1. The Freud/Jung Letters, ed. William McGuire, trans. Ralph Mannheim and R. F. C. Hull (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), p. 226. All passages discussed have been compared with the original and in some cases modified to restore omissions or convey nuances. See Sigmund Freud, C. G. Jung, Briefwechsel (Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer, 1974Google Scholar). The comic anecdote alluded to by Freud is appended to Freud/Jung, p. 587.

2. Freud/Jung, pp. 89n, 231, 252, 455n. At least two Russian laymen also participated, so that Russians often constituted one-third to one-half of the group (ibid., pp. 101, 142n, 198).

3. Sara Neiditsch and N. E. Osipov, “Psycho-Analysis in Russia,” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis (hereafter cited as IJPsA), 3 (1922): 513-20. The necrology on Rosenthal was composed by Neiditsch in Berlin from unknown sources (ibid., pp. 541-18).

4. On the psychopolitics of Freud's formative decades, see Carl E. Schorske's engaging article, “Politics and Patricide in Freud's Interpretation of Dreams,” American Historical Review, 78 (April 1973): 328-47, reprinted in Schorske's Fin-de-siècle Vienna (New York: Knopf, 1980), pp. 181-207.

5. Freud/Jung, pp. 14, 210.

6. A Psycho-Analytic Dialogue. The Letters of Sigmund Freud and Karl Abraham, 1907-1926, ed. H. C. Abraham and E. L. Freud (New York: Basic Books, 1965), pp. 34, 47. In a letter of August 13, 1908, urging Jung to carry on his work, Freud speaks of Jung's “Germanic blood which enables you to command the sympathies of the public more readily than I” (Freud/Jung, p. 168). A judgment by Lionel Trilling should be considered in this context: “although Jung was by no means inaccessible to anti-Jewish thoughts and feelings — this is made clear by [Freud's biographer] Jones and of course by Jung's deplorably compromised relation to the Nazi ideology — there is no adumbration of anti-Semitism in the quarrel with Freud” (see Lionel, Trilling, New York Times Book Review, April 21, 1974, p. 32Google Scholar). However, in 1908 Freud wrote sardonically to Abraham of “the suppressed anti-Semitism of the Swiss” (see note 37 below). Ethnic tension was unquestionably and inevitably at the heart of the Freud-Jung relationship. On the later, darker signs of Jung's anti- Semitic impulse, see note 33 below.

7. The point was emphasized by Freud in his fifth letter: “the cure is effected by love… . Transference provides … the only unassailable proof that neuroses are determined by the individual's love life” (Freud/Jung, pp. 12-13).

8. Freud/Jung, pp. 228, 229.

9. The translation was published in Moscow in 1910. See also ibid., p. 244.

10. Pomer, Sydney L., “Max Eitingon, 1881-1943. The Organization of Psychoanalytic Training,” Psychoanalytic Pioneers, ed. Franz Alexander et al. (New York: Basic Books, 1966, pp. 51–62 Google Scholar.

11. Freud/Jung, pp. 89, 90.

12. Ibid., p. 90.

13. Ibid., p. 207.

14. Ibid., p. 7.

15. Ibid., pp. 8-9.

16. See Jung, C. G., “The Freudian Theory of Hysteria,” Freud and Psychoanalysis (New York: Pantheon, 1961, pp. 20–22 Google Scholar. See also A Psycho-Analytic Dialogue, p. 47.

17. A Psycho-Analytic Dialogue, p. 48.

18. Freud/Jung, p. 72. Ironically, the editors turned to Vladimir Nabokov for consultation on this literary matter. Nabokov often delighted in drawing satires of Freud (for example, Doctor Signy Signy in Ada), whom he dismissed as “the Viennese Quack” (see the introduction to Nabokov, Vladimir, Bend Sinister [New York: Time, 1964], p. xviii Google Scholar). His attitude was one of eloquently normal resistance to psychoanalysis. Art, after all, is concealment, an ancient adage which goes double for Russians; psychoanalysis, on the contrary, works toward unmasking the beleaguered self, which both political and aesthetic instincts would defend. Therefore Nabokov's reservations about the two-edged sword of psychology are prudently and shrewdly shared by many artists among his countrymen, from Dostoevskii to Joseph Brodsky.

19. Freud/Jung, p. 72.

20. Ibid., p. 93.

21. Ibid., p. 236.

22. Ibid., p. 207. In the same letter Jung wrote that Ernest Jones was “very nervous about the emphasis placed upon sexuality in our propaganda” (Freud/Jung, p. 208), but less than two weeks earlier (February 10, 1907) he had written to Jones himself urging against “bursting out with the theory of sexuality in the foreground… . Both with students and with patients I get further by not making the theme of sexuality prominent” (see Vincent, Brome, Freud and His Early Circle [New York: Morrow, 1968], p. 117Google Scholar).

23. Freud/Jung, p. 210. Here Freud also chides Jung for lapsing into a “theological style.” He recalls having done the same in a letter to Jung's friend, the Reverend Oskar Pfister; Freud recalled using “every conceivable metaphor from the flame-fire-pyre complex” because “respect for theology had nailed me to this quotation (!): ‘One way or the other, the Jew will be burned.'” This quotation from Lessing's Nathan the Wise is balanced by another from Jung's “grandfather,” Goethe (according to legend), “In league with the devil and yet you fear fire” (Faust, Part I, 2585-6) (Freud/Jung, pp. 210-11; Freud's emphasis). Here Freud lightly flaunts their ethnic difference and challenges Jung to pursue psychoanalysis boldly at his peril.

24. Freud/Jung, p. 212.

25. The word “psychoanalytic” was inadvertently omitted from the English version of this passage (Freud/Jung, pp. 228-29 and Briefwechsel, p. 252). Seven letters in which Spielrein's case figures anonymously are listed under her name in the index to Freud/Jung. Missing from the index is the letter of October 10, 1907, in which Jung notes a partially cured patient “making me the object of sexual fantasies” (Freud/Jung, p. 93). This was probably the first sign of his trouble with Spielrein.

26. Freud/Jung, pp. 234-35.

27. The original, Laboratoriumsexplosion [my emphasis], contains a pun, which if not consciously intended was nonetheless fitting. Lassalle's lines (from a speech in his own legal defense) had been quoted by Freud in Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious (Leipzig and Vienna, 1905), part 2, section 12. Freud there notes his abiding admiration for Lassalle, a Jewish radical thinker who was more than once burned by scandal and died at thirty-nine in a duel over a woman. This aspect of Freud's unconventional enthusiasm may not have been lost on Jung.

28. Ernest, Jones, Sigmund Freud, Life and Work, vol. 2 (New York: Basic Books, 1955, p. 442 Google Scholar.

29. Even if he had consulted Jung's published Amsterdam lecture, Freud could not have identified Spielrein as Russian unless he also recalled Jung's letter of three years earlier. Not until the whole affair was over did Freud inquire about Spielrein's stylistic awkwardness, whereupon Jung explained that she was “a Russian” (Freud/Jung, pp. 238, 240).

30. Ibid., p. 236.

31. Ibid., p. 225. The female interpreter was probably an important psychological factor in this encounter — an inhibiting censor, an amplifier of anxieties, literally filtering the whole colloquy through “Russian material” (if we may assume that Asatiani's language was Russian).

32. The scope of this topic in its earliest stage is suggested by tables of contents in Psikhoterapiia, with original articles, translations of essays by Freud, Jung, Adler et al., reviews of books and conferences, names of participants. Dozens of individuals were involved. In the United States, only the first four years of Psikhoterapiia are to be found at the U. S. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland. Volumes for 1914 to 1916 are reportedly available in Helsinki, Finland at the University of Helsinki. The Lenin Library in Moscow has extensive materials for restricted use. See also Jeanne Neiditsch, “Über; den gegenwartigen Stand der Freudschen Psychologie in Russland,” Jahrbuch fur psychopathologische und psychoanalytische Forschungen (hereafter cited as Jahrbuch), 2 (1910): 347-48; Neiditsch credits Osipov with launching the movement in 1908. See notes 44, 49, 50, 51, and 52.

33. Freud/Jung, pp. 216-17. In Jung's later racial stereotyping and statements about “the Aryan unconscious” (1934), one finds reference to Freud's “great mistake” in “applying Jewish categories, which are not even binding for all Jews, indiscriminately to Christian, Germans or Slavs” ; the remark might imply an ethnic hierarchy, Slavs nethermost (quoted in Brome, , Freud and His Early Circle, p. 143 Google Scholar).

34. Gershenzon, M. O., “Tvorcheskoe samoznanie,” Vekhi, 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1909), p. 84 Google Scholar (quoted from a Possev facsimile reprint [Frankfurt/Main, 1967]). The famous anthology, reviewed by the Russian press in May, had ample time to reach Zurich before Doctor Asatiani's visit.

35. See Freud, Wit and Its Relation.

36. See page 21 above.

37. Freud claimed to detect a “Talmudic way of thinking” in himself, especially in his analytic grasp of humor (A Psychoanalytic Dialogue, p. 36). On anti-Semitism and masochism, see Freud's letter of July 23, 1908 (ibid., p. 46).

38. Sigmund, Freud, The Origins of Psycho-Analysis. Letters to Wilhelm Fliess, Drafts and Notes: 1887-1902, ed. Marie Bonaparte et al. (London: Imago, 1954, pp. 263–64 Google Scholar; emphasis in original. Another Russian political joke in Freud's letters to Fliess is his comparison of psychotic speech to a foreign newspaper once it passes the Russian frontier — “words, sentences, whole paragraphs blacked out” (ibid., p. 240).

39. Ostdeutsche Rundschau, May 22, 1909.

40. See Leon, Trotsky, My Life [1929] (New York: Pathfinder, 1970), pp. 220–21, 474Google Scholar; Trotskii, L, “Pis'mo Akademiku I. P. Pavlovu,” Sochineniia, 21 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1924-27), 21: 260 Google Scholar; Trotskii, L. D., Literatura i revoUutsiia (Moscow-Leningrad, 1923Google Scholar). Trotskii's colleague loffe even contributed to Psikhoterapiia ( “Po povodu ‘bezsoznatel'nogo’ v zhizni individuuma,” 1913, no. 4, pp. 231-38), as did Raisa Timofeevna Adler (a report on her husband's independent movement, Psikhoterapiia, 1913, no. 1). On Frau Doctor Adler, née Epstein, an impetuous personality of “Russian revolutionary tendencies” (from a wealthy family of railroad tycoons), see Phyllis, Bottome, Alfred Adler (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1939Google Scholar) and Henri, Ellenberger, Discovery of the Unconscious (New York: Basic Books, 1970, p. 585 Google Scholar.

41. See Freud, , Origins, pp. 219–21Google Scholar and Freud, , Traumdeutung (Vienna, 1900), chap. 5Google Scholar, on Freud's Czech nanny. On family history, see Ellenberger, , Discovery, pp. 426–28Google Scholar and Jones, , Sigmund Freud, 1: 3, 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. Mühsam, Erich, “Bohême,” Die Fackel, April 30, 1906, no. 202, p. 9 Google Scholar. This article is directly preceded by a short editorial deploring Austria's backing for a Russian loan “true to our established principle of binding ourselves to bankrupt powers so as to offend the power of the future.” By supporting tsarism, it was feared, Austria earned the enmity of “rising young Russia” ( “Ein Vorschlag,” ibid., p. 3). On Freud's special attention to Die Fackel, see his letter to the editor three months earlier (Letters of Freud, Sigmund, ed. Freud, Ernst [New York: Basic Books, 1960], pp. 121–23Google Scholar).

43. This statement from Bakunin's essay on “The Reaction in Germany” was quoted by Frank, S. L. in “Etika nigilizma” (Vekhi, p. 194 Google Scholar), with the ironic remark that the word “also” (auch) had long since vanished from the aphorism, and so destruction had come to be firmly identified with creativity.

44. Sabina, Spielrein, “Die Destruktion als Ursache des Werdens,” Jahrbuch, 4 (1912): 465–503Google Scholar.

45. Jung agreed with Freud's first estimate of this essay: “her paper is heavily overweighted with her own complexes” (Freud/Jung, p. 498). He also applied to the article a bawdy Horatian commonplace for artistic composition that fails: “Desinat in piscem mulier formosa superne” ( “What looks like a woman above comes down to a fish below” ). This was a fittingly spiteful last word. She had been his “test case” — an all too destructively seductive test that he had failed; Spielrein was the one that got away. An abridged, humorless account of the Spielrein-Jung episode is given by Vincent, Brome, Jung (New York: Atheneum, 1978), pp. 111–13, 130Google Scholar; there Spielrein is treated as an unredeemed neurotic troublemaker. Jung himself grudgingly acknowledged her work in later decades; see Jung, , “Symbols of Tranformation,” Collected Works, vol. 5 (New York: Pantheon, 1956, p. 328 Google Scholar. Long before, Freud had given her his recognition in print, in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920). A note in chapter 6 cites her article as “full of valuable matter and ideas… but unfortunately not entirely clear to me” ( Freud, , Beyond the Pleasure Principle [London: International Psycho-Analytic Press, 1922], 70nCrossRefGoogle Scholar). Spielrein's contribution is positively secure in the literature; see Jones, , Freud, 2: 452, 3: 513Google Scholar, footnote 25; Freud, , Gesammelte Werke, 18 vols. (London, 1952-68), 14: 479 Google Scholar; and Paul, Roazen, Freud and His Followers (New York: Knopf, 1975, p. 282 Google Scholar. During their brief association in Vienna (1911-12), Freud found Spielrein “rather nice … the little woman has a very good head” (Freud/Jung, pp. 469, 473). In a short, charming case study the following year, Spielrein assigned Freud the symbolic identities of pagan hero, comforter, priest, beloved person, and Jew — “Father Freud” ( “Traum vom ‘Pater Freudenreich, '” Internationale Zeitschrift für ärztliche Psychoanalyse, 1 [1913]: 484-86).

46. The Wolf Man, ed. Muriel Gardiner (New York: Basic Books, 1971), pp. 156, 245, 259. A Russian translation exists ( Z., Freid, Psikhoanaliz detskikh nevrozov [Moscow-Leningrad, 1925]Google Scholar).

47. Piaget, personal communication, February 23, 1976.

48. Alexander, Grinstein, ed., The Index of Psychoanalytic Writings, 9 vols. (New York: International Universities Press, 1952-59), 4: 1861–62Google Scholar. Half of her works deal with childhood and womanhood, including “The Automobile — Symbol of Male Power,” an analysis of a woman's dream (IJPsA, 4 [1923]: 128).

49. IJPsA, 3 (1922): 518-20; 4 (1923): 397-98, 523-24; 5 (1924): 122, 258-59; 6(1925): 243-4; 7 (1926): 294-95; 8 (1927): 454-55; 9 (1928): 397-99; 10 (1929): 514, 562. See also Donald, Young, “Ermakov and Psychoanalytic Criticism in Russia,” Slavic and East European Journal, 23, no. 1 (Spring 1979)Google Scholar: 72-86; Luria, A. R., The Making of Mind. A Personal Account of Soviet Psychology, ed. M. and S. Cole (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979Google Scholar) (from Luriia's chapter on Vygotskii one could not imagine their formal and active involvement in the psychoanalytic movement); and Sabina Spielrein, “Russische Literatur,” Bericht über der Fortschritt der Psychoanalyse in den Jahren 1914-1919 (supplement to the Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse), ed. S. Freud, no. 3 (Leipzig, Vienna, and Zurich, 1921), pp. 356-65, a rich, annotated bibliography.

50. A. R. Luriia, “Some Principles of Psycho-Analysis as Compared with Current (Experimental) Psychology,” February 28, 1923 (cited in IJPsA, 4 [1923]: 399); A. R. Luriia, “The Modern Russian Psychology and Psychoanalysis,” Internationale Zeitschrift für ärtzliche Psychoanalyse, 12, no. 1 (1924) (a detailed abstract can be found in Psychoanalytic Review, 18 [1931]: 446-48). V. B. Friedmann ( “Psycho-Analysis and Materialistic Monism,” presented May 14, 1925) argues that psychoanalysis is “an entirely materialistic doctrine” ; a brief abstract can be found in IJPsA, 7 (1926): 295. See also “Does Psychoanalysis Contradict Dialectic Materialism?” a paper presented October 28, 1926 (cited in IJPsA, 8 [1927]: 454). For Trotskii, see note 40 above and L. D. Trotskii, “Kul'tura i sotsializm,” Sochineniia, 21: 423-46, especially pages 430-31 and 446n. Voloshinov, V. N., Freidizm; kriticheskii ocherk (Moscow-Leningrad, 1927)Google Scholar; the English translation by I. R. Titunik (Freudianism [New York: Academic Press, 1976]) has an introduction dealing with the disputed attribution of this book to M. M. Bakhtin, a literary theoretician now famous in the West, and other features of interest.

51. The history of the ill-fated Russian psychoanalysis ferment, the anti-Freudian aggression and defense, has yet to be written. Useful beginnings are to be found in Jean Marti, “La Psychanalyse en Russie et en Union Sovietique de 1909 à 1930,” Critique, 32, no. 346 (March 1976): 199-236; Petrovskii, A. V., Istoriia sovetskoi psikhologii (Moscow, 1967), pp. 79–94 Google Scholar; L., Rahmani, Soviet Psychology (New York: Inter-University Press, 1974Google Scholar); Nigel, Moore, Psykoterapin i öststaterna (Stockholm: Norstedts, 1981Google Scholar). By all accounts, Marxist criticism of psychoanalysis started to gain momentum in 1925 (in Pod znamenem marksizma, Voinstvuiushchii materialist, and Pravda [June 14, 1925]; I am indebted to Nigel Moore, University of Uppsala, for suggesting these leads). From mid-1925 Moshe Wulff reported that “feeling against Freud now manifesting itself in Russia is in the main simply a repetition of the controversy long ago concluded in Western Europe, with the addition of some new factors” (IJPsA, 7 [1926]: 295; my emphasis). But this was whistling in the dark. The fall of Trotskii must have alarmed and demoralized the exceedingly small and defenseless movement he had championed. Psychoanalysis was vulnerably “cosmopolitan” both in the scope of its ideas and in the ethnicity of its membership. An internal weakness was also felt in the lack of trained analysts for instructional needs (IJPsA, 9 [1928]: 399). The Soviet National Psychology Congress in 1930 (Leningrad) seems to have heralded the end, though the Psychoanalytic Society reconvened for reports of the proceedings, to consider “criticism of psychoanalysis made at the First Congress of the Psychological Union” (B. V. Friedmann, report delivered February 17, 1930) and “anti-religious propaganda — the position to be adopted by the society” (R. A. Averbukh, report delivered March 1, 1930; see IJPsA, 11 [1930]: 521). For the schizoid cultural atmosphere of this period and the impact of perelom on the sciences, see David, Joravsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, 1917-1932 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961Google Scholar), especially his discussion of the reception of Afinogenov's play Strakh on pages 237-38, and David, Joravsky, “The Construction of the Stalinist Psyche,” in Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928-1931, ed. Sheila Fitzpatrick (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1978), pp. 105-28 and 277Google Scholar, footnote 96, which cites the official published records of the 1930 congress. The Slavic Reference Service of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign indicates no North American locations for these proceedings. Whatever the specific nature of the attack may have been (and incoherence was the norm), capitulation was the quick and wise response. A report on “The Psychoanalytic Movement in Russia” by E. Perepel of Leningrad, written after Freud's flight from Vienna in May 1938, lists some of the main Marxist objections to psychoanalysis. Perepel states that the psychoanalysis movement “slowed down and about the year 1930 came to a standstill. From this date it officially ceased to exist, and all publications of its work ceased likewise” (Psychoanalytic Review, 26 [1939]: 299). Reports to the West also ceased that year: “Probably psychoanalysis does not come within the scope of the Five Year Plan upon which the whole energy of this strange polity is so passionately being spent” (IJPsA, 14 [1933]: 163). The last work printed in Russia, a distinguished position paper on the religion question, was a translation of Freud's Future of an Illusion (Die Zukunft einer Illusion; see Budushchnost’ odnoi illusii, trans, and ed. I. D. Ermakov [Moscow and Leningrad, 1930]).

52. Sigmund, Freud, Das Unbehagen in der Kultur (Vienna, 1930)Google Scholar. The work was reviewed at a society meeting by R. A. Averbukh on March 17, 1930 (reported in IJPsA, 11 [1930]: 521). See Civilization and Its Discontents, ed. J. Strachey (New York: W. W. Norton, 1961), chap. 5, pp. 61-62. The underground yet not wholly illicit survival of psychoanalysis in the Soviet Union after 1930 is represented by an aimlessly random array of anecdotes. In 1936 Doctor Philip Lehrman of New York visited Vera Schmidt in Moscow (the former secretary of the Russian psychoanalysis group) and reported that “a group of fifteen meet regularly to discuss analytic questions” (IJPsA, 18 [1937]: 96). Perepel (see note 51 above) reported that in 1938 “a death blow” to psychoanalysis was imminent (implying that the blow had not yet been struck). He sought world support, the strategy of present-day dissidents, and urged that criticism of Soviet science should be “from the Soviet point of view but should issue from a foreign press” (Psychoanalytic Review, 24 [1938]: 300). Luriia's article in the Bol'shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia ( “Psikhoanaliz,” vol. 47 [Moscow, 1940], pp. 507-10) and the much drier, harsher, briefer articles in later editions (see also articles on “Freidizm” ) keep the subject tenuously before the eyes of the alert, motivated reader. But only a few elite readers (and patients) ever know Freud directly in the USSR. One such was obviously Zoshchenko, whose astounding, self-analytic autobiography Pered voskhodom solntsa (1943; 1972) is a tribute to Freud despite the transparent anti-Freudian evasive maneuvers. He claims to have consulted doctors who were “orthodox Freudians” (chap. 5, part 7), an idea too outrageously funny (in Zoshchenko's manner) to be swallowed whole. Yet the book was written in Alma-Ata; perhaps the analysts had been trained there fifteen years before by Trotskii himself? Whatever the answer, this is the pinnacle of Soviet psychoanalytic belles-lettres (rising alone above the dark steppe, as Pushkin said of the Igor Tale). For full textology, see Mikhail, Zoshchenko, Before Sunrise, trans, and ed. Gary Kern (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1974Google Scholar). Again for specialists, Bassin, F. V. published “Freidizm v svete sovremennykh nauchnykh diskussii” in Voprosy psikhologii, 1958, no. 5, pp. 133-45 and no. 6, pp. 140-51Google Scholar. Amid reservations and condescensions, he recognizes the value of Freud's attention to the unconscious motivation, noting that Soviet skepticism of the later Freud had occasioned general neglect. A full-page article in Literaturnaia gazeta again puts the topic in the correct perspective: a total vacuum of ignorance (VI. Mikhailov, , “Psikhoanaliz — novaia religiia?” Literaturnaia gazeta, November 12, 1969, no. 46, p. 13 Google Scholar). The author reports ubiquitous applications of psychoanalysis in the West (especially Italy) and urges Soviet specialists to learn something about Freud in time for the next international psychiatric congress. No doubt the top specialists were already well informed about Freudian theory. But as of 1969, in my personal experience, the official word at major Soviet libraries was that Freud was “antiscientific” and was not to be photocopied or “publicly promoted.” Recently a conference on “the unconscious” with some attention to Freud took place in Tbilisi (Bessoznatel'noe, ed. A. S. Pranishvili, 2 vols. [Tbilisi, 1978]; my thanks to David Joravsky for calling attention to this publication). It can fairly be said that psychoanalysis in the Soviet Union still belongs rather to the marginal phenomenology of the spirit than to any outward and visible dialectic that matters.

53. Spielrein's last publication ( “Two Dreams about Menstruation” ) appeared in 1934 (Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse, 2 [1934]: 32-34). Piaget's efforts to reestablish contact with her met with no success (personal communication, February 23, 1976). Too late for consideration in this discussion, I received a copy of Sabina Spielrein's diary and letters to Freud and Jung, recently published with commentary by Carotenuto, Aldo (Diario di una segreta simmetria: Sabine Spielrein tra Jung e Freud [Rome: Astrolabio, 1980]Google Scholar). Spielrein's manner is lively, inventive, and tactful. Jung's misconduct she magnanimously dismisses. Her diary of the early 1910s was written in German, as a conscious reminder of her rational intent to stay as far from Russia as possible (Diario di una segreta simmetria, pp. 159, 199). Spielrein's immediate impressions of Jung and Freud provide useful corrective insights into the matrix of Russian stereotypes discussed above.