The alleged suicide of one of Freud’s most outstanding disciples, Victor Tausk, is the subject of Paul Roazen’s book, Brother Animal: The Story of Freud and Tausk, published in 1969.
In 1965, having by chance gained access to original documents that Freud's daughter, Anna, gave to Freud’s authorised biographer, Ernest Jones, the author had learned about Tausk’s fate.
This was a lucky coincidence since, Anna, always maintained a tight, secretive hold on everything connected with Freud's life, even censoring his letters for publication.  (1)
So, who was Tausk?
Victor Tausk (1879-1919), was a lawyer, journalist, a medicine doctor and, finally, a successful psychoanalyst. Tausk’s encounter with psychoanalysis was a short one. He entered the psychoanalytical fold in 1908, and was gone by 1919, aged 40. At the time of Tausk’s death, Freud was 63.
Tausk’s existence and fate, for many years, was covered by the veil of secrecy. As one interviewee told Roazen, no one would talk to him about Tausk. Apparently, Tausk’s fate, still in the 1960s, almost half a century after his death, when the Freudians were concerned, was a highly sensitive matter. And the obvious question is why.
(1) Roazen, Paul, Brother Animal: The Story of Freud and Tausk, (1970, p. 16).

That Tausk story is not simply a tale of yet another suicide, was, as Roazen recounted, confirmed by Anna Freud's horrified reaction at the publication of Roazen’s book.  What was it that  upset Freud's daughter that much?
In a letter to Roazen, Edoardo Weiss, another of Freud’s disciples, who knew Tausk personally, told him that,
Poor Tausk, he sensed that Freud did not want him to continue to live … Freud’s personality has some dark side. (The italics were Weiss’.) (2)
Apparently, Freud wanted Tausk dead, which, considering Freud’s penchant for murder, was ill-boding for Tausk’s welfare. As Roazen claimed he,
had rejected Weiss’s verbal exclamation, in the course of an interview, that Freud was Tausk’s “murderer.” (3)
But why would Roazen reject Weiss’ claim? After all, Weiss was the eyewitness of Tausk’s deadly struggle with Freud. This is Roazen's answer to that question. As he explained,
in 1969 Anna Freud was … capable of wielding her considerable power vengefully. Apparently, Roazen was fearing a reprisal from the mighty Anna Freud, lacking the moral courage to confront her.
Anyone reading Tausk’s story cannot avoid suspicion that, just as Weiss' claimed, Freud murdered Tausk. No wonder that the director of Freud Archives at the time, Kurt Eissler, a well-known Freud apologist, having read the Brother Animal, accused Roazen of the, contention … that Freud was somehow Tausk’s murderer, which Roazen denied, even though he himself pointed out,
the oddity of Tausk’s double suicide, by a shooting and a hanging, (5) an unusually bizarre way of killing oneself.
As Roazen pointed out, Freud, like Nietzsche, went further beyond good and evil than some of today's devotees might like to think. (6)
What did he mean? As the expression beyond good and evil indicates, Freud, as it is usual with a psychopath, didn’t obey the usual societal rules that, among others, prohibit murder. As Roazen pointed out, for Freud devotion to a cause, sanctioned disregard for human life. (7)
(This passage was, like many others, was removed in the 1990 edition).
Thus, according to Roazen, anyone, whom Freud perceived a threat to himself, and thus, his “science”, was to be sacrificed. In fact, Freud stated openly that, ruthlessness and arrogant self-confidence constitute the indispensable condition for what, when it succeeds, strikes us as greatness. (7)
And greatness, at any cost, was what Freud aimed to achieve. As, Roazen pointed out,
There were always at least two Freuds, one cool and rational, the other terribly furious and afraid. (8)
And it was the other Freud, the paranoid one, that would act on his fury and fear.
(2) Roazen, Paul, Encountering Freud: The Politics and Histories of Psychoanalysis, (1990, P. 97-98).
(3) Roazen, Paul, Brother Animal: The Story of Freud and Tausk, (1990, P. 98).
(4) Roazen, (1990, p. XV).
(5) Roazen, (1990, p. XiX).
(6) Roazen, (1990, p. XVII).
(7) Roazen, (1969, p.159).
(8) Roazen, (1969, p. 162).

Writing about Freud and His Father in 1986, Marianne Krull, explained that Freud,
had two kinds of disciples: those who subscribed to his views fully … and those who challenged him openly and went their own way, or else succumbed to the conflict, like Tausk and Silberer, both of whom took their lives. (10)

Apparently, challenging Freud openly was a bad idea. As Krull pointed out,
many of his [Freud’s] often violent reactions to ... his followers [like] … Tausk occurred whenever he was asked, … to interpret his own neurotic symptoms.
Was Tausk asking the wrong questions and, therefore, paid the ultimate price for his curiosity?
According to Roazen, His [Tausk’s] destruction at Freud's hands seemed irresistible. And as a hint, Roazen explained that, Tausk's gypsy tale of 1906 … of a father slaying his son (12) .… foreshadows Tausk’s fate with Freud as well. (13)
Ominously, Roazen pointed out that, Tausk’s suicide helped give a sense of reality to the powers that Freud’s pupils magically attributed to their leader. (14)
What kind of powers? Apparently, since Freud’s disciples believed that
if Freud dropped a man it could lead to his self-extinction, (15)
those powers, without doubt, were capable of causing death!
In fact, suicides were a common occurrence among Freud's disciples. If Freud didn't approve of a disciple, unexplainably, at least some of them, would die not long after being excommunicated from the Freudian sect.
Even though allegedly writing only about Tausk, Roazen explained,
I was aware that by the close of the book, in the "Afterward," I had left the stage of the drama littered with human bodies. (16)
Apparently, Roazen was referring to the ubiquitous “suicides” of Freud's disciples.
(9) Krull, Marianne, Freud and His Father, (1986, p. 182).
(10) Krull, (1986, p.  70).
(11) Roazen, Paul, Brother Animal: The Story of Freud and Tausk, (1969, p. 158).
(12) Roazen, (1969, p. 14).
(13) Roazen, (1969, p. 7).
(14) Roazen, (1969, p. 156).
(15) Roazen, (1990, pp. xi-xii).

Looks can be deceiving! Thus, no wonder that looking at Freud photo, in his old age, people don’t realise that Freud was a violent man. But Freud wasn’t always old.
Rightly, Roazen pointed out Freud’s, warrior side (16) and his belligerence (17) adding that, Freud’s response to Tausk also had its neurotic aspect. (18)
Keeping in mind that Freud wasn't what one would consider normal, his neurosis was a bad sign.
Already after a few years, Tausk, had become a rival in Freud’s eyes. (19)
Not only Tausk introduced own psychoanalytical ideas, but he also accused Freud of plagiarsim. He was also, In a few areas Tausk was forging ahead of Freud. (19)
No wonder that, Freud resented Tausk’s intellectual ambitiousness. (20) Besides, Freud was worried that, Tausk might steal some of his ideas. (21)
Apparently, both of them had similar suspicions about the intent of the other, and possibly for a good reason.
Intense animosity developed between Freud and Tausk, since not only, Tausk was a rival to Freud [but also] he was also a threat. (22) Bizarrely, and without any proof, Roazen claimed that,
Tausk’s murderous rage were aroused, (23) adding that, Tausk was entitled to his fury, (24)
Remarkably, hinting at Freud being Tausk’s murderer, Roazen asked rhetorically, How does a father [Freud] react to murderous hate? And he answered his own question by asking,
What did Oedipus’ father intend, after all, for his son? (18) Death, of course.
Roazen’s claim about murderous hate on Tausk’s part is only a figment of Roazen’s imagination. On the contrary, Tausk’s lover, Lou Andreas-Salome, recounted, Tausk’s, unusually loving and reverent approach to the essential discoveries of Freud, (21) as well as the fact that, Tausk is [was] of all the most unconditionally devoted to Freud. (22)
On the other hand, the paranoid Freud might have imagined that Tausk wanted to kill him, and as a precautionary step, killed Taus first.
(Freud also believed that Jung wanted to kill him, but in the distant Switzerland Jung was too far to be an immediate danger to Freud, and vice versa.)
Hinting at Freud's paranoia, Roazen claimed that Freud believed that, every man could become a potential threat to him. (23) And that’s a lot of men to kill.
Freud was a born murderer. As Roazen revealed, Freud also, harbored death wishes against his own sons.(23)
As Roazen concluded, Freud saw in Tausk only a danger to himself. (23) And, apparently, the only solution to that danger, in Freud’s insane mind, was to kill Tausk.
(16) Roazen, Paul, Brother Animal: The Story of Freud and Tausk, (1990, p. xiii).
(17) Roazen, Paul, Brother Animal: The Story of Freud and Tausk, (1969, p. 37)
(18) Roazen, (1969, p. 112).
(19) Roazen, (1969, p. 51).
(20) Roazen, (1969, p. 54).
(21) Roazen, (1969, p. 55).
(21) Roazen, (1969, p. 55).
(22) Roazen, (1969, pp. 113-114).
(23) Roazen, (1969, p. 150).
(24) Roazen, (1969, p. 170).

Two geniuses

Each man felt he was unique and a genius, and feared being destroyed by the other. (25)
There’s little doubt that the paranoid Freud feared that Tausk wanted to kill him, but, even though it was only his paranoia talking, it wouldn’t be surprising if Freud, rather than Tausk, acted out of fear. After all, it was Freud was a long-term coke head, and cocaine-induced paranoia is a common side effect of cocaine abuse.
Even though he didn’t say it explicitly, on more than one occasion, Roazen hinted that Tausk died at Freud’s hands.
Thus, referring to, Tausk’s struggle with Freud, (26) Roazen explained that Tausk was, finally overwhelmed by his contact with Freud (27), and could not survive in Freud’s circle (28), adding that, Tausk may have acted like a moth, but Freud was a flame.(29)
And the moth was burned to death.
Oddly, although referring to, the way in which he was finally crushed, (30) Roazen contradictorily maintained that Tausk, killed himself as the climax of a frustrating struggle with Freud. (31)
Considerting his fear of Anna Freud’s reprisals, it is doubtful that Roazen can be taken at his word. Tausk had other options than dying by own hand. Why not instead kill Freud, or just break off his relationship with him?

Paranoid Freud

As the Italian psychoanalyst, Edoardo Weiss, recalled in Tausk’s, opinion Freud suffered from a slight paranoid trait, because he always had a close friend whom he later dropped, becoming then that person’s enemy and choosing a new friend. (32)
Tausk was right, although he was underestimating the degree of Freud’s paranoia, and what his lethal hatred could amount to. That was his downfall.
Without a doubt, Freud, the father of the psychoanalytical horde, feared that Tausk, his most brilliant disciple, would murder him.
This was his insane idea that the sons would always murder the father that he revealed in his essay, Totem and Taboo, of 1913, written only a couple of years after Tausk's became Freud’s disciple.
This is what Freud wrote, One day the brothers who had been driven out came together, killed and devoured their father. (33) No doubt, having killed his own father, he believed every word of it, which also explains why he harboured death wishes directed not only at his own sons but also at his  disciples.

The beast of prey

Without doubt, Freud considered Tausk a danger to him, when talking to Tausk's mistress at the time, Lou Andreas-Salomé, calling Tausk, the beast of prey. (34) That wasn't all. 

He is going to kill me

Thus, as the psychoanalyst, Ludwig Jekels, recounted, talking about Tausk, Freud stated, He is going to kill me. (35)
As it is not unusual for a paranoid murderer, and not for the first time (Freud also accused Jung of wishing to kill him), Freud was projecting his own murderous urges on his disciple. Thus, it is not unreasonable to ask whether, fearing being killed by Tausk, as a precaution, Freud killed Tausk.

Struggling with Freud killed Tausk

Notably, as Roazen pointed out, Tausk's suicide came shortly, after his fight with Freud. And hinting at the danger. Roazen explained that, Quarreling with Freud was the most dreadful possibility imaginable, adding that, Tausk's death substantiated all the fantasied consequences of struggling with Freud. (36) 
So, there was a quarrel, and a fight with Freud, and, a real, rather than fantasied one, death of Tausk.
(25) Roazen, Paul, Brother Animal: The Story of Freud and Tausk, (1969, p. 21).
(26) Roazen, (1969, pp. xx, 3, 101, 110, 158, 197,
(27) Roazen, (1969, p. xx),
(28) Roazen, (1969, p. xix).
(29) Roazen, (1969, p. 158).
(30) Roazen, (1969, p. 4).
(31) Roazen,  (1969, p. 3).
(32) Roazen, The House That Freud Built, (2005, p. 69).
(33) SE 13, p. 141.
(34) Andreas-Salome, Lou & Freud, Sigmund, The Freud Journal of Lou Andreas-Salome, (1964, p. 19, p. 167).
(35) Roazen, Paul, Helene Deutsch: A Psychoanalyst's Life, (1985, p. 173).
(36) Roazen, (1985, p. 7).

Freud’s hatred of Tausk was multifaceted. Tausk was much younger, highly intelligent, and talented, much better educated, more handsome, and ladies’ men that Freud never was, all of which Freud, no doubt, resented.
And, it didn’t help Tausk’s cause that the attractive Lou Andreas-Salomé, Nietzsche’s and Rilke's former mistress, and by then, a dedicated Freud follower, rejecting Freud’s sexual advances, chose Tausk for a lover.

Jealousy

No wonder that Freud was jealous of Tausk over Lou. As Lou, concluded ... jealousy must have played a part in the difficulties between Freud and Tausk. (36)
This wasn’t the only occasion when Freud was jealous of a rival. In fact, Freud was, "acknowledging how jealous he could be of one of his male pupils for having an affair with … Marie Bonaparte, a leading disciple in Freud's last years." (37)
As the father of the proverbial horde, apparently Freud believed that, all women in his vicinity justly belonged to him. No wonder he was enraged, when he was “cuckolded” by his own lowly disciples. No wonder, then, that, Freud found he could not tolerate Tausk. (38)
But jealousy was only a contributing factor. Rather, it was Freud's paranoia that killed Tausk!
(36) Roazen. Paul, Reading, Writing, and Memory: Dr. K. R. Eissler's Thinking, 1978, Contemporary Psychoanalysis,14:2, 345-354, p. 348.
(37) Roazen, Paul, Brother Animal: The Story of Freud and Tausk, (1990, p. xx).
(38) Roazen, (1978, p. 349)

An indication of Freud’s hatred of Tausk is the fact that, even though Tausk was pleading with him, he refused to analyse Tausk himself. Instead, Freud sent Tausk for analysis to a junior psychoanalyst, Dr Helen Deutsch, which she considered a “devilish arrangement, (39) as well as an insult to Tausk (40), which was, no doubt, what Freud intended.
In fact, as he himself claimed, Freud was a devil incarnate. Do you not know that I am the Devil?, he asked his followers. All my life I have had to play the Devil, in order that others would be able to build the most beautiful cathedrals with the materials that I produced, (41) Freud explained. After three months, Tausk’s analysis was abruptly terminated at Freud’s direction, ending in March 1919.
Three months later Tausk was dead.