K. R. Eissler liest den Briefwechsel zwischen Freud und Jung wie den Briefroman eines großen Schriftstellers, in dem die tragische Freundschaft zwischen einem älteren und einem jüngeren Mann dargestellt wird. Auf die psychologische Analyse dieser Freundschaft folgen ›Ansätze zu einer Pathographie von C. G. Jungs Persönlichkeit‹ und die Auseinandersetzung mit C. J. Groesbecks Arbeit ›The Analyst’s Myth: Freud and Jung as each other’s Analyst‹. Im Schlusskapitel ›Historische Nachgedanken‹ kommentiert Eissler die Spaltung der jungen Wissenschaft der Tiefenpsychologie.
K. R. Eissler reads the correspondence between Freud and Jung as if it were an epistolary novel of an acclaimed writer depicting the tragic friendship between an older and a younger man. The psychological analysis of this friendship is followed by 'Ansätze zu einer Pathographie von C. G. Jungs Persönlichkeit' (Approaches to a Pathography of C.G. Jung's Personality) and the study of C. J. Groesbeck's work 'The Analyst's Myth: Freud and Jung as each other's Analyst'. In the final chapter 'Historical Nachgedanken' (Historical Afterthoughts) Eissler comments on the split in the young science of depth psychology.
K. R. Eissler reads the correspondence between Freud and Jung as if it were an epistolary novel of an acclaimed writer depicting the tragic friendship between an older and a younger man. The psychological analysis of this friendship is followed by 'Ansätze zu einer Pathographie von C. G. Jungs Persönlichkeit' (Approaches to a Pathography of C.G. Jung's Personality) and the study of C. J. Groesbeck's work 'The Analyst's Myth: Freud and Jung as each other's Analyst'. In the final chapter 'Historical Nachgedanken' (Historical Afterthoughts) Eissler comments on the split in the young science of depth psychology.