Carl Jung Dream Analysis Seminar Lecture I 13 January 1929

LECTURE I 13 January 1929

We are going to continue the series of dreams we began in our last seminar, for you will get a better impression of how dreams are analysed if we follow a series of dreams of the same patient.

I have noticed that there are certain prejudices in regard to analysis which I should like to speak about before we go on.

One of the most important things to consider is the age of the individual; that should make a tremendous difference in our attitude when we analyse.

Everything that is important in the latter part of life may be utterly negligible in the early part of life.

The next consideration should be whether the individual has accomplished an adaptation to life, whether he is above or below the standard level of life and whether he has fulfilled the reasonable expectations.

At forty, one should have roots, a position, family, etc. and not be psychologically adrift.

People who have no objective at forty, who have not married, who are not established in life, have the psychology of the nomad, in no man's land.

Such people have a different goal from those firmly established in homes and families, for that task is still to be accomplished.

The question to be asked is, is the individual normally adapted or not?

The young are unadapted because they are too young, others for various reasons; because they have met obstacles, resistances, or through lack of opportunity.

Things must change in the one case which must not change in the other.

Certain forms of fantasy may be the worst poison for the person who is not reasonably adapted.

But when you find germs of imagination in a man who is firmly rooted, perhaps imprisoned, in his environment, they should be treated as the most valuable material, as jewels or germs of liberation, for out of this material he can win his freedom.

All young people have fantasies, but they must be interpreted differently.

They are often beautiful, but for the most part of a negative importance, and unless young people are very carefully handled they get stuck in their fantasies. If you open the door of symbolism to them they may live it instead of real life.

A young girl who came to see me a few days ago is engaged to be married, is in love with the man as the man is with her.

She has been analysing for four years, five days a week, and has had only three weeks of vacation in the year.

I asked her why the devil she didn't marry.

She answered me that she must finish her analysis, that it was an obligation which she must discharge first.

I said to her, "Who told you that you had an obligation to analysis?

Your obligation is to life!"

That girl is a victim of analysis. Her doctor is also stuck.

This is a case where the girl is living in her fantasies, while life is waiting for her.

The girl is caught by her animus.

Even should she do something foolish, it would nevertheless push her into life. As it is, the result is confusion, air, nothing.

Her analyst follows a theory, and the girl makes a job of analysis instead of life.

If she were a woman in the second half of life the treatment should be altogether different, that of building up the individual.

I do not question that doctor's motives, but by contrast I am a brute in the way I treat my patients.

I see them only two or three times a week and I have five months of vacation during the year!

I will briefly go over the case we are following.

The dreamer is forty-seven, not neurotic, is a big merchant, very conventional and correct a highly intellectual and cultured man.

He is married and has children.

His trouble is that he is too much adapted, he is entirely chained by his environment, by obligation to his world.

He has lost his freedom.

So in his case if there is any trace of imagination it must be cherished.

He has sacrificed all creative imagination in order to be "real," so fantasies in his case are extremely valuable. Now his problem is very subtle.

Consciously he could not see what it was.

He has had some erotic adventures with women, not satisfactory; then he slowly discovered that he felt there must be something more to life.

He began to read theosophy, and he had read some psychoanalysis, and then he came to me to see if I could help him, I have seen him for two years off and on.

From the analysis of his first dream he discovered that he was terribly bored with life in general and with his wife in particular.

The second dream was four days later and dreamed on the basis of his knowledge of the first dream.

Here is the dream [ 2]: "My wife asks me to come with her to pay a call on a poor young woman, a tailoress.

She lives and works in an unhealthy hole, she is suffering from T.B. I go there and say to the girl that she should not work inside, she should work in the open.

I tell her that she could work in my garden-but she says she has no machine.

I tell her that she can have my wife's machine."

The dreamer has the impression of having forgotten important parts of the dream.

In his associations he says "in spite of the fact that there is nothing erotic in the dream I felt that it had that atmosphere.

When my wife asked me to pay the visit I felt that something might happen."

You can see that same look of expectation on the faces of men sitting in the lobby of a hotel, the look of a dog who might have a sausage dropped on his nose.

So the dreamer had the expectation that something might happen.

"My wife played a completely passive role but I apparently acted as though I were quite alone. She [the tailoress] was dressed in dark clours, and I remembered that someone had told me that people who had T.B. were often erotic. When people have unused libido the erotic comes up. The sewing-machine belongs to my wife, and I had the feeling that she should say the first word."

He associates his own imprisoned life with the girl's life.

He cannot allow his feelings to work in the open-the only thing to do is to have the girl work in his own garden with his wife's sewing machine.

The feelings of a respectable man cannot work in the open, hence "in his own garden" means pressing his feelings back into his marriage.

One of his motives for respectability is the fear that his health might be affected by venereal disease.

The result of the analysis of the first dream is that he can admit his boredom in his marriage.

It is very difficult for a rational man to admit what his Eros really is.

A woman has no special difficulty in realizing her Eros principle of relatedness, but it is exceedingly difficult for a man for whom Logos is the principle.

Woman has difficulty in realizing what her mind is.

The Eros in man is inferior, as is the Logos in woman. A man must have a fair amount of the feminine in him to realize his relatedness.

Eros is the job of the woman.

You can fight with a man half a year before he will admit his feelings, and the same with a woman and her mind.

It is so contradictory.

My mother had a split mind, and from her I learned the natural mind of woman.

I was an awful boy and I hated all the nicely behaved boys whom my mother liked, with nice clean clothes, clean hands, etc.

Whenever I got a chance I used to beat those boys up and play tricks on them; to me they were disgusting. "Such nice children," my mother would say, "and so well brought up."

A family in the neighbourhood had such children and my mother was always holding them up to me as examples.

One day when 1 had done something particularly outrageous to these nice children my mother scolded me and said that I would spoil her life if I went on like that. I was deeply depressed and went off and sat down by myself in the corner of the room.

My mother forgot that I was there and began talking to herself; I heard her say, "Of course one should not have kept that litter," and I was instantly reconciled to my mother.

Woman has two minds, the traditional, conventional mind, and Nature's ruthless and sensible mind which says the truth. She can think on both sides.

This is illustrated very beautifully in Penguin Island, by Anatole France.

When baptism was administered to the penguins the dispute arose whether it was not a blasphemous thing to do, because the penguins have no souls.

They are only birds, and birds could not have immortal souls because souls belong only to human beings.

The dispute waxed so hot that finally a Council of the Fathers of the Church and the· Wise Men was called in Heaven.

Unable to settle the question, they called upon St. Catherine.

She paid compliments to both sides and said, "It is true that penguins, being animals, cannot have immortal souls; but it is equally true that through baptism one attains immortality, therefore," she~ said to God, "Donnez leur une ame mais une petite. "

Woman, to a certain extent, is Nature and Nature is terrible, inconsistent and logical at the same time.

Naturally when a man looks at his Eros side he finds it hard to reconcile with what he has been taught.

His Eros has opposite ideas, conflicting tendencies.

Yet there is his relation with Nature and it bewilders him.

He feels the awful thing which woman thinks.

It was a great achievement that the dreamer was able to admit his boredom. He is lonely with his problem.

All people feel that taboo of the natural mind.

Of course the dreamer keeps all this from his wife. The dream soothes him, we might conclude, but that is not true.

It is not. a benevolent thing saying something consoling, for kindness is not natural.

Kindness and cruelty are human categories, but not nature's way.

When the dream says, "My wife asked me to go to see the girl," it mitigates the man's trouble.

If the man can feel that his wife is not against him, it begins to make him feel less lonely.

We must assume that this dream has constellated an attitude as there is no satisfactory way of reaching the real truth about it.

What is the wife in the dream?

The girl represents his feelings which go abroad, the wife the feeling at home, the respectable feeling.

The interpretation is "my feelings, which are with my wife, have an interest in trying to deal with those other feelings."

Actually his wife has no interest in those feelings towards other women, but the dream says it will make his feeling towards his wife more individual, more real if he deals with these.

He has perhaps been thinking of his wife in a rigid and inflexible way because he has done a similar injustice to his feelings.

If he can learn to deal with his feelings that go abroad, which are creative feelings, his relation towards his wife becomes living, because doubtful.

Doubt is the crown of life because truth and error come together. Doubt is living, truth is sometimes death and stagnation.

When you are in doubt you have the greatest chance to unite the dark and light sides of life.

As soon as he begins to deal with feelings abroad, relationship with his wife becomes doubtful and experimental and alive.

The dream has not the intention of helping him, but it does call his attention to the fact that his relation to his wife will be benefited by a new feeling relationship on his part.

When a woman is brought up to think only certain things, she cannot think at all.

You cannot bring anyone up to function only in certain ways.

If you hinder anyone's feeling or thinking, he will not function properly any more.

If you are bound to believe a certain dogma you cannot think about it.

Feeling, just as any other function, must have space.

The dreamer's relation to his wife will suffer from the fact that he is not allowed to feel.

If he can deal with his feelings which go out, he can have a relation with his wife.

"Don't doubt" is a great mistake.

We have arrived now at the understanding of the fact that dealing with his unconventional feelings will help him with his relation to his wife.

When he pays attention to his feelings, he finds them associated with a girl who is infected with a serious illness.

Feelings and thoughts can grow sick and die.

A few days ago a woman came to me for a consultation.

She had been a patient of mine fifteen years ago.

She was a difficult case because she would not see certain things, she would not play the game, she wanted to remain a child.

Certain people cannot take life seriously, as if they were born to be eternal children.

If a case comes to me with diabetes and the patient will not pay attention to his symptoms or take my advice, there is nothing I can do.

A few days ago I saw my old patient again.

She looked awful and I was shocked.

She saw it and said, "Yes, it's very bad, but I have no problem anymore."

She wanted me to tell her husband that she was no longer hysterical, and it was true she had no problems, no troubles; she had sucked them in, converted them into her body.

In such cases the heart races for psychological reasons, and the result is a neurosis comparable to a shell-shock.

One jumps at everything and has no control of action.

When problems are converted into body, outer problems go, but the body rots.

If the neurosis has gone deeply into the psychological processes a tremendous scourge is necessary, perhaps a risk of life itself.

Generally a trapdoor shuts down for ever.

Heraclitus, the Dark One, the most intelligent of the old philosophers, said, "It is death to the soul to become water."

It is death to the soul to become unconscious.

People die before there is death of the body, because there is death in the soul.

They are mask-like leeches, walking about like spectres ~~dead but sucking.

It is a sort of death. I have seen a man who has converted his mind into a pulp.

You can succeed in going away from your problems, you need only to look away from them long enough.

You may escape, but it is the death of the soul.

If our dreamer does not pay attention to his feeling problem, he loses his soul.

Go into the lobby of a hotel-there you will see faces with masks.

These dead people are often travelling on the wing, to escape problems; they look hunted and wear a complete mask of fear.

Some time ago I met a woman who was on her third trip around the world.

When I asked her what she was doing it for, she seemed surprised at my question and answered, "Why, I am going to finish my trip. What else should I do?"

Another woman I saw in Africa in a Ford car.

She was fleeing from herself with flickering eyes full of fear.

She wanted to confess to me, to tell me how she had given up her life.

She had only the memory of herself as she used to be.

She was hunting what she had lost.

When you see that a certain spark of life has gone from the eye, the physical functioning of the body somewhere has gone wrong.

The girl in the dream is a tailoress, meaning a maker of clothes; the maker of new attitudes.

The birth of a new attitude has a long historical background.

There is a Negro myth which tells of a time when all were immortal and everyone could take his skin off.

One day they were all bathing and an old woman lost her skin; she died, and that is how death came into the world.

By analogy, people must behave like snakes, casting the old garments aside.

In Catholic confirmation, the young girls wear white clothes.

In Africa I have seen the boys who have been circumcised in the initiation ceremonies wearing a bamboo hut, entirely covering their bodies.

This is the new spiritual skin, a spiritual clothing.

The Polynesians put on a mask to denote the spring renewal.

During Carnival one puts on the garment of the new year.

You are reborn in the new year.

It is most flattering to the analyst to be called a tailor.

When he is dreamed of as the tailor he is the maker of the

new body, the new skin; he is the initiator of a new immortality.

The unconscious feelings of the patient which have been going abroad and which have been repudiated contain the possibility of new birth.

That unconventional feeling, the tailor girl, is the maker of a new skin, the creator of immortality.

If he goes the way of that new feeling, new life will be given him.

Everything you do and repeat often enough becomes dead, worn out.

Women beyond the age of forty begin to realize their masculinity, and men their femininity, because it is new and untried.

There is an Indian myth of a chief having Manitou appear to him and bidding him eat with the women, sit with the women, and dress like the women-a curious psychological intuition.

In some places, in Spain for instance, the old women have strong black beards of which they are very proud.

Women's voices sometimes get deeper.

We often see here, among the peasants as they grow older, that the man ioses his grip on things and the woman gets on the job.

She will open a small shop and earn the living.

Man becomes woman and woman becomes man ... The thing that has not been considered, the thing that has been despised-that will be the birthplace of the Saviour.

Therefore the feeling, which is the most awkward to him, contains the making of a new attitude.

There are two machines, two methods.

One the girl's, the other the wife's.

The machine is a psychological factor, a mental machine which one can learn to use and by which you produce results.

The machine is method.

With a method you follow a certain way, a definite way.

Now we can see deeper into the dream.

The girl says "I have my own way." He offers the method of his wife.

How is the new method produced? Sewing is fastening things together.

The method must aim to fasten together, to join that which has been separated.

That which should be joined together in the man, psychologically, is the conscious and the unconscious.

Analysis fastens them together-and that is integration. ~Carl Jung, Dream Analysis Seminar, Pages 85-92

Carl Jung Dream Analysis Seminar Lecture VI 12 December 1928

LECTURE VI 12 December 1928

We come now to an important part of the interpretation of this dream, namely, to your critique and the question of the historical character of the associations.

I have exposed my views about this dream quite freely and given you an opportunity to see how one may understand it.

I have given you much of the patient's personal material and the whole atmosphere of the dream, by which I understand the historical disposition which underlies our actual mind.

The latter is often misunderstood. People say, "Why bring in the historical parallel at all? It is irrelevant and mere fantasy."

But the historical parallel is not irrelevant, it is exceedingly important, particularly because we white people don't realize to what extent we are the descendants, the children, of a long series of ancestors.

We like to behave as if we were just recently made, fresh from the hand of God, with no historical prejudice at all, our mind a tabula rasa at birth.

This is a peculiar projection of our minds, this wanting to be free, not held down by any background: it is a sort of illusion of our consciousness in order to have the feeling of complete freedom, as if the historical past was fettering and would not allow free movement-a prejudice which again has psychological reasons.

Our actual mind is the result of the work of thousands or perhaps a million years.

There is a long history in every sentence, every word we speak has a tremendous history, every metaphor is full of historical symbolism; they would not carry at all if that were not
true.

Our words carry the totality of that history which was once so alive and still exists in every human being.

With every word we touch upon a historical fibre, as it were, in our fellow-beings; and therefore every word we speak strikes that chord in every other living being whenever we speak the same language.

Certain sounds count all over the earth: sounds of fear and terror, for instance, are international.

Animals understand utterances of fear of entirely different species because they have the same underlying fibre.

So we can't possibly understand a dream if we don't understand the atmosphere, the history of the underlying images.

There are personal problems in dreams which one may think only important for that particular case, but if one goes deeply into the structure, the speech symbolism, one enters historical layers and discovers that what seemed to be merely a personal problem goes much deeper, it reaches the analyst himself and everybody who hears it.

One can't help bringing in the way in which our ancestors tried to express the same problem, and that leads one to historical matter.

When you are asleep in your own quiet bedroom dreaming your own private dream, what connection is there between your particular dream and the pyramids?-the two seem incommensurable.

Yet you might find a close parallel to your dream in an Egyptian text containing the same symbols.

Or you may see in a very learned book by E. A. Wallis Budge a translation of certain hieroglyphs and you think: that is Egypt and this is my dream and it is foolish to compare the two, there is nothing in common.

But the scribe who produced that text was a human being, in most respects exactly like yourself-hair, two eyes, a nose, two ears and hands, the same natural functions, he was happy, sad, loved, was born and died, and these are the main features.

Even our diseases are practically the same; a few diseases are extinct and a few are new, but on the whole there are no differences.

The main features of human life have remained the same for five or six thousand years or more, for an interminably long period.

Primitive tribes are moved by the same emotions as we are.

A peasant's horizon is different but the main features are the same, the fundamental conceptions of life and the world are the same; and our unconscious speaks a language which is most international.

I analysed dreams of Somali Negroes as if they were people of Zurich, with the exception of certain differences of languages and images.

Where the primitives dream of crocodiles, pythons, buffaloes, and rhinoceroses, we dream of being run over by trains and automobiles.

Both have the same voice, really; our modern cities sound like a primeval forest.

What we express by the banker the Somali expresses by the python.

The surface language is different yet the underlying facts are just the same.

That is the reason why we can make historical parallels; it is not far-fetched, these things are far more alive than you would think or assume.

There is an ancient parchment written in the old Germanic language which contains an invocation to Wotan (Odin) and Baldur; it is exceedingly rare and precious, yellow with age, and it is kept under glass in a museum in Zurich.

When one reads it, one might say: "Oh, how far away; it could just as well come from the moon!"

One thinks all this has died out.

But there is a village in the Canton of Zurich where the peasants are still living by the same book, only now instead of Wotan and Baldur it is Jesus Christ and his disciples.

There is a bit of mediaeval psychology in it, but it is still the same old thing au fond.

Now, if a boy or girl from one of those families comes to the analyst and dreams of any old thing out of that book, and the analyst relates the two, people would say it was far-fetched.

But they just don't know, and don't want to know; they hate to think of old superstitions as still going on.

Take a gathering of fifty normal people and ask them if they are superstitious and they will swear they are not, but they would not live in house No. 13!

They are sure they are not afraid of demons, ghosts, bogies, but knock on the wall of their study and they jump, they believe in ghosts.

And they develop ideas and fantasies which are to be found only in old literature.

Or perhaps in Babylon, Mesopotamia, China, India, one finds the same material.

It all comes out of the same unconscious mind, the irrational and eternal stock, the pre-functioning collective unconscious, which repeats itself throughout the centuries, a sort of eternal, imperishable language.

Insane Negroes, very black Negroes whom I have analysed in the United States, had Greek myths in their dreams-Ixion on the wheel, for instance.

It is only illusion when you think they are far apart; the Negro has the same kind of unconscious as the one that produced those symbols in Greece or anywhere else.

Scientists like to think that symbols have migrated.

This is not true; they are quite autochthonous.

An old Babylonian symbol may be produced by a Zurich servant girl.

Those old peoples were exactly the same as we are, not even anatomically different; you can see a Neanderthal man in the street-cars of Zurich today.

We must go back fifty to sixty thousand years to find real anatomical differences in human beings.

I wanted to make all this clear because I felt that some of you did not understand why I was talking so much about the jeu de paume and the bull-fights.

This is the reason for the historical parallels.

Question: I think you said-in the Zurich seminar, 1925-that when the anima has a child, she dies.

Dr. Jung: That is only metaphorical.

It is as if a personification of the unconscious received life through certain contents, and when the personification is depleted of those contents then that particular personification collapses.

Like giving a ghost its right name-it collapses.

Question: At the Sonne we discussed the illness of the child. Was it chronic or acute?

Dr.Jung: The dream gives the answer.

You remember that the association with that child's disease was that the sister of the dreamer had lost a child who had dysentery.

According to this association we can assume that the dream-child is ill as the sister's actual child was ill.

There is always a parallel; the dreamer usually couches his unconscious idea in the terms of actual life or experience, as the dog dreams of bones, and the fish of fishes.

So when you analyse ~a man whose profession you don't know, if he dreams of meat, joints, etc., you can assume that he is a butcher, or a surgeon, or a professor of anatomy.

Since that child is closely associated, we must assume that it was infected and not born ill necessarily.

The child is a symbolic expression of his new interest in occult studies, which is not necessarily wrong.

It all depends upon the attitude.

If one studies the occult with the wrong attitude one can get infected, for this whole field is full of metaphysical traps through which one can fall, disappear as into an oubliette, and became the
astrologer, the theosophist, or the black magician.

This man was in danger of becoming a theosophist.

Nothing is said directly in the dream about the duration of the illness, but we can conclude

from the parallel that it must have been pretty quick, that the occult studies did not trouble the child for long. lt is probably an acute disease which came from indigestion.

He told me he felt "peculiarly empty" after a time and threw away the books: "I became sick of it."

Question: There is something not quite clear to me about the animus and anima. Isn't the animus the mediator between the individual and the shadow world? Doesn't the ego get its raw material
through the animus? Is not Faust an animus?

Dr. Jung: If we take Goethe as a human being, then one part is Faust, and the other part is the devil, the typical shadow.

Faust would be the grand, heroic, idealized personification of the conscious aspiration of Goethe, and Mephistopheles the personification of all his drawbacks and shortcomings, the negativity of his intellect, the dark part, the shadow.

That has nothing to do with animus or anima, however.

But if you dream of Goethe, then he functions as an animus figure, the personification of the unconscious Dr. Goethe in you.

You might express the situation in a picture of a woman on a mountain between two seas, light on one side and dark on the other, and out of the dark a great figure looms up, Goethe.

This is the way it looks to your imagination.

But let us go back to our diagram (page 51). The individual would be the centre of the personality.

And we would represent Goethe by the small circle on the dark unconscious side.

What is that man doing down there in the shadow world?

He is a psychological function bringing some message from the unconscious, or carrying some intention down into the unconscious.

You can ask him, and he can inform you, or you can tell him something.

He is a sort of human figure to be your mediator and messenger, a function of the personality.

On the other half of the circle appears another figure.

That is your persona or mask, how you like to appear to the world or how the world makes you appear.

The persona also gives you information.

This morning before coming here I put on my professional cloak, Dr. Jung, for the seminar.

In this I appear before you and can be more or less satisfactory to you, as I please: I am partly doing what you want or expect me to do and partly what you don't want or like-that is my choice.

The personal unconscious is a layer of contents that could be conscious just as well; it is perfectly superfluous to have a personal unconscious, a sort of negligence.

People should not be unaware of natural facts: there is just no sense in not being aware of hunger, trouble with sex, certain relations to certain people, etc.

All these things should be conscious.

Nobody should imagine they are different from others, or that they are perfectly moral or aesthetic or any other illusion.

Such people are incapable of realizing the impersonal unconscious, quite naturally, because they are always in the dark and therefore never aware of it until the personal unconscious disappears, that is, as long as they have wrong theories, expectations, illusions, about themselves or about the world.

No one approaches the Kingdom of Heaven without having passed through the flame and been burnt through and through.

The collective unconscious is the unknown in objects.

People who have no psychological criterion assume they are always the same, but this is too big a role.

What we see of the individual is the persona.

We are all shells here, only surfaces, and we have very dim ideas of what is inside. In doing all their small tasks, most people believe that they are their masks, and thus they become neurotic.

If 1 should believe I was exactly what I am doing, it would be a terrible mistake, I would not fit that fellow.

As soon as I say that I am only playing a role for the time being to please you, I am all right.

I must know that for the time being I am playing Caesar; then later I am quite small, a mere nothing, unimportant.

So this personal crust is a ready-made function from which you can withdraw, or into which you can step at will. In the morning I can &ay "Je suis roi," and at night "Oh, damn it all, it is all nonsense"

If people are identical with the crust, they-can do nothing but live their biography, and there is nothing immortal about them; they become neurotic and the devil gets at them.

Wagner was the great artist, the great creator; he was nailed to that cross.

When he invited friends, they had to bring the bottles; and he had to write letters to a lady in Vienna about pink silk dressing-gowns!

This persona may be a very attractive thing; if anyone chances to possess an attractive persona, he is sure to identify with it and believe he is it, and then he becomes the victim of it.

Dreams often personify the persona as a most unattractive object.

If I imagine I am what I appear to be, I would have a dream of a miserable scarecrow that symbolizes my persona.

For we are living not only in this figure and in our relations, but also in all sorts of ·ordinary ways, while we eat, sleep, dress, bathe, etc.

Wagner was not the great composer day and night: when occupied with his natural functions, he performed them in the general human way, in no way extraordinarily; if otherwise, it was a perversion and entirely wrong.

So people who are identified with their persona are forced to do amazing things behind the screen as a compensation, to pay tribute to the lower gods.

The opposite of the persona is the anima and animus.

It is exceedingly difficult to see that we have a dark side.

Of course, this is merely a diagram, it is all metaphor and figurative; it is to express the fact that when you turn to the conscious world to perform any kind of activity, you will do it through the mask or persona, through that system of adaptation you have painfully built up through a lifetime.

And then when you step out of this world, you withdraw and think you are alone with yourself, but the East says: "You forget the old man that is dwelling in your heart and sees everything."

Then, alone, you come to the critical point, to your personal unconscious.

Extraverts, and all people who are identified with their persona, hate to be alone because they begin to see themselves.

Our own society is always the worst: when we are alone with ourselves things get very disagreeable.

When there is much personal unconscious the collective is overburdened; the things which we should be aware of seem to press down on the collective unconscious and enhance its uncanny qualities.

There is a sort of fear, a panic, which is typical of the collective unconscious: like the bush fear, a particular kind of fear which seizes you when you are alone in the bush.

It is that peculiar feeling of going astray in the bush-the most terrible thing you can imagine, people go mad in no time or you may develop the symptom of feeling yourself looked at on all sides, of eyes everywhere looking at you, eyes that you do not see.

Once, in the bush in Africa, I kept turning around in a small circle for half an hour so that my back would not be turned to the eyes which I felt were watching me-and they were there, doubtless, the eyes of a leopard perhaps.

When you come to that loneliness with yourself-when you are eternally alone-you are forced in upon yourself and are bound to become aware of your background.

And the more there is of the personal unconscious, the more the collective unconscious forces itself upon you.

If the personal unconscious is cleared up, there is no particular pressure, and you will not be terrorized; you stay alone, read, walk, smoke, and nothing happens, all is 'just so," you are right with the world.

But there may still be some independent activity in the collective unconscious caused through some wrong attitude in the conscious.

You are aware of your personal shortcomings, aesthetic and moral, but your conscious attitude may be somehow wrong.

For example, you may know that you are not quite trustworthy and you think:

"I should not be untrustworthy, I must deny it, I must leap into a redeemed condition: from today on I must be trustworthy, I shall never do that again, I am now redeemed."

But it does not work and the next day you are doing the same old things.

It is the typical Christian formula:

From today on I shall never do this again.

An old Father of the Church was terribly bothered because certain holy men had sinned even after receiving baptism and being redeemed.

He concluded the baptism hadn't been right, that something must be wrong with the ritual, and therefore people who sin again must be baptized once more, morally sterilized a second time.

But again there were certain devils who sinned.

So he gave them up as hopeless and decided that those were lost souls, making for hell!

This is the Christian idea of jumping into the kingdom of heaven in one big leap.

That is not true; this idea of sudden reform is wrong. You cannot jump out of your sin and cast all your burdens aside.

To think like that is wrong.

The whole meaning of sin is that you carry it.

What is the use of a sin if you can throw it away?

If you are thoroughly aware of your sin, you must carry it, live with it, it is yourself.

Otherwise you deny your brother, your shadow, the imperfect being in you that follows after and does everything which you are loath to do, -all the things you are too cowardly or too decent to do.

He commits the sin, and if that fellow is denied, he is pressed towards the collective unconscious and causes disturbances there.

For it is against nature, you should be in contact with your shadow, you should say: "Yes, you are my brother, I must accept you."

You must be nice to yourself, not say to your brother, "Raca, I have nothing to do with you!"

It is a mistake to deny the shadow.

If you do, a reaction from the collective unconscious will loom up from the dark in the form of some personification.

The pious man says to himself, "No, not that!" and pushes the shadow away and is quite satisfied.

Then suddenly peculiar pictures, sexual fantasies, begin to come up into his mind from the abyss; the more pious he is the more evil are the things that befall him.

He is a sort of St. Anthony, and such a pious man would have terrible visions.

Perhaps a woman comes into his mind; that is the anima coming up, usually as a nude woman, terribly natural.

This is nature striking down a taboo, the revenge of the collective unconscious.

The collective unconscious is real, so when an anima or animus comes up, that is real.

And anyone can be the collective unconscious to anyone else; people will behave as demons would behave if they could come up out the abyss-"homo homini lupus,"s man is a wolf to man, the werewolf idea.

Even when you think you are alone and can do what you please, if you deny your shadow there will be a reaction from the mind that always is, from the man a million years old within you.

You are never alone because the eyes of the centuries watch you; you feel at once that you are in the presence of the Old Man, and you feel your historical responsibility to the centuries.

As soon as you do something which is against the age-long plan, you sin against eternal laws, against average truth, and it will not fit.

It is just as if you had eaten something that did not fit your digestive organs.

So you cannot do what you please, think what you please, because it might hurt that awareness which has the age of a million years; in a sudden way it will react.

It has many ways of reacting, and perhaps you don't feel the immediate impact, but the more you are aware of the unconscious, the more you develop your intuitive sense of law-abiding, the more you feel when you touch the line
over which you should not go.

If you trespass, you will get a reaction either immediately or indirectly; if you have done the wrong thing, a very powerful reaction may reach you through yourself, or you may just stumble or bang your head.

You think that is merely accidental, without remembering what you have done wrong or when you have had the wrong thought.

That is simple, but there is a far more complicated way; a reaction may reach you through your fellow-beings, through waves in your surroundings.

The reaction is not only in you, it is in your whole group.

You may not react, but someone next to you or in your immediate surroundings, someone near and dear to you, your children perhaps, will react; but they will have done justice to you because you have trespassed.

Or baffling circumstances may take over the revenge.

For the collective unconscious is not a psychological function in your head, it is the shadow side of the object itself.

As our conscious personality is a part of the visible world, so our shadow side is a body in the collective unconscious, it is the unknown in things.

So everything that possibly can gets at you through the shadow.

Not all reactions reach you in the form of psychological effects but as the apparent actions of other people or circumstances.

How far these circumstances hang together is hypothesis, but the superstition of all times has claimed this hypothesis-someone has done wrong or a thing like that wouldn't happen.

If there is evil circumstance, you are perfectly safe in assuming that there is a wrong somewhere.

In a storm at sea, for instance, one assumes that there is a wicked man on board-the general mind blames some wicked man.

It is just as if I said, "This chemical medicine won't work, but drink this draught, and you will be well," and it works.

It sounds like the most old-fashioned superstition, to seek the evildoer if the boat is sinking, but it is wise to assume that if things are going wrong someone has been trespassing; for that suits the unconscious and makes for the smooth running of our psychology and our digestion.

We can't say why, it is just a fact that it is wise to think in a way that suits the Old Man; to do otherwise might suit you or your rationalism, but it takes something out of the world.

There is a Jewish legend, beautiful and shameful, of the Evil Demon of Passion.

A :very pious and wise old man, whom God - loved because he was so good, and who had meditated much about life, understood that all the evils of mankind come from the demon of passion.

So he prostrated himself before the Lord and begged him to remove the evil spirit of passion from the world, and since he was such a very pious old man, the Lord complied.

And as always when he had accomplished some great deed, the pious man was very happy, and that evening as usual he went into his beautiful rose garden to enjoy the smell of the roses.

The garden looked as it always had, but something was wrong, the perfume was not quite the same, something was missing, some substance was lacking, like a bread with no salt.

He thought he might be tired, so he took his golden cup and filled it with some wonderful old wine which he had in his cellar and which had never failed before.

But this time the taste was flat.

Then this wise man had in his harem a very beautiful young wife, and his last test was that when he kissed her she was like the wine and the perfume, flat!

So up to the roof he went again and told the Lord how sad he was, and that he was afraid he had made a mistake in asking to have the spirit of passion taken away, and he begged him: "Couldn't you send back the Evil
Spirit of Passion?"

And as he was a very pious man God did what he asked.

Then he tested it all again, and marvellously enough, it was not flat at all-the roses had a wonderful perfume, the wine was delicious, and his wife's kiss was sweeter than it had ever been!

That story should tell you that you take something out of the world when you trespass against the eternal laws of the Old Man, whether reasonable or not.

The world and our existence is absolutely irrational, and you never can prove that it ought to be rational.

You are perfectly safe in assuming there are certain rational considerations which we ought to reckon with; the Alps are in the centre of Europe and we must reckon with this fact-since they hinder traffic we must tunnel them.

And so our psychology is subject to certain laws which are irrational, the Alps in the centre of our psychological continent, and we have to settle down to that fact.

Otherwise the evil spirit world disappears.

It is wise, it is vital that we are convinced of certain irrational facts.

The criterion for psychological truth in general is that we submit what we think to the very Old Man; if he agrees we are probably on the right road and not very far from truth.

But if the Old Man should disagree, we know we are on an errand of our own and we run big risks.

We can experiment, there is no objection to trying it; if you prefer to walk on your hands, then do it!

Question: What happens when the anima returns to the unconscious?

Dr. Jung: The anima acts as a filter: she gives certain effects, as she can receive certain effects.

Through the persona we get certain effects and we also produce certain effects on other people, and we must assume it is the same with the anima.

There are reasons, merely empirical, for this statement.

The anima knows many things which most people are unaware of.

In Rider Haggard's She you see how the anima from the collective unconscious knows all the secrets which She transmits to Leo and Holly, the man and his shadow.

In the first part of the book, we see how She can work upon her secret world; in the second part Isis is always looming up behind.

By having the ear of Isis as her priestess, She may have influence upon Isis and receive also an influence from her.

It is a psychological fact that the anima is able to influence us in our psychology-just as we pray to Mary or ask the intercession of the saints with the deity.

Saints are helpful anima figures on the way to the deity, helpers in a state of need against special disturbances or evils of mankind. And they have their special districts.

The anima is a sort of intercessor between Isis and the man in She.

You see something similar in your psychology when you understand the anima as a peculiar feeling reaction inside.

Suppose you get disgusted on the world side and fix yourself into this scheme, you draw near and approach the other side: then you get a peculiar feeling reaction within, and that is the anima.

An old Chinese text says that when a man wakes up in the morning heavy and in a bad mood, that is his feminine soul, his anima-a peculiar mood which has an influence on him, and on his dark side, the unconscious, as well.

This is proved by the results of that mood.

This morning, say, I have been down in the collective unconscious, and then I crept up 365 steps and arrived on the threshold and stepped into my house,into~the-eonseious,-where+find-myc-mask,-Ilr-;-JU:-ng,alhead y,
just as in Mme Tussaud's.

If I got something very disagreeable in the collective unconscious, I curse and bring with me a very bad mood.

Then I affect you with a bad mood, and you affect me, and I am disgusted and go back and affect the collective unconscious with my mood.

And it will react with a series of peculiar images, which you will surely get if you allow your creative fantasy to play on it.

It may create a nocturnal scene, a wild, vast, stormy sea, such as a poet would create.

These images may become very specific and go much further if you put yourself in the scene: now where am I, in what condition?

You may see yourself in a boat tossed about by the waves in the midst of that sea, and then you get the impact of the unconscious and realize all the other pictures.

From these fantasies you can see what your mood has produced in the collective unconscious; they tell you much about the nature of the collective unconscious and how this whole thing functions.

You study the influence of your mood on the background of your conscious mind by the effects that come back to you, as you can study the influence of your persona on the outside world from the reaction of the crowd.

There are many who only learn about themselves from the reactions of others, by somebody knocking them between the eyes.

A man comes to me and complains bitterly, "He said so and so"-while as a matter of fact the man himself has said something which brought about this answer, as one finds out by asking what he did to produce that effect.

People must see the effects to know what their persona really is.

And if you want to know what the anima is, that is the way: get at the contents of a mood, see the pictures that come back from the unconscious.

Some moods are real and necessary.

But if they are unaccountable and too strong and irrational (the Scotch say, "A shadow fell on me out of a blue sky"), it means that certain unconscious contents have been constellated; and if you go into that mood with fantasy, the collective unconscious will produce a series of peculiar pictures or images which explain the state you are in.

Some Eastern religions try to organize in religious ritual a substitute for the living thing for that process in the collective unconscious. ~Carl Jung, Dream Analysis Seminar, Pages 69-81

Carl Jung Dream Analysis Seminar Lecture V 5 December 1928

LECTURE V 5 December 1928

Today I want to hear your interpretations of the dream.

He is very widely read, and has a very thorough mind; he did it in quite a conscientious way.

One must be careful in speaking of the anima as the promoter of an interest.

Moods are only one symptom of the anima-there are other most conspicuous symptoms.

The anima can give one very strange ideas: she can, for instance, give that peculiar quality which makes a man lead his life as a sort of adventure or quest, making the task the goal of his whole life.

Napoleon is an example, whose dream it was to be like Alexander the Great; his life became a quest, a romantic adventure; that shows the influence of the anima.

Our Swiss dreamer is thoroughly romantic, he went at the occult studies in the way of a quest, set out like a knight seeking adventures, and that is the doing of the anima.

The anima doesn't busy herself with nonsense alone, she is also the femme inspiratrice: she gives a man very great ideas and generous impulses, she can make a man's life grand and noble, not merely a bundle of moods.

It is true that when the anima is behind a man there is also some trap,

as if the incentive were somehow wrong, or as if it were done with only half his brains, as if it were not the whole man, his complete personality.

This man is a merchant, and when he goes into the occult, he is living only half of himself, not the sum total of his personality.

He is like a person with a hobby.

His later dreams constellated the fact that he is a merchant and that he has a practical mind; he would be dreaming of very mythological situations and then in would come the practical merchant.

Once he dreamed he was in the presence of a peculiar evil deity, a yellow ball, and he was doing some magic with it, so one would expect something tremendous; but in making a picture of it, what should have been a yellow god came out like a piece of money, a gold coin.

He wanted to burn up that yellow ball but someone had cut the wires.

Then he was irritated, he wanted to kill people, and the only weapon he could find was a horseshoe-not sufficient to kill his enemies, so he got into a funk and rushed, like a boy, sliding down the banisters to escape, thinking that he wasn't up to that problem.

It was as if he himself had cut the wires so that the yellow god couldn't be burned.

The dream showed how near the pairs of opposites had approached each other, it was a close fight.

But then he was still far away from the problem of what the yellow god means and what the occult studies mean.

He was primarily a business man and then he switched off to occult studies.

That is what the anima can do alone, when she works unaided by the man; she can switch him off to an entirely different sphere where he forgets his ordinary life.

But she remains apart, as in She.

Dr. Deady: Therefore that study, the birth of a new interest, is the birth of a child; so the child is his interest in the occult. But his interest in the occult is an anima interest, not a masculine logos interest; consequently the child is sick.

It is his shadow and his anima that have this interest, and they are both in his unconscious so he is led into something over which he has no control.

He has to know his unconscious, to be related to his shadow, if he is to go into theosophy, etc., consciously. The dream represents the situation and is dynamic: he goes to the theatre and dines, that is, he takes steps towards a new attitude, towards consciousness.

Dr. Jung: You should mention that his brother-in-law, his shadow, invited him to go to the theatre, he does not think of it himself.

The message came from his unconscious, as if a low voice had spoken: "Go to the theatre." Just so the voice said to Socrates, "Make more music."

And another time, "Take the street to the left," and by listening to the voice of his daemon, Socrates avoided a great herd of pigs that were rushing down the street he had been on.

I was consulted recently by a woman who hears such a voice; she is just nicely mad, sort of home-like.

She has a voice that speaks from down below, in her belly, and gives excellent advice; she comes to be cured of her voice yet wants to keep it.

It is the voice of the shadow, of course.

For instance, she was accustomed to write individual notes to all her people at Christmas, but then her voice suggested that she should send the same note to everyone.

Since our man is not mad, he hears the voice in sleep, not in consciousness.

The voice is peculiarly banal and also great.

One may make a mistake, as Socrates did when he took his voice literally and went out and bought a flute.

And that woman is bewildered, she doesn't know whether it is the voice of God or the devil.

One ought to be afraid and yet it should not be taken entirely seriously.

A Negro woman who was a bit mad once told me: "Yes, the Lord is working in me like a clock, funny and serious."

That is exactly what dreams are-funny and serious.

So it is important for our patient to notice where the message comes from, that it comes from the unconscious.

For his conscious thinks he has already dined, has already made some occult studies.

But you have not got to the main point of the dream.

Miss Taylor (Second interpretation):

The message of the dream is conversion, a change of attitude.

When the old way of living begins to lose interest, any time between forty and seventy, the moment has come for a change, not of outward conditions but one within:
for a union between the ego and the shadow, by looking at and assimilating the images of the unconscious to obtain the mana stored up in them to create anew: "his brother-in-law asks him to go to the theatre with him and to dine afterwards."

The problem of the dreamer is

(1) his ultra-correctness-he gave up the study of the occult not through lack of interest but because there was "some odium" around that study;

(2) consequent boredom-grey shutters, etc.; and

(3) his unconscious primitive feeling-he asks a sick child to pronounce correctly and yawns in saying his wife's name. He is bored by his wife but his correctness prevents
him from realizing it until his dream tells him, and hints that the blame lies in himself-"people protest."

"Girl two years old": Two years before on the death of his sister's boy his feeling was constellated and a girl-child was born, the Eros principle in himself.

He began to question: he had had an active, successful life, yet he was bored, and a new interest was awakened in him, an interest in the other world.

Also two years before, his sister, on whom he had projected his anima, went away.

As he had no real relation with an actual woman, his libido fell to his anima, who drove him to occult studies-he did "not know exactly why" he studied the occult.

So the child was the creative expression of his own unconscious, and "was sick" because it was fed on occult studies; libido had gone from the child to feed his anima.

The food for the child would be free expansion and the study of his unconscious images, not occultism, since it is the child of his anima and therefore within, not without.

"My brother-in-law asks me to go to the theatre and to dine":

His irrational side suggested that he should look at dreams, the images of his unconscious, and then assimilate these unconscious parts of himself. "Alone":

Without the women, that is, without emotion.

"I think I have eaten already, yet can go with him":

He thinks he knows all about himself, yet he will see what the analyst has to say; this is some resistance to analysis.

"Big room, diningtable, seats reversed, etc.":

An intuitive conception of analysis as a forerunner of a new kind of collectivity; first confession, the unburdening of secrets that make a real communion for everybody
impossible; he is separated from his wife, friends, etc.

The player, the ball and the wall, that is, the ego, the self and the analyst. Then the meal, the real communion.

"I ask why his wife has not come, and think because the child is ill":

As if he realized that there could not be feeling or the right communion when his interest was fed on occult studies.

"Child is better, only a little fever now":

He had given up the occult studies, analysis is the right line.

"At the home of his brother-in-law":

The scene shifts to his personal problem which lies in his own psychology.----------------------------

Dr. Jung: There is an element of legend, of fantasy, in this.

In reality the sister is the man's anima in his dream only, not in actuality.

He had no positive anima projection into a living woman, he had only moods.

Until this time his anima has been almost entirely negative. But we must have the end of the dream.

Mrs. Fierz (Third interpretation):

The little nephew's poem and song, "Aunt Maria is a dear boy," and the old Aunt Maria the man gave as an association seem important.

His wife is to him something like a distant aunt, and the old aunt seems boring, as his wife does.

The song might show him he could really do something with his own wife; that is what children often mean when they call a person dear.

Not so much sentiment as expressing a desire to play with, do something with, the person who is "dear."

Perhaps this man could, with his wife, do something for their children, help in their education, etc.

He admits he doesn't care so much for the boys, likes the girls better; here is something to work on.

He says of himself only that he corrects the children's language, a stupid part of their education.

So perhaps the dream means he could show a change of attitude towards his wife and children; for his attitude towards his children is evidently like his attitude towards his wife.

Dr. Jung: In that family Aunt Maria means the old aunt.

She is boring and she refers to his wife yet his wife is declared to be a ''dear boy."

Mrs. Fierz: The child who wrote that song is a boy, and he makes his aunt his companion. Children's comradeships are active.

Dr. Jung: He thinks of her as on his own level?-that is right.

One of the symptoms of the sick child is that she doesn't want to pronounce the name Maria, and that is associated with the other fact that all the children of the family do just this.

His wife has an attraction for children, she is child-like, she is the playmate of all the children in the family, a fact which is exceedingly important for his own problem, for it means that his wife is not a good playmate for a man.

The anima type of woman can always play with a man and therefore is important for his mental and spiritual development.

His association explains that his wife is a good playmate for children and implies that she is not a good playmate for him.

The child will not pronounce that name because she doesn't like the wife; that little girl-child in him, occult studies, leads him away from his wife to secrecy.

And he does not want secrecy, or that any part of him would not like the name of his wife, so he tries to teach the child to pronounce the name, and cannot do so without yawning imself.

That gives him away, he can no longer deny that he is bored.

Men may go to cocottes and yet insist that they remain correct; and women may fly away with devils and yet say they are loyal wives.

We must settle down to the fact that the world is very serious and very funny.

The dream forces this fact upon the dreamer in a very obvious manner.

He told me frankly that he hates the idea that he is not the correct husband, it is disgusting to him to have to acknowledge this fact.

A man usually treats the children as he treats the women and as he treats his own feeling self.

The dream is rather bewildering on account of not having one main thought. It contains two entirely different sets of things-exceedingly personal material on the one hand and very impersonal material on the other.

The beginning and end of the dream are very personal; and you have heard how that material in the middle came in and what it has to do with the dream.

[Here a discussion was started on the relationship of man and wife, whether individual or collective.]

Question: ls whatever relation a man has with his wife collective?

Dr. Jung: A man may find his relationship to his wife to be nothing but collective, and that won't do.

He ought to have an individual relation; if that is lacking, there is no individual adjustment.

He is just the ordinary perfectly respectable husband, and his wife is the woman with whom he finds himself in the institution of marriage, and he tries to fulfil his duty as a husband as he tries to be a good director in a company.

But his wife is a particular woman with whom he should have a particular relationship.

To understand marriage, we must think of it as an institution and go back historically to know what it means.

Since times immemorial, marriage has been arranged as a system of matches, and there were very few love matches; it was chiefly barter, women bought and sold; and in the royal families, it is still almost a sort of cattle deal, and has much the same character in very rich families.

That is quite certainly true with peasants for powerful economic reasons. So it is often "the bacon to the sausage," as we say, two fat things together.

Marriage is a collective institution, and relationship in marriage is a collective relationship.

Then when the times become more sophisticated and there is a certain culture the individual gets spoilt; one has more desires and claims, one psychologizes
and wants to understand, and then one finds one is not really adjusted and hasn't really a relationship.

After a great catastrophe one seeks a water-tight room where one can be safe, any room will do provided the roof doesn't leak; but one has no relationship to this room, it is just any hole which is covered and relatively safe.

So in former times and under more barbarous conditions, and among primitive tribes, any woman would do more or less.

That explains incest among peasants. There are extraordinary cases in Switzerland.

Here is a case I have just heard of: A peasant boy wanted to marry; he and his mother had a good place so the mother said: "why marry?-it only makes more mouths to feed;

I should have to go, and you would have to support me; if you want a woman, take me."

That is the peasant, and that was for economic reasons.

It has been stated by the courts in certain districts that incest for economic reasons is so frequent that the cases are not dealt with at all, they don't bother about it.

Everywhere one discovers these things.

In some of the British islands, in the Hebrides, etc., the condition of the people is exceedingly collective, just instinctive, not at all psychological.

So the general condition of marriage has always been exceedingly collective; the personal element is the attainment of a cultural age; and only very recently has marriage become a problem one can discuss without being accused of immorality.

Morality is the only thing that can't be improved upon, we say. It is the one thing that can't!

We have a great problem today because that collective marital relation is not what people expect of it-an individual relationship, and it is exceedingly difficult to create one in marriage.

Marriage in itself constitutes a resistance.

This is simply a truth.

For the strongest thing in man is participation mystique, just "you and your dog in the dark"; that is stronger than the need for individuality.

You live with an object and after a while you assimilate each other and grow alike.

Everything that lives together is influenced one by the other, there is a participation mystique; the mana of one assimilates the mana of the other.

This identity, this clinging together, is a great hindrance to individual relationship.

If identical, no relationship is possible; relationship is only possible when there is separateness.

Since participation mystique is the usual condition in marriage, especially when people marry young, an individual relation is impossible.

Perhaps the two hide their secrets from each other; if they admitted them they might be able to establish a relationship.

Or perhaps they have no secrets to share; then there is nothing to protect one against participation mystique, one sinks into that bottomless pit of identity and after a while discovers that nothing happens at all any longer.

Now, in this state of affairs our patient obviously realizes that something is wrong, that he is dissatisfied.

His sexual relation with his wife doesn't work at all: she keeps him away as much as possible, and at forty-seven to always do uphill work is terribly uninteresting,
and he more or less chucked the whole thing.

So it is an unpleasant situation.

His attempt at occult studies is rather like Freud's sublimation idea-intercourse with angels.

Theosophy provides one with all sorts of things in that respect!

If I could hear the vibrations of Atlantis, listen in to old Egypt, and all that, I would forget all about my wife and all about my dear patients too!

Theosophy is a tremendous lure to such a man, and sublimation is a good word, it sounds like anything; but, peculiarly enough, in reality sexuality cannot be entirely sublimated.

Suddenly one day, in Paris perhaps, the man makes a mistake, the sublimation hasn't worked that day.

Once in a fortnight it does not work perhaps, but the theory is very good!

Out of that mood of dissatisfaction came this dream.

The shadow appears and says: "Now come, let us look at the true pictures of the unconscious, the real, impartial pictures of things as they are; and let us eat them and assimilate them afterwards without the women-without emotion, objectively, impersonally, just looking at things as they are."

Since the theatre is a public place it means: you are like all the others, you are in the same boat, doing what everybody ought to do or has done.

He associates the amphitheatre seats with a room where the game of pelota was played, yet the setting- of the room has nothing to do with pelota, it is rather like a tal?le d'hote in a hotel; but the benches are facing the wall so they cannot sit at the table.

Here, you remember, we got into a tangle of historical associations.

It is obvious that we are getting into something collective here; the dream, in emphasizing it as being a public place, intentionally puts forward the importance of its being collective.

At this point in the problem the collective must come in.

In contradistinction to his intensely personal feeling about his problem, the unconscious says it is a collective problem-not in just that form perhaps, out is happening everywhere in the world.

Only people who haven't lived can have any illusions on this subject; it is all over the world.

As soon as a problem is collective it has to do with the history of that particular society, and there must be collective symbolism.

No collective problems have arisen just today, our conditions are thoroughly historical.

Take the question of marriage in general: it has tremendous historical connections, the laws about marriage have considerable age, and all our marriage customs and our whole moral system in dealing with sex are very old.

People say: "These are old-fashioned ideas-to hell with them!"

But if a problem is collective, it is historical, and we can't explain it without explaining history; unavoidably we get into historical discussions.

It is not just you who are a fool to be married like that, we are all married like that, according to ancient laws, sacred ideas, taboos, etc.

Marriage is a sacrament with unbreakable laws; you must criticize the customs, not the individual people.

Back of everything we do is a general philosophy; a living one is a religion. Christianity is our philosophy.

That was already blossoming in the time of Augustus and is at the back of innumerable taboos, laws, etc.

So you see we cannot avoid going back into history it is not out of the way.

We must acknowledge that the dreamer in his literal associations did not bring this in; only later he became conscious of the need of it.

Naturally, we see nothing historical in what we do when we are unconscious.

Our language is full of the most extraordinary things of which we are not aware, we use them without stopping to consider.

For example, when you say, "I am under the treatment of Dr. So-and-So," you are using the Latin word trahere, to pull; the doctor is pulling you through the hole of
rebirth, and when he makes you whole and sound, you say, "The doctor pulled me through."

There was a prehistoric clinic in Cornwall, the Menanthole, a huge slab of stone with a hole through which the fathers pulled their children, and sick people were supposed to be cured in that way. I myself went through the hole.

And in Germany, in the nineteenth century, they had the custom of making a hole in the wall behind the sick man's bed and pulling him through and out into the garden for rebirth.

Now the dreamer speaks of a room where many people come together, not everyone for himself but together, like playing a game or dining together, where all sit at the same table facing each other and doing the same thing.

So we are united with him as in a theatre or restaurant, we are all looking at the pictures together.

The shadow admonishes him to come and do something with many other people, in order to feel community in that particular problem of his.

You will realize what that means for a man who thinks he is the only one who suffers from his particular ailment and feels responsible for it.

When he hears that it is a general problem, he is comforted, at once it puts him back into the lap of humanity; he knows that many people are having the same experience, and he can talk to them and is not isolated. Before, he didn't dare speak about it; now he knows that everyone understands.

The particular prescription in the New Testament-"Confessyour faults one to another," and "Bear ye one another's burdens"shows the same psychology that we have here in the dream.

We should have communion and fellowship in the trouble which is our particular burden, that is the admonition of the dream.

First of all there was the association of the jeu de paume and pelota basque.

They were not quite the same.

Thejeu de paume was played in the middle ages, not with a racquet, but with the palm of the hand; and the same idea was in the pelota basque, but the ball was
played against the wall; then a third version was the jeu de paume as it was played in the church, the clerics throwing the ball to one another.

I don't know what kind of figures they made but all were playing the same game.

And we play it too, the ball game has become almost a figure of speech with us; we often

It simply means playing together; we all play together and since we react, we are all in it responsible and alive-that is the idea.

Then there is a particular version here, a mere association, so we must not press it too hard: in the case of the pelota played against the wall where the ball is caught not by other people but by oneself, there may be an element of self-isolation or autoeroticism.

In playing the ball like that, not with a partner but against the wall, there is a particular connotation.

But we must not force this point; we must handle dreams with nuance, like a work of art, not logically or rationally, as one may make a statement but with a a small restriction somewhere.

It is the creative art of nature which makes the dream, so we must be up to it when we try to interpret them.

That there is here a nuance which might point to an autoerotic game, played alone, not together, would easily come from the fact that the man will play it alone first.

Some people speak "against the wall" and not to their fellow-beings: such speakers are more or less autoerotic, they talk to themselves even though they speak in community.

If the dreamer follows the intimation of the shadow, he will see his problem as a collective one which ought to be brought into general connection with the spirit of his own time, and not hidden away, assuming that it is the mistake of a single individual and that normal happy families are not like that.

His problem should not be discussed just in the pretty terms of general prejudice, assuming that the world is all nice families in nice little houses, with five o'clock teas, and prams, and sweet little babies!

There are the most terrible things underneath all that stuff, and I have to bother with it. People play to the gallery as if nothing was the matter at all!

All that part of the dream prepares him for the fact that he is entering on a collective problem and the solution will be something equally impersonal: something like a communion, an initiation, a mystery play in church, a sort of ritual play like the central symbolism of the cult of Mithras.

You will remember that when we spoke of that cult the unconscious began to react all over the place, and we got a whole crop of bull dreams, which proves that the thing is practically active even here and is a general problem for people right here.

Now, after this general statement, which prepares him for an entirely different attitude to his particular problem, the dream returns again to the personal aspect of things, the pathological condition of the child.

Its condition is morbid because occult studies lead nowhere; they are just an attempt at sublimation, a sublimation which never answers the real, urgent problem of the times.

What must be done now with the child?

It is all very well to say that this is a collective problem, mais il f aut cultiver son Jardin, come back to your own problem, your own child, come and admit you are bored
with your dear wife at home.

Psychologically that means he must acknowledge his shadow, the inferior man who does not live up to rational conditions, a sort of primitive more aware of the needs of
nature, who forces him to admit his boredom.

He would then gain a knowledge of his shadow, he would admit his natural being and shake hands with him, and no longer deny the truth about his own psychology.

Since he cannot escape his shadow he will become conscious of the less elegant side of himself.

Then the shadow will be detached from his anima, because as he becomes conscious of his shadow, it is released from his unconscious.

Then between the shadow and anima a real relation can take place, with the outcome that the child will be normal.

And when the shadow and anima have a proper relationship, there is a chance that his relation to his wife will become better, that he can have an individual relationship with her.

For he can only establish a real relationship when he is aware of his shadow.

We allow ourselves the most amazing illusions about ourselves and think other people take us seriously.

It is as if I should have the illusion that I am only five feet tall-just mad!

This is no more absurd than people who want to make us believe that they are very moral and respectable.

It isn't true, and how can you establish a real relation unless people are real, as they really are?

We know that people, instead of being respectable or moral, are just hopelessly blind.

How can you establish an individual relationship with such a creature?

One gets seasick, it is nauseating. I would far rather have an individual relationship to a dog, who doesn't assume he is a respectable dog, a sacred dog, a taboo dog, or any other kind of a dog-nothing but a dog!

There are people who have the illusion they are better than other men, assume that they are different, as if they had another kind of blood.

This is all illusion; therefore no individual relation is possible with such people.

First of all, our man must give up his illusions, admit he is not respectable and that he is bored; and he must tell his wife he is bored to death and at the same time that "sometimes my sublimation fails to work."

If he only knew his wife this would be easier.

She will be outraged at his infidelity but she herself in the night will be going away with the animus devils-only he doesn't know it.

If he asks her to be interested in what he is reading, very likely she says, "Oh, I can't read such difficult books," and he thinks she is too good
and sweet!

If only he were aware of her as she really is, he could find it easier to tell about his sublimation not working as it should.

Now to get all this into practice, that is something else! ~Carl Jung, Dream Analysis Seminar, Pages 57-68

Carl Jung: Dream Analysis Seminar Lecture IV 28 November 1928

Visions Seminar Lecture IV 28 November 1928

Before continuing our dream, I must tell you about certain things which have happened in the meantime.

Those of you who are intuitive probably observed that the mood in our second meeting was somewhat upset.

We had the bull dream with its community aspect, and so we lived through a little scene which we might have watched in ancient Athens-I mentioned the fact that important men used to tell their dreams, and illustrated it by the dream of the senator's daughter and the dream of the Greek poet.

Or we might have watched such a scene in the market-place of some primitive village, where a man gets up and says: "In the night I saw a vision, a spirit spoke," and then everybody gathers round and is dreadfully impressed.

All this has brought interesting coincidences to light.

You remember that on the 21st of November we spoke of the bull and the meaning of the bull-fight.

The dreamer is a man whom I occasionally still see-that means analysis has not killed him yeti Now from the 20th to the 24th he spent four days making a picture which he could not understand, and which astonished him so much that he came to me to ask for an explanation.

He had to draw a bull's head, and it must be a very sacred bull because he holds the disc of the sun between the horns.

Unfortunately I cannot show you the picture because the man thinks we have already been very indiscreet in discussing his dreams here in the seminar.

I get my examples from my patients-from you tool I told him that we were talking of the bull in connection with his dream, and that his drawing synchronizes with that, and then I explained to him the meaning of his drawing.

Then after our last meeting, after Dr. Shaw's dream, when I commented on the antique meaning of the bull-fight, I got another letter from Mexico, from the friend who had just actually been to a bull-fight.

This letter came two days after the last seminar, it would have been about two weeks on the way, so she must have written it just about the day when we first spoke of the bull in the seminar.

She does not describe the fighting.

I will quote what she says: "The one point of supreme art in the whole thing is the moment when the bull stops still, confused, and faces the matador, and the matador standing in front of him makes the gesture of scorn to show his complete mastery." "

The matador is the point of perfect conscious control in that weltering mass of unconsciousness, in that black background of barbarism."

And it seemed to me that that was the meaning of the symbol: one must have perfect conscious control, perfect style and consummate grace and daring, to live in the bosom of barbarism; if one weakens anywhere one is done for.

That is why the bull-fight was the symbol of the divine.

And the toreador is the hero because he is the only shining light in that dark mass of passion and rage, that lack of control and discipline.

He personifies the perfect discipline.

My friend is a quite independent observer, but she got the gist of it and in that moment found it necessary to convey it to me.

This is what we call just a coincidence.

I mention it to show how the dream is a living thing, by no means a dead thing that rustles like dry paper.

It is a living situation, it is like an animal with feelers, or with many umbilical cords.

We don't realize that while we are ................ talking of it, it is producing ..

This is why primitives talk of their dreams, and why I talk of dreams.

We are moved by the dreams, they express us and we express them, and there are coincidences connected with them.

We decline to take coincidences seriously because we cannot consider them as causal.

True, we would make a mistake to consider them as causal; events don't come about because of dreams, that would be absurd, we can never demonstrate that; they just happen.

But it is wise to consider the fact that they do happen.

We would not notice them if they were not of a peculiar regularity, not like that of laboratory experiments, it is only a sort of irrational regularity.

The East bases much of its science on this irregularity and considers coincidences as the reliable basis of the world rather than causality.

Synchronism1 is the prejudice of the East; causality is the modern prejudice of the West.

The more we busy ourselves with dreams, the more we shall see such coincidences--chances.

Remember that the oldest Chinese scientific book is about the possible chances of life.

Now we will continue our dream.

We are practically through with the associations, and we ought to try our hand on the interpretation.

We should sum up all the associations, in this case a pretty strenuous business because there are so many of them if we take in all the connotations mentioned.

The jeu de paume and the bull-fight are not in the dream itself, but we must consider the whole context because the mind of the dreamer has been moulded upon that model.

Our minds have been made by the history of mankind; what men have thought has influenced the structure of our own minds.

Therefore when we go into a careful, painstaking analysis of our mental processes, we must get back into what others have thought in the past.

To explain certain thinking processes in a modern man, one cannot get along today without the past.

One can explain the personal to a certain extent, for example, that this man wants to buy a new car; but to buy a new car, a modern thought, is only the cause that excites a certain kind of thinking which he
has not made; for the most important part of his logical deduction, the whole past is responsible.

Only in the middle ages did we learn to think logically-and then through religious teachers.

The primitives did not possess logical thinking, simply because they could not produce the same kind of abstract reasoning which we can produce.

There must have been a long period of time before our minds were trained to produce an abstract condition of mind over and against the temptations of the senses or emotions.

In technical matters the ancients never could hold an abstract thought for any length of time, they were always interrupted by the playful instinct.

We see this in old engines or machines as late as 1820; in an old pump, for example, the axles were placed upon two Doric columns; and certain machines were built in the rococo style-perfectly ridiculous.

That is playing; and the more they played, of course, the less chance there was of the machine being efficient.

They stopped at the curiosity which pleased their senses so never got to any serious kind of thinking.

Sailing against the wind, tacking, was not known in antiquity; it was invented by the Normans in the twelfth century.

Before that time sailors always had to wait till the wind was favourable or take to the oars; and they had no deep keels or even heavy keels, only flat bottoms.

Yet they had boats up to 1500 tons, and the Egyptian vessels which brought wheat to Rome were about 1800 tons.

We began to build ships again of that tonnage only in the nineteenth century, about 1840.

These are the historical ways in which our mind has developed and they need to be taken into account; we need to consider the historical connotations in trying to explain dreams; we cannot understand
them on the personal basis only. In practical analysis however, one cannot go so far into the historical pathways.

As far as it is feasible, I try to be short, practical, and personal.

In this first dream that 1 analysed with the patient, I did not draw his attention to the cult of Mithras, the jeu d,e paume, etc., there was no reason to do so, I was quite satisfied to give him some superficial
idea of its meaning.

But here in the seminar we must go into detail to see what the dream is made of, perhaps more so than in the dreams I have analyzed with you personally.

This. man would be astonished to hear us talking of his dream, he would not recognize it.

Now let us go back to the dream once more and try to make a general interpretation.

Very often the end of a dream can teach one something; at the end something has usually happened to the figures that appeared on the stage, so that the situation at the beginning and the events between are quite explicable.

In this case we could easily begin at the end, where we strike the very important fact which the whole dream leads up to, that the dreamer is obviously bored by that name, Maria, and yawns in pronouncing it; and the protests of members of the family show that he himself protests against it from the family standpoint.

He is a family man and the family is an almost sacred thing, it is rather awful to yawn over the name of one's wife.

So we are introduced to his personal conflict right away; he is bored against his will, it is not his intention and he dislikes it.

In such a case we can draw a conclusion as to the economy of his mental state. What would you conclude?

Suggestion: He is unconscious of being bored?

Dr. Jung: Yes, quite right: he would not need to dream of it if he were aware of it; his non-admission goes so far that he has to dream of it.

The dream has to tell him: "My dear fellow, you are just bored!"

We are always assuming that we know even the unconscious, which of course is perfect nonsense; the unconscious is what we don't know.

You would assume that you would realize it if you were bored, but there are situations in which you would not dare to realize it, you would rather think you were ill.

There are situations in which we cannot afford to admit the truth, it may go too much against our own interests; we cannot admit the true nature of our emotions, they are too shocking.

He is a very nice man, a family man, a father and all that, so of course he is duly interested in his wife, and the dream has to tell him: "You are just bored, that's the truth!"

Now when a man is forced to realize that he is bored, what happens to his life force, his libido?

Suggestion: I should think it would begin to occupy itself with what he could do about it.

Dr. Jung: What would be his preoccupations?-that is the right word, the things that come before occupations. Haven't women been bored by husbands? What could they do?

Suggestion: That is too much in the psychology of a man.

Dr. Jung: I am not so certain! But here the dreamer is a man so let us keep to his role. What will he do?

Suggestion: He would begin to look out of the window.

Dr. Jung: In this dream nothing of the sort is mentioned. Your conclusion is not proven in this case.

Suggestion: I think he must have looked out of the window before he had that dream.

Dr. Jung: Quite right, he has often looked out of the window and is beyond the state where this would come in a dream.

He is now in a situation where he is seeking more; he is still bored with his wife, looking out of the window has not helped that, and he has come to the conclusion that that won't do.

Certain hints in the dream might help him out, such little things, but he could not accept them; they would seem ridiculous to him, they represent no answer, he needs another answer; so he arrives at a standstill.

We assume that the dream contains an answer to his very big problem, so we must read it as a message coming from the unconscious, we must take it very seriously, and all the more because the situation of this man is similar to that of many other men, and there are innumerable women who are bored to death with their husbands.

Plenty of people between forty and seventy have been or might be in a similar situation.

Therefore the dream is of general importance.

Going into it with the associations should give us an idea of what one should do in such a situation.

The dream speaks first of the child of his youngest sister and of the invitation of his brother-in-law to go to the theatre and to dine afterwards.

Obviously he is put in rapport with that part of his family.

You remember that this youngest sister was his particular pet, eleven years younger, and he still feels her to be a little child and is very fond of her; he was almost as grieved when she lost her child as he would have been had it been his own, so there is a particularly close relation between himself and this sister; and he is also on good terms with her husband.

These people, with whom he is at present not actually concerned, would be taken on the objective level if they were near or of any actual importance.

But since they are far away, we are safe in assuming that they represent subjective contents in the dream, parts of the dreamer himself, stage figures in his private theatre.

So we can only arrive at the real meaning of this part of the dream when we see what these people represent in him.

The child, as you know, is an unreal, imaginary child; the real child is dead.

We will leave that imaginary child for the time being.

First, the brother-in-law:

The dreamer has been in an important position, a director of a business company, and his brother-in-law, being a younger man, has succeeded him; so he followed him, he is the representative of the one that follows us, the shadow.

The shadow is always the follower.

Suggestion: The shadow often goes before.

Dr. Jung: Yes, when the sun is behind. But the old idea of the synopados4 is the one that follows and comes with us; it is the idea of a personal daemon:

scit Genius, natale comes qui temperat astrum, naturae deus humanae, mortalis in unum quodque caput, voltu mutabilis, albus et ater.

-a god of changeful face, white and black, that is in everybody, a daemon of contradictory aspects.

Now why should we translate such a figure in such a way?

Why should we call his brother-in-law his shadow?

Answer: The dreamer has been so much in business that parts of him have been neglected which are represented by the brother-in-law.

Dr. Jung: Well, the more one turns to the light, the greater is the shadow behind one's back.

Or, the more one turns one's eyes to the light of consciousness, the more one feels the shadow at one's back. That term is in complete harmony with ancient ideas.

There is an excellent book called The Man without a Shadow, from which a very good film has been made, The Student of Prague, a sort of second Faust.

It is the story of a student, pressed for money, making a contract with the devil.

The devil offers him 900,000 gold sovereigns heaped up on the table before him, and he cannot resist.

He says: "Of course I can't expect you to give me all that gold without something in return?"

"Oh, nothing of importance", says the devil, 'just something you have in this room."

The student laughs-there isn't much in the room, old sword, bed, books, etc., very poor.

"You are welcome to anything you please, you see there isn't much of value here!"

Then the devil says: "Stand here and 'look into the mirror."

The great asset of the movies is the amazing effects they can produce.

One sees the man and his reflection in the mirror, and the devil stands behind and beckons to the reflection of the student in the glass, and the reflection comes out in a quite extraordinary way and follows the devil.

The student stares into the mirror and can no longer see himself, he is a man without a shadow. And the devil walks away.

Then the film goes on picturing all the embarrassing situations the student finds himself in because he has lost his shadow.

For instance, the barber hands him a mirror after he has shaved him, and he looks in and says, "Yes, that is all right," but he sees nothing, no reflection, he has to pretend he does.

Another time he is going to a ball with a lady, and in a mirror at the head of the stairs he sees the lady with an arm as if through his, but he is not there.

It is the situation of a man who has split off all consciousness of his shadow, who has lost it.

Our patient is more or less like that, and his shadow is here represented by the one who follows him, his brother-in-law.

There is no scientific proof that this is so, we assume it as a working hypothesis.

And if the brother-in-law, represents the shadow, it follows that the wife of the shadow is a very definite figure; and must have the characteristics of that figure, the wife is the anima.

To elucidate such obscure and complicated concepts, as shadow, anima, etc. a diagram is useful to show what is or is not logical.

We must start from archetypal ideas, we must begin by the idea of totality; and we express the totality of personality, male and female, by a circle.

There would necessarily be a centre to it, but one cannot assign the central place to consciousness because our consciousness is always one-sided.

If one looks at what is before one's eyes one is unaware of what is behind one's back; one cannot be conscious of everything in a given moment.

To be conscious one must be concentrated; one is always conscious of something specific.

The total personality could be described as consciousness plus the unconscious.

There is the area of the habitually unconscious, and the area of the relatively unconscious.

And so there is an area which is only relatively conscious; there are times when one is conscious of this and times when one is conscious of something else.

Consciousness is like a searchlight wandering over the field; only those points which are illuminated are conscious.

The unconscious or dark side, the part that is habitually unconscious, is the sphere of the shadow, and that has no particular centre because we don't know where it would be.

The shadow is of course a sort of centre, a certain personality different from the conscious one, in this dream the brother-in-law.

Our consciousness is turned to what we call the world.

In order to move in the world we have need of a certain attitude or persona, the mask we turn toward the world.

People with a very strong persona have very mask-like faces.

I remember a woman patient who had such a face.

She was an anima figure to men, mysterious and fascinating just because of her mask-mystery behind, a mystery woman.

I get sick when I hear of it, but not everyone does.

The "mystery woman" of the movies is an anima figure.

This woman was said to have a very peaceful harmonious nature, but inside she was just the opposite, terribly torn and full of amazing contradictions of character.

Without her mask she would be just pulp, no countenance whatever.

Persona is a sort of paste one wears over the face.

What we see of the world is far from the totality, it is merely the surface; we don't see into the substance of the world, into what Kant called "the thing in itself."

That would be the unconscious of things, and inasmuch as they are unconscious they are unknown to us.

So we need the other half of the world, the world of the shadow, the inside of things.

The split between the conscious and the unconscious goes right through the world.

Now, if I have a skin of adaptation for the conscious world, I must have one for the unconscious world too.

The anima is the completion of the man's whole adaptation to unknown or partly known things.

It was only very lately that I arrived at the conclusion that the anima is the counterpart of the persona, and always appears as a woman of a certain quality because she is in connection with the man's specific shadow.

In the case of our dreamer we have a very typical demonstration of the anima.

She is connected with the brother-in-law, the shadow, as his wife; with the little sister, his female pet, the innermost female that he loves the most; and with the child for whom he has very tender feelings, as something close to his own soul.

Therefore it is a figure that one can designate as a soul symbol.

I have chosen to use the word anima to avoid all trouble with the meaning of "soul."

That sister of his in the dream is the figure that is married to the shadow, and the further statement of the dream is that this female has an imaginary child.

An imaginary fact is not a non-existent fact, but one of a different order.

A fantasy, for instance, is a very dynamic fact.

Remember that one can be killed by a fantasy, and to be killed by a shot fired in war or by a lunatic is al the same - one is dead!

When the dream speaks of a child, that is a definite entity, as his sister and brother-in-law, the dream-mother and the dream-father, are definite entities.

They have a psychological existence, they are facts that work and they constitute a world that works.

There is not one thing in our civilization that has not first been in the imagination, in fantasy; even houses and chairs have first existed in the imagination of the architect or designer.

The World War came about through mere opinions that war should be declared on Serbia, opinions based on fantasy, imagination.

Fantasies are most dangerous; we would be wise to make up our minds that an imaginary child or woman is a dangerous reality, and all the more so because not visible.

I would much rather deal with a real woman than with an imaginary woman.

An anima can bring about the most amazing results: she can send a man practically anywhere in the world; what a real woman could not do the anima can do.

If the anima says so, one must go.

If a wife talks boring nonsense, one curses her, but when the anima talks boring nonsense-

Question: Why has the anima such power?

Dr. Jung: Because we undervalue the importance of imagination.

The anima and animus have tremendous influence because we leave the shadow to them.

By not being aware of having a shadow, you declare a part of your personality to be non-existent.

Then it enters the kingdom of the non-existent, which swells up and takes on enormous proportions.

When you don't acknowledge that you have such qualities, you are simply feeding the devils.

In medical language, each quality in the psyche represents a certain energic value, and if you declare an energic value to be non-existent, a devil appears instead.

If you declare that the river which flows by your house is non-existent, it may swell up and fill your garden with pebbles and sand and undermine your house.

If you give such a limitless possibility to nature to work by itself, nature can do what she pleases.

If you see a herd of cattle or pigs and say they are non-existent, they are immediately all over the place, the cows will eat up the rose-garden and the pigs will climb into your bed and sleep there!

In this way the non-existent grows fat. Meyrink's Die Fledermause (otherwise very bad) describes very vividly a world in which are living some extremely poor specimens of people, pale, sad, unhealthy, and getting worse and worse; and then the discovery is made that as they decrease, certain corpses in the graveyard are growing proportionately fat.

The thing you have buried grows fat while you grow thin.

If you get rid of qualities you don't like by denying them, you become more and more unaware of what you are, you declare yourself more and more non-existent, and your devils will grow fatter and fatter.

As the shadow is a definite entity, so the anima is a definite entity, and so is this child a definite entity, and all the more dangerous because it is an imaginary child.

She is dangerous because she might reflect back on the patient himself.

This is again empirical, a mere working hypothesis, but we are forced to make them.

The main point is that she is about two years old, that she is pale and ill, and that she is the product of the union of the shadow and the anima-they come together somehow.

It is very mysterious, very difficult to explain it at all.

We know the product is two years old and that the patient began his occult studies which led him into analysis two years ago; that is the significant fact.

If such a definite time is stated in a dream, it is a hint that it is necessary to pay attention to the time element in the history of the case.

To dream of a child of seven years means that seven years ago something started.

Another patient of mine dreamt she had a child just five years old who gave her terrible trouble and might have a bad effect on her mind.

I asked: "In the same month just five years ago, what happened?"

The woman could not think at first and then she became very much embarrassed: she had fallen in love with a man and had declared her feeling non-existent.

She had had a hell of a life in her marriage to another man, and was now devil-haunted for fear she would go crazy.

Women who have kept that fact secret have really gone crazy!

Because she was of a simple family, and he of a more aristocratic one, she felt her love was hopeless, never assuming that he could love her; so she married another man and had two children.

Then three years ago she met a friend of the first man who told her that he had loved her and had therefore never married. "Your marriage stabbed him to the heart."

Soon after this, while bathing her older child, a little girl of three or four, with the eyes of her first lover-she liked to think of her as the child of her lover-she noticed the little girl drinking the water
from the bathtub, very infectious, unfiltered water.

She knew this but let it happen, and even let her boy drink the same water.

Both children were taken ill with typhoid, and the older child died.

The woman went into a deep depression, like dementia praecox, and was sent to a lunatic asylum where I treated her.

I soon found out the whole story and felt that the only hope for her was to tell her the brutal truth: "You have killed your child in order to kill your marriage."

Of course she didn't know what she was doing; because she denied her former love, declared it non-existent, she fed her devils and they suggested killing the daughter of her husband.

In this case the awful thing in her dream was born of the bogie of three years ago at the moment when she heard that her first lover was deeply grieved that she had married another man ..

She had "fed her devils," the animus, and they had killed her child.

The woman recovered.

Question: Do you think there is really a connection between the marriage of the shadow and the anima, and the fact that the patient was led to occult studies?

Dr. Jung: I assume that the occult science he was trying to study would represent symbolically the dark and unknown side of things; since that interest was born out of the union of the shadow and
anima it would naturally be expressed by something occult.

The union of the shadow and anima has the character of something exceedingly mysterious.

That it eventually led our patient to occult studies is an important hint as to the kind of experience.

It feels like something strange and amazing like an event that could only take place in a non-existent imaginary world; one can't express it properly, it is too odd, too unheard of, one gets only a repercussion from it.

I asked this man what had brought him into such studies and he could not tell me; he just felt that the world had another side.

He had got out of it all that outward success could give, but had the idea that this was not all; so he drifted toward the occult, he began to read about Atlantis, etc., in order to find where "that thing" was hidden.

Whatever that union between the shadow and anima may be, it has that effect.

Now the unconscious says it is an unsound kind of occupation and therefore the child is ill.

This is a piece of important information to him and to me.

Otherwise I would have no right to be critical.

Neither I nor anybody else could assume that his occult studies were necessarily morbid; the dream gave us the hint that it was pathological, that these studies were wrong.

Then he is invited to go to the theatre and to dine, but Mrs. Anima is not there, she is staying away, concerned with the ill child.

The shadow invites the dreamer to the theatre so that he may see all that the shadow sees, the scenery of the unconscious.

What is the secret purpose of the brother-in-law? What is he driving at?

He is trying to arrive at some kind of communion; by going with the shadow the dreamer goes with the part of himself which he has declared to be nonexistent.

When I say I am going to dinner with someone I give reality to that person.

The fact that he goes to dinner with the shadow means that he accepts the existence of the shadow as he accepts his brother-in-law; he admits the reality

of his shadow side that he is so terribly bored, that he has fantasies, etc.

He will go and see those images, and by assimilating them the ultimate goal of the dream, that the child shall be cured, will be furthered.

The child is ill because he has begun his studies in the wrong way, he ought to begin by the shadow.

Just recently a representative theosophist told me that he thought they ought to introduce analysis into their theosophy.

They begin to realize that unless they begin at the right end, with the shadowl their occult pursuits are morbid.

The right beginning is within. Learn of one's own dark side, then one can tackle theosophy.

Theosophy means the "wisdom of God."

Can we have that? Heavens, no! Be wise about yourself, then you know something.

Next week I should like you to give me your own interpretations of the dream, either your individual interpretations, or form groups and discuss it, with one member as the spokesman.

The teacher hasn't to do all the work! ~Carl Jung, Dream Analysis Seminar, Pages 43-56