of treating difficult situations in delicate and inoffensive ways. In other words, symbols in art are a necessity and serve the same purpose as does the censor in the dreams. Even those of us who have not an artistic education^ however, have become familiar with the commoner forms of symbolism through our acquaintance with literature. In the dream, when the more finely controlled physiological processes are in abeyance, there is a tendency to revert to the symbolic modes of ex- pression. This has its use, because on awaking the dream does not shock us, since we make no attempt to analyze or trace back in the dream the symbol's original meaning. Hence we find that the manifest con- tent is often filled with symbols which occasionally give us the clue to the dream analysis.
The dream then brings surcease from our maladjustments: If we are denied power, influence, or love by society or by individuals, we can obtain these desiderata in our dreams. We can possess in dreams the things which we can not have by day. In sleep the poor man be- comes a Midas, the ugly woman handsome, the childless woman sur- rounded by children, and those who in daily life live upon a crust, in their dreams dine like princes (after living upon canned goods for two months in the Dry Tortugas, the burden of my every dream was food). Where the wished-for things are compatible with our daily code, they are remembered on awaking as they were dreamed. Society, however, will not allow the unmarried woman to have children, how- ever keen her desire for them. Hence her dreams in which the wish is gratified are remembered in meaningless words and symbols.
Biological Basis of thb Wish
Long before the time Freud's doctrine saw the light of day, Wil- liam James gave the key to what I believed to be the true explanation of the wish. Thirty years ago he wrote :
... I am often confronted by the necessity of standing by one of my selves and relinquishing the rest. Not that I would not, if I could, be both handsome and fat and well dressed, and a great athlete, and make a million a year, be a wit, a han-vivant, and a lady-kiUer, as well as a philosopher; a philanthropist, a statesman, a warrior, and African explorer, as well as a 'Hone-poet and a saint. But the thing is simply impossible. The mil- lionaire's work would run counter to the saint's; the bon-vivant and the philan- thropist would trip each other up; the philosopher and the lady-kiUer could not weU keep house in the same tenement of clay. Such di£Ferent characters may conceivably at the outset of life be alike possible to a man. But to make any one of them actual, the rest must more or less be suppressed.
�� �
