George Dawes Hicks. By W. G. de Burgh. (From the Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. XXVII. London: Humphrey Milford. 1942. Pp. 29. 3s. net.)

Abstract

is anxious to correct certain misapprehensions about psychoanalysis, including some of Dr. Waddington's, and also to show that psychoanalysis is much more scientific than its romantic jargon suggests to the uninitiated. This she does very skilfully, in a philosophical as well as in a scientific way. When she has to say what has to be said she says it. "Is there any reason," she asks (p. 69) "to suppose that evolution as a whole has the production of our "good" mature personalities as its goal?" But she is an adept (and not by chance) at avoiding thin analytical ice and gives her mind to the attempt to discover what she and Waddington can agree in commending. In short, her letters are beautiful examples of philosophical adaptability, and intensely interesting as examples of the technique of agreement despite. radical divergence upon "ultimate" questions. I wish I had Dr. Stephen's skill. Lacking it, and having no desire in the world to agree with about half of these authors, I have reluctantly joined the tickers-off. I should like to repeat, however, that I think the discussion profoundly interesting, and am most grateful to Dr. Waddington in particular both for what he gives and for what he gives away.