On July 30, 1917, Fanny Bowditch Katz, who had analysis both with Jung and Moltzer, wrote notes of her discussion with Moltzer in which she spoke candidly of how Moltzer saw her relationship with Jung and their struggle, and how she had been to visit him in Chateau d’Oex during this period:
Fanny Bowditch Katz
Of this hour it’s hard to write-I had perfect rapport and stayed 134 hours with her- at the end of the time I felt lifted into another world and almost as if I had been in a divine presence. She spoke wonderfully, as if inspired, and I saw more clearly than ever before what she is working for- what her struggle with Dr. Jung means.
How wonderfully she spoke of the work she felt she and Dr. J. were to do together, for which they are only the instruments.
Small atoms in the great universe- of our duty to life – of the subjection of self for the benefit of all- all these feelings are coming to me now as never before.
She spoke of the great struggle going on now in the world, the great agony, which is the collective expression of the individual struggle . . .
She spoke of Isis – whose son took her crown from her head and threw it on the ground- after which a new crown appeared on her head, a cow with the sun and moon between her horns- is this not what is happening to her through Dr. Jung’s treatment …. The next day we talked for almost an hour in the dining room.
She in her pink kimono perched on the table. Shall I ever forget it? She spoke of going to Chateau d’Oex to tell Dr. J. of his injustice to her- on one side he is so fine and on the other almost a charlatan playing to the gallery. / His attitude toward their differences is the attitude of the intellectual man- the historical man ….
Then she said- and oh how she said it-with that wonderful fat away look in her eyes, that she felt that somewhere way down deep there must be an affinity between her and me and that it is meant that I should do for R. what she is doing for Dr. J .! . ..
she evidently feels that R. has a great value which I can bring out.- and she spoke of her overcoming the personal in order to do this- she certainly has with Dr. Jung! ~The Black Books, Vol. I, Page 63-64
By early 1918, the difficulties between Moltzer and Jung had intensified.
On April 14, 1918, Jung wrote to Josef Lang regarding a letter he had received from Moltzer in which she had accused him of trying to destroy her relationship with Lang in a “thirst for revenge.”
Jung asked Lang to indicate to Moltzer that he had not analyzed Lang’s relation to her and didn’t know or care about it.
He said that he had no desire for revenge, and that Moltzer simply couldn’t accept what he said. He told Lang that he regretted that someone as valuable as Moltzer had such idiotic fantasies and had been projecting rubbish onto him.
He said he had broken off relations with her months ago.
Moltzer, Jung told Lang, claimed that Jung had an unresolved transference to her.
This indicated to Jung that she was paranoid.
He said that she also maintained that he couldn’t recognize her independence. Jung considered that the problem was that she held a “deeply degrading” conception of human nature, and always imputed the basest motive-that was why he had drawn back from her.
Despite everything, she still wanted his friendship.
While Moltzer claimed that Jung was projecting onto her, Jung maintained that the opposite was the case: he had left her in peace, while she bombarded him with insults.
Soon after, Moltzer resigned from the Club.
This caused consternation and lengthy debate at a meeting on June 1.
On receiving her letter of resignation, Emma Jung, the Club’s president, had tried to persuade her to remain, to no avail. So had Adolf Keller.
Emma Jung noted that Moltzer had been critical of the Club for some six to eight weeks, an antipathy that actually dated from the previous summer.
Moltzer’s letter criticized the intellectualism of the Club, and the fact that it had been taken over by conflict over the question of types.
While regretting her departure, Emma Jung did not feel that the reasons Moltzer offered for leaving were the real ones.
Martha Sigg suggested that Moltzer had been influenced by her patients against the Club, which Jung thought was probable.
Some members thought that the reason for her withdrawal was the deficiency of her collective function.
Sarah Barker, one of her analysands, suggested that the fact that Moltzer found the Club “so unanalytical that she could no longer give it her sanction and support” was a serious matter.
She argued that it was a mistake to believe, as had been asserted, that “her attitude had been influenced by countless resistances brought about by her patients.”
Barker noted that from the outset, Moltzer had maintained that “the Club was not founded or conducted in accordance with analytical principles.”
In a letter of August l , 1918, Moltzer wrote to Bowditch Katz:
Yes, I resigned from the Club. I could not live any longer in that atmosphere.
I am glad I did.
I think, that in time, when the Club really shall become something, the Club shall be thankful I did.
My resignation has its silent effects.
Silent, for it seems that it belongs to my path, that I openly don’t get the recognition or the appreciation for what I do for the development of the whole analytic movement.
I always work in the dark and alone.
This is my fate and must be expected.
On October 19, Jung informed Lang that he had fired Moltzer as his assistant and broken off all connection with her.
She had accused him of exploiting her and not recognizing her independence.
On his side, he felt that she was not capable of treating him as someone of equal standing and instead always regarded him as a little boy.
He had evidently followed the advice of his soul regarding the white one Jung’s break with Moltzer was a significant turning point.
He later recalled to Aniela Jaffe: “I can say the air cleared when I showed the door to the Dutch woman who wanted to suggest to me that what I was making was art, and secondly when I started to understand the mandala drawings.” ~The Black Books, Vol. I, Page 64 -66