On the occasion of his first copulation ... this idea occurred to him afterwards:
This is a glorious feeling! One might do anything for this - murder one’s father, for in stance!
Freud, Sigmund, Notes Upon A Case Of Obsessional Neurosis, (1909)
SE 10, p. 264

Two perverts: like father like son

This is what Freud wrote to Fliess on February 8, 1897:
Unfortunately, my own father was one o! these perverts and is responsible for the hysteria of my brother ... and those of several younger sisters.
Freud even provided his explanation of the kind of abuse he claimed that his siblings suffered (oddly excluding himself), writing that, hysterical headache [he suffered from]  ... is characteristic of the scenes where the head is held still for the purpose of actions in the mouth. (5)
Actually, Freud's own headaches may have been not the result of a sexual abuse, but of his cocaine addiction. In fact, headache is one of the most common symptoms that appear after cocaine use. (6) This doesn’t preclude, of course, sexual abuse by Freud's father.
As always, the chronology of events is important. Thus, since Freud’s father died on October 23, 1896, Freud’s claim that his father was a pervert written only three months after the father’s death, implies that Freud's idea, that his father abused him, may have been the cause of Freud's decision to murder the father.

Hating the father

Freud's hatred of his father started much earlier. Thus, in his Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901), Freud explained: my attitude toward my father was changed by a visit to England [in 1875], where I made the acquaintance of my half-brother. What changed Freud's attitude towards his father, was the alleged statement by his half-brother, you really belong not to the second but to the third generation in relation to your father.  (7)
Thus, if we can believe Freud, his half-brother intimated that he was Freud's biological father rather than Jacob who, until then, Freud believed was the father.
This revelation, in part, could explain Freud's hatred of both of his fathers: of Jacob, who raised him, but at the same time kept him in the dark about his biological father, and of Emanuel, who, as Freud claimed, fathered but, abandoned him.
It's not the first time that Freud, in a similar, circumspect manner, confessed to harbouring a death wish towards someone. Thus, in the dream book, Freud claimed that, his "friend", Paneth's, wish to have his, superior [Fleischl] [who] was seriously ill out of the way might have an uglier meaning than the mere hope for the man's promotion.
Although, Freud didn’t reveal what that uglier wish was, it is apparent that he intimated, no doubt, falsely, that Paneth was hoping for his superior’s death.
Notably, Freud admitted that, Not unnaturally, a few years earlier, I myself had nourished a still livelier wish to fill a vacancy.
And, a still livelier wish can only mean that Freud not only wished for Fleischl’s death, but also acted on his wish. (8)
(1) Jones, Ernest, Sigmund Freud: Life and Work: Years of Maturity, (1955. p. 354).
(2) SE 4. p. 260.
(3) SE 5, p. 458.
(4) SE 5, p. 458.
(5)  Freud, Sigmund, The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887-1904, (1985, pp. 230-231).
(6) Farooque, Umar et al., Cocaine-Induced Headache: A Review of Pathogenesis, Presentation, Diagnosis, and Management. Cureus. 2020 Aug; 12(8): e10128.
(7) SE 6, p. 220.
(8) SE 5, p. 484.

That the son wishes to murder his father and to marry his mother you showed thirteen years ago.
Jones' letter to Freud of June 25, 1913.
Freud, Sigmund. & Jones, Ernest., The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones, 1908-1939. (1995, p. 207).

Oedipus or Freud killing the father

Freud claimed that, This case was related to me by the doctor after he read my paper on the Oedipus Complex. Apparently, it was doctor Brill that told Freud about the Crippen murder. As Freud claimed: We agreed that this mistake was determined not only by his impatience to get home to his sick child, but also by an old resentment and unconscious hostility toward his uncle (father).
By now, it should be apparent to anyone, but the most devoted Freudian, that, except for the use of a hyoscine injection to kill, the case of Harvey has nothing in common with the case recounted by Freud.
Without a doubt, Freud’s claim that the uncle also was a father – Freud’s father died October 23, 1896 - was intended to create confusion when it comes to his familial relationships. But there’s some logic in Freudian madness since his “alleged” father was, as he stated in his dream book, the father of Emmanuel, whom Freud claimed was his father, which would make Freud’s “father”, Jacob, Freud’s grandfather. Apparently, Freud used uncle as a euphemism when mentioning his "fake" father.
Actually, Freud committed a similar “mistake” in the letter to Fliess of October 15, 1897, where he claimed that Hamlet murdered his uncle, even though he was well aware of the fact that Hamlet murdered the unrelated to him, Polonius. And, projecting on Hamlet his own urges, Freud claimed that Hamlet, like Freud, himself had contemplated the same deed [thus murder] against his father out of passion for his mother. (2)

Murderous doctor

So, who was the murderous doctor in the patricide story? Although, the physician's identity is (thinly) disguised, taking into account Freud's combination of megalomania, and compulsion to confess, his identify as the protagonist, it is not difficult to uncover. (N.B. Freud had a long tradition of appearing undercover in his writings. Thus, in his autobiographical work, Screen Memories, Freud was hiding under the persona of a man, with academic training, and, like Freud, having, an interest in psychological problems.) (3)
A prominent physician ... in a big city is, unmistakeably Freud, Moreover, Freud's father, just like the physician's father, was an octogenarian, dying aged 81. Actually, the killing of the father by mistaken injection – be it by using digitalis or hyoscine - parallels the case of the old lady whom Freud, likewise by “mistake”, gave the wrong drug. Without a doubt; the parricidal doctor was the (in)famous Sigmund Freud. In fact, it is more probable that Freud used the lethal digitalis to kill his father, rather than the less poisonous hyoscine.

Poisoner

That digitalis is a poison has been known for centuries. Thus, already Over 400 years ago, herbalists listed the plant as being poisonous. Unfortunately, Young and enthusiastic physicians at times like to expedite the process of digitalis by giving intravenous medication; there is expedition, the patient is expedited out of this world. (4) There's no doubt that Freud was well aware of the poisonous properties of digitalis.
Notably - yet another clue hinting at Freud as the parricide - whilst the story about the doctor killing his father appeared in all the English editions translated by Brill published between 1914 and 1922, it is nowhere to be found in the Standard Edition of Freud’s collected writings.
Likewise, it didn’t appear in any of the German editions, and for a rather obvious reason. The English translation wouldn't be read in distant Austria, where Freud committed his murderous deed. Thus, in this case, the mention of parricide was safe.
Had the story about it been published in Freud’s native country, someone could come up with the idea that Freud was describing the actual killing of his own father, and would contact the police. A case in point is the fact that Freud suffered from a serious paranoia, in part, caused by his life-long cocaine addiction.
(1) Freud, Sigmund, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, (1922, pp. 197-198).
(2) Freud. (1985, pp. 272-273.)
(3) Bernfeld, Siegfrid, An Unknown Autobiographical Fragment By Freud, (1946, p. 3).
(4) Burchell, Howard B., Digitalis Poisoning: Historical and Forensic Aspects, J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983,1 (2) 506--16, pp. 506, 508.

Freud's fear of death, Ferenczi argued, showed that Freud the son had wished to murder his own father. And it had induced him to develop the theory of Oedipus, the parricide.
Gay, Peter, Freud: A Life for Our Time, (1988, p. 581).

100 days to the end

Subsequently, in the letter of July 15, 1896, Freud had more to day about the at the time, insurmountable, obstacle: I truly believe that these are his last days but do not know how long he has and do not dare to leave, least of all for two days and for a pleasure I would like to indulge in fully. Apparently, the kind of pleasure Freud was talking about was the pleasure of witnessing his father's death. Unfortunately for Freud, his prediction of his father's imminent death – Freud wasn’t much of a doctor - didn't eventuate as quickly as he had hoped for. Hence, the pleasure of witnessing the father’s death still had to wait. Freud added indifferently, the old man's condition does not depress me. ... I do not wish him a prolonged sick bed. (2) Of course, not, the sooner, the better. Unfortunately, the father didn't want to die any faster. 

24 days to the end

Three months later, the obstacle, in the form of the father, was still around. But things were about to change. Thus, on September 29, 1896, Freud informed Wilhelm that, at last, there was some progress in the right direction. My father seems to be on his deathbed ... moving toward pneumonia and a fateful date.
Actually, as Freud recounted it in his psychopathological book, this was exactly also the anonymous doctor's description, of his dying uncle’s/father’s situation, recounted by Freud almost word for word, his uncle (father) [was] suffering from pneumonia ... death was daily expected. Wasn't it fortunate that Freud's letters weren't, as he had hoped, destroyed, but instead published for anyone to read and draw own conclusions?
Also, the mention of a fateful date, needs further elaboration. According to his personal doctor, Max Schur, who had access to the original letter, when talking about the coming death of his father, Freud used the German expression, einem grossen Termin, (4) which Schur translates as a great term, end (5).
Apparently, for Freud the death of his father was going to be a great term, calling for a celebration.

14 days to the end

A couple of weeks later, the old man was still alive. Thus, on October 9, 1896, Freud, rather dismayed, informed Fliess that his father illness was interfering with his enjoyment of the upcoming wedding of one of his friends, complaining that, The condition of my old man will probably keep my participation to a minimum. (6)  
Apparently, the reason that Freud couldn’t spend more time at the wedding was that he was afraid that he would miss the great term. Just imagine Freud’s quandary. The obstacle was still around, and Freud was getting impatient. Thus, it’s only natural that, just like the murderous doctor (aka Freud is thin disguise) in his book, Freud didn't want to wait any longer.
According to Freud the parricidal doctor's, mistake was determined ... by his impatience to get home to his sick child. Actually, in Freud’s letters, there was no mention of a “sick child”, only of his lover in Berlin whom Freud, due to his father’s terminal illness, was prevented from meeting. Administering of a killing injection was not a mistake. Having to wait for his father’s death, Freud became impatient; the meeting with Fliess couldn’t wait any longer, and since, as he claimed, his father’s death was imminent, Freud just hastened it a tiny little bit, as anyone in his situation would (?).
Significantly, the letters between October 9 and October 26, thus the communication encompassing seventeen days, and describing the last stage of Jacob’s journey towards his great term, are missing. This is hardly a coincidence. Judging by the ubiquity of his references to his father’s expected death in the preceding correspondence, there’s little doubt that Freud also would have kept Fliess informed about his clever scheme how he was going permanently to get read of the “obstacle”. But we don’t have to feel despondent, since, in his psychopathological book, Freud described in great detail how killing his father by injection.

17 days later, 3 days after the end

The next letter, not mentioning the circumstances of Jacob's demise with a single word - no doubt, recounted in the missing letters - arrived three days after Freud’s father’s death. Hence, in the letter of October 26, 1896, the wait finally over, Freud reported to Wilhelm, Yesterday we buried the old man, who died during the night of October 23. (7) Notably, there’s no mention of Freud being in mourning, Oh, happy days! 

10 days after the end

Instead, the letter of November 2, 1896, recounted how Freud disrespected the father, even in death.  Not only did he arrange for the funeral to be simple, but, also, blamed the wait at the barbers for his lateness. As he recounted, for that reason (?), Freud arrived a little late at the house of mourning.(8). Actually, Schur’s translation of the same passage differs. In Schur’s version, Freud wrote that he arrived at the house of mourning rather late. Quite a difference between a little late and rather late. (9)

A father's death's benefits

When Ernest Jones' father died, Freud, aged 64, wrote to him on February 12, 1920, I was about your age when my father died and it revolutionized my soul. Can you remember a time so full of death as this? (10) And, since for Freud the death of his father was a special treat, he meant of course, “a time full of joy” rather than of death.
Notably, Schur intimates that Freud was contemplating killing his father stating that when, his own father … became mortally ill … Freud was coming ever closer to the discovery of the oedipal conflict. (11)
And, an Oedipal conflict, or complex, was simply Freud’s murderous idea that the son, as Freud did, wants to kill the father to take the sexual possession of the mother.
Thus, the only  reasonable interpretation of Schur's statement can only be that Identifying with Oedipus, and having killed the father, Freud himself fulfilled the prophecy of the oracle. Actually, in this murderous case, the chronology is important. As Schur explains, as early as 1897, that is the year after his father's demise – in his own case - Freud had discovered the "oedipal" conflict and the ubiquity of the rivalry with the father, leading to murderous wishes. (12) As a matter of fact, even though Schur avoids saying it openly, in Freud’s case, murderous wishes weren’t enough; nothing but his father’s death was able to satisfy his murderous urge.
(Taking into account the rarity of parricide, when writing about the ubiquity of murderous rivalry with the father, Schur was either delusional, deluded, or lying.)
(1) Freud, Sigmund, The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887-1904, (1985, p. 193).
(2) Freud, (1985, p. 194).
(3) Freud, (1985, p. 199).
(4) Freud, (1985, p. 540).
(5) Freud, (1985, p. 106).
(6) Freud, (1985, p. 200).
(7) Freud, (1985, p. 201).
(8) Freud, (1985, p. 202).
(9) Schur, ( 1972, p. 161).
(10) Freud, Sigmund & Jones, Ernest, The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones 1908-1939, (1993, p. 370).
(11) Schur, Max, Freud: Living and Dying, (1972, p. 103).
(12) Schur, (1972, p. 325).

Freud as the son really did want to kill his father.
Ferenczi, Sandor, The Clinical Diary of Sandor Ferenczi, (1988, p. 185).

Hostile impulses against parents

On August 15, 1877, Freud, aged 21, in a letter to his friend, Eduard Silberstein, wrote a hateful message directed against royals. As, for the ruling circles and above all the Romanovs [Russian tsar family], those insane rulers, bad citizens, and incompetent soldiers - those apes of the victorious corporal in Berlin [William I, the emperor of Germany] - I have not enough hate to express my feelings and only console myself with the knowledge that they are digging their own graves. In times like these one is tempted to turn into a petroleur. (A fire-bomber) (1) No doubt, Freud was a nasty piece of work.
And this is how, twenty years later, in the letter to Fliess, dated May 31, 1897, Freud explained his hatred:
Hostile impulses against parents (a wish that they should die) are also an integral constituent of neuroses. They come to light consciously as obsessional ideas. In paranoia what is worst in delusions of persecution (pathological distrust of rulers and monarchs) corresponds to these impulses. (2)
Already as a young man, Freud suffered from paranoia. Without a doubt, Freud was a neurotic, which, as he claimed, explained his hostile, or rather murderous, impulse against his parents, his father, in the first place. And, he acted on this impulse to murder.

Very neurotic Freud

Having read Freud’s letters to his fiancé, Freud's authorised biographer, Ernest Jones, remarked in his letter, of May 9, 1952, to Bernfeld, yet another Freudian follower, that, Freud was very neurotic (!), and, suffered from a very considerable psychoneurosis. (3) (Thus, in layman's terms, Freud was mad.)
This was also Freud’s own diagnosis of his mental state. Even though he wasn't trumpeting it from the tower of the nearest synagogue, Freud, aged 41, wasn't hiding his affliction from his boyfriend in Berlin, Wilhelm Fliess, informing him, on June 22, 1897, that he had, been through some kind of neurotic experience, curious states incomprehensible to Cs (consciousness). (4) And again, three months later, on October 3, 1897, Freud mentioned to Fliess the neurotic element in all my friendships. (5) (The neurotic element in Freud's friendship consisted of two stages, 1: loving the new friend, and 2: hating him and wishing him dead (and/or killing him. There are many examples of Freud's neurotic friendships, starting with his nephew, John.).
Over time, Freud’s mental state wasn’t improving. Thus, again, on January 4, 1898, Freud confessed to Fliess, I am in part neurotic myself. (6) It was a clear understatement.
Subsequently, on February 12, 1900, aged 44, Freud recounted his, neurotic swings of mood. (7) Without a doubt, Freud was an outstanding specimen of a neurotic in need of lots of lunatic care. And - considering his murderous proclivities - why not a straitjacket in a padded cell?
Why was Freud neurotic? As always with Freud, it was all about sex. No wonder then that, In draft C attached to the letter to Fliess of February 8, 1893, Freud pointed to, the sexual etiology of neurosis. (8)
What is a neurosis? According to Britannica, neurosis is an outmoded term used to refer to mental disorders characterised by anxiety, depression, or other feelings of unhappiness or distress. Neuroses may impair a person’s ability to function but are not incapacitating. The person affected would maintain a connection to reality. (9)
(1) Freud, Sigmund, The Letters of Sigmund Freud to Eduard Silberstein 1871–1881, (1991, p. 164).
(2) SE 14, p 240.
(3) Jones, Ernest, Sigmund Freud: Life and Work: The Formative Years and the Great Discoveries, (1953 p. 304).
(4) Freud, Sigmund, The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887-1904, (1985, p. 354).
(5) Freud, (1985, p. 268).
(6) Freud, (1985, p. 292).
(7) Freud, (1985, p. 399).
(8) Freud, (1985, p. 45).
(9) Neurosis: Britannica: Neurosis, https://www.britannica.com/science/neurosis, 14.10.2024.