Perhaps, before going further, I should attempt to disarm criticism about the term “unconscious.” We speak of subconsciousness, co-consciousness, unconscious mind, unconscious cerebration; or what other terms should we use? Here it is better to avoid discussion, for we are concerned less with theory than with practice. And in Freud’s work, whether we accept his theory or not, the practice is of primary importance. He takes the view that no conscious experience is entirely lost; what seems to have vanished from the current consciousness has really passed into a subconsciousness, where it lives on in an organised form as real as if it were still part of the conscious personality. This view, with various modifications, is adopted by many students of morbid psychology. But there is another view. Muensterberg, for instance, maintains that it is unnecessary to speak of “subconsciousness,” for every fact can be explained in terms of physiology. He would accept the term “co-conscious” or “co-consciousness”; but in one chapter he ends the discussion by saying: “But whether we prefer the physiological account or insist on the co-conscious phenomena, in either case is there any chance for the subconscious to slip in? That a content of consciousness is to a high degree dissociated, or that the idea of the personality is split off, is certainly a symptom of pathological disturbance, but it has nothing to do with the constituting of two different kinds of consciousness, or with breaking the continuous sameness of consciousness itself. The most exceptional and most uncanny occurrences of the hospital teach after all the same which our daily experience ought to teach us: there is no subconsciousness” (“Psychotherapy,” p. 157). There are many refinements of distinction that we could make here, and if any reader is anxious to consider them, he will find some of them in a small volume on “Subconscious Phenomena,” by Muensterberg, Ribot, and others (Rebman, London). Here it is not of primary importance to come to any conclusion on the best term to use or the complement theory of the facts. The discussion is far from an end; but the harvest of facts need not wait for the end of the discussion. Meanwhile, let it be said that Professor Freud has been steeped in this whole subject from his student days. It is, however, less important to discuss his theory than to understand his method. The method is called “psycho-analysis.” The name is not inviting, and it might apply to any form of mental analysis; but it is at least consistently Greek in etymology, and has taken on a technical meaning in the medical schools. What is the method?