#3 Emanuel's death and Freud's alibi

Disillusioning truth

There are more Freud’s biographies than fleas on a homeless dog; more than about any other historical figure. Unfortunately, most of them - especially those published by devoted Freudians, were simply repeating what already had been known about Freud from Ernest Jones’ Freud’s authorised biography - or rather, hagiography, canonising Freud - published in the 1950s.
There was at least one attempt at finding out the truth about Freud's British family and their dealings with the famous Freud. At the beginning of the 1950s, Dr. Leslie Adams, from New York, came to the U.K. to learn about the truth from the horse's mouth. But, the horse wasn't talking. Regrettably, but not unexpectedly, Adam’s attempts at obtaining information about the deadly accident, or any other information, from the family were unsuccessful.
Looking for information, Adams contacted libraries in London and Manchester. As he wrote in his letter, of February 10, 1952, to Sidney Horrocks, at the Manchester Central Reference Library, the Freud family are morbidly reticent about their family history. And he concluded that, any work which may be done in this direction must be in spite of their non-cooperation. This indicates that behind this history there is some desperately disillusioning truth. *

Morbidly reticent

What disillusioning truth was the family hiding? Was it possibly related to the mysterious disappearance of Emanuel's son, John, and to the no less mysterious death of John's father, Emanuel?
Regrettably, although, Adams realised, there may be a sinister background to Emanuel’s death, he never mentioned the matter in public, and for a good reason. At the time, Freud was still considered one of the greatest thinkers and psychologists that ever lived, and anything detrimental to his memory would have never been allowed to be published by the powerful Freudian establishment. And should he talk, without doubt, he would have encountered serious repercussions, and he wouldn't be the first or the last. Understandably, Adams didn’t relish the prospect of becoming a psychoanalytical pariah, so he kept his mouth shut.
Notably, in his writings, Freud didn’t elaborate on the issue of Emanuel's death, which is odd considering the plentiful amount of space in his writings that he dedicated to his relation to his family, to his father, his nephew John, his niece, Pauline, and, in the first place, to himself.
Although Adams didn't speculate about the desperately disillusioning truth, it appears that he had assumed that the family’s unwillingness to cooperate indicated that the family knew the truth and that the truth could not be told due to its illicit character. In this case, the Freudian blood was thicker than water.
* Gall, Alan, The Deadly Dr Freud - A Tale from the Archive, The Journal, The Institute of Science & Technology, (Spring 2008. p. 29).

Mystery and the cover-up

Emanuel’s death is a mystery, indeed. There are many explanations, which means that all, but one, are false. But which one is the one?
Anything is possible, but not everything is probable. The obvious question is whether, over a century after Emanuel’s death, we can find out what happened to him. After all, since Freud's Manchester family kept their peace, all we can rely on are Freud’s writings and heavily biased biographies of the "great man". Moreover, there are books and essays written by his disciples and patients. And last but not least, Freud's scrupulously edited correspondences.
Can we trust that the edited letters haven’t been tampered with? Not according to Roazen. Thus, having no access to the original correspondence, it is impossible to know whether the chronology or the content of the letters hadn’t been tampered with under Anna Freud's eager supervision.
As long as she was alive - she died in 1982 - Anna Freud terrorised Freudian scholars. If they wanted to publish, they had to obey her strict rules. Nothing that could endanger the legend of her father could be published. Paul Roazen wasn't afraid to point out this fact, once Anna was no longer among the living. In the article aptly titled Tampering with the Mail - i,e, Freud's published letters - Roazen revealed that, the editing of almost all the Freud letters has been up to now highly questionable, and i... this unfortunately may continue.
As Roazen pointed out, for years Anna had felt free to pencil out anything she chose in Freud's published correspondence ... passages could be dropped without ... indicating a deletion. That is why  "complete" editions of Freud's letters to  Abraham, Pfister, and Zweig, for example, are now necessary, for the earlier ones are all chopped up. And from Freud's correspondence with his sister-in-law, some letters, from a key period can have vanished.
Partisanship, aka censorship, can take multiple  forms, including ... translation. He also pointed out that remarkably, some material has been restricted until the twenty-second century, when all of us are long dead! There are many skeletons, both literally, and figuratively, in Freud's cupboard. And only God knows how many.
And the dead are not talking.
* Roazen, Paul, Tampering with the Mail, The American Scholar, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Autumn 1991), pp. 613-614, 616-618, 620.

Unfortunately, there's no mention of where, when, and for how long, if at all, the analysis was performed. Most certainly, assuming Freud killed Emanuel - if the analysis started at the beginning of October 1914, in Vienna - to allow Freud to go to England on the killing mission, the analysis would have to be interrupted at least a few days before October 17, 1914, to allow Freud time to travel to the English destination.

Even though Freud never confirmed that he would analyse Ferenczi during his visit, the editor claimed that, on his arrival, Ferenczi began an analysis with Freud.  The analysis had to be discontinued after approximately three and a half weeks because Ferenczi had to report to Papa [a town name] as a physician with the Hungarian Hussars (cavalry). (7) The note doesn’t specify the source of this information.
Notably, besides the gap in the correspondence during September, there's yet another significant break in their exchange during the period, between September 30, 1914, (7) and October 25, 1914, (7) encompassing Emanuel’s death on October 17, 1914, is missing. But, assuming Ferenczi was in analysis with Freud, in Vienna, during this time, this break would have been understandable.

Ferenczi's self-analysis

Both Freud, and his boyfriend Ferenczi, were avid letter writers, although there weren't as many letters as usual around Emanuel's death (on October 17). Significantly, in the letter of August 24, 1914, without specifying when, Ferenczi stated that he, would like best to go to Vienna for about four weeks and take regular analytic sessions with you. (4)
In the meantime, while waiting for Freud's analysis, on September 2, 1914, Ferenczi informed Freud about his attempt at self-analysis. (5) Freud responded on September 6. (6) Oddly, Freud's message didn't mention the upcoming Ferenczi analysis.
Again, writing to Freud on September 8, Ferenczi mentioned his self-analysis, adding that he was attaching to the letter, a brief analysis of a dream, in which, as he stated, You will also recognize yourself in it - in the person of the doctor who doesn't want to analyze me. (6) So, since Freud didn't agree to analyse him, following his master’s example, Ferenczi decided to try his hand at the, allegedly near-impossible, art of self-analysis, so far only (and unsuccessfully) attempted by Freud.

Missed the  train

Oddly, even though Ferenczi sent several letters to Freud in September, there were no more replies from Freud.
Undeterred, on September 30, Ferenczi sent a telegram informing Freud that he would, arrive today.  (7) Unfortunately - as Ferenczi informed Freud that, in the telegram sent later that day - he missed train, promising instead, tomorrow … arrival. (7)
Even though Freud never confirmed that he would analyse Ferenczi during his visit, the editor claimed that, on his arrival, Ferenczi began an analysis with Freud.  The analysis had to be discontinued after approximately three and a half weeks because Ferenczi had to report to Papa [a town name] as a physician with the Hungarian Hussars (cavalry). (7) The note doesn’t specify the source of this information.
Notably, besides the gap in the correspondence during September, there's yet another significant break in their exchange during the period, between September 30, 1914, (7) and October 25, 1914, (7) encompassing Emanuel’s death on October 17, 1914, is missing. But, assuming Ferenczi was in analysis with Freud, in Vienna, during this time, this break would have been understandable.

Disagreable situation

In response, on December 2, thus three days later, Freud explained why he had taken Ferenczi in analysis: if war hadn’t come, you wouldn’t have had any reason to spend your vacation in Vienna and I might have had reservations about taking you on. (12) So, Ferenczi came to Vienna to spend his vacations. The alleged analysis, then, would have been a bonus.
But Freud agreed that, Still, the situation remains disagreeable. (12)  Why the situation was disagreeable is not known, but since it was Ferenczi who was unhappy with Freud rather than vice versa, it is obvious that it was Freud who was to blame for the situation related to Ferenczi’s stay in Vienna during October 1914. And it couldn’t have been a trifle if the matter was still being discussed a couple of months later. Most certainly, the reason for the interruption couldn’t have been classified as stupid or disagreeable, if it were related to Ferenczi’s mobilisation.
Remarkably, there's no mention of how long Ferenczi’s analysis was expected to last, how long it lasted, or when he had to go back to Hungary. This is odd since it is customary to discuss in advance this kind of arrangement.
True, in the letter to Freud, of December 18, 1914, Ferenczi mentioned weeks of analysis (13), but since there’s no reference to Freud, Ferenczi could have been, and most probably was, talking about his own self-analysis. What confirms this idea is the fact that already in the next sentence, Ferenczi added: As the main psychic gain of the weeks of analysis I have been able to take stock of my knowledge of the forcefulness of the homosexual impulses in me. I have not penetrated to the solution of my relationship to a woman. (13) There’s no mention of Freud; instead, Ferenczi used personal pronouns: “I”, “me”, and “my”, which uniquely identify him as his own analyst.

The few weeks of analysis with Freud

It is first on December 31, 1914, that Ferenczi referred to, the few weeks of analysis with you [Freud[, (14) although, without providing any chronological information. Admittedly, assuming that the dating of the letters is correct, it appears that Ferenczi was analysed by Freud, in Vienna, during October 1914, but, even if that it is the case, there’s no way of knowing how long it lasted.  Oddly, in this letter, of December 31, 1914, this time, conversely, Ferenczi was very positive about the outcome of the analysis stating, Looking back among the personal events of the year gone by, I must single out the few weeks of analysis with you as the most valuable despite their incompleteness. (14) Remarkably Ferenczi added a statement that smells from a distance like Freud’s own - Freud's was a megalomaniac - in which he, allegedly, expressed the gratitude that I otherwise owe the creator of psychoanalysis. (14) It’s hard to understand why Ferenczi would say that. Maybe it wasn't Ferenczi but Freud's daughter who added this complimentary statement.

Jones about (second?) Ferenczi's analysis

As Jones pointed out, in 1916, In the middle of June Ferenczi came to Vienna for three weeks and was analyzed for two hours a day; but this was again abruptly brought to an end through his military duties. (15) Apparently, Ferenczi didn’t have much luck with his analytical sessions. To have his analysis interrupted once was bad enough, to have it interrupted twice sounds almost like a bad habit.
Notably, there's an uncanny similarity between how Ferenczi's alleged analysis was interrupted in both cases. And, if I wasn't suspicious, which I am not (?), I would be wondering whether the information about the analysis in 1914 didn't get mixed up with the analysis of 1916. Or maybe there was no analysis in October 1914, Ferenczi instead coming to spend his vacations in Vienna. Be it as it may, Freud's alibi for October 1914, if I am to trust my instincts, sounds decidedly shaky.
The question of Ferenczi's analysis is a crucial one, as it provides an alibi for Freud for the period when Emanuel was killed. However, maybe not, since, even if the analysis had taken place, we don't know anything about the length of the treatment, when it started and ended, how and why it was interrupted - most certainly not because Ferenczi was being mobilised - and why the interruption couldn’t be helped.

Freud to Ferenczi

What about the question of Emanuel’s death in Freud’s correspondence with Ferenczi? The only reference to Emanuel’s death appears in Freud's letter to Ferenczi, on November 11, 1914, in which Freud wrote: Yesterday I received news of the death of my eldest brother. Bizarrely Freud added, He was, to be sure, 81 years old, but the information says: railway accident. I think he would not have withstood the war; he was very full of life and got [to be] exactly as old as our father. (16)
There are several issues with the statement. Even though there was no postal service between the warring countries, already 25 days after the tragic event, Freud received the news, or rather knew, about Emanuel’s death. How Freud learned about Emanuel’s death, he didn’t reveal.
Notably, even though it was alleged that Freud loved his eldest half-brother, the tone of the statement is indifferent. Nothing about Freud's sorrow, or mourning. And notably, no surprise, as if the dearth in a railroad accident was a common occurrence.
It is apparent that it is apparent from the content of the message, that Freud wasn't compos mentis when he composed it, but it is nothing new. Freud was a mental case, almost from the day he was born. Thus, bizarrely, even though Emanuel died in a railway accident, Freud considered Emanuel's age a factor! Also, absurdly, Freud claimed that, in any case, Emanuel wouldn't have survived the war. So, if it wasn't for the railway accident, he would have died anyway.
Contradicting himself, and this time - as it appears, for a change - telling the truth, Freud pointed out that Emanuel was very full of life. So, why wouldn't Emanuel survive the war? Importantly, and lastly, Freud pointed out that Emanuel died at the same age as Jacob Freud. An uncanny coincidence, but only if you believe in coincidences, in fact, too uncanny.

News about Emanuel's death

 So how did Freud learn about Emanuel's death?  He was not receiving mail from his English nephew, and Emanuel's son, Samuel. And, in the message to  Ferenczi, impersonally, Freud stated that he, received news of the death of my eldest brother. Had he received the news from his nephew, or some other member of the Emanuel's family, he would have said so. Moreover, no doubt, if Samuel sent the news, he would have provided more details, not only about how  Emanuel died but, also of the family's reactions to his death, and about the family's affairs. There was Emanuel's widow, a shop to take care of, a funeral to arrange, and so on. But Freud only indifferently mentioned receiving news.
Significantly, Freud pointed out that, Emanuel got [to be] exactly as old as our father. It is true that both Freud’s father and the half-eldest brother, died at the same age, although not by the same method. Considering Freud’s compulsion to repeat, this statement provides another piece of circumstantial evidence about Freud's involvement in Emanuel death. Significantly, Emanuel died on October 17, 1914 - just six days before the anniversary of Freud’s father’s, Jacob's, death - a coincidence noted, and, as it appears, arranged by Freud.

Jones to Freud

Were there other options for receiving this kind of information during the war? Could Jones in London have somehow learned about Emanuel's death, and forwarded the information to Freud? Most certainly Freud didn’t learn about Emanuel’s death from Jones. This is apparent from the latter’s letter to Freud on December 15, 1914, in which Jones wrote: I have heard from Martin that your brother in Manchester had suddenly died. Please accept my deep condolence. I hope it will not be a too severe shock to you, although I know that you had intimate feelings connected with him. (17)
L. C. Martin, who lived in Sweden, allegedly was acting as Freud's Intermediary during the war. Martin's name, who informed Jones about Emanuel's death, was mentioned in the postcard of October 3, 1914.  (18)
So, Jones learned about Emanuel’s death from Martin. Notably, Jones wasn't aware that Emanuel did not die in his bed but in a train accident. It appears that Martin didn't know how Emanuel died, since he didn't inform Jones about the former's mode of death. Who informed Martin is not known, but as it appears, it could have been Freud.
But the unanswered question remains, who informed Freud?

Jones about Emanuel's death

This is how Jones recounted the content of Freud’s note to Ferenczi, writing in the former's biography:
On November 11 he wrote to Ferenczi that he had just heard of his beloved brother Emmanuel’s death in a railway accident. This must have been a great grief to Freud, since his fondness for this half-brother had been quite unbroken from his earliest childhood. (19) 
Without a doubt, just like Ferenczi, Jones - neither of them had ever met Emanuel - had no idea about Freud’s relationship with his eldest half-brother. Moreover, Jones is confabulating. Emanuel with his family moved to England around 1859, when Freud was three years old, too early for Freud to have any memory of Emanuel. Freud met Emanuel again first in 1875, thus 16 years later, when aged 19, he came to stay with Emanuel's family in Manchester for almost two months. (As he recounted in his letter to Silberstein written on that day, Freud traveled from Hamburg, on July 20, 1875, to Grimsby in Denmark, on his way to England. (20) He returned on September 7, as he informed his friend, in the letter of September 9, 1875.) (21)

How Freud learned about Emanuel's death

There’s, of course, also the pertinent, and so far, unanswered question of how and when Freud learned about Emanuel’s death, since, during the war, for obvious reasons, there was no mail service between Austria and the U.K., warring on the opposite sides; the first world war being fought between July 28, 1914, and November 11, 1918.
True, for his exchanges with Ernest Jones in England, Freud used the intermediary in Holland, van Emden, but not with the family in Manchester. Consequently, there was no letter exchange with the family in Manchester during the war. The first letter sent by Freud to his family in Manchester after the end of the war was dated October 27, 1919. (22) Consequently, Freud couldn’t have been informed by the family in England, about Emanuel’s fate before the end of the war. And yet Freud both knew, and could inform Ferenczi, about Emanuel’s death, already 25 days after the tragic event, on November 11, 1914. (16)

Ferenczi's sorrow

In response, on November 15, 1914, commiserating with Freud, Ferenczi wrote, I am writing only to express my sorrow over your bereavement. I often noticed how close you were to your eldest brother who was almost like a father to you. (23) Obviously, Ferenczi didn't know much about Freud's relationship with his eldest brother aka father. Freud hated with abandon both of his fathers, wishing them both dead.
(1) Ferenczi, Sandor &  Jones, Ernest, Sandor Ferenczi - Ernest Jones Letters 1911-1933, (2013, p. 67).
(2) Ferenczi  & Jones, Ernest, (2013, p. 69).
(3) Freud, Sigmund & Jones, Ernest, The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones 1908-1939, (1993, p. 721).
(4) Ferenczi & Freud,(1996, p. 15).
(5) Ferenczi & Freud,  (1996, p. 16).
(6) Ferenczi & Freud,  (1996, p. 17).
(7) Ferenczi & Freud,  (1996, p. 19).
(8) Jones, Ernest, Sigmund Freud: Life and Work: Years of Maturity. London: The Hogarth Press, (1955, p. 174).
(9) Ferenczi & Freud, (1996, p. 20).
(10) Ferenczi & Freud, (1996, p. 22).
(11) Ferenczi & Freud, (1996, p. 31).
(12) Ferenczi & Freud, (1996, p. 33).
(13) Ferenczi & Freud, (1996, p. 39).
(14) Ferenczi & Freud,  (1996, p. 40).
(15) Jones, (1955, p. 189).
(16) Ferenczi & Freud, , (1996, p. 26).
(17) Freud & Jones, (1993, p. 308).
(18) Freud & Jones, (1993, p. 299).
(19) Jones 1955, (p.174).
(20) Freud, Sigmund, The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein 1871–1881, (1991, p. 122).
(21) Freud, (1991, p. 125).
(22) Cohen, David, The Escape of Sigmund Freud, (2012, p. 63).
(23) Ferenczi & Freud, (1996, p. 27).

Continued on #4