Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jacob Esau On The Collective Symbolism of The Brother Motif (Erich Neumann)
Jacob Esau On The Collective Symbolism of The Brother Motif (Erich Neumann)
Text by Erich Neumann © 2015 by the Neumann Estate. All rights reserved.
Synopsis of biblical story, introduction, and editorial apparatus © 2015 by Erel Shalit. All rights
reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the publisher, Chiron Publications, 932 Hendersonville Road, Suite 104,
Asheville, North Carolina 28803.
Jacob and Esau: On the Collective Symbolism of the Brother Motif is published in cooperation with
Recollections, LLC. Recollections is devoted to promoting and supporting the publication of material
related to the early development of analytical psychology. Through its partnership with Chiron
Publications, Recollections has several projects under way.
Cover image: “Jacob and Esau,” by Meir Gur-Arieh. Used with permission by the artist’s estate,
Meira Kain.
Title page illustration: “Jacob and Esau,” by Jacob Steinhardt. Used with permission by the artist’s
estate, Yosefa Bar-On Steinhardt.
I.
The Symbolism of Jacob and Esau
II.
On the Collective Symbolism of the Brother Motif
III.
Layers of the Unconscious: The Interpretation of Mythology
Addendum
Editor’s Note
Translator’s Note
Bibliography
Index
Acknowledgments
W hile not a simple task, it has been a great privilege to edit and
introduce this work by Erich Neumann. I am grateful to Ms. Rali
Loewenthal-Neumann and Professor Micha Neumann for giving me access
to this manuscript and thus providing me with the opportunity to delve into
the depths and the development of Neumann’s thoughts.
It has been a rather unique experience to be as if present in the process of
Neumann’s writing and typing, which has been necessary in order to follow
the evolution and crystallization of his thinking. Concurrent with the sense
of being present has been the advantage of looking at this manuscript from
a distance in time and in the context of the bulk of Neumann’s writings in
the course of his all too short, yet tremendously creative life. Adding to the
paradoxes of this endeavor has been the sense of timelessness and
agelessness; on the one hand, this is an old manuscript, written eighty years
before I first read it, yet written by a young man, less than half my age. I
can only stand in awe and appreciate being let into the world of this very
introverted, remarkable illuminator of the psyche.
This book sees the light of day thanks to Nancy Swift Furlotti. She has
enabled this project to materialize. Spurred by her interest in Neumann’s
writings and her profound knowledge of Jung and analytical psychology,
carrying the spirit of depth, she read and saw the importance of this
manuscript. She has been the driving force behind this and other
publications, such as Analytical Psychology in Exile: The Correspondence
of C. G. Jung and Erich Neumann, as well as forthcoming works.
Neumann wrote this book, as he did all his other works, in German.
Mark Kyburz has provided a first-class translation into English. He has
created a text that is not only faithful to Neumann’s original but also
eloquent and easily readable, to which John Peck has bestowed valuable
editorial assistance. Furthermore, in a number of instances, Mark and John
have resolved difficult questions of translation in a masterful way.
My thanks go to Steve Buser and Len Cruz, publishers at Chiron. Their
professionalism, support, and enthusiasm have been tremendously valuable,
making this not only a process of hard work but contributing to the sense of
significance as well as joy. It has also been a pleasure and an honor to work
with Siobhan Drummond in the final stages of this book. She has handled
all aspects of this process in a way that every author or editor can only wish
for, skillfully guiding us across the hurdles of book production.
I would also like to thank Rina Porat, friend and colleague, for her
valuable help and comments. Few know Neumann’s theory and work as she
does.
I wish to thank Gideon Ofrat, historian of Israeli art, for turning my
attention to the woodcut by Jacob Steinhardt and the silhouette by Meir
Gur-Arieh. Their respective images of the meeting, reconciliation, and
embrace of Jacob and Esau convey the immensity of the biblical drama.
Yosefa Bar-On Steinhardt, the artist’s daughter, and Meira Kain,
granddaughter and namesake, have generously given permission to make
use of the artwork.
Lastly, while I don’t expect my grandchildren to read this book in the
very near future, I have undertaken the task of editing and introducing this
book by Neumann for them. Just like Erich Neumann’s work is a
psychological reconnection with his Jewish ancestors, reinterpreting the
stories of old in the realm of the objective psyche, I hope that their
generation will seek its own distinct ways of individuation, connected to
and on the basis of the inevitable, yet seemingly so easily deniable,
archetypal patterns of our ancestors.
The Biblical Story of Jacob and Esau
J acob and Esau are the best-known pair of twins in the Bible, sons of
Isaac and Rebekah.1 Abraham’s servant was sent to Aram-Naharaim to find
a wife for his son Isaac. Guided by providence, the servant met Rebekah at
the city well, “and the girl was very pretty to look upon, a virgin, and no
man had known her” (Gen. 24:16). She was the granddaughter of
Abraham’s brother Nahor, and she had gone down to the well to fill her jar
of water.2 Showing her hospitality and grace to the stranger, Rebekah gave
him a drink and drew water for his camels.
Abraham’s servant inquired about her background, so Rebekah brought
him home to her family. He told them about his mission, to find a wife for
Isaac, from his master Abraham’s family of origin. With the blessing of her
family, Rebekah agreed to follow him back to the Negev desert in the land
of Canaan, where Isaac was meditating in a field near the well of Lahairoi,
where he lived (Gen. 24:62).3 While Rebekah’s age is not mentioned, Isaac
was forty years old when they married. They remained childless for twenty
years, until she bore Esau and Jacob.
Rebekah inquired of God why her children struggled with each other in
her womb. God told her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples
shall be separated from your bowels; and the one people shall be stronger
than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger” (Gen. 25:23).
Esau, the firstborn, was “ready,” or “done,” which is the literal meaning
of his name, already when born. He came out red and hairy—thus his
additional names are Edom (red) and Seir (hairy). Jacob, born second,
followed with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel. His name means “the
supplanted,” or literally, the one who follows, holding the heel.
The brothers were each favored by one parent; Isaac loved Esau,
Rebekah loved Jacob. Esau grew up to be a skillful hunter, a man of the
field, while Jacob was a herdsman, a quiet tent dweller, that is, introverted
in comparison to his more extraverted hunter brother.
One day when Esau returned famished after hunting, he asked Jacob to
feed him red lentil soup. In exchange for the meal, Jacob demanded and
received Esau’s birthright as the firstborn, with the authority and the
inheritance associated with it.
Esau eventually became estranged from his parents, causing them grief
by marrying wives from the Hittite people.4 When old and approaching
death, Isaac called upon Esau, his beloved son, to go hunting and prepare
for him a dish he loved. He would then bless Esau before he died.
However, in an act of deception orchestrated by Rebekah, she prepared a
dish for Jacob to bring to his father and helped him obscure his identity.
Covering his neck and hands with fleece to appear to his father as if he were
the hairy Esau, Jacob presented the meal, with the intention of receiving his
father’s blessing. Isaac was suspicious, saying, “The voice is Jacob’s voice,
but the hands are the hands of Esau,” but he nevertheless gave Jacob his
blessing (Gen. 27:22).
When Esau returned after the hunt and realized Jacob’s deception, he
cried bitterly and asked his father to bless him as well, pointing out that
Jacob had deprived him of both his birthright and his blessing. Isaac then
blessed Esau and told him that while he would live by the sword, he would
prosper and eventually gain independence from Jacob.
Betrayed by Jacob, Esau hated his brother and “said in his heart, When
the days of mourning for my father are at hand, then I will slay my brother
Jacob” (Gen. 27:41). Aware that Esau took comfort in murderous thoughts,
Rebekah sent Jacob away to find a wife at the house of Laban, her brother
in Padan-Aram.5
Jacob departed on his journey, and when the sun set he lay down with a
stone as his pillow and dreamed his well-known dream:
Behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the
angels of God ascending and descending on it. The Lord stood above it, and said, I am the
Lord God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie, to you
will I give it, and to your seed; And your seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and you shall
spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south; and in you and
in your seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. I am with you, and will keep you in
all places where you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you, until I
have done that about which I have spoken to you. (Gen. 28:12–15)
When Jacob woke up, he called the place Bet-El, “the House of God,”
and went forth on his journey to the east, until he arrived in the city of
Haran, where his uncle Laban lived. He looked around, and in the field he
saw a well. At the well, Jacob inquired of the men who had gathered there
with their flocks of sheep if they knew Laban, grandson of Nahor. As they
spoke, Laban’s daughter Rachel came to the well for water for her father’s
sheep. Seeing her, Jacob approached, telling her he was the son of Rebekah,
her father’s sister. He helped her roll the stone from the well’s mouth. Thus,
in a way, he returned the gesture of affinity that his mother had shown the
servant of Abraham.
Jacob fell in love with Rachel, and wanting to take her as his wife, he
served Laban seven years, which “seemed to him but a few days” (Gen.
29:20). However, after those seven years, Jacob was betrayed by Laban,
who on the wedding night substituted Leah, his firstborn daughter, who had
“weak eyes,” for the beautiful Rachel. Determined to wed Rachel, Jacob
agreed to serve Laban another seven years, and then a further six years to
receive the cattle as a dowry. Realizing that Laban was taking advantage of
him, Jacob finally fled, returning to Canaan with his wives and children.
When Laban discovered that Jacob had escaped with his family, he and
his kinsmen went after him. After seven days, they caught up with Jacob in
the mountains of Gilead, east of the Jordan River. Having reconciled, they
parted in peace. Jacob “went on his way, and the angels of God met him”
(Gen. 32:2). For the second time, Jacob names a place, calling this site
Mahanaim (“two camps”), because “this is God’s host” (Gen. 32:3).
Now desiring reconciliation with Esau, Jacob sent messengers to tell his
brother, who had “settled in the land of Seir, the rugged, semiarid country of
Edom to the east and south of the Dead Sea,” about his return.6 When told
that Esau would meet him with four hundred men, Jacob feared Esau’s
revenge. He prepared gifts for his brother, and before sunset he sent his
wives, Leah and Rachel, Zilpah and Bilhah, his servants, and eleven sons
across the Jabbok River that they might be safe and away from any
conflict.7
Remaining behind alone, Jacob wrestled that night with a stranger, an
angel, “till the breaking of the day” (Gen. 32:25). Jacob did not let go of
him until he received a blessing from the stranger. The angel asked Jacob
his name, then renamed him Israel, “for you have striven with God and
with men, and have prevailed” (Gen. 32:29). Jacob named the place Peniel,
“For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Gen. 32:31).8
After the sun rose, Jacob was limping because of the wound that the angel
had inflicted on his thigh in the struggle between them.
The biblical account at this point seems to condense time, possibly
indicating the significance of the connection between the struggle with the
angel and the meeting with Esau. Upon lifting his eyes, Jacob saw in front
of him Esau and his men, and he bowed to his brother. Esau embraced him,
and the two brothers kissed and wept in each other’s arms. Having found
grace in his brother’s eyes, Jacob insisted on giving Esau his gifts, for “I
have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God” (Gen. 33:10).9
The hostile brothers parted ways: Esau went to Mount Seir in Edom,
becoming the father of the Edomites, while Jacob returned to his native
Canaan, becoming the father of the twelve tribes of Israel.
__________
1. The other known pair of biblical twins is Perez and Zerah. There is no explicit statement in the
Bible that Cain and Abel were twins; the length of time between their births is not mentioned.
However, according to a Midrash, each of them had a twin sister.
2. See Genesis 24. In one instance—Genesis 24:48—the Hebrew Bible, the King James Version, and
other translations give Rebekah as Abraham’s niece, his brother Nahor’s daughter rather than his
granddaughter. However, the New International Version correctly names Rebekah, in this verse as in
others, as Nahor’s granddaughter.
3. The well, situated in the western Negev, “between Kadesh and Bered” (Gen. 16:14), is the place
where Hagar was told she would give birth to Ishmael. The name Lahairoi means “the Living One
(God) who Sees.”
4. Genesis 26:34 mentions Judith and Basmath, and Genesis 28:9 tells about his marriage to
Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael. In Genesis 36:2–3, their names are given as Adah and Oholibamah,
while the daughter of Ishmael is Basmath. Mahalath/Basmath, who may thus be one person, possibly
pertains to the remedy of Esau’s pain as a combination of forgiveness and the fragrance of wisdom.
(Their respective names are transcribed in various ways from the Hebrew.)
5. Padan-Aram, “the field of Aram,” was part of the region of Aram-Naharaim, “Aram of two
rivers.”
6. Joan Comay, “Who’s Who in the Old Testament,” in Who’s Who in the Bible, ed. Joan Comay and
Ronald Brownrigg (New York: Bonanza, 1980), 181.
7. Presumably he sent his daughter Dina as well; his youngest son, Benjamin, the only one of the
children to be born in Canaan, had not been born yet. Regarding his wives, in Genesis 30:4: “So she
gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her”; and in Genesis 30:9: “When Leah
saw that she had ceased bearing children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a
wife.”
8. Peniel, or Pnei El, means “Face of God.”
9. Based on this verse, Neumann elaborates on God and Esau, shadow and Self (p. 37f).
Introduction
T his early manuscript by Erich Neumann, here published for the first
time after eighty years of incubation, opens up as the virtuosic overture to
his later works. Its publication rectifies Neumann’s belief that it would not
be published. In a handwritten addendum to a letter to Jung in 1934,
Neumann wrote, “I will pursue your suggestion of elaborating on the
‘Symbolic Contributions’ to the Jacob-Esau problem . . . . The great
difficulty is the rather depressing impossibility of a publication.”1
This is the remarkable work of a wise old man, even though not yet in
his thirties, who with superb clarity explores the theme of the hostile
brothers and the principle of opposites. This, says Neumann, is a
fundamental problem of humanity and lies at the heart of the human soul.
The seeds of some of Neumann’s finest works, prominently Depth
Psychology and a New Ethic and The Origins and History of
Consciousness, are sown in the soil on which the archetypal theme of Jacob
and Esau is brought alive. The clarity of his formulations reflects an
extraordinary maturity of thought.
My introduction intends to provide the reader with a brief background
and an overview of the book, enabling also those who are less acquainted
with Neumann’s writings to comfortably approach this work.
Neumann’s desire to elaborate on Jacob and Esau and the motif of the
hostile brothers was inspired by Hugo Rosenthal’s essay, “Der
Typengegensatz in der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte,” which Jung had
included in his Wirklichkeit der Seele.2 As Martin Liebscher writes in his
introduction to Analytical Psychology in Exile: The Correspondence of C.
G. Jung and Erich Neumann, Rosenthal’s essay “was reviewed by
Neumann in the Jüdische Rundschau on 27 July 1934.”3 Early in his
correspondence with Jung, Neumann shared his thoughts and intention to
write about “Jewish psychology,” based on the Jacob and Esau story.4
In Jacob and Esau, Neumann explores the opposites residing in the soul of
the individual, as well as on the collective and cultural levels. He defines
this as one of the fundamental problems of human existence. Jacob,
representing the principle of introversion, needs to recognize that the
extraversion of Esau, representing the world as other, also resides within
himself. We might find here Neumann’s own personal struggle, as well as
his formulation of his own identity as a Jew.
The Sun and the Moon, the Outer World and the
Inner
Concluding that the intellectual and cultural structure of Judaism is
introverted, or, as Hugo Rosenthal writes, that “the attitude of the Jew is
introverted,” Neumann explores the relationship between Jacob, as a
“prototype for the Jew,” and the nocturnal world of the moon (p. 7).18
Beginning with the Hebrew lunar calendar, the moon symbolizes rebirth
and renewal, and “the plea for the future Messianic era uttered at the New
Moon festival.”
Based on a legend which tells of the sun and the moon originally being
of equal size, Neumann discusses the balance between the two sides—the
inner and the outer sides of the world, the extraverted and the introverted
aspects, the objective and the subjective circumstances, and the two
directions in which the face can turn. Being of the same size, and together
forming a whole, they constitute “the original, pre-defined condition of the
world” (p. 10).
In the legend, the moon asks God if the sacred world of the moon should
not be larger than the profane world of the sun, to which God responds by
making the light of the moon sixty times smaller. The smallness of the
moon, says Neumann, refers to the experience of inferiority and the
inadequacy of the inner vis-à-vis the outer world, as well as the Jew’s sense
of helplessness toward the power of the “sun-like peoples.” Thus, God
punishes the moon for craving power.
Neumann looks into an additional Midrashic text, in which the moon
accuses God of having done the moon wrong and of creating a divided
world, claiming that God actually belongs to the sacred world of the moon.
The divided world pertains theologically to the sacred and the profane, and
psychologically to the division between unconscious wholeness and the
inevitable division that is both the foundation of consciousness and which
emerges with consciousness. We see here the beginning of Neumann’s
developing ideas about the ego-Self axis.
In the Midrashic text, God consoles the moon that it shall rule day and
night. Neumann quotes from a letter in which Jung had responded to his
ruminations on the sun and the moon. Jung wrote, “Everything exterior is
the world of the sun, and there is no doubt that the power of the sun is great.
The inner is invisible and always seems to be powerless. In reality, however,
it rules secretly and pervasively and its power is as great as the sun’s” (p.
13).19
Jacob and Esau, as a pair of opposites, reflects this division between the
inner voice of spirit and the outer hands of action, as in Genesis 27:22: “The
voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” But the story of
Jacob and Esau also reflects the sense of inferiority, fear, and threat that
invisible interiority experiences in relation to the hands of action and the
skills of the extraverted.
Although he does not elaborate, Neumann pertinently refers here to the
legend of the thirty-six righteous, ever-present across the generations, yet
known neither to themselves nor to others. Their presence ensures the
world’s existence and prevents its destruction. This pertains to the
indispensable world of invisible interiority—as wind, spirit, voice, or Self
—in order to ensure the existence and continuity of the visible world of sun,
ego, and physical reality.
The earliest historiographers always tried to bring the individual hero into line with the
archetype of the primordial hero, and thus produced a kind of mythologized historiography.
An example of this is the Christianization of the Jesus figure, where all the mythical traits
peculiar to the hero and redeemer archetype were sketched in afterwards. The mythologizing
process is the exact opposite of secondary personalization, but, here as there, the center of
gravity of the hero-figure is displaced towards the human activity of the ego.48
Thus, in the process that Neumann calls “the separation of the systems,”
the unconscious and consciousness rely on mediating factors that enable
archetypal contents to become personalized, as well as enabling personal
material to attain a measure of archetypal energy.49
Through the objectification of archetypes, the nature of the archetype as
the principal element in the unconscious is recognized.50 The dominance of
the external object is replaced by acknowledging the archetypes. However,
the archetypal impact is also relativized by consciousness. The child—and
the neurotic person—will then be less likely to project the archetypal image
onto the external object, such as a parent, nor will they be flooded by the
power of the archetypes. As a result, the tension between consciousness and
the collective unconscious becomes productive, constituting, says
Neumann, “the energetic basis of all life and all productivity” (p. 89).
Knowledge of the three stages—mythologizing, secondary
personalization, and conscious objectification—enables genuine
interpretation. Psychoanalytic reduction of mythological material to the
family story pertains to the significant stage of secondary personalization.
This serves the development and preservation of ego-consciousness.
However, it tends toward generalization, for instance, by reduction to the
sex drive. It reduces childhood experiences to the family story without
accounting for the archetypal source or aspect of the experience. By means
of secondary personalization, the potentially intrusive and disruptive
archetypal images become bearable. Archetypal imagery—such as the
whirlpool in the bathtub’s drain that threatens the frightened child with
being drawn into the abyss of the netherworld, with being overtaken by the
dark forces of nonexistence that overwhelm the tiny ego—loses its grip by
means of secondary personalization. The archetypal magnitude is reduced,
and the ego comes to stand on firmer ground.
This creates an increase in ego continuity, says Neumann, and reduces
the child’s primordial world to personal factors. The world thus becomes
less frightening and more manageable. However, it causes neither an
increase in energetic tension nor an extension of consciousness. Thus,
according to Neumann, psychoanalytic interpretation is a method primarily
suitable for treating certain neuroses in the first half of life, since secondary
personalization pertains to the psychology of youth.
Neumann criticizes Freud for capturing only the negative aspect of the
archetypal world, with the inevitable result that the mythical becomes
reduced to the merely personal. While this enables the developing ego to
gain strength and set boundaries, awareness and acknowledgment of the
mythical layer are lost. Healing remains limited if it takes place only in the
sphere of secondary personalization. In order to open up the sources of life,
says Neumann, it is necessary to advance toward the mythologizing layer,
to “the collective mother soil of the soul.”
Early man, the child, the creative person, and the neurotic, says
Neumann, live outside the dominance of ego-consciousness, whereby the
archetypes of the unconscious become more significant. While an
extraverted attitude emphasizes the influences of the outer world and
neglect the subjective factors, the child actually projects the archetypes onto
external objects, experiencing the archetypal situation through them, even
though it is not caused by those objects. The archetypal dimension provides
the subjective, internal component of experience.
Secondary personalization corresponds to the personal unconscious.
Thus, in Freudian psychoanalytic thinking, says Neumann, relying
primarily on Otto Rank, artistic activity “is consistent with the tormenting
compulsion of psychic self-preservation,” which is maintained by
compensatory fantasies (p. 93). In contrast, Neumann claims that through
engaging with the archetypes, the artist mythologizes the world, which
mythologizes itself through him. It is because of his or her proximity to the
unconscious and the dangers therein that the artist is forced toward
“formulation and formation” (p. 93). The process of inspiration and creation
requires both a productive unconscious and a receptive consciousness.
Reaching into the mythologizing layer, the artist is less subject to secondary
personalization than the average person.
Otto Rank, for example, the psychoanalyst whose writings Neumann
explores, interprets the dragon to which the virgin is sacrificed in myths and
folktales “as the young woman’s sexual fear of her husband’s animal side”
(p. 95). That is, Rank’s interpretation is rooted in personal relations.
Neumann, on the other hand, emphasizes the significance of the dragon as
the devouring danger of the unconscious, which the hero and ego
consciousness must overcome, not the least by means of secondary
personalization. The hero, who for Neumann represents ego-consciousness,
struggles with the dragon of the unconscious. He survives and brings the
victory of consciousness. This is the struggle involved in all child
development, says Neumann. There is an archetypal basis to the heroic
struggle of the child to attain consciousness, to wrestle itself out of the grip
of the unconscious.
In the psychoanalytic version of history, the archetypal world and its
symbolism are lost. “The reduction to the family story,” says Neumann,
“deprives archetypal events of the inherently magnificent problems of
human history” and diminishes these events (p. 99).
I now invite the reader to go back to 1934, the year of Neumann’s arrival in
the land of Israel, to open the door to Neumann’s study on the
Mediterranean shore in Tel Aviv, and to sit down next to him at his writing
desk. Look at the handwritten and typewritten pages as they fill up one by
one and are added to a rising pile, and enjoy sharing the innovative and
meaningful ideas of this brilliantly creative depth psychologist.
Neumann’s treatise on the collective symbolism of the brother motif, as
well as his yet to be published work on the roots of Jewish consciousness,
pertaining to what Neumann considered to be nothing less than a
“rediscovery of Judaism,” is an exceptional expression of the work that he
wanted Jung to do. In a letter to Jung in the summer of 1934, Neumann
writes, “I’ve set myself the big challenge of getting you to write something
fundamental about Judaism.”52 We should be grateful that Jung did not take
up that challenge, but let Neumann himself do the work.
__________
1. C. G. Jung and Erich Neumann, Analytical Psychology in Exile: The Correspondence of C. G.
Jung and Erich Neumann, ed. Martin Liebscher (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015),
62.
2. Hugo Rosenthal (1887–1980), a German-Jewish educator, immigrated to Palestine (Land of Israel)
in 1925. Returning to Germany in 1929, he was asked by Rabbi Leo Baeck to become director of a
Jewish school. Upon his return to Israel in 1939, he became director of the Ahava Village in northern
Israel, a residential center for children and youth at risk. Having changed his name to Josef Yashuvi,
he published papers on education and psychology in Hebrew. He received an award from UNICEF
for his work in child education. In his essay “Der Typengegensatz in der jüdischen
Religionsgeschichte” [“The Opposition between Psychological Types in the Jewish History of
Religion”], Rosenthal focuses on the opposition between introversion and extraversion. [The
translation of the title here is by Mark Kyburz. In Analytical Psychology in Exile, the title has been
variously translated as “The Type-Difference in the Jewish History of Religion” (xxix), “The
Typological Contrast in Jewish History of Religion” (20), and “Opposing Types in the Jewish History
of Religion” (357).]
3. Jung and Neumann, Analytical Psychology in Exile, xxix.
4. Martin Liebscher has managed to trace the important attachments to Neumann’s letters, in which
he shares the outline of the Jacob and Esau manuscript with Jung, who tells him, “You should
develop what you say in your ‘Annotations’ into an essay in its own right. Your elaborations are new
to me and very interesting. . . . Jacob is the quintessence of the Jew and therefore a symbolic attempt
at a collective individuation, or rather at individuation on a collective level. . . . So you are quite right
in conceiving of the problem completely from the side of the collective unconscious and in
understanding Jacob entirely as a symbolic exponent of folk psychology” (Jung and Neumann,
Analytical Psychology in Exile, 54). Neumann’s extensive elaborations on the Jacob and Esau motif
in his correspondence with Jung can be seen as first thoughts, sometimes a stream of consciousness,
which then matured and were integrated in the present book.
5. In a letter to Jung, December 10, 1934, Neumann writes, “The work on Jacob and Esau and
symbolism is also nearly ready and just needs typing up” (Jung and Neumann, Analytical Psychology
in Exile, 80).
6. This work, to be translated by Mark Kyburz and edited by Ann Lammers, is expected to be
published in 2018 in the Recollection series.
7. Neumann’s letter to Jung, December 5, 1938; Jung and Neumann, Analytical Psychology in Exile,
142.
8. Jung and Neumann, Analytical Psychology in Exile, 12.
9. The Old Yishuv pertains to the Jews residing in the Land of Israel before the Zionist revival in
1882, the New Yishuv to the Jews residing in Israel prior to the proclamation of the State of Israel in
1948.
10. The Midrash is the body of rabbinic literature consisting of commentaries on biblical texts and
stories told by the sages. Its compilation began after the Second Temple era.
11. Erich Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1970).
12. Jung and Neumann, Analytical Psychology in Exile, 54. God gave this promise to Abram before
he was renamed Abraham.
13. Micha Josef Bin Gorion (Berdyczewski; 1865–1921) was a journalist and Hebrew author. He
came from a rabbinical family; his father was the last in a line of thirteen generations of rabbis
(preface by Emanuel Bin Gorion to M. J. Bin Gorion, Mimekor Yisrael: Classic Jewish Folktales
[Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976], xvi). Having received a Talmudic training, he turned
to Jewish enlightenment and was also influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche. His writings specifically
focused on the individual’s revolt against the limitations of the old Jewish traditions. He also
collected Jewish legends and folktales, thus giving expression to the creative tension between
enlightenment and tradition. The stories and myths were collected in Die Sagen der Juden [The
Legends of the Jews] and Der Born Judas [The Well of Judah]. All the quotations from Bin Gorion
have been translated by Mark Kyburtz.
14. Panim, “face,” is one of those intriguing words found in the Hebrew language. It can
simultaneously be feminine, masculine, and plural. Furthermore, it is related to “turn”; that is, the
literal meaning of panim is “the face turned toward one” (Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive
Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English [Jerusalem: Carta, 1987],
514). It also means “interior.” Acquaintance with the etymological roots of Hebrew words is
important to understand the imagery behind some of the Talmudic legends.
15. C. G. Jung, Psychological Types (1923), CW, vol. 6 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1971), par. 803.
16. Wind and spirit are the same word in Hebrew, Ruah.
17. Erich Neumann, Depth Psychology and a New Ethic (Boston: Shambhala, 1990), 67.
18. See Jung and Neumann, Analytical Psychology in Exile, 37.
19. Throughout the translation, emphases in Neumann’s original text (indicated with spacing and
underlining) have been replaced with italics (please see the translator’s note).
20. Rabbi Moshe ben Yaacov Cordovero, often called the Ramak (1522–1570), was a central figure
in sixteenth-century mysticism in the town of Safed, in Upper Galilee. At a young age he had been
called by a heavenly voice, as he describes it, to study Kabbalah with the well-known Rabbi Shlomo
Alkabetz. Gershom Scholem writes, “Cordovero is essentially a systematic thinker, his purpose is to
give both a new interpretation and a systematic description of the mystical heritage of the older
Kabbalah, particularly the Zohar” (Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism [New York: Schocken Books,
1974], 252). Scholem considers him to be the greatest of the theoreticians of Jewish mysticism.
21. On the complexity of the desert as habitat of both Self and shadow, of revelation and demons, see
Erel Shalit, Enemy, Cripple, and Beggar: Shadows in the Hero’s Path (Hanford, CA: Fisher King
Press, 2008), 88.
22. Micha Joseph Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, tr. from Hebrew to German by Rahel Bin Gorion
(Frankfurt: Rütten and Loening, 1913–1927), vol. 2, 356–357.
23. Edom, from adom, “red,” which is related to dam, “blood,” adam, “man,” and adama, “earth,”
was both an additional name of Esau’s and the name for the semiarid land in which he settled. King
Herod, builder of the Second Temple, was an Edomite.
24. Neumann later developed these thoughts in Depth Psychology and a New Ethic.
25. This is how complexes, whether teleological or autonomous, take shape.
26. Neumann says that “being Jewish is intimately related to being introverted.” This of course does
not mean that a Jew by necessity is introverted. Rather, Neumann implies that, structurally,
introversion may be a dominant in Judaism, grounded in the invisible, “ungraven” God-image. Jacob
is then the prototype, or an archetypal image of that cultural attitude.
27. This corresponds to what I have described in Enemy, Cripple, Beggar as the enemy-layer of the
shadow.
28. Letter from Jung to Neumann, August 12, 1934, in Jung and Neumann, Analytical Psychology in
Exile, 59.
29. C. G. Jung, Symbols of Transformation (1952), CW, vol. 5 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1956), par. 524.
30. The significance of the event is reflected in the three instances involving names: Jacob calls the
place Mahanaim, i.e., “double camp” or “two camps”; Jacob’s name is changed to Israel, having
battled directly with God and prevailed; and Jacob calls the location where the battle takes place
Pnei-El, “Face of God” (see note 14). The collective significance of the event is emphasized by the
fact that Jacob’s new name, Israel, becomes the name of both the nation and the people.
31. Isaiah 14:12: “How are you fallen from heaven, O bright star, son of the morning! How are you
cut down to the ground, you who ruled the nations!” (In Hebrew, “son of the morning” is Hillel ben-
Shahar, in Latin “Lucifer”). See also Rivkah Shärf-Kluger, Satan in the Old Testament (Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press, 1967), and Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin, 1995).
32. Oedipus’s swollen foot has been interpreted both as phallic potency and as an inability to stand
firmly on the ground. I have developed this further in Shalit, Enemy, Cripple, and Beggar.
33. Jung speaks of the transcendent function, when the opposites are brought together to produce a
third (see, for example, “The Transcendent Function” (1958), in CW, vol. 8 [Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1969], par. 181).
34. Like many other psychologists and philosophers, including Erich Fromm and Walter Benjamin,
Neumann refers to Bachofen’s work in his writings, such as The Origins and History of
Consciousness and The Great Mother (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963). Johann Jakob
Bachofen (1815–1887) is most well known for his theories about a prehistoric matriarchy. Neumann,
however, points out that this should be understood psychologically rather than sociologically and that
the matriarchal stage pertains to a structural layer rather than a historical era.
35. Jung, Psychological Types, CW 6, par. 709.
36. Neumann writes, “in the patriarchal psychology of Judaism, the male can experience himself as a
feminine moon vis-à-vis a superior masculine divine solar principle if the man’s religious
consciousness identifies with the moon-anima. The identification of Jacob and the moon in the
Jewish midrash is characteristic of this.” “The Moon and Matriarchal Consciousness,” in The Fear of
the Feminine and Other Essays on Feminine Psychology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1994), 71 n11.
37. Regarding Samas, or Shamash: in Hebrew, “sun” is shemesh. Shimshon (Samson) was a sun hero
whose name means “strength of the sun.” In spite of claims that the moon invariably symbolizes the
feminine principle (see, for example, J. Chevalier and A. Gheerbrant, The Penguin Dictionary of
Symbols [London: Penguin, 1996], 669), this is far from always the case. In German mythology, for
instance, the solar deity is female, the lunar male, as is the case in earlier Egyptian mythology, in
Japan, and elsewhere.
38. “The Moon and Matriarchal Consciousness,” 71.
39. Horus and Seth are sometimes depicted as brothers, while elsewhere Seth and Osiris are brothers,
and Horus is the son of Osiris.
40. Osiris was often depicted in green or as green-skinned, as well as blue or black, symbolizing
rebirth. Neumann further elaborates on green as the color of the moon, fertility, and concealed
consciousness in “The Moon and Matriarchal Consciousness,” 101f.
41. The evil god Apopis (or Apophis) was often depicted as a dragon or serpent, often associated
with Seth. Residing in the netherworld, he threatens the sun god (see Andreas Schweizer, The
Sungod’s Journey through the Netherworld [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010]).
42. Avroham Davis, Pirkei Avos: The Wisdom of the Fathers (New York: Metsudah Publications,
1980), 79.
43. Neumann introduces and describes the concept of secondary personalization in this work; he
elaborated on this process further in The Origins and History of Consciousness.
44. In this context, Neumann speaks of the transformation of myths into folktales. It is worth taking
into account Marie-Louise von Franz’s extensive writings on the subject, for instance, when she
writes, “To me the fairy tale is like the sea, and the sagas and myths are like the waves upon it; a tale
rises to be a myth and sinks down again into being a fairy tale. . . . fairy tales mirror the more simple
but also more basic structure—the bare skeleton—of the psyche.” Marie-Louise von Franz, The
Interpretation of Fairy Tales (Dallas: Spring, 1987), 17.
45. For instance, Neumann writes, “The very nature of the human species conditions an archetypally
determined development in the first phase of which the natural mother archetype is dominant; in the
second phase it is the cultural father type. This archetypal situation is usually incarnated and, as we
have seen, in part shaped by the personal parents, but these phases of the child’s development involve
not only its family history but also go far beyond it to encompass the development of mankind from
an existence in nature to an existence in nature and culture.” Erich Neumann, The Child: Structure
and Dynamics of the Nascent Personality (London: Karnac, 1973), 94.
46. See Erel Shalit, The Cycle of Life: Themes and Tales of the Journey (Hanford, CA: Fisher King
Press, 2011).
47. Neumann, The Origins and History of Consciousness, 336–337.
48. Ibid., 337, note 13.
49. I am grateful to Rina Porat for providing the source information for this paragraph.
50. In the main text of The Origins and History of Consciousness, the term is given as objectivation.
51. See note 6.
52. Jung and Neumann, Analytical Psychology in Exile, 20.
The Symbolism of Jacob and Esau
I.
It is said that when Jacob and Esau were still in their mother’s womb, Jacob said to Esau:
“Esau, my brother, there are two of us, and two worlds lie before us, one world on this side,
another beyond. One world is the world where people eat and drink, a world of commerce
and change; the otherworld, however, has none of this. If it is your will, then take this world,
and I shall keep the otherworld for myself.” At that hour, Esau took his place in this world,
whereas Jacob chose the otherworld.
II.
When he created the world, the Lord decided that the sun would be Esau’s kingdom and the
moon Jacob’s.
III.
Know then that Isaac had two faces, a sacred and a profane one; that face that was turned
inward was sacred, the one facing outward profane. Jacob drew strength from the inner face,
Esau from the outer. The rulers of the world also abide by the left side of the world.1
Each of these texts concerns the opposition between Jacob and Esau.
Each, however, attributes a different polarity to the hostile twin brothers: in
the first, it is between this world and the otherworld; in the second, between
the sun and moon; in the third, between the inside and outside.2 What these
texts have in common are two series of motifs: the first is composed of
Jacob, the moon, the otherworld, and the inner side; the second consists of
Esau, the sun, this world, and the outer side. Before we proceed any further,
we must try to understand the meaning of this opposition.
It is easiest to begin with the third text and its polarity. Here, we have the
face turned inward, from which Jacob drew strength. He looks toward the
inner world, the dark nocturnal world, which is governed by the moon. This
inner world is turned toward Jacob; his life starts from this world and this
turning inward is sacred. The inner world is opposed to the outer, visible,
real, and bright world, that is, Esau’s world of the sun, whose concrete
realities are “eating and drinking, commerce and change.” The essential
hallmark of Esau’s world is visibility, and it includes the outer, the ordinary,
the unholy world.
Jacob is neither like Esau nor like the peoples of the world, but instead
he is turned toward that world which not only proves to be the coming
world, the otherworld, but also the inner and invisible world. Jacob, the
Jew, looks inward, toward YHWH and his inner demand. But this does not
mean that YHWH reveals himself only within. Unlike the gods, however, he
never manifests himself in images or in the man-made, nor does he become
concretized in any part of the outer world where he can be worshipped. In a
certain sense, one can say that YHWH is “inside” and appears only to the
inward-facing gaze. Compared to pagan religion, it is precisely the demand
for interiorization that is clearly Jewish. I shall not further pursue this aspect
here; suffice it to say that it casts light on a decisive feature of Judaism. The
radical prophetic demand for an orientation within the human heart toward
the inner voice, toward the voice of God, toward the law that is placed
within him, needs to be mentioned in this respect. Also part of this context
is the crucial task of safeguarding this inner orientation and this chosenness,
along with the tendency not to commingle with the world and not to lose
oneself to it, but instead to be sacred, that is, to face inward toward YHWH.
The sun and moon were both the same size, just as it says: God made two great lights. And
their sizes remained the same until the moon deplored this. He spoke to the Lord: “Lord of
the world, why did you make your world with Beth, the second letter?” [the Torah begins
with the word Bereschit]. The Lord said: “So that all my creatures know that I have placed
the number two at the beginning [in Hebrew, Beth = 2]. I placed the number two at the
beginning, because I also created two worlds, and thus only two witnesses shall be heard.”
The moon said: “But which of these two worlds is greater than the other? Is it this world or is
it the otherworld?” The Lord said: “The otherworld is greater than this world.” The moon
said: “Look, you made two worlds, this world and the otherworld; the otherworld is great,
this world is small. You created heaven and earth; heaven is greater than earth. You created
fire and water; and water extinguishes fire. And then you made the sun and moon; if that is
so, does not one have to be greater than the other?”
The Lord said: “It is obvious to me that you believe that I shall make you greater and the sun
smaller. But since you contemplated doing evil against the sun, you were meant to be smaller
and your light shall shine sixty times less than hers.” On hearing this, the moon said to the
Lord: “O Lord of the world! I spoke but one word, and now I am to receive such severe
punishment?” The Lord said: “One day you will be as great as the sun again; and the light of
the moon shall be like the light of the sun.”8
Originally, the two sides of the world, as symbolized by the sun and moon
or the two directions in which the face can turn, were completely
equivalent. The inner and outer sides of the world—the extraverted and
introverted aspects, the objective and subjective circumstances, the world
and the human being created in the image of God—were both created by
God. They are the same size and only together do they form a whole: this is
the original, predefined condition of the world.
But the moon, which represents the inner side, the inward-facing Jew,
raises a question that is both correct and crucial. Because whereas the world
was created in a two-faced manner, so to speak, there nevertheless exists a
hierarchy between these two faces. For the world—and this is the
primordial experience made by the Jew—was not made according to the
principle of balanced dualism. “The otherworld is greater than this world,”
asserts God. Consequently, the inner side, that is, the world of the moon,
which is assigned to Jacob, is larger. This indeed constitutes the difference
between the sacred and the profane. But if that is the case, asks the moon
(and God understands its question quite correctly), should then the moon
not be larger than the sun?
As we learn from the midrashic texts, God responds to the moon’s
question by making it smaller. Which state of affairs does this diminution
correspond to or, put differently, why does God react thus? The smallness of
the moon compared to the sun corresponds to the inferiority of the inner
world experienced so passionately by the introvert. It also corresponds to
the inadequacy of the inner world toward the terrifyingly great and
powerful outer world of objects. And it corresponds to the Jew’s experience
of the smallness and sense of helplessness of the chosen people toward
those sun-like peoples who seize the world with their hands and who have
an abundance of power. God made the moon smaller, so the text says,
because he sensed a craving for power, a potential of the moon for “doing
evil against the sun,” in its demand for greater size. Such craving is also
linked to a well-known psychic reality, namely, the psychology of power in
those who feel they have come off badly or missed out in life. Adler speaks
of the psychology of the younger son in this respect, and Jung attributed
this psychology to the introvert. For our present purposes, it is most
interesting that these problems are unconsciously acknowledged and
formulated as the fundamental problems of Jewish psychology as early as
the midrashic passages discussed above. God vigorously refutes the moon’s
claim and metes out punishment instead because he understands the moon’s
claim as a claim to power as a fundamentally negative stance. In turn, a
rescinding of the punishment is promised for the messianic era, in which the
original equality of the moon and sun will be restored.
The problem addressed here is far more crucial than the above midrashic
text would lead one to believe. Another, apparently very similar midrashic
text raises the same issue but pursues it in far greater detail:
God created two great lights, the sun and the moon. The moon said to the Lord: “O Lord of
the world! Is it correct that one crown shall serve two kings?” To which the Lord replied:
“Go forth and become the smaller light.” The moon replied: “No sooner have I spoken a true
word shall I become smaller?” The Lord answered: “But therefore thou shall rule day and
night.” But the Lord saw that the moon was unappeased; he regretted doing this and
commanded Israel: “Now that I have made the moon smaller, go forth and bring me a
sacrifice. And this shall be a goat that is sacrificed at new moon, sacrificed when God’s
temple still stood erect.”9
Here the moon adopts a completely different stance in claiming that the
facts mentioned in the other midrashic text do not apply to its case; that is,
the question of power and resentment has been settled. The subject here is
not the moon’s personal problem, if one may put it that way. Rather than
addressing a personal matter, one that concerns the neurotic introvert or
indeed the resentful Jew, the moon, as a representative of the inner side,
insists on its suprapersonal question, which concerns nothing other than the
structure of the world. The moon has spoken a “true word,” and this
achievement suggests that God has done the moon wrong by making it
smaller.
What does the moon’s true word mean? Its true word is an accusation
against God. Why did you create a divided world? Why did you not create
the world so that the inner world is greater, so that you, YHWH, are its ruler,
and so that your commands may be fulfilled? Why did you grant what does
not behold you such great power?
There can be no doubt that behind this question also stands the
subjective experience of the introvert, namely, that God actually belongs
more to the other side of the world, or else one face would not be called
sacred and the other profane. Below, we shall encounter two solutions to
this problem, one provisional, the other, which is reflected in Jacob’s
wrestling with the angel, more definitive.
The consolation that God offers the moon—that it shall rule day and
night—evidently does not appease the moon. And yet the factual nature of
this consolation is so very essential that it must at least be hinted at. There
is no better formulation of this than Jung’s: “Everything exterior is the
world of the sun, and there is no doubt that the power of the sun is great.
The inner is invisible and always seems to be powerless. In reality, however,
it rules secretly and pervasively and its power is as great as the sun’s” (cited
from Jung’s answer to a letter from the author that included a draft outline
of this study).10 Incidentally, this fact can be appreciated only by those who
have grown aware of the extent to which the outer stems from the inner, and
who see through the outer to the inner standing behind it. The following
passages probably also belong in this context:
The wise Rabbi Isaac was sitting in front of a cave. A man, accompanied by two boys, came
by. The older brother spoke to the younger one: “The sun is strongest at midday, but the
world can exist only because of the wind.” The younger brother replied: “The world could
not exist without Jacob.”11
Here, once again, the opposition between Jacob and Esau looms in the
background. Esau is identified with the midday sun, and Jacob apparently
with the wind. The invisible power of the wind, of the ruach and pneuma,
of the inner, animating principle, belongs to Jacob. The midrashic text
interprets the sentence, “The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the
hands of Esau” (Gen. 27:22), along the same lines, namely, that the voice
(that is, the breath, spirit, and wind) is governed by Jacob, and the hands
(that is, the practical action of the sun in the outer world) by Esau. Just like
the moon, which is invisible by day, the principle of the wind only seems to
be weak in the face of the powerful sun; in actual fact, however, the world
rests upon the wind, this hidden principle. Compare this to the thirty-six
concealed righteous ones who ensure the existence of the world.
Since God’s remorse did not return the moon to its original size, this
suggests that the moon has raised a correct question, a question that remains
to be answered. Of particular importance in this respect is the connection
established here between the issue of the moon and sun with the New Moon
festival.
The New Moon festival occupied a crucial role in biblical Judaism. On
this day, just as on the Sabbath, it appears to be both possible and necessary
to enter into a particularly close relationship with YHWH, due to the fact that
it was on this very day that one went to the prophets, the men who had
insight.12 On the same day Isaiah says about the messianic era: “And it shall
come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to
another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord” (Isa.
66:23). Just as characteristic of the meaning of this festival is a saying from
the second century AD. Its radical formulation remains almost
incomprehensible, unless one recognizes the central status of this festival:
“It would be enough if Israel could receive its father in heaven only every
month on the occasion of the New Moon festival.”13
The fact that under the influence of seventeenth-century Kabbalism the
new moon day took on a new or at least a renewed meaning as the Minor
Day of Atonement leads us even more deeply into the problem of the
moon.14
At the heart of the ritual celebrated on the Day of Atonement stood the
sacrifice of a goat before YHWH and the banishment into the desert, to
Azazel, of a second goat, upon which the sins of the people were put. The
goat is also the sacrifice brought to the blessing of the new moon. The
blessing uttered at the New Moon festival is as follows:
You have given new moons to your people, a time for atonement for all its descendants when
they brought sacrifices before you, sacrifices made to give pleasure and goats offered for
their sins, to make atonement for themselves, in commemoration of all, and for the salvation
of their souls from the hands of the enemy.15
The problem can now be further developed by considering the ritual of the
New Moon festival. The blessing is followed by pleas for the reerection of
Zion and for the resumption of service in the temple. The eulogy on the
blessing of the moon asserts: “and spoke to the moon that it should renew
itself, as a crown of the glory for those blessed by the mother’s womb, who
shall some day renew themselves just as it [the moon] does.”16 (According
to Isaiah 46:3, YHWH carries the Jews from the womb.) Finally, a plea is
made to revoke once and for all the darkening of the moon and its
diminution.17 “May the light of the moon be like the light of the sun.”18
While the pervasive symbolism of the opposition between the moon and
the sun is preserved, a completely new motif has appeared unexpectedly.
This new motif further pursues the issue of the diminution of the moon in
both a generative and enlightening manner. Besides the diminution of the
moon, which is related to the opposition between the moon and the sun,
there is now the problem of its darkening, its opacity.
The opposition between the moon and the sun is not the only opposition.
In effect, this opposition corresponds to a division within the moon so to
speak, which is itself subject to an alternating opacity. The relevant
literature includes the following passage about the darkening of the moon
by evil:
In the writings of the Geonim it is written: “Seven days before the rising of the moon, the
spirit of gentleness prepares to do battle with Samael and his hordes over the diminution of
the moon. But the hairy one, envious of the beauty of the moon, picks a quarrel with the
smooth one—and thus Michael and Gabriel wage war against the accusers. But at the end of
the seventh day, Gabriel weakens their strength and Michael, the high priest, takes Semasael,
who is standing alongside the hairy one, who resembles a male goat, and brings them as a
sacrifice of sorts before the altar, which is erected for the purpose of penance at the
beginning of each month. Then the highest will is assuaged, the moon becomes large and
full, and the strength of the male goat is consumed by the fire of the almighty. But when the
moon is waning, the male goat becomes rejuvenated and grows anew, and thus it continues
until the Day of Judgment, of which it is said: the light of the moon shall be like the light of
the sun.”19
Since the moon, as we have seen, represents not only the inner world and
Judaism but also Jacob, the problem must lie with Jacob. The alternating
opacity of the moon and its darkening must correspond to an opacity within
the Jew, that is, if the symbolism proves to be as unequivocal as we are
assuming.
Here, a confusing difficulty seems to arise at first. If we examine the
principle of opacity more closely, then we are no doubt once again dealing
with the opposition between Jacob and Esau. Although Esau is not
mentioned by name, the rulers of the left side of the world, who are
represented here by Samael and Semasael, plainly belong to that side of the
world (see p. 4). Moreover, there can be no doubt that the “hairy one, who
resembles a male goat” is Esau, that is to say, Edom, whose hairy
appearance has already been emphasized.20
Esau makes Mount Seir his home, where the goat spirits, the seirim, are
also said to live.21 The identity of Esau and the goat leads us further,
however, for there is verifiable evidence that in myth the goat is a symbol of
the sun, albeit a negative one. In Germanic mythology, the goat corresponds
to the winter or midnight sun, that is, the sun in December, when it stands
lowest and is weakest. This frame of reference probably includes the fact
that at this time of the year, the zodiac sign ruled by the sun is Sagittarius,
that is, the sea-goat. Esau, the dark sun-goat, who makes the moon opaque,
now faces the other Esau, the red sun-goat, the ruler of this world. This
outer, sun-governed side of the world is associated with the goat as a
symbol of creative, instinctually procreative nature on the one hand and
with the goatlike satyr, Pan, and fauns and their lustful sexuality on the
other. In Christianity, both goatish figures, whose connection we shall
consider below, ultimately become devils with goatlike legs and goat heads
that give off the stench of goats.
The opposition between Jacob and Esau, that is, the moon and the sun,
which have been both compared and kept distinct in terms of different
worlds in the first texts studied here, receives a new twist in our final text.
The motif of the opaque moon shifts the problem inward, where it
constellates itself as a moral problem. What has become apparent is the
problem of evil as an “inner Edom.” Indeed, if one fully understands the
meaning of the final text, then the time up until the Day of Judgment is
construed as a self-perpetuating struggle against evil, which disappears only
on the Day of Judgment together with the moon becoming opaque. This
inner Edom, whose actual nature remains unclear to us, is sacrificed on the
day of the new moon in the shape of a goat. “Then the highest will is
assuaged, the moon becomes large and full, and the strength of the male
goat is consumed by the fire of the almighty.”22 Or, as it says in the blessing
of the new moon, the goat is a sacrifice brought for everyone “and for the
salvation of their souls from the hands of the enemy.” The cleansing, the
resolution of the moral conflict, manifests itself as a sacrificing of the goat,
of the inner Edom, of the evil side. This obfuscating goatlike figure is
referred to as an enemy already in the Yom Kippur ritual (which clearly
illustrates why the day of the new moon could also be called “little Yom
Kippur”). This is a reference to the mysterious sending forth of the second
goat to Azazel.
No matter whether this opposite pole to YHWH was later concealed to
guard against the danger of dualism—that is, whether Azazel is thought to
be a mountain or a reminder of an earlier cult—a polarity between YHWH
and Azazel nevertheless exists. This polarity recurs in the opposition
between right and left, as emphasized in midrashic literature. Lots were
drawn to select the goats. If the right lot was drawn, then the goat was
assigned to YHWH; drawing the left lot, on the other hand, assigned the goat
to Azazel.23 It is well established that the right side goes together with
being positive, just as the left side is associated with being negative (see, for
instance, the ambiguity of the word sinister). This also explains why Esau’s
goat rules the left side of the world. In this connection, YHWH and the right
side belong to the color white, whereas Azazel and the left side go with the
color red. Thus, the threads that are tied to Azazel’s goat and to the gates of
the temple are red; their color must change to white after atonement.24 Not
only is red the color of blood; it is also Esau’s color and that of sin.
Correspondingly, Jacob is white in color whereas Isaac is red, because
Esau has sprouted from him.25 The red color of the son rubs off on Isaac as
it were, whose connection with Esau is indeed very powerful. These colors
are also related to the polarity between the moon and the sun: Jacob’s
whiteness is the color of the moon, Esau’s redness that of the sun. The same
polarity exists among the angels, where it is elevated to the cosmic level.
“To God’s right stands Michael, whose color is white; to his left is
Gabriel, who is red.”26 Applied to the three angels who came to Abraham,
the following words are attributed to the angel who announced Sarah’s
pregnancy:
This was Michael, who stands to God’s right—everything good and every blessing comes
from the right side; the third angel, who came to slay Sodom, was Gabriel, who stands to
God’s left; he is the highest judge, who presides over all the courts of the world and comes
from the left side.27
Equally, in the Kabbalah, the right pillar of the Tree of Sephiroth denotes
the male aspect and is known as the Pillar of Mercy; the left pillar
represents the female aspect and is known as the Pillar of Severity or
Judgment. The color white is assigned to the right side, the color red to the
left. Silver is assigned to the right side, gold to the left. We shall discuss this
highly remarkable fact elsewhere.28 (It goes beyond the scope of this study
to discuss the problem of the threeness, that is, of the third color and the
associated basic principle of equilibrium as the balance between these
opposites.)
In any event, Yom Kippur also concerns the resolution of the moral
problem through the sacrifice of evil; the part representing Edom is brought
as sacrifice in its symbolic shape as a goat.
Evidently, our next task must be to discuss the connection between the
two seemingly contradictory figures of Edom, as it seems utterly
incomprehensible to begin with how the inner symbolism of opacity and the
opposition between the worlds—the inner world of the moon and Jacob and
the outer world of the sun and Esau—are related. The problem could also
be formulated thus: How are the diminution of the moon, that is, the
problem of two worlds, and the opacity of the moon, that is, the moral
problem, connected? How are they related irrespective of the fact that both
will be revoked at the same time on the Day of Judgment, in the days of the
Messiah, when “the light of the moon shall be like the light of the sun”?
It seems most appropriate to approach these questions from the text at
hand: the opposition governing the world—between Jacob and Esau,
between introversion and extraversion, between the moon and the sun—
persists in the introvert as a moral problem, in that an extraverted part, the
darkening goat of the nocturnal sun, causes mischief in the moon,
obfuscating its brightness and seeking to consume it. Whereas this state of
affairs seems to be highly incomprehensible and paradoxical at first, it is
confirmed just as bafflingly and as accurately by the experience of
analytical psychology.
For there is no such thing as a “pure” introvert or extravert, because each
of these attitudes is one-sided and incomplete. Instead, all persons carry
within themselves an attitude in opposition to their dominant one. This
opposite attitude, however, is undeveloped and primitive, at work as an
inferior function.29 Thus, to speak of introversion—for our texts are
concerned only with this attitude, precisely because being Jewish is
intimately related to being introverted—means to acknowledge that there is
an inferior, undeveloped extraverted part in each introvert. This means, as
the symbolic language in which these connections are captured and
depicted in purely intuitive terms puts it, that Jacob carries within himself a
part of Edom, that is, the goat that clouds the moon. It now becomes clearer
why this goat is an essential symbol of the inferior sun, the hibernal sun.
This part of Edom, which is an inferior function of the introvert, is not
identical with the real Edom, the extravert and ruler of this world.
It is impossible to discuss the psychological facts represented by the
inferior function in greater depth here.30 By way of rough illustration, it is
worth noting how frequently introverted persons, who are inwardly
oriented, have a highly primitive, inferior, and inadequate relationship with
things and people and with external reality in general. The introvert, besides
being unworldly, almost always is contemptuous of the world, which in turn
is symptomatic of an inferior relationship with the world.
The inferior function always resides in the unconscious, in the dark.31 It
is closely related to the shadow, to the other side, to the negative half of the
conscious personality, that is, the bearer of the repressed or dark attributes,
which only begin to emerge secretly. In Jacob’s case, the shadow
corresponds to the inner Edom. In symbolic terms, this dark side is behind,
out of sight, where the eyes of consciousness do not reach. From another
perspective, this part is also referred to as the left side. The ambiguity of the
word sinister—which means both “left” and “dark”—has already been
noted above.32 Also, the positive direction of the opposition, in which the
right side belongs together with righteousness, is unequivocally clear.
Most probably, this also explains that the left side is often cited as the
side of judgment. On the left, on the shadow’s side, lies the moral problem,
as well as a sense of inadequacy and inferiority. The preoccupation with this
problem, which inevitably erupts in a moral conflict, not only begins on the
left side, that is, in the unconscious, but it also proceeds with the crucial
involvement of some unconscious authorities.33 This preoccupation,
furthermore, which takes place partly inside, partly outside, is the tribunal.
To begin with, the other side, which is governed by bright consciousness, is
always the side of mercy.
The relationship between right and left has general validity, irrespective
of the psychological type, because it makes no difference whether the
shadow has an extraverted character (like Edom), as in the case of the
introvert, or vice versa, whether the extravert carries within himself inferior,
introverted characteristics. In both cases, the left side, that is, the
unconscious, is the side of inferiority, from which the judgmental and
decision-making preoccupation proceeds, even if this kind of tribunal is at
work differently in the two types. Characteristic of the judgmental efficacy
of the unconscious, which initially appears to be negative, are its
superiority, a particular kind of waywardness, and its conspicuousness,
which make us feel painfully powerless and helpless.
This inferior side, Esau’s, which is immensely important in the history of
the Jewish people, causes the opacity of the moon. Thereupon rests the
moral conflict, which Christianity and Judaism both sought to resolve by
sacrificing the inferior, by exterminating evil, and by sacrificing the goat. It
is striking enough that the text refers to this attempt as an eternal process.
This attempted solution turns the moral problem into an infinite moral
process, whose endpoint lies in the messianic era.
Incidentally, the text unequivocally refers to the aforementioned two-
sidedness of the introvert as the two-facedness of Yitzhak.34 Whereas his
holy face is turned inward, his inferior and profane face is turned outward,
toward the world. (This two-facedness translates precisely as an inferior
extraverted function.) The same problem has stepped out of the personal
sphere into the sphere of the tribe and people, into the twin brotherhood of
Jacob and Esau, the two sons of the Jewish forefather who stand on either
side of their father. This connection is firmly supported by the text, in which
Yitzhak curiously favors Esau (whereby a roast, various other food, smell,
and so forth play a salient role, which, however, has never been properly
understood). In the text, Esau actually leans on Yitzhak’s inferior
extraversion. No argument has been presented thus far to dampen the
feeling that these desires, and indeed the privileging of Esau, are not
becoming to the forefather.
However, the connection between the inner, obfuscating Edom in Jacob
and the outer brother of Edom exists not only through extraversion and the
identical common characteristics given thereby. It is also heightened by the
introvert (as well as by the extravert) projecting his inferior aspect outward
and experiencing it there. This means that originally Jacob does not
experience Edom, who represents his inferior aspect, within himself, but
outside himself in the guise of his hostile brother (that is, through
projection). The experienced image of Edom consists of the real Edom as
the extraverted Other and of the distorting, superimposing projection of his
own unconscious, inferior Edom-likeness. The first stage of overcoming
this primitive experience of Edom as the alien Other, which the extravert
necessarily seems to be to the introvert, is precisely the moral conflict
represented by the symbol of the opaque moon. This moral conflict naively
presupposes the experience of dissociation, that is, of no longer being
oneself; it thus marks the beginning of the suspension of primitive one-
sidedness. At the same time, discovering one’s negative side initiates a
more equitable evaluation of the Other. When the moon discovers the goat,
or rather Edom within himself, not only does this put an end to painting a
bleak and one-sided picture of Edom in the outer world, but it is the first
sign of what the inner and the outer might have in common. Esau’s
experience of alienation is attenuated by what, however, is a negatively
tainted experience of himself, albeit only to the extent to which it is
acknowledged. Obviously, the negative inner image can also be suppressed
and projected outward. That is, one can project one’s own moral problem—
as usual—onto another person. As soon as this does not happen and one
confronts one’s own problem, the projection is withdrawn and the actual
image of the Other becomes visible.
As observed, the diminution of the moon compared to the sun entailed
the moon’s unanswered accusation against God. The problem, however, did
not cease to exist but developed further and culminated in what we
considered to be no more than a tentative solution to the moral problem.
The diminution of the moon is related to its opacity. The inadequacy and
powerlessness of the inner side as against the powerful world of the sun and
Esau have a moral cause. The world of the moon is weak and deficient in
clarity, because within it resides a negative, undeveloped part of Edom. As
such, however, this particular answer, that is, inferiority as a moral problem,
corresponds to what we identified at the beginning of this study as a
reduction of matters to the moon’s and the introvert’s personal problem.
The moon’s demand for unity had already identified the problem as a
fundamentally metaphysical and suprapersonal one. Seen thus, the opacity
and the moral problem, as manifest in the inferior function, originated in
God’s creation of a (divided) inner and outer world. Ultimately, the moral
problem thus rests upon the creation of two worlds, that is, the creation of a
polarity between the moon and the sun.
Addressing the problem of opposites is the second stage of overcoming
the Jew’s—and the introvert’s—primitive experience of Esau. The majority
of the midrashic texts interpreted here represent this stage, at which the
opposition between Jacob and Esau is seen as an opposition between two
worlds. This insight into the polarity of the world, for which the various
oppositions—between Jacob and Esau, the moon and the sun, introversion
and extraversion—are but a symbol, is perhaps formulated most cogently in
a small midrashic text that fully substantiates the line of development
suggested in this study:
On the fifth day, God created great whales, and these are Jacob and Esau; and all the
creatures that liveth and weaveth are the stages lying in between.35
As we shall see, this problem reaches its unrivaled peak in the biblical text
about Jacob’s struggle with the angel, where it is also overcome. What
becomes evident, then, is that the significance of the above account emerges
only when it is set against the entire relevant background, as established
here with reference to the midrashic texts.
What has transpired from studying these texts, which come from
different periods and have been recorded by various hands, is the strange
fact that they constitute a unified, pervasive, and absolutely unequivocal
symbolism, which belongs to the archetypal heritage of the Jewish people
in particular and of humanity in general. It is the very fact that this
symbolism does not originate in any particular individual, but lies readily
available at the bottom of a people’s soul, that makes it possible to present
these texts in conjunction and to demonstrate their close association. As the
individual thinks and lives in this symbolic protolanguage, so the
unconscious mind of a people thinks and deliberates in that language. The
texts studied here reveal a preoccupation with fundamental Jewish and
human problems. Perhaps somewhat uncannily, this preoccupation occurs
beyond any individual life and across generations; moreover, it proceeds
continuously, on its own terms, and as a reflection of a people’s thinking.
Notwithstanding its mysteriousness, there is nothing mystical about
engaging with these fundamental problems. Jung once remarked that myths
could be considered to be the dreams of a people. These midrashic texts,
which speak in a collective symbolic language, make clear that such
dreaming is unconscious thought. What makes this so particular is the
continuity of the discussion that occurs within a people’s unconscious. The
midrashic texts are but the visible manifestation of that discussion. What
should by no means be overlooked in this regard is how strongly involved a
people’s and the individual’s consciousness are in creating these texts. And
yet the fact that the fundamental problem has been expressed so
continuously in the same basic language and symbolism for centuries, as if
these texts had been written by one and the same author, is both astonishing
and exciting. Nor can that fact be argued away.
If we now turn to the fundamental text, that is, the origin of all midrashic
thought, it will already have become clear that the actual purpose of
drawing upon midrashic literature is to reveal the close linkage between
archetypal symbolism and that fundamental text. Jacob is not the moon, nor
is Esau the sun. However, the symbolism of the moon and the sun, which a
people’s unconscious later related to the account of Jacob and Esau, extends
and clarifies what this account was about or at least what the people’s
unconscious believed it was about. And precisely because this very same
people’s unconscious experienced and helped shape this account we are
able to understand its relationship with the later midrashic texts, a
relationship which is both plausible and astonishingly intimate.
This text can be understood only if its intended meaning is taken
seriously and if its details are left undistorted. Jacob is deliberately made
the structural bearer of the promise from the outset. Unlike Isaac, Jacob’s
mother, Rebekah, recognizes his role and ensures that he attains the
blessing. If there is any doubt about Jacob’s entitlement to primogeniture, to
the promise and to the blessing, then his legitimacy is confirmed once and
for all by his famous dream at Bethel.36
Jacob flees to a foreign land as an utterly forlorn, miserable, and
defenseless individual. He is exposed to a world that is unimaginably
hostile, and this experience doubtless fills his consciousness. Under these
circumstances, his dream, whose contents we shall not dwell upon any
further here, provides him with crucial and magnificent compensation in
that it announces to him the collective and singular significance of his
existence and future. It is precisely his powerlessness that plainly reveals to
him the central position occupied by the one who bears the promise. At this
moment, he realizes that as the chosen one, as the bearer of the promise, he
and also later his people will always be inferior to the multitude.
Beyond a superimposed layer, which stems from the people handing
down this material, our positive attitude toward the text enables us to
distinguish a core that derives from an original account referring to the
forefathers. Owing to its collective nature, the collective processing of this
account by the people, which is closely attached to and supported by the
core text, as well as its literary formulation and tradition, is characteristic of
secondary mythologizing. By contrast, the dream at Bethel, the struggle
between Jacob and Esau, and Jacob’s wrestling with the angel are essential
aspects of the central tradition of the forefathers.
The religious genius of the forefathers is at work in the transmission of
their central religious experiences, such as the dream at Bethel and the
struggle with the angel, which correspond to absolutely real personal
experiences. One of the major successes of psychological analysis is its
ability to furnish all but convincing evidence for the relationship between
the events handed down and their experience by the forefather. If the dream
at Bethel were a mythological text originating in the people passing it on
from one generation to another, then it would somehow have to appear as
inserted in psychological analysis, such as the account of Jonah and the
whale, which plainly belongs to the processing layer of tradition. Strikingly,
however, analysis reveals the absolute affinity between the forefather’s
situation, such as Jacob’s flight, and the dream at Bethel, or between Jacob
before his encounter with Esau and Jacob wrestling with the angel (the
latter being an event handed down to us). The compensatory function of the
unconscious—that is, the emergence of those very contents from the
unconscious that consciousness needs most because it lacks them—has a
surprising effect on the (close) association between situation and dream.
This function, moreover, can be employed as a critical method that is
capable of determining whether a text should be attributed to the core layer
or to the superimposed layer of popular tradition. This is so because the
interweaving of different textual layers can be determined from the breaks
in the text, that is, from those passages indicating that they do not belong
together. The fact that the law of unconscious compensation was evidently
completely unknown at the time, but nevertheless emerges here most
impressively, ensures that the situations actually experienced by the
forefather, as well as his nocturnal experiences, belong neither to two layers
nor to two texts. Anyone familiar with how primitive peoples preserved and
passed on their leaders’ dreams, visions, and experiences will not consider
it improbable that a people like the Jewish people preserved and passed on
with utmost precision their forefathers’ experiences, which in turn shaped
the entire existence and history of that people.
The essence of tradition, which occupies a pivotal position in Judaism,
amounts to placing at the center of life and consciousness the extraordinary
experience, that is, those miracles that can be experienced only by particular
individuals or by a people during particular times. This would, then, be for
the benefit of those people and individuals for whom such an experience
remains inaccessible and for those times in which such miracles are rare.
The particular affinity of the Jewish people with the forefathers and later
with the prophets rests upon this fundamental fact. This people’s concept of
the world was and continues to be shaped and rebuilt by men of exceptional
experience, the “servants of YHWH.” Only from this vantage point can we
understand the outer structure of tradition, whose accomplishment is meant
to allow the people to make such an experience. Suffice it to mention in
passing that the course of history, which involves the emancipation and
individualization of the Jewish person, gradually and necessarily results in
tradition losing its meaning in the ancient authoritarian sense and that the
need for personal experience takes its place.
At the beginning of the chain of tradition stands personal but collectively
meaningful individual experience, like that made by the forefathers and
prophets; at its end, when the power of tradition crumbles, personal
experience, that is, the central religious experience, must once again take
the place of tradition. The layer from which the world of midrashic
literature emerged as a people’s unconscious also plays a crucial role in an
individual’s personal experience.
We have deliberately chosen indeterminate and seemingly
indeterminable expressions such as “the people’s soul,” “the people’s
unconscious,” and so forth, because they allow the actual state of affairs,
which scientific terminology so often conceals, to shine through. We have
observed that a certain basic language and a certain symbolism belong to
this generality and that the pervasiveness of this symbolism coincided with
an observed content. We have attributed to an indeterminate subject what
has emerged as the mythological treatment of the core texts analyzed here.
Only at this point does it seem feasible to mention that Jung’s concept of
the collective unconscious is at work here. This basic layer means a
collective, that is, general sphere that reaches beyond the individual.
Whereas the collective unconscious manifests itself in the individual, it
neither belongs to the individual nor originates in his personal sphere. Of
course, the midrashic texts discussed here came from individuals, but their
emphatically general and symbolic language and contents prove that they
are essentially anonymous. The fundamental experiences of the religious
person, such as the forefathers and later the prophets in particular, are
crucially related to this anonymity, that is, the suprapersonal primal source.
But if phenomena like the dream at Bethel or the wrestling with the angel
are considered personal experiences made by the forefathers, then they are
singularly personal and groundbreaking instances of the preoccupation with
this primal source. Evidently, the superimposed mythological layers also
originate in the individual, through whom they have merely passed, so to
speak. In actual fact, these layers, like all folklore, belong to the general and
anonymous primal source of the collective unconscious.
Thus, I do not consider Esau to be a mythological figure but instead
maintain that the problem of Jacob and Esau is real and concerns a real
conflict between two brothers. Whereas the motif of unequal brothers is
indeed archetypal, this archetype reflects innumerable human experiences.
There can be no objection to assuming that for Jacob the antagonism with
his extraverted older brother has become a personal and crucial life
experience, as reported in the text. (As we shall see, the problem of the
twins, like the equation between Esau and Edom, is a different case.)
As his pivotal experiences demonstrate, there can be no doubt about
Jacob’s introversion. It is equally obvious, however, that his encounters
with the outside world are all negative. The world confronts him as his
fiercest, wildest, and most daunting antagonist in the guise of his brother
Esau. His experiences with Laban only heighten his fear of the world. If his
inferior extraversion, which shapes his behavior toward Laban, leads Jacob
to adjust to his surroundings, which in turn brings him prosperity, then his
rejection of the world, or rather his fear of that world, persists as a
characteristic of his introversion. As much is attested both by Jacob’s flight
from Laban and by his fear of Esau. The discrepancy between the promise,
“in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3), and Jacob’s
person, which continues to be one-sided, incompletely developed, and
introverted and hence fits into a psychological typology, escalates into a
disastrous conflict when he must prepare to encounter Esau, the powerful
ruler of this world.
It is imperative that Jacob’s inferior side accept Esau, onto whom he can
project his inferiority. Not only do Esau’s characteristics, which the text
presents as truly negative, primitive, and extraverted, make him well suited
to this projection, but he is indeed also the brother. It is a psychological law
that we project our inferiority most readily and most preferably onto those
closest to us. Finally, Jacob’s sense of guilt also plays a crucial role in this
respect: for notwithstanding that the fraudulent plot by which Jacob
receives his blessing is justified, his negative side contributed to Rebekah’s
instigation of that ruse. Notwithstanding the legitimacy of Jacob’s claim to
the blessing, the fact that he has an inferior aspect, an inner Edom, a
shadow, needs to be taken into consideration. First, he is the younger
brother, and second, he has the psychology of a younger brother, a factor
that is heightened here by the opposition between psychological types. His
fear of Esau is a fear of the outer Esau, but this fear is intensified by his fear
of the Esau within himself, that is, his shadow. This connection is firmly
anchored in the law of such matters. As the image of Esau experienced by
Jacob is composed of the real Esau and of the inferior aspect of Esau
projected outward from Jacob’s psyche, so the fear of this Esau is
experienced naively as a fear of the outer Esau. This fear, however,
originates partly in his fear of the shadow, that is, in his own inferiority and
in his inner brother.37
For Jacob, whose inner life has for decades been concerned with the
dream at Bethel, Esau must have become a more serious problem than his
family. Although the encounter with Esau instills a great fear in Jacob, as an
introvert he is seized more deeply by a more general kind of fear, namely,
that of the hostile, overpowering, and unfamiliar outside world. The
introvert repeatedly and unforgettably experiences how great is the danger
of what most matters to him being destroyed, even annihilated, by the
pointless violence of worldly events. This, in essence, is Jacob’s deep-
seated fear of Esau, who epitomizes the violent world and who has the
power to crush Jacob and his family, that is, the small seed of the great
promise.
The key event experienced by Jacob in this situation is his struggle with
the angel, whose significance we can understand only by studying the
crucial passages surrounding this event:
I.
Before Jacob approaches the problem with Esau, he meets the angel of God. For inexplicable
reasons, he calls the place “double-camp,” implying this is God’s host. (Gen. 32:1–2)38
II.
The changing of Jacob’s name to Israel is interpreted as follows: “for as a prince hast thou
power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” (Gen. 32:28)
III.
Jacob calls the place of the struggle “Penuel,” meaning the face of God, because he has seen
“God face to face, and my life is preserved.” (Gen. 32:30; see also the blessing of the moon)
IV.
When he meets Esau, Jacob says: “for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen
the face of God, and thou was pleased to see me.” (Gen. 33:10)
Before and during the struggle with the angel, Jacob has no idea who his
adversary is, as his question about his name clearly suggests. This contrasts
directly with the subsequent naming of the place as Penuel and also with
Jacob’s later remark to his brother that his adversary is God, who confronts
him in the guise of Esau.
The involvement of the collective unconscious at this stage points to the
collective significance of these events. At stake here is not simply Jacob’s
struggle with his own inferiority or his moral problem (see our previous
discussion on the opacity or clouding of the moon). The personal layers are
embedded within a more comprehensive problem, that is, the problem of
God or rather an altered notion of God, which arises from the surmounting
of the opposition between two worlds that had thus far dominated Jacob’s
predicament. In that opposition, the angel, who according to ancient
tradition is Esau’s representative, furthermore stands not only for the
aspects of Esau within Jacob but also for the hostile outer world. The
extraordinary and suprapersonal significance of these events is contingent
upon the coalescence of Jacob’s personal shadow with the archetypal
antagonist stemming from the collective unconscious. This active
involvement of the collective unconscious, which conditions the figure of
the angel and also defines the collective significance of the struggle, is the
precondition for the later elevation of the angel.
Whereas the customary Judeo-Christian solution to this problem is to
sacrifice the inferior and negative, here something fundamentally different,
indeed crucially opposite, happens. As the text says, Jacob sees God in his
adversary Esau. This event, which leaves both misunderstood and
unmistakable traces in the text, surpasses the problem of opposition in
general and the opposition between the two worlds in particular. Esau, as
the face of God, is the extended aspect: Jacob overcomes the introvert’s
halved world because he now also recognizes the “other side,” that is, the
outside world and evil as the face of God. Not only does this experience
fundamentally change Jacob’s structure, in that he accepts Esau, his
shadow, and assimilates this figure into his consciousness, but he also
recognizes him as divine. Thus, however, he also recognizes evil as God’s
messenger, and the apparently hostile and negative outside world as the face
of God. This means: you have fought against humanity [the shadow of Esau
that you carry within yourself] and God [the negative world of Esau]—
which actually means that you have prevailed.
The struggle amounts not only to the earthshaking elevation of the angel
of Esau to the face of God, but also to the fact that he was forced to bless
Jacob. Jacob fights as God’s fighter, in a struggle that brings Jacob and
Esau face to face as two sides of God, for both are the face of God.39 But
because Jacob also recognizes the outside world as God, the principle of
God immanent in Jacob is extended by this part of the world. This means,
however, that the Other is subordinated to God and is thus forced to bless
Jacob. Here, a new and extended experience of God is hinted at. Of course
Jacob already knew beforehand that God, to use symbolic language, had
created both the moon and the sun, but this knowledge did not correspond
to any inner experience. As long as he experienced that part of the world
that belongs to Esau as hostile, as adversary, and as a place to fear, as
conditioned by his one-sided and introverted attitude, this part of the world
did not belong to God in his eyes but stood opposed to him. It is only the
experience of the struggle that enabled him to experience the duality of
God, as manifested by the inner and outer worlds, by good and evil, by
Jacob and Esau.
What has happened? Jacob’s life was preserved, and the negative
principle and thus the division were suspended. The moral division (the
inferior function) and the division of the world (the principle of opposites)
are suspended in God’s all-encompassing two faces. (Perhaps Jacob’s
encounter with the angel and the naming of the double camp, the two hosts,
because this is God’s host, mark the beginning of this inner experience,
which, as shown, reaches its dramatic climax in the struggle).
Jacob’s growing out of his fearful attitude toward the world is
immensely important and has a pivotal and visible effect on him. The
assimilation, awareness, and acceptance of the other side as being part of
the essence of the world and God, find immediate expression in how Jacob
encounters Esau. The way in which he avoids moving on with Esau is also
cunning, but it is no longer a partly malicious case of fraud, an unconscious
inferior function at work. It is instead a conscious human action, that is, a
successful adjustment to a fully recognized reality. Esau is a factor that
Jacob must deal with, a different kind of human being, rather than a demon
and a fear-inspiring brute.
The angel, while wrestling with Jacob, touches the hollow of Jacob’s
thigh, which leaves him with a limp and means that it is forbidden to eat the
sinew. This negative outcome of the struggle reveals how absolutely real is
this experience, which manifests itself in a physical defect. We must
disregard those conceptions of Jacob’s limp—be they correct or incorrect—
that fail to explain this characteristic in context and instead assume that it is
either a ritual limping common at the Bethel sanctuary or a detail which
merely serves to explain the taboo of eating sinew. Such attempts at
interpretation must be disregarded first because they are based upon
unproven and mutually exclusive assumptions and second because the
editor of the text placed this characteristic in another context and thus wants
it to be understood differently.
The fact that Jacob’s limp is an archetypal trait—one that he shares with
an array of mythological heroes—suggests an instance of secondary
mythologizing. That is, this characteristic does not come from the core layer
of the account. However, it no doubt serves to emphasize the defining
reality of the struggle with the angel, who is not what modern readers think
he is, but an experience that profoundly agitates Jacob’s whole organism
and transforms his physiology and constitution. The core layer, however,
includes the fact that Jacob’s pivotal experience—the struggle with the
angel—leaves him with a physical defect, casting a shadow over the
positive transformation of Israel as it were.
There is no need to discuss this detail any further here. But it is worth
noting the following hypothesis: the angel touching Jacob’s loins is
evidently related to touching the sexual sphere, which is weakened by the
struggle, whereby this sphere, as a pars pro toto, represents the entire
instinct-shadow component.40 This struggle, in which the side represented
by Esau has become visible and tangible as God’s worldly side, has
changed Jacob’s shadow side (which has been quite prominent up to this
point). The conscious assimilation of the shadow side leads partly to its
sacrifice, to its detoxification, and to its disempowerment. The
acknowledgment of the principle of duality has weakened Jacob’s shadow
and its negative assertiveness, on which he has been forced to rely on
various occasions. This reliance can be felt in Jacob’s humility toward Esau,
along with the important fact that he stands in awe of Esau as a symbol of
his experience of the other side of God.
Behind this personal meaning, however, lies something far more crucial.
For it is not until Jacob conquers the outer world through his struggle with
the angel and then forces that world to give him its blessing that he can
begin to perform his task of conquering the world for YHWH and of
becoming a blessing for the peoples of the world. Structurally, this becomes
possible only after Jacob has renounced his hitherto typically one-sided
orientation in favor of a totalizing, all-inclusive conception of God. It is
only after Jacob has reached this third place, which lies beyond all
oppositions such as the opposition between introversion and extraversion as
typical attitudes, that he can become effective as a blessing.
For early human beings, in particular intuitive ones, who experience
their unconscious as something encountered in reality, just as Jacob comes
face to face with the angel, that total experience has the power to alter their
conception of the world and of their fellow humans. Thus, for early
humans, change does not occur primarily through thought, as it does
perhaps for moderns, but through action and actual experience, which in
turn alter their worldview. In this sense, then, the fact that the angel changes
Jacob’s name, an event that corresponds to his change in outlook, is the
pivotal moment in a struggle that he experiences as fundamentally real. The
altered conception of the world, which is consistent with Jacob’s change,
occurs later and becomes visible only in the renaming of the place, in
Jacob’s altered behavior toward Esau, and in his remark that he has seen his
brother’s face just as he has seen God’s.41
The standpoint adopted by Jacob-Israel and its underlying experience of
God has never been completely understood since. The people that has
handed down and experienced this account and the midrashic literature
taking it up have never again advanced as far as this core. As observed,
however, and as shown by the midrashic texts studied here, this people has
fully grasped and processed the problem of opposites, which is the starting
point for the struggle with the angel. We believe that this results not only
from the opposition between the moon and the sun, whose consequences
our present discussion has considered in full, but also from its intersection
with the archetypal motif of twins, which must once again be attributed to a
mythologizing people. The situation of Jacob and Esau presupposes the
existence of a younger and an older brother. It is no coincidence that the
twin brother motif, which corresponds so conspicuously to the originally
equally sized sun and moon, is linked to this principle of opposites. Both
originate in the same fundamental layer.
Quite possibly, the symbolic work of the Midrash has taken up a strange
passage in the text or has at least helped shape it. For immediately after the
naming of Penuel, which, as we have seen, expresses the subordination of
the outer world to the principle of God, as represented by Jacob, the text
reads: “And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him” (Gen. 32:31),
which is followed by the words, “And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked,
and, behold, Esau came” (Gen. 33:1).42 If, as we may safely assume, the
people bringing forth the Midrash has read the text just as intuitively as its
references were provided by intuition, then it is indeed possible that one
could see the equation of the sun and Esau shine through at this point.
Indeed, the word him (in “the sun rose upon him”), which has strongly
exercised the minds of interpreters, could be the last trace of a reference to
Jacob’s struggle with and victory over the angel, meaning a struggle with
and victory over that side of the world represented by the angel (that is, the
sun, the outer world, Esau).
If the Midrash has the angel, that is, Esau, plead, “Let me go, the sun
shall rise [. . .] hordes of God-serving angels are calling Michael, awaken, it
is time to let the morning songs resound,” then this clearly illustrates the
angel’s association with the sun.43
The people’s reception of the forefather’s fundamental experience seems
to be exemplary and prototypical even though it has never been fully
understood by his descendants. The preoccupation with this experience,
which has been passed on down the ages, has exerted both a direct and
indirect effect at least with regard to the course it took over time. This is
attested by the much later midrashic texts, which take up the basic problem.
However, the figures conveying such fundamental experiences, which have
a formative influence on the people, thus became forefathers, who are
constituted not merely by the genealogical chain but also by the effects of
their fundamental experiences on their psyche and intellect.
The equation of Esau and Edom is an entirely different matter. Naturally,
this originates in the mythologizing treatment by the collective of the
material surrounding the core event. The last part of Jung’s statement
—“The psychology of the individual corresponds to the psychology of
nations. What nations do, each individual does also”—needs to be reversed
in the case of the primitive peoples, since the leader’s personality becomes
highly effective due to deficient individual development.44 Here, the
psychology of the nation is largely determined by the psychology of the
leader, in our present case the forefather’s, who is the only individual. Thus,
another of Jung’s assertions is equally correct: “A metamorphosis in the
attitude of the individual is the only possible beginning of a transformation
in the psychology of the nation.”45 For this reason, the collective
psychology of the nation initially remains behind the stage reached by the
psychology of its leading individuals. Only in the historical process can the
psychology prefigured by the leader as a psychological role model be
attained, if at all. We became aware of this fact when we realized that the
people handing down the forefather’s fundamental experience failed to
understand the basic meaning of Jacob’s struggle with the angel, that is, of
the new conception of God. This fact comes to life again in the problem of
Esau and Edom.
The people transmitting the experience does not advance beyond the
principle of opposites. Whereas they experience their own unconscious
nature, their “inner Edom,” through the Edomites, in effect they do not
progress beyond their own projection. They do not become aware of their
inferiority; indeed, not even the strange fact, which owes its existence to
this very projection, that the Edomites are a brother nation becomes a
subject of concern. On the contrary, historically, and indeed even today,
Edom symbolizes the negative, the non-Jewish, the anti-Semitic.
Crucially, and this is another essential reason for separating the seminal
account from its mythological-collective treatment, the level that constitutes
Jacob’s fundamental experience of his struggle with the angel, and which is
experienced on the other side as the face of God, was not attained by the
people. This level has not been reached to this day, let alone recognized as a
level.
Because the contents of these core texts are handed down by the
collective, they are the subject of appreciation and attempted realization.
But just as the people’s entire existence diverges from the realization
demanded in the commandment, there is also a strong discrepancy between
the experience—in this case Jacob’s—concretized in these core texts and
the reality of the people transmitting that very experience.
Jacob’s fundamental experience in his struggle with the angel, which
marks a crucial event in his life, has foreshadowed the solution of a current
problem, one which today has taken on collective significance.
The distorted image of Edom remains a highly topical Jewish problem.
Precisely because the Jews remain largely unaware of their inferior Edom-
likeness, they project it onto those peoples that they frequently consider the
epitome of sullied blood and lacking spirituality. This feature recurs time
and again, from the stupid Goliath to the despised Shabbat goy. Whereas
this primitive misperception is undoubtedly nurtured by the fact that,
objectively speaking, the peoples of the world wreak their negative Edom-
likeness invariably and preferably on the Jews, it is also nurtured by the
Jews’ unconscious Edom-likeness. Such a projection not only distorts the
image of those peoples, but it also takes effect and activates their negative
Edom-likeness. It is part of the same psychological context that only their
own awareness and the recognition of their own shadow will allow the Jews
to see the other peoples correctly and to envisage fruitful coexistence with
them.
In the biblical text studied here, the core text about Jacob and Esau and
the mythologizing treatment by the people handing down this account are
closely interwoven. From this layer, which belongs to a transmitting
collective, spring both the problem of opposites, in the form of the opposing
twins, and the connection between the motif of Esau and the Edomites,
which is thus turned into an opposing people.
It is unnecessary to reiterate the close connection between the midrashic
texts and their inspirational core text. What does need to be emphasized,
however, is that the principle of opposition between the moon and the sun,
and its overcoming in Jacob’s struggle with the angel, concretizes one, if
not the, central phenomenon of Judaism, namely, YHWH’s struggle for the
world and, for the role of Israel, that is, the holy people as YHWH’s
__________
1. Micha Joseph Bin Gorion, Die Sagen der Juden, tr. from Hebrew to German by Rahel Bin Gorion
(Frankfurt: Rütten and Loening, 1913–1927), vol. 2, 353–355; for the source texts, see p. 444.
2. The opposition between right and left, which is alluded to here, shall be discussed later (p. 19).
3. See “Der Typengegensatz in der jüdischen Religionsgeschichte,” in C. G. Jung, Wirklichkeit der
Seele: Anwendungen und Fortschritte der neueren Psychologie (Zurich: Rascher, 1934).
4. Sukkah 29a. —Trans.
5. Midrash Exodus Rabbah 15. [Exodus Rabbah, or Shemot Rabbah, 15:26. —Ed.]
6. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer.
7. Various other passages suggest a close relationship between the moon and the Jewish people.
However, we cannot consider these passages here, nor discuss the many references to the Jews as a
people of the moon. The possible connection between the Hebrew alphabet and ancient oriental lunar
calendars (see Eduard Stucken, Der Ursprung des Alphabets und die Mondstationen [Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1913]) is part of this context, just as much as Hugo Winckler’s and Alfred Jeremias’s
assumptions that the Sabbath was originally the day of the full moon [Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer].
8. Bin Gorion, Sagen der Juden, vol. 1, 15–16; for the source text, see p. 352.
9. Bin Gorion, Sagen der Juden, vol. 1, 6–7; for the source texts, see p. 352. See also the following
passage: “Just as the moon renews itself, so will Israel also renew itself. Just as the moon shines day
and night, this world and the future world shall belong to Israel. But if the moon has no more power
by day, Israel shall have no power in this world, because of the peoples of the world.”
10. Erich Neumann refers, in parenthesis, to a letter from Jung to Neumann, dated August 12, 1934.
The translation from the German given here is by the translator, Mark Kyburz, and differs from the
translation found in Jung and Neumann, Analytical Psychology in Exile, 58. —Ed.
11. Bin Gorion, Sagen der Juden, vol. 3, 268. [Regarding “wind,“ see the introduction, note 17. —
Ed.]
12. “And he said, Why will you go to him today? It is neither new moon, nor sabbath. And she said,
It shall be well” (2 Kings 4:23).
13. Sanhedrin 42a.
14. The ritual of Yom Kippur Katan, the Minor Day of Atonement, was introduced in sixteenth-
century Safed by Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. It takes place on the day preceding Rosh Hodesh, the
New Moon Day. See also the introduction, note 22. —Ed.
15. No source is indicated in the German typescript. The text is part of the blessing recited in the
Mussaf (additional) service at Rosh Hodesh (New Moon). In Hebrew:
O ne faces two tasks when further pursuing the problems raised by the
motif of Jacob and Esau. To begin with, it is important to extend the
archetypal foundation of this series of motifs at least to materials that point
to the existence of the same archetypes among other peoples and in other
periods of human history, so that the embeddedness of Jewish symbolism in
the broader symbolism of all humanity becomes evident. Moreover, the
motif of Jacob and Esau should be made the starting point for an attempt to
at least delineate the boundaries of another area of Jewish psychology,
beginning with the Jewish problem of the shadow and extending to the
fundamental tension between the spirit and the earth. The position of the
moon as a central symbol of the inner side of the world, which contrasts
with the outer world of the sun, has several further consequences if the Jew
is identified with this moon symbolism, whose nature is feminine and
receiving. The reversal of the masculine and feminine in Jewish
psychology, to which this identification alludes and whose depths cannot be
entirely fathomed, throws light on a wealth of additional psychic materials
concerning the Jewish attitude toward the feminine principle. Studying
these materials, which assume a concrete shape in Jewish literature,
ultimately leads to the problem of modern Jewish persons, in whom the
same primary spiritual layers once again become productive and which—
partly through the same, partly through an entirely different and new
symbolism—revolutionize and reorient the critical situation of Judaism at
present.
__________
1. For instance, among the Indo-Germanic and North American peoples.
2. See Jung, Psychologische Typen [Psychological Types], definition 18, par. 708.
3. Willy Hugo Hellpach, Geopsychische Erscheinungen: Die Menschenseele unter dem Einfluß von
Wetter und Klima, Boden und Landschaft (Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1911), 260.
4. On the emergence of an internal periodicity from an originally contingent periodicity, see
Hellpach, Geopsychische Erscheinungen.
5. The handwritten reference by Neumann reads “Goldberg, Mythen der Hebräer, p. 123,” which
might be a reference to Oskar Goldberg, Die Wirklichkeit der Hebräer: Einleitung in das System des
Pentateuch (Berlin: Verlag David, 1925). —Ed.
6. See A. Ungnad, Die Religion der Babylonier und Assyrer (Jena: Diederich, 1921), 167 and 190, in
prayers to the moon and sun gods.
7. Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte (Tübingen: Mohr,
1925).
8. Alfred Jeremias, p. 508. [In the original typescript, this note is appended to the previous sentence,
and Jeremias is referenced in both places. It is not clear from the German typescript whether
Neumann is referring to Jeremias, Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients (Leipzig: Hinrichs,
1906) or his Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913). Neumann’s
page reference does not match available editions of either work. —Trans.]
9. Hugo Winckler, Himmels- und Weltenbild der Babylonier als Grundlage der Weltanschauung und
Mythologie aller Völker (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901).
10. Ibid., 36–37.
11. Ibid., 46. —Trans.
12. Ibid., p. 565.
13. Ibid., p. 566.
14. A source for this quotation could not be found. —Ed.
15. The Amarna letters, written in Akkadian cuneiform, were discovered in the late nineteenth
century in Amarna (Akhetaten) in Upper Egypt. The mostly diplomatic letters date from the mid-
fourteenth century BCE. —Ed.
16. Historically, the opposition between Seth and Horus is related to the opposition between Upper
and Lower Egypt. This is generally used to support the notion that deduces religious contents—such
as the opposition between Seth and Horus—from social-religious contents. Yet it is precisely our
present study, in which the opposition between these Egyptian brothers appears as one example
among many, that plainly reveals that in early history this very process took place quite differently.
The accidental historical finding of an opposition was seen as an earthly shaping of the apriori
opposition, because the dominance of the archetype governed history and historiography.
17. Adolf Erman, Die Religion der Aegypter (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1934), 21. —Trans.
18. Erman, Die Religion der Aegypter, footnote 6.
19. Hermann Kees, Ägypten: Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch (Tübingen: A. Bertholet, 1928), 31.
20. Erman, Die Religion der Aegypter, 39f.
21. It is probably impossible to determine to what extent the renaissance of Seth-Sutech in the
nineteenth dynasty made an impression on the Semitic tribes entering Egypt at this time, which is
related to the presence of the Jews there.
22. According to Winckler, the descent of the sun god in Ursus Major, which is also depicted and
construed as a boar, and of course these astral processes, which are projections of the unconscious,
need to be detached from their astronomical character, which is of no interest to our present
considerations, even if such a character exists.
23. Neumann’s note for the first part of this statement reads “Kautsch; Enoch 89.” This is possibly a
reference to Emil Friedrich Kautzsch, ed., Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten
Testamentes (Tübingen: Mohr, 1900). For the second part, Neumann notes: “This is confirmed by the
equation Saul = Seth, which has been handed down from Egyptian sources, albeit from the second
century (Burckhardt, Altaramäische Fremdwörter im Ägyptisch, vol. 2, no. 652).” This is possibly
Max Burckhardt, Die Altkanaanäischen Fremdworte und Eigenamen im Aegyptischen (Leipzig:
Hinrich, 1909). —Ed.
24. The Hebrew (Masoretic) Psalm 80:14 is 80:13 in Greek numbering: “The boar from the wood
destroys it, and the wild beast of the field devours it.” In the book of Jubilees (37:24), Esau is
compared to the boar, “springing like the wild boar which comes upon the spear that pierces and kills
it.” —Ed.
25. Edvard Lehmann, Die Perser (Tübingen: Mohr, 1924), 261. [The twins Ohrmuzd and Ahriman
pertain to the Zurvanite creation myth. While Ohrmuzd was to be granted the firstborn’s right over
creation, Ahriman ripped open the womb to emerge first. The Zurvani are an extinct branch of
Zoroastrianism. —Ed.]
Layers of the Unconscious: The
Interpretation of Mythology
It cannot escape our attention that the brothers are twins, who resemble each other not only
physically, “like two peas in a pod,” but also as regards their personal characteristics and
attributes (they have the same animals, wear the same clothes, etc.); not even their names are
different, so that the queen recognizes her husband only by an artificial mark. If the notion of
the doublet applies to anything in this scheme of things, then certainly [it does] to the
brothers, one being a poor imitation of the other. But this reduction of the brothers to one and
the same person would deprive the story of its principal meaning, namely, the rivalry
between the brothers over the same love object, unless of course we remind ourselves that
originally one of the brothers was older and served his younger sibling as a father, as we can
read in the folktale about Bata.1
__________
1. Otto Rank, Das Trauma der Geburt und seine Bedeutung für die Psychoanalyse (Vienna:
Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag, 1924), 103.
2. Rank, Das Trauma der Geburt, 103.
3. Jung, Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido [Symbols of Transformation, par. 294].
4. See Weizsäcker, Heyer, Bilz, etc. [Neumann is referring here to Viktor von Weizsäcker, Gustav
Richard Heyer, and Clemens Rudolf Bilz. Heyer was a member of the Nazi Party from 1937 to 1944.
Yet, in 1938, he wrote a letter of recommendation for Max Zeller, who, prior to being interned in a
concentration camp, had been in analysis with Heyer. Thomas Kirsch quotes from Heyer’s letter: “I
esteem equally highly his gifts as a psychotherapeutic practitioner and his character as a man.”
Thomas Kirsch, The Jungians: A Comparative and Historical Perspective (London: Routledge,
2000), 125. After the war, Jung refused to meet with Heyer and denounced his Nazi past. —Ed.]
5. This sentence had been deleted by hand in the original typescript. —Ed.
6. Micha Josef Bin Gorion, Sinai und Garizim: Über den Ursprung der israelitischen Religion
(Berlin: Morgenland-Verlag, 1926), 99.
7. See Frazer, quoted from Rank.
8. Quotation marks around “the” appear in the typescript. —Trans.
9. Otto Rank, Das Inzest-Motiv in Dichtung und Sage: Grundzüge einer Psychologie des
dichterischen Schaffens (Leipzig: Franz Deuticke, 1912), 647.
10. Ibid., 363, 365, 372, and 374, respectively.
11. See Jung, Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido [Symbols of Transformation].
12. Ibid., par. 548.
13. Sigmund Freud, Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse (Vienna: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer
Verlag, 1921), 127.
14. See Jung, Wandlungen und Symbole der Libido [Symbols of Transformation, par. 580].
15. Tzaddik, in Judaism, is a righteous person. —Ed.
Addendum
Editor’s comment:
Neumann here contemplates the feminine aspects of the divine, as it
appears in human shape. This is then related to the appearance of the Self at
different stages of the development of consciousness whereby, prior to the
development of ego-consciousness, the Self appears as a body-self. Similar
to the Shekhinah, God’s feminine aspect, which enables the dwelling and
the presence of the divine, Neumann points out the feminine aspects of the
Self. His poetic ruminations are a suitable conclusion to this book, which
we now know served as the groundwork for and prelude to his subsequent
spiritual and psychoanalytical undertakings.
Editor’s Note
S ection headings have not been inserted into Neumann’s text, since they
do not appear in his typescript, except for the one single case in the second
part, where Neumann did insert a heading.
All footnotes in Neumann’s text are his, unless otherwise stated. The
indication “—Ed.” is appended to notes the editor has inserted, notes not
found in the original manuscript, or, in brackets, where the editor has added
information to one of Neumann’s notes.
Where possible, Neumann’s references have been checked, and, if
necessary, page references have been corrected. However, many of
Neumann’s references have more historical than bibliographical value.
Furthermore, Neumann’s notes have been edited to comply with Chicago
style (full bibliographic data on first mention; shortened forms used in
subsequent mentions).
When Neumann refers to Bin Gorion’s Sagen der Juden, an additional
page reference indicates the “source text.” This refers to Bin Gorion’s
appendix, listing the sources of the legends, such as the tractates of the
Talmud.
To facilitate reading, double quotation marks in Neumann’s typescript
have been deleted when not deemed necessary for a correct understanding
of Neumann’s intentions. When in doubt, or when they may have been used
in an unusual manner, they have been preserved.
Translator’s Note
A
Abraham, xi, xiv, 77
Adler, Alfred, xxiii, lv, lvi, 2, 10, 91, 99, 100
affects, 76
afterbirth, 73, 81
Ahriman, 66
alchemy, 74
Amarna letters, 62
analytical psychology, xxviii, xliv, 2, 22, 71
angels, 20, 45
anima, xxvii
anti-Semitism, xxxix
Apophis, xliii n41, 65
archetypes (archetypal motifs), xl, xlv, 35, 52, 75, 88, 93, 98–99
objectification of, 89–91
art, xliv, 67, 71, 86, 103-105
artist, psychology of, liii, 93-95
astrology, 57. See also zodiac
astronomy, Babylonian, 59
Azazel, xxxi-xxxii, 15, 19-20, 101
B
Babylon, 17 n19, 54, 58–60, 77
influence on Jewish consciousness, 60
Babylonian gods. See mythology, Babylonian
Bachofen, Johann Jakob, xl, 54-56
Bata (folktale), 72, 84
Bible, xi, xxxvii, 1, 30 n36, 37 n38, 45 n42, 54, 104, 105
application of psychological aspects and perspectives, 1
biblical forefathers, xxiii–xxv, 2–4, 25-26, 31–34, 45-46
historical figures, 104-105
Bible, books of
Exodus, 42 n40
Genesis, xi–xvi, xxv, xxx, xxxvi, 13, 18 n20, n21, 35, 37-38, 40 n39, 42 n40, 45
Isaiah, xxxvii n31, 14-15
Judges, 42 n40
Leviticus, 18 n21
Bilz, Clemens Rudolf, 76 n4
Bin Gorion, Micha Josef, xxvi, xxxii n22, 5 n1, 9 n8, 11 n9, 13 n11, 17 n19, 19 n22, 20 n25, 21 n26,
28 n35, 45 n43, 77 n6, 109
body, xlv-xlvii, 42 n40, 75–82, 107
body-self, 107
body soul, 82. See also soul
brother motif, xxv–xxvii, xlv, 44, 52–55, 70–74, 84, 101. See also twins
hostile, xvi, xix–xx, xxxiv, xxxvii, xliii–xlvi, lv, 5, 26, 58–66, 72-73, 78, 102
unequal, xl, 35, 54, 71, 102
C
categorical imperative, 76
Christianity, 18, 25, 49
collective unconscious, xxi n4, xxiii-xxiv, xli-xlii, xlvii-xlviii, li, lv-lvi, 2, 29, 34-35, 38-39, 52-53,
60, 75-103, 105
periodicity of, xli, 56-57
color symbolism, xliii, 62–64
of Jacob and Esau, 20-21
conscience, development of, xlviii, 83
consciousness, xxi n4, xxix, xxxvi-lvi, 22-24, 29-33, 39, 55-56, 60-61, 67, 74-82, 84-107
conversion, 55
Cordovero, Moses, xxxi, 15 n14
D
David, his immortality, 16 n17
day and night, xxix, xli, 11-12, 56
Day of Atonement. See Yom Kippur
depth psychology, lvii, 69, 106
Dioscuri, xlv, 73-74
disc and crescent, 53–54. See also sun and moon
dispersion, theory of, xl, 52, 69
dragon, xliii, xlvi, liii–lvi, 58, 65, 78, 95–99, 106
drives, 76, 107. See also power drive; sex drive
dualism (principle of duality), 10, 19, 42, 83
E
Edom, xii, xv-xvi, xxxii-xxxiv, 18–27, 30 n36, 35-36, 46-48, 59, 62, 64-65
ego, xxiii, xxx, xlix-lii, 2, 74, 76, 82, 85, 88, 93, 97
ego-consciousness, xlii, xlvii–lv, 79–80, 85–93, 96–98, 103, 107
ego-Self axis, xxix
Egypt, ancient, 63–66, 104
Elijah, lv, 104
enantiodromia, xli, 55-56
Esau
and the sun, xxvi, xliii, 5, 13, 20, 22, 30, 45
as Jacob’s shadow, xxvii, xxxvi, 36, 39
as the face of God, xxxvi-xxxviii, 38-40, 42-43
as this world, the outer side, xxxv, 4-6, 35-37, 42
his wives, xiii n4
identified with Edom, xxxii n23, 35, 46–48, 59, 64
identified with the wild black boar, 65-66
representing extraversion, xxii, xxvii, xxxv, 22
representing the goat, xxxi, 18–20
the biblical story. See Jacob and Esau, the biblical story
evil, xxx–xxxii, xxxvii, 9-10, 16, 19, 21, 25, 39, 62–66. See also good, and evil
experience, personal, xxv, 31, 33-34
extraversion, xxxiii, lvi, 6, 22, 23 n31, 24-26, 28, 35, 43, 70, 100. See also Easu, representing
extraversion
F
family story, xxiv, xlviii, li, liv, 2, 84–93, 96, 99, 101-102
feminine, xli-xlii, 52, 107
folktales, xl, xliv, liii, 52, 67, 70-72, 83–86, 95, 101–105
Jewish, xxvi n13
forefathers. See Bible, biblical forefathers
Freud, Sigmund, xxiii, lii, lv-lvi, 91–93, 99-100. See also psychoanalysis, Freudian
his lack of understanding of religious phenomena, 1
G
Gabriel (angel), 16, 21, 62. See also angels
Gnosis, 76
goat, 15–23. See also sacrifice, of a goat; scapegoat
as a symbol of the hibernal sun, 23
God, xxv, xxxv, 9-14, 107
creation of a divided world, xxix, 12, 27
in the guise of Esau, 38–43
problem of, 38
two faces of, xxxviii–xxxix, 40–42, 49
voice of, 6
God-image, xxvii–xxviii, xxxvii
good, and evil, xxxi, xxxviii, xli, xlv, lvi, 40, 56, 74, 105
H
Hasidism, xxxix, lv, 49, 83, 105
hero, xxxvii, xlii, xlv, l, liii–lv, 78, 96-98, 102
mythology of, 41, 58, 74, 97–98, 102–106
Heyer, Gustav Richard, 76 n4
historiography, l, 63, n16, 104
Western, lvi, 105
History, xl, xlvii, 53, 80, 82
human, liv, 51, 74, 77, 84, 99
Jewish, lv, 7, 25, 100–101
psychoanalytic reading of, 99
Horus. See Seth and Horus
humans, early (ancient, primitive), 43, 56, 93, 97, 99. See also primitive peoples
contrasted with contemporary humanity, 43 n41
human development, xlviii, 70, 85–87, 97
I
imago, xxxiii, 95
individuality, extinction of, 80
individuation process, xxv, 103
inferior function, xxxiii, 22–27, 40-41
inferiority, as a moral problem, 27, 38
initiation rites, xxv, 74, 76
inner voice, xxii, xxvii–xxviii, 6
inner world, xxvii–xxviii, 5-7, 10–12, 17, 22, 40
instinct, xxxvi, xlv, 42, 75, 99, 107
interiorization, xxvii, 6
introjection, 82–83
introversion, xxxiii, 6, 22, 23 n31, 28, 43, 70, 92. See also Jacob, representing introversion
dominant in Judaism, xxxiii n26, 22-23
Isaac, xi–xiv, xxv-xxvi, 20, 25, 30
Isaiah, 14–15
Israel
identified with the moon, 16 n17
state of, xxii
J
Jacob and Esau
archetypal theme, xix, 44, 51–55, 101, 106
the biblical story, xi–xvii, xxx, liv, 4, 48
their opposition, xxx, xxxii-xxxiii, xxxix-xl, 5, 13, 17–18, 22, 28, 31, 35, 61
Jacob
and the moon, xxvi, xxxi, xli n36, 4-8, 10, 17, 20, 22
as a blessing, xiii, xxxviii, 30, 36, 43
as a prototype for the Jew, xxi n4, xxv–xxviii, xxxiii, xxxviii, 7, 17
as the otherworld, the inner side, 4–7, 10, 17
his dream at Bethel, xxv, 30–32, 34–36
his inferiority, 36
his limp, 41
his loins touched by the angel, xxxviii, 42
his shadow, 38, 42
his wives, xiv-xvi
identified with the wind, 13
renamed Israel, xvi, 37, 42-44
representing introversion, xxii, xxvi–xxviii, 35
seeing God in Esau, 38–40
wrestling with the angel, xxxv–xxxviii, 12, 28, 31-32, 35–49
Jacob’s ladder, xiv, xxv, xlvii, 79
Jeremias, Alfred, 58–59
Jesus (Christ), l, 79, 104
Jewish collectivity, lvi, 100
Jewish people, xxvii, 8 n7, 25, 28, 32-33, 104
Jewish problem, xxxix, lv, 47, 51, 99
Jonah, and the whale, 32
Judaism, xxi-xxii, xxviii, lvii, 6-7, 14, 17, 25, 33, 48-49, 52
and Zionism, xxii
judgment of the dead, 24 n33
Jung, C. G., 2, 6, 10, 12-13, 29, 44 n41, 46, 93
K
Kabbalah (Kabbalism), 14, 21, 76
Kafka, Franz, The Trial, 24 n33
Kant, Immanuel, 76
Kirsch, Thomas, 76 n4
L
Laban, xiv–xvii, 35
Leah, xv
left and right. See right and left
libido, xlv, lvi, 74, 100
Liebscher, Martin, xx
light, xlv–xlvi, 6, 8–9, 11, 16–17, 22, 74, 77–79
light and dark (light and shadow), xl, 54, 74, 79
limping, as impotence, 42 n40
M
masculine, xli, 52
Midrash (midrashic literature), xxiv, xxviii–xxix, xl, 3–4, 7, 10–13, 19-20, 28–30, 34, 44–45, 48, 53–
55, 59-63, 72-73, 77, 103
miracles, 33
moon, xxx–xxxiv, 5–14, 23
and Jews, 7, 51. See also Israel, identified with the moon
darkened by evil, 15
its opacity, 16–19, 22, 25–27, 38
its twofold or twin-like character, 61–62
symbolism of, 8, 51, 57
moon and sun. See sun and moon
moral problem or conflict, xxxii–xxxv, 19, 21–28, 38
Moses, 7
motifs, primordial or fundamental, origin of, 52, 59. See also archetypes
mysteries, and mystery societies, 74, 76
myth (mythology), xl, xliv, xlviii, 54, 60, 67, 69, 77, 84–86, 95-99, 101. See also hero, mythology of
Babylonian, xli–xliii, 59-61
as dreams of a people, xxiv, 29
Germanic, xlii n37, 18, 65
mythologizing, genuine and secondary, liv–lv, 31, 41, 90–92, 101–106
N
Nahor, xi, xiv
Nazism, xxxix
Nergal, xliii, 59–62
Neumann, Erich
arrival in Israel, lvi
correspondence with C. G. Jung, xx–xxii, xxx, xxxv, lvii
publication of this manuscript, xix–xx
neurosis, 88–90, 95
New Moon festival, xxviii, xxxi, 8, 14–15
O
Oannes, 77
objectification, l-li, 89–91
Oedipus complex, xliv, 70–71, 96
Ohrmuzd, 66
opacity, principle of, 17, 22. See also moon, its opacity
opposites, principle of, xix, xxii, xxxv, xxxviii, xl–xliv, xlvi, liv, 28, 40, 44, 47–49, 54–56, 77–79,
83, 101-102
opposition, problem of, 5, 39, 57, 73
Osiris, xliii, 64–65
Other, the, xxvii, xxxiv, xxxvii, xlvi, 26-27, 40
otherworld, 4–6, 8–10, 83
outer world, xxvii–xxix, xxxviii, 6, 10, 13, 22, 27, 38, 40, 44–45, 51, 88-89, 93
P
Pan, 18
participation mystique, xlviii, lvi, 77, 80–83, 88, 98–100
patricide, 97, 99
Paul, conversion from Saul, 55
Penuel, 38, 44
periodicity, xli, 56-57
persona, xxvii
pig (boar), 65-66
placenta rituals. See afterbirth
polarity, 5, 19-20, 28
between the sun and the moon, 20, 28. See also sun, and moon
positivism, 99
power
of the archetypes, l–li. See also archetypes
of the sun, xxix, 12-13, 27. See also sun
psychology of, 10
power drive, xliv, 2, 70-71, 85, 88
powerlessness (disempowerment), xxxviii, 12, 56–27, 31, 42
primitive peoples, 32, 46, 73–77, 81-82, 96–99, 101
primogeniture, xl, 30, 54, 64–66, 70, 85
projection, xxxiv-xxxv, 26-27, 36, 47-48, 82, 84, 89, 96, 101, 105
psyche
collective, xxiv
human, duality of, xlv
psychoanalysis, xliii, 66-67, 69–71, 73, 83, 90–92, 97
Freudian, xliv, liii, 1-2, 74
psychological analysis, 31-32
psychological types, 36
psychology. See also analytical psychology; depth psychology
collective, 46
individual, xxiii, xliv, 70
individual, and religious phenomena, xxiii
Jewish, xx, xli, 11, 51-52
of power, 10
of youth, lii, 91
primitive, 75, 82, 98
R
Rachel, xiv-xv
Rank, Otto, xliv, liii, 71–73, 82, 94–96
Rebekah, xi–xiv, xxv, 30, 36
reincarnation, 74
religious phenomena, 1–2
right and left, 19–20, 24
Rosenthal, Hugo, xx, xxviii, 6, 30 n36
S
sacrifice, 11, 49, 83, 106
animal, xlvii, 82
of a goat, xxx–xxxi, liv, 11, 15, 17–19, 21-22, 25, 101. See also scapegoat
of the inferior, xxxii–xxxiv, 39, 42
virgin, lii, 95–96, 101
salvation, 15, 19, 78
Samael, 16-17
Samas, xlii, 58, 62
Satan, xxxvii
savior motif, xlvi, 77–78
scapegoat, xxx, xxxiv, liv, 101. See also sacrifice, of a goat
secondary mythologizing, liv-lv, 31, 41, 103-106
secondary personalization, xlvii–lvi, 84–98, 101-102
Semasael, 17
Seth and Horus, xliii, 63–65, 72, 84
sex drive, li, 2, 90
shadow, xxii, xxxiv-xxxix, xliv–xlvii, 39, 42, 51, 73–82, 103, 106
and Self, xxxvi
corresponding to inner Edom, 23–25, 36
internal, xxvii
projection of, xxxiv–xxxviii
Sin (deity), xlii, 58–59
soul, lii, 61, 86–92. See also body soul
formation, xlvii, 82
human, xix, xli, xliv–xlv, 53–56, 69–71, 74
the people’s versus the individual, xxii–xxiv, 3–4, 29, 34, 78
salvation, 15, 19
Spinoza, Baruch, 76
spirit, xxii, xxvii–xxx, xxxix, 13, 16, 51, 66, 81–82
Stoicism, 76
sun and moon, xxvi–xxx, xli–xliv, liv, 5, 8, 14, 16–22, 28, 30, 40, 44, 48-49, 53–61, 106
cultures, 57
symbolism, 16, 30, 101. See also polarity, between the sun and the moon;
sun
hibernal, 23, 59–61
symbolism of, 57
symbol (symbolism), 7, 52, 99, 104. See also color symbolism
psychic, 57
archetypal, 28–29, 34
Jewish, 51
T
taijitu, 56
texts, biblical. See Bible
texts, midrashic. See Midrash
texts, noncanonical, 4
tradition, xxv, 3–4, 31–33
Jewish, xxvi n13, xxviii, lv, 33, 104
twins, xl-xli, xliv–xlv, liv, 5, 25, 35, 44, 48, 53–55, 58-62, 69–74, 81, 101-102
hostile, xxvi, 5, 72, 84–86. See also brothers, hostile
in the Bible, xi
typology, xlvii, 35, 79
tzaddikim, 105
U
unconscious, xliv–xlviii, l-lv, 23–26, 53, 55–57, 64, 74–82, 98, 102, 106
compensatory function, 32
of a people. See collective unconscious
personal, xliv, xlviii, liii, 2, 66, 84, 92–95
V
Vishnu, 77
voice, inner. See inner voice
von Franz, Marie-Louise, xlviii n44
von Weizsäcker, Viktor, 76 n4
W
Winckler, Hugo, 8 n7, 59–60, 65 n22
wind, xxviii, 13
Y
YHWH, xxvii, xxxii, 6, 12, 14–15, 19–20, 33, 43, 48-49, 77
Yishuv. See Israel
Yitzhak. See Isaac
Yom Kippur, xxxi–xxxii, 14, 19, 21
Z
Zionism, xxii
zodiac, 18, 57
ABOUT THE EDITOR
Dr. Erel Shalit is a Jungian psychoanalyst in Israel and past president of the
Israel Society of Analytical Psychology. He was founding director of the
Jungian Analytical Psychotherapy Program at Bar Ilan University and has
been director of the Shamai Davidson Mental Health Clinic. He has
authored and edited several books, among them The Cycle of Life; The
Dream and Its Amplification (with Nancy Swift Furlotti); The Complex;
Requiem; Enemy, Cripple, Beggar; and The Hero and His Shadow. He
chaired the Jung-Neumann Conference and has edited, with Murray Stein,
Turbulent Times, Creative Minds: Erich Neumann and C. G. Jung in
Relationship.
Z-Access
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Library
ffi
fi