#5 Fire in the theatre

As the Wiener Abendpost reported the day after the fire at Ringtheatre, once the fire started:

At 6:30 p.m. the first spectators rushed through the main entrance of the theatre with the cries of terror "Fire" on the street.

Was Freud outside the theatre that evening watching with horror or, maybe with glee, how the rabble (as he called the common people) were trying to save themselves? Most certainly, he correctly reported what happened when the theatre was set on fire.

The fact that Freud was a rapist - as were many of his followers at the time - is nothing new. Thus, the futile cry for help by the woman helpless on Freud’s couch, violently sexually attacked by her analyst, has a direct parallel to the ablaze spectators, in vain, calling for help.
But why would Freud use this kind of unusual simile when talking about the analyst raping the patient?
Why would he use this reference to a burning theatre during a performance? The theatre is on fire, hundreds of people trying to escape, and many will die... Someone cries out, "fire, fire, save yourself".
So, what is this Freudian fiery allegory about, what is Freud alluding to? This situation is analogous to what happened during the fire at the Ringtheatre in Vienna, in 1881, in which hundreds perished in a raging fire. A terrifying event, but why would Freud use this kind of reference to the fire in the theatre, if not as a hint about his involvement? It wouldn't be the first time that Freud hinted at his criminal acts. In fact, the whole dream book is a veiled confession of his criminality.

Group Psychology and The Analysis Of The Ego (1921)

Again, in his essay, Group Psychology and The Analysis Of The Ego (1921), twenty years after the fire - thus the 40th anniversary of the Ringtheatre fire -  Freud again alluded to a theatrical fire, stating that,
fear in a group is increased to enormous proportions ... when a fire breaks out in a theatre or a place of amusement. (2)  
Freud knew more about fear caused by a fire in general and, in particular, in a theatre, than most people. An apparent question is how he had obtained this knowledge. It is doubtful that many, or any, of his patients, had ever burned a theatre, but maybe had Freud?
Where was Freud when the fire happened? Was he outside the burning theatre, sprinkling the burning ruins with his seminal fluid while having the sexual release of his lifetime?

Missing letters

Letters of Sigmund Freud (1960)

Notably, there are no letters of 1881 in the published Letters of Sigmund Freud (1960).
Thus, there is only a void between Freud's letter to his friend Wilhelm Knöpfmacher dated August 6, 1878 (3), and the letter to his fiancé, Martha, dated June 19, 1882. (4)

The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein, 1871-1881, (1990)

Notably, the only letter from that year, addressed to his friend Eduard Silberstein, published in The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein, 1871-1881, (1990), was written, at the beginning of the year, on January 24, 1881, (5)
This is the last letter of Freud's severely culled correspondence with his boyfriend at the time, Eduard; their correspondence undoubtedly continued for many more years.
N.B. Ringtheatre burned on December 8, 1881, ten months after the date of the last published letter to Silberstein. Why are the letters from this period missing? As always, when there are suspicious events in Freud’s life, letters from that period are nowhere to be found, removed by Freud's daughter, Anna, and, from her point of view, without a doubt, for a good reason. Anything detrimental to Freud was to be kept under wraps. Remarkably over 40 years after Anna's death, in 1982, the censorship of Freud's confessions continues unabated. This must be one of the most successful cover-ups not organised by a government.

As the author of the article reported:
At 6:40 pm yesterday, a large crowd entered the theatre, where the second performance of Offenbach's opera "The Tale of Hoffmann was going to take place.
And once the fire started:

a cry of horror went through the crowd.... cries for help are heard: "A gas explosion!" "Let's save ourselves!"

Notably, as Freud recounted, he watched the opera's first act. Assuming he watched it at the Ringtheatre, it would have been during the first performance. Oddly, Freud is silent about the theatre where he watched the opera, and, even more oddly, there's not a word about the tragic event. Is this the silence of the perpetrator?

Some Character-Types Met with in Psycho-Analytic Work (1916)

In his paper titled, Some Character-Types Met with in Psycho-Analytic Work (1916), in chapter III, Criminals from a Sense of Guilt, Freud expounded on the relation of guilt to arson.
He claimed that he was talking about his patients, but, since Freud himself was an arsonist, and that few women, if any, were arsonists, there is more than a chance that he was talking about his own, rather particular, case.
Thus, Freud revealed that, In telling me about their early youth, particularly before puberty, people who have afterwards often become very respectable [like Freud] have informed me of forbidden actions which they committed at that time - such as thefts, frauds and even arson. (8)
This Freudian confession fits nicely into the McDonald triad that claims that childhood behaviour predicts future criminality. So, Freud already before puberty started stealing and setting fires, although Freud's infamous frauds came later.
Whether many respectable adults, like Freud, had been committing criminal offences, in their youth, is not known. But what a convenient, though, admittedly, not unique way, to rationalise one’s crimes.
So, not is not lost if a boy steals and sets houses. Assuming, he is not caught, he will grow out of his criminal urges. Most certainly, Freud didn't.
Again mirroring his persona, Freud revealed that, among adult criminals [there are] those who commit crimes without any sense of guilt, who have either developed no moral inhibitions or who, in their conflict with society, consider themselves justified in their action.(9)

The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein, 1871-1881 (1990)

This is our Freud. Being in opposition towards society since his youth, Freud considered himself justified in his asocial actions. As he explained his philosophy of life to his boyfriend, Eduard Silberstein in his letter of February 27, T875, aged 19: A thinking man is his own legislator, confessor, and absolver. (11)
Without a doubt, Freud considered himself a thinking (super)man, thus entitled to make his own rules. Freud lived as he preached, ignoring the social and moral laws, rules, and conventions.
An obvious question to ask, which has never been asked, is how could Freud, unless he was one himself, have known about what goes in the head of an incendiary maniac who finds pleasure in this kind of destructive, even murderous, act. How could he have known?
How could Freud, a doctor and, a self-professed man of science, who spent his days either behind his desk or satisfying his patients on the sexual couch, how could he have known? There's only one obvious answer to that question. How else, if not by reporting what went on in his murderous arsonist's mind?
1) SE 12, p. 162.
(2) SE 18, p. 96.
(3) Freud, Sigmund, Letters of Sigmund Freud, (1960, pp. 6-7).
(4) Freud, (1960, pp. 7-10).
(5) Freud, Sigmund & Silberstein, Eduard, The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein, 1871-1881, (1990, pp. 180-181).
(6) SE 17, p. 227.
(7) SE 17, p. 230.
(8) SE 17, p. 229.
(9) SE 14, p. 332.
(10) SE 14, p. 333.
(11) Freud & Silberstein, (1990, p. 92)

Did Freud do it?

As a matter of course, assuming it wasn’t an accident, establishing who set Ringtheatre on fire, over a century later is not an easy task but that doesn’t mean it is impossible. Could it have been Freud that was the murderous arsonist?
We have Freud’s own words, his confession, that he not only committed arson once or twice a year but that he also wanted to commit a mass murder by arson. And, since, as Freud pointed out, people suffer from repetition compulsion, is not impossible that he wished to repeat the Ringtheatre fire. Already as a young man, Freud was talking about committing arson.
As Freud explained, setting fires gives the arsonist the sexual high, an opportunity to either urinate on the fire or, even better, ejaculate. This was an urge he couldn’t control, the devil in him making him continue with his murderous activities.
As Freud recounted, there was a (good?) reason for his need to commit (another?) mass murder. Having been spurned by his boyfriend, Jung, but unable to reach him, Freud was instead going to take out his anger on other, innocent, people. Freud was a very angry, dangerous, murderous man.
In his writings, on several occasions, Freud expounded on the subject of arson and the mentality of the arsonist. But, having mostly female patients, how could have known so much about the subject of arson and arsonists, unless he was an arsonist and setting fires?
A case in point: Freud was present in Vienna in 1881 when the theatre burned. As his sister claimed, he had a ticket to the theatre on the night of the fire but never went to see the performance. Notably, in his writings he referred not only to the content of the first act of the play performed on the fatal night, but also made references to a burning theatre, and the reaction of people threatened by the lethal fire.
The evidence is circumstantial but, most people are often sentenced on - even less - circumstantial evidence.