Some of Jung’s closest followers were aware that Jung’s writings on alchemy were difficult to read, and so it is not surprising that some of them dedicated themselves to helping readers gain access to his primary works. A number of these analysts and scholars have been essential to my own reading, especially Marie-Louise von Franz, Edward Edinger, James Hillman, and Wolfgang Giegerich.
For von Franz and Edinger, Jung’s works were authoritative, so they did not criticize Jung or offer any fundamentally different approach. They tended to see their own work basically as a bridge to Jung’s, but this evaluation does not represent the extent to which their own contributions have extended both our understanding of Jung and alchemy, and the field of analytical psychology as a whole.
For me, von Franz’s uncanny symbolic sensitivity, her appreciation of the “dark feminine”, her works on alchemical history and active imagination, and her exploration of psyche and matter—to say nothing of her work on the Aurora consurgens—have been important companions to my reading. The work of Edinger has also affected me deeply. His book, Anatomy of the Psyche, organizes the typical operations and stages of the alchemical process and, in so doing, brings order to the chaos of alchemy. Perhaps even more directly than von Franz, Edinger lays out guiding principles for how to read Jung. Like von Franz, he held Jung in the highest esteem, if not in a profound idealization. His first principle for how to read Jung is to recognize Jung’s magnitude:
‘'Realize that Jung’s consciousness vastly surpasses your own.… If you make the assumption that you know better than he does and you start out with a critical attitude, don’t bother. The book isn't for you. Jung’s depth and breadth are absolutely awesome. We’re all Lilliputians by comparison’’.
I read such statements with ambivalence and draw back from what appears to be Edinger’s god-like projection onto Jung. Yet, I too hold Jung’s work in the highest esteem, and I deeply respect Edinger’s integrity. Nevertheless, Edinger’s seeming foreclosure of a critical attitude appears to my taste as too literal. For me, the best way to read Edinger is to accept the importance of approaching Jung with an open mind and initially suspend judgment in order to remain open to what we do not understand. Edinger is keenly aware of the temptation to criticize as a defense against the anxiety of not knowing. In Zen Buddhism, only the empty vessel can receive, and by being empty, we become teachable. In the face of the difficult challenge of Jung’s alchemical work and with respect for the laborious process he went through to gain insight into this field, an initial bracketing of one’s criticism is a reasonable approach. For me, it is not hard to idealize Jung’s work in alchemy. Perhaps it is the case, as Harold Bloom has noted, that “[w]e read, frequently if unknowingly, in quest of a mind much more original than our own”.