What do you think?
Rate this book
Jung
Deirdre Bair has written about some of the most influential figures in 20th century culture - Samuel Beckett, Simone De Beauvoir and Anais Nin. Now she turns her expert eye to the one person whose teachings and writings are the most influential of psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung. Jung was Freud's 'crown prince', hand picked by the founding father of psychoanalysis to become the first president of the International Psychoanalytic Association in 1910. Their professional relationship ended in 1914 when Jung could not accept Freud's emphasis on infantile sexuality. Jung abandoned Freud's theory to found his own system of Analytical psychology. As Freud's influence has waned over the years, Jung's ideas - the collective unconscious, the archetypal myths underpinning all societies, synchronocity, 'new age' spirituality and much more - have achieved an overwhelming ascendancy.
Bair addresses the myths about Jung - accusations that he was an anti-Semite and a misogynist and that he falsified data - with evidence from his own writings and from those of his colleagues and former patients. The result is groundbreaking and accessible.
Bair addresses the myths about Jung - accusations that he was an anti-Semite and a misogynist and that he falsified data - with evidence from his own writings and from those of his colleagues and former patients. The result is groundbreaking and accessible.
640 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2003
55 people are currently reading
820 people want to read
About the author
Deirdre Bair
17 books156 followersDeirdre Bair received the National Book Award for Samuel Beckett: A Biography. Her biographies of Simone de Beauvoir and Carl Jung were finalists for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize, and the Simone de Beauvoir biography was chosen by The New York Times as a Best Book of the Year. Her biographies of Anaïs Nin and Saul Steinberg were both New York Times Notable Books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
August 20, 2019
Normally, I don’t write book reviews until after I’ve finished the book, but when a book is over 500 pages long and dense with information, I do status updates as mini-reviews. The things that impress me at the beginning of a book may not be the same at the end, but I don’t want to forget anything. This is a biography of Jung, and I was drawn to it because it addresses Jung’s Nazi past, claiming that he was not a really a Nazi sympathizer, but an American spy. But I’m not up to that part yet. I’m just up to his early life and career.
The first thing that impressed me, aside from the coldness and isolation of Jung’s childhood, is that he had a cousin who claimed to be a medium, and he and other members of his family had seances with her at the helm regularly. The author of the book claims that Helly (the cousin) had a crush on Carl, which I find easy to believe. I was a teenage girl once; that’s what we’re like. But the thought that struck me was one I’d heard in another book I’d heard about recently: namely, that in an era when women weren’t taken seriously when they spoke for themselves, being “possessed” or “speaking in tongues” was an effective way to get heard. (That book is called Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-Century America.) To be clear, I don’t mean that Helly was being deliberately manipulative. She may well have fallen for her own act. Presumably, her older cousin Carl did, too.
Next, I learned about Eugen Bleuler, who ran the most well-reputed psychiatric hospital in Switzerland, the Burgholzi and gave Jung his first medical job. His reputation was far eclipsed by Freud’s and Jung’s, but the book makes him out like a hero. Like R.D. Laing a century later, he lived alongside his patients, he involved them directly in their own care, and also in the running of the facility. It sounded so much like what I’ve read about Kingsley Hall, I wondered if Bleuler was an influence, at least in his democratic or egalitarian approach to treatment, but Bleuler is the one who coined the phrase “schizophrenia,” which Laing said was a myth. I’m going to have to ask Laing’s biographer. I’ve emailed him once before. In any case, to Bleuler’s credit, the reason he didn’t write as voluminously as Freud and Jung is that he was too busy caring for his patients.
The final figure that interested me was Sabina Spielrein. Now, I’d heard of her before – Keira Knightley stars in a biopic about her – but this book gave me more detail. She was Jewish, which of course interested me, and she sounded like Mary Barnes in many ways. In parallel to Helly finding her voice indirectly as a medium, the highly intelligent Sabina got as far as medical school, which made her a pioneer, but she broke down in the process. Well, breaking barriers is taxing. It was her against the world. That’s a hard place to be in. No wonder she fell back into the passive position of patient, but she was willful enough to be a really difficult one at times. I want to read more of her story. There are multiple accounts of it, though. As of now, I have no way of knowing whose opinion to trust.
Well, that’s all for now. I guess I’ll post again in a few days. Be well!
The first thing that impressed me, aside from the coldness and isolation of Jung’s childhood, is that he had a cousin who claimed to be a medium, and he and other members of his family had seances with her at the helm regularly. The author of the book claims that Helly (the cousin) had a crush on Carl, which I find easy to believe. I was a teenage girl once; that’s what we’re like. But the thought that struck me was one I’d heard in another book I’d heard about recently: namely, that in an era when women weren’t taken seriously when they spoke for themselves, being “possessed” or “speaking in tongues” was an effective way to get heard. (That book is called Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-Century America.) To be clear, I don’t mean that Helly was being deliberately manipulative. She may well have fallen for her own act. Presumably, her older cousin Carl did, too.
Next, I learned about Eugen Bleuler, who ran the most well-reputed psychiatric hospital in Switzerland, the Burgholzi and gave Jung his first medical job. His reputation was far eclipsed by Freud’s and Jung’s, but the book makes him out like a hero. Like R.D. Laing a century later, he lived alongside his patients, he involved them directly in their own care, and also in the running of the facility. It sounded so much like what I’ve read about Kingsley Hall, I wondered if Bleuler was an influence, at least in his democratic or egalitarian approach to treatment, but Bleuler is the one who coined the phrase “schizophrenia,” which Laing said was a myth. I’m going to have to ask Laing’s biographer. I’ve emailed him once before. In any case, to Bleuler’s credit, the reason he didn’t write as voluminously as Freud and Jung is that he was too busy caring for his patients.
The final figure that interested me was Sabina Spielrein. Now, I’d heard of her before – Keira Knightley stars in a biopic about her – but this book gave me more detail. She was Jewish, which of course interested me, and she sounded like Mary Barnes in many ways. In parallel to Helly finding her voice indirectly as a medium, the highly intelligent Sabina got as far as medical school, which made her a pioneer, but she broke down in the process. Well, breaking barriers is taxing. It was her against the world. That’s a hard place to be in. No wonder she fell back into the passive position of patient, but she was willful enough to be a really difficult one at times. I want to read more of her story. There are multiple accounts of it, though. As of now, I have no way of knowing whose opinion to trust.
Well, that’s all for now. I guess I’ll post again in a few days. Be well!
June 7, 2025
Jung himself, with typically magisterial conceit, once said that his biography would have to be written by a committee of specialists – one an expert in religion, another in medicine, another in philosophy, and so on. Thankfully, his numerous acolytes have never followed through on this rather alarming proposition. Instead, here's Deirdre Bair with one of those big, fat old-school biographies that does the job pretty well and with admirable neutrality.
He's a challenge because – as is clear from his own memoir, Memories, Dreams, Reflections – he considered the actual facts of his life to be basically unimportant. What mattered to him was the stuff going on inside his head, both as it reflected the real world of his patients and research, and as it reflected his increasing interest in the mystical and paranormal.
He talked about having two personalities (a concept learned from his supremely superstitious grandparents) – No. 1, which was ‘innocuous and human’, and the more subconscious No. 2, which was ‘uncanny…unexpected and frightening’.
The older he got, the less he cared about the first one. His writings, which began with close case studies of his patients, eventually relied less and less on other people until they were all essentially about his own subconscious – works, really, of abstract philosophy. He did not like this to be pointed out, though, and would become ‘enraged if anyone questioned the scientific foundation of his research’.
You could compare him, perhaps, to someone like Isaac Newton, who was writing about hard mathematics one moment and alchemy the next. At the time, it was far from clear which of these was ‘scientific’ (to use an anachronistic term) and which wasn't. Jung, similarly, made so many breakthroughs, once he started exploring Freud's new field of psychology, that there were grounds for believing that some so-called ‘supernatural’ phenomena would turn out to have some real basis in the workings of the mind.
Oh, those exciting days in the 1910s, when Jung was famous and popular and everything seemed up for grabs:
Well, for some people, anyway. Jung certainly had a sexual relationship with at least a couple of his patients, and Toni Wolff in particular became something rather more than a mistress – an apostle, a fellow analyst, and something close to a second wife for as long as she lived. His actual wife, Emma (a Swiss watch heiress whose vast fortune Jung had relied on to build his reputation), was not particularly thrilled about this. But nevertheless the three of them went everywhere together quite publicly as a triad, Jung taking one on each arm.
Around this time he voiced the comfortable theory that ‘it was possible and at times necessary for a man to divide the women in his life into categories formulated for his own masculine comfort and support’. Sure, dude.
And yet his relationships with women were, nevertheless, very progressive in some ways. He encouraged their intellectual gifts and activities at a time when this was uncommon, and as a result soon acquired ‘a devoted, highly visible female following’ who were dismissed by his enemies – and sometimes by Jung himself – as ‘little more than “sex-starved groupies or postmenopausal hysterics”’.
With men his relationships were more troubled, tending to end ‘in bitterness, rejection, and recrimination’: the break-up with Freud was only the most famous example of this pattern. Jung was not comfortable with the Viennese elder's idea that everything was about sex, but he perhaps took things a little too far in the other direction, raising his daughters
Bair spends some time considering the longstanding rumours that Jung was a Nazi sympathiser, but in the end puts the issue down, convincingly, to Jung's ‘general political obtuseness’ rather than any inherent fascism or antisemitism. (In fact, he served as Agent 488 for the CIA during the war, providing psychological profiles of Nazi leaders to the Allies.) According to one Jewish friend, Jung was ‘—to put the best face on it—confused by the politics of his day’.
When Bair makes judgement calls like this, I find her very persuasive. And her research is impeccable: the back matter, which takes up more than two hundred pages of this 900-page book, goes into exhaustive detail on her sources, including many personal interviews. There's nothing showy about her prose, but she tells the story well without either toeing the party line enitrely (Jung's legacy is closely guarded by his family) or accepting all the criticisms of him unquestioningly. Until we get the threatened biography-by-committee, this is probably the most comprehensive portrait of him available.
He's a challenge because – as is clear from his own memoir, Memories, Dreams, Reflections – he considered the actual facts of his life to be basically unimportant. What mattered to him was the stuff going on inside his head, both as it reflected the real world of his patients and research, and as it reflected his increasing interest in the mystical and paranormal.
He talked about having two personalities (a concept learned from his supremely superstitious grandparents) – No. 1, which was ‘innocuous and human’, and the more subconscious No. 2, which was ‘uncanny…unexpected and frightening’.
The older he got, the less he cared about the first one. His writings, which began with close case studies of his patients, eventually relied less and less on other people until they were all essentially about his own subconscious – works, really, of abstract philosophy. He did not like this to be pointed out, though, and would become ‘enraged if anyone questioned the scientific foundation of his research’.
You could compare him, perhaps, to someone like Isaac Newton, who was writing about hard mathematics one moment and alchemy the next. At the time, it was far from clear which of these was ‘scientific’ (to use an anachronistic term) and which wasn't. Jung, similarly, made so many breakthroughs, once he started exploring Freud's new field of psychology, that there were grounds for believing that some so-called ‘supernatural’ phenomena would turn out to have some real basis in the workings of the mind.
Oh, those exciting days in the 1910s, when Jung was famous and popular and everything seemed up for grabs:
No boundaries had been defined; there were no rules, no standards of behavior. Therapists were often teachers, friends, or lovers of their patients; socializing and entertainment often existed in tandem with therapeutic treatment; massive egos frequently collided, as theoreticians sought dominance for pet theories and sometimes even pet analysands. It was a heady time, with everything new and in flux for those involved in trying to make order and sense of the new mind doctors and their talking cures. Zürich may have been “the tense and often claustrophobic dead center of the war in Europe…a virtual container, neatly sealed off and protected from all the turmoil,” but everyone felt so very modern, and it was, indeed, a grand time to be alive.
Well, for some people, anyway. Jung certainly had a sexual relationship with at least a couple of his patients, and Toni Wolff in particular became something rather more than a mistress – an apostle, a fellow analyst, and something close to a second wife for as long as she lived. His actual wife, Emma (a Swiss watch heiress whose vast fortune Jung had relied on to build his reputation), was not particularly thrilled about this. But nevertheless the three of them went everywhere together quite publicly as a triad, Jung taking one on each arm.
Around this time he voiced the comfortable theory that ‘it was possible and at times necessary for a man to divide the women in his life into categories formulated for his own masculine comfort and support’. Sure, dude.
And yet his relationships with women were, nevertheless, very progressive in some ways. He encouraged their intellectual gifts and activities at a time when this was uncommon, and as a result soon acquired ‘a devoted, highly visible female following’ who were dismissed by his enemies – and sometimes by Jung himself – as ‘little more than “sex-starved groupies or postmenopausal hysterics”’.
With men his relationships were more troubled, tending to end ‘in bitterness, rejection, and recrimination’: the break-up with Freud was only the most famous example of this pattern. Jung was not comfortable with the Viennese elder's idea that everything was about sex, but he perhaps took things a little too far in the other direction, raising his daughters
to adulthood so sheltered that they knew nothing of sex. Emma never discussed it, so Agathe [the eldest daughter] learned how to deal with menstruation from the housemaid, and she, in turn, instructed her sisters. They all learned about sex from their husbands.
Bair spends some time considering the longstanding rumours that Jung was a Nazi sympathiser, but in the end puts the issue down, convincingly, to Jung's ‘general political obtuseness’ rather than any inherent fascism or antisemitism. (In fact, he served as Agent 488 for the CIA during the war, providing psychological profiles of Nazi leaders to the Allies.) According to one Jewish friend, Jung was ‘—to put the best face on it—confused by the politics of his day’.
When Bair makes judgement calls like this, I find her very persuasive. And her research is impeccable: the back matter, which takes up more than two hundred pages of this 900-page book, goes into exhaustive detail on her sources, including many personal interviews. There's nothing showy about her prose, but she tells the story well without either toeing the party line enitrely (Jung's legacy is closely guarded by his family) or accepting all the criticisms of him unquestioningly. Until we get the threatened biography-by-committee, this is probably the most comprehensive portrait of him available.
October 25, 2020
This is a detailed biography of Carl Gustav Jung, founder of analytical psychology, not an exposition of his theoretical development. There's a lot of name dropping, particularly of his colleagues, professional acquaintances and analysands, not much insight into his central beliefs. The one notable exception, however, is as regards his attitudes about race, the Jewish 'race' especially, given the allegations that he was anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi.
On the matter of race, and on the equally controversial matter of Jung's adulteries, the author appears to fairly present the evidence behind the arguments without herself adopting a stance except in such cases which are amply documented. Thus while Jung certainly did say and write about such things as a 'racial' unconscious before the war, while emphasizing a 'collective' species-wide unconscious after it, matters he might well have been more careful about with benefit of hindsight, he was certainly not pro-Nazi. Indeed, he was never much interested in or informed about politics beyond the politics within his various psychological/medical associations.
As regards his sex life, the author mentions some of the gossip within the Jungian community but only certifies one affair, that being with his long-term mistress Toni Wolff. In terms of his marriage to Emma, this--including, of course, the rumors--was quite enough, she, the source of his material fortune, being represented as a long-suffering and neglected (as their children appear to have been neglected) wife and, ultimately, colleague.
Not enough treated, in my view, is how important the wealth Emma brought into their marriage was to Jung's life. Although brought up himself in meagre, but respectable, circumstances--his father being a parson and some notable figures appearing in his family tree--Jung entered into the reaches of cosmopolitan elites as he entered into his professional maturity during his thirties. This wealth and those associations allowed him the freedom to go his own way both in his personal and in his professional life, the freedom to represent himself as a very private introvert, on the one hand, while being an extremely public person on the other. This sudden attainment of wealth has likely relevance to his relations with Freud as well as to his personal development and the particular orientation of his psychological practice, implications barely explicated by the author.
This is not the book for anyone interested in analytical psychology. For persons already familiar with it, and with, it may be noted, his pseudo-autobiography 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections', 'Jung' serves as a substantial contribution.
On the matter of race, and on the equally controversial matter of Jung's adulteries, the author appears to fairly present the evidence behind the arguments without herself adopting a stance except in such cases which are amply documented. Thus while Jung certainly did say and write about such things as a 'racial' unconscious before the war, while emphasizing a 'collective' species-wide unconscious after it, matters he might well have been more careful about with benefit of hindsight, he was certainly not pro-Nazi. Indeed, he was never much interested in or informed about politics beyond the politics within his various psychological/medical associations.
As regards his sex life, the author mentions some of the gossip within the Jungian community but only certifies one affair, that being with his long-term mistress Toni Wolff. In terms of his marriage to Emma, this--including, of course, the rumors--was quite enough, she, the source of his material fortune, being represented as a long-suffering and neglected (as their children appear to have been neglected) wife and, ultimately, colleague.
Not enough treated, in my view, is how important the wealth Emma brought into their marriage was to Jung's life. Although brought up himself in meagre, but respectable, circumstances--his father being a parson and some notable figures appearing in his family tree--Jung entered into the reaches of cosmopolitan elites as he entered into his professional maturity during his thirties. This wealth and those associations allowed him the freedom to go his own way both in his personal and in his professional life, the freedom to represent himself as a very private introvert, on the one hand, while being an extremely public person on the other. This sudden attainment of wealth has likely relevance to his relations with Freud as well as to his personal development and the particular orientation of his psychological practice, implications barely explicated by the author.
This is not the book for anyone interested in analytical psychology. For persons already familiar with it, and with, it may be noted, his pseudo-autobiography 'Memories, Dreams, Reflections', 'Jung' serves as a substantial contribution.
January 30, 2021
A wonderfully thorough and balanced portrait of an immensely complex man. Walt Whitman, with your contradictions and multitudes: Jung is the proof in your pudding. And Deirdre Bair serves that pudding up as a scrumptious and filling dish.
My one major concern with the book is that it doesn't delve as deeply into Jung's psychology as I'd have liked. Perhaps I've been spoiled by recently reading James Gleick's meticulous scientific treatment of Richard Feynman's life (Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman). This book, in contrast, is heavier on the purely biographical details than on the ideas, and there are portions that focus overly on names, dates, and other minutiae.
That said, there are plenty of references in the appropriate places, along with the background behind the theories as Bair mines it. She accomplishes well the primary task of the biographer: to retract the curtain of mystery so we can glimpse the human behind.
For a man with such a thick curtain, Bair presents a breathtaking view. It's important to understand the mortality of great thinkers, especially those with a seemingly immortal aura. For those looking to achieve such an understanding of Jung, this is a place to begin.
My one major concern with the book is that it doesn't delve as deeply into Jung's psychology as I'd have liked. Perhaps I've been spoiled by recently reading James Gleick's meticulous scientific treatment of Richard Feynman's life (Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman). This book, in contrast, is heavier on the purely biographical details than on the ideas, and there are portions that focus overly on names, dates, and other minutiae.
That said, there are plenty of references in the appropriate places, along with the background behind the theories as Bair mines it. She accomplishes well the primary task of the biographer: to retract the curtain of mystery so we can glimpse the human behind.
For a man with such a thick curtain, Bair presents a breathtaking view. It's important to understand the mortality of great thinkers, especially those with a seemingly immortal aura. For those looking to achieve such an understanding of Jung, this is a place to begin.
March 28, 2016
Biography
What a big disappointment. I spent lots of time researching to find the best book about Jung, by the most qualified biographer/writer. Despite the author's sterling credentials, and a wasted week of reading the 640 pages (the rest being notes and an index), for the most part, I still don't have a clue about:
1. Jung's thought processes about "the collective unconscious", how he arrived at his conclusions about introvert/extrovert types, what he thought about an individual's unconscious mind, and so much more of many tidbits I've read about over the years attributed to Jung. It was never made clear in what order Jung arrived at the above major ideas of his, and which theories led him to the next possible theory.
The book made clear Jung was wildly jumbled with his ideas, notes, theories, research into complex topics (alchemy, archetypes, religion, psychic phenomenon), and would, at the drop of a hat, abandon a theory or area of research and take off investigating a different area. Sometimes years or decades would pass before he got back into working on the original theory.
Still, for a book about Jung with no definition of "the collective unconscious", or many of the other major theories attributed to him, is ridiculous.
What the book does provide is a brain-numbingly detailed record of various meetings, none of which gave me one iota of information about Jung.
It was clear that Jung was usually not a very nice person. He was routinely arrogant, proud, lived only for his career and what he wanted to do, with no regard for others. Toward the end of his career, if everyone in a psychological society that he was a member of offered new ideas, Jung would force them out of the group. People had to base their entire idea of psychology using only his own ideas -- nothing more, nothing less.
For decades he was married but carried on an affair with another woman, who came to the house many times per week, while his wife and children were home, to enjoy dinner, or meet with him privately in his office in the home.
Repeated mentions of Jung's lifelong interest in "alleged mystical, mythological and religious underpinnings of his theories" (page 433), along with a lifelong fascination and investigations into alchemy, make me wonder if Jung is the brilliant father of many psychological theories, or just a nut.
Jung claimed to have "visions" and dreams that he would explore to the degree that, to me, made him seem to be unstable at times.
After slogging thru this book, I am no longer interested in reading more about this man or his supposed theories.
What a big disappointment. I spent lots of time researching to find the best book about Jung, by the most qualified biographer/writer. Despite the author's sterling credentials, and a wasted week of reading the 640 pages (the rest being notes and an index), for the most part, I still don't have a clue about:
1. Jung's thought processes about "the collective unconscious", how he arrived at his conclusions about introvert/extrovert types, what he thought about an individual's unconscious mind, and so much more of many tidbits I've read about over the years attributed to Jung. It was never made clear in what order Jung arrived at the above major ideas of his, and which theories led him to the next possible theory.
The book made clear Jung was wildly jumbled with his ideas, notes, theories, research into complex topics (alchemy, archetypes, religion, psychic phenomenon), and would, at the drop of a hat, abandon a theory or area of research and take off investigating a different area. Sometimes years or decades would pass before he got back into working on the original theory.
Still, for a book about Jung with no definition of "the collective unconscious", or many of the other major theories attributed to him, is ridiculous.
What the book does provide is a brain-numbingly detailed record of various meetings, none of which gave me one iota of information about Jung.
It was clear that Jung was usually not a very nice person. He was routinely arrogant, proud, lived only for his career and what he wanted to do, with no regard for others. Toward the end of his career, if everyone in a psychological society that he was a member of offered new ideas, Jung would force them out of the group. People had to base their entire idea of psychology using only his own ideas -- nothing more, nothing less.
For decades he was married but carried on an affair with another woman, who came to the house many times per week, while his wife and children were home, to enjoy dinner, or meet with him privately in his office in the home.
Repeated mentions of Jung's lifelong interest in "alleged mystical, mythological and religious underpinnings of his theories" (page 433), along with a lifelong fascination and investigations into alchemy, make me wonder if Jung is the brilliant father of many psychological theories, or just a nut.
Jung claimed to have "visions" and dreams that he would explore to the degree that, to me, made him seem to be unstable at times.
After slogging thru this book, I am no longer interested in reading more about this man or his supposed theories.
April 30, 2024
Interesant acest personaj excentric. Nu mi l-as fi imaginat niciodată asa!
Despre scris- o carte lunga, usor repetitiva.
Despre scris- o carte lunga, usor repetitiva.
April 9, 2023
Kolosalus leidinys. 600 puslapių teksto. Vertimas geras. Skaitėsi gerai ir gan greitai. Matosi, kad rašytoja gavo priėjimą prie įvairių šaltinių iš pačios Jungo giminės.
Pradžioje buvo įdomu skaityti, bet kuo toliau labiau knyga pradėjo užknisti, nes labai daug dėmesio skirta Jungo įvairiems santykiams su aplinkiniais žmonėmis. O jų buvo BEGALĖS! Didžioji knygos dalis yra apie tai kaip Jungas bendravo, susitikinėjo, gydė, rašinėjosi, keliavo su kitais žmonėmis. Minimų pavardžių, ir tu žmonių santykiai liečiantys Jungą, tai tiesiog šimtais yra. Minimi visokie laiškai, susirašinėjimai, pokalbiai, straipsniai, knygos, pletkai, dar plius ir pats knygos autorė tuos bendravimus vertina visus... pvz. Jungas parašė Froidui, Froidas parašė Jungo žmonai, Jungo žmona prašė Froidui, Froidas parašė Jungui ir t.t. ir t.t. Tas pavardes sunku sekti, sunku susigaudyti kas ten su kuo ir dėl ko. Aprašoma Jungo šeima, giminės, draugai, darbdaviai, kolegos, pacientai, meilužės, tarnautojai, pažystami, draugų žmonos, draugų draugai, draugų meilužiai, draugų giminės.... ir pan.
Tikėjausi šioje knygoje daugiau pažinti pačios Jungo psichologijos aspektų, bet pati Jungo psichologijos teorija buvo minima gan skurdžiai ir ta kažkur pradingusi visame kame. Bet daug dėmesio skiriama Jungo gyvenimui, darbui, karjerai, šeimai, kelionėms, namams, jo charakteriui, jo santykiams.
Įdomu buvo skaityti kaip buvo aprašytas pats Jungas kaip tėvas, sutuoktinis, šeimos žmogus, darbuotojas, draugas. O pasirodo, kad nebuvo jisai toks šventas. Rašoma, kad buvo storžievis, kategoriškas, nepakantus kitokiai nuomonei, netolerantiškas, šaltas savo žmonai ir vaikams, turėjo mažai vyrų draugų, bet užtai moterys paskui jį sekiodavo tuntais. Daug metų jo kaip ir kolegė bei tuo pačiu meilužė Virdžinija Wolf, beveik kiekvieną dieną būdavo su Jungu, ir Jungo žmona bei vaikai turėjo kęsti tokius tėvo santykius.
Asmeniškai buvo įdomu sužinoti apie XIX ir XX amžių sandūros aukštosios, buržuazinės, šveicarų visuomenės gyvenimo aspektus. Ir tą gyvenimo būda palyginti su Lietuvišku, carinės rusijos buvusiu gyvenimu. Ir eilini kartą suvokti koks mėšlinas, šūdinas ir agrarinis buvo tas lietuvių gyvenimas palyginus su Šveicarija.
Rekomenduočiau šia knygą tiems kurie pajėgia skaityti tokio dydžio knygas, kurie gali investuoti daug valandų. Ar patiems Jungo gerbėjams ją reikėtų perskaityti? Bala žino... Nebent jei yra intencija ir laiko, nes norint suprasti Jungo psichologiją ir teoriją, tai tada geriausia skaityti paties Jungo darbus. O šitą knygą skaityti kaip papildomą literatūrą norint geriau suvokti kas per žmogus buvo Jungas, kame ir kur jisai gyveno, kūrė ir dirbo.
Pradžioje buvo įdomu skaityti, bet kuo toliau labiau knyga pradėjo užknisti, nes labai daug dėmesio skirta Jungo įvairiems santykiams su aplinkiniais žmonėmis. O jų buvo BEGALĖS! Didžioji knygos dalis yra apie tai kaip Jungas bendravo, susitikinėjo, gydė, rašinėjosi, keliavo su kitais žmonėmis. Minimų pavardžių, ir tu žmonių santykiai liečiantys Jungą, tai tiesiog šimtais yra. Minimi visokie laiškai, susirašinėjimai, pokalbiai, straipsniai, knygos, pletkai, dar plius ir pats knygos autorė tuos bendravimus vertina visus... pvz. Jungas parašė Froidui, Froidas parašė Jungo žmonai, Jungo žmona prašė Froidui, Froidas parašė Jungui ir t.t. ir t.t. Tas pavardes sunku sekti, sunku susigaudyti kas ten su kuo ir dėl ko. Aprašoma Jungo šeima, giminės, draugai, darbdaviai, kolegos, pacientai, meilužės, tarnautojai, pažystami, draugų žmonos, draugų draugai, draugų meilužiai, draugų giminės.... ir pan.
Tikėjausi šioje knygoje daugiau pažinti pačios Jungo psichologijos aspektų, bet pati Jungo psichologijos teorija buvo minima gan skurdžiai ir ta kažkur pradingusi visame kame. Bet daug dėmesio skiriama Jungo gyvenimui, darbui, karjerai, šeimai, kelionėms, namams, jo charakteriui, jo santykiams.
Įdomu buvo skaityti kaip buvo aprašytas pats Jungas kaip tėvas, sutuoktinis, šeimos žmogus, darbuotojas, draugas. O pasirodo, kad nebuvo jisai toks šventas. Rašoma, kad buvo storžievis, kategoriškas, nepakantus kitokiai nuomonei, netolerantiškas, šaltas savo žmonai ir vaikams, turėjo mažai vyrų draugų, bet užtai moterys paskui jį sekiodavo tuntais. Daug metų jo kaip ir kolegė bei tuo pačiu meilužė Virdžinija Wolf, beveik kiekvieną dieną būdavo su Jungu, ir Jungo žmona bei vaikai turėjo kęsti tokius tėvo santykius.
Asmeniškai buvo įdomu sužinoti apie XIX ir XX amžių sandūros aukštosios, buržuazinės, šveicarų visuomenės gyvenimo aspektus. Ir tą gyvenimo būda palyginti su Lietuvišku, carinės rusijos buvusiu gyvenimu. Ir eilini kartą suvokti koks mėšlinas, šūdinas ir agrarinis buvo tas lietuvių gyvenimas palyginus su Šveicarija.
Rekomenduočiau šia knygą tiems kurie pajėgia skaityti tokio dydžio knygas, kurie gali investuoti daug valandų. Ar patiems Jungo gerbėjams ją reikėtų perskaityti? Bala žino... Nebent jei yra intencija ir laiko, nes norint suprasti Jungo psichologiją ir teoriją, tai tada geriausia skaityti paties Jungo darbus. O šitą knygą skaityti kaip papildomą literatūrą norint geriau suvokti kas per žmogus buvo Jungas, kame ir kur jisai gyveno, kūrė ir dirbo.
December 6, 2015
I got through it.
A good biography offers insight into the times as well as the subject. This account leaves the man isolated from events. World War 1 passes almost without notice and World War 2 comes and goes without much disturbance beyond problems with the mail and rationing while living a life in isolation in Switzerland. All the while this association or that is being formed around Jung, the leadership of each bickering about the purpose of the group and all hoping to find favor with Jung.
In short, Jung becomes famous, analyzes a great many people only a few of whose cases are described, using a method only touched upon, is adored by the rich and famous who flit back and forth across continents to see him and even pay for him to do the same for them. He then loses interest in individuals, passes analysis on to apt patients, who then sanction their patients to analyze others. The master then wants only to be left to his work on such very questionable things like alchemy, astrology, and UFO's all the while seeking a grand scheme to tie things together. Like Freud he constructs an edifice of his own design that claims to explain how our minds work. Unlike Freud he isn't fixated on sex and childhood mentality. Like Freud he is awed by his own creation. Unlike Freud he is willing to admit modifications to his thoughts, but only if these are framed in a way to make it appear he had the modification in mind first.
You will get chapters of details about who thought what about whom, who was thought to be closest to Jung, how the minutiae of daily life was handled at the homestead. I got excited upon beginning a chapter titled "The Solar Phallus Man" but it went nowhere. A Jung family member would love this book about a famous relative, but I kept wondering why I was reading.
You'll get little about Jung's concepts on psychology. His differences with Freud are mildly interesting but not examined more than briefly. Jung's school of thought, called Analytical Psychology, hangs in the background. We get a vague idea about what a "complex" is, we find out that he pioneered the division of personalities into introverts and extroverts and there is mention of archetypes with no definition of the term. The "collective unconscious" is mentioned many times with no explanation of what it is.
When I finished I felt I had read an account of what I would call The Jung Society - those who fluttered around him, dedicated their lives to him like his wife and Toni Wolff, and a host of eminently forgettable others. Just as when I started, I remain unenlightened on his school of psychology. There are other biographies of Jung. I recommend giving one a try.
A good biography offers insight into the times as well as the subject. This account leaves the man isolated from events. World War 1 passes almost without notice and World War 2 comes and goes without much disturbance beyond problems with the mail and rationing while living a life in isolation in Switzerland. All the while this association or that is being formed around Jung, the leadership of each bickering about the purpose of the group and all hoping to find favor with Jung.
In short, Jung becomes famous, analyzes a great many people only a few of whose cases are described, using a method only touched upon, is adored by the rich and famous who flit back and forth across continents to see him and even pay for him to do the same for them. He then loses interest in individuals, passes analysis on to apt patients, who then sanction their patients to analyze others. The master then wants only to be left to his work on such very questionable things like alchemy, astrology, and UFO's all the while seeking a grand scheme to tie things together. Like Freud he constructs an edifice of his own design that claims to explain how our minds work. Unlike Freud he isn't fixated on sex and childhood mentality. Like Freud he is awed by his own creation. Unlike Freud he is willing to admit modifications to his thoughts, but only if these are framed in a way to make it appear he had the modification in mind first.
You will get chapters of details about who thought what about whom, who was thought to be closest to Jung, how the minutiae of daily life was handled at the homestead. I got excited upon beginning a chapter titled "The Solar Phallus Man" but it went nowhere. A Jung family member would love this book about a famous relative, but I kept wondering why I was reading.
You'll get little about Jung's concepts on psychology. His differences with Freud are mildly interesting but not examined more than briefly. Jung's school of thought, called Analytical Psychology, hangs in the background. We get a vague idea about what a "complex" is, we find out that he pioneered the division of personalities into introverts and extroverts and there is mention of archetypes with no definition of the term. The "collective unconscious" is mentioned many times with no explanation of what it is.
When I finished I felt I had read an account of what I would call The Jung Society - those who fluttered around him, dedicated their lives to him like his wife and Toni Wolff, and a host of eminently forgettable others. Just as when I started, I remain unenlightened on his school of psychology. There are other biographies of Jung. I recommend giving one a try.
March 18, 2012
I didn't finish Bair's biography of Jung. My surrender should say nothing about the quality of Bair's research; it's a doozy. I got as far as 300-ish pages before the breadth of names, concepts, and aside biographies (context to help the reader understand Jung's environment) convinced me I'd have to devote more time to finish the book. I'm eager to move on to other texts, so Bair and I will have to part company prematurely.
I "did" get far enough in to see Jung through middle-age. (I would have liked to have moved into his alchemical studies...maybe some other time.) I tracked this award-winning biography down in the hopes that it could reinforce what I read in Jung's own Dreams, Memories, Reflections and provide some measure of the man's shortcomings. Dreams, Memories, Reflections was, even by Jung's admission, a story of his inner-life. It was purposely and admirably one-sided. Bair provides a comprehensive reiteration of Jung's autobiography in modern, untranslated parlance, as well as an outside perspective of who he was, the significance of what he did, and how his (many) contemporaries regarded him. Take Toni Wolff for example. She doesn't figure into Dreams, Memories, Reflections at all; however, Wolff was perhaps closer to Jung than his wife Emma, personally and professionally. She was his mistress and his intellectual partner. Sabina Speilrein too--Bair gives us information Jung was too proud or ashamed to include in his life story.
It's probably a sin to write more than one paragraph about a book you haven't and likely won't finish, so I'm now exiting stage left. Jung is a tremendous biography--I can't imagine organizing a book like this. Bair must be a robot or something. Props, kudos, etc.
I "did" get far enough in to see Jung through middle-age. (I would have liked to have moved into his alchemical studies...maybe some other time.) I tracked this award-winning biography down in the hopes that it could reinforce what I read in Jung's own Dreams, Memories, Reflections and provide some measure of the man's shortcomings. Dreams, Memories, Reflections was, even by Jung's admission, a story of his inner-life. It was purposely and admirably one-sided. Bair provides a comprehensive reiteration of Jung's autobiography in modern, untranslated parlance, as well as an outside perspective of who he was, the significance of what he did, and how his (many) contemporaries regarded him. Take Toni Wolff for example. She doesn't figure into Dreams, Memories, Reflections at all; however, Wolff was perhaps closer to Jung than his wife Emma, personally and professionally. She was his mistress and his intellectual partner. Sabina Speilrein too--Bair gives us information Jung was too proud or ashamed to include in his life story.
It's probably a sin to write more than one paragraph about a book you haven't and likely won't finish, so I'm now exiting stage left. Jung is a tremendous biography--I can't imagine organizing a book like this. Bair must be a robot or something. Props, kudos, etc.
December 2, 2019
Deidre Bair claims in her introduction that her biography will be different because of her unique access to materials via Jung's heirs, who approved of her project. She also claims that as a professional biographer and not a psychologist she has less bias.
While it's true Bair does rather well exposing her materials, her desire to present them objectively overwhelms the project of their interpretation. Jung's thoughts and ideas recede behind clashes of personalities and petty squabbles. Too much attention is given to wartime Zurich, a playground for spies and largely irrelevant intrigue. Bair attempts to defend Jung from the worst accusations of antisemitism and Nazi collaboration, but the facts as she presents them are too ambiguous to make the case decisive. Instead, despite her ministrations, Jung appears to be swept up by his own Germanic pride and unable to publicly apologize for his ugly moments as an early Nazi apologist.
Only those with a scholarly interest in Jung's life need read this book, as anyone looking to better understand his intellectual development would be better served elsewhere.
While it's true Bair does rather well exposing her materials, her desire to present them objectively overwhelms the project of their interpretation. Jung's thoughts and ideas recede behind clashes of personalities and petty squabbles. Too much attention is given to wartime Zurich, a playground for spies and largely irrelevant intrigue. Bair attempts to defend Jung from the worst accusations of antisemitism and Nazi collaboration, but the facts as she presents them are too ambiguous to make the case decisive. Instead, despite her ministrations, Jung appears to be swept up by his own Germanic pride and unable to publicly apologize for his ugly moments as an early Nazi apologist.
Only those with a scholarly interest in Jung's life need read this book, as anyone looking to better understand his intellectual development would be better served elsewhere.
August 25, 2017
A thoroughly researched and for the most part well written biography. Bair did tend to go too heavily into the machination of the Psychoanalytical Clubs. Her in-depth delving into the politics of the writing and publications of Jung's "so called autobiography" did veer off into the realm of the mind-numbing. Otherwise a very worthwhile read.
August 30, 2020
This is a detailed and thorough writing of Jung’s outer life. I was hoping for some more information into his inner world, but his own writings do that. Jung has been the biggest influence in my life from the therapeutic and personal standpoint. His own life was unfortunately chaotic and complicated but he has provided the world with a clear understanding of the inner workings of the mind, for which I am most grateful. I felt sad to learn of all the conflicts in his own life. He seemed to be most happy when in solitude and I nature. I highly recommend Bair’s book if you have an interest in this great man’s life. If you want to understand his inner life and your own, Jung’s own books are the best choice.
September 5, 2012
This is a fascinating look at a complicated man. Deidre Bair has managed to show him as a flawed man whose curiosity helped him create psychology as we know it. His relationships are fraught with difficulty. He is inconsistent and hates criticism. He is constantly searching for the connection between our interior world and the exterior world of both mythology and dreams.
The description of getting "Memories, Dreams, Reflections" published will resonate with anyone who has worked in publishing. The author's wishes, the editors' wishes, the translators...the family. It is a publishing nightmare, yet somehow the book got published. It is certainly the one with which I first became familiar with Jung. Time to read it again.
The description of getting "Memories, Dreams, Reflections" published will resonate with anyone who has worked in publishing. The author's wishes, the editors' wishes, the translators...the family. It is a publishing nightmare, yet somehow the book got published. It is certainly the one with which I first became familiar with Jung. Time to read it again.
April 25, 2011
Bair gives a great exhaustive history of Jung's life, but as a psych-minded person, I wish she would have done more on going into the theories which Jung created and how his personal life lead to the development of the collective unconscious, archetypes, etc. She goes into more detail on Jung's interest in alchemy but mainly as it created and destroyed some of his close relationships. Learning more about Jung and all of his nuances as a very private man who couldn't help but self-promote relentlessly was pretty a great read, but I now want to follow it up with a refresher on his theory and view of humanity in the world.
August 8, 2008
It was wonderful to read a comprehensive, objective biography of this amazing man, who was a pioneer in connecting man's pursuit of self-actualization with the spiritual (even though he was afraid of being criticized as "non-scientific" and disguised his beliefs in somewhat ambiguous terminology). I now want to re-read "Memories, Dreams, & Reflections", his autobiography, with more information about his personality.
June 12, 2007
If you want to study Jung, I highly recommend this book. It's written by a biographer (not a Jungian) so it's accessible to any reader. I also found it an aid to helping me understand Jung's own writing since it contextualizes and grounds him in world history.
Read
February 5, 2009Bair, award-winning author of books on Samuel Beckett, Simone de Beauvoir, and Ana_
October 1, 2014
This book is fraught with numerous errors in scholarship.
Many of these error have been noted in Chapter IV of "Jung Stripped Bare-By His Biographers Even" by Sonu Shamdasani.
A few of the errors cited in Footnotes by Shamdasani are:
22. Bair noted that Jung asked Cary Baynes to write his biography in the 1930s, without citing a source (Bair, 2003, p. 585) There is no mention in their correspondence of this.
51. This copy of the protocols was donated by Helen Wolff to Princeton University Press, who in turn donated them to the Library of Congress in 1983, placing a ten year restriction on them. I studied these in 1991, and they have been on open access since 1993. Bair stated that the copy in the Library of Congress, which is in the Bollingen collection, is restricted (2003, p. 657, n. 7). This is actually unrestricted and was moved to a separate collection. The copy at the ETH in Zürich is restricted.
86. Countway ms., CLM; Hull draft translation, LC; Draft translation, BL. During the editing, there was some discussion about one passage in the manuscript. In Hull’s draft translation of Jung’s boyhood fantasy concerning Basle Cathedral, the manuscript reads: “God sits on his golden throne, high above the world, and shits on the cathedral; from under the throne falls an enormous turd falls” (p. 32, LC). In the Countway manuscript, the same passage reads: “God sits on his golden throne, high above the world, and shits on the cathedral [in hand: shits on his church]” (CLM, p. 32). Bair commented that neither Jaffé nor Marianne Niehus would permit Jung to use the word “shit” in this context,
suggesting that it was censored (2003, p. 635). However, the original German typescript reads: “unter dem Thron fällt ein ungeheures Excrement” (“an enormous excrement falls under the throne”) (JA, p. 19). This manuscript is on open access. This correctly reproduces Jung’s handwritten manuscript (Jung family archives, personal communication, Ulrich Hoerni).
93. Adler, 1975, p. 550, tr. mod. Bair described this letter as ‘curious’ and claimed that it indicated power which Marianne and Walther Niehus had (2003, p. 606–607). However, as the documents cited here show, this letter is in consonance with a number of other critical statements by Jung.
101. In the late 1980s, research on the composition of the text was concurrently and independently undertaken by Alan Elms and myself (see Elms 1994 and Shamdasani 1995). Prior to this, the status of the text was unquestioned in the public domain. Bair claimed that the divergences between the English and German editions caused led to speculation concerning censorship between scholars from the moment that the work was published (2003, p. 638). This was simply not the case, as there was no public debate concerning censorship until our research was published. In her footnote, she wrote: “most prominent among them Shamdasani and Elms, who base many of their charges on incomplete evidence and non-objective speculation” (p. 847, n. 69). No evidence is given of this, and Bair does not even provide the reference for anything that I have written on the subject.
102. Jung discussed his relationship with Toni Wolff in the protocols, LC, p. 98, pp. 171–174; see Shamdasani, 1995, pp. 124–125. Bair stated that in the protocols she read, there was no discussion of this (2003, p. 838, n. 61).
122. In 1933, Fordham had gone to Zurich to meet Jung for training, and was turned down, due to the difficulty of foreigners finding work. (Fordham 1993, pp. 67–69). The date of this trip is confirmed by Fordham’s diary (private possession, Max Fordham). Bair misdated this meeting to the early years of the Second World War and claimed that by this time Fordham was angry that Baynes had published an account of his analysis which was too easily recognizable (2003, p. 472). Baynes’ Mythology of the Soul only appeared in 1940. Bair also claimed that until his death, Fordham insisted that he did not resent Jung, and alleged that his “grudge” towards him was as great as that towards Baynes
(ibid.). Over the course of many conversations I held with Fordham between 1988 and 1995, I did not notice any resentment expressed towards Baynes or Jung: his attitude towards them was one of admiration and gratitude.
129. Jung to Read, 17 July 1946, RA. Bair claimed that most of Jung’s correspondence during the Collected Works project was with Hull (2003, p. 582). This is not the case, as Jung had extensive correspondences with Gerhard Adler, Michael Fordham and Herbert Read.
136. 11 May 1955, CMAC, orig. in English. Bair claimed that Jung praised Hull’s translations in all extant statements, and that there is no evidence that he had any reservations about them (2003, p. 583). The citations here indicate that this was not the case. In Hannah’s view, as a “thinking type”, Hull’s translations left out feeling and the irrational. (1976, p. 334). Von Franz noted that Jung’s writings had a double aspect, a logically understandable argument on the one hand, and on the other, the “unconscious” was allowed its say: “the reader . . .finds himself at the same time exposed to the impact of that ‘other voice’, the unconscious, which may either grip or frighten him off. That ‘other voice’ can, among other factors, be heard in Jung’s special way of reviving the original etymological meanings of words and allowing both feeling and imaginative elements to enter into his scientific exposition.” She noted that “unfortunately, this double aspect of Jung’s writings has not been preserved in the monumental English edition of his Collected Works, translated by R. F. C. Hull” (Von Franz, 1972, p. 4). Franz Jung recalled heated discussions between Jung and Hull on issues of translation. He noted that Hull would come to see Jung with a completed translation, and would be unwilling to correct what he had done (personal communication).
159. Jung, CW 5, (1952), pp. 13–14. Bair misdated this episode to 1915 (2003, p. 255).
192. Bair described Barbara Hannah as a lesbian (Bair, 2003, p. 364). Emmanuel Kennedy, Hannah’s literary executor, who has her diaries, stated that this is not true. He also noted that many of Bair’s descriptions of Hannah are derogatory (personal communication).
216. The first to posit that Jung had a “death-wish” against Freud was Freud himself when they met at Bremen in 1909, as an interpretation of Jung’s interest in the corpses recently found there (Jones, 1955, p. 166). Jung commented to Bennet, “I had branded myself, in becoming identified with Freud. Why should I want him to die? I had come to learn. He was not standing in my way: he was in Vienna, I was in Zürich. Freud identified himself with his theory—in this case, his theory of the old man of the tribe whose death every young man must want; the son must want to displace the father. But Freud wasn’t my father!” (Bennet 1961, p. 44). According to Jones, it was at Bremen that Jung was persuaded to have his first alcoholic drink since leaving the Burghölzli, with its teetotal regime (1955, pp. 61, 165). This point is repeated by Paul Roazen (1974, p. 246), McLynn (1996, p. 135), and Bair (2003, p. 161). However, in commenting on Jones’ biography, Jung pointed out to Bennet that this was mistaken, and that he had celebrated leaving the Burghölzli by drinking (Bennet, diary, 18 September, 1959, Bennet papers, ETH).
257. Oeri, 1935, p. 526. A few pages earlier, Bair had actually referred to Oeri’s article, (p. 44). In the protocols of the Zofingia society, the student debating organization which Jung attended, his name is generally given as “Jung vulgo Walze” (Staatsarchiv, Basel).
262. Bair claimed that Jung did not practice hypnosis or believe in its powers (p. 738, n. 84). This is not the case. Volumes 1 to 4 of Jung’s Collected Works present numerous cases of hypnosis and discussions of it. For an account of Jung’s involvement with hypnosis, see Shamdasasni, 2001. In 1913, Jung recalled that he resolved to abandon the use of hypnotic suggestion not because it was inefficacious, but because he did not understand how it cured: “I was resolved to abandon suggestion altogether rather than allow myself to be passively transformed into a miracle-worker” (CW 4, § 582).
263. When Jung visited Freud in March 1909, a loud noise occurred at a critical point in the conversation, which he interpreted parapsychologically as a “catalytic exteriorisation phenonemena”. For Freud’s understanding of this event, see Freud to Jung, 16 April 1909, (McGuire, 1974, p. 218). Bair mistakenly stated that this occurred on their first meeting (p. 117).
269. The Honegger papers are in the archives of the ETH in Zurich. A number of years ago, a copy was given to William McGuire for his personal study. McGuire subsequently deposited them in the Library of Congress. The ETH requested the return of their materials. Bair stated that the Jung estate claimed ownership of the papers (2003, p. 642), which is false (personal communication, Ulrich Hoerni).
272. On this question, see Jung’s discussion of this issue in his 1912 lectures at Fordham University, “Attempt at a portrayal of psychoanalytic theory”, CW 4, §§ 407–457. While Jung was in America on this trip, Bair claimed that Emma Jung wrote to him usually every day (2003, p. 229) and noted that the letters are in the Jung family archive (ibid., p. 723, n. 60). However, there are no letters from Emma Jung to C. G. Jung in 1912 there (personal communication, Andreas Jung).
280. [Bair 2003], p. 246. Bair added that Jung did not respond to Freud’s citation of the letter because of his distress and confusion. The letter cited to Bjerre cited above suggests otherwise.
281. In August 1913, Jung presented a paper in London at the International Medical Congress. Bair erroneously stated that he gave a series of lectures (2003, p. 239). Jung actually gave one lecture, “General aspects of psychoanalysis” (CW 4).
282. Bair argued that Jung’s work began as an attempt to show how myths could be used to explain psychological concepts, which is mistaken (2003, p. 201).The work applied the libido theory to the interpretation of mythological symbols.
283. Bair erroneously claimed that Flournoy gave Jung his translation of Frank Miller’s fantasies with what he had gleaned from her in conversation and correspondence (2003, p. 213). Frank Miller wrote an article in French, to which Flournoy wrote an introduction. Bair also claimed that Frank Miller actually invented her fantasies (p. 214). There is no evidence to support this. On Frank Miller, see Shamdasani, 1990.
284. Bair claimed that in the second part of the work, Jung argued that the sex drive did not have primacy, as other factors were present, such as the archetypes of the collective unconscious (2003, p. 201). This is to confound Jung’s subsequent theories with his arguments in 1912.
289. 27 October 1913, McGuire, 1974, p. 550. Bair noted that Freud informed Maeder that Jung was an anti-Semite, but the reference given is to the Jung’s letter to Freud concerning ‘bona fides’ (p. 240). Freud’s letter to Maeder of 21 September 1913 (LC) contains no reference to anti-semitism. This may be a confusion with Maeder’s statement in his interview with Nameche that he received a letter from Freud in which he wrote, “Maeder, you are an anti-Semite” (CLM, p. 4).
293. Bair claimed that in the protocols, Jung identified this figure as Maria Moltzer (p. 291). Such an explicit identification is not found in the protocols in the Library of Congress. The argument for Moltzer as the woman in question was made by myself (Shamdasani, 1995, p. 129, 1998a, p. 16). If there exists documentation where Jung explicitly made this identification, it should be produced. In the early 1920s, Riklin painted frescos on the ceilings of Amsthaus 1 in Zürich, together with Augusto Giacometti. Bair misdated this to 1912 (p. 223). On Moltzer, see also Shamdasani, 1998b.
296. Protocols, LC, p. 98. In the protocols, there then follows an excerpt of Jung’s discussion of this dream in the 1925 seminar (protocols, pp. 99–100; Jung 1925, pp. 56–57). What Bair cited as Jung’s discussion of this dream in the protocols on p. 727, n. 13 is actually a quotation from this excerpt.
299. Bair claimed that Emma Jung was forbidden to read the Black Books, and that in early 1914, Toni Wolff was the only person to read them. (pp. 249–250). Material in the Jung family archives suggests otherwise, as will be clear when the Red Book is published. Bair also reported that Jung “drew” in the Black Books, which was generally not the case.
300. Information from Andreas Jung. Bair erroneously claimed that he was away more than he was at home that year (p. 248).
301. Bair erroneously noted that these dreams contain “yellow flood” and “dark red blood” (2003, p. 243). Neither in Memories, nor in the Black Books are these motifs to be found.
309. [Bair 2002] Ibid., p. 292. Bair also stated that the figure of Philemon led Jung to study Gnosticism (p. 396). However, Jung’s reading notes (JA) and references in
Transformations and Symbols of the Libido indicate that he started studying Gnosticism in 1910. Bair reproduced a photograph of Jung’s mural of Philemon together with his a mural of a mandala and stated that they are on the wall of his “private room” in his tower at Bollingen (facing p. 370). Actually, they are in separate bedrooms.
316. Bair, 2003, p. 297. Bair claimed that the Sermones followed the style and subject matter of the works of G. R. S Mead, and that Jung was studying sixteen or eighteen volumes of Mead’s work at this time (p. 296). The first statement is mistaken. No source is given for the second, and no evidence exists to support it.
331. Bair claimed that the only member of the Club who declined was Fanny Bowditch Katz. In actuality, between half and two-thirds of the membership responded.
335. I wrote: “these points strongly suggest that ‘Analytical collectivity’ was actually written by Moltzer. Whilst this is not definitively proved, the balance of the evidence clearly points in this direction” (Shamdasani, 1998a, p. 72). “We have seen that no positive corroborative evidence has arisen to indicate that ‘Analytical collectivity’ was by Jung, and that sufficient evidence exists to refute the claim that Jung was the author, beyond all reasonable doubt” (p. 84).
338. Archives, Psychological Club, Zürich. Riklin made no reference to Harold McCormick’s letter.
339. Moltzer resigned from the Club in 1918. Bair claimed that she subsequently returned to Holland for the rest of her life (p. 259). She actually remained in Switzerland, and lived at 198 Zollikerstrasse, Zollikerberg. She was buried in Zollikon cemetery.
345. Bair stated that the account in Memories was evidently pieced together from what Jung said about Taos in various passages in the Collected Works (p. 762, n. 40). Actually, it was excerpted from the manuscript, “African Voyage”. It is explicitly stated in Memories that the section is an “extract from an unpublished manuscript” (1962, p. 274). On this ms., see Shamdasani, 2003, pp. 323–328.
350. Jung/Jaffé 1962, p. 303. The sentence in German actually reads: “That the air had become too thick for me in Europe.”
352. Bair claimed that the Psychological Club wanted a further seminar based on Jung’s experiences (2003, p. 357). Such a request was not noted in the Club minutes. Bair also claimed that Jung received requests for new writings and translations “every day” (ibid.). I have made a comprehensive study of Jung’s correspondences in the 1920s, and this is simply not the case.
356. After his Africa trip, Bair referred to Jung’s annual month of military service (pp. 361–362). However, after the First World War, Jung was only on military service twice—for five days in 1923 and 1927 (personal communication, Andreas Jung).
357. Bair, 2003, p. 395. Concerning Jung’s religious attitudes, Bair stated that Jung once described himself as a “Christian-minded agnostic” (p. 127). The phrase comes from a letter Jung which wrote to Eugene Rolfe on 19 November 1960, in response to Rolfe’s book, The Intelligent Agnostic’s Introduction to Christianity. Jung wrote: “you have fulfilled your task of demonstrating the approach to Christianity to a Christian-minded agnostic” (Adler, 1975, p. 610). The phrase is not a self-description, but refers to the intended reader of Rolfe’s book. On Rolfe’s correspondence with Jung concerning his book, see Rolfe, 1989, p. 130f.
359. Bair claimed that the first results of Jung’s research into alchemy was The Psychology of the Transference in 1946 (p. 526). This was actually preceded by “Dream symbols of the individuation process” (1936), “The process of redemption in alchemy” (1937), “Some remarks on the visions of Zosimos” (1938), “The spirit Mercurius” (1943), Psychology and Alchemy (1944), “The enigma of Bologna” (1945) and “The philosophical tree” (1945).
360. “Ueber Alchemie”, Library of the Psychological Club, Zürich. Reichstein later won the Nobel prize for Chemistry.
361. Toni Wolff, (1946). A similar point is made by Hayman, who cites this article (1999, p. 288). We may also note that Toni Wolff’s paper, “Christianity within,” took its point of departure from Jung’s Psychology and Alchemy (in Wolff, 1959).
362. Bair, 2003, p. 434. On Jung’s collaboration with Hauer, see my introduction to Jung, 1932.
366. Bair, 2003, p. 469. This is an example of what Richard Ellmann referred to in his review of Bair’s Beckett biography as the way in which Bair “hangs on to wrong views even while amassing information that discredits them” (Ellmann, 1978, p. 236).
367. Bair, 2003, p 750, n. 36. Bair noted that Jung abandoned this term and referred to his work as “analytical psychology”. The reverse is actually the case.
372. There has been a great deal of mythology written concerning Sabina Spielrien and Jung’s relation with her. For correctives, see Angela Graf-Nold (2001), Zvi Lothane (1999), and Fernando Vidal (2001).
373. Jung, 1930–1934, p. 3. Bair suggested that the reason why Jung may have chosen to discuss Morgan’s work was because it would offer an opportunity for triangular relations between the participants to be worked out on a neutral terrain, which is quite implausible. She claimed that the lectures paralleled Jung’s “strong attraction” towards Morgan, but does not provide sufficient evidence for this (Bair, 2003, p. 391).
374. Douglas 1993, p. 167. There is no indication of an affair between Jung and Morgan in Forrest Robinson’s biography of Henry Murray (1992), which is based on extensive interviews with Murray.
379. Bair erroneously stated that there was no such gossip during the course of the seminars, while also claiming that Jung betrayed Morgan’s privacy, as she could be recognized (2003, p. 391).
386. On Bair’s errors in her treatment of Jung’s relationship to Victor White, see Ann Lammers, 2004.
Reader of this book: Proceed with Caution.
Many of these error have been noted in Chapter IV of "Jung Stripped Bare-By His Biographers Even" by Sonu Shamdasani.
A few of the errors cited in Footnotes by Shamdasani are:
22. Bair noted that Jung asked Cary Baynes to write his biography in the 1930s, without citing a source (Bair, 2003, p. 585) There is no mention in their correspondence of this.
51. This copy of the protocols was donated by Helen Wolff to Princeton University Press, who in turn donated them to the Library of Congress in 1983, placing a ten year restriction on them. I studied these in 1991, and they have been on open access since 1993. Bair stated that the copy in the Library of Congress, which is in the Bollingen collection, is restricted (2003, p. 657, n. 7). This is actually unrestricted and was moved to a separate collection. The copy at the ETH in Zürich is restricted.
86. Countway ms., CLM; Hull draft translation, LC; Draft translation, BL. During the editing, there was some discussion about one passage in the manuscript. In Hull’s draft translation of Jung’s boyhood fantasy concerning Basle Cathedral, the manuscript reads: “God sits on his golden throne, high above the world, and shits on the cathedral; from under the throne falls an enormous turd falls” (p. 32, LC). In the Countway manuscript, the same passage reads: “God sits on his golden throne, high above the world, and shits on the cathedral [in hand: shits on his church]” (CLM, p. 32). Bair commented that neither Jaffé nor Marianne Niehus would permit Jung to use the word “shit” in this context,
suggesting that it was censored (2003, p. 635). However, the original German typescript reads: “unter dem Thron fällt ein ungeheures Excrement” (“an enormous excrement falls under the throne”) (JA, p. 19). This manuscript is on open access. This correctly reproduces Jung’s handwritten manuscript (Jung family archives, personal communication, Ulrich Hoerni).
93. Adler, 1975, p. 550, tr. mod. Bair described this letter as ‘curious’ and claimed that it indicated power which Marianne and Walther Niehus had (2003, p. 606–607). However, as the documents cited here show, this letter is in consonance with a number of other critical statements by Jung.
101. In the late 1980s, research on the composition of the text was concurrently and independently undertaken by Alan Elms and myself (see Elms 1994 and Shamdasani 1995). Prior to this, the status of the text was unquestioned in the public domain. Bair claimed that the divergences between the English and German editions caused led to speculation concerning censorship between scholars from the moment that the work was published (2003, p. 638). This was simply not the case, as there was no public debate concerning censorship until our research was published. In her footnote, she wrote: “most prominent among them Shamdasani and Elms, who base many of their charges on incomplete evidence and non-objective speculation” (p. 847, n. 69). No evidence is given of this, and Bair does not even provide the reference for anything that I have written on the subject.
102. Jung discussed his relationship with Toni Wolff in the protocols, LC, p. 98, pp. 171–174; see Shamdasani, 1995, pp. 124–125. Bair stated that in the protocols she read, there was no discussion of this (2003, p. 838, n. 61).
122. In 1933, Fordham had gone to Zurich to meet Jung for training, and was turned down, due to the difficulty of foreigners finding work. (Fordham 1993, pp. 67–69). The date of this trip is confirmed by Fordham’s diary (private possession, Max Fordham). Bair misdated this meeting to the early years of the Second World War and claimed that by this time Fordham was angry that Baynes had published an account of his analysis which was too easily recognizable (2003, p. 472). Baynes’ Mythology of the Soul only appeared in 1940. Bair also claimed that until his death, Fordham insisted that he did not resent Jung, and alleged that his “grudge” towards him was as great as that towards Baynes
(ibid.). Over the course of many conversations I held with Fordham between 1988 and 1995, I did not notice any resentment expressed towards Baynes or Jung: his attitude towards them was one of admiration and gratitude.
129. Jung to Read, 17 July 1946, RA. Bair claimed that most of Jung’s correspondence during the Collected Works project was with Hull (2003, p. 582). This is not the case, as Jung had extensive correspondences with Gerhard Adler, Michael Fordham and Herbert Read.
136. 11 May 1955, CMAC, orig. in English. Bair claimed that Jung praised Hull’s translations in all extant statements, and that there is no evidence that he had any reservations about them (2003, p. 583). The citations here indicate that this was not the case. In Hannah’s view, as a “thinking type”, Hull’s translations left out feeling and the irrational. (1976, p. 334). Von Franz noted that Jung’s writings had a double aspect, a logically understandable argument on the one hand, and on the other, the “unconscious” was allowed its say: “the reader . . .finds himself at the same time exposed to the impact of that ‘other voice’, the unconscious, which may either grip or frighten him off. That ‘other voice’ can, among other factors, be heard in Jung’s special way of reviving the original etymological meanings of words and allowing both feeling and imaginative elements to enter into his scientific exposition.” She noted that “unfortunately, this double aspect of Jung’s writings has not been preserved in the monumental English edition of his Collected Works, translated by R. F. C. Hull” (Von Franz, 1972, p. 4). Franz Jung recalled heated discussions between Jung and Hull on issues of translation. He noted that Hull would come to see Jung with a completed translation, and would be unwilling to correct what he had done (personal communication).
159. Jung, CW 5, (1952), pp. 13–14. Bair misdated this episode to 1915 (2003, p. 255).
192. Bair described Barbara Hannah as a lesbian (Bair, 2003, p. 364). Emmanuel Kennedy, Hannah’s literary executor, who has her diaries, stated that this is not true. He also noted that many of Bair’s descriptions of Hannah are derogatory (personal communication).
216. The first to posit that Jung had a “death-wish” against Freud was Freud himself when they met at Bremen in 1909, as an interpretation of Jung’s interest in the corpses recently found there (Jones, 1955, p. 166). Jung commented to Bennet, “I had branded myself, in becoming identified with Freud. Why should I want him to die? I had come to learn. He was not standing in my way: he was in Vienna, I was in Zürich. Freud identified himself with his theory—in this case, his theory of the old man of the tribe whose death every young man must want; the son must want to displace the father. But Freud wasn’t my father!” (Bennet 1961, p. 44). According to Jones, it was at Bremen that Jung was persuaded to have his first alcoholic drink since leaving the Burghölzli, with its teetotal regime (1955, pp. 61, 165). This point is repeated by Paul Roazen (1974, p. 246), McLynn (1996, p. 135), and Bair (2003, p. 161). However, in commenting on Jones’ biography, Jung pointed out to Bennet that this was mistaken, and that he had celebrated leaving the Burghölzli by drinking (Bennet, diary, 18 September, 1959, Bennet papers, ETH).
257. Oeri, 1935, p. 526. A few pages earlier, Bair had actually referred to Oeri’s article, (p. 44). In the protocols of the Zofingia society, the student debating organization which Jung attended, his name is generally given as “Jung vulgo Walze” (Staatsarchiv, Basel).
262. Bair claimed that Jung did not practice hypnosis or believe in its powers (p. 738, n. 84). This is not the case. Volumes 1 to 4 of Jung’s Collected Works present numerous cases of hypnosis and discussions of it. For an account of Jung’s involvement with hypnosis, see Shamdasasni, 2001. In 1913, Jung recalled that he resolved to abandon the use of hypnotic suggestion not because it was inefficacious, but because he did not understand how it cured: “I was resolved to abandon suggestion altogether rather than allow myself to be passively transformed into a miracle-worker” (CW 4, § 582).
263. When Jung visited Freud in March 1909, a loud noise occurred at a critical point in the conversation, which he interpreted parapsychologically as a “catalytic exteriorisation phenonemena”. For Freud’s understanding of this event, see Freud to Jung, 16 April 1909, (McGuire, 1974, p. 218). Bair mistakenly stated that this occurred on their first meeting (p. 117).
269. The Honegger papers are in the archives of the ETH in Zurich. A number of years ago, a copy was given to William McGuire for his personal study. McGuire subsequently deposited them in the Library of Congress. The ETH requested the return of their materials. Bair stated that the Jung estate claimed ownership of the papers (2003, p. 642), which is false (personal communication, Ulrich Hoerni).
272. On this question, see Jung’s discussion of this issue in his 1912 lectures at Fordham University, “Attempt at a portrayal of psychoanalytic theory”, CW 4, §§ 407–457. While Jung was in America on this trip, Bair claimed that Emma Jung wrote to him usually every day (2003, p. 229) and noted that the letters are in the Jung family archive (ibid., p. 723, n. 60). However, there are no letters from Emma Jung to C. G. Jung in 1912 there (personal communication, Andreas Jung).
280. [Bair 2003], p. 246. Bair added that Jung did not respond to Freud’s citation of the letter because of his distress and confusion. The letter cited to Bjerre cited above suggests otherwise.
281. In August 1913, Jung presented a paper in London at the International Medical Congress. Bair erroneously stated that he gave a series of lectures (2003, p. 239). Jung actually gave one lecture, “General aspects of psychoanalysis” (CW 4).
282. Bair argued that Jung’s work began as an attempt to show how myths could be used to explain psychological concepts, which is mistaken (2003, p. 201).The work applied the libido theory to the interpretation of mythological symbols.
283. Bair erroneously claimed that Flournoy gave Jung his translation of Frank Miller’s fantasies with what he had gleaned from her in conversation and correspondence (2003, p. 213). Frank Miller wrote an article in French, to which Flournoy wrote an introduction. Bair also claimed that Frank Miller actually invented her fantasies (p. 214). There is no evidence to support this. On Frank Miller, see Shamdasani, 1990.
284. Bair claimed that in the second part of the work, Jung argued that the sex drive did not have primacy, as other factors were present, such as the archetypes of the collective unconscious (2003, p. 201). This is to confound Jung’s subsequent theories with his arguments in 1912.
289. 27 October 1913, McGuire, 1974, p. 550. Bair noted that Freud informed Maeder that Jung was an anti-Semite, but the reference given is to the Jung’s letter to Freud concerning ‘bona fides’ (p. 240). Freud’s letter to Maeder of 21 September 1913 (LC) contains no reference to anti-semitism. This may be a confusion with Maeder’s statement in his interview with Nameche that he received a letter from Freud in which he wrote, “Maeder, you are an anti-Semite” (CLM, p. 4).
293. Bair claimed that in the protocols, Jung identified this figure as Maria Moltzer (p. 291). Such an explicit identification is not found in the protocols in the Library of Congress. The argument for Moltzer as the woman in question was made by myself (Shamdasani, 1995, p. 129, 1998a, p. 16). If there exists documentation where Jung explicitly made this identification, it should be produced. In the early 1920s, Riklin painted frescos on the ceilings of Amsthaus 1 in Zürich, together with Augusto Giacometti. Bair misdated this to 1912 (p. 223). On Moltzer, see also Shamdasani, 1998b.
296. Protocols, LC, p. 98. In the protocols, there then follows an excerpt of Jung’s discussion of this dream in the 1925 seminar (protocols, pp. 99–100; Jung 1925, pp. 56–57). What Bair cited as Jung’s discussion of this dream in the protocols on p. 727, n. 13 is actually a quotation from this excerpt.
299. Bair claimed that Emma Jung was forbidden to read the Black Books, and that in early 1914, Toni Wolff was the only person to read them. (pp. 249–250). Material in the Jung family archives suggests otherwise, as will be clear when the Red Book is published. Bair also reported that Jung “drew” in the Black Books, which was generally not the case.
300. Information from Andreas Jung. Bair erroneously claimed that he was away more than he was at home that year (p. 248).
301. Bair erroneously noted that these dreams contain “yellow flood” and “dark red blood” (2003, p. 243). Neither in Memories, nor in the Black Books are these motifs to be found.
309. [Bair 2002] Ibid., p. 292. Bair also stated that the figure of Philemon led Jung to study Gnosticism (p. 396). However, Jung’s reading notes (JA) and references in
Transformations and Symbols of the Libido indicate that he started studying Gnosticism in 1910. Bair reproduced a photograph of Jung’s mural of Philemon together with his a mural of a mandala and stated that they are on the wall of his “private room” in his tower at Bollingen (facing p. 370). Actually, they are in separate bedrooms.
316. Bair, 2003, p. 297. Bair claimed that the Sermones followed the style and subject matter of the works of G. R. S Mead, and that Jung was studying sixteen or eighteen volumes of Mead’s work at this time (p. 296). The first statement is mistaken. No source is given for the second, and no evidence exists to support it.
331. Bair claimed that the only member of the Club who declined was Fanny Bowditch Katz. In actuality, between half and two-thirds of the membership responded.
335. I wrote: “these points strongly suggest that ‘Analytical collectivity’ was actually written by Moltzer. Whilst this is not definitively proved, the balance of the evidence clearly points in this direction” (Shamdasani, 1998a, p. 72). “We have seen that no positive corroborative evidence has arisen to indicate that ‘Analytical collectivity’ was by Jung, and that sufficient evidence exists to refute the claim that Jung was the author, beyond all reasonable doubt” (p. 84).
338. Archives, Psychological Club, Zürich. Riklin made no reference to Harold McCormick’s letter.
339. Moltzer resigned from the Club in 1918. Bair claimed that she subsequently returned to Holland for the rest of her life (p. 259). She actually remained in Switzerland, and lived at 198 Zollikerstrasse, Zollikerberg. She was buried in Zollikon cemetery.
345. Bair stated that the account in Memories was evidently pieced together from what Jung said about Taos in various passages in the Collected Works (p. 762, n. 40). Actually, it was excerpted from the manuscript, “African Voyage”. It is explicitly stated in Memories that the section is an “extract from an unpublished manuscript” (1962, p. 274). On this ms., see Shamdasani, 2003, pp. 323–328.
350. Jung/Jaffé 1962, p. 303. The sentence in German actually reads: “That the air had become too thick for me in Europe.”
352. Bair claimed that the Psychological Club wanted a further seminar based on Jung’s experiences (2003, p. 357). Such a request was not noted in the Club minutes. Bair also claimed that Jung received requests for new writings and translations “every day” (ibid.). I have made a comprehensive study of Jung’s correspondences in the 1920s, and this is simply not the case.
356. After his Africa trip, Bair referred to Jung’s annual month of military service (pp. 361–362). However, after the First World War, Jung was only on military service twice—for five days in 1923 and 1927 (personal communication, Andreas Jung).
357. Bair, 2003, p. 395. Concerning Jung’s religious attitudes, Bair stated that Jung once described himself as a “Christian-minded agnostic” (p. 127). The phrase comes from a letter Jung which wrote to Eugene Rolfe on 19 November 1960, in response to Rolfe’s book, The Intelligent Agnostic’s Introduction to Christianity. Jung wrote: “you have fulfilled your task of demonstrating the approach to Christianity to a Christian-minded agnostic” (Adler, 1975, p. 610). The phrase is not a self-description, but refers to the intended reader of Rolfe’s book. On Rolfe’s correspondence with Jung concerning his book, see Rolfe, 1989, p. 130f.
359. Bair claimed that the first results of Jung’s research into alchemy was The Psychology of the Transference in 1946 (p. 526). This was actually preceded by “Dream symbols of the individuation process” (1936), “The process of redemption in alchemy” (1937), “Some remarks on the visions of Zosimos” (1938), “The spirit Mercurius” (1943), Psychology and Alchemy (1944), “The enigma of Bologna” (1945) and “The philosophical tree” (1945).
360. “Ueber Alchemie”, Library of the Psychological Club, Zürich. Reichstein later won the Nobel prize for Chemistry.
361. Toni Wolff, (1946). A similar point is made by Hayman, who cites this article (1999, p. 288). We may also note that Toni Wolff’s paper, “Christianity within,” took its point of departure from Jung’s Psychology and Alchemy (in Wolff, 1959).
362. Bair, 2003, p. 434. On Jung’s collaboration with Hauer, see my introduction to Jung, 1932.
366. Bair, 2003, p. 469. This is an example of what Richard Ellmann referred to in his review of Bair’s Beckett biography as the way in which Bair “hangs on to wrong views even while amassing information that discredits them” (Ellmann, 1978, p. 236).
367. Bair, 2003, p 750, n. 36. Bair noted that Jung abandoned this term and referred to his work as “analytical psychology”. The reverse is actually the case.
372. There has been a great deal of mythology written concerning Sabina Spielrien and Jung’s relation with her. For correctives, see Angela Graf-Nold (2001), Zvi Lothane (1999), and Fernando Vidal (2001).
373. Jung, 1930–1934, p. 3. Bair suggested that the reason why Jung may have chosen to discuss Morgan’s work was because it would offer an opportunity for triangular relations between the participants to be worked out on a neutral terrain, which is quite implausible. She claimed that the lectures paralleled Jung’s “strong attraction” towards Morgan, but does not provide sufficient evidence for this (Bair, 2003, p. 391).
374. Douglas 1993, p. 167. There is no indication of an affair between Jung and Morgan in Forrest Robinson’s biography of Henry Murray (1992), which is based on extensive interviews with Murray.
379. Bair erroneously stated that there was no such gossip during the course of the seminars, while also claiming that Jung betrayed Morgan’s privacy, as she could be recognized (2003, p. 391).
386. On Bair’s errors in her treatment of Jung’s relationship to Victor White, see Ann Lammers, 2004.
Reader of this book: Proceed with Caution.
February 27, 2015
This book is fraught with numerous errors in scholarship.
Many of these error have been noted in Chapter IV of "Jung Stripped Bare-By His Biographers Even" by Sonu Shamdasani.
A few of the errors cited in Footnotes by Shamdasani are:
22. Bair noted that Jung asked Cary Baynes to write his biography in the 1930s, without citing a source (Bair, 2003, p. 585) There is no mention in their correspondence of this.
51. This copy of the protocols was donated by Helen Wolff to Princeton University Press, who in turn donated them to the Library of Congress in 1983, placing a ten year restriction on them. I studied these in 1991, and they have been on open access since 1993. Bair stated that the copy in the Library of Congress, which is in the Bollingen collection, is restricted (2003, p. 657, n. 7). This is actually unrestricted and was moved to a separate collection. The copy at the ETH in Zürich is restricted.
86. Countway ms., CLM; Hull draft translation, LC; Draft translation, BL. During the editing, there was some discussion about one passage in the manuscript. In Hull’s draft translation of Jung’s boyhood fantasy concerning Basle Cathedral, the manuscript reads: “God sits on his golden throne, high above the world, and shits on the cathedral; from under the throne falls an enormous turd falls” (p. 32, LC). In the Countway manuscript, the same passage reads: “God sits on his golden throne, high above the world, and shits on the cathedral [in hand: shits on his church]” (CLM, p. 32). Bair commented that neither Jaffé nor Marianne Niehus would permit Jung to use the word “shit” in this context,
suggesting that it was censored (2003, p. 635). However, the original German typescript reads: “unter dem Thron fällt ein ungeheures Excrement” (“an enormous excrement falls under the throne”) (JA, p. 19). This manuscript is on open access. This correctly reproduces Jung’s handwritten manuscript (Jung family archives, personal communication, Ulrich Hoerni).
93. Adler, 1975, p. 550, tr. mod. Bair described this letter as ‘curious’ and claimed that it indicated power which Marianne and Walther Niehus had (2003, p. 606–607). However, as the documents cited here show, this letter is in consonance with a number of other critical statements by Jung.
101. In the late 1980s, research on the composition of the text was concurrently and independently undertaken by Alan Elms and myself (see Elms 1994 and Shamdasani 1995). Prior to this, the status of the text was unquestioned in the public domain. Bair claimed that the divergences between the English and German editions caused led to speculation concerning censorship between scholars from the moment that the work was published (2003, p. 638). This was simply not the case, as there was no public debate concerning censorship until our research was published. In her footnote, she wrote: “most prominent among them Shamdasani and Elms, who base many of their charges on incomplete evidence and non-objective speculation” (p. 847, n. 69). No evidence is given of this, and Bair does not even provide the reference for anything that I have written on the subject.
102. Jung discussed his relationship with Toni Wolff in the protocols, LC, p. 98, pp. 171–174; see Shamdasani, 1995, pp. 124–125. Bair stated that in the protocols she read, there was no discussion of this (2003, p. 838, n. 61).
122. In 1933, Fordham had gone to Zurich to meet Jung for training, and was turned down, due to the difficulty of foreigners finding work. (Fordham 1993, pp. 67–69). The date of this trip is confirmed by Fordham’s diary (private possession, Max Fordham). Bair misdated this meeting to the early years of the Second World War and claimed that by this time Fordham was angry that Baynes had published an account of his analysis which was too easily recognizable (2003, p. 472). Baynes’ Mythology of the Soul only appeared in 1940. Bair also claimed that until his death, Fordham insisted that he did not resent Jung, and alleged that his “grudge” towards him was as great as that towards Baynes
(ibid.). Over the course of many conversations I held with Fordham between 1988 and 1995, I did not notice any resentment expressed towards Baynes or Jung: his attitude towards them was one of admiration and gratitude.
129. Jung to Read, 17 July 1946, RA. Bair claimed that most of Jung’s correspondence during the Collected Works project was with Hull (2003, p. 582). This is not the case, as Jung had extensive correspondences with Gerhard Adler, Michael Fordham and Herbert Read.
136. 11 May 1955, CMAC, orig. in English. Bair claimed that Jung praised Hull’s translations in all extant statements, and that there is no evidence that he had any reservations about them (2003, p. 583). The citations here indicate that this was not the case. In Hannah’s view, as a “thinking type”, Hull’s translations left out feeling and the irrational. (1976, p. 334). Von Franz noted that Jung’s writings had a double aspect, a logically understandable argument on the one hand, and on the other, the “unconscious” was allowed its say: “the reader . . .finds himself at the same time exposed to the impact of that ‘other voice’, the unconscious, which may either grip or frighten him off. That ‘other voice’ can, among other factors, be heard in Jung’s special way of reviving the original etymological meanings of words and allowing both feeling and imaginative elements to enter into his scientific exposition.” She noted that “unfortunately, this double aspect of Jung’s writings has not been preserved in the monumental English edition of his Collected Works, translated by R. F. C. Hull” (Von Franz, 1972, p. 4). Franz Jung recalled heated discussions between Jung and Hull on issues of translation. He noted that Hull would come to see Jung with a completed translation, and would be unwilling to correct what he had done (personal communication).
159. Jung, CW 5, (1952), pp. 13–14. Bair misdated this episode to 1915 (2003, p. 255).
192. Bair described Barbara Hannah as a lesbian (Bair, 2003, p. 364). Emmanuel Kennedy, Hannah’s literary executor, who has her diaries, stated that this is not true. He also noted that many of Bair’s descriptions of Hannah are derogatory (personal communication).
216. The first to posit that Jung had a “death-wish” against Freud was Freud himself when they met at Bremen in 1909, as an interpretation of Jung’s interest in the corpses recently found there (Jones, 1955, p. 166). Jung commented to Bennet, “I had branded myself, in becoming identified with Freud. Why should I want him to die? I had come to learn. He was not standing in my way: he was in Vienna, I was in Zürich. Freud identified himself with his theory—in this case, his theory of the old man of the tribe whose death every young man must want; the son must want to displace the father. But Freud wasn’t my father!” (Bennet 1961, p. 44). According to Jones, it was at Bremen that Jung was persuaded to have his first alcoholic drink since leaving the Burghölzli, with its teetotal regime (1955, pp. 61, 165). This point is repeated by Paul Roazen (1974, p. 246), McLynn (1996, p. 135), and Bair (2003, p. 161). However, in commenting on Jones’ biography, Jung pointed out to Bennet that this was mistaken, and that he had celebrated leaving the Burghölzli by drinking (Bennet, diary, 18 September, 1959, Bennet papers, ETH).
257. Oeri, 1935, p. 526. A few pages earlier, Bair had actually referred to Oeri’s article, (p. 44). In the protocols of the Zofingia society, the student debating organization which Jung attended, his name is generally given as “Jung vulgo Walze” (Staatsarchiv, Basel).
262. Bair claimed that Jung did not practice hypnosis or believe in its powers (p. 738, n. 84). This is not the case. Volumes 1 to 4 of Jung’s Collected Works present numerous cases of hypnosis and discussions of it. For an account of Jung’s involvement with hypnosis, see Shamdasasni, 2001. In 1913, Jung recalled that he resolved to abandon the use of hypnotic suggestion not because it was inefficacious, but because he did not understand how it cured: “I was resolved to abandon suggestion altogether rather than allow myself to be passively transformed into a miracle-worker” (CW 4, § 582).
263. When Jung visited Freud in March 1909, a loud noise occurred at a critical point in the conversation, which he interpreted parapsychologically as a “catalytic exteriorisation phenonemena”. For Freud’s understanding of this event, see Freud to Jung, 16 April 1909, (McGuire, 1974, p. 218). Bair mistakenly stated that this occurred on their first meeting (p. 117).
269. The Honegger papers are in the archives of the ETH in Zurich. A number of years ago, a copy was given to William McGuire for his personal study. McGuire subsequently deposited them in the Library of Congress. The ETH requested the return of their materials. Bair stated that the Jung estate claimed ownership of the papers (2003, p. 642), which is false (personal communication, Ulrich Hoerni).
272. On this question, see Jung’s discussion of this issue in his 1912 lectures at Fordham University, “Attempt at a portrayal of psychoanalytic theory”, CW 4, §§ 407–457. While Jung was in America on this trip, Bair claimed that Emma Jung wrote to him usually every day (2003, p. 229) and noted that the letters are in the Jung family archive (ibid., p. 723, n. 60). However, there are no letters from Emma Jung to C. G. Jung in 1912 there (personal communication, Andreas Jung).
280. [Bair 2003], p. 246. Bair added that Jung did not respond to Freud’s citation of the letter because of his distress and confusion. The letter cited to Bjerre cited above suggests otherwise.
281. In August 1913, Jung presented a paper in London at the International Medical Congress. Bair erroneously stated that he gave a series of lectures (2003, p. 239). Jung actually gave one lecture, “General aspects of psychoanalysis” (CW 4).
282. Bair argued that Jung’s work began as an attempt to show how myths could be used to explain psychological concepts, which is mistaken (2003, p. 201).The work applied the libido theory to the interpretation of mythological symbols.
283. Bair erroneously claimed that Flournoy gave Jung his translation of Frank Miller’s fantasies with what he had gleaned from her in conversation and correspondence (2003, p. 213). Frank Miller wrote an article in French, to which Flournoy wrote an introduction. Bair also claimed that Frank Miller actually invented her fantasies (p. 214). There is no evidence to support this. On Frank Miller, see Shamdasani, 1990.
284. Bair claimed that in the second part of the work, Jung argued that the sex drive did not have primacy, as other factors were present, such as the archetypes of the collective unconscious (2003, p. 201). This is to confound Jung’s subsequent theories with his arguments in 1912.
289. 27 October 1913, McGuire, 1974, p. 550. Bair noted that Freud informed Maeder that Jung was an anti-Semite, but the reference given is to the Jung’s letter to Freud concerning ‘bona fides’ (p. 240). Freud’s letter to Maeder of 21 September 1913 (LC) contains no reference to anti-semitism. This may be a confusion with Maeder’s statement in his interview with Nameche that he received a letter from Freud in which he wrote, “Maeder, you are an anti-Semite” (CLM, p. 4).
293. Bair claimed that in the protocols, Jung identified this figure as Maria Moltzer (p. 291). Such an explicit identification is not found in the protocols in the Library of Congress. The argument for Moltzer as the woman in question was made by myself (Shamdasani, 1995, p. 129, 1998a, p. 16). If there exists documentation where Jung explicitly made this identification, it should be produced. In the early 1920s, Riklin painted frescos on the ceilings of Amsthaus 1 in Zürich, together with Augusto Giacometti. Bair misdated this to 1912 (p. 223). On Moltzer, see also Shamdasani, 1998b.
296. Protocols, LC, p. 98. In the protocols, there then follows an excerpt of Jung’s discussion of this dream in the 1925 seminar (protocols, pp. 99–100; Jung 1925, pp. 56–57). What Bair cited as Jung’s discussion of this dream in the protocols on p. 727, n. 13 is actually a quotation from this excerpt.
299. Bair claimed that Emma Jung was forbidden to read the Black Books, and that in early 1914, Toni Wolff was the only person to read them. (pp. 249–250). Material in the Jung family archives suggests otherwise, as will be clear when the Red Book is published. Bair also reported that Jung “drew” in the Black Books, which was generally not the case.
300. Information from Andreas Jung. Bair erroneously claimed that he was away more than he was at home that year (p. 248).
301. Bair erroneously noted that these dreams contain “yellow flood” and “dark red blood” (2003, p. 243). Neither in Memories, nor in the Black Books are these motifs to be found.
309. [Bair 2002] Ibid., p. 292. Bair also stated that the figure of Philemon led Jung to study Gnosticism (p. 396). However, Jung’s reading notes (JA) and references in
Transformations and Symbols of the Libido indicate that he started studying Gnosticism in 1910. Bair reproduced a photograph of Jung’s mural of Philemon together with his a mural of a mandala and stated that they are on the wall of his “private room” in his tower at Bollingen (facing p. 370). Actually, they are in separate bedrooms.
316. Bair, 2003, p. 297. Bair claimed that the Sermones followed the style and subject matter of the works of G. R. S Mead, and that Jung was studying sixteen or eighteen volumes of Mead’s work at this time (p. 296). The first statement is mistaken. No source is given for the second, and no evidence exists to support it.
331. Bair claimed that the only member of the Club who declined was Fanny Bowditch Katz. In actuality, between half and two-thirds of the membership responded.
335. I wrote: “these points strongly suggest that ‘Analytical collectivity’ was actually written by Moltzer. Whilst this is not definitively proved, the balance of the evidence clearly points in this direction” (Shamdasani, 1998a, p. 72). “We have seen that no positive corroborative evidence has arisen to indicate that ‘Analytical collectivity’ was by Jung, and that sufficient evidence exists to refute the claim that Jung was the author, beyond all reasonable doubt” (p. 84).
338. Archives, Psychological Club, Zürich. Riklin made no reference to Harold McCormick’s letter.
339. Moltzer resigned from the Club in 1918. Bair claimed that she subsequently returned to Holland for the rest of her life (p. 259). She actually remained in Switzerland, and lived at 198 Zollikerstrasse, Zollikerberg. She was buried in Zollikon cemetery.
345. Bair stated that the account in Memories was evidently pieced together from what Jung said about Taos in various passages in the Collected Works (p. 762, n. 40). Actually, it was excerpted from the manuscript, “African Voyage”. It is explicitly stated in Memories that the section is an “extract from an unpublished manuscript” (1962, p. 274). On this ms., see Shamdasani, 2003, pp. 323–328.
350. Jung/Jaffé 1962, p. 303. The sentence in German actually reads: “That the air had become too thick for me in Europe.”
352. Bair claimed that the Psychological Club wanted a further seminar based on Jung’s experiences (2003, p. 357). Such a request was not noted in the Club minutes. Bair also claimed that Jung received requests for new writings and translations “every day” (ibid.). I have made a comprehensive study of Jung’s correspondences in the 1920s, and this is simply not the case.
356. After his Africa trip, Bair referred to Jung’s annual month of military service (pp. 361–362). However, after the First World War, Jung was only on military service twice—for five days in 1923 and 1927 (personal communication, Andreas Jung).
357. Bair, 2003, p. 395. Concerning Jung’s religious attitudes, Bair stated that Jung once described himself as a “Christian-minded agnostic” (p. 127). The phrase comes from a letter Jung which wrote to Eugene Rolfe on 19 November 1960, in response to Rolfe’s book, The Intelligent Agnostic’s Introduction to Christianity. Jung wrote: “you have fulfilled your task of demonstrating the approach to Christianity to a Christian-minded agnostic” (Adler, 1975, p. 610). The phrase is not a self-description, but refers to the intended reader of Rolfe’s book. On Rolfe’s correspondence with Jung concerning his book, see Rolfe, 1989, p. 130f.
359. Bair claimed that the first results of Jung’s research into alchemy was The Psychology of the Transference in 1946 (p. 526). This was actually preceded by “Dream symbols of the individuation process” (1936), “The process of redemption in alchemy” (1937), “Some remarks on the visions of Zosimos” (1938), “The spirit Mercurius” (1943), Psychology and Alchemy (1944), “The enigma of Bologna” (1945) and “The philosophical tree” (1945).
360. “Ueber Alchemie”, Library of the Psychological Club, Zürich. Reichstein later won the Nobel prize for Chemistry.
361. Toni Wolff, (1946). A similar point is made by Hayman, who cites this article (1999, p. 288). We may also note that Toni Wolff’s paper, “Christianity within,” took its point of departure from Jung’s Psychology and Alchemy (in Wolff, 1959).
362. Bair, 2003, p. 434. On Jung’s collaboration with Hauer, see my introduction to Jung, 1932.
366. Bair, 2003, p. 469. This is an example of what Richard Ellmann referred to in his review of Bair’s Beckett biography as the way in which Bair “hangs on to wrong views even while amassing information that discredits them” (Ellmann, 1978, p. 236).
367. Bair, 2003, p 750, n. 36. Bair noted that Jung abandoned this term and referred to his work as “analytical psychology”. The reverse is actually the case.
372. There has been a great deal of mythology written concerning Sabina Spielrien and Jung’s relation with her. For correctives, see Angela Graf-Nold (2001), Zvi Lothane (1999), and Fernando Vidal (2001).
373. Jung, 1930–1934, p. 3. Bair suggested that the reason why Jung may have chosen to discuss Morgan’s work was because it would offer an opportunity for triangular relations between the participants to be worked out on a neutral terrain, which is quite implausible. She claimed that the lectures paralleled Jung’s “strong attraction” towards Morgan, but does not provide sufficient evidence for this (Bair, 2003, p. 391).
374. Douglas 1993, p. 167. There is no indication of an affair between Jung and Morgan in Forrest Robinson’s biography of Henry Murray (1992), which is based on extensive interviews with Murray.
379. Bair erroneously stated that there was no such gossip during the course of the seminars, while also claiming that Jung betrayed Morgan’s privacy, as she could be recognized (2003, p. 391).
386. On Bair’s errors in her treatment of Jung’s relationship to Victor White, see Ann Lammers, 2004.
Reader of this book: Proceed with Caution.
Many of these error have been noted in Chapter IV of "Jung Stripped Bare-By His Biographers Even" by Sonu Shamdasani.
A few of the errors cited in Footnotes by Shamdasani are:
22. Bair noted that Jung asked Cary Baynes to write his biography in the 1930s, without citing a source (Bair, 2003, p. 585) There is no mention in their correspondence of this.
51. This copy of the protocols was donated by Helen Wolff to Princeton University Press, who in turn donated them to the Library of Congress in 1983, placing a ten year restriction on them. I studied these in 1991, and they have been on open access since 1993. Bair stated that the copy in the Library of Congress, which is in the Bollingen collection, is restricted (2003, p. 657, n. 7). This is actually unrestricted and was moved to a separate collection. The copy at the ETH in Zürich is restricted.
86. Countway ms., CLM; Hull draft translation, LC; Draft translation, BL. During the editing, there was some discussion about one passage in the manuscript. In Hull’s draft translation of Jung’s boyhood fantasy concerning Basle Cathedral, the manuscript reads: “God sits on his golden throne, high above the world, and shits on the cathedral; from under the throne falls an enormous turd falls” (p. 32, LC). In the Countway manuscript, the same passage reads: “God sits on his golden throne, high above the world, and shits on the cathedral [in hand: shits on his church]” (CLM, p. 32). Bair commented that neither Jaffé nor Marianne Niehus would permit Jung to use the word “shit” in this context,
suggesting that it was censored (2003, p. 635). However, the original German typescript reads: “unter dem Thron fällt ein ungeheures Excrement” (“an enormous excrement falls under the throne”) (JA, p. 19). This manuscript is on open access. This correctly reproduces Jung’s handwritten manuscript (Jung family archives, personal communication, Ulrich Hoerni).
93. Adler, 1975, p. 550, tr. mod. Bair described this letter as ‘curious’ and claimed that it indicated power which Marianne and Walther Niehus had (2003, p. 606–607). However, as the documents cited here show, this letter is in consonance with a number of other critical statements by Jung.
101. In the late 1980s, research on the composition of the text was concurrently and independently undertaken by Alan Elms and myself (see Elms 1994 and Shamdasani 1995). Prior to this, the status of the text was unquestioned in the public domain. Bair claimed that the divergences between the English and German editions caused led to speculation concerning censorship between scholars from the moment that the work was published (2003, p. 638). This was simply not the case, as there was no public debate concerning censorship until our research was published. In her footnote, she wrote: “most prominent among them Shamdasani and Elms, who base many of their charges on incomplete evidence and non-objective speculation” (p. 847, n. 69). No evidence is given of this, and Bair does not even provide the reference for anything that I have written on the subject.
102. Jung discussed his relationship with Toni Wolff in the protocols, LC, p. 98, pp. 171–174; see Shamdasani, 1995, pp. 124–125. Bair stated that in the protocols she read, there was no discussion of this (2003, p. 838, n. 61).
122. In 1933, Fordham had gone to Zurich to meet Jung for training, and was turned down, due to the difficulty of foreigners finding work. (Fordham 1993, pp. 67–69). The date of this trip is confirmed by Fordham’s diary (private possession, Max Fordham). Bair misdated this meeting to the early years of the Second World War and claimed that by this time Fordham was angry that Baynes had published an account of his analysis which was too easily recognizable (2003, p. 472). Baynes’ Mythology of the Soul only appeared in 1940. Bair also claimed that until his death, Fordham insisted that he did not resent Jung, and alleged that his “grudge” towards him was as great as that towards Baynes
(ibid.). Over the course of many conversations I held with Fordham between 1988 and 1995, I did not notice any resentment expressed towards Baynes or Jung: his attitude towards them was one of admiration and gratitude.
129. Jung to Read, 17 July 1946, RA. Bair claimed that most of Jung’s correspondence during the Collected Works project was with Hull (2003, p. 582). This is not the case, as Jung had extensive correspondences with Gerhard Adler, Michael Fordham and Herbert Read.
136. 11 May 1955, CMAC, orig. in English. Bair claimed that Jung praised Hull’s translations in all extant statements, and that there is no evidence that he had any reservations about them (2003, p. 583). The citations here indicate that this was not the case. In Hannah’s view, as a “thinking type”, Hull’s translations left out feeling and the irrational. (1976, p. 334). Von Franz noted that Jung’s writings had a double aspect, a logically understandable argument on the one hand, and on the other, the “unconscious” was allowed its say: “the reader . . .finds himself at the same time exposed to the impact of that ‘other voice’, the unconscious, which may either grip or frighten him off. That ‘other voice’ can, among other factors, be heard in Jung’s special way of reviving the original etymological meanings of words and allowing both feeling and imaginative elements to enter into his scientific exposition.” She noted that “unfortunately, this double aspect of Jung’s writings has not been preserved in the monumental English edition of his Collected Works, translated by R. F. C. Hull” (Von Franz, 1972, p. 4). Franz Jung recalled heated discussions between Jung and Hull on issues of translation. He noted that Hull would come to see Jung with a completed translation, and would be unwilling to correct what he had done (personal communication).
159. Jung, CW 5, (1952), pp. 13–14. Bair misdated this episode to 1915 (2003, p. 255).
192. Bair described Barbara Hannah as a lesbian (Bair, 2003, p. 364). Emmanuel Kennedy, Hannah’s literary executor, who has her diaries, stated that this is not true. He also noted that many of Bair’s descriptions of Hannah are derogatory (personal communication).
216. The first to posit that Jung had a “death-wish” against Freud was Freud himself when they met at Bremen in 1909, as an interpretation of Jung’s interest in the corpses recently found there (Jones, 1955, p. 166). Jung commented to Bennet, “I had branded myself, in becoming identified with Freud. Why should I want him to die? I had come to learn. He was not standing in my way: he was in Vienna, I was in Zürich. Freud identified himself with his theory—in this case, his theory of the old man of the tribe whose death every young man must want; the son must want to displace the father. But Freud wasn’t my father!” (Bennet 1961, p. 44). According to Jones, it was at Bremen that Jung was persuaded to have his first alcoholic drink since leaving the Burghölzli, with its teetotal regime (1955, pp. 61, 165). This point is repeated by Paul Roazen (1974, p. 246), McLynn (1996, p. 135), and Bair (2003, p. 161). However, in commenting on Jones’ biography, Jung pointed out to Bennet that this was mistaken, and that he had celebrated leaving the Burghölzli by drinking (Bennet, diary, 18 September, 1959, Bennet papers, ETH).
257. Oeri, 1935, p. 526. A few pages earlier, Bair had actually referred to Oeri’s article, (p. 44). In the protocols of the Zofingia society, the student debating organization which Jung attended, his name is generally given as “Jung vulgo Walze” (Staatsarchiv, Basel).
262. Bair claimed that Jung did not practice hypnosis or believe in its powers (p. 738, n. 84). This is not the case. Volumes 1 to 4 of Jung’s Collected Works present numerous cases of hypnosis and discussions of it. For an account of Jung’s involvement with hypnosis, see Shamdasasni, 2001. In 1913, Jung recalled that he resolved to abandon the use of hypnotic suggestion not because it was inefficacious, but because he did not understand how it cured: “I was resolved to abandon suggestion altogether rather than allow myself to be passively transformed into a miracle-worker” (CW 4, § 582).
263. When Jung visited Freud in March 1909, a loud noise occurred at a critical point in the conversation, which he interpreted parapsychologically as a “catalytic exteriorisation phenonemena”. For Freud’s understanding of this event, see Freud to Jung, 16 April 1909, (McGuire, 1974, p. 218). Bair mistakenly stated that this occurred on their first meeting (p. 117).
269. The Honegger papers are in the archives of the ETH in Zurich. A number of years ago, a copy was given to William McGuire for his personal study. McGuire subsequently deposited them in the Library of Congress. The ETH requested the return of their materials. Bair stated that the Jung estate claimed ownership of the papers (2003, p. 642), which is false (personal communication, Ulrich Hoerni).
272. On this question, see Jung’s discussion of this issue in his 1912 lectures at Fordham University, “Attempt at a portrayal of psychoanalytic theory”, CW 4, §§ 407–457. While Jung was in America on this trip, Bair claimed that Emma Jung wrote to him usually every day (2003, p. 229) and noted that the letters are in the Jung family archive (ibid., p. 723, n. 60). However, there are no letters from Emma Jung to C. G. Jung in 1912 there (personal communication, Andreas Jung).
280. [Bair 2003], p. 246. Bair added that Jung did not respond to Freud’s citation of the letter because of his distress and confusion. The letter cited to Bjerre cited above suggests otherwise.
281. In August 1913, Jung presented a paper in London at the International Medical Congress. Bair erroneously stated that he gave a series of lectures (2003, p. 239). Jung actually gave one lecture, “General aspects of psychoanalysis” (CW 4).
282. Bair argued that Jung’s work began as an attempt to show how myths could be used to explain psychological concepts, which is mistaken (2003, p. 201).The work applied the libido theory to the interpretation of mythological symbols.
283. Bair erroneously claimed that Flournoy gave Jung his translation of Frank Miller’s fantasies with what he had gleaned from her in conversation and correspondence (2003, p. 213). Frank Miller wrote an article in French, to which Flournoy wrote an introduction. Bair also claimed that Frank Miller actually invented her fantasies (p. 214). There is no evidence to support this. On Frank Miller, see Shamdasani, 1990.
284. Bair claimed that in the second part of the work, Jung argued that the sex drive did not have primacy, as other factors were present, such as the archetypes of the collective unconscious (2003, p. 201). This is to confound Jung’s subsequent theories with his arguments in 1912.
289. 27 October 1913, McGuire, 1974, p. 550. Bair noted that Freud informed Maeder that Jung was an anti-Semite, but the reference given is to the Jung’s letter to Freud concerning ‘bona fides’ (p. 240). Freud’s letter to Maeder of 21 September 1913 (LC) contains no reference to anti-semitism. This may be a confusion with Maeder’s statement in his interview with Nameche that he received a letter from Freud in which he wrote, “Maeder, you are an anti-Semite” (CLM, p. 4).
293. Bair claimed that in the protocols, Jung identified this figure as Maria Moltzer (p. 291). Such an explicit identification is not found in the protocols in the Library of Congress. The argument for Moltzer as the woman in question was made by myself (Shamdasani, 1995, p. 129, 1998a, p. 16). If there exists documentation where Jung explicitly made this identification, it should be produced. In the early 1920s, Riklin painted frescos on the ceilings of Amsthaus 1 in Zürich, together with Augusto Giacometti. Bair misdated this to 1912 (p. 223). On Moltzer, see also Shamdasani, 1998b.
296. Protocols, LC, p. 98. In the protocols, there then follows an excerpt of Jung’s discussion of this dream in the 1925 seminar (protocols, pp. 99–100; Jung 1925, pp. 56–57). What Bair cited as Jung’s discussion of this dream in the protocols on p. 727, n. 13 is actually a quotation from this excerpt.
299. Bair claimed that Emma Jung was forbidden to read the Black Books, and that in early 1914, Toni Wolff was the only person to read them. (pp. 249–250). Material in the Jung family archives suggests otherwise, as will be clear when the Red Book is published. Bair also reported that Jung “drew” in the Black Books, which was generally not the case.
300. Information from Andreas Jung. Bair erroneously claimed that he was away more than he was at home that year (p. 248).
301. Bair erroneously noted that these dreams contain “yellow flood” and “dark red blood” (2003, p. 243). Neither in Memories, nor in the Black Books are these motifs to be found.
309. [Bair 2002] Ibid., p. 292. Bair also stated that the figure of Philemon led Jung to study Gnosticism (p. 396). However, Jung’s reading notes (JA) and references in
Transformations and Symbols of the Libido indicate that he started studying Gnosticism in 1910. Bair reproduced a photograph of Jung’s mural of Philemon together with his a mural of a mandala and stated that they are on the wall of his “private room” in his tower at Bollingen (facing p. 370). Actually, they are in separate bedrooms.
316. Bair, 2003, p. 297. Bair claimed that the Sermones followed the style and subject matter of the works of G. R. S Mead, and that Jung was studying sixteen or eighteen volumes of Mead’s work at this time (p. 296). The first statement is mistaken. No source is given for the second, and no evidence exists to support it.
331. Bair claimed that the only member of the Club who declined was Fanny Bowditch Katz. In actuality, between half and two-thirds of the membership responded.
335. I wrote: “these points strongly suggest that ‘Analytical collectivity’ was actually written by Moltzer. Whilst this is not definitively proved, the balance of the evidence clearly points in this direction” (Shamdasani, 1998a, p. 72). “We have seen that no positive corroborative evidence has arisen to indicate that ‘Analytical collectivity’ was by Jung, and that sufficient evidence exists to refute the claim that Jung was the author, beyond all reasonable doubt” (p. 84).
338. Archives, Psychological Club, Zürich. Riklin made no reference to Harold McCormick’s letter.
339. Moltzer resigned from the Club in 1918. Bair claimed that she subsequently returned to Holland for the rest of her life (p. 259). She actually remained in Switzerland, and lived at 198 Zollikerstrasse, Zollikerberg. She was buried in Zollikon cemetery.
345. Bair stated that the account in Memories was evidently pieced together from what Jung said about Taos in various passages in the Collected Works (p. 762, n. 40). Actually, it was excerpted from the manuscript, “African Voyage”. It is explicitly stated in Memories that the section is an “extract from an unpublished manuscript” (1962, p. 274). On this ms., see Shamdasani, 2003, pp. 323–328.
350. Jung/Jaffé 1962, p. 303. The sentence in German actually reads: “That the air had become too thick for me in Europe.”
352. Bair claimed that the Psychological Club wanted a further seminar based on Jung’s experiences (2003, p. 357). Such a request was not noted in the Club minutes. Bair also claimed that Jung received requests for new writings and translations “every day” (ibid.). I have made a comprehensive study of Jung’s correspondences in the 1920s, and this is simply not the case.
356. After his Africa trip, Bair referred to Jung’s annual month of military service (pp. 361–362). However, after the First World War, Jung was only on military service twice—for five days in 1923 and 1927 (personal communication, Andreas Jung).
357. Bair, 2003, p. 395. Concerning Jung’s religious attitudes, Bair stated that Jung once described himself as a “Christian-minded agnostic” (p. 127). The phrase comes from a letter Jung which wrote to Eugene Rolfe on 19 November 1960, in response to Rolfe’s book, The Intelligent Agnostic’s Introduction to Christianity. Jung wrote: “you have fulfilled your task of demonstrating the approach to Christianity to a Christian-minded agnostic” (Adler, 1975, p. 610). The phrase is not a self-description, but refers to the intended reader of Rolfe’s book. On Rolfe’s correspondence with Jung concerning his book, see Rolfe, 1989, p. 130f.
359. Bair claimed that the first results of Jung’s research into alchemy was The Psychology of the Transference in 1946 (p. 526). This was actually preceded by “Dream symbols of the individuation process” (1936), “The process of redemption in alchemy” (1937), “Some remarks on the visions of Zosimos” (1938), “The spirit Mercurius” (1943), Psychology and Alchemy (1944), “The enigma of Bologna” (1945) and “The philosophical tree” (1945).
360. “Ueber Alchemie”, Library of the Psychological Club, Zürich. Reichstein later won the Nobel prize for Chemistry.
361. Toni Wolff, (1946). A similar point is made by Hayman, who cites this article (1999, p. 288). We may also note that Toni Wolff’s paper, “Christianity within,” took its point of departure from Jung’s Psychology and Alchemy (in Wolff, 1959).
362. Bair, 2003, p. 434. On Jung’s collaboration with Hauer, see my introduction to Jung, 1932.
366. Bair, 2003, p. 469. This is an example of what Richard Ellmann referred to in his review of Bair’s Beckett biography as the way in which Bair “hangs on to wrong views even while amassing information that discredits them” (Ellmann, 1978, p. 236).
367. Bair, 2003, p 750, n. 36. Bair noted that Jung abandoned this term and referred to his work as “analytical psychology”. The reverse is actually the case.
372. There has been a great deal of mythology written concerning Sabina Spielrien and Jung’s relation with her. For correctives, see Angela Graf-Nold (2001), Zvi Lothane (1999), and Fernando Vidal (2001).
373. Jung, 1930–1934, p. 3. Bair suggested that the reason why Jung may have chosen to discuss Morgan’s work was because it would offer an opportunity for triangular relations between the participants to be worked out on a neutral terrain, which is quite implausible. She claimed that the lectures paralleled Jung’s “strong attraction” towards Morgan, but does not provide sufficient evidence for this (Bair, 2003, p. 391).
374. Douglas 1993, p. 167. There is no indication of an affair between Jung and Morgan in Forrest Robinson’s biography of Henry Murray (1992), which is based on extensive interviews with Murray.
379. Bair erroneously stated that there was no such gossip during the course of the seminars, while also claiming that Jung betrayed Morgan’s privacy, as she could be recognized (2003, p. 391).
386. On Bair’s errors in her treatment of Jung’s relationship to Victor White, see Ann Lammers, 2004.
Reader of this book: Proceed with Caution.
September 5, 2024
Deirdre Bair’s biography of Carl Jung was a fascinating journey for me. It felt like she peeled back layers of his life and work, not only presenting the intellectual giant we know but also revealing the complex, often contradictory man behind the theories. As someone who’s deeply interested in Jung's ideas, especially his exploration of myth, archetypes, and the unconscious, I found her portrayal refreshingly balanced—neither glorifying him as a visionary nor shying away from his human flaws.
What stood out to me was Bair’s ability to weave together Jung’s intellectual achievements with his personal struggles, making him feel more accessible, even relatable at times. She delves into his break with Freud, his controversial relationships, and his deep dive into mysticism, all while keeping the narrative alive and engaging. It felt like reading the story of someone who was constantly in search of deeper meaning, not just in the world but in himself.
I also appreciated how Bair didn’t get too bogged down in technical jargon, which made this biography incredibly accessible. Whether you’re a Jung enthusiast or just curious about his life, this book offers something meaningful. For me, it was the insight into how Jung’s personal experiences—his inner conflicts, his search for balance between science and spirituality—fed directly into his psychological theories. It made me think more deeply about how our personal journeys shape our intellectual contributions.
In short, this biography was more than just a recounting of Jung’s life. It was an exploration of a man whose ideas have shaped the way I view the world, and Bair captured that spirit beautifully.
What stood out to me was Bair’s ability to weave together Jung’s intellectual achievements with his personal struggles, making him feel more accessible, even relatable at times. She delves into his break with Freud, his controversial relationships, and his deep dive into mysticism, all while keeping the narrative alive and engaging. It felt like reading the story of someone who was constantly in search of deeper meaning, not just in the world but in himself.
I also appreciated how Bair didn’t get too bogged down in technical jargon, which made this biography incredibly accessible. Whether you’re a Jung enthusiast or just curious about his life, this book offers something meaningful. For me, it was the insight into how Jung’s personal experiences—his inner conflicts, his search for balance between science and spirituality—fed directly into his psychological theories. It made me think more deeply about how our personal journeys shape our intellectual contributions.
In short, this biography was more than just a recounting of Jung’s life. It was an exploration of a man whose ideas have shaped the way I view the world, and Bair captured that spirit beautifully.
July 26, 2023
A comprehensive overview of the life of famed Swiss psychotherapist, Carl Jung. Classic biography-style, the book follows along with Jung's life (mostly) chronologically. The format takes a little getting used to as topics are sometimes mentioned before they are properly introduced. I'm not sure if that was deliberate by the author or an editing error. In any case, it isn't too distracting, just a bit confusing. The author does a nice job of conveying facts as opposed to opinions, even during the presentation of more difficult and controversial questions, most notable regarding Jung's alleged involvement with the Nazi party. An extensive bibliography composed of mostly first-hand accounts rounds out the account nicely. I echo the sentiment of some other reviews here - I wish a bit more time had been spent on outlining and explaining Jung's theories, but this style was more matter-of-fact and straightforward. Took a while to get through, but I'm proud that I did.
May 10, 2020
An in depth biography of Carl Jung ; though access to Jung’s material are closely protected by his family, the author Deidre Bair was granted access by a committee of his heirs. Reluctance of the heirs to grant access was a result of the supercilious and condescending tone of previous books of his life but Bair conducted a thorough research of Jung’s archives and research in Zurich, even though access is tightly controlled, the family gave permission. This biography is well researched and very interesting. It covers all of Jung’s life from his haphazard upbringing through his parting of the ways with Freud, to the end of his life and the lasting impact he had on psychoanalysis. Highly readable and enlightening.
September 19, 2019
This book extensively covers every aspect of Jung's life. I could hardly put it down. My favorite section was about the Solar Phallus Man. This was the schizophrenic patient whose peculiar hallucinations convinced Jung that there was a collective unconscious. I highly recommend this book to anyone who would like to know more about the man and his life. This biography is probably the detailed one of Jung, although its occasional 'softball' approach can well be supplemented by other biographies such as Carl Gustav Jung: A Biography and Jung: A Biography. It will be "must reading" by anyone seriously studying Jung's life and ideas. I enjoyed it very much.
February 2, 2024
A very informative biographical account on Carl Jung. I really enjoyed going in-depth on a lot of the circumstances, as well as learning of the place-in-time in which a lot of Jung's theories arose.
Was a bit of a longer read, and some chapters discussion around some topics felt like they were a bit overworked, in terms of what was needed to understand the point. However, as a big fan of Jung, I found the biography to do a good job of highlighting the brilliance of his theories, while acknowledging his occasional lapses in character. Overall, I feel I have a better understanding of who Jung is/was as a person & feel ready to take on studying more of the books Jung published.
Was a bit of a longer read, and some chapters discussion around some topics felt like they were a bit overworked, in terms of what was needed to understand the point. However, as a big fan of Jung, I found the biography to do a good job of highlighting the brilliance of his theories, while acknowledging his occasional lapses in character. Overall, I feel I have a better understanding of who Jung is/was as a person & feel ready to take on studying more of the books Jung published.
April 24, 2024
This is a detailed, exhaustive telling of Carl Jung’s life, work, and times. I started the book with only a superficial familiarity with Jung. I finished the book knowing a whole lot more.
A review of this book is hard. I can’t conceive of a biographer that could a better job. The difficulty is this. I finished with a fair overview of the the concepts and ideas that he labored on his entire life. But, I wanted to
understand more. Recounting Jung within the context of his times (more than half of the last century) was fascinating for me. As far as Jung the person, I ended up not liking him very much.
A review of this book is hard. I can’t conceive of a biographer that could a better job. The difficulty is this. I finished with a fair overview of the the concepts and ideas that he labored on his entire life. But, I wanted to
understand more. Recounting Jung within the context of his times (more than half of the last century) was fascinating for me. As far as Jung the person, I ended up not liking him very much.
June 14, 2021
Pamatęs, kad ši Jungo biografija išlesta dar 2003 metais, kažkiek nusivyliau, manydamas, kad ji jau senstelėjusi. „Raudonosios knygos: Liber Novus“ (pirmą kartą išleista 2009 metais) įžangoje Sonu Shamdasani rašo „Neišstudijavus „Liber Novus“ tiesiog neįmanoma suvokti vėlesnių Jungo darbų genezės ir aiškiai suprasti, ką jis stengėsi pasiekti“. Vis tik beskaitydamas šią knygą susidariau įspūdį, kad autorė, atrodo, buvo pakankamai susipažinusi su „Raudonosios knygos“ turiniu ir šią Jungo biografiją parašė labai išsamiai, kuo kiekvienas gali pats įsitikinti.
September 18, 2024
A COMPREHENSIVE, SYMPATHETIC, AND FASCINATING BIOGRAPHY
Author Deidre Bair also wrote biographies such as Simone de Beauvoir: A Biography, Samuel Beckett: A Biography, Saul Steinberg: A Biography, etc. She states in the "Author's Note" of this 2003 book, "I started my official research in Zürich sometime in 1995... Even though most of Jung's archives have been deposited there, his heirs retain control of them. Access is rigidly monitored, and no document can be read by a scholar unless a member of the family has read it first...
"The Jung heirs... agreed to the conditions under which I wrote my previous biographies: they would grant me access to the materials I believed I needed, but they would not try to influence the content of my book or read it before publication. This allowed me to protect the objectivity and integrity of my work, but it also ensured that any mistakes of fact or interpretation would be solely mine and not theirs." (Pg. xi)
She adds, "Did you like him? is the question every biographer is asked. My response is simple: Liking really doesn't enter into it or me. This is my chosen form of intellectual inquiry... I could not have spent so many years in the daily company of someone's life unless I was absorbed by the person at hand. I was fortunate to have found Jung's life and work fascinating, frustrating, contradictory, and intriguing, but ultimately of importance and value." (Pg. xiii)
She recounts Jung's participation in séances (pg. 46-52, 328-329), his late interest in UFOs (pg. 572-574), and his development of the technique of "free association" (pg. 65). She admits that in 1903, he essentially married for money: "If he could survive financially until the marriage, money would never be an issue again." (Pg. 69; 82) Jung, as a boy, was also "'the victim of a sexual assault' by a man he once 'worshipped.'" (Pg. 71)
She also records Jung's own marital infidelities (pg. 112-113, 248, 267), including with his patient Sabina Speilrein (Pg. 191), and a long-term relationship with analyst Toni Wolff (pg. 321-322), noting, "If Emma divorced him, the money she brought to the marriage would return to her control... The children were another matter, for under Swiss law, the father had primary claim to custody. Emma knew it was unlikely that Carl would exercise an option that would saddle him with raising two daughters, but the possibility of him doing it to spite her was a prospect she could not ignore." (Pg. 113)
She deals at some length with the accusation that Jung "stole" the research of Johann Jakob Honegger Jr. (pg. 182-190, 641-647), ultimately concluding, "Unfortunately, there is no firm documentation, so only supposition is possible... Jung might well have ceased to mention Honegger's participation in the research simply to protect his family from the stigma of his publicized insanity and subsequent suicide. Or Jung may have decided that Honegger's role was a minor one... For whatever reason, Jung stopped mentioning Honegger's role in the evolution of this thought early on... Objectivity should allow [Jung] to take credit for its final formulation." (Pg. 189-190)
She wrote about some differences between Jung and Freud: "In large part, this was how [Jung] approached his differences with Freud over the theory of the libido. He circled around the material, trying to perceive it from every angle, trying to make his thesis conform to Freud's and finding in the end that he simply could not reconcile himself to a monocausal of view... All his life, Jung remembered how passionately Freud implored him, 'promise me one thing: look after sexuality!' He never forgot the look on Freud's face, or his tone of voice as he said it." (Pg. 211) She also records their final break, as Freud wrote, "Take your full freedom... and spare me your supposed 'tokens of friendship.'" (Pg. 237-238)
She wrote about Jung's relation to the Nazi Party the Hitler: "Jung's view of contemporary politics... was about to embroil him in a controversy that would taint him as a Nazi sympathizer or brand him as an active collaborator. His general political obtuseness, coupled with some of his writings, statements, and participation in suspect conferences, would create a dense cloud that hovers over his reputation long years after his life ended." (Pg. 416; see also 424-425 and 436-437) She adds, "In the summer of 1933, a great number of 'völkisch' movements and societies were founded, but whether Jung was a 'kindred spirit' remains 'a complex question to which a conclusive answer may prove elusive.' ... there is no record that he ever formally joined... the German Faith Movement, or that he ever participated informally in its activities or in those of any other völkisch group." (Pg. 433-433)
She also notes the attempts of his editors to revise his autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, including the deletion of an entire chapter, to which Jung responded, "The chapter stays in. I WANT the book to loo crazy!" (Pg. 612-613)
This biography is probably the detailed one of Jung, although its occasional 'softball' approach can well be supplemented by other biographies such as 'Carl Gustav Jung: A Biography' and 'Jung: A Biography.' It will be "must reading" by anyone seriously studying Jung's life and ideas.
Author Deidre Bair also wrote biographies such as Simone de Beauvoir: A Biography, Samuel Beckett: A Biography, Saul Steinberg: A Biography, etc. She states in the "Author's Note" of this 2003 book, "I started my official research in Zürich sometime in 1995... Even though most of Jung's archives have been deposited there, his heirs retain control of them. Access is rigidly monitored, and no document can be read by a scholar unless a member of the family has read it first...
"The Jung heirs... agreed to the conditions under which I wrote my previous biographies: they would grant me access to the materials I believed I needed, but they would not try to influence the content of my book or read it before publication. This allowed me to protect the objectivity and integrity of my work, but it also ensured that any mistakes of fact or interpretation would be solely mine and not theirs." (Pg. xi)
She adds, "Did you like him? is the question every biographer is asked. My response is simple: Liking really doesn't enter into it or me. This is my chosen form of intellectual inquiry... I could not have spent so many years in the daily company of someone's life unless I was absorbed by the person at hand. I was fortunate to have found Jung's life and work fascinating, frustrating, contradictory, and intriguing, but ultimately of importance and value." (Pg. xiii)
She recounts Jung's participation in séances (pg. 46-52, 328-329), his late interest in UFOs (pg. 572-574), and his development of the technique of "free association" (pg. 65). She admits that in 1903, he essentially married for money: "If he could survive financially until the marriage, money would never be an issue again." (Pg. 69; 82) Jung, as a boy, was also "'the victim of a sexual assault' by a man he once 'worshipped.'" (Pg. 71)
She also records Jung's own marital infidelities (pg. 112-113, 248, 267), including with his patient Sabina Speilrein (Pg. 191), and a long-term relationship with analyst Toni Wolff (pg. 321-322), noting, "If Emma divorced him, the money she brought to the marriage would return to her control... The children were another matter, for under Swiss law, the father had primary claim to custody. Emma knew it was unlikely that Carl would exercise an option that would saddle him with raising two daughters, but the possibility of him doing it to spite her was a prospect she could not ignore." (Pg. 113)
She deals at some length with the accusation that Jung "stole" the research of Johann Jakob Honegger Jr. (pg. 182-190, 641-647), ultimately concluding, "Unfortunately, there is no firm documentation, so only supposition is possible... Jung might well have ceased to mention Honegger's participation in the research simply to protect his family from the stigma of his publicized insanity and subsequent suicide. Or Jung may have decided that Honegger's role was a minor one... For whatever reason, Jung stopped mentioning Honegger's role in the evolution of this thought early on... Objectivity should allow [Jung] to take credit for its final formulation." (Pg. 189-190)
She wrote about some differences between Jung and Freud: "In large part, this was how [Jung] approached his differences with Freud over the theory of the libido. He circled around the material, trying to perceive it from every angle, trying to make his thesis conform to Freud's and finding in the end that he simply could not reconcile himself to a monocausal of view... All his life, Jung remembered how passionately Freud implored him, 'promise me one thing: look after sexuality!' He never forgot the look on Freud's face, or his tone of voice as he said it." (Pg. 211) She also records their final break, as Freud wrote, "Take your full freedom... and spare me your supposed 'tokens of friendship.'" (Pg. 237-238)
She wrote about Jung's relation to the Nazi Party the Hitler: "Jung's view of contemporary politics... was about to embroil him in a controversy that would taint him as a Nazi sympathizer or brand him as an active collaborator. His general political obtuseness, coupled with some of his writings, statements, and participation in suspect conferences, would create a dense cloud that hovers over his reputation long years after his life ended." (Pg. 416; see also 424-425 and 436-437) She adds, "In the summer of 1933, a great number of 'völkisch' movements and societies were founded, but whether Jung was a 'kindred spirit' remains 'a complex question to which a conclusive answer may prove elusive.' ... there is no record that he ever formally joined... the German Faith Movement, or that he ever participated informally in its activities or in those of any other völkisch group." (Pg. 433-433)
She also notes the attempts of his editors to revise his autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, including the deletion of an entire chapter, to which Jung responded, "The chapter stays in. I WANT the book to loo crazy!" (Pg. 612-613)
This biography is probably the detailed one of Jung, although its occasional 'softball' approach can well be supplemented by other biographies such as 'Carl Gustav Jung: A Biography' and 'Jung: A Biography.' It will be "must reading" by anyone seriously studying Jung's life and ideas.
April 26, 2025
I am keenly interested in Carl Jung, so I was excited about this book.
However, I stopped reading it after approximately 70 pages because of the grotesquely vulgar, perverted stories and foul language, all of which were completely necessary.
Those indiscretions made Deirdre Bair's work so crude that is was unendurable.
However, I stopped reading it after approximately 70 pages because of the grotesquely vulgar, perverted stories and foul language, all of which were completely necessary.
Those indiscretions made Deirdre Bair's work so crude that is was unendurable.
Read
December 29, 2022Fine. A detailed biography, not an intellectual biography. Lots of trivia. Seems balanced.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews