INTERVIEW: Emma Jung and Toni Wolff
Marion Woodman Interviews Jane Hollister Wheelwright
Edited by Betty Coon Wheelwright
Jane Hollister Wheelwright in the garden of her Kentfield, California, home, circa 1975. (Photographer unknown. By permission of Lynda Wheelwright Schmidt and John Hollister Wheelwright.)
In 1981, Marion Woodman interviewed Jane Hollister Wheelwright in preparation for writing Woodman planned on doing about Emma Jung and Toni Wolff.
The transcription of the interview begins abruptly as though the tape recorder was turned on aer Woodman and Wheelwright had begun their conversation.
Jane Hollister Wheelwright (JHW): There are two appreciations of both women.
Marion Woodman (MW): That’s right.
JHW: And not the gossipy angle of which one got there first or which one supplied the other one and all that stuff.
MW: That’s right. Leaving all of that out.
JHW: This is what she was like.
MW: Take it for what it is worth.
JHW: And, of course, they are connected with Jung because one was the wife, and the other was the friend.
And everybody knew it. It was no secret.
MW: Oh, no. And I do not want to interpret it.
JHW: Ahhh. Now you’re all right. That’s what this Maggy Anthony did. She interpreted.
MW: I assume that it would be Jungians who would be reading it. And they’ll put it together.
Marion Woodman. (Date and photographer unknown. Courtesy of Tony Woolfson.)
JHW: Well, there is an enormous amount of curiosity of gossip value. But, if they get a serious, appreciative, and dignified account, I think you’ll get away with it ne.
MW: And I think that it’s time somebody interviewed these people who knew them.
JHW: Yes, because they’re not going to live much longer. That’s true.
MW: So I thought I’d go to Zürich in November and talk to the people.
JHW: They won’t talk with you, I’m afraid.
MW: I thought I’d write ahead, Jane. And Miss Hannah will talk to me I know, because she was my analyst.
JHW: Oh, well, she will.
MW: And she has given me a lot of material, and I’m pretty sure Dieter Baumann will because he was my control analyst. And that may give me access to his mother and perhaps Aniela Jaffé. And beyond that I don’t know. Mary Briner said she would talk to me.
JHW: That’s good. She worked about nine years with Emma. Mary did. And she did know Toni in her early days, too. She knew her socially, and Toni used to visit her up at the cloisters and that kind of thing. She knew her during the war, which was a hard time for all of them. So Mary knows probably more than anybody, but Mary’s biases are the thing that you have to watch. Of course, everybody is biased. It isn’t just Mary.
MW: She would be biased on Emma’s side?
JHW: Well, she is a kind of cross-ruff because her a affiliation was much more Toni’s way of doing things. I mean that she was more like Toni except the sensation type, but in this business of living through men, having her whole life with men, you know Toni’s . . .
MW: And Mary’s.
JHW: They both are like that. Now Emma wasn’t. She was, in Toni’s type-system, the mother, and I would say secondarily the Amazon. In other words, Emma was nearer to independence than Toni. I think Toni died because she was no longer the center of Jung’s life.
MW: How did that happen, Jane? How did he . . . What happened there? Did it just gradually drop off ?
JHW: I think he began to appreciate Emma more. He loved her. I think there was no question, and he’s the one that wanted her to stick it out because he needed her, and she was a very down-to-earth person and practical and a great deal of feeling, lovely feeling. Toni was primarily thinking and could be so tactless. You wouldn’t believe it. Not knowing that she was tactless and so intuitive, I mean . . . Her eyes were just like headlights. You know that you are an intuitive?
JHW: Oh, well. And I’m telling you! Your eyes are positively sensation eyes compared to hers. I mean she was so exaggeratedly into it, and in the seminars she could go along with all of Jung’s far-out ideas. And Emma, I think, would trust them but wonder.
But I don’t quite understand what this is all about. I would say that Emma was the very human one of the two, and Toni was, well . . . I guess she was human, too, but you know in a different way. You think of Emma’s warmth and her human concern, and, with Toni, you thought of her as these tremendous ideas coming out of the collective unconscious and her focus on all of the archetypal side of life, which was more on the impersonal side.
MW: Like Jung’s mother?
MW: No, Jung’s own mother. that uncanny side that he’s always talking about with his mother.
MW: You know he said that his mother had two personalities.
JHW: Yes. And she was a weirdy in a way. I think she had all kinds of access to the unconscious, and that may be where Jung got that because his father didn’t seem to be like that at all.
MW: I thought that split in his mother may have been the split that he found in Emma and Toni.
JHW: I would be careful with that idea if I were you because this kind of thing happens to so many people. They tend to marry their opposite, the one that connects them with the unconscious in a kind of unconscious way and to the language. The communication is difficult if they really try to understand each other. So the woman that’s nearer in touch is the one that fills in for quite a while in the man’s life. If he’s true to his marriage, then he begins later in life to recognize this very opposite kind of person. This kind of thing happens to so many people who didn’t have mothers like Jung’s.
MW: I never thought about it that way but that was very interesting—that they take the opposite.
JHW: They start out with the opposite, and then they get caught up with another woman. It’s often an affair, or it’s some kind of a thing that goes on often with someone who’s married and all that. So the thing doesn’t go on for a lifetime as it did with Jung because Toni was not married, and she was so alone and she had given her whole life to Jung. She lived for him. And he couldn’t dump her. So it was tough. It was really tough on both of them, but he was a very big personality, a powerful personality, so he could handle it. Separately, of course, but he could handle it. Now a lot of smaller people get into the same situation, but it can be somehow resolved, or the extra woman goes back into the marriage or something like that.
MW: Because as they grow older they want the opposite.
JHW: Then they begin to appreciate the opposite.
JHW: That’s what I’ve found in people, and I feel sad about these youngsters who are just chopping and changing all the time because they’re not getting hold of something.
Now they may be getting other things that my generation didn’t, but they are not getting hold of this thing. The men are not really understanding the anima, and the women are really not understanding the animus.
MW: Just jumping around.
JHW: Maybe they don’t have to understand. Maybe it’s a new world, and maybe all this androgyny talk and what-have-you takes care of it. I don’t know.
MW: Jane, would you like to talk about Toni as you saw her?
JHW: I worked with her. I worked with Jung and Toni. So did Jo [Joseph Wheelwright].
Jo claims that Toni was the better analyst of the two, and I claim that Jung was the better analyst of the two because Jung had a great interest in the primitive background that I came out of, and Toni couldn’t, didn’t understand anything about it. She was a highly sophisticated, a highly civilized woman, and I came out of the sagebrush.
I think she was honestly trying to be okay about it all, but it just didn’t sit with her. Whereas Jung loved it. The more connected with the primitive the better for him. At that time, he was interested in the primitive and modern split in America because of the people who came onto soil that . . . Well, we took away the Indians’ country. That’s what we did.
JHW: And there we were smack against the primitive and the wilderness and didn’t know what to do with it, so we cut it down. But Jung cared a lot about the whole wilderness background thing, and he was very good friends with the Indians and people like that. He went to Taos and all that. So I think that’s why I found him the better of the two analysts. And Jo comes from Boston, of all places, and his orientation is England. So you couldn’t get two more different people than us two.
JHW: But that was Toni’s dish. Toni thought Jo was great. She loved him.
MW: What did she look like?
JHW: She looked like Nefertiti.
JHW: You know with the brow and the hair and very regal. She was a queen. She was very regal. She wasn’t much taller than me. She was little. But in the room with her you had a feeling she was overpowering because she was a big personality. But I think she was open-minded. She tried to understand all the things, but her temperament just couldn’t make it.
MW: She was aloof, was she?
JHW: She had to be in that situation to some extent. I’m interpreting. I think she had to be a bit suspicious of the gossip and had to brace herself against it. Emma, of course, was embarrassed because everybody was looking at these two if they were in the room together wondering how they were getting along. It’s just hard going. Rough on those two women, and I think it’s why they both died young.
JHW: It’s terribly hard.
MW: Would you like to talk about any incidents with Toni that bring out her tactlessness?
JHW: I’ll tell you one that I didn’t forget. I had an appointment with her at her house. She had a very elegant flat. She came from an elegant background. I got there when I was supposed to, and no Toni. Nobody home. So I sat on the steps for an hour until finally she came back with a lot of packages. She had been shopping. And I said rather meekly, “I thought we had an appointment.” She said, “Come on in.” She never apologized, never even knew what she’d done, didn’t even bother to know. She undoubtedly knew, but she wasn’t going to say it. I got absolutely no word from her that would say “I’m sorry” or “I didn’t realize” or “I’m late” or “I was held up” or something. Not a word. All she said was “come in.” That I found pretty annoying, but I was very young at the time, so I just took it.
MW: Her feeling function was zero.
JHW: Zero. Oh, way at the bottom.
MW: Did people like her?
JHW: Some people were devoted to her. I have several friends who were in correspondence with her long after they had analyzed with her and were just crazy about her. And some people were mad as hell at her. I was led to believe that she was a very fine analyst and a very important person, and I had to just put up with it. Then when I got away, I was kind of glad to get away.3
MW: Did she ever break that regal . . .
JHW: She had no sense of humor.
JHW: Absolutely none. I never saw it, and I think a lot of people have said that. I wouldn’t want it to be said that she had no sense of humor. I imagine she did when she was in the right environment, but I never saw it. Very introverted woman. Just about as introverted as anyone could be.
MW: Miss Hannah said the same. She said it was because Wolff was identified with the archetype.
JHW: With what? Well, I wouldn’t be too sure of that. She was very human in a way. What archetype would Barbara suggest?
MW: I remember she talked about this queen, too.
JHW: She did?
MW: Miss Hannah said Wolff went right to the collective unconscious. There was nothing in the personal unconscious at all. And Miss Hannah talked about this while she called her a cat. She said she was a real cat.
JHW: Oh, yes, she sure had that. But I wasn’t in competition with Toni in any way, and Barbara being quite a bit older than me . . . I’m seventy-five now. Barbara is what, eighty?
JHW: Barbara was that much older than me—twelve years older—so she’d run into the cat all right. I would say that the symbol of the cat would apply to Toni except in her lack of independence. You know how a cat goes its own way. If it doesn’t like this house, it moves into the next. Well, Toni didn’t have that, but she did have a lot of the cat quality. What I found missing in her was the fact that she was, as her type system says, living entirely through men (Wolff 1956). Someone told me that Jung said he regretted that he hadn’t helped Toni to be more independent. Emma came more and more into the center of Jung’s life. Toni died of a broken heart, and she had a heart attack and was gone. She talked a little bit with me about the difficulties when Jung was ill. She couldn’t see him, couldn’t visit him in the hospital.
MW: She couldn’t?
JHW: That’s what she said. Yes.
MW: Emma would be there?
JHW: Emma was there, and that’s when I think Emma really was discovered, when Jung really discovered her in the deep sense. Jung knew that she had been a marvelous wife to him, but, when it came to her real personality, I think he discovered it when he was very ill, almost died. Toni talked to me about it at the time when she couldn’t see Jung. She couldn’t go to the house to see him, apparently because of the family. You know the family were pretty rough on her. They are the bottleneck now for anyone writing about her.
MW: I know Miss Hannah’s book is in the vault to be published . . .
JHW: Afer they are all dead.
JHW: Or she’s dead, or they’re dead.
MW: It would be much better to have someone who cares about both women.
JHW: I think they took sides pretty much. I never worked with Emma, so I don’t know. And she was very shy. You couldn’t get to her.
JHW: Emma. When there were the gatherings. She was extremely shy, and I think
MW: And did she sort of stay quiet by herself?
JHW: She was very quiet, and she just didn’t talk. You couldn’t get her to talk. Jo can get anybody to talk, and he was put next to her at one of our banquets there in Zürich, and he was complaining bitterly. He couldn’t get her to talk, couldn’t get her to do anything. And if Jo fails it really means something. I never had much of a real back-and-forth with her. I could only just see her around the place, but I always liked her, liked what I saw, but I saw a woman who was hurting, really hurting. And then I saw Toni later hurting. So I don’t know what you do with it. I look on it as a very tragic thing, that threesome.
MW: Jane, what is your feeling about Jung and women in general?
JHW: The way I understand him is he was very good to me. But he was interested in my problem. He was a patriarch, and he represented the patriarchal society and was very good at it because he was an extremely responsible man. He would never let you down, and all of that gave you a certain security. But I sometimes wanted to bust out. That I couldn’t do. No. Because he had the lid on me. I was supposed to be a woman, and a woman is thus and so.
MW: Could you talk about that?
JHW: All he would say was there is too much animus, and that kills you.
JHW: It doesn’t anymore because everybody is living the animus quite normally and naturally now. I see my young granddaughters. By god, they live the animus and think nothing of it, and their young men take it. So it’s a new world. I was raised to be very independent, so I found Jung’s attitude a problem; but I learned so much from him that I didn’t care.
MW: There’s a paradox here somewhere. When you said Jung keeps the lid on and expects the woman to live in terms of her man.
JHW: Well, I’m not. Jo says that. I would not say that. I know Jo says it all the time, and I wish he wouldn’t because I don’t think it’s all that true because Jung believed so much in the individual you see, the individual apart from gender. It was something else again. So I always thought that Jung did a lot for me just by having that objective of the individual—individuation, individual. Same idea.
JHW: So that helped a lot.
MW: Where did you feel the lid then?
JHW: The lid came in if you wanted to misbehave and not do what a lady . . . you see, if you weren’t the lady, according to Swiss standards, not according to American standards. There was something about a lady doesn’t do this and a lady doesn’t do that. There was a little bit of that in it. But there was also . . . I think it had more to do with his sense of responsibility. He felt responsible for you as if you were his wife. He would look after you very well, but he wouldn’t want you to cut loose because that wouldn’t be nice. It’s hard to describe it. I’ve written a little paper on that (Women and Men, 1978), and I’m trying to develop it because I was asked to do something for other people in Minneapolis. Was Jung right about types? And I had to think about that because they’re typing off types. They’re dropping o the anima and the animus and all these things now among the younger ones.
And then I had to say, yes, he was right. I think that it is too bad if the younger ones don’t look . . . Maintain their own position, get that established, then look back and see what happened because it was very important. It released a lot of women. It didn’t free them totally, but it got them out from under a lot of this gender stuff.
MW: Yes, that’s where I see the paradox because Jung did certainly release the creative animus in many women.
JHW: There is a little bit of a problem there. It was released à la Jung. It wasn’t totally released. So all these women around Jung were doing him a great service. They were doing marvelous things, but it wasn’t their own really.
MW: They were doing it for him. Looking up material . . .
JHW: And writing up papers and analyzing books. Barbara [Hannah] did that book . . . My memory is lousy, but you know which one she did—“Wuthering Heights” (Hannah, Striving Towards Wholeness, 1971).
JHW: They were all doing that kind of thing, but it was all à la Jung and is now all à la Jung or a full rebellion against him as far as I can see among the young women.
I have a little monograph (Women and Men, 1978). I don’t have a copy, but I went into it on the two-generation basis because of my daughter being a shrink, too. She’s full-fledged, and she has a bigger practice than I ever thought of having. I can’t say the young women are wrong.
MW: Trying to get away from the animus.
JHW: They get away from the animus, too, because they can let it, so why analyze it, why be all self-conscious about it. They can bust out. We went to China, and what do you see there, but a Chinese woman no taller than me driving a tractor and looking very happy and very feminine, so there is something new going on everywhere. Marion, do you have daughters?
MW: No, I don’t, but I’ve taught high school kids for twenty-three years, and I’ve got young analysands, and they’re not the slightest bit interested. To tell you the truth, I’m not either.
JHW: Yes, they’re very different. I just came back from a horseback camping trip with my daughter. She invited me for my seventy-fifth birthday and the two granddaughters. Four of us. We were the only people on the camping trip, and we went for six days up in the high mountains of Utah. We had never had such a good time. They cut loose. Of course I always wanted to cut loose, so that suited me ne, but there we were, three generations, and it was really something. I learned a lot from it.
MW: I hear you use that “cut loose.”
MW: You’re using “cut loose” again. What do you mean by that?
JHW: Just being spontaneous. If something wants to come up, I let it come up.
MW: And Jung didn’t want women to act like that?
JHW: No. He had the patriarchal thing, and, if anyone is patriarchal around me, I’m inclined to become quite rebellious. But I’ve learned better.
MW: So both those women were underneath his hand. They did not “cut loose” in spite of the fact that he keeps talking about spontaneity and reacting to the moment, living in the moment, acting on the feeling.
JHW: Not in modern terms. You see I think in that society, the Victorian society and the tail-end of it, which it was in my day, the spontaneity was “to order.” It worked, but there was a lot left down below, and that would come up in psychosis or impossible people.
MW: Or illness.
JHW: How much illness . . . The wee woman was always ailing in those days. I couldn’t buy that. I was raised on a cattle ranch and, believe me, that was a far cry from what I met in Europe and in the east.
MW: Jane, what do you think of that story about that Jewish girl who was the rabbi’s daughter, and she said that when she came into the room Jung thought, “you little beast”?
JHW: He did say that? I’d forgotten that.
MW: What was that attitude in Jung?
JHW: He had an idea that women were up to no good. Well, they weren’t. Because the only way they could put themselves on the map was to go under the rug and around and so forth. They couldn’t ask directly for what they needed. They had to manipulate life. Just manipulate everything in sight. They became very good manipulators, and Jung didn’t like that.
MW: You mean all these women around him or that whole society?
JHW: No, they weren’t so much. I’m thinking of women in general. No. Toni would be a manipulator in a very ladylike way. She’d sure get rid of her enemies, but you never saw it happen.
JHW: Emma was more forthright, less of a manipulator. But under that kind of lid, how are you going to survive except to be a manipulator?
JHW: And figure out what those men want and figure out what’s going to work and then do it, knowing pretty much what you’re doing. Why not? But nowadays they just come out and say it. They don’t have to manipulate so much. They just say whatever they want to.
MW: I’ve got to work with that in the book, Jane. The society that produced that kind of attitude toward women as opposed to what is going on now.
JHW: I think if you could get that background without mentioning the women.
JHW: And the background of the young people without mentioning any names. You may set the stage, and that might tell an awful lot right there.
MW: Or even to look at the two women as a product of their background. Because I’m much better working with and remembering a concrete picture than I am remembering a theoretical . . .
JHW: Yes, you’ve got the feeling function I take it.
MW: Intuitive, yes. And in writing I’m much better at creating a concrete image.
JHW: Yes. When you need to do that, but can’t you back up and get the era, too?
MW: Yes, I definitely have to.
JHW: I think you have to.
MW: I see that now clearly.
JHW: I read a nice little book by a Freudian woman. It’s all on the personal unconscious, not the collective unconscious, because, of course, they don’t bother. They don’t get to it. You might look at the book. It’s called Toward a Psychology of Women ( Jean Baker Miller 1976).
MW: Oh, I know that.
JHW: Miller. We met her, and she’s a nice person. I’ve been reading that, and I’m just fascinated with her idea of women not aping the men, but recognizing that what was called weaknesses in the Victorian era and now are really strengths. She’s turning it right around, and I think she’s doing nicely with that. She’s taking up the problem of the two eras. She’s pretty angry, too, so she’s somewhat prejudiced about the patriarchal
system. But she does spell it out in a nice way. Okay. Where are we?
MW: Yes. That’s got to be looked at. I can see that now.
JHW: I think you have to if you want to take the gossip out of it.
MW: I’m not interested in gossip.
JHW: But people will read it to get juicy bits about these women.
MW: You haven’t given me any juicy bits.
MW: Women are becoming more critical of Jung. They are saying if that’s the kind of man who is your guru, I’m not interested.
JHW: I’m trying to write a thing now answering that. I had to do a public workshop. It was on old age and death, and I couldn’t kind anything worth a damn. What I read was all rubbish, so I thought I’m going to do it my way. I’m not going to bother about all these other people who write about the subject. I’m just going to be old myself and write about it. I got quite a thing going, and I got to the night before I had to give it and then I got cold feet. I thought, “Oh-oh. I haven’t done it the right way”—which is the man’s way. But you study what’s been written, you do a lot of things with that, and then you finally come out with a couple of conclusions of your own. I didn’t do it, and I felt, “Oh, dear, I’m doing it all wrong.”
Here I am faced with this thing tomorrow morning, and I had to go through with it. I was reading Jaffe’s book on Jung (Memories, Dreams, Reflections, 1963). I think it was Jaffé. I got to the point where I just had to forget the old-age seminar. I just had to read and try and forget this thing. I got up to the point where Jung and Freud split, and I went to sleep.
I woke up with a dream that’s of my old ranch background out there in my old childhood bedroom, and Jung was holding forth on a seminar there. There are a lot of details, but I asked him just one question. I asked, “What does striate mean?”4
Well that means levels, actually. I looked it up. He told me, and then he burst out like this. He was big and a powerful man. He burst out like this, and he said, “I don’t need those, big daughter. I don’t need a big fat farm. What I need is a son.”
I couldn’t analyze the dream. I had to go on with the thing, and it was the young people who came up and talked to me about it. ‑ey thanked me for doing it the way I did.
MW: How did you do it, Jane? Just let it come out of your own feeling?
JHW: Yes, I just let it come out spontaneously, and I had a lot of stuff. Up until then I was constipated. I couldn’t get it out because I was trying to do it the right way. I had to get something out, so I did it the wrong way.
MW: The feminine way.
JHW: I did my way, and these young people came up. They all thanked me profusely for having done it that way. I thought afterward, “Well, that’s the problem with Jung, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t have to be his son. And he doesn’t want any daughters, so—to hell with it—I’ll go my own way.”
MW: That’s exactly what I’m feeling.
JHW: You’re feeling that?
MW: Oh, very much so. Very much so. Because I had a Swiss analyst who was very much in the patriarchal tradition, and now I’m . . .
JHW: You’re busting out. Good for you.
MW: In fact, that’s why I want to write another book about obesity and . . .
JHW: We’ve got yours. I’ll be interested to see that.
MW: And it’s about being penned in, and I want the next one to be “bust loose.”
JHW: Push out these walls.
JHW: I think we have to.
JHW: I think we have to. You’re younger than I am I know. I’m trying to throw out some things to the younger ones saying, “Look, I went through all those steps, and I’ve got a lot out of it. I’m not saying I didn’t. But, okay, you go your way. Just don’t pitch us out.
Try and understand us, too, and then maybe you won’t . . . ” I don’t want to get into that.
MW: I’m going to get that monograph, Jane, because that’s one thing I’ve really got out of this—the feeling that there is something new in the young women in the whole Jungian
tradition. I’m not quite sure what it is, but it is something I would love to tap into.
JHW: I’m learning all the time from my daughter and granddaughters. They’re teaching me a lot.
MW: Are they still within the Jungian tradition?
JHW: They couldn’t care less about it. My daughter has read all the stuff that she’s supposed to read in order to become a Jungian analyst and so on, but . . .
MW: But she just doesn’t use these terms like animus and anima and all that?
JHW: “I see the person I want to excavate, the person as the person is. I don’t want to be caught with this animus and anima depending on the male and female. I don’t want to bother with types.” She’s the same type as I am. I have discovered a few of her generation are beginning to discover types and finding that it really helps. But you see Toni Wolff’s types are fine for a woman who’s done well in the professional world and is no good with men. She helps them. She breaks the types all down. You’ve read her paper on types, haven’t you?
JHW: But the gist of the whole thing is sending women back into the home, and I resent that. I don’t want to go back. I like it outside. Fortunately, I have Jo who backs it up, too.
MW: Great marriage.
JHW: He’s very understanding. Of course he’s always been an anomaly being an extrovert and a feeling type. Jungians have never heard of extroversion and think feeling people can’t think. That’s the trouble with them. So he’s had to right his way . . .
JHW: We’ve got to go.
1. Barbara Hannah.
- Wol (1956) describes four structural forms of the feminine psyche: mother, hetaira, medial woman, and Amazon. The mother and hetaira are personally related. The medial woman and Amazon are impersonally related.
- While Jane Wheelwright did not feel that she did her best work with Toni Wolff, Wheelwright did exchange letters with Wolff. Wheelwright also sent flowers when Wol died and made an effort to notify others of Wol ’s death (Barker, Mary Culver. Letter to Jane Hollister Wheelwright. April 24, 1953).
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines “striate” as “marked or scored with striae, showing narrow structural bands, striped, streaked, furrowed” and “striate” (verb) as “to mark or score with striae, to furrow, streak.”
Permission Marion Woodman; Lynda Wheelwright Schmidt; John Hollister Wheelwright; the Jane Hollister and Joseph Wheelwright Collection, OPUS Archives and Research Center.
Anthony, Maggy. 1999. Jung’s circle of women: The Valkyries. York Beach, ME: Nicholas-Hays.
Barker, Mary Culver. Letter to Jane Hollister Wheelwright. April 24, 1953. OPUS Archives and Research Center. Box 106. Folder: Jane Hollister Wheelwright Correspondence I.
Hannah, Barbara. 1971. Wuthering heights. In Striving towards wholeness. New York, NY: Putnam.
Jung, C. G. 1963. Memories, dreams, reflections. Ed. Aniela Jaffé. Trans. Richard and Clara Winston. New York: Vintage Books.
Miller, Jean Baker, MD. 1976. Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.
Wheelwright, Jane Hollister. 1982. “Jung.” In C. G. Jung, Emma Jung and Toni Wol. Ed. Ferne Jensen. San Francisco, CA: The Analytical Psychology Club of San Francisco.
———. 1983/1987. Old age and death. Quadrant 16.1: 5–27. Reprinted in Betwixt and between: Patterns of masculine and feminine initiation, eds. Louise Carus Mahdi, Steven
Foster, and Meredith Little, 389–411. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
———. 1979. Three audiotapes of a seminar on old age and dying that took place on March 10 at the C. G. Jung Institute of San Francisco. In possession of the author.
———. 1978. Women and men. San Francisco, CA: C. G. Jung Institute of San Francisco.
Wolff, Toni. Letter to Jane Hollister Wheelwright. March 17, 1936. OPUS Archives and Research Center. Jane Hollister Wheelwright and Joseph Wheelwright Collection: TLS,
Wheelwright Box 106. Folder: Jane Wheelwright Correspondence II.
———. Letter to Jane Hollister Wheelwright. April 26, 1937. OPUS Archives and Research Center. Photocopy of TLS, Jane Hollister Wheelwright and Joseph Wheelwright Collection:
Wheelwright Box 161. Folder: Photocopies of correspondence with C. G. Jung and Toni Wolff.
———. Letter to Jane Hollister Wheelwright. May 14, 1937. OPUS Archives and Research Center. Photocopy of ALS, Jane Hollister Wheelwright and Joseph Wheelwright Collection: Wheelwright Box 161. Folder: Photocopies of correspondence with C. G. Jung and Toni Wolff.
———. Letter to Jane Hollister Wheelwright. July 6, 1939. OPUS Archives and Research Center. Jane Hollister Wheelwright and Joseph Wheelwright Collection: ALS, Wheelwright Box 106. Folder: Jane Wheelwright Correspondence II.
———. Postcard to Dr. Joseph Wheelwright. May 29, 1940. OPUS Archives and Research Center. Jane Hollister Wheelwright and Joseph Wheelwright Collection: ALS Wheelwright Box 106. Folder: Jane Wheelwright Correspondence II.
———. Letter to Dr. Joseph Wheelwright. January 2, 1950. OPUS Archives and Research Center. Jane Hollister Wheelwright and Joseph Wheelwright Collection: TLS, Wheelwright Box 106. Folder: Jane Wheelwright Correspondence II.
———. Letter to Jane Hollister Wheelwright. January 4, 1952. OPUS Archives and Research Center. Photocopy of TLS, Jane Hollister Wheelwright and Joseph Wheelwright Collection: Wheelwright Box 161. Folder: Photocopies of correspondence with C. G. Jung and Toni Wolff.
———. 1956. Structural forms of the feminine psyche. Trans. Paul Watzlawik. Zürich: Privately printed for the Students Association, C. G. Jung Institute.
Woodman, Marion. Transcription of an interview with Jane Wheelwright focused on Emma Jung and Toni Wol. OPUS Archives. Wheelwright Collection, Box 156, series 2. Interview transcripts folder: JHW Interviewed by Marion Woodman 1981.
Betty Coon Wheelwright Ph.D., MFT is the author of a book of poems, Seaward (Berkeley Poets Cooperative, 1974) and articles and poems in a number of publications, including Psychological Perspectives, Jung Journal: Culture & Psyche, and Pomona College Magazine.
Correspondence: P.O. Box 1359, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
In Marion Woodman’s 1981 interview of Jane Hollister Wheelwright (1905–2004), Wheelwright shares her impressions of Emma Jung, Toni Wolff, and C. G. Jung. Wheelwright believes that Jung’s theories of individuation, the animus and the anima, and psychological types liberated some women of her generation. She reflects on succeeding generations of women who have increasing freedom to be themselves and do not resonate with Jung’s view of feminine psychology. Wheelwright is frustrated with the patriarchal aspect of some Jungian theory, but believes that Jung’s emphasis on individuation freed women to be themselves.
anima, animus, Maggy Antony, Dieter Baumann; Mary Briner, first-generation Jungian analysts, Barbara Hannah, C. G. Jung, Emma Jung, patriarchal, primitive-modern split, psychological types, Jane Hollister Wheelwright, Joseph Wheelwright, wilderness, Toni Wolff, women, Marion Woodman