Carl Jung: Bleuler would rather fall out with us than with those pipsqueaks.

Dear Professor Freud, 24 November 1911

I very much hope that the symptoms of my late ill humour have not had any bad aftereffects.

I was furious because of something that had happened in my working arrangements.

But I won't bother you with that, and will only bring you the good news that Pfister's wife refuses to be analysed.

This will probably start the ball rolling, and, we must hope, save Pfister from the infantilism that is stultifying him.

It will be a hard struggle.

I must congratulate you on the birth of the new journal.

I'm afraid I must declare myself incapable of making an inaugural contribution.

All my time and energy must be devoted to my Part II.

You had best send that accursed paper of Bleuler's to Ferenczi.

Let him react to it without affect, stressing, perhaps, the ethically neutral standpoint of psychoanalysis as contrasted with Bleuler's sorties into
practical hygiene.

Thank you for taking care of Silberer's paper.

I don't know anything about Dr. v. Kohler.

The staunch support of de Montet strikes me as very suspicious, seeing that a short while ago he expressed himself in a most peremptory manner about interpretations and sexuality.

He is a singularly arrogant fellow. (You can get some idea of his tone from the report on the Brussels Congress in the Journal fur Psychologie und Neurologie.)

I am writing this letter piecemeal.

In the meantime there has been the Meeting of Swiss Psychiatrists," at which Riklin, Maeder, and others including myself delivered lectures on psychoanalysis.

Bleuler had previously written Riklin a letter warning him about "invitations," as otherwise there might be "dernonstrations."

The fact that 5 of the 7 lectures were on psychoanalysis has, I have since discovered, incurred the displeasure of Frank and his confreres.

They have kicked up a fuss with Bleuler and he has made himself their mouthpiece; he even suspects that we chose a larger hall in order to invite heaven knows what sort of people.

As you may imagine, this letter exasperated me, particularly as, while I was in St. Callen, Bleuler suddenly descended on Pfister requesting him not to do any more analyses.

Once again Bleuler has allowed himself to be worked up because of his everlasting opposition to me.

He has never attempted to talk with me about it.

All my efforts to win him over have been a total failure.

He just doesn't want to see it my way.

Maeder has now had a friendly private talk with Maier, hoping to persuade him to show his colours.

He often attends our meetings, and we would find it appropriate if he eventually joined our Society, seeing that he takes advantage of it anyway.

After this talk Maier evidently went to work on Bleuler, and now Bleuler has suddenly announced his resignation.

I enclose Maeder's letter.

The blue-marked passage refers to my leaving the last meeting of the Psychiatric Society rather early, because I was tired and thought the proceedings were finished except for two lectures.

Apparently this was not so, for Frank, quite unexpectedly, carne back to his motion (which had been turned down the previous day) that the next meeting be held in the autumn jointly with the International Society for Psychotherapy, which is to meet in Zurich.

I don't know how it happened, but incredibly enough the motion was carried.

I have no intention of speaking at this joint meeting, for the vulgarity of the International Society disgusts me.

President Vogt…All through the meeting Bleuler stuck by Frank and fell over backwards to avoid anything psychoanalytical.

A week ago, before all this happened, I tried to win Bleuler over with every conceivabIe inveiglement and was snubbed again.

There's simply nothing to be done about it.

He just won't budge.

Pfister was taken as a pretext, and he has indeed been careless with certain remarks he made about a doctor here who has his knife into us anyway.

Bleuler would rather fall out with us than with those pipsqueaks.

Shame on him!

With kindest regards,

Most sincerely yours,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters. Vol 1, Pages 465

Dr. Jung writes Dr. Freud about Dr. Bleuler

Dear Professor Freud, 29 November 1910

I had a faint suspicion that your present attitude to the divergent tendencies of Stekel and Adler is not exactly a simple one.

There is in any case a noticeable analogy between Adler and Bleuler: the same mania to make the terminology as different as possible and to squeeze the flexible and fruitful psychological approach into the crude schematism of a physiological and biological straitjacket.

Bleuler is another one who fights against shrivelling in your shadow.

Last Sunday, at the Meeting of Swiss Psychiatrists in Bern;' he spoke about ambivalence, i.e., pairs of opposites.



It was dreadfully superficial and schema tic. It looks as though biology were taking all the spirit out of psychology.

Now for Bleuler's letter!

Another masterpiece of tortuosity and "diplomatic vagueness."

It is quite evident that his ratiocinative faculties have gone bankrupt.

He was unable to advance a single reason when talking with me.

There is no doubt at all that it is not you or the statutes or Stekel or anything else that is the cause of his negativism but simply and solely myself, ostensibly because of the Isserlin affair.

But this is merely a pretext.

The real and only reason is my defection from the abstinence crowd.

After I had broken down his cover-resistances through the last dream-analysis, the following dreams came out at the party, accompanied by venomous asides (he told them to me in front of the company, all unsuspecting-as if to prove how little he understands dream-analysisl}: He was the guest of the German Kaiser, who 'looked like a fat grocer, sodden with drink.

In a second dream he was summoned to Berlin in order to analyse the Kaiser.

But he didn't get round to that, for the Kaiser locked him in the cellar.

Bleuler would like more than anything to pick a quarrel with me about the reasons for my defection.

He won't do that for the sake of discretion, instead he refuses to join OUT crowd.

However, it still seems to me that he will come along once the smoke. from the first shots has cleared away.

Regretfully I must share your view that, if you came to Zurich, you would have to grit your teeth and lodge with him.

Bleuler is extremely touchy, loudly proclaiming that it doesn't matter a hang to him.

This would be so miserable for us that I must 'counsel you to get together with Bleuler in Munich.

You can't possibly spend a whole day alone with him; he is thoroughly exhausting because he is quite inhuman.

Furthermore, the situation being so uncertain, you would accomplish just as much or as little in Zurich as in Munich.

I would therefore not stake too much on this card but rest content with a meeting in Munich; after 2-3 hours Bleuler's arguments have long since petered out and he turns nasty, i.e., then comes the barrage of “why’s”.

So it would be best to spend 4-5 hours with him one evening," let us say from 6 or 7 until the departure of the night train for Zurich.

The evening Bleuler departs I shall arrive in Munich and hope very much to spend the next day with you.

There is no need whatever for you to sacrifice any more time.

I now have" sufficient contact with Bleuler to hold him to our cause.

The gaggle of assistants can be lopped off.

Once more I recommend my plan "chaleureusernent."

It should meet all the requirements.

It is a good thing we know this about Friedlander.

The man really is a damned swine.

If ever he comes again I really shall kick him out.

Thank God I guessed what kind of skunk had crawled in under my roof and treated him as I did: I am now more than ever convinced that these hogs have every reason to oppose us.

I shall not consort with them in the future either.

This technique pays off.

With us everything is going ahead nicely.

In Bern the whole interest centred on psychoanalysis in that Society it has made a lasting abode for itself.

Have you read Bleuler's apologia?

With many kind regards,

Most sincerely yours,

JUNG

We hope you will pay us a fleeting visit in the spring. ~Carl Jung, Freud Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Pages 374-375

Carl Jung: Or should Ferenczi take up the polemic?"

Dear Professor Freud, 13 November 1911

I am writing a few words in haste.

Enclosed is a paper by Bleuler, inflammatory abstinence stuff which he wants to put in the Jahrbuch in reply 'to Ferenczi."

It also contains some completely false statements quite apart from the usual fanatic bellowings.

Do you feel like adding a few words?

Or should Ferenczi take up the polemic?"

It is not to my taste to have such things in the Jahrbuch, Perhaps you might be able to persuade Bleuler to withdraw certain statements his criticism really does go too far.

Most sincerely yours,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol.1, Pages 460

Image: Top: Clark University, September 1909 A.A. Brill, Ernest Jones, Sandor Ferenczi, Sigmund Freud, Stanley •Hall, C. G. Jung Bottom: Eugen Bleuler

Carl Jung: He could have done this long ago, so it is just another low trick.

Dear Professor Freud, 27March 1912

Many thanks for the second edition of Cradiva.

I quite agree with your proposal.

I shall notify the local groups accordingly, i.e., I presume that I have to consult them.

Perhaps we can hold the Congress next spring.

Bleuler has demanded the return of one of the manuscripts already with, Deuticke,' a very fine Dem. praec. analysis, for fear of public opinion in Zurich.

He could have done this long ago, so it is just another low trick.

Of course it was a paper produced at the Clinic, which I have now wasted a lot of time correcting.

Please excuse the "meagreness" of this "letter."

You will be hearingmore from me very soon.

Best regards,

Most sincerely yours,

JUNG

~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Pages 497-498