"It Was All a Mistake": Jung's Postcards to Ernest Jones and Kipling's Short Story "The Phantom 'Rickshaw"

The following article by Michael Vannoy Adams is an account of the early history of psychoanalysis - and, more specifically, the end of relations between Jung and Freud. It includes a discussion of the intolerance of Freud toward Jung and Alfred Adler and the reduction of different views to personal complexes as a "mistake." The article comprises an examination of two postcards from Jung to Ernest Jones in the context of "The Phantom 'Rickshaw," a short story by Rudyard Kipling.

In May 2003, I purchased two postcards that Jung wrote to Ernest Jones in late 1913. These are the two postcards, back and front.

back of postcard front of postcard
Postcard of November 25, 1913

back of postcard front of postcard
Postcard of December 2, 1913

A week or two earlier, I had attended the New York Autograph Show. I had thought it might be fun to own an autograph of Jung. I had asked several dealers whether they had for sale any autographs of Jung, and a few had said yes. They had given me copies of their catalogs and had invited me to visit their offices so that I could inspect the autographs. I had identified myself as a Jungian psychoanalyst, and one dealer had informed me that his wife was a Freudian psychoanalyst. Later, I remembered his first name as "David." I could not remember his last name.

One of the catalogs was from a dealer with the name "David." I made an appointment with him to visit his office. On his wall was a framed photograph of Jung and a typed, autographed letter from Jung. The photograph and letter were too expensive for me to afford. I again identified myself as a Jungian psychoanalyst, and David informed me that his wife was a Freudian psychoanalyst.

I had an odd feeling, however, that something was not quite right, although I could not say what it was. I left the dealer's office and walked down the hall toward the elevator. Then I turned around and walked back to his office. I asked him, "By any chance is there another dealer with the name 'David' and with a wife who is a Freudian psychoanalyst?" He looked at me quizzically and said, "Yes." In fact, he said, both their wives had trained at the same psychoanalytic institute.

It was all a mistake. I had confounded two different dealers with the name "David." The one David then kindly told me the last name of the other David. Subsequently, I made an appointment with the other David to visit his office. He showed me a number of autographs of Jung, including the two postcards that I eventually purchased.

The postcards that Jung wrote to Ernest Jones in late 1913 are significant documents in the early history of psychoanalysis. At the time, Jung was president of the International Psychoanalytic Association. Jung wrote the postcards shortly after the Munich Congress of September 7-8, 1913. The postmark of the first postcard is November 25, 1913, and the postmark of the second is December 2, 1913.

At the Munich Congress, Freud read a paper entitled "The Disposition to Obsessional Neurosis: A Contribution to the Choice of Neurosis," and Jung read a paper entitled "A Contribution to the Study of Psychological Types." Jung was reelected president of the International Psychoanalytic Association, but of the 52 psychoanalysts who voted, 22 loyal to Freud submitted blank ballots. They abstained in a partisan protest against Jung (Freud and Jung: 549-50).

In On the History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement, Freud said that the Munich Congress "was conducted by Jung in a disagreeable and incorrect manner." As a result, Freud said, the proceedings were "fatiguing and unedifying" (SE 14: 45). In addition, Jung and the Zurich School had presented new views so different from the views of Freud and the Vienna School that there was confusion over the very definition of psychoanalysis. "At the Munich Congress," Freud said, "I found it necessary to clear up this confusion, and I did so by declaring that I did not recognize the innovations of the Swiss as legitimate continuations and further developments of the psycho-analysis that originated with me" (SE 14: 60). According to Freud, the Swiss were, in effect, no longer psychoanalysts. This was the last time, John Kerr notes, that Freud and Jung "were ever in the same room" (1993: 457).

Seven months later, in a letter of April 20, 1914, Jung resigned as president of the International Psychoanalytic Association. "The latest developments," he said, "have convinced me that my views are in such sharp contrast to the views of the majority of the members of our Association that I can no longer consider myself a suitable personality to be president" (Freud and Jung: 551). That was effectively the end of relations between Jung and Freud.

The postcard that Jung wrote to Jones on November 25, 1913, reads as follows:

Dear Jones,

I am glad to have your letter and to know of your standpoint. It seems to me quite natural that you cannot agree with my views. It would be foolish, if I should mind it, when one is not of the same conviction. I think, it is necessary in science as well as everywhere in the world to give credit and to listen to each other's arguments. I am not worried with mere working hypotheses. I therefore cannot understand, why a different view should not be carefully discussed. It is an extremely difficult and even unfair standpoint to reduce a different view to personal complexes. This is psychology of the "nothing but". It takes off all seriousness and human consideration and replaces it with personal gossip and suspicion. All I heard in Munich of the opinions of the Vienna School was a pure mistake of my views. Unfortunately one has applied the same procedure to the views of Adler's which deserve a certain amount of appreciation. This isolation is decidedly unhappy.

Yours sincerely,
Dr Jung

Jung described psychoanalysis as a science in which different views deserved to be "carefully discussed" and not reduced to "personal complexes." The reduction of different views to personal complexes, Jung said, was an example of "psychology of the 'nothing but.'" This was a reference to William James. In the paper that Jung had read at the Munich Congress, he had cited James, who defined reductive explanations as follows: "What is higher is explained by what is lower and treated for ever as a case of 'nothing but' - nothing but something else of a quite inferior sort" (CW 6: 503, par. 867; James 1975: 15). Jung apparently regarded the opinions that the Vienna School had expressed about the different views that he had presented at the Munich Congress as reductive in exactly that sense. Those opinions, he said, were "a pure mistake of my views."

The postcard that Jung wrote to Jones on November 25, 1913, was not the first occasion on which Jung had expressed repugnance at the reduction of different views to personal complexes. For example, in a letter of November 11, 1912, Jung had declared to Freud that he refused "to be treated like a fool riddled with complexes." He had said: "I think I have objective reasons for my views" (Freud and Jung: 516). Similarly, in a letter of December 3, 1912, Jung had complained to Freud that "I am forced to the painful conclusion that the majority of psychoanalysts misuse psychoanalysis for the purpose of devaluing others and their progress by insinuations about complexes (as though that explained anything. A wretched theory!)" (Freud and Jung: 526). According to Jung, what was so problematic about this reductive procedure was that psychoanalysts employed it as a convenient excuse to avoid thinking. "Anything," he had said, "that might make them think is written off as a complex" (Freud and Jung: 527).

In the last sentence of the postcard that Jung wrote to Jones on November 25, 1913, Jung said that the same reductive procedure that had been applied to his views had also, unfortunately, been applied to Alfred Adler's views, which he said, "deserve a certain amount of appreciation." The paper that Jung had read at the Munich Congress included just such an appreciation of Adler's views. In the final three paragraphs of that paper, Jung compared Freud and Adler as two different "psychological types" with two different theories. The adjectives that Jung employed to describe Freud's theory were "causal," "pluralistic," and "sensualistic"; the adjectives that he employed to describe Adler's theory were "finalistic," "monistic," and "intellectualistic" (CW 6: 508, par. 880). Jung noted that Freud emphasized "pleasure" and that Adler emphasized "power" (CW 6: 509, par. 881). He concluded: "The difficult task of creating a psychology which will be equally fair to both types must be reserved for the future" (CW 6: 509, par. 882). Jung did not privilege Freud's theory; he did not describe Freud's theory as true and Adler's theory as false; he relativized Freud's and Adler's theories as merely different views. In effect, he envisaged a "general theory" of psychoanalysis in which Freud's and Adler's views would both be "special cases."

Any comparison to Adler was certain to be anathema to Freud. Adler had been one of the original members of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society - and, next to Freud, the most prominent. When Adler eventually articulated views different from those of Freud, Freud, in effect, expelled Adler from the Society. In a letter of October 12, 1911, Freud informed Jung that "yesterday I forced the whole Adler gang (six of them) to resign from the Society." Adler had established the "Society for Free Psychoanalytic Investigation" - in contrast, Freud sarcastically remarked, "to our unfree variety" (Freud and Jung: 447). On October 11, 1911, Freud had reported to the members of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society that Adler had resigned. A resolution had then been passed, by a vote of eleven to five, that membership in the Society for Free Psychoanalytic Investigation was "incompatible" with membership in the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society (Nunberg and Federn: 282-3).

Edward Hoffman speculates that Adler's different views must have distressed Freud because they constituted "irrefutable evidence that his basic system was going to be challenged, and rejected, by other cogent explorers of human personality." He says that Freud must have intuited that the departure of Adler "would not be the only one, and that others must certainly follow." Hoffman notes that "many would eventually quit their association with Freud, including formerly close colleagues" - among them, Jung. He contends that "none would arouse such lifelong implacable enmity as Adler" (1994: 74).

In 1932, E.A. Bennet asked Freud why he and important colleagues in the early history of psychoanalysis "were on such bad terms with each other." Freud replied that some separations were inevitable, "cannot be avoided and need not be objected to." He said that the departure of Adler was "not a loss" and that he had "no regrets" because Adler was "never an analyst." Bennet then inquired about Jung. According to Bennet, "Freud, after a pause, said very quietly, 'Jung was a great loss'" (1961: 56).

For Jung to compare Freud to Adler at the Munich Congress - and to envisage a psychology that would be "equally fair" to both Freud and Adler - was utterly intolerable to Freud. In the early history of psychoanalysis, it proved extremely difficult, even impossible, for Freud to tolerate others' views when they differed from his views.

In a letter of June 12, 1912, Freud wrote to Jung that "Adler's book On the Nervous Character [The Neurotic Constitution (1916)] appeared a few days ago." Freud remarked: "I am unlikely to read it but I have been made acquainted with parts of it" (Freud and Jung: 511). In a letter of December 7, 1912, Jung wrote to Freud that "I would like you to know that I have designs on reviewing Adler's book." Jung continued: "I have succeeded in descending into its depths, where I found some delightful things that deserve to be hung aloft. The man really is slightly dotty" (Freud and Jung: 531). In this instance, Jung engaged in the same ad hominem devaluation that Freud indulged in. To describe Adler as "slightly dotty" was not exactly to reduce different views to personal complexes, but it was to pathologize Adler. In a letter of December 9, 1912, Freud replied: "Your intention of attacking Adler's book has my entire approval." Freud reiterated that he had not read Adler's book. Adler had not sent him a copy, and, Freud said, "I am too stingy to spend my good money on such a product" (Freud and Jung: 533). Jung never wrote a review of Adler's book. In fact, in the foreword to The Theory of Psychoanalysis, the lectures that Jung delivered at Fordham University in September 1912, Jung said that only after he had prepared those lectures in the spring of 1912 did Adler's book "become known to me." He said of Adler: "I recognize that he and I have reached similar conclusions on various points" (CW 4: 87).

In a letter of May 23, 1912, Freud had mentioned what he regarded as "a disastrous similarity" between the views of Adler and the views of Jung (Freud and Jung: 507). In a letter of June 8, 1912, Jung replied: "The parallel with Adler is a bitter pill; I swallow it without a murmur. Evidently this is my fate. There is nothing to be done about it, for my reasons are overwhelming." The similarity that Freud regarded as disastrous was a new view of incest. "I set out with the idea of corroborating the old view of incest," Jung said, "but was obliged to see that things are different from what I expected" (Freud and Jung: 509). Jung had published Transformations and Symbols of the Libido in two parts in 1911-12. Freud had expressed a positive opinion of the first part. In a letter of November 12, 1911, Freud wrote to Jung: "One of the nicest works I have read (again), is that of a well-known author on the 'Transformations and Symbols of the Libido.'" He continued: "In it many things are so well-expressed that they seem to have taken on definitive form" (Freud and Jung: 459). In the second part of Transformations and Symbols of the Libido, however, Jung argued that "the sexualism of neuroses is not to be taken literally but as regressive phantasy and symbolic compensation" for a recent failure to achieve an effective adaptation to reality and that "the sexualism of the early infantile fantasy, especially the incest problem," is also not to be taken literally but as "a regressive product." Jung declared that he did not regard incest as "a gross sexual inclination." The ultimate significance of incest, he concluded, was not physical but strictly psychological. Jung said that "the mother has acquired incestuous significance only psychologically" (CW B: 396, par. 675). In the letter of May 23, 1912, Freud noted that Adler had said that "the neurotic has no desire at all for his mother." This was the disastrous similarity between Jung and Adler. About the parallel with Adler, Freud said to Jung: "I have no doubt that your derivation of the incestuous libido will be different. But there is a certain resemblance" (Freud and Jung: 507). In effect, both Adler and Jung had deliteralized incest - and, to Freud, they had "desexualized" psychoanalysis.

In a letter of April 27, 1912, Jung had previously said to Freud: "Like you, I am absorbed in the incest problem and have come to conclusions which show incest primarily as a fantasy problem" (Freud and Jung: 502). In a letter of May 17, 1912, Jung noted that Freud had originally taken "the so-called sexual trauma" literally and had mistaken fantasies for realities. "The trauma," Jung said, "is seemingly important or real," but cum grano salis it doesn't matter whether a sexual trauma really occurred or not, or was a mere fantasy" (Freud and Jung: 506). Similarly, Jung now argued that to take incest literally was to mistake it. It was all a mistake. In the letter of May 23, 1912, Freud acknowledged the original mistake about the sexual trauma: "I value your letter for the warning it contains, and the reminder of my first big error, when I mistook fantasies for realities" (Freud and Jung: 507). Freud never, however, acknowledged that it was a mistake to take incest literally.

On the front of the postcard that Jung wrote to Jones on November 25, 1913, Jung wrote: "Please tear up." Not only did Jones not tear up the postcard, but he also immediately mailed it to Freud. Freud read the postcard and then returned it to Jones in a letter of December 4, 1913. In that letter, Freud said to Jones (in imperfect English):

I cannot abstain from sending back Jungs letter [Jung's postcard], it may be interesting for you after some time. He has learned psychoanalysis in order to bring forward the demand that personal complexes ought to be overlooked. A very nice result. "It is all a mistake" reminds me of something similar recurring saying in Kipling's Phantom Rickshaw. (Freud and Jones: 246)

What was at issue between Jung and Freud was the very definition of psychoanalysis. Both Freud and Jung regarded psychoanalysis as a science. As scientists, psychoanalysts presented for consideration different views that, Jung said, deserved to be "carefully discussed" and not reduced to "personal complexes." As Freud defined psychoanalysis, it was a procedure that reduced a manifest content to a latent content in order to expose ulterior, unconscious motives. In this instance, the manifest content was different views, and the latent content was personal complexes. What was problematic to Jung about this procedure was that it reduced objective propositions to subjective motives - or, as James said, reduced the "higher" to "nothing but" the "lower." According to Jung, to reduce different views to personal complexes was to misuse psychoanalysis in order to devalue others. It was, as Jung exclaimed in exasperation: "A wretched theory!" In contrast, according to Freud, for Jung to "demand that personal complexes ought to be overlooked," was, in effect, to repudiate psychoanalysis. It was, as Freud sarcastically said: "A very nice result."

Jung said that at the Munich Congress the opinions of the Vienna School were "a pure mistake of my views." Freud said that the complaint by Jung "It is all a mistake" reminded him of a similar, recurrent saying in Rudyard Kipling's "The Phantom 'Rickshaw." In that short story, Theobald Jack Pansay, a British civil servant in India, has an affair with Mrs. Agnes Keith-Wessington, the wife of a British officer. The affair begins on a voyage from Gravesend to Bombay and resumes three or four months later in Simla. Pansay says that "Agnes's passion was a stronger, a more dominant, and - if I may use the expression - a purer sentiment than mine" (Kipling 1927: 11). Eventually, Pansay loses interest in Agnes: "From my own lips, in August, 1882, she learnt that I was sick of her presence, tired of her company, and weary of the sound of her voice." Most women, Pansay says, "would have wearied of me as I wearied of them" or "would have promptly avenged themselves by active and obtrusive flirtation with other men." Agnes, however, is the exception to the rule. "On her," Pansay says, "neither my openly expression aversion nor the cutting brutalities with which I garnished our interviews had the least effect." Agnes simply says: "I'm sure it's all a mistake - a hideous mistake; and we'll be good friends again some day. Please forgive me, Jack, dear" (Kipling 1927: 12).

Pansay knows that he is "the offender," and that knowledge, he says, "transformed my pity into passive endurance, and, eventually into blind hate" (Kipling 1927: 12). The next year, in 1883, he and Agnes meet again in Simla. Agnes utters the same identical words: "Still the unreasoning wail that it was all a 'mistake'; and still the hope of eventually 'making friends.'" Pansay says: "I might have seen, had I cared to look, that that hope only was keeping her alive. She grew more wan and thin month by month." The next year, in 1884, again in Simla: "The same weary appeals, and the same curt answers from my lips" (Kipling 1927: 13). Pansay becomes engaged to another woman, Kitty Mannering. On horseback, he encounters Agnes in a 'rickshaw: "'So I hear you're engaged, Jack dear.' Then, without a moment's pause: - 'I'm sure it's all a mistake - a hideous mistake. We shall be as good friends some day, Jack, as we ever were'" (Kipling 1927: 14). Pansay cruelly spurns her again, and a week later Agnes dies.

In 1885, again in Simla, Pansay and Kitty decide to marry at the end of June, and he buys her a sapphire ring with two diamonds. Subsequently, Pansay begins to suffer hallucinations - to "hear" and "see" things. Again and again, Pansay "sees" Agnes in a 'rickshaw and "hears" her say that it is all a mistake and that they will be friends again. In effect, Agnes is a "ghost" who "haunts" Pansay.

The phantom 'rickshaw with Agnes in it Pansay calls "It." In this respect, perhaps it is not irrelevant to note that Freud also employed the term "It" (in German, das Es, which James Strachey translated as the "id"). Freud appropriated the term from Georg Groddeck, who said of patients that "the It, the unconscious, drives them into illness against their conscious will" (1976: 31). This is an accurate description of the experience of Pansay, who is driven into illness against his conscious will. From this perspective, the hallucination of the phantom 'rickshaw with Agnes in it would be a projection of the id, or It. "I have an indistinct idea," Pansay says, "that I dragged Kitty by the wrist along the road up to where It stood, and implored her for pity's sake to speak to It; to tell It that we were betrothed" (Kipling 1927: 31).

I do not mean that Kipling derived the term "It" from Groddeck or Freud. This would have been impossible. Kipling published a first version of "The Phantom 'Rickshaw" in 1885. He then revised the short story and published a second, final version in 1888. Groddeck published The Book of the It in 1923, the same year that Freud published The Ego and the Id. That is, Kipling employed the term "It" more than three decades before Groddeck and Freud. Freud said that "Groddeck himself no doubt followed the example of Nietzsche, who habitually used this grammatical term for whatever in our nature is impersonal" (SE 19: 23n.). It is possible that Kipling also derived the term "It" from Nietzsche - although it is also possible that he employed the term independent of any influence.

Pansay continues: "As I talked I suppose I must have told Kitty of my old relations with Mrs. Wessington, for I saw her listen intently with white face and blazing eyes" (Kipling 1927: 31). In reply, Pansay says, Kitty strikes him with "her riding-whip across my face from mouth to eye" (Kipling 1927: 31-2). Later, Dr. Heatherlegh, who has been treating Pansay and trying, without success, to cure him, tells him what Kitty has said: "'Says that a man who would have behaved to a woman as you did to Mrs. Wessington ought to kill himself out of sheer pity for his kind. . . . 'Says she'll die before she ever speaks to you again" (Kipling 1927: 33).

Jung's complaint that the opinions of the Vienna School were "a pure mistake of my views" reminded Freud of Agnes's refrain "It is all a mistake." In effect, Freud free associated to the word "mistake" in Jung's postcard, and it reminded him of the word "mistake" in Kipling's short story. Freud merely mentioned the comparison. He did not elaborate the basis for the comparison. Nor did he analyze it psychologically or interpret what it meant unconsciously. Freud remained unconscious of what the comparison essentially implied. If Jung was comparable to Agnes and if Freud was comparable to Pansay, then Freud positioned Jung as a lover whom he had cruelly spurned. What the comparison essentially implied was that Freud, like Pansay in the affair with Agnes, was "the offender" in the affair with Jung. Had Freud been conscious of the implication, he would never have made the comparison between Agnes and Jung. The comparison is tantamount to a "Freudian slip," which is, of course, a "mistake." Ironically, in a way that Freud never consciously knew or acknowledged, "It was all a mistake."

If Agnes was a ghost who haunted Pansay, Jung was a ghost who haunted Freud - and psychoanalysis. Jung analyzed ghosts psychologically. He said that "we are dealing with a fact of experience, and one so general that everyone knows what is meant by 'ghost.'" In such cases, Jung said, "we are confronted with a definite complex of psychic facts" (CW 8: 328, par. 625). That is, from a psychoanalytic perspective, a ghost was a complex. In this sense, just as Pansay had an "Agnes complex," so Freud had a "Jung complex." What was the Jung complex? For Freud, it was the specter of a psychoanalysis in which Jung's views might supersede his views.

The postcard that Jung wrote to Jones on December 2, 1913, reads as follows:

Dear Jones,

You can order Prof. Freud's photo from Camill Ruf, Photograph, Bahnhofstrasse, Zurich. (with reference to me - in case of doubt!)

Thank you for your kind invitation to write an article for the Zeitschrift, but I cannot repeat myself, having said everything in my books and my lectures. And what would be the use of it? Munchen has shown, what the attitude of the Vienna School is. I dislike advertising even in science. If people don't understand what I have said, they may work until they begin to understand, if not - tant pis pour eux.

With best regards
Yours sincerely

Jung declined to repeat in yet another article what he had already said in his books and in his lectures. To do so would be no use, he said, for the Munich Congress had abundantly exposed the irreconcilably negative opinions of the Vienna School toward the different views that he had presented. Jung was finally in a defiant mood: "If people don't understand what I have said, they may work until they begin to understand, if not - tant pis pour eux" - too bad for them. If the Vienna School misunderstood what he had said, so much the worse for them.

It may or may not have been a mistake for Freud to take the sexual trauma and incest literally. It may or may not have been a mistake for Freud to reduce different views to personal complexes. It was certainly a mistake for him to be so intolerant of different views. In On the History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement, a polemic against Adler and Jung, Freud emphasized that "psycho-analysis is my creation." He acknowledged that "it is a long time now since I was the only psycho-analyst," but he maintained that "even to-day no one can know better than I do what psycho-analysis is, how it differs from other ways of investigating the life of the mind, and precisely what should be called psycho-analysis and what would better be described by some other name" (SE 14: 7).

Freud intended to demonstrate that certain views (the views of Adler and Jung) "controvert the fundamental principles of analysis (and on what points they controvert them) and that for this reason they should not be known by the name of analysis" (SE 14: 50). He said: "I am of course perfectly ready to allow that everyone has a right to think and to write what he pleases; but he has no right to put it forward as something other than what it really is" (SE 14: 60-1). According to Freud, psychoanalysis was simply - or, as James might have said, "nothing but" - what he said it was. As the creator of psychoanalysis, Freud reserved the right to define it - and to expel those with views that differed from his views. In An Autobiographical Study, Freud described the criticism that he had presented of Adler's and Jung's theories as "a mild one." He said: "I only insisted that both Adler and Jung should cease to describe their theories as 'psycho-analysis'" (SE 20: 53).

Michael Polanyi says that in science one of the "main principles underlying the process of free discussion" is "tolerance" (1964: 68). Science, Polanyi says, is a community that "effectively practices free discussion" (1964: 71). In 1911-13, psychoanalysis was not, in this sense, a science, because it was not a community that tolerated different views and effectively practiced free discussion. Freud noted that the departure of colleagues "has often been regarded as evidence of my intolerance." He said, however, that "I think I can say in my defence that an intolerant man, dominated by an arrogant belief in his own infallibility, would never have been able to maintain his hold upon so large a number of intellectually eminent people" (SE 20: 53). This comment is, as Freud said, defensive. It begs the question of why such intellectually eminent people as Adler and Jung departed under circumstances that proved so perpetually acrimonious and detrimental to the progress of psychoanalysis as a science.

As a science, psychoanalysis was unique. It was the creation of an individual, Freud. In science, however, no individual, not even the creator of a science, has the exclusive right to say which different views are legitimate and which are illegitimate. Yet this is exactly what Freud did. Adler resigned from the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, and Jung resigned from the International Psychoanalytic Association, but, in effect, Freud expelled them. He did so because he could not tolerate different views that (at least as he defined psychoanalysis) did not continue and develop the views that had originated with him. If, however, psychoanalysis was a science, such a proprietary attitude was a grave error. It was all a mistake.


Adler, A. (1916) The Neurotic Constitution: Outlines of a Comparative Individualistic Psychology and Psychotherapy, trans. B. Glueck and J.E. Lind, New York: Moffat, Yard and Company.

Bennet, E.A. (1961) C.G. Jung, London: Barrie and Rockliff.

Freud, S. All references are to the Standard Edition (SE) by volume and page number.

Freud, S., and Jones, E. (1993) The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones, 1908-1939, ed. R.A. Paskauskas, Cambridge, MA, and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Freud, S., and Jung, C.G. (1974) The Freud/Jung Letters: The Correspondence between Sigmund Freud and C.G. Jung, ed. W. McGuire and trans. R. Manheim and R.F.C. Hull, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Groddeck, G. (1976) The Book of the It, New York: International Universities Press.

Hoffman, E. (1994) The Drive for Self: Alfred Adler and the Founding of Individual Psychology, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

James, W. (1975) Pragmatism, Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press.

Jung, C.G. All references are to the Collected Works (CW) by volume, page number, and paragraph.

Kerr, J. (1993) A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Kipling, R. (1927) The Phantom 'Rickshaw and Other Stories, New York: Reader's League of America.

Nunberg, H, and Federn, E. (eds.) (1974) Minutes of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society: Volume III: 1910-1911, trans. M. Nunberg with H. Collins, New York: International Universities Press.

Polanyi, M. (1964) Science, Faith and Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.