Carl Jung: Am I particularly stupid? Or is it the style?

To Sandor Ferenczi

Dear Colleague, 25 December 1909

I consider it impossible to keep up our analytical relationship by correspondence.

One simply hasn't the time for so many and such long letters.

Now and then, as you say, a sign of life and no diplomatics when we meet-that is possible.

I am very pleased to welcome you among the collaborators, this time for the second volume.

Sadger tells me that for the 1st half of vol. II he is contributing a case in which he too will expatiate on homosexuality.

I am looking forward to comparing your findings.

Incidentally, your paper on "Introjection" made a great impression here, as also did your previous paper on "Actual" (etc.)

The latter particularly on Pfister.

At present I am once again in terminological difficulties.

The reason why this ahvays seems to happen only to me lies in my teaching activity.

Recently I took issue with Binswanger about Freud's concept of regression, as to whether it included the infantile element or not. Now it turns out that the concept crops up in two variants.

When Adler demonstrates repressed homosexuality in the dreams of a prostitute, there is a distinct collision with the clinical concept of homosexuality as it actually exists.

In this sense homosexuality is the dominance of this same component in overt acts because of a permanent cathexis, and for that reason it differs from the temporary
cathexis of the homosexual component due to displacement of the heterosexual component.

These and similar difficulties make teaching unspeakably tiring and lead to everlasting misunderstandings.

Freud's paper on obsessional neurosis is marvellous but very hard to understand. I must soon read it for the third time.

Am I particularly stupid? Or is it the style?

I plump cautiously for the latter.

Between Freud's speaking and writing there is "a gulf fixed" which is very wide.

Most of all I have disputed with Freud the "symptom of omnipotence" ( ! ) because the term is too clinical.

Naturally he is right, and the term is artistic too.

But if you have to teach that kind of thing in a systematic context, you get goose pimples and take to swearing.

With best greetings,

JUNG ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. I, Pages 13-14

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