Carl Jung: I think my conjecture that the Miller fantasies" really add up to a redemption mystery can be proved to the hilt.

Dear Professor Freud, 29 September 1910

So you are back safe and sound from the cholera country!

Nevertheless I wish I could have been with you.

I understand very well what you say about your travelling companion.

I find that sort of thing exasperating, and still have an aftertaste of it from our American trip.

Your advice concerning the way to treat our Uncle "Euler"! is opportune and reinforces my natural bent for philanthropy, I shall have the galleys of his manuscript sent to you; I was unable to read it because it was sent direct to Deuticke at the last moment.

Silberer's paper on mythology" is good, except that his "functional category" for the investigation of myths has not blossomed into a thorough going working hypothesis.

I think you will recommend it for separate publication.

I am working like a horse and am at present immersed in Iranian archaeology.

I think my conjecture that the Miller fantasies" really add up to a redemption mystery can be proved to the hilt.

Only the other day a so-called Dem. praec. patient, whom I have almost set on her" feet again, came out with a really grand, hitherto anxiously
guarded, moon-fantasy which is a redemption mystery composed entirely of liturgical imagery.

A thing of marvellous beauty but very difficult, built on incest with her brother.

In the case of another patient I could spot fragments of a Peter-Antichrist legend; origin obscure.

The interesting thing in the first case is that prior knowledge is entirely lacking; the fantasy originated in early childhood (about the 7th year.

She is now 181/2 years old, Jewish. - As I said, I wallow in wonders.

I was touched and overjoyed to learn how much you appreciate the greatness of Schreber's mind and the liberating of the basic language.

I am still very intrigued by the fate of those unfortunate corps brothers who were miracled up to the skies and are described as "those suspended under Cassiopeia?"

The Manichaeans (Schreber's godfathers?) hit on the idea that a number of demons or "archons" were crucified on, or affixed to, the vault of heaven and were the fathers of human beings.

I use the winged word "Why don't you say it (scil. aloud) ?" every day in analysis, where it proves its efficacy.

The book is a worthy one; it deserves the .place of honour in every psychiatric library if only for the sake of "little Flechsig.""

I have had a disgruntled letter from Jones.

Everybody seems to have it in for him.

He says the directors have stopped the Asylum Bulletin because of his psychoanalytic writings.

"Schottlander" has announced an article in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology: "Hysteria and Modern Psychoanalysis."

There you will reap the rewards of your psychoanalytic endeavours with him.

Won't you admit now that my kicking-out technique is therapeutically unsurpassable in such cases?

With many kind regards,

Yours very sincerely,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol., Pages 355- 356

Carl Jung: The adventure with "Schottlander" is marvellous; of course the slimy bastard was lying.

Dear Professor Freud, 2 June 1910

I was amazed by your news.

The adventure with "Schottlander" is marvellous; of course the slimy bastard was lying.

I hope you roasted, flayed, and impaled the fellow with such genial ferocity that he got a lasting taste for once of the effectiveness of psychoanalysis.

I subscribe to your final judgment with all my heart.

Such is the nature of these beasts.

Since I could read the filth in him from his face I would have gone for his throat.

I hope to God you told him all the truths so plainly that even his hen's brain could absorb them.

Now we shall see what his next coup will be.

Had I been in your shoes I would have softened up his guttersnipe complex with a sound Swiss thrashing.

Hache did indeed declare us ripe for the madhouse.

Stockmayer was there and has told me about it.

The lecture fell into the well-known pattern: charges of mysticism, sectarianism, arcane jargon, epidemic of hysteria, dangerousness, etc. Isolated clapping.

Nobody protested.

Stockrnayer was quite alone and hadn't the gumption.

Even Gaupp and Hache's faithful henchmen Bumke" and Spiel meyer found the tone not quite to their liking.

But not one of the 125 people present raised a murmur.

This report turned my stomach. I don't know what to say except Foul! Foul Foul!"

We have now constituted a branch society here with ca. 15 members.

The president hasn't been elected yet for lack of suitable candidates.

Only 2 of the younger assistants from Burgholzli have joined.

Bleuler and Maier are hanging back.

Frank too, mercifully.

The Zurich foundation was a difficult birth.

One more such victory - I enclose Honegger's last letter from Territet.

With intent to delay his return, I have written him that in my view he could very well work on his dissertation there under his own steam.

I would like to make him my assistant publicly only when he has earned his doctor's degree or finished his dissertation.

But I have promised to ask for your grandfatherly opinion first, so that no injustice be done him because of my private opinion.

For I do have my opinions in the matter of work discipline.

He reads too little and "works" too much by flashes of genius. In Territet he would have all the time he needs for working and especially for reading, a particularly big lacuna in his case.

His continual dependence on stimulation seems to me a cloak for lack of self-reliance.

I don't like that sort of thing; altogether 1 am very much against such shiftlessness.

One really cannot let work depend entirely on the "rabbit," as Spitteler says.'

Maybe I am judging too harshly, seeing that I myself often have great trouble in pinning my stubborn Konrad" to the writing-table.

All the same, my greatest joy is in work and I am happy when I have enough time for it.

My mythology swirls about inside me, and now and then various significant bits and pieces are thrown up.

At the moment the unconscious "interest-draughts'" centre entirely on the inexhaustible depths of Christian symbolism, whose counterpart seems to have been found in the Mithraic mysteries. (Julian the Apostate, for instance, reintroduced them as being the equivalent of Christianity.)

The "nuclear complex" seems to be the profound disturbance-caused by the incest prohibition-between libidinal gratification and propagation.

The astral myth can be solved in accordance with the rules of dream interpretation: Just as the sun mounts higher and higher after the winter, so will you attain to fruitfulness in spite of the incest barrier (and its odious effects on your libido).

This idea is expressed very clearly in the Song of Tishtriya (Zendavesta).

Twice the white horse (Tishtriya == Sothis) tries to drive the demonic black horse Apaosha from the rain-lake.

Finally he succeeds with the help of Ahura-Mazda.

You will soon get the material where all this is described.

Many kind regards,

Most sincerely yours,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Pages 325-326

Carl Jung: Together with my wife I have tried to unriddle your words,...

Dear Professor Freud, 29 August 1911

I was overjoyed by your letter, being, as you know, very receptive to any recognition the father sees fit to bestow.

It is more pleasing than the loud recognition conferred on tis by the unremitting malevolence of our opponents.

At the same time, your letter has got me on tenterhooks because, for all my "shrewdness," I can't quite make out what is going on so enigmatically behind the scenes.

Together with my wife I have tried to unriddle your words, and we have reached surmises which, for the time being at any rate, I would rather keep to myself.

I can only hope that your embargo on discussion will be lifted during your stay here.

I, too, have the feeling that this is a time full of marvels, and, if the 'auguries do not deceive us, it may very well be that, thanks to your discoveries, we are on the threshold of something really sensational, which I scarcely know how to describe except with the Gnostic 'concept of (Sophia) an Alexandrian term particularly suited to the reincarnation of ancient wisdom in the shape of psychoanalysis.

I daren't say too much, but would only counsel you (very immodestly) to let my "Transf. and Symb. of the Lib." unleash your associations and/or fantasies: I am sure you 'will hit upon strange things if you do.

(Provided, of course, that the mysterious hint in your letter has not already done so in anagrammatic form. With that letter anything 'seems possible.)

Well then-I was in Brussels from 11-16 August.

The Congress and its proceedings were so idiotic that I played truant most of the time.

I was present, so to speak, only at my own lecture."

It was a colossal piece of cheek.

I knew that after all those longueurs the public 'would fall like rabbits.

The speaking time was limited to 20 minutes.

I took almost an hour, one. can't do a decent report on Psychology in 20 minutes.

I felt sure the chairman (van Schuyten," who has his knife into psychoanalysis anyway) was going to cut me short.

And he did.

I told him I would willingly stop at once but would like to leave the decision to the Congress (ca. 200 people).

The Congress granted me further time by acclamation.

The same thing happened a second time.

The chairman was hopping mad but had to swallow his rage.

My lecture had the effect of a bombshell.

Afterwards one heard mutterings like "Vous avez dechaine un orage," "oh, c'est un homme odieux," etc.

A few people left the hall in mute protest.

One Danish doctor flew into a rage with me; I didn't deign to answer him and that made him more furious than ever, for the rabble likes to be answered in kind.

But a few of the brighter heads and a few good ones had noticed something and from now on can be counted among our silent collaborators.

After Belgium I went on a mountain tour in the Bernese Oberland with my wife.

I have been back in Zurich since yesterday.

Now comes a protest at your not wishing to leave until the 15th when you should already be here on the 15th.

Can it be done?

So far I have only four announcements of lectures for Weimar' (Sadger, Abraham, Korber," Jung). I have asked Bleuler, Sachs, and Rank, and will also try Pfister.

I am counting on you absolutely; would you please let me know the title of your lecture as soon as possible.

Abraham wrote me that applicants are dragging their heels (at least in Zurich).

These are only symptoms of laziness, of course; people will come all right.

This time the feminine element will have conspicuous representatives from Zurich: Sister Meltzer," or Hinkle Eastwick (an American charmer), Frl. Dr. Spielrein (!), then a new discovery of mine, Frl. Antonia Wolff," a remarkable intellect with an excellent feeling for religion and philosophy, and last but not least" my wife.

I am told that a Dr. van Renterghem of Amsterdam wants to come.

In Munich we have won over a privatdocent of psychoanalysis, Dr. Fischer!' (former pupil of Lipps and Wundt).

Perhaps you 'can round up a few decent lecturers in Vienna; in any case do please get Ferenczi to present something.

I look forward very much to seeing you here again in the near future. I'm expecting Putnam next week.

Many kind regards,

Most sincerely yours,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Pages 438-441

Carl Jung: You deceive yourself mightily if you think we are going to let you off coming to Innsbruck or Salzburg!

Dear Professor Freud, 16 December 1907

You deceive yourself mightily if you think we are going to let you off coming to Innsbruck or Salzburg!

On the contrary, we hope and expect to meet under your chairmanship.

It is proposed that the Congress be held after the Congress of Psychologists in Frankfurt,' i.e., after April 20.

(Unfortunately I cannot remember the exact date at the moment.)

I hope this time won't be too inconvenient for you.

To make attendance easier, it would be best if the meeting were limited to one evening and one day, so that all participants, even those from the most distant places, would not have to be away from their work for more than three days.

As soon as you let me know whether this arrangement suits you, I shall submit definite proposals to the prospective participants.

I am presently negotiating the founding of a journal for which I want to ensure a wide distribution.

It is to be international, since we must emancipate ourselves as much as possible from the German market.

I'll tell you about it as soon as I have definite results in hand.

Claparede will hold himself in reserve for some time yet as he has no material; he is actually a psychologist.

His benevolent neutrality is assured.

Please excuse the brevity of this letter.

I am very busy.

Most sincerely yours,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Pages 103-104

Carl Jung: I am not a free agent and always have to adjust my decisions to the wishes of half a dozen other people.

Dear Professor Freud, 12 July 1908

Again I have had to keep you waiting a long time for my answer.

I am not a free agent and always have to adjust my decisions to the wishes of half a dozen other people.

That takes time.

In August' my chief has four weeks leave, during which time I shall naturally be chained to the Clinic.

In September (1-15) I go on holiday.

On the 16th I shall be home again until the 28th, when my military service begins, lasting until the end of October.

So if you cared to spend a few days with us between the 16th and the 28th I would be very happy.

I should like to spend the miserably short holiday I have in lazy solitude; God knows I need it.

This summer term has been grueling.

If I am back in the Clinic at the end of September, I hope my chief will relieve me of most of my duties so that I can devote all my time to you.

Please forgive me for not going further into your work plans in my last letter. I simply took them as settled.

Of course I agree with your putting the "Phobia" in the first number and the "Aphorisms on Obsessional Neurosis" in the second.

On the other hand I hope you won't mind a mild protest at your lavishing your ideas and articles on Hirschfeld or Marcuse or even Moll.

Naturally I won't presume to stop you, since I don't know your reasons.

Your ideas are difficult enough for the layman to understand as it is, but they all have a continuity of logical development, and I think it ill advised to scatter them at random on good and stony ground alike.

Some fall by the wayside, and the people tread them underfoot; some fall among thorns, and the thorns choke them;" whereas I hope the Jahrbiicher
will gather up the scattered seeds and so give a faithful picture of the edifice you have built.

I should be grateful if you could let me have your contribution to the first number by the beginning of the winter.

I hope Binswanger's will also be finished by then, as well as the abstracts.

All my available time last week was taken up by Dr. Campbell," ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Pages 163-164

Carl Jung: "The Dynamics of Transference"! is of extraordinary value for the analyst.

Dear Professor Freud, 19 February 1912

Heartiest thanks for your two excellent articles.

"The Dynamics of Transference"! is of extraordinary value for the analyst.

I have read it with pleasure and profit.

So far as the concept of introversion" is concerned, I consider it to be a universal phenomenon, though it has a special significance in Dem. praec.

I say quite a lot about it in Part II of my work on libido, which by the way has taken on alarming proportions and despite my need to come to an end refuses to stop.

Already I can predict the gloomy outcome: I shall see how much better I could have done it.

Our Society is blossoming like a rose since Bleuler left.

The only result of the great newspaper feud is that wA is being endlessly discussed in public. It even appears in the carnival newspapers.

Excuse this brevity, but I am in a state of war.

Kind regards,

Most sincerely yours,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Page 486

Carl Jung: All of those present were shaking with laughter and fully agreed with my interpretation.

Dear Professor Freud, 30 April 1910

At last I can report to you after the uproar last week.

In a private talk beforehand, Bleuler, very huffy and irritable, gave me a flat refusal and expressly declared that he would not join the Society-he
would dissociate himself from it altogether.

Reasons: its aim was too biased, it took too narrow a view of the problems, it was too exclusive, you had slighted Frank in Nuremberg and thereby ostracized him, one didn't want to sit down with everybody (a dig at Stekel).

He simply would not join, that was the long and short of it.

I told him what the consequences would be, but it was no good.

Yesterday we had our constituent assembly, which Frank also attended.

The same opposition was shown with the same hollow resistances; another "reason" they gave was that they didn't want to commit themselves to a confession of faith, etc.

In the course of the discussion it became clear that Frank is the grey eminence who has been working on Bleuler.

I let the discussion go on until both Bleuler and Frank were properly cornered and were forced to admit that they just didn't want to join.

I had so arranged matters that the local group had already constituted itself with 12 members before the meeting took place, which faced them
with a fait accompli.

The overwhelming majority are on our side.

Taking your Nuremberg tactics as a ·model, I postponed the final decision until the next meeting in the hope that Bleuler's resistances will have
melted by then.

As the evening wore on he became noticeably milder and I almost venture to hope he 'will come along with us.

In any case Frank can go by the board and I would gladly speed his departure with a joyful kick, [ ... ].

We shall manage with or without Bleuler, but with him would be better.

Most of the others stuck by me splendidly and did their best to unhorse Bleuler.

After the meeting he again favoured us privatim with a dream, naturally in order to dispute the interpretation.

All of those present were shaking with laughter and fully agreed with my interpretation.

The key to the mystery is that Bleuler understands far too little of pA, so little that he has not assimilated even the elements of dream interpretation.

No wonder he yields so willingly to Frank's subversive influence.

As a matter of fact his whole opposition is a revenge for my resignation from the abstinence societies. (Hence his charge of exclusiveness, narrowness, and bias.)

When Kraepelin was here he went on at poor Bleuler for my having excluded Isserlin from Nuremberg.

That, I am glad to say, has made a big impression in Munich. Those gents are getting jumpy.

I heard from Putnam that he is planning to organize something in Boston. Let's hope something will come of it soon.

Otherwise all's well. Nuremberg has produced happy results for us all.

Kind regards,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Pages 312-313

Carl Jung: I hope you won't be angry with me for my bold criticism and wishes.

Dear Professor Freud, 14February 1911

First of all I am very glad to hear you are well again.

Couldn't anyone smell the gas?

From a very discreet source a little of your son's "complex" story has come to my ears.

Is Martin his mother's favourite? I am sure you know the rest as well as I do.

I am thinking of having all Adler's publications reviewed in extensor and discussed in Zurich. Putnam is a real brick.

Even before your letter arrived I had written him that in agreement with you I would advance the date of the Congress so that he might leave Genoa on September 28th.

He will meet you in Zurich at my place; you could then give the seminar instead of me, for Putnam personally, of course.

He will be here for 2-3 weeks, working.

An amazing man, a natural aristocrat.

Yes, I do have some wishes in regard to the third edition of your Interpretation of Dreams: I have criticized Morton Prince's "Mechanism and Interpretation of Dreams" very sharply and in detail, and have also drilled my seminar students in the most rigorous Freudian usage.

Now, I have noticed that my students (and I myself) take exception to the following passages: p. 92 (2nd edn.)

"The dreams of young children ... quite uninteresting compared with the dreams of adults.">

This sentence is objectionable in terms of Freudian dream interpretation; likewise p. 94: "though we think highly of the happiness of childhood.?" etc., objectionable in terms of the Freudian sexual theory.

The 'children's dreams on pp. 92 and 93 seem to me insufficiently interpreted; the interpretation uncovers only a superficial layer of the dream, but not the whole, which in both cases is clearly a sexual problem whose instinctual energy alone explains the dynamism of the dreams.

But you may have reasons (didactic?) for not revealing the deeper layer of interpretation, just as in the preceding dreams (your own).

I also miss a specific reference to the fact that the essential (personal) meaning of the dream (e.g., Irma," uncle," monograph," etc.) has not been given.

I insist on my students learning to understand dreams in terms of the dynamics of libido; consequently we sorely miss the personally painful element in your own dreams.

Perhaps this could' be remedied by your supporting the Irma dream with a typical analysis of a patient's dream," where the ultimate real motives are ruthlessly disclosed, so that the reader will realize (right from the start) that the dream does not disintegrate into a series of individual determinants, but is a structure built around a central motif of an exceedingly painful nature.

In my seminars we always concentrate for weeks on “The Interpretation of Dreams”, and I have always found that inadequate interpretation of the main dream-examples leads to misunderstandings and, in general, makes it difficult for the student to follow the argument since he cannot conceive the nature of the conflicts that are the regular sources of dreams.

(For instance, in the monograph dream the crucial topic of the conversation with Dr. Konigstein," which is absolutely essential if the dream is to be understood properly, is missing.)

Naturally one cannot strip oneself naked, but perhaps a model would serve the purpose.

I also wish there could be a supplementary bibliography" of the literature concerned 'with your work.

I hope you won't be angry with me for my bold criticism and wishes.

There's a tremendous lot of work to do before I can get the Jahrbuch together.

This time I wanted to write something for it myself.

Many kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

J UNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Pages 391- 394

Carl Jung: You are quite right: on the whole I was unfair to Stekel's book. But only to you.

Dear Professor Freud 21 August 1908

I am eagerly looking forward to your visit, which you are going to extend by several days.

We shall have plenty to talk about-you may be sure of that.

I shall be at home again from September 8th to the 28th.

Come any time you like during those 20 days.

I shall banish all intrusions that might encroach upon our sessions, so we can count on being undisturbed.

Prof. Bleuler has nothing against your visit, how much he has for it no one knows, least of all himself.

So there is no need for further worry.

He is extremely well-behaved and obliging at all times and will put himself out to provide benevolent background.

(The unmistakably venomous tone of these sentences refers to certain happenings of an internal nature which justify my feelings.)

You are quite right: on the whole I was unfair to Stekel's book. But only to you.

The other side will emerge in my review.

Just now I am treating a case of anxiety hysteria and see how far from simple the matter is and how many difficulties are glossed over by Stekel's optimism.

Apart from that I am fully aware of the value at his book.

Recently I had a visit from Prof. Adolf Meyer - of the State Pathological Institute in New York.

He is very intelligent and clear-headed and entirely on our side in spite of the toxin problem in Dementia praecox.

In addition he's an anatomist.

A while ago I received some offprints from Sir Victor Horsley and from a third party the news that he is interested in our work.

My holiday starts tomorrow evening, thank God.

I intend to make the best of it by fleeing into the inaccessible solitude of a little Alpine cabin on Mount Santis,

I am very glad you are coming as there are all sorts of things to clear up.

Please give Ferenczi my very cordial regards.

He is highly deserving of your goodwill.

If you should write again in the near future, please send the letter to the usual address; everything will be forwarded.

With best regards,

Most sincerely yours,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Freud/Jung Letters, Vol. 1, Pages 169-170