An Open Letter to Sonu Shamdasani From Deirdre Bair
Juungian-Alt
Dear Sonu Shamdasani:
I am writing this open letter to you because of your lecture to the
London Confederation of Analytical Psychologists (CAP) on April 22nd.
As you know, it was my honor to inaugurate the series on January 22nd
and Christian Gaillard will conclude it on June 24th. We three were
each asked to speak for 45-50 minutes about our recent books, in my
case the biography of C. G. Jung, after which we were to respond to
questions for 20-30 minutes. You attended my presentation but did not
respond to my greetings when you entered the hall. You chose instead
to snub me and you did not speak to me when you left. I was told by
those in the audience who sat near you that you and your companion,
Maggie Baron, were disruptive throughout my talk with loud, negative
comments.
On April 22nd, you did not present a talk about your book, Jung and
the Making of Modern Psychology. Instead, you dishonored your
invitation to speak about your own work and chose through the
cowardice of stealth and secrecy to attack me and my scholarship. You
told none of the conveners in advance that you intended to dissect my
book, which you did for one hour and forty minutes. I shall quote here
from an email sent to me on April 27th by the chairman of the series,
Martin Stone, who described what you did as a "100 minute attack on
the research basis, standing, and accuracy of your [that is, my]
recent biography of Jung." Martin Stone also wrote that during the
question period, you announced that you had no intention of presenting
your criticisms directly to me because your "critique would be
published by Karnac in book form." Since April 27th, I understand that
Martin Stone has asked you to do two things:
1. to present another lecture, the one CAP paid you to deliver about
your own book. I believe this demonstrates the displeasure and dismay
your lecture caused to the organizers and the audience.
2. to make the full text of every charge you made against my book in
your talk available to me for my evaluation and response.
Martin Stone has informed me that you have refused to agree to the
second request, and that you will not make any of the allegations and
aspersions you cast upon my work available to me for my commentary and
response.
I am a writer who has worked hard for more than three decades to
establish a career that is praised for the thoroughness of its
research, its integrity, and objectivity, I cannot permit you to make
such unfounded allegations against me without demanding that you
provide the specifics of your charges. If you are the genuine scholar
you claim to be and if you have the interests of scholarship in
general at the forefront of your work, you have the moral and ethical
obligation to do so. Not to provide specifics is an act of
intellectual dishonesty, hubris, and cowardice that I cannot allow to
pass unchallenged. Nor can it be the case that material presented in a
public lecture can be regarded as confidential. If you felt able to
say what you said in public, there is no excuse for refusing on any
grounds whatsover to convey your comments to me in a form to which I
can respond.
I understand that although you refuse to make your charges available
to me, you intend to take them directly to print through Karnac Press.
If you do this, I must advise you for the record, that my publishers
and their lawyers will scrutinize whatever you write for possible
legal ramifications.
Besides Martin Stone, who maintained on behalf of CAP a scrupulous,
non-partisan position in this sad matter you created, many other
persons who were in the audience contacted me by email and telephone.
First, I shall summarize their reactions and then I shall respond to
the charges they can remember that you leveled against my book. Their
reactions ranged from "shock," "outrage," "anger and horror" to
"distress" and "dismay." When I pressed for specifics, the
correspondents told me they could not decide the veracity of your list
of my "errors" because they were so taken aback by your ""shrill" and
"vitriolic" presentation that they had difficulty at times in focusing
on what you were saying and could only remember the most egregious
remarks. The talk was not tape recorded, nor did these correspondents,
stunned as they were by your unexpected attack, have the presence of
mind to take detailed notes. Therefore, some of what they have told me
may not be exactly what you said, but as you refuse to make your
remarks available to me, I have no other point of reference and must
respond to you through their communications.
Here is a summation of what they remember: you began your talk by
chastising the audience for having allowed a "con [artist]" to "con"
them into a "fete" for a "worthless" book. You told the audience they
should be "ashamed" of themselves "for being taken in" by me. You
alluded to "hundreds of errors" in my book. Here is a summation of
what they remember of these alleged "errors" and again, it may or many
not be exactly what you said but the gist is certainly there: Some of
the "errors" you cited concerned misspellings of German words. Despite
an excellent copy editor and two full-time proofreaders who were all
fluent in German, it is indeed regrettable that so many misspellings
crept into the book during the production process. Many of my readers
(genuine scholars all) wrote thoughtful, constructive letters pointing
them out to me and my excellent German translator of the German
edition caught the rest. These will all be corrected in the
forthcoming English language paperback, due in October, 2004.
Some of my correspondents remember that you dwelt on another "typo" or
"slip" (my words, not yours) on p. 432, where I referred to the
"International" General Medical Psychotherapy Association. In that
particular clause it is not correct for it did not become
"international" until the "hereafter" clause that follows. This
unfortunate "slip" (again, my word) was pointed out by several
collegial scholars and has since been corrected. It was due to
carelessness, not to the "lack of knowledge" you implied and it is
hardly of enough magnitude to merit your using it to condemn the
entire book, as you did. I will myself call attention here to a very
serious "typo" which many kindly scholars have pointed out and which
members of the CAP audience disagree over whether or not you cited it:
the caption for the photo of the Weimar Congress in the first edition
is incorrectly given as 1912, when it should be 1911. This, too, has
been corrected for the paperback.
To discuss what I consider your most serious allegation, I shall quote
again from Martin Stone's email: "Sonu made remarks about Deirdre
Bair's sources and her probity and trustworthiness." These remarks
apparently concerned the documents and conversations that came to me
from "private sources, private archives." According to various
correspondents, you stated that I had "made them up" or "invented
them." You said that I had made "so many misreadings and misuse of
what is publicly available" that my interpretations of the "private
sources, private archives" could not be trusted. You said that unless
I made the confidential documents available to you, the audience
should disregard the veracity and accuracy of my scholarship because
confidential information can never be regarded as trustworthy. My dear
Sonu Shamdasani, I cannot believe you are so naïve as to think that I
will betray these confidences to satisfy your curiosity, nor can I
believe that you, as a self-proclaimed scholar, would discredit or
call into question the confidential sources of a respected biographer.
May I remind you also of "Deep Throat," who contributed to the
downfall of a government as an honest, off-the record source?
Actually, you are directly responsible for bringing one of my "private
sources, private archives" to me. You contacted this particular person
and, "acting like a thug and a bully" (I quote my source here), you
demanded that this person surrender all relevant family documents to
you because you are the "Intellectual Advisor to the Jung Heirs" (your
term for being in their employ) and as such, have the right to claim
possession of all documents pertaining to C. G. Jung in private hands
for his heirs. This person told you quite firmly that the documents
belonged to that family's archives and not to the Jung heirs. The
person's family then made the decision to let me use these archives
because they knew I would treat them honestly and they feared the
"slanted" version you might present should you gain access to the
materials. I cite this anecdote to show why so many persons who all
knew of your scholarship refused to have anything to do with you.
Perhaps this has contributed to your rage and anger toward my work.
In my four biographies, all of which have been continuously in print
since the first was published in 1978, no major errors of fact have
been found by other scholars (and believe me, there were many who
tried!). This being the case, I must leave it to my readers to decide
for themselves who they wish to believe - you or me - regarding my use
of information in "private sources, private archives."
The next major charge you made, as various correspondents recall,
concerns what I must call your deliberate lie. You said that when I
began my research I asked the Jung heirs to prohibit any other scholar
from consulting any or all documentation about C. G. Jung throughout
the years it would take me to finish my book. This is a complete and
utter falsehood. I have NEVER asked for such status for any of my four
biographies. As a scholar, I recognize and respect the need for full
and open access, not only for my own work but for all other scholars
as well. In fact, Sonu Shamdasani, it was YOU who asked the Jung heirs
to refuse to grant me access to the archives they control and if they
could not do so, you urged them to limit my access as much as
possible. And shortly before my book was published, you convened a
meeting in Zurich of the Jung heirs and their legal and publishing
representatives to ask them to take measures to stop publication of my
book. I understand that everyone present informed you that you had no
grounds for such action and they took none.
In your diatribe against my biography of Jung, you cited a 1978 review
of my biography of Samuel Beckett, written by the late Richard Ellmann
in The New York Review of Books. With mockery in your voice, you
referred frequently to Ellmann's creation of the word "factoid" to
describe my Beckett book (winner of the National Book Award among its
many honors and citations). You did not tell your CAP audience the
context of Ellmann's remark: that as the biographer of Joyce and
Yeats, he expected Beckett to anoint him to write an authorized
biography. Because Beckett cooperated with me instead, Ellmann was
enraged. I have correspondence from other worried scholars to whom
Ellmann wrote even before he read my book that he would "savage Bair"
and would "destroy her." In his review, Ellmann insinuated that the
only reason I was permitted to write the book instead of him was
because the "mere girl" had seduced Samuel Beckett. You neglected to
tell this to your CAP audience.
I am not clear on whether or not you connected the Ellmann review with
the following charge because my correspondents differ, but some insist
that you connected it with how I wrote about the genesis of Jung's
"Seven Sermons." You faulted me for describing the "oppressive
atmosphere" surrounding the scene as being "in the heat of summer." My
sources for this were my personal interviews and the Harvard Countway
interviews with three of Jung's surviving children: Agathe
Niehus-Jung, Gret Baumann-Jung, and Franz Jung. All three remembered
it this way. So, too, did Helene Hoerni-Jung, in information conveyed
to me by her son, Ulrich Hoerni. So, too, did the Barbara Hannah
"private archive" I consulted, and so, too, did Jung's grandchildren
repeat it in interviews with me. You apparently held up a document for
the CAP audience dated "January" and said it proved my account "false"
and "wrong." Perhaps it is, but isn't' it interesting that the entire
Jung family shares such a collective memory? If it isn't true, how did
it come to be? Concerning the document dated "January": Do you have
proof that this is the first and original composition? Did you provide
full documentation to support this claim for the CAP audience? In
summation, I regret that you chose such confrontational tactics
throughout your entire talk, but I especially regret it in this
instance. This was not the place for rancorous hostility but rather,
the place where cooperative scholarly discussion between you and me
might have led us to a definitive solution and conclusion.
To finish up with your deliberately misleading misuse of Ellmann's
review, may I direct your attention to the introduction of his revised
edition of the Joyce biography (Oxford University Press, 1983) in
which he begs his readers to read this version rather than his
original text, for "readers of the first edition will discover that
more pages have been altered than not, by insertions ranging from a
line to a page or more." Joyce scholars who have counted tell me there
are more than 536 textual changes or corrections. This, I am also
told, is par for the course with most biographies. Not so in mine: I
invite readers to consult the various editions of each biography to
see for themselves that this is not true of my writing. Perhaps it
will become true for the Jung biography, and if so, I stand ready to
make changes and to correct errors of fact or event. So far, about
twenty persons have contacted me in the spirit of collegial
scholarship. Where they have pointed out errors, I have eagerly
corrected them; where they have differing opinions, I have managed in
many cases to incorporate them into both text and notes so that both
sides of the story, theirs and mine, are given. Here again, Sonu
Shamdasani, I regret that you have chosen to attack and destroy rather
than to cooperate as one scholar with another.
I must remind you that historical scholarship (of which biography is a
genre) consists of collecting as many facts as can be found. After
that, the historian/writer must weigh these facts carefully to sift
their weight and veracity and then must present the most accurate,
sensitive, and truthful account possible. This is not "artistic
license" as you accused me of writing, but rather, it is a genuine
scholarly effort to sift the evidence in order to convey the "truth"
in every sense of that much- debated concept. Naturally this falls
within the realm of the writer's opinion, a fact you disparage where
it pertains to the work of others but which you insist upon
conveniently forgetting when you employ it within your own writing. In
your arrogance, you insist that only your version of the facts or
events of Jung's life is the correct one. I could not help but think
that your comment about Freud on p. 93 of your book applies equally
well to your conduct of Jungian scholarship: "Freud's failing was that
he could never see beyond his own conception, which he took to be
universal."
I also wish that you had heeded what you wrote on p. 56 when you
quoted Jung on how he thought a book should be reviewed. You quoteJung
as stating that "In many cases, reviewers failed to deal with the
essence of a work, and overcompensated for their lack of competence
through irrelevant and unjust criticism.Individuals who had already
achieved something in the same field do not consider that anyone else
knows as much as they. Consequently, ‘one arms oneself against new
ideas as against the evil enemy and reads each line onlywith the aim
of finding the supposed weak point.' Due to this, one picked up on
trifles such as errors in citations, grammatical errors, etc. without
seriously engaging with the work." --I regret that this is exactly
what you have done with my book.
I regret even more that you dishonored your invitation to address the
CAP audience about your own work and chose instead to attack mine
through stealth and cowardice. For me, the writing of this letter has
been much the same as shadowboxing with an invisible assailant, as I
have only the testimony of concerned members of the Jungian community
who were in your audience to guide me .
To continue with a boxing metaphor, I quote the great Muhammad Ali:
"you can run but you can't hide." Your version of Jung's reality has
so far been based on your privileged status as an employee of the Jung
heirs: when you say you have read manuscripts and letters, others have
been inclined to accept your conclusions because you have had access
to materials that are restricted and therefore unavailable to the rest
of us. It is unfair for you to criticize me as you did in your CAP
presentation because I stated some of the difficulties I encountered
when I asked the Jung heirs for access to certain archives. You stated
that you had never had a single problem of this nature, which as an
employee of the heirs you no doubt escaped. I am delighted for your
good fortune but: your statement of the ease with which you consult
materials constitutes a clear defense of the Jung heirs made by one in
their employ and who seeks to remain in their good graces. Don't you
think you had the moral obligation to declare this to the CAP
audience, and to make this known as well within your writings?
I knew from the beginning of my research that you enjoyed this
privileged status and therefore, I never took what you said or wrote
at face value. I always scrutinized your conclusions and indeed, I
challenged a major one many years ago at the Sebasco Conference in
Maine. You presented your version of the creation of Memories, Dreams,
Reflections which included a strong defense (if not a total
absolution) of the Jung heirs in the "auntification" debate. In the
question period, I stated that, as you and I had both read the same
documents (all of which I used in Chapter 38 and the Epilogue of my
book), I wondered why you chose to ignore relevant information that
contradicted some of your pronouncements. Your reply to me was
"Because I chose to do so. Sit down." I, and many others in that
audience, have never forgotten it.
On the positive side, because you are in the employ of the Jung Heirs
and because you are privy to information that others do not have, you
are in the fortunate position of being able to make a genuine
contribution to the history of psychoanalysis and to Jungian
scholarship. This can only (and here I stress ONLY) happen if you are
willing to write honestly, and then to hold your own writing to the
same exacting standards by which you judge (and unfortunately, mainly
condemn) all others. You can not be permitted to issue a fiat by which
you cavalierly seek to destroy the scholarly reputations of others
without providing full documentation for your allegations. You must
realize that you are merely a rival author to all other scholars. You
are not the be-all and end-all, the ultimate authority. Therefore, you
cannot continue to make claims of absolute certainty unless you
provide the proof. If you do continue to make your claims without
making the proof available for scrutiny, your behavior will indeed be,
in the words of my "private source" that of a "thug and a bully," and
in my words, an act of moral cowardice. It was especially distressing
for me to learn that in the dinner hosted by CAP following your talk,
you raised your glass and invited others to join you in toasting to
"Jung without Bair." This is not the behavior of a scholar.
This will be my only response to you. I will not engage with you
further until or unless you provide me with the full text of what you
said in your CAP presentation. I conclude my open letter to you by
once again apologizing to CAP and to the international Jungian
community on your behalf because I do not believe that you will have
the decency to do so. Because you intend to attack me in print, I must
ask all the Jung websites to post this letter and journals to print
it. I willl also send it to selected individuals. I regret that I must
involve the Jung heirs, but because you claim to be acting on their
behalf, they should be informed of the very real damage your behavior
does to their reputation.
With deep regret, and most sincerely,
Deirdre Bair
Rachelle Moore
19:48:31 -0700 did post or cause to be posted in alt.psychology.jung
<80bf3c62.04061...@posting.google.com>:
>An Open Letter to Sonu Shamdasani From Deirdre Bair
>
>Dear Sonu Shamdasani:
Thank you, juungian-alt, for posting this (also apparently available
in .pdf format at
http://www.jungchicago.org/AnOpenLetter.pdf )
What an interesting read!
That a "committee of heirs" is still (apparently) an enduring
posthumous legal representation of C.G.Jung in Central Europe itself
is interesting. (And, in Dierdre Bair's _Jung_, I was struck by the
subordination of financial interests to the immediacy and intimacy of
patriachical control of family, in general. The general psychological
implications of this, especially in organizational psychology, is
almost tiresomely obvious.)
(Too, Rey of SynchronoCity might be interested in the "Author's Note,"
in that it recounts how a somewhat odd set of coincidences was
material to her decision to write the book.)
My word, it's coming out in paperback in October 2004! Woohoo!
I wish I'd been attending Dr.Shamdasani's talk. It's not often that
one may safely witness a collective power fantasy[1] being acted out
in an inappropriate context. And in such a venue, and by such an
illuminary! Delicious!
-
Rachelle
[1] "Empire."
Phil
IMHO being able to speak anonymously is important. In political,
ideological, or issue laden environments topics can be taboo and persons
speaking about the topic can be quite nastily attacked (sometimes
physically). I think Blair is now fulfilling the role as lighting rod for
those persons who requested they remain anonymous, that is be "private
sources". As far as I'm concerned Shamdasani has a steep uphill battle. So
far Shamdasani's apparent rancorous hostility seems to be proving the
wisdom of those persons who chose to be a private source. Ah well, really
too bad, we'll see how this pans out.
Philip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQCVAwUBQNZPTPT/OznQbif3AQEXzQP9Hn5krvwESXXcnb/YZDnitjoAQwbfrFMj
+YzWcZuU+EMk4Y6b0e+r3B4ZWAYoagfg+UVAvUtkmzkDwwKWTov64GLnXCeUiQ2B
NBiTXo6FEOXRuap0FrnwCnL4/nm65g7Wz+/GhSm5mQ/vSCjM0aKnGcqZpYnbIL0r
OXTzc7erZrY=
=MIae
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
*Hemidactylus*
Psychology_ and liked both books. I was shocked (in disbelief
actually) when I read about the incident between Bair and Shamdasani
and from the tone of Bair's open letter, I can tell she's quite upset,
to say the least.
Maybe Shamdasani will publish something critical of Bair's book in the
future. I dunno. He did publish _Cult Fictions_ in response to Noll,
where he dissects a document that Noll attributed to Jung, but
Shamdasani explored several alternative hypotheses as to the putative
author (of what S. refers to as "Analytical collectivity"). Shamdasani
has a strong reputation of being a Jung scholar, so maybe he sees
faults in Bair's book, though it would probably be better for the tone
of discussion to have been more open and cordial between the two
authors, Bair and Shamdasani.
I suppose we have their books to go by and must evaluate for ourselves
the relative merits.
Phil
On 21 Jun 2004, *Hemidactylus* attempted to push the envelope of
>> physically). I think Bair is now fulfilling the role as lighting rod for
>> those persons who requested they remain anonymous, that is be "private
>> sources". As far as I'm concerned Shamdasani has a steep uphill battle. So
>> far Shamdasani's apparent rancorous hostility seems to be proving the
>> wisdom of those persons who chose to be a private source. Ah well, really
>> too bad, we'll see how this pans out.
>>
>>
>I've read Bair's book and Shamdasani's _Jung and the Making of Modern
>Psychology_ and liked both books. I was shocked (in disbelief
>actually) when I read about the incident between Bair and Shamdasani
>and from the tone of Bair's open letter, I can tell she's quite upset,
>to say the least.
>
>Maybe Shamdasani will publish something critical of Bair's book in the
>future. I dunno. He did publish _Cult Fictions_ in response to Noll,
>where he dissects a document that Noll attributed to Jung, but
>Shamdasani explored several alternative hypotheses as to the putative
>author (of what S. refers to as "Analytical collectivity"). Shamdasani
>has a strong reputation of being a Jung scholar, so maybe he sees
>faults in Bair's book, though it would probably be better for the tone
>of discussion to have been more open and cordial between the two
>authors, Bair and Shamdasani.
>
>I suppose we have their books to go by and must evaluate for ourselves
>the relative merits.
>
I can understand why a scholar would get peeved when seeing a reference
read "asked to remain anonymous". I think Deirdre Bair had wholly
benevolent aims so anonymous sources are a positive contribution, even if
lesser than fully attributed. Shamdasani needs to chill first and then
write a level-headed scholarly critique that we can evaluate without
wearing flame-proof asbestos suits.
Philip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQCVAwUBQNdli/T/OznQbif3AQHCAgP7BIXKVzRVUGAcydyq6EsnP6wmVmOTEX4x
SD512c9/MpKO7tbtBolGt6/19s1ACdynssoBFCNwfezipuFrIo+dKXgxjcAK9fJ8
r5Nrd6iVErK2t6yYJDxqoji/voRrf6/LzAHRFxCbMt3BLs9m6SHlU6F9sObkeYzl
LpdHvmprjho=
=qQ3/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rachelle Moore
Jun 2004 22:51:24 -0000 did post or cause to be posted in
alt.psychology.jung <2004062122512...@nym.alias.net>:
I'm not sure, but I seem to feel it may be be quite deceptive to
assume that Dr.Shamdasani's passion about his concerns reaches the
level of "hostility," though possibly it may of "rancor." I wasn't
there; I don't know. But genius isn't (or rather in the 19th century
wasn't) known for its temperance, and its bitterness and despair upon
encountering itself within wider circumstances is fairly well-known.
>>I've read Bair's book and Shamdasani's _Jung and the Making of Modern
>>Psychology_ and liked both books. I was shocked (in disbelief
>>actually) when I read about the incident between Bair and Shamdasani
>>and from the tone of Bair's open letter, I can tell she's quite upset,
>>to say the least.
>>
>>Maybe Shamdasani will publish something critical of Bair's book in the
>>future. I dunno. He did publish _Cult Fictions_ in response to Noll,
>>where he dissects a document that Noll attributed to Jung, but
>>Shamdasani explored several alternative hypotheses as to the putative
>>author (of what S. refers to as "Analytical collectivity"). Shamdasani
>>has a strong reputation of being a Jung scholar, so maybe he sees
>>faults in Bair's book, though it would probably be better for the tone
>>of discussion to have been more open and cordial between the two
>>authors, Bair and Shamdasani.
>>
>>I suppose we have their books to go by and must evaluate for ourselves
>>the relative merits.
>>
>
>I can understand why a scholar would get peeved when seeing a reference
>read "asked to remain anonymous". I think Deirdre Bair had wholly
>benevolent aims so anonymous sources are a positive contribution, even if
>lesser than fully attributed. Shamdasani needs to chill first and then
>write a level-headed scholarly critique that we can evaluate without
>wearing flame-proof asbestos suits.
That reportorial artifice seems to be a compromise between making
primary historical sources accessible at all and modulating access to
them according to factors in addition to their historical interest
(such as corporate political interests, e.g. of the C.G.Jung family
brand-management committee). (A little jest: sorry. But one may be
reasonably sure that more than one cache of documents of enormous
importance to European and world history lies fallow and perhaps
forgotten in bank safety-boxes, not to mention access-controlled,
weather-tight, vermin-proof, temperature controlled steel storage
buildings, tunnels, and caves, and on the same grounds: protecting the
present "value" of the "family name.")
Dierdre Bair's _Jung_ seems to the first authentically post-Jungian
essay to relativize his life and times within a thoroughly global
perspective, one that can be identified as unequivocally radiating
from the standpoint of "here" and "now."
An insular "Jungian scholarship" was and perhaps remains necessary to
continue to meaningfully convey "the myth of psychoanalysis." But the
personalistic, possessive, and patriarchical haughtiness of
Dr.Shamdasani's tone causes a bit of optimism that elitism itself is
crumbling, or rather self-consciously reforming itself, Jung's
alchemical opus-elixir being collectively efficacious after all...
"Hero" to some he still must be, I'm sure... so sad.
-
Rachelle
Phil
I don't know either which is why I added the adjective "apparent" to the
phrase "rancorous hostility" used by Bair in her original post.
[trim]
Shamdasani sounded more paternalistic and anima posessed than
patriarchical. *LOL*
Philip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQCVAwUBQNec3PT/OznQbif3AQHkwAP+JRnIjfgo0hHkwhCU/Ry0Iwp1ymoGHMPJ
g9o8CIrPxnqMTzedDuaDi0of5qBJE28VU+8CVx1Jsklf4Gg+wPGVFJQLbQdFpvQ/
XNnEz2Awk0ODy/t3X+P50+W607Uzv5746WJiEUi+sGFuE4gy99f+noWU0UEd7+Tj
3x9K6JgkbBw=
=l2Ze
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
richmack
Muhammad Ali didn't say "You can run but you can't hide" - Joe Louis did.
Interesting. :)
Rich Mack
richmack
Willrek
their own shadow-infected animuses. Having recently completed Bair's
JUNG: A BIOGRAPHY, I too was all too frequently annoyed by the
"'Kitty-Kellyish'" private source," "wishes to remain anonymous," and
other vague source notes. I would suggest that both Bair and Moore might
be instructed by reading Shamdasani's new book, JUNG AND THE MAKING OF
MODERN PSYCHOLOGY: THE DREAM OF A SCIENCE. For my intellective investment
I would trust Shamdasani's scholarship totally. His keen proving of Noll
to be null and void in his CULT FICTIONS is superbly wrought and
researched. I was not at the meeting where the 'ruckus' occurred, but it
is likely that I might have agreed with Shamdasani't complaints. And one
more note:
I hope that Bair, Moore, and all intelligent readers would read Anthony
Stevens' commentary on biographical writing in the 1999 edition of his ON
JUNG published by Princeton University Press (as some say in view of their
embarassment over having published Noll's THE JUNG CULT). One quote may
prompt interest: (paperback edition, Pp. 276-277) ". . .it has struck me
that a progression (or perhaps a regression) is discernible in the history
of biographical writing over the last hundred years. Up to the end of the
First World War biographies tended to focus on their subjects' public
life. Then, between the wars, the focus shifted from the public to the
private life. In our own more salacious and intrusive times, the primary
concern has become centered on the secret life, prying into those aspects
which, during their lifetime, and after their deaths, the subjects and
their families, would rather have kept discreetly to themselves. It is as
if biographic interest has moved from the persona to the shadow. . .
Anyone who achieves eminence is now vulnerable to this peculiarly modern
form of investigative prurience." Peace!
Rachelle Moore
Oct 2004 16:13:02 -0400 did post or cause to be posted in
alt.psychology.jung
<d38a0a603132cad2...@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com>:
>Methinks both Deirdre Bair and Rachelle Moore need to gain insight into
>their own shadow-infected animuses. Having recently completed Bair's
>JUNG: A BIOGRAPHY, I too was all too frequently annoyed by the
>"'Kitty-Kellyish'" private source," "wishes to remain anonymous," and
>other vague source notes. I would suggest that both Bair and Moore might
>be instructed by reading Shamdasani's new book, JUNG AND THE MAKING OF
>MODERN PSYCHOLOGY: THE DREAM OF A SCIENCE.
Does it incorporate his own notes about his personalistic, wildly
off-topic, totally unexpected attack on Deirdre Bair's scholarship?
(I imagine him as wild-eyed, too: he was raving, his hair dissheveled,
sweating profusely, waving his hands and grasping the podium as if for
support, sweating profusely, sometimes descending into incoherance, in
my imagination... it almost seemed as if he were having a seizure of
some sort.)
>...For my intellective investment
>I would trust Shamdasani's scholarship totally.
Yes, Shamdasani's work is a proven value-leader in a tiny
speciality-publishing market-niche. For some, there's no better
intellective investment, one feels sure.
>...His keen proving of Noll
>to be null and void in his CULT FICTIONS is superbly wrought and
>researched.
Putting _Aryan Christ_ in its place didn't itself require any
keenness, in my opinion: merely courage. And "superb research" in
this connection merely means access to sources not necessarily
available to other scholars.
I haven't yet seriously analyzed what Shamdasani believes is
"scholarship." To judge by his dismissal of the work of another
writer competing for book sales in the same market, and the uncritical
acceptance of his atrocious behavior by his fans, I would expect to
have to work hard to discern and describe its merit. It's not obvious
in modern terms: how "superbly" others might use his special access to
Jung family sources can't be known.
>...I was not at the meeting where the 'ruckus' occurred, but it
>is likely that I might have agreed with Shamdasani't complaints.
And with their presentation in that venue, at that moment, instead of
address of the topic he had undertaken to talk about? And with his
(some might say sullen) refusal to amplify his concerns except under
flag of publication? (Sheesh: I'm just gonna *run* right out and
*buy* a copy.)
>And one
>more note:
>I hope that Bair, Moore, and all intelligent readers would read Anthony
>Stevens' commentary on biographical writing in the 1999 edition of his ON
>JUNG published by Princeton University Press (as some say in view of their
>embarassment over having published Noll's THE JUNG CULT). One quote may
>prompt interest: (paperback edition, Pp. 276-277) ". . .it has struck me
>that a progression (or perhaps a regression) is discernible in the history
>of biographical writing over the last hundred years. Up to the end of the
>First World War biographies tended to focus on their subjects' public
>life. Then, between the wars, the focus shifted from the public to the
>private life. In our own more salacious and intrusive times, the primary
>concern has become centered on the secret life, prying into those aspects
>which, during their lifetime, and after their deaths, the subjects and
>their families, would rather have kept discreetly to themselves. It is as
>if biographic interest has moved from the persona to the shadow. . .
>Anyone who achieves eminence is now vulnerable to this peculiarly modern
>form of investigative prurience." Peace!
Ooo, we all must fear Shadow: scary, scary *other*, not part of
persona at *all* (according to some accounts).
The grounds of "achievement" itself seem less and less shielded from
public scrutiny by mere "eminence." Perhaps persona itself, as a
segment of the collective unconscious, is inexorably moving, as the
centuries pass... naah, the "archetypes" are "eternal."
Deirdre Bair has brought C.G.Jung into the 21st century. "Eminence"
in the 19th century was relevant to a tiny proportion of people
compared to now. ...Jungian scholarship has been mired in an obsolete
elitism that Sonu Shamdasani for all his accomplishments and
experience apparently doesn't care to understand, or really doesn't
comprehend.
He will be shown what's important for him to understand, I believe, if
and as his publisher becomes responsible in part for money damages.
That sort of pig-headedness apparently requires such extremes.
-
Rachelle Moore
fig...@gmail.com
M Winther
news:587aa7cb-d3d9-49f9...@googlegroups.com...
the whole, a good and decent man (who did *not* have Nazi leanings and
never thought of himself as an "Aryan Christ"). Jung was apparently
enrolled as an agent for the Allied forces during the war. Thus, she
dispells the major misgivings about Jung's character. He might have been
awkward and socially clumsy on occasions, as we all are. So I never
understood why the book gave rise to such animosity. As I understand
it, Shamdasani never published his critique of Bair's biography(?).
M. Winther
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
devi...@yahoo.com
An "Open Letter" filled with sound and fury will not erase these lapses in scholarship.
Many of these errors 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.
marsha...@aol.com
It is hard to believe such pettiness exists in the biographical "community." I would assess your letter as quite restrained under the circumstances. There is such cowardice in the man's behavior. The sneak attack tactics are extraordinary and primarily self-serving.
It reminds me of what I have witnessed when jealousies and vengeance combine in academia and in some ghastly ARTS administrations (NYCO in particular---pure ego, pig-headedness and catastrophe!!! The destruction of a great institution in egocentric hands)
The irony is that in this Jung vs. Jung battle there is plenty of room for both views and no need to attack so almost comically and obsessively. Aagin this is light years beyond mere "setting facts straight." Having you both discuss publicly and agree to disagree (CIVILY??? Oh well that ship is probably long-since sailed) would have been so much wiser on his part.
Your letter is quite a tour de force I must say! Brava! This seems more vendetta than just a "disagreement" or urge to "correct." Hope to discover that the end result was/is mostly disappearance and deserved failure of ugliness.
UNPROFESSIONAL and FANATICAL. Self-justified extreme ugliness and self-indulgence are NEVER excusable....NO ONE is that great!!! (And in my travels I have met and worked with and learned from the best! None of them ever rose to this level of sheer viciousness FOR ANY REASON) Shame on this horrid individual!!! There is NO EXCUSE!!! Best to you,
Marshall
lewisla...@gmail.com
Ms. Bair's "Open Letter" while filled with sound and fury cannot disguise this fact.
Here are some examples that Sonu Shamdasani has documented:
[Examples of Deirdre Bair's errors in her "Jung: A Biography" as cited in Footnotes provided by Sonu Shamdasani in "Jung Stripped Bare-By his Biographers Even."]