1 [Published under “Zeitgenössisches” in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, CLV (1934), no. 437, p. 1, and no. 443, p. 1 (March 13 and 14). The article by the Swiss psychiatrist Dr. G. Bally was published under the title “Deutschstämmige Psychotherapie?” in the same periodical, no. 343 (Feb. 27). Cf. infra, p. 543, n. 5.—EDITORS.]

2 [Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie, VI:3 (Dec., 1933), 142ff. The confusion no doubt arose because the General Medical Society for Psychotherapy was dominated by the Germans, who held the main executive positions. Its membership was, however, international, and the congresses were international in character. Upon Kretschmer’s resignation (Apr. 6, 1933), Jung was probably for a short time acting president, by virtue of his position as vice-president. Almost at once, however, with the agreement of his colleagues, he reorganized the society so as to make it formally international. Jung was then elected president of this International General Medical Society for Psychotherapy. The statutes were ratified at a congress at Bad Nauheim, May 10–13, 1934: cf. the Zentralblatt, VII:3 (1934, month not indicated). The society’s headquarters were located in Switzerland. A separate German society, under the presidency of Prof. M. H. Göring, was founded in Berlin on Sept. 15, 1933, as the German section of the International Society (VI:3, pp. 140ff.).—EDITORS.]

3 [In Germany.—EDITORS.]

4 [Actually, a short while before, when Jung stipulated that the analyst must be analysed. The first reference to this occurs in “The Theory of Psychoanalysis” (1913), in Freud and Psychoanalysis, pars. 447–50 (cf. ibid., pp. 252f.). Cf. also “A Contribution to the Study of Psychological Types” (1913; cf. Collected Papers on Analytical Psychology, pp. 297f); “On Psychological Understanding” (1914), in The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease, pars. 419f; Psychological Types (1921 edn., pp. 78ff., 453f.); “A Psychological Theory of Types” (1927; cf. Modern Man in Search of a Soul, pp. 87f.); “Freud and Jung: Contrasts” (1929), in Freud and Psychoanalysis; “Introduction to Kranefeldt’s ‘Secret Ways of the Mind’” (1939), ibid., pars. 747, 757f.—EDITORS.]

5 [When the foregoing “Rejoinder to Dr. Bally” was published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, a prefatory note by the Editor stated: “Dr. Bally, in his article ‘Deutschstämmige Psychotherapie?’, was in our view entitled to take up Dr. Jung’s programme as outlined in the Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie [VI: 3] and to express his astonishment that though Dr. Jung started from the teachings of Freud and quite legitimately departed from them, he did not in his scientific writings support his opposition with the differences between Christian-Germanic and Semitic psychology, but only at this present juncture acknowledges the ‘super psychology of the racial psychologists.’” In the issue of March 15, 1934 (CLV, 457), Jung replied as follows:

[“In the Editor’s prefatory note to my article, it is stated that I started from the teachings of Freud. I did not start from Freud, but from Eugen Bleuler and Pierre Janet, who were my immediate teachers. When I took up the cudgels for Freud in public. I already had a scientific position that was widely known on account of my association experiments, conducted independently of Freud, and the theory of complexes based upon them. My collaboration was qualified by an objection in principle to the sexual theory, and it lasted up to the time when Freud identified in principle his sexual theory with his method.

[“The assertion that I acknowledge racial psychology only at this present juncture is incorrect. In 1927 I wrote: ‘Thus it is a quite unpardonable mistake to accept the conclusions of a Jewish psychology as generally valid. Nobody would dream of taking Chinese or Indian psychology as binding upon ourselves. The cheap accusation of anti-Semitism that has been levelled at me on the ground of this criticism is about as intelligent as accusing me of an anti-Chinese prejudice.’ [“The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious” (Coll. Works, Vol. 7), p. 149, n. 8.] And in June 1918 I wrote: ‘In my opinion this problem does not exist for the Jews. The Jew already had the culture of the ancient world and on top of that has taken over the culture of the nations amongst whom he dwells. He has two cultures, paradoxical as that may sound. He is domesticated to a higher degree than we are, but he is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below. This chthonic quality is found in dangerous concentration in the Germanic peoples. Naturally the Aryan European has not noticed any signs of this for a very long time, but perhaps he is beginning to notice it in the present war; and again, perhaps not. The Jew has too little of this quality—where has he his own earth underfoot? The mystery of the earth is no joke and no paradox.’” (Supra, par. 18.)—EDITORS.]