fabric except a trust in man’s futuren. How will we survive ? Whatnwill it take to survive? What willnpromote desirable, harmoniousnsocial progress? Dubos nevernreally addresses these questions,nwhich, perhaps, is what makesnhis work so innocently likeable.nThe Mystique of an AdjectivenReuben Fine: A History of Psychoanalysis;nColumbia UniversitynPress; New York.nIs Professor Sigmund Freudn(that is, his memory and legacy)nmore famous or more controversialn? He certainly changed man’ snknowledge (and opinion) ofnhimself. During this century hisnname has dotted the pages ofnprint with a frequency comparablenonly to such names asnHomer, Dante and Shakespearen(in literature) or Moses, Christnand Mohammed (in a muchnlarger dimension). People of diversenpersuasions who instinctivelyndislike him and his teachingsncredit him, together withnKarl Marx, with the degenerationnof Western civilization.nSpiritualists loathe him for reducingnthe soul to physiologicalnimpulses. Materialists despisenhim for promoting the dream tona determining factor of humanness.nCoUectivists hate him fornproving that man is not a socialnartifact but a marvel of individuality.nFideists see him as the assassinnof the transcendentalnmeasurement of person andnfate. Traditionalists will nevernpardon him for his sinful romancenwith experimentationnand change. He became a quintessentialnobject of worship fornthe fanatics of liberalism andnradical humanitarians (as oxymoronicnas such denominationsnmay sound).nHowever, recent research hasnbrought forth new controversynover Dr. Freud’s image and convictions,nfrom which he maynemerge as an unexpected supporternof truths and values whichnwe may be forced to call—of allnthings—quite conservative. Ancool, sober and thorough examinationnof these new aspects.nProfessor Fine’ s exhaustive studyncastigates the post-Freudianntheorists of “primal scream”ntherapy as “vulgarians.” Henstresses Freud’s allegiance tonmoral philosophy as a conditionsine qua non of all psychoanalyticalnresearch and reminds usnthat, after all, Freud believed innnormalcy as an establishable notion,noften repeating that “thennormal person is the one whoncan love and work, and go onnfrom there…” DnPerplexitynJoseph Alsop: FDR: A CentenarynRemembrance; The VilcingnPress; New York.nTo some, Roosevelt was thenone who annihilated the ethic ofncapitalism. To others, he was thensavior of capitalism’s mechanismnand structure. To many, henwas the inspired, inebriatingnleader who led the nation into itsnmost glorious war. To almost asnmany, he was an insensitive,neven malicious, foreign-policynbungler whose naivete, or sloppiness,ngave us the global messnwe are in right now. To a multitudenof Americans, he was ancharismatic guardian angel, a romanticnprophet who extricatednthem from one of the most ominousnsocioeconomic debacles innhistory. To perhaps as many, henwas a shifty social schemer whonunraveled the very fabric of thentime-honored American systemnof economic principles. Yet anman who could combine sonmany extreme contradictions intonone dynamic personality andninfluence the politics of the mostnpowerful country on earth to annalmost unmatched degree—nsuch a man could not be devoidnof some greatness.nThat’s exactly what JosephnAlsop, a noted publicist andnWashington insider (and a Rooseveltnadmirer), tries to show in anvolume filled with fabulouslynnostalgic photography. DnLiBKRAL CULTUREnO, What a Lovely Theory!nIn the New York Review ofnBooks, which is trying to becomena textbook of liberal revisionism,nMr. Felix Rohatyn, a humanitariannfinancier, once again expoundsnthe New Liberal Message—hownto be thrifty andngenerous, practical and decent,nfair to the poor ««