Beyond the unconscious: essays of Henri F. Ellenberger in the history of psychiatry

archetypes did have empirical virtues. And, of course, Owen achieved remarkable scientific successes, as with his work on the New Zealand moas, the Madagascar aye-aye, and the great apes. Was it a defect in Huxley's opportunistic character that caused him to turn against Owen, initially his patron? By Rupke's account, it may seem that, from a psychological perspective, it was Huxley who was the malevolent, malicious, scheming, character; whereas Owen has traditionally been regarded thus. Or should we see the contest as "structural" rather than "personal"? Rupke does not quite answer this question. As is often the case with biographers, he begins to identify with his subject. Or at any rate, he appears to make every effort to represent Owen in the best possible light. This is a valuable counterweight to "Darwinian" historiography; but the reader may be left uncertain as to really what was at the bottom of the Huxley-Owen feud. The lack of a definite answer to this question notwithstanding, we have in Richard Owen a major contribution to the history of nineteenthcentury biology, written with a stylistic felicity that many a scholar whose first language is English should envy. I am delighted that the author has been appropriately acknowledged by his recent appointment to a chair at Gcttingen. I am truly saddened that we have lost him from the community of historians of science in Australia.