This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

It has always been thought difficult, if not impossible, to define what the philosophy of Carlyle was. Ever since the publication of Sartor Resartus in 1833-1834, the view that Carlyle had a theistic conception of the universe has been defended as well as opposed. At a time, therefore, when Carlyle’s work as a whole is being reappraised, his philosophy should first and foremost be dealt with. Carlyle’s life-philosophy is based on the inner experience of a process of ‘conversion’, which set in with an incident that occurred to him at Leith Walk, Edinburgh. This study – which settles the old question of the date of the incident – demonstrates that the inner struggle, the dynamics of which are described most fully in Sartor, is analogous to the Jungian process of individuation. For the first time in critical literature, the basic ideas of Carlyle’s philosophy are thus linked to depth psychology and shown to be analogous to the fundamental concepts of Analytical Psychology. In recent criticism, it has been asserted that the crisis recorded in Sartor is akin to the crisis of doubt said to underlie Jean Paul’s “Rede des todten Christus” (1796), which is probably the first poetic expression of nihilism in European literature and has become a classic. Apart from demonstrating that, in the last fifty years at least, the “Rede” has erroneously been interpreted as a dream of annihilation, this book invalidates the view of Jean Paul as victim of the skepticism of his age, and argues that, contrary to what is usually maintained, the “Rede” is not the document of a crisis, but of a belief which had become antiquated and obsolete for Carlyle.

It focuses on computer applications relevant to clinical psychiatric practice, including all the new tools for assimilating and managing the requisite knowledge, facilitating the required documentation, and providing clinical service.

The Mini Rough Guide to London is the ultimate pocket guide to one of the world's most exhillarating cities. There are concise accounts of every major attraction, from Trafalgar Square and the great museums, right out to Greenwich, Kew and even Windsor. Comprehensive maps allow for quick reference and include locations of museums, galleries, churches and other attractions.

Published in 1998, J. M. Robertson: Rationalist and Literary Critic is a study of the life of one of the most erudite and prolific critics of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Scotsman John MacKinnon Robertson (1856-1933), rationalist and enemy of religion to the core, published over one hundred books and thousands of articles in fields as diverse as sociology, economics, history, anthropology, biblical criticism and literary criticism. This once widely known (and feared!) author was all too quickly forgotten after his death and his work is now seldom read. The aim of this book is to demonstrate that Robertson’s writings and in particular his acute and powerful literary criticism – much respected by T. S. Eliot – have not lost their relevance for late twentieth century readers. Moreover, through the examinations of Robertson’s work in its contextual framework, this study provides a wide-ranging perspective on the late-Victorian literary scene, which perhaps present-day literary historians have not given the detailed attention it deserves.