Promethean Constellations Part II Certain Analytical Discriminations
- Author:
Henry E. Starr, Ph.D.
Head of the Department of Psychology and Director of the Psychological and Mental Hygiene Clinic of Rutgers University Taking cognizance of increasing demands upon consulting psychologists in that direction, the Executive Committee of the Association of Consulting Psychologists last fall (1932) established a sub-committee on Psycho-therapy in conjunction with the general committee on Standardization and Training. The demand for such service is apparently wide. It is reported as evident in the middle West and on the Pacific coast, as well as in the New York metropolitan area where it was first brought to the notice of the Executive Committee. As Chairman of the Committee on Standardization and Training my attention has been forcibly drawn, in this connection, to certain lacuna in our psycho-therapeutic conceptual equipment. Accordingly, pending the publication of more detailed reports from the Rutgers psychological laboratory and clinic, it appeared advisable to present to the members of the Association, for their consideration, the preceding brief paper on such idealistic drives and psychic constellations as I have therein termed Promethean.1 Discussion with the members following the reading of the paper indicated that, in releasing it for publication in The Psychological Clinic, it should be accompanied by certain addenda. Hence these “Analytical Discriminations.” It is quite evident that a number of the pioneers and leaders in clinical psychology present at the annual meeting, found the fundamental thesis of the paper in accord with their own professional experience. There appears to be abundant independent confirmation of our findings and it is hoped that “Promethean constellations” will prove a useful term.
It was suggested by one more learned in Greek language and mythology than I, that the term employed might better have been “Promethidean” rather than ‘4 Promethean.” For there was but one Prometheus and the Promethidae were his children.2 From this point of view, we might think of one integrated constellation or system of constellations (such as I have tentatively and rather noncommittally referred to as a “Higher Self”) which would be, as it were, “Prometheus.” Its various outcroppings, ebullitions or manifestations in various guises would then be ‘’ the Promethidae.’’ Such a terminology might indeed be an improvement and perhaps it may have to be adopted in future, when more is known about constellations per se. It is, however, not incorrect to speak of plural Promethean constellations operative in a single individual.
Promethean is an adjective. Hence both a “Prometheus constellation” and “Promethidae constellations” are, if they be of the nature of Prometheus, Promethean?just as a “higher self” and the constellations integrated thereinto are both Promethean. The concept of Prometheus to which “Promethean constellations” owe their name is specifically that of the captured but unconquered Titan of classical Greek mythology, who brought the divine fire down to man, who was therefore bound upon Mount Caucasus, and who, for present purposes, is sufficiently described in any good dictionary, such as the Funk and Wagnalls Standard, the Merriam Webster, or the Winston Simplified, all of which derive from Hesiod. The concept is in no sense to be confused with the psycho-analytic mythology of Abraham or of Jung in his Psychology of the Unconscious. Both of these writers drew upon the earlier work of Adalbert Kuhn, concerning whose conclusions Jung wrote: “Through an unauthorized Sanskrit word ‘pramathyus,’ which comes by way of ‘pramantha,’ and which possesses the double meaning of ‘Rubber’ and ‘Robber,’ the transition to Prometheus was effected. With that, however, the prefix ‘pra’ caused special difficulty, so that the whole derivation was doubted by a series of authors, and was held, in part, as erroneous.’’3 Despite the fact that Kuhn’s conclusions are questionable, however, and apparently because the “Pramantha” can be considered as the phallus, it serves as a text for many dreary psycho-analytic pages on “fire-boring,” “onanism,” “incestuous coitus,” etc., all of which has completely and literally just nothing at all to do with the present concept of Promethean constellations. It is referred to at this place simply to avoid possible future confusion. Nor is the present use of the term especially concerned with the philological fact that the word “Prometheus” is derived from “prometheia” meaning forethought. In happy contrast to his earlier writings above referred to, Jung has considered the meaning of Prometheus as ‘’ the fore-thinker’’ in masterly fashion in his “Psychological Types”4 wherein, comparing Spittler’s Prometheus and Epimetheus with Goethe’s Pandora, he indicates the tendency of each author to portray “the fore-thinker” as in the likeness of his own type. More detailed study of Spittler’s Prometheus leads Jung to an able and profound discussion of “The Significance of the Reconciling Symbol” and “The Relativity of the Symbol.” But the Promethean concept of the present paper is not concerned with these discussions nor with the problem of types. It is not derived therefrom and has no especial connotation thereof. The term “Promethean” as it is derived from the legend of Hesiod is thus suggested for psychological usage without any modern modification. Even the use of the term allegorically would appear to be in strict accordance with that author’s intent, if we may believe a rather involved fragment from Zosimus dating from the third or fourth century A.D., in which it is recorded that “Hesiod said that the outer man was the ‘bond’ by which Zeus bound Prometheus.’’5
It should be noted that such urges as may properly be referred to as Promethean, are psychonomic rather than pathognomic, consequently the earlier psychological term “constellation” is distinctly preferable in this connection to the later and altogether unsuitable psychiatric term ‘’ complex.’’ The latter word has come to have a distinctly pathological connotation, whatever it may be said to denote. Thus, Fritz Wittels, M.D., writing on “Psychoanalysis and Literature” in the quite inclusive “Psycho-Analysis Today,”6 refers to the CEdipus, Electra, Medea, Clytemnestra, Jehovah, Belshazzar and Manfred complexes, Narcissism, the Kandaules motive, the Don Juan type, and suggests the naming of other complexes after Phsedra, Heracles and Amphitryon. It would seem a fairly exhaustive roll call of the complexes recognized by the psycho-analysts, and all of them?morbid. There is no mention of Prometheus or of anything at all akin to repressed idealism. Furthermore, while a Promethean constellation in consequence of repression may become pathogenic, it is essentially orthogenic. To be sure, Jung has recently defined a complex as “a constellation of psychic contents dynamically conditioned by energic value.’’7 The term as so defined would not be objectionable for the present purpose. Unfortunately, however, Jung’s point of view is not as widely known in this country as are the more distinctly pathological approaches of Freud and Adler. And Promethean constellations are not complexes in the usual psycho-analytic sense as illustrated by Wittels’ list, nor should they be confused therewith. It is not without regret that I have ventured to add another term to our already overburdened psychological vocabulary. As far as I have been able to ascertain, however, we have lacked and needed a generic term for apparently innate constellations urging in the direction of an ideal above the level of the social group of the individual and consequently repressed by social taboo. Possibly such constellations should not be regarded as necessarily universal or invariably innate, but they are present in many individuals and when found are frequently unaccompanied by any genetic history of conditioning. Perhaps they have such a genesis which we have failed to find. But to state that such is the case without any evidence to that effect concerning the specific individual in question would be even more wrong-headedly dogmatic than any possibly premature insistence upon the innateness of the drives. To speak with extreme caution, on the basis of present data, the drives may at least tentatively be regarded as innate. Our work at the Rutgers Clinic has convinced us of the necessity of considering this kind of motivation and the utility of a single phrase to express it. “Promethean constellations” serves us well in this connection. It should be obvious that these concepts of Promethean constellations and their integration into a higher self, should not be confused with the Freudian “super-ego.” The former baffle any attempt at adequate etiological explanation in terms of early conditioning. On the contrary, as just pointed out above, they appear to be innate tendencies?mayhap to have their origin in that vast unexplained background which Jung calls “the impersonal unconscious”?a term perhaps more mystical but certainly less mystifying than the Freudian “id.” They are, furthermore, most frequently repressed by that very social conditioning which the reflexologist would invoke for their explanation. The Freudian super-ego, on the other hand, may be regarded as itself the “conscience” resulting from social pressure and parent identification and in accord therewith. Thus, far from being the same thing, the Promethean constellations and the Freudian “super-ego” may be, and probably most frequently are, in conflict.
It might have been supposed that the psycho-analysts would have discovered long since that while the repression of sexuality or of the will to power can cause trouble, so also can a too rigid repression of the innate idealism of the individual. That there are certain vague and uneasy stirrings in their ranks, suggestive of at least a partial realization of the existence of an unsolved problem in this connection, may be inferred (perhaps too optimistically) from Dr Franz Alexander’s suggested concept of the “ego-ideal” in contradistinction to the “super-ego.” However, he defines the “ego-ideal” as containing “those specific values acquired in later life and which are the conscious directing forces of conduct.’’8 As such, of course, it should no more be confused with Promethean constellations than should the “super-ego.” It is regrettably evident that repressed innate ideals are still overlooked by the psychoanalysts. At least four factors may have contributed to this oversight. In the first place, both Freud and Adler are psychiatrists and the great bulk of practitioners of their respective systems are psychiatrists, not psychologists. As such, it is probable that they lack, save in exceptional instances, training in the clinical psychology of normal human beings and, not infrequently perhaps, even in the fundamental principles of general psychology.9’10 They are, to that extent, without an intellectual scientific corrective for a quite natural bias resulting from preoccupation with the abnormal and diseased and approach the basic problems of the human psyche with a limited and distorted orientation. It is, therefore, perhaps not very surprising that certain psychiatric psycho-analysts, or Adlerian “individual psychologists” can come to see in all human motivation “nothing but” a rampant sexuality or a ruthless “Wille zur Macht.”11
A second factor probably contributing to the psycho-analysts’ oversight, is that in such an intricate network as human personality, it is all too easy to find that which one looks to see. Freud is quoted by Jensen as stating: ” I sacrificed my beginning popularity as a physician and the visits of nervous patients during my office hours by asking them consistently and unswervingly for the sexual causes of their neuroses.” 12 We may admire his spirit of unthinking self-sacrifice and condole with him over his diminished practice, but we need not therefore overlook the fact that Freud thus obviously suggested and steered the associational trends of his patients. There appears to be little doubt that Adler similarly looked for “inferiority” or that the followers of each have looked to see confirmation of the central tenets of their leader’s creed. Thirdly, it is not unlikely that somewhat selected groups have been studied by each school. The “consistent and unswerving” attitude of Freud above cited must have tended to restrict his analytical subjects to such as did not find his sexual emphasis too obnoxious. In addition to such considerations, however, it is tritely true that the human being tends to seek advice of the sort he prefers to hear. And the names of Freud and “psycho-analysis” and of Adler and ‘’ individual psychology’’ are sufficiently widely known in association with their respective predominant themes to influence those to whom sexual restraint is irksome to seek the one and those afflicted with a painful sense of inferiority to seek the other. A fourth fact that calls for mention in this connection is the undeniable potency and ubiquity of the erotic motif in human behavior. This must be obvious to all who have studied the well springs of human nature in human beings rather than in printed books. It is, of course, avoided or denied by those frantic moralizing sentimentalists who oppose to the restricted orientation of Freud an even narrower point of view of their own and who, by hurling ‘’ pan-sexuality ” as an epithet at him, but display their own hysteria. The researches of Havelock Ellis have long since demonstrated the origin of such reactions. On looking within the mind and motivation of man, one finds the omnipresent Eros there and Death also, both in multiform guise. But Prometheus is likewise there, and so too, may be many another. It is only if one be too greatly preoccupied with or have too great a personal predilection for either that he becomes blind to the presence of the others. The error of Freud is not that he has found Eros (or was it Pan?) but that in addition he has seen but Death and failed to find Prometheus. Perhaps it is true that in the last analysis?or in the Ultima Thule of synthesis?Pan, Eros, Death, Prometheus and all the others that may be, alike are One. Such final analysis, however, is as yet beyond the reach of our present scientific methods. Psycho-analysis is still in the stage of proximate rather than ultimate analysis. Furthermore, as Taylor has ably pointed out, “rather than contemplate human sexuality as a metaphysical simple, we should acknowledge its complexity.”13 To which may be added Jung’s general warning that “science has always thoroughly deceived itself whenever it had the idea of discovering how simple things are.’’14 The Freudian capitulation to the lure of monistic finality is premature. Like all such surrenders, it has resulted in impeding freedom of exploration?a freedom which would probably have led the psycho-analysts long since to the discovery of Promethean constellations, had they not been tangled in the toils of dogmatic erotic monism.
All four of the above mentioned factors have probably contributed to the psychoanalytic oversight of Promethean constellations and may confidently be expected to play no small role in determining the future attitude of many toward such urges. The latter will, of course, continue to be ignored or explained away by reflexological Freudians and Adlerians and those depending therefrom. But consulting psychologists practising psychonomic analysis will recognize their importance and reckon with them. It is interesting to note that Jung, whose writings are increasingly psychonomic in scope and orientation, wrote as early as 1916: ‘’ If in such cases analysis be systematically continued, an inventory of incompatible wish-phantasies is gradually revealed, whose combinations amaze us. In addition to all the sexual perversions every conceivable kind of crime is discovered, as well as every conceivable heroic action and great thought, whose existence in the analyzed person no one would have suspected.” 15 Although, no doubt, it contributed to his formulation of the concept of the ” impersonal unconscious,” the implications of this early finding do not yet appear to be fully realized.10 It is frequently objected to the Zurich school that it is “mystical.” The same objection has already been levelled at the concept of Promethean constellations. Possibly such an impeachment is quite serious?if justified. It depends upon just what is meant by “mystical.” Let us consider. It is quite true that the constellations themselves frequently display a trend in a direction which might indeed be dominated “mystical” by the more intellectual exponents of mysticism, such as G. R. S. Mead, Arthur Edward Waite, William Kingsland, W. L. Wilmshurst, Rudolph Steiner, Evelyn Underhill, E. J. Langford Garstin, John W. Graham and Rufus Jones?to mention a few whose writings indicate that mystical trends are not invariably accompanied by intellectual enfeeblement.17 The specific Promethean constellation displayed in the case of “L.” was, as I have said, “an urge in the direction of the mio mystica.” An ultra-Freudian would probably see in such an urge “nothing but” an expression of incestuous tendencies, or, if he were growing old and weary, he might see in it “nothing but” a wish for death. It should be patent, however, that even if in an individual case, either or both of these complexes contribute to such an urge, they do not necessarily exhaust either its content or its meaning. The analysis of “L.” was continued beyond the period of emergence of the constellation urging toward the “mystic union,” but he revealed no signs of an underlying CEdipus complex or of a death wish. In fairness it should be noted in this connection that Silberer, who in his earlier writings assumed a position much like that of the ultra-Freudian above suggested, subsequently argued for “the multiple determination” of “the anagogic idea of the unio mystica.”18
We may accept the quite non-technical definition of “mystical” given in the Standard Dictionary as “remote from or obscure to human observation,” without thereby lapsing into the unfortunate popular tendency to regard the “mystical” as essentially synonymous with vague thought and unclear expression. This tendency is of course, fostered by many self-styled “mystics” peddling themselves and their wares in public advertisements. And still further adding to the confusion are their psycho-neurotic dupes, speaking of themselves with bated breath as “very mystical” and ever agog over some new “master.” However, there is also to be considered the result of the difficulties encountered by such sincere mystics as Jakob Boehme, George Fox and Walt Whitman, in their attempts to express in words of common denotation and even more commonplace connotation, an experience in an uncommon state of consciousness. Their most honest and earnest efforts have frequently resulted in such terrific crudities of phraseology as somewhat to justify the layman’s confusion of the “mystical” with the mistily mysterious. Why not, when Boehme himself not inappropriately named his nine-hundred page masterpiece “Mysterium Magnum,’’19 and Whitman affirms 4’ I too, am untranslatable, I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world”? It is but bare intellectual honesty, however, to recognize that while the term “mysticism” may technically and correctly refer to a body of concepts derived from an experience which may indeed be irrational, the consideration of those concepts or of that experience, need not therefore be unintellectual or in any sense “mystical.” Similarly, while a specific Promethean constellation may be of a mystical trend, the detection and study of that constellation must depend upon rigidly scientific analysis and postanalytic consideration. Finally, if the post-analytic findings of psychological science happen to agree with the pre-analytical generalizations of mystiPROMETHEAN CONSTELLATIONS 15 cism, the validity of such findings is not thereby affected. It seems altogether banal to mention this. Yet after the preceding paper (Promethean Constellations, Part I) was read, more than one person informed me that the concept of Promethean constellations has much in common with “the Quaker concept of the Inward Light” and “thereforeit was said, “the concept was mystical and unscientific.” It were pointless to labor over this particular illustration of non sequitur. As Witmer has long since pointed out, “mysticism struggles toward truth without analysis.”10 And if, as he shrewdly adds, “successful thinking is predominately analytical, ‘’ that fact but serves to indicate the odds against the mystic. It in no sense indicates that he has never and nowhere found that toward which he struggled. If there be a marked parallelism between “the Inward Light” and “Promethean constellations,” it is but evidence of the sagacity of the early Friends and argues nothing against our present findings. And the same may be said of the ancient Egyptians with their concepts of the ~ba, the khu, the Individual Osiris and in a certain sense, the Great God Temu,20 as also of the old Hebrew authors of the Zohar, who, in addition to the Nephesh and the Ruach, spoke of the Neshamah (“the aspiration to the Ineffable One, in the Soul”),21 not to mention the erstwhile Saul of Tarsus and many another in many a tongue and in divers lands and ages.
Although we have failed to find it in the literature of modern psychology, it is quite possible that even our post-analytic confirmation of certain phases of these early generalizations (which it is customary to dismiss rather complacently as “pre-analytic”) may have been anticipated and the findings somewhere published. It would indeed appear surprising if such were not the case. The facts are so very obvious. At all events, the intent of these papers is not to establish priority or in any sense to “stake out a claim.” It is simply to point out certain psychological facts essential to the psychonomic understanding and adjustment of human beings to the conditions of human life. Neither are we concerned with the presentation of anything like statistical evidence for the conclusions herein presented. We are quite convinced that any alert psychologist skilled in psychonomic analysis can confirm our findings in his own practice, if indeed he has not already done so. All that is required is that the analysis be continued to a sufficient extent undirected by suggestion and that the analyst shall study his findings with a normal degree of analytical discrimination. Unless he is himself in need of readjustment, he should experience no particular difficulty in recognizing those repressed but potent idealistic drives to which we have but sought to direct attention and the concept of which we have tried to make more specific in the present papers by terming them “Promethean constellations.”
Summary
Discussion with members of the Association of Consulting Psychologists following the reading of the preceding paper indicated considerable independent confirmation of its main conclusions but also suggested the need of further analytical discrimination of the terminology.
The adjective Promethean as employed in these papers is derived from the legend of Hesiod and does not draw upon recent psycho-analytical studies of mythology or of psychological types. In the present connection, the word “constellation” is distinctly preferable to “complex” which has a psycho-analytical connotation of pathology.
Promethean constellation is used as a generic term for apparently innate drives in the direction of an ideal above the level of the social group of the individual and consequently repressed by social taboo. As such, it is to be distinguished alike from the “super-ego” of Freud and the “ego-ideal” of Alexander.
Although implicit in the psychonomic orientation of Witmer, such drives have hitherto been overlooked by the psycho-analysts and by the ‘’ individual psychologists.’’ At least four factors have probably contributed to this oversight: (1) inadequate psychological training and experience; (2) the influence of preconceived ideas; (3) study restricted to selected groups; (4) the ubiquity of the erotic motif in human behavior leading the analysts toward their premature lapse into dogmatic monism.
Of the analysts, Jung seems to have come closest to the recognition of such motivational and ideational constellations as we have termed “Promethean.” The Zurich school has been objected to as “mystical” and a similar objection has already been made to the Promethean concepts. The objectors naively fail to realize two facts. (1) Although a specific Promethean constellation operative in a specific individual may be of a mystical trend, the detection and study of that constellation must depend upon rigidly scientific analysis and post-analytic consideration. (2) If the post-analytical findings of modern psychological science happen to agree with cerPROMETHEAN CONSTELLATIONS 17 tain pre-analytical generalizations of mysticism, the validity of such findings is not thereby affected.
Competent psychonomic analysts should have little difficulty in discovering Promethean constellations. The purpose of these papers is simply to direct attention to the existence and social repression of such idealistic motivation. Notes and Check-list 1 Promethean Constellations. I. A psychonomic contribution to analytical technique. In this issue of The Psychological Clinic. 2 Leverett’s Latin Lexicon. Boston, 1836. s C. G. Jung. Psychology of the Unconscious. Authorized translation by Beatrice Hinkle, M.D. Moffat, Yard and Co., New York, 1916. p. 163. 4 C. G. Jung. Psychological Types. Translated by H. Godwin Baynes. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1926.
s The text is as follows: ‘1 For Hesiod said that the outer man was the ‘bond’ by which Zeus bound Prometheus. Subsequently, in addition to this bond, he sends him another, Pandora, whom the Hebrews call Eve. For Prometheus and Epimetheus are one Man, according to the system of allegory,?that is, Soul and Body. And at one time He bears the likeness of soul, at another of mind, at another of flesh, owing to the imperfect attention which Epimetheus paid to the counsel of Prometheus, his own mind.” Translated by G. B. S. Mead, who, however, adds: “I am almost persuaded that $ 14 (the section above reproduced) is also a quotation or summary and not the simple exegesis of Zosimus; the original being from the pen of some nonHebrew Hellenistic allegorizer.” G. B. S. Mead. Thrice Greatest Hermes. 3 vols. Theosophical Publishing Society, London and Benares, 1906. Vol. 3, p. 280. 6 Psycho-analysis Today: Its Scope and Function. Edited by Sandor Lorand, M.D. Covici-Friede, New York, 1933. 7 C. G. Jung. Contributions to Analytical Psychology. Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York, 1928. p. 11. s Franz Alexander, M.D. Development of the Ego-Psychology. In (6) above. 9 “Psychology is not yet taught in the medical schools of this country, for one reason, because professors of medicine think they can make psychonomic as well as psychopathic interpretations of human behavior without having had instruction in the psychological diagnosis of normal mentality, personality and will. “The curriculum of the preparatory and professional courses in medicine might lead one to suppose that the graduates of medical schools were being prepared to practice medicine on animals, and not on beings having human emotions, will, intelligence and intellect. ‘Grandmother’s medicine’ is now in full retreat before the advance of vaccines, antitoxins and serums, but ‘grandmother’s psychology’ lingers on in the medical clinics, and is much in evidence wherever psychiatrists are gathered together to give expert testimony before judge and jury on both sides of a question involving the differential diagnosis of insanity, criminality or feeble-mindedness. That instruction in the psychology of the normal mind counts for something, even in the science of mental pathology and the practice of mental therapeutics and hygiene, may be inferred from the fact that the psychological method which enabled Kraepelin to transform the science of psychiatry was not learned at his mother’s knee nor yet in a medical school, but in the psychological laboratory of Wilhelm Wundt at Leipzig.” Lightner Witmer. Psychological Diagnosis and the Psychonomic Orientation of Analytic Science. An Epitome. Psychol. Clin., 1925, 16, 1-18. Reprinted in 10 below.
10 Clinical Psychology. Studies in honor of Lightner Witmer to commemorate the thirty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the first Psychological Clinic. Edited by Robert A. Brotemarkle. University of Pennsylvania Press and Oxford University Press, Philadelphia and London, 1931. 11 That it is possible for an exceptional thinker to transcend such limitations is evidenced by recent developments in the “analytical psychology” of Carl Jung, who is now conveniently damned as one who “would be a prophet” by Freud, who appears to remain ensnared in his own early professional provincialism. Whether or not one agrees with Jung’s interpretations of his findings, his later writings are increasingly suggestive and important and it is to be regretted that they are not more widely known. At once more profound and less sensational than most writers on analytic subjects, he is in no sense “popular.” In contrast to Jung, see Sandor Ferenczi, M.D., “Freud’s Influence in Medicine,” in (6) above. Verbum sapientibus. It should be noted, en passant, that oftimes a general medical practitioner, especially if he be a typically loved and respected family physician of “the old school,” knows far more that is true of human nature than many a “psychiatrist” who may have specialized upon an inadequate basis, or an academic “psychologist” who may have intensively studied the reactions of a selected group of lower animals. He may lack the specialized factual knowledge and the formal approach, but he may also be free from the concomitant bias and restricted outlook. At least he has the opportunity for singularly close and intimate study of his patients both in health and in illness.
12 Gardner Murphy and Friedrich Jensen. Approaches to Personality. Coward, McCann, New York, 1933, p. 106. Quoted from Freud, History of the psychoanalytic movement. Psycho-anal. Bev., 1916, 3, 412. The authors state, with regard to the rather lengthy paragraph from which the present quotation is taken, “our translation differs slightly.”
is W. S. Taylor. A Critique of Sublimation in Males: A Study of Forty Superior Single Men. Genet. Psychol. Monog., 1933, 13, 1-115. A logical and scholarly study of interest and value to consulting psychologists. 14 Secret Ways of the Mind. A Survey of the Psychological Principles of Freud, Adler and Jung. By W. M. Kranefeldt. With an introduction by C. G. Jung. Translated by Ralph M. Eaton. Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1932. See page xxxix. An excellent little survey that should be useful to consulting psychologists.
15 C. G. Jung. Collected Papers on Analytical Psychology. Translated by Dr Constance E. Long. 2nd ed. Balliere, Tindall and Cox. London, 1922. 1? For what would appear to foreshadow further significant developments see The Secret of the Golden Flower. Translated and explained by Richard Wilhelm. With a European Commentary by C. G. Jung. Translated into English by Carey F. Baynes. Harcourt Brace and Co., New York, 1931. Especially pages 133-5.
17 In this general conection, the following may be referred to: G. R. S. Mead. Some Mystical Adventures. John M. Watkins, London, 1910. Arthur Edward Waite. The Way of Divine Union. Rider and Son, London, 1915. William Kingsland. Rational Mysticism: A Development of Scientific Idealism. Frank-Maurice, New York, 1927. W. L. Wilmshurst. Contemplations: Being Studies in Christian Mysticism. John M. Watkins, London. Rudolph Steiner. The PMlosophy of Spiritual Activity. 2nd ed. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, London and New York, 1922. Evelyn Underhill. Mysticism. A Study in the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual Consciousness. E. P. Dutton and Co., New York. E. J. Langford Garstin. Theurgy or the Hermetic Practice. Rider and Co., London, 1930. John W. Graham. The Divinity in Man. Allen and Unwin, London, 1927. Rufus Jones. Studies in Mystical Religion. Macmillan, London, 1909. is Herbert Silberer. Problems in Mysticism and its Symbolism. Translated by Smith Ely Jelliffe, M.D., Ph.D. Moffat, Yard and Co., New York, 1917. In thus presenting to English readers Silberer’s important concept of anagogic interpretation, Dr Jelliffe, whose own early writings virtually constitute him the dean of psycho-analysts in this country, has merited the sincere thanks of all who are concerned with the problems of human adjustment. is Jacob Boehme. Mysterium Magnum. Translated by John Sparrow. Edited by C. J. Barker. 2 vols. John M. Watkins, London, 1925. Written in 1623, this classic of mysticism was “englislied” and published by John Sparrow in 1654, was republished (slightly revised) by William Law in his uncompleted edition of Boehme’s works (1763-81) and remained out of print for more than a century. Both the editor and the publisher of the present English edition of this and other portly tomes of the “God-intoxicated” Boehme, are to be sincerely commended for having made again available the unacknowledged and often unrecognized source-books of much of the best in modern thought. In addition to the Mysterium Magnum, they have published The Threefold Life of Man, The Three Principles of the Divine Essence, The Aurora and The Forty Questions. In this connection, see also the following. Margaret Lewis Bailey. Milton and Jakob Boehme. Oxford University Press, London and New York, 1914. Howard H. Brinton. The Mystic Will. Based on a study of the Philosophy of Jacob Boehme. With an Introduction by Rufus M. Jones. Macmillan, New York, 1930. 20 For a very elementary discussion see the Introduction by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge to his translation of “The Book of the Dead,” 2nd ed. 3 vols. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., London, 1909. Standard reference works for English readers are Budge’s larger works?”The Gods of the Egyptians,” “Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection,” “The Mummy,” etc. 21 S. L. MacGregor Mathers. Kabiala Denudata. George Redway, Lon20 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC don, 1887. See plate vi. Mathers drew largely upon the Kabbala Denudata of Knorr von Rosenroth. (Frankfort, 1684). In the latter work, see plate following page 242, a the conclusion of Tomus II, Pars III, Tractatus i, Pneumatica Cabtalistica. The plate is explained in the accompanying Latin text.
Among a number of references to the Zohar which might be cited in this connection, see especially Part ii (Mishpatim), fol. 94b-97b and Part ii (Terumah), fol. 141b-142b. An English translation of the Zohar is now being issued by the Soncino Press, London. Three of the five volumes promised have already appeared. They are disappointing. They are not as adequately annotated nor is the text itself as inclusive as is that of the French translation of Jean de Pauly, which remains the most complete and scholarly translation of the Zohar available in a modern language. See Sepher Ha Zohar (Le Livre de la Splendeur). Traduit pour la premiere fois sur le texte chaldaique et accompagne de notes par Jean de Pauly. Ouvre posthume entierement revue corrigee complete. Publiee par les soins de fimile LafumaGiraud. 6 vols. Ernest Laroux. Paris. 1906-11.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.