Reply to Comment By K. Lambert

Dr Lambert, in his Comment, introduces a discussion of Mr E's dream and the analytical process. He also proposes another approach, differing from mine, to the analysis of Mr E's dream, in which he places the transference relationship and the dreamer's objective reality in the foreground. However, I consider there are difficulties in applying the model of analysis proposed by Dr Lambert to a dream such as that of Mr E, where there is a preponderance of archetypal material.

In his Comment Dr Lambert asks for more information about the dreamer's objective reality; but even if in my short paper I could have given such information, it would not have been sufficient to explain either the occurrence of a dream so highly charged with archetypal material, or the extent of the changes in Mr E's personality and in his life.

In the same way that it is difficult to establish a relation between Mr E's dream and the circumstances of his life, so it would also be difficult to apply the method I have used in the analysis of Mr E's dream to dreams in which there is a preponderance of material originating from the personal unconscious. Therefore I believe we have, first of all, to establish a difference between the kinds of dreams and the methods to be used in analysing them.

The first kind consists of dreams which are only ‘nightly fragments of fantasy coming from the subjective and personal sphere’ (JUNG 2, p. 290), and where the meaning is ‘limited to the affairs of everyday’ (Ibid., p. 290). I think the method of analysis proposed by Dr Lambert could be successfully applied to this type of dream.

The other kind are those dreams which, according to Jung, have their origin in deeper levels of the unconscious (JUNG 2, p. 291). These dreams, like that of Mr E, occur mostly in critical phases of life (Ibid., p. 291) and usually have therapeutic and initiatory properties. Jung called them ‘big dreams’. These dreams often precede periods of great transformation in the personality. They repre