第一章梦问题的科学文献（截至1900年）
我在下文中将论证一种有可能解梦的心理技巧。运用这种技巧，每个梦都会自动呈现出一种充满意义的精神结构，并可能和清醒状态心理活动的某一特定部分有关。我还会进一步尽力阐明梦扑朔迷离产生的那些过程，并从这些过程推断出这些精神力量的特性。我们的梦就是这些力量之间的冲突或协作产生的。之后，我的调查报告即告结束，因为梦的问题会变成更加综合的问题，而要解决这些问题，我们必须求助于各种不同的材料。
我首先要简述早期作家对这一主题的见解，然后再简述梦的问题在当代科学中的地位，因为在这个论述过程中，我很少有机会再谈到这两方面。尽管梦的问题谈论了几千年，但对梦的理解却没有多大科学进展。这一事实已得到论述该主题的早期作家的普遍承认，似乎没大必要引述各自的看法。读者会在本书末所列的著作中发现许多富有刺激性的观察报告，以及和我们的主题有关的大量有趣材料，但与梦的真实特性关系不大或毫无关系，肯定也解不开梦的任何谜团。当然，受过教育的外行对这件事知道的甚至更少。
史前时期原始人类对梦、对宇宙和灵魂观念的形成可能产生影响，这种观念是一个非常有趣的主题，只是我不愿意在这些篇章中论述这个问题。我会让读者去查阅（安维伯里勋爵）、赫伯特·斯宾塞、E·B·泰勒和其他作家的名著；我只会补充说，直到我们完成摆在面前的解梦工作，才能认识到这些问题和推测的重要性。
对原始时代持有的梦观念进行追忆，似乎成了评价梦的基础，这种评价在古代各族人中通用。他们想当然地认为，梦与他们信奉的超自然界有关，认为他们从鬼神那里得到了灵感。而且，在他们看来，梦一定会对做梦者起一种特殊作用，这些梦通常预卜未来。显梦和给做梦者产生印象的离奇变化，确实很难使人对梦产生一致的观念，所以有必要根据其价值和可靠性，进行多种分化和聚合。古代个别哲学家对梦的评价自然是根据其重要性而定，因为他们愿意把这重要性归因于通常的预言。
亚里士多德的两部作品里提到了梦，他曾经把那些梦看作是心理问题。我们得知，梦不是神赐，不具有神性，而是源自魔力。因为自然确实是魔力，而不是神力。也就是说，梦不是超自然的显灵，而是受人类精神法则的影响。当然，这和神灵有密切关系。因为睡眠者处于睡眠状态，所以梦被定义为他的精神活动。亚里士多德知晓一些梦生活的特点。比如，他知道梦会把睡觉时的轻微知觉变成强烈感觉（“如果一个人身体的某一部分微微变暖，他就会以为自己正穿过大火，感觉很热”），这会导致他推断出，梦可能会很容易向医师泄露患者当天最初不易诊断的先兆。
据说，亚里士多德之前的那些古代作家，并不把梦看作是梦心灵的产物，而看作是梦源自神灵。我们将会发现，在评价有关梦生活时，古代显然就已经有了两种对立的思想倾向。古人把梦分为两种：一种是真实、有价值的梦，它为做梦者送去警告或预卜未来之事；一种是徒然无益、具有欺骗性的空梦，其目的是让他误入歧途或走向毁灭。
科学问世前，古人对梦的观念肯定与他们对宇宙的整体观念完全一致，习惯把这种观念作为现实性投射到外部世界，而这只有在心灵生活中才具有现实性。此外，这还说明了，梦醒后第二天早上的记忆给清醒生活留下的主要印象，因为在这个记忆中，和精神内容的其他方面比较，梦似乎有些陌生，实际上是来自另一世界。我们认为自己的时代没有人支持梦源自超自然理论，将是一种错误，因为在科学解释清除这些残余之前，除了仍然坚守一度盛行的超自然领域的虔诚神秘的作家，我们还常常发现，头脑相当清醒的人，虽然在其他方面反对任何空想之事，却虔诚地相信，在梦现象的神秘特性上存在和聚合超自然精神力量（哈夫纳）。某些哲学流派（比如谢林学派）对梦生活的正确评价，显然是古代盛行梦无可争辩神力的记忆再现；而对某些思想家来说，梦的预卜力量仍然是一个争论的主题。这是因为，由心理学努力尝试解释的事实，不足以妥善处理那些堆积的材料，持科学态度的思想家可能会非常强烈地感到，这些迷信的学说都应该受到批判。
要写一部有关梦问题的科学认识论史非常难，因为尽管在某些方面可能很有价值，但迄今为止，可以看出，仍然无法在一个特定方向有真正进展。至今还没有奠定核实结果，未来研究者可能会以此继续创建的真正基础。每位新作者会重新开始考虑同一问题。如果要把这些作者按年列出，纵览每位作者对有关梦的问题所持的看法，我肯定无法全面清晰地描述我们这一主题目前的认识状况。因此，我宁愿根据自己的处理方法，也不愿依赖各位作者；而在努力尝试梦的各个问题的解决方法时，我将引用在这个主题文献里发现的材料。
CHAPTER ⅠTHE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE OF DREAM-PROBLEMS （UP TO 1900）
In the following pages，I shall demonstrate that there is a psychological technique which makes it possible to interpret dreams，and that on the application of this technique every dream will reveal itself as a psychological structure，full of significance，and one which may be assigned to a specific place in the psychic activities of the waking state.Further，I shall endeavour to elucidate the processes which underlie the strangeness and obscurity of dreams，and to deduce from these processes the nature of the psychic forces whose conflict or cooperation is responsible for our dreams.This done，my investigation will terminate，as it will have reached the point where the problem of the dream merges into more comprehensive problems，and to solve these we must have recourse to material of a different kind.
I shall begin by giving a short account of the views of earlier writers on this subject，and of the status of the dream-problem in contemporary science；since in the course of this treatise I shall not often have occasion to refer to either.In spite of thousands of years of endeavour，little progress has been made in the scientific understanding of dreams.This fact has been so universally acknowledged by previous writers on the subject that it seems hardly necessary to quote individual opinions.The reader will find，in the works listed at the end of this work，many stimulating observations，and plenty of interesting material relating to our subject，but little or nothing that concerns the true nature of the dream，or that solves definitely any of its enigmas.The educated layman，of course，knows even less of the matter.
The conception of the dream that was held in prehistoric ages by primitive peoples，and the influence which it may have exerted on the formation of their conceptions of the universe，and of the soul，is a theme of such great interest that it is only with reluctance that I refrain from dealing with it in these pages.I will refer the reader to the well-known works of Sir John Lubbock （Lord Avebury），Herbert Spencer，E.B.Tylor，and other writers；I will only add that we shall not realize the importance of these problems and speculations until we have completed the task of dream-interpretation that lies before us.
A reminiscence of the concept of the dream that was held in primitive times seems to underlie the evaluation of the dream which was current among the peoples of classical antiquity.They took it for granted that dreams were related to the world of the supernatural beings in whom they believed，and that they brought inspirations from the gods and demons.Moreover，it appeared to them that dreams must serve a special purpose in respect of the dreamer；that，as a rule，they predicted the future.The extraordinary variations in the content of dreams，and in the impressions which they produced on the dreamer，made it，of course，very difficult to formulate a coherent conception of them，and necessitated manifold differentiations and group-formations，according to their value and reliability.The valuation of dreams by the individual philosophers of antiquity naturally depended on the importance which they were prepared to attribute to manticism in general.
In the two works of Aristotle in which there is mention of dreams，they are already regarded as constituting a problem of psychology.We are told that the dream is not god-sent，that it is not of divine but of daimonic origin.For nature is really demonic，not divine；that is to say，the dream is not a supernatural revelation，but is subject to the laws of the human spirit，which has，of course，a kinship with the divine.The dream is defined as the psychic activity of the sleeper，inasmuch as he is asleep.Aristotle was acquainted with some of the characteristics of the dream-life；for example，he knew that a dream converts the slight sensations perceived in sleep into intense sensations （“one imagines that one is walking through fire，and feels hot，if this or that part of the body becomes only quite slightly warm”），which led him to conclude that dreams might easily betray to the physician the first indications of an incipient physical change which escaped observation during the day.
As has been said，those writers of antiquity who preceded Aristotle did not regard the dream as a product of the dreaming psyche，but as an inspiration of divine origin，and in ancient times the two opposing tendencies which we shall find throughout the ages in respect of the evaluation of the dream-life were already perceptible.The ancients distinguished between the true and valuable dreams which were sent to the dreamer as warnings，or to foretell future events，and the vain，fraudulent，and empty dreams whose object was to misguide him or lead him to destruction.
……
