Sue Mehrtens is the author of this and all the other blog essays on this site. The opinions expressed in these essays are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of other Jungian Center faculty or Board members. Honesty, as well as professional courtesy, require that you give proper attribution to the author if you post this essay elsewhere.
Was C.G. Jung a Heretic?
Some Thoughts Arising from Our Gnosticism Course
“I am definitely inside Christianity and, as far as I am capable of judging about myself, on the direct line of historical development…. If the Reformation is a heresy, I am certainly a heretic too.”
Jung (1956)[1]
” You know I am the unbelieving outsider who asks naïve questions,…”
Jung (1958)[2]
“It is inevitable that the adherents of traditional religious systems should find my formulations hard to understand. A Gnostic would not be at all pleased with me, but would reproach me for having no cosmogony and for the cluelessness of my gnosis in regard to the happenings in the Pleroma. A Buddhist would complain that I was deluded by Maya, and a Taoist that I was too complicated. As for an orthodox Christian, he can hardly do otherwise than deplore the nonchalance and lack of respect with which I navigate through the empyrean of dogmatic ideas. I must, however, once more beg my unmerciful critics to remember that I start from facts for which I seek an interpretation.”
Jung (1952)[3]
“My learned friend Victor White, O. P., in his Dominican Studies…, thinks he can detect a Manichaean streak in me.”
Jung (1958)[4]
“… I am an empiricist … I have no doctrine and no philosophical system, but have presented new facts…the psychic facts designated by my concepts possess an autonomy of their own. This is an empirical fact which is not understood by most people anyway, because they have never gone through the same experiences…”
Jung (1955)[5]
“Those who possess faith or prefer to talk like philosophers do not, of course, need to wrestle with the facts, but a doctor is not at liberty to dodge the grim realities of human nature.”
Jung (1952)[6]
“… I have been alternately accused of agnosticism, atheism, materialism, and mysticism.”
Jung (1960)[7]
One of the most popular courses offered at the Jungian Center is (to my surprise) an “Introduction to Gnosticism.” We have run this course multiple times, always to good enrollment, and have had many distance-learning students take the course as well. In a recent iteration of the course the question was posed “If Jung was into Gnosticism, was he then a heretic?” The historical record is clear that the early Church Fathers regarded the Gnostics as heretics,[8] and Jung clearly thought highly of Gnosticism–highly enough that in 1916 he wrote “Septem Sermones ad Mortuos,” a small booklet reflecting Gnostic influence, using Gnostic terminology.[9] But does this “sin of his youth”[10] make Jung a heretic?
In this essay we consider this question–not an easy question to answer, as the opening quotes make clear: Jung was all over the map about his religious stance. We will grope toward an answer first by defining the meaning of “heresy,” and then we’ll consider Jung’s use of heretical works, as a doctor; Jung’s own attitude toward both religion and heresy; and we’ll conclude by noting theologians’ reactions to Jung’s works, and his responses to theologians.
Definitions of Heresy
The dictionary defines “heresy” as “a belief different from the accepted belief of a church, school, profession etc.”[11] While we usually use the word in religious contexts, the dictionary meaning indicates how it can apply in secular areas, e.g. the deviation from the “dogma” of the double helix in genetics, or Darwinian evolution in paleontology. While science purports to be open-minded, its various branches have accepted or “orthodox” ways of interpreting reality and experimental results, to which trainees and neophytes would do well to adhere.[12]
In reference to Jung, our focus is on the religious application. Given Jung’s nationality and background (Swiss, Western European), accusations of heresy related to Christianity, from both the Catholic and Protestant sides. That Jung used and referred repeatedly to heretical groups, texts and ideas is incontrovertible: His works (especially his alchemical volumes)[13] are full of the ideas of heretical groups, e.g. Mani and Manichaean dualism,[14] the Ebionites,[15] the Bogomils,[16] the Patarenes,[17] the Concorricci,[18] the Waldenses,[19] the Poor Men of Lyons,[20] the Beghards,[21] the Brethren of the Free Spirit,[22] the Neoplatonic School of Harran (Thabit ibn Quarrah),[23] John de Lugio,[24] the Paulicians,[25] the Docetists,[26] the Arians,[27] the Monophysites,[28] the Dyophysites,[29] the Cathari[30] and Albigensians,[31] the Nestorians,[32] Joachim of Flora,[33] Meister Eckhart,[34] Jacob Böhme,[35] and, most prominent of all, the Gnostics.[36] Why so many heretical sources? Jung provides some answers.
Jung’s Use of Heretical Works as a Doctor
Jung defined himself primarily as a physician,[37] and as such, he felt he had “to rely on the curative powers inherent in the patient’s own nature, regardless of whether the ideas that emerge agree with any known creed or philosophy.”[38] His therapeutic method could not be bound by any sort of dogma, if that meant limiting his ability to help his patients. Jung was blunt:
“My empirical material seems to include a bit of everything–it is an assortment of primitive, Western, and Oriental ideas. There is scarcely any myth whose echoes are not heard, nor any heresy that has not contributed an occasional oddity.”[39]
His patients and their dreams might present any manner of “oddity” which Jung had to be willing to entertain and try to understand, even if/when he did not agree with it. He took his patients seriously, dealt with each one with an open mind, and in a unique way.[40] Jung recognized the response this produced among many people, especially ideologues:
“Intellectuals and rationalists, happy in their established beliefs, will no doubt be horrified by this and will accuse me of reckless eclecticism, as though I had somehow invented the facts of man’s nature and mental history and had compounded out of them a repulsive theosophical brew. Those who possess faith or prefer to talk like philosophers do not, of course, need to wrestle with the facts, but a doctor is not at liberty to dodge the grim realities of human nature.”[41]
Jung’s “reckless eclecticism” arose from his determination to leave no stone unturned in his attempt to understand his patients, their dream symbols, and other products of their psyches.
More than just a medical man, Jung was a Thinking type,[42] an intellectual,[43] with a longstanding familiarity with philosophy.[44] Given his sharp intellect, Jung felt it would be
“the most heinous sin were I to offer any resistance to this compelling force. I feel it is God’s will that I should exercise the gift of thinking that has been vouchsafed me. Therefore I put my thinking in his service and so come into conflict with the traditional doctrine, …”[45]
He also put his mental acuity in service to understanding his patients and their psyches.
In this quest for understanding, one of the most helpful sources Jung eventually discovered was the abstruse subject of alchemy. This did not come easily to Jung: He wrote of how stymied he felt in his initial encounters with alchemy,[46] but eventually he recognized the medieval alchemists were communicating in symbols, and then his in-depth explorations into alchemy were launched. This led Jung “to take into account not only the dogmata of the Church, but the Gnostics, and the later heretics also, …”[47]–including the numerous heretical groups mentioned above. That exposure to heresy and accusations of being a heretic did not bother Jung was due, perhaps, to his own attitude toward religion.
Jung’s Attitude Toward Religion and Heresy
Due to his childhood experiences as the son of a Protestant minister,[48] Jung developed ambivalence toward “the theological mode of thinking,”[49] which was “so alien”[50] to him. As he grew up, he had memorable personal experiences of the Divine,[51] even as he watched his father lose his own faith. These “subjective inner experiences”[52] of God “prevented [Jung] from drawing negative conclusions about religion from [his] father’s fate, much as [he] was tempted to do so.”[53] In addition, he came under the influence of scientific materialism, as he “studied natural science and medicine, and became a psychiatrist.”[54] In a letter to Pastor Walter Bernet, Jung explained how his
“education offered me nothing but arguments against religion on the one hand, and on the other the charisma of faith was denied me. I was thrown back on experiences alone…. From this you can easily see the origin of my psychology: only by going my own way, integrating my capacities headlong (like Paul), and thus creating a foundation for myself, could something be vouchsafed to me or built upon it, no matter where it came from, and of which I could be reasonably sure that it was not merely one of my own neglected capacities. The only way open to me was the experience of religious realities which I had to accept without regard to their truth. In this matter I have no criterion except the fact that they seem meaningful to me and harmonize with man’s best utterances.”[55]
Over time, the emphasis on “having faith” changed, in Jung, into trust in his lived experience of the Divine.[56] This became the foundation of his stance on religion.
Jung made a distinction between “religion” and “creed.”[57] The former he considered an instinct or “impulse” that lives in every person, while the latter–“creed”–was the term he used for organized sects and denominations. The innate religious impulse or “attitude”[58] was, Jung felt, of “great… importance… for psychic equilibrium,”[59] which is why, in his clinical work with suffering patients, Jung was posed many questions about religion and the meaning of life by his analysands.[60] In response to such questions, Jung would never encourage his patients to have faith, but rather he urged them to build up trust in their own personal experiences with the Self, their inner divine core. Drawing on his own life and his work with patients, Jung became convinced that psychotherapy required some sort of attention given to the “religious function,”[61] while, at the same time, he felt “present-day Christianity” needed “the contributions of the psychology of the unconscious” if it wished to make “further progress.”[62]
As for creeds, Jung had little use for them, and even less personal exposure: He never went to church (except for the rare wedding or funeral).[63] He noted how it was “a thorn in the flesh of the churches that I do not belong to any of the recognized sects.”[64] And he referred to himself as “the unbelieving outsider who asks naïve questions,”[65] the person who was “shooed … out of the Church like so many others.”[66]
So one might expect Jung to disavow any type of religious label. Yet there are multiple instances among his letters in which he “professes” [himself] a Christian,[67] with a “… standpoint… which I regard as a sort of left-wing Protestantism…. definitely inside Christianity.”[68] He wrote in a letter to the Rev. H.L. Philip that he was “a Protestant in my soul and body,…”[69] while four years earlier he described himself to Dorothee Hoch (apparently another minister) “… as a Christian [who] struggles to unite Catholicism and Protestantism within myself.”[70]
How to make sense of these seeming inconsistencies? Jung’s daily actions reflect his avoidance of creedal affiliation, while his statements about being a Protestant Christian speak more to his recognition of how a religious upbringing colors one’s life and outlook. Being a minister’s son, growing up surrounded by many family members who were ministers,[71] amid all the trappings and daily regimen of Christian tradition, Jung would have found it impossible for all that personal history to have no effect on him. More generally, Jung recognized how, for people in the Western world, our cultural reality is Christian, even if the individual person has nothing whatsoever to do with any church, e.g. the holidays of Christmas and Easter (even if these have now become little more than commercial opportunities for many Americans), the familiarity of figures like Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood. Many of our Jungian Center students share Jung’s stance: no “religious affiliation” but a general awareness of our collective national Christian heritage. While many of us now–some 60 years after Jung died–can understand Jung’s stance, there were not many theologians in his day who did.
Theologians’ Reactions to Jung’s Works
Jung was one of a small handful of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who valued religion’s role in psychotherapy.[72] This being so, one would imagine theologians would have been pleased to find their vocation valued by a practitioner in another field. But this was not so: Jung got no end of grief from nearly all of the priests, ministers, pastors and academic theologians who corresponded with him.
The Jesuit Pater Raymond Hostie concluded that Jung was a “Gnostic” because (so Hostie felt) Jung “hypostatized ideas.”[73] Pastor Walter Bernet was “shocked” by Jung’s Answer to Job.[74] The Rev. H.L. Philip felt Jung was trying to “convert people… to the new denomination ‘Jungianism” or better, Jungian Church…”[75] (an accusation which Jung considered “sheer defamation”),[76] and Jung’s long-time friend, Father Victor White, thought “he could detect a Manichaean streak”[77] in Jung. Other correspondents accused Jung of being an agnostic, or an atheist, a materialist, or a mystic[78]–all labels Jung vehemently disavowed.
Jung did not court criticism, but, with the publication of Answer to Job in 1952, Jung got flooded with uncomprehending correspondence, from both laymen and clergy. Jung anticipated this negative reaction: Pastor Walter Uhsadel wrote Jung asking for his permission to dedicate his book to Jung, and Jung was pleased but urged Uhsadel to “think twice about it,” because “… in circles where thinking and feeling are orthodox my book could have a devastating effect–both for me and for all those with whom I have close relationships.”[79] Jung noted to Uhsadel that three theologians who had read advance copies of Answer came away “shocked.”[80]
That was only the beginning. Dorothee Hoch,[81] the Rev. Erastus Evans,[82] Pater Lucas Menz,[83] Pater Raymond Hostie,[84] Pastor Jakob Amstutz,[85] Pastor Walter Bernet,[86] and the Rev. H.L. Philip[87] are just some of the divines whose letters to Jung were full of incomprehension. The crux of the problem was not so much heresy–outright apostasy–as it was the seemingly unbridgeable gulf between Jung’s empiricism (focused on facts) and theologians’ metaphysical inclinations.[88] Jung was always speaking of the “God-image”[89] and “psychic phenomena,”[90] while theologians were, to Jung’s way of thinking, “deifying anthropomorphisms, psychic structures and myths–exactly what”[91] Jung did not do.
Theologians “picked”[92] on Jung, refused to address his questions,[93] charged him with arrogance,[94] accused him of “a particular lack of character and even of betrayal of [his] Christian faith,”[95] and demanded that he “confess [his] definite belief in certain metaphysical statements.”[96] All this led Jung to conclude, in a letter to Father David in 1961 (just four months before he died) that he was “not very popular either with theologians or with my own guild.”[97] (i.e. psychiatrists).
Jung’s Responses to Theologians
Jung gave as good as he got, even in letters to theologians. For example, he took Dorothee Hoch to task for theologians “… entrenching themselves behind a creed,”[98] the result of which is the perpetuation of “the hellish scandal that the so-called Christians cannot reach agreement even among themselves.”[99] Jung complained to Hoch that “theology wants to know nothing of psychology, because through it we could discover our own cross…”.[100] Jung added that she treated “psychology cavalierly and do not notice how very much you misunderstand it.”[101] Jung told Pastor Walter Bernet that “the theologian buttonholes me, asserverating that his anthropomorphism is God and damning anyone who criticizes any anthropomorphic weaknesses, defects, and contradictions in it as a blasphemer.”[102]
Where Jung every day in his “daily professional work [had] to distinguish scrupulously between idea and reality,”[103] theologians make “metaphysical statements… apparently without the slightest awareness that they are talking in mythic images which pass directly as the ‘word of God.'”[104]–all the while accusing Jung of doing the same thing. To the Rev. H.L. Philip Jung described “most of the Protestant theologians [as]… just as childishly prejudiced as the Catholic priests.”[105] Theologians “want to circumvent this odious task of self-cognition,”[106] while Jung considered “it downright immoral to shut one’s eyes to the truth about oneself.”[107] Jung found it hard
“to talk with theologians: they don’t’ listen to the other person (who is wrong from the start) but only to themselves (and call this the Word of God). Perhaps this comes from their having to preach down from the pulpit, with nobody allowed to answer back. This attitude, which I met practically everywhere, has shooed me out of the Church like so many others.”[108]
Jung wrote that he liked “discussions with theologians, Protestant and Catholic,”[109] but only if they understood, or wanted to understand what [he was] talking about. All too often, however, the conversation hit a wall–“the walls of Church and credo,…”[110]–much as Jung found when, as a young person, he tried to have conversations about religion with his father.[111] Dogma proved to be a very effective “defense”[112] against mutual understanding between Jung and clergymen.
Laymen also got Jung’s complaints about theologians. In a letter to Upton Sinclair, Jung found troubling that theologians “are still stuck with the silly question as to whether a metaphysical assertion is true or not, or whether a mythologem refers to a historical fact or not. They don’t see, and they don’t want to see, what the psyche can do.”[113]
Jung was not surprised at the “outbursts of shortsighted wrath”[114] that came his way. But he found the “almost total apathy and indifference of the theologians… more astonishing.”[115] And the result was that he came to feel, by 1958 (six years after Answer to Job appeared), that he was “beneath consideration.”[116]
Conclusion
Was Carl Jung a heretic? I think a proper answer to this question calls to mind the old saw that “what you see depends on where you stand.” How you label Jung depends on where you stand in terms of religious orthodoxy. I know from years of managing the Jungian Center Web site that there are people still very much “contained”[117] in orthodox religion who would quickly label Jung a heretic (the same people who assure me that I am “going to Hell” for my beliefs as a proponent of Jung’s psychology). There are other people who appreciate Jung’s eclecticism and share his commitment to self/Self-knowledge, and would never label him a heretic.
Personally, I share Jung’s frustration at the apathy of the theologians–an apathy still widespread even 60 years after Jung’s death, despite the emptying of more and more pews in so many denominations. Far from being a heretic, I think Jung could be the key to the viability of Christianity as we move into the Age of Aquarius, with its focus on change, individual growth, and the subversion of external authority.[118] But I see little interest in seminaries, divinity schools and academic theology in Jung’s message. The Church seems reluctant to recognize that the putative “heretic” could be its savior!
Bibliography
Bair, Deirdre (2003), Jung: A Biography. New York: Little, Brown & Co.
Edinger, Edward (1984), The Creation of Consciousness. Toronto: Inner City Press.
Hannah, Barbara (1976), Jung: His Life and Work, A Biographical Memoir. New York: G.P. Putnam.
Jung, C.G. (1971), “Psychological Types,” Collected Works, 6. Princeton: Princeton University Press
________ (1969), “Psychology and Religion: West and East,” CW 11. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1953), “Psychology and Alchemy,” CW 12. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1967), “Alchemical Studies,” CW 13. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1963), “Mysterium Coniunctionis,” CW 14. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1966), “The Spirit in Man, Art, and Literature,” CW 15. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1976), ”The Symbolic Life,” CW 18. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1965), Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Vintage Books.
________ (1975), Letters, ed. Gerhard Adler & Aniela Jaffé. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1977), C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters, ed. William McGuire & R.F.C. Hull. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1998), Jung’s Seminar on Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, ed. James Jarrett. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rudolph, Kurt (1984), Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Skolimowski, Henryk (1996), “The Methodology of Participation,” Revisioning Science, ed. Susan Mehrtens. Waterbury VT: The Potlatch Press.
[1] “Letter to the Rev. H.L. Philip,” 26 October 1956; Letters, II, 334-335.
[2] “Letter to the Rev. Morton T. Kelsey,” 27 December 1958); ibid., 471.
[3] Collected Works 18 ¶1513. Hereafter Collected Works will be abbreviated CW.
[4] CW 9ii ¶112, note 74.
[5] “Letter to Pastor Raymond Hostie,” 25 April 1955; Letters, II, 245.
[6] CW 18 ¶1512.
[7] “Letter to the Rev. Kenneth Gordon Lafleur,” 11 June 1960; Letters, II, 566.
[8] On the heresiologists, e.g. Justin, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius of Salamis, Ephraem of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrus, Augustine, John of Damascus, and Theodore bar Konai, see Rudolph (1984), 10-21.
[9] Jung (1965), Appendix V, 378-390. The title is “Seven Sermons to the Dead.”
[10] Ibid., 378. This is how Jung referred to this booklet late in his life.
[11] World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, I, 925. The word comes from the Greek hairein, “to take, seize, choose.”
[12] Skolimowski (1996), 160-169.
[13] CW 9ii, 12, 13, 14 and 16; cf. Jung’s Red Book and Appendix V in his memoir (Jung 1965).
[14] CW 9ii ¶s 85 & 112; CW 11 ¶483 & pp. 357-358; CW 12 ¶469 note 111; CW 14 ¶46.
[15] Ibid. ¶s 103 & 229; CW 6 ¶31.
[16] Ibid. ¶s 105 & 229; CW 13 ¶277; “Letter to Pastor H. Wegmann, 12 December 1945; Letters, I, 401-402.
[17] CW 9ii ¶ 139.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid. ¶226.
[21] Ibid. ¶139; “Letter to Pastor H. Wegmann, 12 December 1945; Letters, I, 401-402.
[22] Ibid.
[23] CW 9ii ¶ 193; CW 14 ¶ 170.
[24] CW 9ii ¶226.
[25] Ibid. ¶229; CW 13 ¶277.
[26] CW 6 ¶31.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] CW 9ii ¶s105, 139, 226, 229; “Letter to Pastor H. Wegmann,” 12 December 1945; Letters, I, 401-402; CW 11 ¶483; CW 13 ¶277; CW 14 ¶14.
[31] “Letter to Pastor H. Wegmann,” 12 December 1945; Letters, I, 401-402.
[32] CW 6 ¶34.
[33] CW 9ii ¶s 139-140; “Letter to Pastor H. Wegmann,” 12 December 1945; Letters, I, 401-402.
[34] CW 6 ¶410.
[35] CW 11 ¶483.
[36] CW 9ii ¶s105 & 233; CW 18 ¶1513; CW 6 ¶s81, 401, 409 & 426; CW 11 ¶160; CW 12 ¶41; CW 14 ¶46.
[37] CW 18 ¶1512.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Hannah (1976), 130.
[41] CW 18 ¶1512.
[42] Bair (2003), 262, 541.
[43] Jung (1977), 443.
[44] Jung read philosophy books as a teenager; Jung (1965), 68.
[45] “Letter to Pater Lucas Menz,” 28 March 1955; Letters, II, 236.
[46] Jung (1965), 204-205.
[47] “Letter to Upton Sinclair,” 3 November 1952; Letters, II, 97.
[48] See Jung (1965), 6-96, for Jung’s own account of his early years.
[49] “Letter to Pastor Walter Bernet,” 13 June 1955; Letters, II, 257.
[50] Ibid.
[51] E.g. his vision of the turd falling on Basel cathedral; Jung (1965), 36-41.
[52] “Letter to Pastor Walter Bernet,” 13 June 1955; Letters, II, 257.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid., 257-258.
[56] Cf. Jung (1998), 231-232, and CW 10 ¶521.
[57] CW 18 ¶1637.
[58] “Letter to Fritz Buri,” 5 May 1952; Letters, II, 64.
[59] “Letter to Pastor Jakob Amstutz,” 23 May 1955; Letters, II, 254-255.
[60] Ibid.
[61] “Letter to Pastor Tanner,” 12 February 1959; Letters, II, 484.
[62] “Letter to Pastor Oscar Nisse,” 2 July 1960; Letters, II, 575.
[63] Jung (1965), 75; cf. Hannah (1976), 51.
[64] “Letter to Rev. H.L. Philip,” 26 October 1956; Letters, II, 335.
[65] “Letter to Rev. Morton T. Kelsey,” 27 December 1958; Letters, II, 471.
[66] “Letter to Dorothee Hoch,” 30 April 1953; Letters, II, 114.
[67] “Letter to Pastor Tanner,” 12 February 1959; Letters, II, 484.
[68] “Letter to Rev. H.L. Philip,” 26 October 1956; Letters, II, 334.
[69] Ibid., 335.
[70] “Letter to Dorothee Hoch,” 3 July 1952; Letters, II, 76.
[71] Eight of Jung’s uncles were ministers; Jung (1965), 42.
[72] CW 15 ¶67. Freud and his school regard religion as an “illusion;” cf. the title of Freud’s book: The Future of an Illusion.
[73] “Letter to Pater Raymond Hostie,” 25 April 1955; Letters, II, 244-245. “To hypostatize” means to attribute substantial existence to what is intangible. In this context, Hostie was accusing Jung of treating ideas as if they were real, material substances–exactly what Jung claimed clerics did!
[74] Ibid.
[75] “Letter to Pastor Walter Bernet,” 13 June 1955; Letters, II, 264.
[76] “Letter to Rev. H.L. Philip,” 26 October 1956; Letters, II, 334.
[77] CW 9ii ¶112 note 74.
[78] “Letter to Rev. Kenneth Gordon Lafleur,” 11 June 1960; Letters, II, 566.
[79] “Letter to Pastor Walter Uhsadel,” 6 February 1952; Letters, II, 39.
[80] Ibid.
[81] Letters, II, 76, 83, 113-114.
[82] Ibid., 155-157.
[83] Ibid., 236.
[84] Ibid., 244-245.
[85] Ibid., 254-256.
[86] Ibid., 257-264.
[87] Ibid., 334-335.
[88] “Letter to Fritz Buri,” 5 May 1952; ibid., 64.
[89] Ibid.; cf. “Letter to Pastor Walter Bernet,” 13 June 1955; ibid., 260.
[90] “Letter to Upton Sinclair,” 3 November 1952; ibid., 97.
[91] “Letter to Pastor Walter Bernet,” 13 June 1955; ibid., 261.
[92] “Letter to Dorothee Hoch,” 23 September 1952; ibid., 83.
[93] “Letter to Pastor Walter Bernet,” 13 June 1955; ibid., 261-262.
[94] Ibid., 264.
[95] “Letter to Rev. H.L. Philip,” 26 October 1956; ibid., 334-335.
[96] Ibid.
[97] “Letter to Father David,” 11 February 1961; ibid., 625.
[98] “Letter to Dorothee Hoch,” 3 July 1952; ibid., 76.
[99] Ibid.
[100] Ibid.
[101] “Letter to Dorothee Hoch,” 30 April 1953; ibid., 113-114.
[102] “Letter to Pastor Walter Bernet,” 13 June 1955; ibid. 261.
[103] Ibid., 264.
[104] Ibid.
[105] “Letter to Rev. H.L. Philip,” 26 October 1956; ibid. 335.
[106] Ibid.
[107] Ibid.
[108] “Letter to Dorothee Hoch,” 30 April 1953; ibid., 113-114.
[109] Ibid.
[110] Ibid.
[111] Jung (1965), 43.
[112] CW 11 ¶81.
[113] “Letter to Upton Sinclair,” 3 November 1952; Letters, II, 97.
[114] “Letter to Rev. Morton T. Kelsey,” 3 May 1958; Letters, II, 434-435.
[115] Ibid.
[116] Ibid.
[117] Edinger (1984), 61.
[118] For more on the Age of Aquarius and its features, see the essay “Jung’s Platonic Month and the Age of Aquarius,” archived on this Web site.
