But there are two Freuds, the literary and the metaphysical. In telling dreams no mortal ever dared to tell before, he uses language that he who runs may read. In his book on “Wit in its Relation to the Unconscious”--one of the most complete compendiums of smutty stories in the world--he proves himself a lively raconteur. But when he seeks to plunge deep down to the roots of things, his style suddenly becomes a Chinese puzzle. Take, for instance, the following paragraph from pages 478 and 479 of “The Interpretation of Dreams”: “When I termed one of the psychic processes in the psychic apparatus the primary process, I did so not only in consideration of the order of precedence and capability, but also as admitting the temporal relations to a share in the nomenclature. As far as our knowledge goes there is no psychic apparatus possessing only the primary process, and in so far it is a theoretic fiction; but so much is based on fact, that the primary processes are present in the apparatus from the beginning, while the secondary processes develop gradually in the course of life.” In the original German this seems, to me at least, even less like language than it does in the Brill translation. So much less that one evening as I was puzzling over it, trying in vain to make it fit into any conceivable sense, I fell asleep. And as I slept I dreamed; and as I dreamed Freud appeared to me, and, after considerable persuasion, proceeded to re-translate: “When I said that one of the psychic processes was the primary process, I meant that it was not only first in capacity but first in the time of its appearance.” “Very good,” said I. “Kindly go on.” “As far as we know,” he did go on, “there is no psychic apparatus in existence, and there never was one, which possesses only the primary process. Therefore it is a theoretic fiction to suppose that there can be a primary process standing alone.” “Why then,” I interrupted, “do you complicate matters with a theoretic fiction when they are complicated enough, in all conscience, if we bother only with facts?” “Because,”--and his tone showed some asperity, as if he were addressing a stupid pupil, “because the primary processes are present in the apparatus from the beginning, while the secondary processes develop gradually in the course of life.” I gasped. “According to that there _is_ a time when the primary apparatus _does_ stand alone, viz, the time before the secondary process develops. I thought you just said there was no such time?” “You needn’t be rude,” said the great man. “Nobody is supposed to read these obscure passages. But I have to write them, just as a doctor has to talk a little Latin when you go to him for a prescription. You wouldn’t respect him if he didn’t. Besides, what difference does it make whether the primary apparatus ever stands alone or not?” In my dream I pondered this for a long time before replying: