Here at last is the translation of passages in the “Protocols” that did not go into “Memories”

The Original Protocols for Memories, Dreams, Reflections

[This letter is from a draft of Aniela Jaffe’s “Protocols” It may not be perfectly accurate.]

Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey 08540 (tel. 609-452-4900)

President, Harold w. McCraw, jr. Trustees, Cyril e. Black, john Tyler Bonner,

WILLIAM C. BOWEN, ROBERT C. DARNTON, ALFRED C. FISCHER, ROBERT G. GILPIN, ALVIN B. KERNAN, AARON LEMONICK, RICARDO A. MESTRES, JOHN F. PECKHAM, CHARLES SCRIBNER, ARTHUR H. THORNHILL, JR., THOMAS H. WRIGHT

10 March 1980

Mr. Paul Mellon 1729 H Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Paul and Jack,

Mr. John D. Barrett Belle Haven

Greenwich, Conn. 06830

Here at last is the translation of passages in the “Protocols” that did not go into MEMORIES DREAMS REFLECTIONS

The Protocols: Jung’s dictation taken down in shorthand and transcribed by Aniela Jaffe.

He spoke mostly in German; occasionally lapsed into French or English.

Ximena knew that the passages I sent her were from the Protocols, which she had read a great deal of, at the time (around 1957) that Kurt Wolff sent a copy to Cary Baynes to read and comment on.

But she was not informed of the history of the copy that happens to be in Princeton.

I asked her to keep its existence in confidence.

I’ll now arrange to deposit the material in the Library of Congress.

I’ll take it along personally the next time I go to Washington, probably in April.

There are, of course, other passages, of less personal interest than these, that did not go into MDR, or went in somewhat altered:

for example, Jung’s account of his time in Paris and London in 1904; a little more on his visits to Taos in 1925 and to Africa in 1926; the little known cruise in the eastern Mediterranean and up the Nile to Luxor in 1933; the visits to the States in 1936 and 1937 (but no reference to meeting Mary and Paul-— there are few references to persons throughout, other than Wilhelm, Zimmer, “T.W.,” and such) ; the trip to India in 1938.

In some future year, I hope that the Protocols can be published in full.

They are pure Jung, unlike the heavily reworked MDR and the Seminars.

With best wishes,

Yours ever,

William McGuire ~Rough Draft of “Protocols,” Page 195

WMcG:s

H.S. Bailey, Jr.,

PUBLISHERS OF BOLLINCEN SERIES

Prof. Dr. G. G. JUNG

KÜSNACHT-ZÜRICH

SEESTRASSE 228

Mr. R.F.C. Hull, Clooney Heg, Swanage. Dorset.

Dear Mr. Hull,

Sorry for the delay of my answer to your letter of December 23rd. I hope I did not inconvenience you by my procrastination.

Typescript p.3. Don’t worry.

One of my little jokes about those cases where faith does not even involve a sacrificium intellectus (because there is none!). Cut it out please!

p.6. The meaning of the sentence is: Plenty of people in the West treat the Psyche or Thought as if it didn’t exist.

Yet by that “non-existent thought” they produce even an atom bomb which, when it explodes, seems to represent a rather disconcerting fact.

Or take our superstitious belief in a so-called “absolute objectivity”, which always tries to forget the observer.

p.8. I have written my commentary in the early Spring 1939.

The Nidâna-Samyutta represents Part 12 of the Saqiyutta-yikâya, which is a collection of Samyutta or treatises and forms part of the Pali-Canon.

p.9. What will happen to Eastern Man, when he looses sight of his highest goods?

He will imitate the occident and then what?

Well, there is the Japanese war and now there is Communism.

What will happen to the masses of India, when they can read newspapers ? What will become of the Far East indeed?

p.34. The “knower” of the Upanishads is something else than the Ego.

He is the transcendental Self (particularly so with YäjñavalkyaI).

Highest consciousness is generally believed to be reached in dreamless sleep where the Ego is precisely nonexistent.

It is non-existent inasmuch as it is supplanted by the one and all-pervading Self, that has none beside him.

According to our standpoint nobody can be conscious in nothingness.

In his advaita-condition (“without a second”) the Self must be thoroughly unconscious for lack of an object from which to distinguish itself.

The Ego could not be conscious of itself if it did not differ from a non-ego.

I don’t see how you get to an “irreducible” ego.

There is nothing in my text suggesting such a thing.

You seem to identify ego and Self, which is only possible in philosophy, where you are nowhere checked by facts.

In psychology, however, the ego represents consciousness and its contents, whereas the Self represents both, the conscious and the unconscious mind, i.e. the totality of the psyche. Brhadaranyaka-Upanishad III,4 and IV,3, 30 sq. etc. speaks of the Self, not of the ego (ahamkara = egomaker) and thus confirms my statement.

In my typescript p.34 I mention LÉVY-BRUHL’s term “participation mystique” I should like you to add the following footnote :

“Recently this concept as well as that of “état prélogique” has been severely criticized by ethnologists and moreover LEVY-BRUHL himself began fro doubt their validity in the last years of nis life.

First he cancelled the adjective “mystique” growing afraid of the term’s bad reputation in intellectual circles.

It is to be regretted that the author has made such a concession to rationalistic superstition, since “mystique” is just the right word to characterize the peculiar quality of “unconscious identity.”

There is always something numinous about it. “Unconscious identity” is a well-known psychological and psychopathological phenomenon (identity with persons, things, functions, roles, positions, creeds etc.), a trifle more characteristic for the primitive than for the cultural mind.

LÉVY-BRUHL unfortunately having no psychological knowledge wasn’t aware of this fact, as his opponents ignore it.”

Thank you very much for MISCH’s “Dawn of Philosophy”.

He does not distinguish between ego and Self, because he is no psychologist, although he ought to see, that the ego could not possibly say of itself, that it is a “mass of knowledge”, since it is rather a “mass of ignorance.”

But the Self on the other hand is indeed a treasure house of knowing, having the “absolute knowledge” of the unconscious at its disposition.

Misch’s book, although a beautiful and comprehensive work, is a bit behind the time, since one cannot deal properly with Eastern Philosophy without some psychological knowledge – as a physicist in our days cannot disregard microphysics any longer.

Dont’f forget: I am definitely no philosopher and my concepts are accordingly empirical and not speculative.

For the definition of ego and Self, see the Definitions in “Psychological Types.”

Yours sincerely

C.G. Jung ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 133-134

Prof. Dr. C. G. JUNG

KÜSNACHT-ZÜRICH SEESTRASSE 228 March 1st 1949.

Mr. R.F.C. Hull, Clooney Beg, Swanage.

Dorset.

Dear Mr. Hull,

Thank you very much fop kindly informing me of the imminent completion of “Psychology and Alchemy.”

I’m looking forward to read the new text.

I was seeking the original English version of John Pondage’s letter, but I was not successful.

So I had to quote from the German translation, but I should say that in the British Museum Library there should be a complete set of Pordage’s writings.

I thank you quite particularly for sending me the book about the Unicorn.

It will be a most appreciated addition to my library.

Unfortunately I was not aware of its existence which I regret very much.

It would have helped a lot when I wrote about the. symbol of the Unicorn.

The plates are indeed beautiful.

I fully approve if you want to substitute Plate XX for Abb.263 on page 628.

As to the other substitute you mention I’d like to point out that “Psychology and Alchemy” more or less replaces “The Integration of the Personality” i.e. contains mostly the same papers, so it makes no sense to have the latter one republished and so I don’t think it is necessary to replace Abb.242 by Pl. II.

Thank you again for your kind gift.

Yours sincerely,

C.G. Jung ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 132

219 Washington Road / Princeton NJ 05540 / 5 Dec ¡994

Dear Dr Kranz.,

I’ve been in touch with Mrs. R. F. C. Hull by phone regarding the 36 letters from Jung to her husband, the originals of which she had entrusted to me.

I enclose a Xerox copy of them.

I penciled numbers in the upper right comer of each.

I believe these are all of such letters that Mrs Hull has.

The importance of the letters, obviously, is that they give a vivid picture of the working (and eventually personal) relationship between author and translator; they also deal with various problems that arose in translating both the Collected Works and the autobiography, Memories Dreams Reflections.

In the translation of which Hull became importantly involved, though his name doesn’t appear on the title-page. (See my book Bollingen: An Adventure, p. 130.)

The letters date from 1949, when Hull was translating the first volume to be published in the Collected Works to January 1961,

a few months before Jung’s death.

Please keep this explanatory note with the documents which should go to the C.G. Jung Collection.

M.W. Kranz ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 131

Dear Hull 6 January 1961

I am sorry to be so late in sending you back your questions. I have marked with a red sign your translations, with which I fully agree.

I cannot remember how those corrections proposed by the ATLANTIC MONTHLY came to pass.

There is particularly one, which I certainly would or should have protested against.

May-be that the thing was done when I was in a particularly bad state, when I could not bother.

At all events I prefer your translation which is very much more accurate.

I cannot decide this very complicated question of a further reset or a new edition, but if Bollingen should prefer your translation I am all for it.

But I don’t know about the legal aspect of this matter.

I must leave that entirely to the editors.

In November I have been down to Lugano, but I felt generally so miserable that I could not make up my mind to pay a call on you.

I hear you have a good deal of bad weather down there. We have it here the so-now, and we have had a good deal of legalistic squabble about so-called biography, which seems to have come to an end recently.

Hoping you are all right I remain yours cordially

C.G. Jung ~Protocols, Page 170

COMMENT BY WILLIAM McGuire

The 109 carbon-copy onionskin pages in this folder are an early draft of the first three chapters of Memories, Dreams, Reflections by C. G. Jung., recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffe (New York: Pantheon Books, 1962, and London: Collins and Routledge & Kegan Paul, 196.3), translated from the German by Richard and Clara Winston.

The genesis of the book is recounted in Aniela Jaffe’s introduction.

In brief, in 1956 Kurt Wolff (publisher of Pantheon Books) proposed to Jung that his biography be written, and Mrs. Jaffé, then Jung’s secretary and also a writer and analyst, was chosen as biographer.

The narrative would take the form of an autobiography, though written by Jaffé.

She conducted interviews with Jung and recorded the protocols (i.e., her account of what Jung replied to her questions) in shorthand, which she then transcribed as a basis for her text..

Later, Jung decided to write an account of his childhood and youth himself, thus creating what became the first three chapters.

In Jaffe’s words, ‘‘Jung read through the [final] manuscript…. and approved it.

Occasionally he corrected passages or added new material. In turn, I have used the records of our conversations to supplement the chapters he wrote himself..

The original German ms. (whose whereabouts I don’t know) may contain some such revisions, prior to those in the present draft. It is evident that Jung went through the English translation of these chapters as well as the original German.

Jung and the publishers originally intended the work to be translated by R. F.C. Hull, who was translating the Collected Works under the aegis of the Bollingen Foundation and Routledge & Kegan Paul.

It is my recollection that this decision was changed because Jung wanted the autobiography separated from his “scientific” writings, and also (as Mrs. Hull recalls) because of the Foundation’s desire that Hull give priority to completing the translation of the Collected Works.

Lighten the decision probably can be found in the Bollingen Foundation papers at the MS. Division of the Library.

Hull had meanwhile completed translating the first three chapters, in consultation with Jung and Jaffé.

At that time he was living in Ascona, in southern Switzerland; in 1961, shortly before Jung’s death, Hull he moved with his family to Mallorca.

Kurt Wolff negotiated with the British publisher Collins to publish jointly with Pantheon.

After Hull was obliged to give up the translation, the two publishers commissioned Richard and Clara Winston to take over.

Subsequently, Collins accepted Routledge & Kegan Paul as co-publishers. ~Protocols (Rough Draft,) Page 128

Inasmuch as that firm’s contract with Jung gave it the right to publish anything from Jung’s pen.

Later, presumably at the wish of Jaffé, Hull was brought back in as an adviser on problems in the Winston’s translation, because of his comprehensive knowledge of lung’s style and work.

The Winston’s would not accept Hull’s being credited as joint translator, even though the first three chapters were his work.

Thus Hull’s important role came to public attention only in Jaffe’s acknowledgment to him at the end of her introduction as one of “many persons [who] have helped me … by stimulating suggestions and criticism” and (speaking expressly of Hull) “who gave me advice and help with unflagging patience.”

(The same acknowledgment is in the Swiss edition by Rascher Verlag, Zurich.)

Mrs. Hull and I agree that the onionskin carbon copy is of Hull’s typescript, from the electric typewriter he used for all his translations and correspondence.

If the hand of either of the Winston’s appears, I can’t recognize it.

Krishna Winston, their daughter, probably could, if she examined the relatively few annotations that I have not identified.

The majority are definitely by Jung, Jaffé, or Hull, and I have attempted to identify them by circled letters, written adjacent in blue pencil: J = Jung, A = Jaffé, H = Hull, ? = unknown.

(After I was well into my work I found that Hull sometimes uses blue pencil for a comment or query, but the difference should be evident.)

My partial comparison with the published text suggests that the present draft, with most of its alterations, corresponds closely to what was published. Another student of Jung may find it useful to undertake a line-for-line comparison.

More significant additions and revisions in Jung’s hand (and some of Hull’s apparent remarks to him) are on pp. 1, 2, 3, 10a, 23, 34, 41, 43, 47, 65, 69, 79, Ô0, 61, 97, 96, 99, 102, 107, and 109. It’s possible that some of Jaffe’s revisions were made on Jung’s behalf.

McG. 15 July 1994 ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 128-129

Dear Hull,

Thank you very much for your refreshing answer to Mr Ph. Toynbee.

You have done it very well.

No reason to believe you could not rectify such clumsy misunderstandings.

I am obliged to you for your courageous answer.

There are damned few who have the grits to stand up for me.

The latest comment about “Synchronicity” is that it cannot be accepted because it shakes the security of our scientific foundations as if this were not exactly the goal I am aiming at and as if the merely statistical nature of causality had never been mentioned before.

It is true however that it is the asses that make public opinion.

50 years of this stuff could have subdued me easily if I had not made the unshakeable experience that my truth was good enough for myself and that I could live with it.

If you like Camembert, you just like it, although the whole world would shout at you that it is very bad.

Sooner or later, somebody else will also discover that nothing is quite secure, not even the SS.

Trinitas Space, Time, and Causality.

I am sorry that I did not see you again.

Only once I saw you Hitting by on your fiery chariot.

I am planning to come down to Ascona once more towards the end of February for about a fortnight.

Many thanks,

Yours cordially

C.G. Jung, Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 162

May 2, 1955

Prof. Dr. G. G JUNG

Mr. R.F.C. Hull Casa Sulzer A

Ascona

Dear Hull,

Here is the list of the articles you want:

Interview on “Seelenarzt und Gottesglaube, Weltwoche, Apr. l, 1955 ” ” “Men, Women and God”, Daily Mail, April 25, 26 so (to be continued)

A letter to Mr. Upton Sinclair, “New Republic”, Febr. 21, 1955

A further letter to Mr. Upton Sinclair will be published in the “New Republic” before long (The New Republic, 230 W. 41 S. New York 36)

As I have a spare copy of the above Weltwoche number, I am sending it to you by this same mail, as well as a copy of a French periodical containing a further interview made last autumn.

I am also able to lend you my own copy of Eden’s translation of “Studies in Word-Association”; it is my only copy.

I I am keeping the manuscripts of all my writings, but the term “manuscript” is not clearly defined, inasmuch as I am usually writing a rough draft as the first thing; then that draft will be copied by machine, and then I am working over the copy until the manuscript reaches its definite stage mature for printing.

Now do you want the first hand-written draft, or do you want the first copy ready for printing?

Please let me know.

As a matter of fact, I possess the first drafts of almost anything I have written, but usually I don’t let them out of my hands.

I have a busy time just now, and I am looking ahead for further vacations.

Sincerely yours

C.G. Jung ~Protocols (A Rough Draft), Page 163

April 11th 1956

R.P.C. Hull, Esq. Casa Sulzer Ascona

Dear Mr. Hull, there is a MS of about 65 pages, not yet finished representing a psychological account of the present world- situation, which I had to write for the representative of a certain American foundation.

The aim of my letter is to ask you whether you are in a position to translate this paper as soon as possible.

Please tell me what you think about it.

It is something that will appear in my collected works anyhow.

I want to send it as soon as possible to this American address.

As the essay is not finished yet, it will take a while, until I can send you a German copy.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience whether you can do it or not.

I am hoping to get the whole thing finished within the next three weeks.

Hoping you are all in good health, I remain with my best regards to you and Mrs. Hull.

yours cordially,

C.G. Jung ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 164

15 August 1958

Herr R.C. Hull Casa Andreina Vie Patrizia ASCONA

Dear Hull,

the question of “representations ” and “idea” with reference to the German “Vorstellung” rand “Idee” is indeed a serious trouble. Roughly sneaking: what the English call an “idea” would be in German “Vorstellung”.

But the English word “representation” contains nothing that could be expressed by “Idee”.

The latter term in German has retained its original meaning of a transcendental eidos, respectively of eidolon, when it becomes manifest.

In most cases, where I use the word “Vorstellung” the English “idea” would be the equivalent.

Where I speak of “Idee”, it always mean something similar to Kant and Plato.

At all events, when I speak of “Vorstellung” J mean about the contrary of what the German “Idee” is.

It might be therefore advisable to explain by a special note that the German “Idee” is meant in the Platonic or Kantian way and not in its colloquial English meaning.

Thus the term “representation” would become somewhat redundant and could be more or less avoided.

It is more important to produce a readable and easily understandable English text than to complicate it by too much philological or philosophical finesses.

The German word “Idee” often can be rendered by “imago”, if the latter is understood or defined as a thought-form, which, as an archetypal “Idee”, can be easily inherited, although the perceptible archetypic image is not identical with the inherited thought-form, which allows an indefinite number of empirical expressions.

I must leave it to your tact and judgment to create an equivalent rendering of the intention of my German text.

Sincerely yours

C.G. Jung ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 165

November 3rd 1958

R.C. Hull, Esq. Casa Andreina Via Patrizia ASCONA

Dear Hull, thank you for sending me Dr. Borowik’s letters. It is not quite easy to answer your question, As different individuals have a very different approach to the world and its problems, it is almost impossible to give a suitable advice to people, one does not know personally. Some say that the “Secret of the Golden Flower” has been the most easy and at the same time the most enlightening book, that led them to the understanding of my psychology. Others say the same of the “Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious” or my short introduction into the “Psychology of the Unconscious”, or “Psychology and Religion.” A few choose the “Psychological Types”. Theologically minded people think the most of “AION”.

As I have been often in the situation of having to give advice to people I don’t know personally, I give them just about this list. Of course one might make a list of smaller articles instead of the books, so for instance the “Psychological Types” one could recommend my short article about the types, but the trouble in this case is, that people have to acquire the big volumes in which this articles are contained.

One also could recommend the collection of Dr. Violet de Laszlo: “Psyche and Symbol” (A selection from the Writings of C.G. Jung, Doubleday & Co. Anchor-Volume).

I would recommend to Dr. Borowik also Dr. Harding’s book about Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” with the title “Journey into Self” (Longmans, Green and Co., New York), which I consider to be one of the best representations of the average procedure, characteristic of a practical approach to self-cognition.

Hoping to see you again in February 1959,

sincerely yours

C.G. Jung ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 167

December 27th1958

Dear Hull,

your suggestion to translate the subtitle of the “Mysterium Coniunctionis” as “An Inquiry into the Fission and Fusion of Psychic Opposites in Alchemy” is indeed very clever.

It is audacious and in a way profoundly right.

This idea is so creative, that I cannot assume responsibility for it.

So I should make the further suggestion, that in a translator’s note you explain your translation of my bland terminology of “Trennung und Zusammensetzung”.

I congratulate you to this very successful interpretation of my understatement.

I myself am deeply convinced of the basic analogy between physical and psychological discoveries.

I have often discussed this problem with the late Prof. Pauli, who was also fascinated by what he called the mirror-reflection, causing the existence of two worlds, which are really united in the speculum, the mirror, that is lying in the middle.

As Prof. Fierz in his speech at Pauli’s funeral has mentioned: speculation comes from speculum.

Thus “speculation”, a very typical form of consciousness, becomes the real center of the world, the basis of the Unus Mundus.

On this ground your translation is warrantable.

It has my full approval under the condition, that you write a translator’s preface, in which you defend your interpretative translation.

The idea of a fourth part of the “Mysterium Coniunctionis” is not at all a bad- one, but I am afraid, it has been already anticipated by the bulk of Freudian Psychology.

He was fascinated by the dark side of Man, i.e., by all those things, that make the contents of the “Mysterium Iniquitatis”, the mystery of the shadow.

Without his emphasis oil the dark side of Man and the chaos of his chthonic desires, I could not have found an access to the “Mysterium Coniunctionis”.

The “Mysterium Iniquitatis” is represented in modern literature by a whole library of Psychopathologia Sexualis, Criminology, detective stories etc. and on top the whole Freudian literature. It needs no further elucidation.

The only trouble with this literary production is, that nobody seems aware of a mysterium.

My chance was, that I saw it was a mysterium.

At this occasion let me express all my good wishes for Christmas and a happy New Year and also my gratitude

to you for all the immense work you have put into your translations.

Your brilliant suggestion has shown me once more that your participation in your work is more than professional. It is alive.

Yours cordially

C.G. Jung ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 168

2 October 1958

Dear Hull,

thank you very much for your kind elucidation of my puzzles.

Concerning archetypal”

I was not sure how much this rather unwarrantable ending “al” has been accepted.

Hopfer’s device “der tod ist die letzt lini der ding” sounds queer in German too.

The meaning is that death is the line, where all things come to an end.

Thus “the last straw would be a misinterpretation.

In order to explain the queerness you add the original German phrase.

Thank you for your explanation of “Tachismí’, I had no idea of.

I am definitely behind the times.

I should say, a footnote would be indicated.

The “Eleusinian tidings” can be left as not being of particular importance.

Hoping everything is well with you,

I remain yours cordially

C.G. Jung ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 166

TO: Bill McGuire

DATE: February 11, 1981

FROM: H.S. Bailey, Jr.

COPT: Sandy Thatcher

SUBJECT:

Publication of the Jung Protocols and the Seminars

I have reviewed the material you provided along with the memo ran dun on copyright supplied by Sandy Thatcher and have reached the following conclusion with respect to the decision of Princeton University Press.

The Protocols.

Princeton University Press is not Interested In publishing the Protocols.

This Is of course the raw material from which Memories, Dreams, Reflections was written.

It seems to me that Memories, Dreams, Reflections Is sufficient publication of that material, though of course the raw material may be useful to scholars.

The Bollingen Foundation released the claim It had on the material it had In Memories, Dreams, Reflections, and I suppose that some claim by Princeton (as successor to Bollingen) might be made on the published material.

This is not absolutely clear, however, and since does not wish to publish that material it seems Inappropriate Princeton for us to become Involved in legal controversy on the matter.

We will, of course, cooperate with the Jung Estate to the extent possible.

Since we are not lawyers, we cannot offer legal advice to the Jung Estate.

It seems to me as a layman that the Jung Estate has excellent claims to control of publication of the Jung Protocols.

2. The Seminars.

After reviewing the documents it seems quite

clear that Princeton University Press (with Routledge) has the excluslve right to publish the Seminars.

The Seminars sre a transcription of Jung’s remarks and are part of the Jung literary eatate.

Jung gave unequivocal permission for publication of the Seminars as an extension of the Collected Works, under the general agreement between Jung, Bollingen, and Routledge.

This is an exclusive right; we would con test anyone’s claim that this material is in the public domain.

Of course you are going ahead with the editing of the Seminars, and we shall publish them as soon as possible. ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 185

15 August 1958

Herr R.C. Hull Casa Andreina Vie Patrizia ASCONA

(From Cavigliano, Switzerland) Ximena de Angulo Roelli to W

McG., 1 Oct 1979

The work proceeds astonishingly slowly: it takes me roughly one hour to produce a pages of typescript.

I had thought it would go much faster as there’s no particular difficulty.

Except that I find that I have to stop and think.

I guess it’s a good thing that I’m aware of my limitations and always refused to go into translating.

I enjoy doing it, it’s like hearing C.G. talk again, his characteristic rhythms are there, I feel Aniela must have taken down quite faithfully what he said, I mean largely in his own words.

And this gives me a considerable feeling of responsibility about getting the nuances right.

I keep thinking: now if this were Goethe, how invaluable for posterity it would be to have in his own words exactly what he thought (I’m in the process of reading Dichtung und Wahrheit and it is so fascinating, his viewpoint is so modern in many respects.) and not have it reach one filtered through a good many glasses darkly.

Which reminds me, on p.5 you’ll find a reference to a New Testament parable about the unfaithful steward which needs to be put in order as I’m unlikely to have got it right.

1 can’t find our Concordance — I cant find any books when Michael isn’t here, but this was such a huge volume surely I couldn’t miss it if it were on our shelves.

Xan 1 have been so stupid as not to bring it from Morris?

Anyhow your eagle eye will light on the phrase right away.

Thank you for obtaining a copy for me of the Vintage edition of Memories, Dreams . .., I expect 1 ought to have it for reference, as you seem to think.

Be sure to have it billed to me, I don’t want you to be out of pocket on my account.

A . J.’s Protocol

Parentheses are A.J.’s, square brackets mine.

Handwritten numbers in upper right corner of translation correspond to stamped numbers on pages of German text.

Xde A ~ Ximena de Angulo Roelli, Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 196

New York, NY 10004

Dear Don,

Bill McGuire and I have been discussing the Jung Protocols, and I think that before going any further we ought to consult you.

For reference I am enclosing a memo from Bill to me, dated April 21, 1980, and also a copy of his memo on the same subject dated June 29, 1977. I believe you already have a copy of the earlier memo.

Bill has stated his concern that the Protocols not be laid away for so long as 25 years and also his feeling that the material probably really belongs to Pantheon.

The latter consideration makes Bill’s wife Paula uncomfortable, since she is a former staff member and still a free-lancer for Pantheon, though I would say that her knowledge of the matter is privileged. Still, we want to do the correct thing.

It is not obvious to me that the material belongs to Pantheon. It is in effect a first draft of MEMORIES, DREAMS, REFLECTIONS, and as such perhaps the literary rights belong to the Jung Estate, or possibly to Mrs. Jaffé’.

The final book, as published, undoubtedly is a property of Pantheon, but I don’t see how it follows from that the first draft was theirs.

The physical property (the pieces of paper as distinct from the literary rights) perhaps also belongs to the Jung Estate or Mrs. Jaffe, or perhaps it could be considered that it was given to Kurt Wolff.

If the latter is the case, Kurt Wolff gave it to Jack Barrett who gave it to PUP. If PUP owns the physical property, it can of course do with it as it wishes, except that it cannot publish.

It seems to me very doubtful that this material should ever be published.

In general I am against publishing private documents which can cause pain or embarrassment to living people, whether or not the rights are clear.

But I am also very much in favor of preserving the documents of leading cultural and intellectual figures, including private papers, on the ground that they will some day be valuable to scholars.

So, what shall we do with the Protocols? Here is a possibility. What would you think of telling the Jung Estate that we have the Protocols here? We might take the position that the physical property. ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 190

Donald R. Osborn, Esq. Page 2

April 28, 1980

belongs to the Bollingen Foundation, though of course we recognize that they have the literary rights.

We could offer them a xerox copy of the material, for them to decide to release or publish as they wish.

If they decide to make the material available (perhaps by putting it in the Jung Archive and opening it to scholars), we would feel free to put our copy in the Library of Congress and make it available to scholars.

But we would express our intention also to defer to their wishes with respect to access to the material, keeping it sealed for, say, fifteen years, by which time all persons concerned would probably have died.

I like the idea of letting the Jung Estate decide whether or not the material should be released, at least for a period of time. We should not give them the opportunity of suppressing it altogether, however.

The words came from Jung and were taken down by his secretary, so it seems to me that the literary rights probably are in the Jung Estate. In any case, what do you think?

Obviously we should think this through thoroughly before discussing it again with Paul.

Certainly Paul must be consulted if anything other than what he suggested is to be done.

Life is sometimes complicated, isn’t it?

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

Herbert S. Bailey, Jr.

cc: Bill McGuire

Enclosures

P.S. Before sending it I showed this letter to Bill McGuire who has written me his memo of April 29, enclosed. I am not a copyright lawyer, but I would not think that the fact that Pantheon paid Jaffe to take down Jung’s words would give her a literary right in the Protocols.

Of course she did have a literary right in the finished book, which she framed, put together, and to a large extent wrote under Jung’s supervision—this is the kind of problem one would like to avoid. Protocols, Page 191

May 22, 1980

Mr. Paul Mellon,

1729 H Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Paul:

I enclose herewith for your information a copy of a letter from Herb Bailey, dated April 28, 1980, together with a copy of the enclosures he forwarded therewith, in which are raised some interesting and difficult questions concerning the proposed disposition of the Jung Protocols.

Herb and I thought it would be helpful to you if I would set forth the principal questions involved, which appear to be as follows:

(a) Who owns the physical property rights in and to the copy (or copies) of the Jung Protocols now in the possession of Princeton University Press?

(b) Who owns the literary rights in the Jung Protocols?

(c) What obligations do the Press and Bollingen Foundation have to any of the parties involved concerning the existence of the copy of the Protocols now in the possession of the Press?

(d) Who Owns the Physical Property Rights?

We have to date proceeded on the assumption that the Princeton University Press is properly in possession of the physical copy of the Jung Protocols.

This premise is based on the assumption that Mrs. Wolff was properly in possession of the Protocols when she gave the packages containing the Protocols to Mr. Barrett.

If so, Mr. Barrett could pass the right of physical possession of the Protocols to the Princeton University Press.

Whether Mr. Barrett was acting on behalf of Bollingen Foundation or on his own behalf is not relevant. In either event, whatever he had he passed (or Bollingen Foundation passed) to Princeton University Press.

The real question is whether Kurt Wolff prior to his death had the right to physical possession of the Jung Protocols, and whether this right passed to Mrs. Wolff. Pantheon may claim that Kurt Wolff had possession only in his capacity as an employee and therefore never had an individual right to the property, and that the physical property rights therefore belong to Pantheon.

Whether such claim is proper depends on the arrangements between Pantheon and Mr. Wolff, and we do not have sufficient facts to reach a judgment on this question.

It is fair to say that Pantheon may have supportable claim to possession.

(b) Who Owns the Literary Property Rights?

There are at least three parties involved on this question.

The one point that is clear is that the physical possession of the Protocols does not give the holder any literary rights with respect thereto.

Thus, the Press does not have any of the literary rights.

The other parties in interest appear to be the Jung Estate, Pantheon and Mrs. Jaffe. Pantheon clearly had the right by contract to publish “Memories, Dreams and Reflections” and Mrs. Jaffe was certainly authorized by Jung to transcribe her interviews with him.

However, it is most doubtful that there was any express contract with respect to the literary property rights in the interviews as transcribed If there is no express or implied contract, the Jung Estate is most probably the owner of the literary rights in the Protocols, although Pantheon might be able to sustain an argument by virtue of its publishing contract that it acquired the literary rights to the interviews in the process.

Mrs. Jaffe seems to have been an independent contractor, without any claim to the literary rights, although this is also in doubt. On balance, the Jung Estate seems to have the primary claim, and that is the reason why Herb suggested we contact the Estate before any decision is made concerning the disposition of the Protocols.

It does not appear that the Princeton University Press or the present or former Bollingen representatives have any affirmative obligations to do anything at the present time.

Such an obligation, however, might arise if a copy of the Protocols is donated to the Library of Congress.

Accordingly, if it is decided to lodge a copy with the Library of Congress, both Herb and I believe the Press should advise both the Jung Estate and Pantheon of the proposed donation, and request their consent. This could be done by a simple letter to both, briefly outlining the facts and the proposed course of action.

A copy of this letter should also be sent to Mrs. Jaffe. Such a letter is likely to cause some, and possibly a great deal of, controversy, all of which will be unproductive. Thus Herb and I are somewhat inclined to keep the Protocols at Princeton for the time being and do nothing, with the intent eventually to donate a copy to the Library of Congress at a time when literary passions are less likely to be inflamed.

In view of the past discussions and correspondence on this issue, Herb and I would like to talk further with you and Jack about it.

We would be most interested in your views. Best regards.

Sincerely, J

(Enclosures) Donald R. Osborn

cc: Mr. Herbert S. Bailey, Jr. (without enclosures) ~The Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 187-189

Dear Bill:

Thank you very much for sending me a Xerox of the “Protocols” with your letter of March 10.

If and when the material goes to the Library of Congress, would it not be a good idea to make it unavailable for a certain number of years (perhaps twenty-five) in order not to stir up the Jung family unnecessarily?

I agree that the material is fascinating, and certainly brings out the true flavor of Jung’s conversation in his most unguarded and enthusiastic moments. Whether it should be published eventually is a question which I’m glad I don’t have to decide!

All best wishes,

Yours ever,

Paul ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 191

21 April 1980

JUNG PROTOCOLS

Dear Herb,

Before writing anything to Paul I reviewed my original memorandum on the matter in June 1977 (copy attached) and I have to say that I still hold with what I stated in the marked paragraphs on pages 2 and 3. After reading my report that summer, Don Osborne agreed with me that the matter should be discussed with Schiffrin, and as I recall you also did. Priority was given, however, to arranging for a translation of certain passages of interest to Paul and Jack, and meanwhile the papers were held in storage (as they are). Sauerlander was going to translate passages as well as analyze the papers when he came to New York, but he died suddenly in Austria later that year.

Then Richard Winston, original translator of MEMORIES DREAMS REFLECTIONS, would help us out after finishing his Life of T. Mann, but he became ill with cancer and died.

The eventual translator, Ximena de Angulo, took a long time, and that brings us up to the recent past. Meanwhile I had not looked again at my original report.

What I propose:

to see Schiffrin, tell him that the Protocols are in the possession of the Press, and inquire what his point of view is.

There will be no need to explain how they came into the Foundation’s hands, nor any occasion for surprise that the Foundation had them.

I shall also expect to learn something I don’t now know: what rights, contractually, the Jung Estate or Mrs. Jaffe may have in the Protocols.

I would let Schiffrin know our concern, above all, to preserve the Protocols until such time as they can be available for scholarly use or publication.

I add that Mrs. Jaffe has told me, in response to my direct but unexplained question, that the Protocols ’’don’t exist anymore.’’ Evidently she doesn’t have a set, and the set in our care is probably unique.

I have to say, now, that I ’m not only against sequestering the

material for the suggested long period; I’m also opposed to depositing it in the Library of Congress irrevocably, before the Pantheon question is faced. The package can remain under lock here or perhaps temporarily in Firestone.

Needless to say, Paula feels as I do. She has known of the material

from the beginning, as I originally had her help (better German) in identifying it.

That was known at the time.

We have not discussed the matter from then until now, and she has kept it to herself. Inasmuch as she was the Pantheon editor in charge of M.D.R. for several years until she left Pantheon in 1972, and she still has a contractual link with Pantheon as editor of certain other projects (freelance), you can understand that she feels a moral concern in this matter.

(There are statements in my 1977 report I no longer hold with.

I retract the suggestion of putting the papers in the Jung Archive in Zurich—while the Archive was finally opened not long ago, I know nothing of its policies.

Nor, at this time, do I suggest informing Mrs. Jaffe or offering a copy.) ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 192

29 Apr. 1980

Dear Herb,

Thanks for showing ne the letter. The key word is ’’complicated,” certainly. As you say, you want to do the correct thing.

Therefore, as I see it, Pantheon should be informed that the Protocols exist.

(I remind you that Andre Schiffrin, the managing director, has old personal associations with the Bollingen people and with Paul Mellon.)

Kurt Wolff, for Pantheon, commissioned A. Jaffe’s writing of a biography and, at the beginning, paid her for her transcripts of her conversations with Jung. See her introduction to MEMORIES, here, as marked. It would appear she made them for hire but finally got royalties.

Has there ever been a legal ruling on who owns copyright in the transcript of an interview? In the case of Jaffe’s transcripts of her interviews, is it she, Jung, or Pantheon? In any case, it was she who wrote them, as matter for a biography.

I have serious doubts about Informing the Jung Estate, though I realize that you don’t propose entrusting the MSS. to the Estate. I repeat: the contractual situation between Pantheon and the Estate and Jaffé should be ascertained, via Schiffrin.

I know that the two parties split the royalties, but the contract may be with both parties or with Jaffé only.

Jaffé can’t be left out; her interest is half if not greater. Everything you say about treating with the Jung Estate should also apply to her. Another good reason for involving her: as she is the living person who knows the Protocols best (having written them) she should be given the opportunity to write a commentary on them, to be kept with the MSS.

I appreciate what you say about publishing private documents.

The Protocols, however, were prepared originally for publication (as raw material toward a publication) and I don’t think they are private (in the sense you mean (like letters, diaries, etc.)

From what I have by now learned of them, they are not particularly intimate (whatever second-generation Jungs might think). And whether the Protocols, all or partially, should ever be published is a matter for their proprietors to consider.

Paul ~Protocols, Page 192

June 9, 1980

TO: Bill McGuire

FROM: H. S. Bailey, Jr.

SUBJECT: The Jung Protocol

After thorough consultation, it has been decided that we should do absolutely nothing about the Jung’ Protocols.

We are specifically not going to discuss them with the Estate or Pantheon, of Indeed anyone else.

May I count on you to see that they are kept in a safe place, and the matter can be taken up again at another time.

I assume that you will keep the Protocols in your own file, but if you prefer to have me handle them, I shall take care of them. In any case I would like to know where they are. Please.

Another thought that occurred to me would be to place them under seal for safekeeping in the Princeton University Library. ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 186

TO: Bill McGuire
DATE: February 11, 1981
FROM: H. S. Bailey, Jr. COPT: Sandy Thatcher
SUBJECT: Publication of the Jung Protocols and the Seminars

I have reviewed the material you provided along with the memorandum on copyright supplied by Sandy Thatcher and have reached the following conclusion with respect to the decision of Princeton University Press.

The Protocols. Princeton University Press is not Interested In publishing the Protocols. This Is of course the raw material from which Memories, Dreams, Reflections was written.

It seems to me that Memories, Dreams, Reflections Is sufficient publication of that material, though of course the raw material may be useful to scholars. The Bollingen Foundation released the claim

It had on the material tb had In Memories, Dreams, Reflections, and I suppose that some claim by Princeton (as successor to Bollingen might be made on the ^published material.

This is not absolutely clear, however, and since Princeton does not wish to publish that material it seems Inappropriate for us to become Involved in legal controversy on the matter.

We will, of course, cooperate with the Jung Estate to the extent possible.

Since we are not lawyers, we cannot offer legal advice to the Jung Estate.

It seems to me as a layman that the Jung Estate has excellent claims to control of publication of the Jung Protocols.

The Seminars. After reviewing the documents it seems quite clear that Princeton University Press (with Routledge) has the exclusive right to publish the Seminars.

The Seminars are a transcription of Jung’s remarks and are part of the Jung literary estate.

Jung gave unequivocal permission for publication of the Seminars as an extension of the Collected Works, under the general agreement between Jung, Bollingen, and Routledge.

This is an exclusive right; we would contest anyone’s claim that this material is in the public domain. Of course you are going ahead with the editing of the Seminars, and we shall publish them as soon as possible. ~Protocols (RoughDraft), Page 185

21 April 1980
JUNG PROTOCOLS
Dear Herb,
Before writing anything to Paul I reviewed my original memorandum on the matter in June 1977 (copy attached) and I have to say that I still hold with what I stated in the marked paragraphs on pages 2 and 3.

After reading my report that summer,

Don Osborne agreed with me that the matter should be discussed with Schiffrin, and as I recall you also did.

Priority was given, however, to arranging for a translation of certain passages of interest to Paul and Jack, and meanwhile the papers were held in storage (as they are).

Sauerlander was going to translate passages as well as analyze the papers when he came to New York, but he died suddenly in Austria later that year.

Then Richard Winston, original translator of MEMORIES DREAMS REFLECTIONS, would help us out after finishing his Life of T. Mann, but he became ill with cancer and died.

The eventual translator, Ximena de Angulo, took a long time, and that brings us up to the recent past. Meanwhile I had not looked again at my original report.

What I propose: to see Schiffrin, tell him that the Protocols are in the possession of the Press, and inquire what his point of view is.

There will be no need to explain how they came into the Foundation’s hands, nor any occasion for surprise that the Foundation had them.

I shall also expect to learn something I don’t now know: what rights, contractually, the Jung Estate or Mrs. Jaffe may have in the Protocols.

I would let Schiffrin know our concern, above all, to preserve the Protocols until such time as they can be available for scholarly use or publication.

I have to say, now, that I ’m not only against sequestering the material for the suggested long period; I’m also opposed to depositing it in the Library of Congress irrevocably, before the Pantheon question is faced.

The package can remain under lock here or perhaps temporarily in Firestone.

Needless to say, Paula feels as I do. She has known of the material from the beginning, as I originally had her help (better German) in identifying it.

That was known at the time. We have not discussed the matter from then until now, and she has kept it to herself. Inasmuch as she was the Pantheon editor in charge of M.D.R. for several years until she left z Pantheon in 1972, and she still has a contractual link with Pantheon as editor of certain other projects (freelance), you can understand that she feels a moral concern in this matter.

(.There are statements in my 1977 report I no longer hold with. I retract the suggestion of putting the papers in the Jung Archive in Zurich—while the Archive was finally opened not long ago, I know nothing of its policies.

Nor, at this time, do I suggest informing Mrs. Jaffe or offering a copy.)

Bill ~Protocols [Rough Draft], Page193

Bill McGuire Sandy Thatcher
February 11. 1981
B. S. Bailey, Jr.
Jung Protocol« and Seminars
I have written the attached memoranda with the Thought that Bill wight want to send it to Mrs. Xiediech with a covering letter. Sandy, before such a letter is sent, will you give Bill and we your comments.
It seem to me that we really ought to stay out of the controversy over the Protocols. The rights situation is unclear, and we have no interest in publishing that material. As for the Seminars, the reverse is true, and we ought to protect that copyright vigorously. Bill, please let me know if your inquiry reveals any other plan to publish the Seminars.
Thanks to both of you for all the work you have done on this. ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 184

Dear Hull, 6 January 1961

I am sorry to be so late in sending you back your questions. I have marked with a red sign your translations, with which I fully agree.

I cannot remember how those corrections proposed by the ATLANTIC MONTHLY came to pass.

There is particularly one, which I certainly would or should have protested against.

May-be that the thing was done when I was in a particularly bad state, when I could not bother.

At all events I prefer your translation which is very much more accurate.

I cannot decide this very complicated question of a further reset or a new edition, but if Bollingen should prefer your translation I am all for it.

But I don’t know about the legal aspect of this matter.

I must leave that entirely to the editors.

In November I have been down to Lugano, but I felt generally so miserable that I could not make up my mind to pay a call on you.

I hear you have a good deal of bad weather down there. We have it here the so-now, and we have had a good deal of legalistic squabble about s0-called biography, which seems to have come to an end recently.

Hoping you are all right I remain yours cordially

C.G. Jung ~Protocols, Page 170

Mr. R.F.G. Hull Casa Andeeina Via Patrizia ASCONA
December 2?th 1958
Dear Hull,
your suggestion to translate the subtitle of the “Mysterium Coniunctionis” as “An Inquiry into the Fission and Fusion of Psychic Opposites in Alchemy” is indeed very clever.

It is audacious and in a way profoundly right.

This idea is so creative, that I cannot assume responsibility for it.

So I should make the further suggestion, that in a translator’s note you explain your translation of my bland terminology of “Trennung und Zusammensetzung”.

I congratulate you to this very successful interpretation of my understatement.

I myself am deeply convinced of the basic analogy between physical and psychological discoveries.

As Prof. Fierz in his speech at Pauli’s funeral has mentioned: speculation comes from speculum.

Thus “speculation”, a very typical form of consciousness, becomes the real center of the world, the basis of the Unus Mundus.

On this ground your translation is warrantable.

It has my full approval under the condition, that you write a translator’s preface, in which you defend your interpretative translation.

The idea of a fourth part of the “Mysterium Coniunctionis” is not at all a bad- one, but I am afraid, it has been already anticipated by the bulk of Freudian Psychology.

He was fascinated by the dark side of Man, i.e., by all those things, that make the contents of the “Mysterium Iniquitatis”, the mystery of the shadow.

Without his emphasis oil the dark side of Man and the chaos of his chthonic desires, I could not have found an access to the “Mysterium Coniunctionis”.

The only trouble with this literary production is, that nobody seems aware of a mysterium.

My chance was, that I saw it was a mysterium.

At this occasion let me express all my good wishes for Christmas and a happy New Year and also my gratitude
to you for all the immense work you have put into your translations.

Your brilliant suggestion has shown me once more that your participation in your work is more than professional. It is alive.

Yours cordially

C.G. Jung ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Page 168

CONFIDENTIAL

June 29, 1977

Dear Herb,

The parcel of typescript that you asked me to examine consists of drafts of MEMORIES, DREAMS, REFLECTIONS BY C. G. JUNG, recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffe’ (Pantheon Books, 1963).

The material is in German except for some passages interpolated from Jung’s 1925 Seminar in English. Much of it is carbon copy or photocopy.

The most important item of contents is, I believe, the so-called protocols: Mrs. Joffe’s transcripts of her (shorthand?) notes of her conversations with Jung, each dated, from 21 Sept. 1956 to 23 May 1958.

In revised form, these were the basis of a great deal of MDR, but they undoubtedly contain material that was not retained in the final version. I have marked this folder “A.”

The other folders (B to G: see list attached) contain a great many sheafs of typed drafts, not in any order; often successive versions of the same section; a few duplicates; an<d occasional cancelled passages.

Much of the material contains editing in hands that I can recognize: mostly Kurt Wolff’s but also A. Jaffé’ s and Wolfgang Sauerlander’s.

I’ve not attempted to read all this (my German would be too slow), but by the evidence of proper names and other clues I can say with assurance that it all pertains to MDR. I’ve not attempted to rearrange the material— that would take hours of close study by a person intimately familiar with MDR in German; I’ve had the contents of each folder machine-numbered as it stands, in order to impose some order and obviate the loss of pages.

The folders should be saved, too.

The genesis of MDR is told in Mrs. Jaffe’s introduction. The book was the brainchild of Kurt Wolff, acting as editor-in-chief of Pantheon Books. The plan was that Jung talk to Jaffe, then his secretary, and she transcribe her notes and work up the material in autobiographical form, under Wolff’s editorship. (Folder B has some penciled notes jotted inside it of Jaffe’s delivery of batches of the protocols, date, length, payment.) The drafts show Wolff’s and Jaffe’s intensive editorial labor in shaping the material.

Later in the process of composition, Jung wrote some parts of the book himself. These are here, too, but they also went through the same Wolff/ Jaffé editorial process. In other words, I believe there is no typescript here that can be considered pure Jung.

While some passages have been cancelled, I recognize a good deal more that was finally omitted from MDR but was not cancelled on these drafts.

Jack Barrett thought there were two chapters that had been excised before publication, but it’s more a matter of passages throughout the material that were removed for one reason or another: some evidently by Kurt Wolff for editorial reasons (e.g., sketches of William James and of Einstein, which are rather thin), others because of family objections—”auntifications,” Jung called them.

I note only a page or two referring to Toni Wolff (“T.W.”), about a dream involving her; and a half page of thoughts when Emma Jung died: these were dropped. There may be more that I have missed.

The task of identifying, ordering, and evaluating this material, and detecting the passages that were deleted, could be carried out readily by only two people now alive: Aniela Jaffe’ herself, and W. Sauerlander, who worked on it with Kurt Wolff and later after Wolff left Pantheon.

Otherwise, the work would require a person with idiomatic German and a Jungian background; the painstaking comparison with the published German version would be a very slow procedure.

Jack Barrett mentioned his and Paul Mellon’s interest in reading a translation of the unpublished parts.

The only person who could both identify and translate them is Sauerlander.

(Or perhaps Richard and Clara Winston, but their experience of the Jung scene is limited to translating MDR more than 15 years ago; and their translation was revised by Richard Hull.)

Mrs. Jaffe’s attitude toward these papers is unpredictable.

It occurs to me that she may silently have kept a copy of them also, inasmuch as this is a carbon copy.

I feel certain that she would be in favor of preserving the papers, but she would probably be opposed to any publication or airing of them now. As she is the author, in effect, her attitude is central.

The papers have to be regarded as the property of Pantheon Books, as they originated as a stage in Pantheon’s project of MDR.

While Wolff had a personal role in their preparation, as the editor, he was acting as an employee of Pantheon.

He withdrew from Pantheon, and therefore from the work on this book, at a point when I believe a final version of the German had been agreed among Jung, Jaffe, and Pantheon (the other publishers, Rascher and Collins, to the best of my knowledge, did not participate in the editorial shaping), and when these earlier drafts were no longer required.

The translators worked thereafter from the final version. It appears to me that these papers were in his working files (in Switzerland, by then) and he kept them rather than turning them back to Pantheon—which, shortly afterward, was merged with Random House.

Whatever the right or wrong of it, Kurt’s action preserved the material, which could have been lost or deliberately destroyed otherwise.

The primary–and very great—importance of these papers is that’ they contain a great deal of biographical matter and of Jung’s thought that is not recorded elsewhere.

They will be of very considerable value to a future biographer. In the second place, they are fascinating testimony of an elaborate literary and editorial process that involved Jung, Jaffe, and Kurt Wolff.

My opinion: in the larger, historical view, the papers should be preserved in an appropriate archive.

Rather than the Library of Congress (they are not part of the Bollingen papers), they should be placed in the Jung Archives in Zurich, after those archives have been taken over (later this year?) by either the University or the Federal Polytechnic Institute (ETH) and are no longer under the supervision of the Jung family, some members of which might still want to dispose of the papers.

Whether the papers should be deposited under seal for a certain time is something to consider.

The decision about the papers should, I think, be made in consultation with Mrs. Jaffé and the director of Pantheon, Andre Schiffrin.

I would be against surrendering the original papers to either party, whatever their claims; but a complete xerox copy could be offered to each, and a copy should be retained by Princeton University Press/Bollingen Foundation, suitably safeguarded.

If Pantheon and Mrs. Jaffe should agree on some way of publishing the omitted passages—as some kind of sequel, or in a revised and augmented edition of MDR—that would seem their right and should be acceptable to us, so long as the entire body of papers is preserved in an archive.

As several people at the Press have asked me about the “mysterious parcel” referred to in the pink folder, I’ve said that it proved to contain some German mss. of Jung’s that have already been published—without reference to MDR.

Bill ~Protocols (Rough Draft), Pages 230-232

MDR Drafts: List of Folders (as described on each)

A. “AJ copy: Chronological Order of Protocols” green 1-391
B. “Jung-Jaffe: Material not yet grouped… Ill: Jahre red 1-89
des Suchens” (also contains photocopy of printed biography of Jung’s grandfather, K.G. Jung, 6pp.)
C. “Kinderjahre, Schuljahre, Studienzeit / 1) Version 1-337
1958 based on CGJ’s own writing: 2) Earlier dictated version, coirpiled by AJ (dictation dates marked) ;
3) same, compiled by KW/KW’s suggestions”
D. “II 5 / Das Werk / 1) KW compilation (dictation only); 401-485

2) AJ’s first version; 3) AJ’s 1958 version1*
E. “Erinnerungen: IV (cf. II 3); Zeitgenossen, now 501-541 entitled Begegnungen, (replaced by) Erinnerungen/William James; Einstein; Flournoy-James, Hyslop; Goethe – Mann – Wells – Wilhelm”
F. “Visionen 1944 – various versions / Prologue, Epilogue / 601-720 Varia”
G. “I: 1875-1900 /II: 1) Die Vorfahren, 2) Freud, 3) Jahre 801-1116
des Suchens, 4) Zeitgenossen, 5) Therapeut, 6) Reisen: USA – Afrika – Indien, 7) Späte Träume – Erkenntnisse – Gedanken über Religion – Tod und Jenseits” followed by similar notes headed “Tentative grouping”

TOTAL PAGES 1596