#2 Identity swap (?)
Mysterious confusion
The notorious unreliability of Freudian sources – most, if not all, editions of Freud’s letters have been "carefully" edited – is best illustrated by the following example, in which the same significant quote is ascribed to either Freud or, his follower, and boyfriend, Sandor Ferenczi, depending on who published the quote. The question of who the actual author of the quote was is important when trying to describe Freud’s psychopathology. Let’s compare both quotes and try to come to a definitive conclusion as to their authorship. Below is a comparison of the quote when published in an article by Martin Grotjahn in 1967, who ascribed it to Freud, with the version, attributed to Ferenczi, published in a book form in 1996, edited by Ernst Falzeder and Eva Brabant.
Freud's personality
Two versions of the same statement, but the author differs. As a matter of course, since both claims about the authorship cannot be right, the obvious question is who got it wrong and why.
In the article dealing explicitly with Freud’s, rather than Ferenczi’s, Art of Letter Writing, Grotjahn revealed that,
There are a few [of Freud’s] letters which give deep insight into Freud’s personality.
Among others, reports about the self-analysis, some hints about “that murderous firebrand and ever-active devil in me (who has now become visible) … [which I tried to] bury him so deeply even from myself that I could regard myself as a peace loving man of science. (1)
Thus, as Grotjahn revealed, the quote about Freud’s firebrand gives one, deep insight into Freud’s personality.
Considering the content of the quote, one would be justified in describing it, and Freud's personality, more specifically, as murderous; and his modus operandi was setting fires.
However, the important question in the context of "mistaken" authorship is whether Grotjahn confused the authorship of the letter or not.
Notably, the same “murderous” quote, when it appeared in the published correspondence of Freud-Ferenczi letters, 29 years later, was ascribed to Ferenczi rather than to Freud!
How was that possible? Notably, in the new version, the quote is preceded by a reference to Ferenczi’s work out on horseback, thus, in this way, identifying it as belonging to Ferenczi who served in the cavalry during WWI rather than to Freud who, no doubt, never had been close to a live horse in his entire life, let along ridden one. So, was it Ferenczi who wrote the letter? Maybe, maybe not.
Arsonist with his fire stick...
Was Freud the author?
Writing specifically about Sigmund Freud and the Art of Letter Writing”, and having seen the remark about horse-riding, preceding the murderous one, assuming there was one, wouldn’t Grotjahn have realised that the quote was Ferenczi’s rather than Freud’s?
Could he have mistaken Freud’s letter for Ferenczi’s? After all, the difference in their handwriting, as well as writing style, would have been, no doubt, extremely obvious to the author of the paper, who, presumably, had access to the original letter.
Who was Grotjahn? Martin Grotjahn (July 8, 1904 - September 30, 1990) was a German-born American psychoanalyst who, aged 34, in 1938, immigrated to the United States. Grothjahn was a native German speaker, without a doubt, familiar with Freud’s handwriting, as is apparent from his comment about Freud’s, characteristic German handwriting. He also pointed out that when Freud was writing letters, Paper was naturally always used on both sides. (Freud was notoriously stingy, which explains this kind of procedure.) Presumably, unlike Freud, Ferenczi wrote his letters on one side of the letter paper.
Moreover, having had access to Freud’s letters, and thus talking from experience, Grotjahn explained that, The deciphering of Freud’s handwriting is often a challenging task. (2) Without a doubt, Grotjahn knew whose letters he was reading, and quoting, and it wasn’t Ferenczi’s. Most certainly, there’s no mention of Ferenczi’s art of letter writing in the article.
As Grotjahn emphasised, among Freud’s correspondence, There are a few letters which give deep insight into Freud’s personality.
Apparently not realising he was revealing Freud as an arsonist, Grotjahn stated that in Freud’s writings, There are also … some hints about “that murderous firebrand and ever-active devil in me (who has now become visible)". (1)
As it is apparent, these are not mere hints. The author of the quote, thus Freud, confessed that he always had the urge to set fires and that, as he was writing the letter, he was feeling the need to act on this impulse.
As Freud explained, he had tried to, but failed, to bury him [the ever-active devil] so deeply even from myself that I could regard myself as a peace-loving man of science, Could Grotjahn have gotten it wrong when it comes to who the author of the paper was?
Interestingly, if we exclude the reference to the horseback in the alleged Ferenczi quote, the sentence makes more sense, Freud confessing that,
Only now does it become apparent how much overcoming the suppression of such instinctual forces must have cost. (3)
Poor Freud, for many years, in vain, fighting off the devil raging inside him. constantly being defeated, and forced to set fires.
Ferenczi: Do I really look like an arsonist? I like to cuddle.
A man of science
Can we, without access to the original letter, find some hints about the author of the letter?
Can we, for example, find, in other contexts, an expression, similar or, even better, identical to the one appearing in the letter, used by Freud but not Ferenczi?
Let’s extract one distinct expression, a man of science, from the quote, and start the search.
Unlike Ferenczi, who in his correspondence with Freud never used the expression a man of science, Freud, repetitively, in different contexts, talks about himself in that way. Thus, in the preface to the first edition of his dream book (1899), Freud stated that he was a writer who is a man of science. (4)
And again, in his letter of February 1, 1900, to Wilhelm Fliess, Freud explained, I am actually not at all a man of science. (5)
And yet again in Screen Memories (1899), Freud referred to himself as “a newly-fledged man of science”. (6)
The same reference to a man of science can be found in Freud’s, Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious (1905). (7)
And in The New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis (1933), Freud referred to himself on three occasions, as the man of science. Thus, he claimed that, the man of science works like a sculptor (8), explaining that he had, all his life been a steady-going man of science (9) and pointing out that a world-famous critic referred to him, as a man of science. (10)
Having met an Italian journalist, Giovanni Panini, in 1934, Freud confessed that his, soul … has nothing of the pedantic technical stiffness which belongs to the true man of science. (11) As so often, when it suited him, Freud contradicted himself. At times, he wasn’t a man of science, on other occasions, he was. Go figure.
As Riccardo Steiner recounted in his review of Die Brautbriefe: The Freud and Martha correspondence (2013), Freud was for his fiancé, Martha, Der Wissenschaft Mann … the Man of Science. (12)
And, in his last, and most bizarre and deluded creation, Moses and Monotheism, (1939), trying to define the great man Freud alluded to being a man of science. (13) Without a doubt, Freud considered himself both a man of science and a great man (and he was a great conman).
As Havelock Ellis, yet another sexologist with sexual problems, stated that, Freud himself, as I have found in correspondence with him, at once protests that he is a man of science. (14)
Obvious conclusion
There’s no doubt, in my mind, that Freud was the author of the murderous arson quote. Remarkably, Ferenczi could be trusted with Freud’s confession of murderous deeds, which makes him a partner in crime.
(1) Grotjahn, Martin, Sigmund Freud and the Art of Letter Writing, (1967); in Ruitenbeek, Hendrik M., ed., Freud as We Knew Him, (1973, p. 444).
(2) Grotjahn, (1973, p. 434).
(3) Freud, Sigmund & Ferenczi, Sandor, The Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi, Volume 2: 1914-1919, (1996, p. 50).
(4) SE 4, p. xxiv.
(5) Freud, Sigmund, The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887–1904, (1985, p. 398).
(6) SE 3, p. 314.
(7) SE 8, p. 21.
(8) Freud, Sigmund, The New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis (1933, p. 238).
(9) Freud, (1933, p. 78).
(10) Freud, (1933, p. 190).
(11) Papini, Giovanni, A Visit to Freud, (May 8, 1934); in Ruitenbeek, Hendrik M., ed., Freud as We Knew Him, (1973, p. 101).
(12) Steiner, Riccardo, Review of Die Brautbriefe: The Freud and Martha correspondence. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis Volume 94, Issue 5, 2013, pp. 863-935.
(14) Havelock, Ellis, Freud's Influence on the Changed Attitude Toward Sex, (1939); in Ruitenbeek, Hendrik M., ed., Freud as We Knew Him, (1973, p. 125.