You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
22 October 1927
Vienna, IX. Berggasse 19
Dear Jones,
You have made it very easy for me to reply to your question. In fact you say it all yourself, and so clearly that there is nothing for me to change or add. I learn that your assessment of Mrs. Riviere is exactly the same as mine. Naturally I criticize her for denying half the facts, while the other—what you call “the phantastic half”1—is alone proclaimed; incidentally, in an excellent way. This makes her viewpoint “heretical,” contains an unfortunate similarity to Jung's, and, like his, is an important step toward making analysis unreal and impersonal. The clarity of her style precludes any misreading of her meaning. Just read the last paragraph of her article again.2 If she has experienced a case which proved to her the importance of the phylogenetic imago, then only a greater number of cases can be useful to me to put the influence of real, personal factors beyond any doubt. It is remarkable that people find it most difficult to recognize overdetermination and the multiplicity of etiological factors. All our apostates always grasped part of the truth and wanted to declare it as the whole truth.
Incidentally, Mrs. Riviere's logic and perspicacity are revealed even in