Ariane Callot explores Jung’s 1951-1954 correspondence with theologians such as Victor White and Dorothee Hoch in order to delve into the contentious reception of « Answer to Job ». Her analysis highlights the key arguments and insights from these letters, providing a deeper understanding of the criticisms Jung faced.

Drawing by F.M. Callot. Theologians protest: « No to Answer to Job ».

French version of this article

On this page

• Introduction
  [Personal and professional life in 1951-1954, Jung’s ambivalent attitude regarding his correspondence]
• Reading Jung’s letters
  [Answer to Job, The project, Jung’s correspondents]
• Four lettres from Jung
  [To Dorothee Hoch]

INTRODUCTION

Personal and professional life in 1951-1954

Jung was 76 years old in 1951. His way of looking at life and people’s behavior had evolved since his serious illness and his visions in 1944.

In a letter to Neumann from January 1952 he writes: « I could no longer consider the average reader. Rather, he has to consider me. I had to pay this tribute to the pitiless fact of my old age. » There is feeling in this sentence, and it’s particularly in Jung’s letters that we find this ease of self-expression.

He talks about his health, sorrows, joys, anger, misunderstandings, and many other personal subjects.

Even though Jung felt weakened during these years, major works appeared or were in germination:

• Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self in 1951,
• Synchronicity: an Acausal Connecting Principle (with Pauli) in 1952,
• Answer to Job in 1952.
• In 1954 Jung published the following essays, now contained in CW9, Part 1:
  • The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious,
  • Concerning the Archetypes, with Special Reference to the Anima Concept,
  • Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype.
• Work on Mysterium coniunctionis was also in progress.

These publications reflect substantial effort and remarkable intellectual strength.

Answer to Job seems to bridge the gap between Jung’s broader body of work during this period and his personal correspondence. During this time, Jung felt compelled to express his thoughts and feelings about God openly. This work sparked intense opposition, leading to numerous letters from Jung addressing these controversies.

Jung’s ambivalent attitude regarding his correspondence

Throughout his life, Jung consistently dedicated significant time to exchanging letters with people from diverse professions and nationalities.

When reading the letters from 1951-1954, it appears that during this period of his life, Jung experienced a mixture of attraction and repulsion towards this extensive correspondence.

He writes extensive ten-page letters that read like articles, as well as concise notes that carry significant weight because they reveal intimate aspects of his life. In his correspondence, he discusses his work and provides clear, succinct definitions of his concepts. Whether communicating with esteemed scientists or an unknown person seeking advice, Jung’s writing is consistently proficient.

The drawback of this epistolary abundance is that Jung frequently laments the immense workload it entails, leading to delays ranging from months to weeks or even years. He offers various explanations, starting with blaming his secretary, followed closely by illness, vacations, trips, and even a letter that was lost for over a year under a stack of documents!

In December 1951 Jung goes as far as to refer to « the curse of letter-writing », yet this doesn’t stop him from continuing to use his correspondence as a privileged means of expression.

That’s life…

In his letters we find details about the life and thoughts of a Jung distinct from the scholarly Jung who strives for a quasi-scientific rigor.

He freely expresses his appreciation for female beauty and intelligence. For instance, in a letter dated September 21, 1951, addressed to his friend Father Victor White, he writes:

I have seen Mrs. X. and I assure you she is quite an eyeful and beyond! We had an interesting conversation and I must admit she is quite remarkable. If ever there was an anima it is she, and there is no doubt about it.

He also discusses his struggle with following his doctor’s advice to quit smoking. On March 13, 1953, after five days without smoking, he describes his foul mood and ponders, « What would the gods do without smoke offerings? »

READING JUNG’s LETTERS

Distillation

Practically every letter from 1951-1954 adds something to the understanding of Jung’s life, thoughts, or work. If you can’t see the forest for the trees, you end up getting overwhelmed.

My method involves reading and taking an excessive amount of notes because everything seems important. Then, I let time pass and forgetfulness set in. Through this slow distillation, the essence of Jung’s concerns and thoughts during this period of his life became clear to me: the decision to publish Answer to Job and the consequences of that publication.

The project of Jung’s Answer to Job

One could say that the project of Answer to Job was already taking shape when Jung, around twelve years old, allowed a terrible vision to enter his consciousness, which he later recounted in Memories, Dreams, Reflections:

God sits on His golden throne, high above the world and from under the throne an enormous turd falls upon the sparkling new roof, shatters it, and breaks the walls of the cathedral asunder. (p. 39)

Jung carries within him the feeling that God might not be purely benevolent, but he only chooses to express this publicly in the twilight of his life. Shedding the rigor of a theoretician, he decides to write more emotively about what he truly believes.

Jung predicts his own witch hunt!

From the letters in 1951-1954, it is evident that Jung, knowing it would have negative repercussions among theologians, decided to proceed nonetheless.

This begins with the announced publication of Aion before Answer to Job, as he discusses in a letter from March 1951:

This summer a new work of mine will appear, which is concerned with Christian symbology (especially the figure of Christ), under the title Aion. Then I’ll be ripe for an auto-da-fé.

And Jung will not stop there, driven by the compelling need to express what he has « felt » about God since his early years.

First readings before publication

Before the publication of Answer to Job, Jung had several people read the manuscript, including Aniela Jaffé, one of his collaborators, whom he praised for reading the text through to the end, which he noted most people did not do.

He was so certain that his text would be poorly received that in February 1952 he advised caution to a pastor and theologian who wanted to dedicate a book to him:

A controversial book of mine is to appear shortly, entitled Answer to Job. (…) I have shown the MS to three theologians and they were shocked.

Jung was willing to face the consequences of thinking unconventionally himself, but he did not want others to be affected by it.

Why such a scandal?

Throughout his life, Jung endeavored to maintain good relations with theologians. Whether before, during, or after the publication of Answer to Job, he attempted to explain himself, though not always convincingly. Not known for having an easygoing temperament, he grew increasingly frustrated, leading to irony, sarcasm, and at times, surprisingly, a certain self-pity.

Nevertheless, he could hardly have been surprised, and indeed he was not, by the storm unleashed by this book. After all, it asserts that opposites are contained within God, that one cannot ignore His dark side, and even more provocatively, that the divine Wholeness lacks a feminine element!

Identifying with Job, a victim of divine injustice, Jung remained ready to respond to his critics at all times.

Jung’s correspondents

Jung exchanged letters with numerous individuals, both anonymous and famous. However, between 1951 and 1954, the majority of his correspondents were religious figures—Protestant and Catholic theologians—as well as doctors.

Father Victor White

In this part of the correspondence, there are famous letters, such as the many addressed to Father Victor White.

He was an English Dominican with whom Jung maintained intense relations for years. Of course these relations deteriorated significantly due to Answer to Job! In a remarkable ten-page letter from April 1954, Jung tirelessly attempts to engage in dialogue and explain himself, yet the rift between the two men widens.

Theologians

During these years, both before and after the publication of Answer to Job, Jung engaged in polemics with theologians, especially Protestant ones, regarding what I would call the concept of God and religion.

While he did write some kind letters to Catholics who seemed more receptive to his ideas, his tone often turned ironic and even aggressive. He truly felt misunderstood and was not far from believing that some of his correspondents were intellectually inept. Sarcasm was never far away…

Erich Neumann

However, there are harmonious epistolary relationships as well. The best example is the one Jung maintained with Erich Neumann. In this part of the correspondence, there are numerous letters from Jung to Neumann, and there exists a thick volume of their exchanges. Yet the circumstances were quite different.

If Jung writes, among other things, to Neumann that he is the only one who understands him, it is not surprising. After all, Neumann is one of his students, I would even say disciples, and a staunch advocate of Analytical Psychology. However, this does not prevent there being a great deal of back-and-forth between them concerning Answer to Job.

Dorothee Hoch

Jung’s letters explaining Answer to Job are consistently fascinating, as he passionately articulates his thoughts. From gratitude to clarification, controversy to cutting irony, his expressions vary widely. He frequently addresses intellectuals, tailoring each letter to its recipient. Some are so brilliant that they contain remarkable summaries of Jung’s thoughts.

Yet, after the distillation process I mentioned, four letters stand out in my memory. They were written in response to correspondence received from a female Protestant minister, Dorothee Hoch, whom Jung referred to as « Dr. Hoch ».

FOUR LETTRES FROM JUNG

I chose to focus on the letters Jung addressed to this female minister because they strike me as particularly representative of a Jung who expresses his emotions and moods freely. They encompass everything: the Jung who cannot tolerate intrusions into his private life, the explanatory Jung, the pedagogical Jung, the Jung laden with sarcasm towards those he feels do not understand him. There’s even a Jung capable of recognizing when he has gone too far.

Dorothee Hoch

Dorothee Hoch had sent Jung a critical review of Answer to Job that she had published in a theological journal. In the accompanying letter, she expressed several psychological and theological ideas.

She discussed the possibility that Answer to Job could be explained « from personal motives of the author », suggesting that as the son of a clergyman, Jung might « carry with him vengeful sentiments against a fatherly God » (see Letter from May 1952, notes).

On a theological level, she criticized him, among other things, for downplaying the importance of the devil.

It is from this initial exchange that a dialogue began which raises questions for me.

Jung’s responses to the letters of the minister

One might wonder why Jung, overwhelmed with his correspondence, responded four times to the five letters from Dorothee Hoch.

Perhaps he thought a woman would be more receptive to his arguments. While it’s tempting, given his somewhat unpleasant and pedantic tone from the first letter onward, to accuse him of being anti-feminist, I don’t believe that’s the case. Jung frequently surrounded himself and collaborated with brilliant women. In fact, he intellectually clashed more often with men than with women.

There is only one explanation I see: Jung hoped to persuade the minister to his ideas, but he let himself be carried away by his emotions and the passion of being right, which led to a nearly intimate disappointment. This woman, knowledgeable in theology, was expected to understand him, yet she proved unable to do so… and this enraged him!

Here, I can only provide an overview, or rather a « feeling, » about these four letters.

First letter: May 1952

Reproches from the outset

In the first response to the minister, it’s no surprise that Jung’s opening lines object to her suspicion of him having a « father complex. » He follows with a broader reproach:

It is always a risky business to attribute unproven personal motives to an opponent before one has sufficiently weighed or understood the nature of his argument.

I read the words opponent, personal motives, and not being understood. The tone is set, and I assume that she will have to bear the brunt of Jung’s moods.

Then, he responds with great vivacity to the minister’s various arguments and ends his list of replies ironically:

Presumably you won’t think I am criticizing the metaphysical God? After all, we are not living in the Middle Ages when people still believed they could do God an injury. The Protestants will, I hope, not fall into the error of thinking they are the only Christians in the world?

Jabs are frequent, such as: « If you will conscientiously reread what I have said about individuation » implying that, like many others, she cannot read it properly.

Sharp attacks on theologians to drive home the point

He also criticizes theologians and those who deliver incomprehensible and uninteresting sermons. He believes they steer Christians away from a religion that he considers « a matter of first-rate importance », unfortunately better understood by psychiatrists than theologians.

He concludes by announcing that he is sending the minister a response he wrote to what could be called his favorite adversary, Martin Buber, a theologian with whom he engages in lively controversy on theological subjects.

I enclose my reply to M. Buber, who also thinks he can talk of God without saying which, and without proving that this is the only right one. These absurdities have to be cleared up for once.

The hope of being understood

In this initial letter, one could say that Jung expresses himself somewhat roughly, yet one does not write what he himself calls an « all-too-long letter » without sincerely intending to enlighten the recipient. Thus, deep down, he believes it’s possible.

Second letter: July 1952

The minister was not discouraged and had sent Jung the text of one of her sermons. He responds relatively quickly with another lengthy letter, indicating his desire to continue their correspondence.

Jung tries to be pleasant

Although somewhat awkwardly, Jung begins by thanking the pastor for meeting his endeavor « with more friendliness and understanding ». Yet, at the end of a response where he does not spare criticism of the minister’s sermon, he writes to her:

These reflections came to me as I read the sermon you have kindly placed at my disposal. I was particularly affected by your thesis of « total surrender. »

It’s quite something to be a person who affects Jung!

Many themes are discussed in this letter. For example: « the Bible was written by man », the Gospel does not sufficiently address the layman, and « Christ forces man into the impossible conflict ». However, what struck me the most is Jung’s very original question about the cross of Christ.

Who carries Christ’s cross?

According to Jung, we strive to imitate Christ but neglect our own reality and forget to undertake our most important task: the reconciliation of opposites.

Instead of bearing our own cross, we place the burden on Christ, despite the fact that « The cross of Christ was borne by himself and was his ». This explains why theology rejects psychology, as the latter reveals that each individual must take on the burden of their own cross.

Jung also addresses the issue of individuation in a very original way in this part of the letter:

We might also discover, among other things, that in every feature Christ’s life is a prototype of individuation and hence cannot be imitated: one can only live one’s own life totally in the same way with all the consequences this entails. 

Third letter: September 1952

This shorter letter aims to explain Jung’s vehemence and the motivations behind his correspondence with the minister. He nearly admits that he uses their correspondence as an excuse to express his feelings on subjects that wound him.

He begins by telling her that he « let off steam » in his last letter but that « it was not meant personally ».

After mainly discussing religion and how it is taught, he concludes his letter by asking the minister « not to take his remarks personally but for what they are
—footnotes to the religious question of the present ».

Jung clarifies in the postscript:

I really owe you an explanation why it is that I bombard you with such long and repellent letters. I have, you see, to listen to so much idiotic and negative stuff about Christianity on the one hand, and am so grotesquely misunderstood by the theologians on the other, that I do my utmost to bring my criticism to bear only when I can count on goodwill, (…).

This correspondence seemed destined to continue, yet it abruptly ended for reasons that are hard to pinpoint, as we only have Jung’s letters to unravel the story.

A break-up letter from Jung: April 1953 

Jung’s missing letter

We see that the response time is long, which can be explained by the fact that he didn’t deem it necessary to reply to the minister’s letter from December 5, 1952. That letter must have greatly upset him, but not realizing that his silence was a way of ending their correspondence, she wrote to him again. Unfortunately, this led to a scathing response from him.

Harsh words

To convey the impression left by reading this final message to minister Dorothee Hoch, I suggest a sort of « patchwork » created from Jung’s own words.

Since I have not been in the best of health for some time, and you are evidently not in a position to follow my line of thought, I quailed at the prospect of answering you yet again. (…)

You treat psychology cavalierly and do not notice how very much you misunderstand it. (…)

You have not exactly encouraged my attempt to build bridges. But I won’t molest you any further with my paradoxes, (…).

My hope was only that I might inculcate into you a somewhat more reasonable and less distorted view of my psychology. I am evidently a bad advocate in my own cause and would therefore like to take leave of you with many apologies.

The rest of the letter mainly consists of a final tirade against theologians who, he says, have driven him out of the Church.

The minister did not respond further, which is understandable. As for Jung, he had already moved on from a moment when his facade had cracked a little.

This correspondence perfectly illustrates a constant challenge for Jung: reconciling his personal vision of psychology with external expectations and criticisms, all while remaining true to his imperative of ethics and intellectual honesty.

Original article by Ariane Callot,
translation by Peggy Vermeesch.

July 2024

Ariane Callot

Ariane Callot is a doctor of philosophy. She defended a thesis oriented on Jung in France in 2000. She is the co-founder of the association Espace Francophone Jungien and has published numerous articles on this platform.

Articles

• C.G. Jung, Gerard de Nerval, and Aurelia
• Dune : Was Frank Herbert inspired by C.G. Jung?
• Answer to Job: Jung and his critics

For a list of articles and interviews published in French, visit Ariane Callot’s page on EFJ.