BOOK REVIEWS ' 8r
necessarily of this infantile type which need no interpretation, it would be very unlike Freud, with his knowledge of the variability of infantile development, to make any such 'sweeping generalisation'. On the contrary, when dealing with this topic {Vorlesungen, S. 133), to avoid any misapprehension he expressly warns his readers against the idea that all dreams of children are of this nature, points out that distortion often sets in very early in childhood, but nevertheless maintains that observation of the first few years of life will disclose a number of such dreams.
Professor Valentine makes very little reference to symbolism, but his grasp of the subject may be gathered from the following example. In a dream of his own he gathered some grapes and offered them to a (man) friend, ' though they were much over- ripe ' ; the reader will be relieved to learn that this act was 'symbolic of the long overdue hospitality' (pp. 102-4). Freud is mistaken in thinking that dreams never deal with trivialities; on the contrary, even the latent content is often of quite a trivial nature (p. 8g, etc.). Nor are we to accept Freud's view that dreams are always egocentric, for they may be due to higher, moral and religious impulses (pp. 111-13}. There is no need, however, to continue further with instances of the author's ejqiressions of dis- belief in one element after another of Freud's theory, especially as he rarely finds it necessary to give any serious reason for his personal opinion.
Throughout the book psycho-analytical evidence and conclusions are repeatedly discounted on the plea that they refer only to neurotic people, the author being evidently under the illusion that these constitute a race apart. It was largely in order to meet this quite unfounded objection that Freud wrote his Traumdejitung from his own dreams, and yet, in spite of this, we are told here that 'Freud, himself, calls attention to the fact that his study of dreams is almost entirely based upon the dreams of neurotics' (p. 113). Sheltering behind this illusion on the one hand, and making extensive depreciation, restriction and modification on the other, he naturally comes to the final conclusion that 'we cannot, in the present state of our knowledge, regard most dreams as of great significance for the understanding of normal individuals' (p. 113); this only means that Professor Valentine has learned little from them for this purpose. In fact, 'we have not adequate evidence that dreams have any biological function of appreciable importance, and if that is so it is not surprising that the mechanism of the dream is irregular and incomplete. Much of the dream activity is probably due to chance (!) associations of parts of the brain still partially active, and so many dreams may be of no real significance' (p. 114).
Thus, like a philistine tourist, we refum from our grand iour un- impressed with what we have seen, with a self-satisfied air of virtue
