When Pharaoh took him into his arms and playfully tossed him high, the little three-year-old snatched the crown from Pharaoh's head and placed it on his own.
Freud, Sigmund, Moses and Monotheism, (1939, p. 52).

Infanticide: killing Julius

Keeping in mind that Freud’s musings are, for the most part, autobiographical, let’s try to construct the circumstances of Julius’ death from Freud’s narrative. As a matter of course, Freud never explicitly revealed the details of his criminal actions, instead scattering hints, also about Julius’ death, in different places in his letters and works.

 This is how Freud explained how the tossing of the child was related to the premature death of his little brother. The source of intent to kill the child was a memory from the patient's childhood: it referred to the death of a little brother, which the mother laid to his father's negligence, and which led to serious quarrels with threats of separation between the parents. (1)

This is, arguably, Freud’s account of his younger brother, Julius', death. How Julius died is a pertinent question.  

Elsewhere, Freud provided more hints about relationships between siblings. Thus, in the Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1920), Freud stated that, 

A small child does not necessarily love his brothers and sisters ... he hates them as his competitors ... This hostile attitude can be observed most easily in children between two and a half and four or five, when a new baby brother or sister appears. ... [and] every opportunity is taken of disparaging the new arrival and attempts to injure him [the younger brother, Julius] and even murderous assaults are not unknown. (2)

As appears, in this statement, Freud was referring to the death of his younger brother, Julius. Thus, assuming that Julius was killed by his elder brother, Sigmund, had the father been more observant, Julius’ death could have been prevented. Although there’s only circumstantial evidence, the assumption that Freud killed his younger brother is a distinct possibility, considering what Freud, aged forty-one, revealed to Fliess on October 3, 1897, writing,
I welcomed my one-year younger brother (who died within a few months) with ill wishes and real infantile jealousy, and ... his death left the germ of guilt in me. (3)

There’s no guilt without a deed. And wishes cannot kill. Incidentally, Freud’s younger brother died when Freud was 23 months (almost two years) old, thus, his claim about recalling his thoughts at this age is, as so often, false. Most probably, he knew because his parents told him about the fatal event.

 And since Freud, in the letter, recounted his ill wishes, jealousy, and guilt, there’s little doubt about Freud’s contribution to his brother’s death. As Freud pointed out, there’s nothing unique about an older sibling hating the younger one.  Could this have been Freud’s confession?

 Eric Miller, in his Passion for Murder: The Homicidal Deeds of Dr. Sigmund Freud (1984), pointed out that, in his letters, Freud never mentioned the younger brother's name. As Miller recounted, Schur quotes a letter written to Ferenczi wherein Freud states that his infant brother ‘died very young, when I was a little over one year old.' This letter was written in 1912. (4)  [December 9, 1912] 

Notably, as it appears, Freud’s biographer, Jones, intimated that Freud killed his infant brother Julius, stating that, 

We can even trace the beginnings of it [Freud’s guilt] to the sinful destruction of his little brother in his early infancy. (5)  Obviously, “the sinful destruction” doesn’t sound like a death of natural causes.  Some humans, already at an early age, like Freud, are capable of committing murder. Hence, had Freud killed his younger sibling, this would explain why the mother blamed the father for the negligence rather than the infant perpetrator

(1) Freud, Sigmund, The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, (1901, p. 211). 

(2) SE 15, p. 224.
(3) SE 1, p. 262.
(4) Miller, Eric, Passion for Murder-The Homicidal Deeds of Dr. Sigmund Freud, (1984, p. 82).
(5) Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud. Vol. I. (1953, p. 44).

Freud’s neurotic friendships 

In his letter to Fliess of October 3, 1897, Freud informed him: My nephew and younger brother determined not only the neurotic side of all my friendships, but also their depth. (1)

  Notably, in his note, Freud referred to two of his deceased relatives, his nephew, John, who disappeared without a trace at an unknown date, and his younger brother, Julius. Thus, since he referred to two of his victims, when Freud wrote neurotic, he meant deadly. Commenting on Freud’s message, Freud’s doctor, Schur, in disbelief, explained that, This was an amazing confession to make to Fliess, implying … that Freud's friendship with the latter contained neurotic [thus deadly] elements. (2) As it is apparent, on this occasion, Freud was openly informed Fliess that he wanted him to murder him, just like the two male members of his family.

Notably, Schur related that the list of Freud's murderous "impulses" encompassed both fratricide and parricide, the Cain and the Oedipus complexes, (3) thus referring to Freud’s irresistible urge to murder besides his brother also his father. 

What is the Cain complex? The biblical Cain was the elder brother of Abel, the firstborn son of Adam and Eve, who, out of jealousy, killed his younger brother. This is significant because the “Crime of Cain” deals specifically with the act of the firstborn son killing his younger brother. And, guess what! 

Just like Cain, as Freud pointed out, he was the first-born son of a youthful mother. As it is apparent, the term Cain complex, emphasises the sin of the firstborn, thus Freud himself. In addition, Schur revealed that Freud harboured "murderous wishes" (4) against his younger brother.’  Also, Schur linked, the theme of intensive rivalry with his [Freud's] "Crime of Cain"’. (5) There are in total four references to “Cain” in Schur's biography: thus Schur twice refers to the “Cain complex” (6), once to the “Cain conflict” (7),  and once to the "Crime of Cain" (8).

 Notably, when referring to the "Crime of Cain" - unlike other Cain references - besides including the expression in the quotation marks, Schur also capitalised the first letter of Crime, which may be significant, potentially emphasising the fact that Schur was revealing a real crime.

Also, as Schur pointed out, in his self-analysis, Freud was working through of his own guilt rooted in the ubiquitous Oedipal and Cain conflicts. (9)  And, since one cannot feel guilty about deeds one hadn't committed, it is apparent that Schur thus was revealing that Freud, just like the biblical Cain, killed his younger brother. 

As Schur explained, murder, not only against the family members but against anyone he could think of, was constantly on Freud’s mind. Thus, Freud wanted [his friends] Fliess, Fleischl [his superior], his father, his brother Julius [Freud’s first victim], his sister Anna, and anyone else he hated to die. (17) Wow! That's an impressive number of people to kill, although some of them, but not Julius, somehow managed to avoid death at Freud’s hands. 

(1) Schur, Max, Freud: Living and dying, (1972, p.119).

(2) Schur, (1972, p.164).

(3) Schur, (1972, p.132).

(4) Schur, (1972, p. 235),

(5) Schur, (1972, p. 168).

(6) Schur, (1972, (pp. 132, 462).
(7) Schur, (1972, p. 237),
(8) Schur, (1972, p. 68).

(9) Schur, (1972, p. 237) 

Killing off Fliess 

Implying Freud’s intent of killing Fliess, Schur explained that, Freud was anticipating that Fliess, too, would soon ... become a "revenant." Without a doubt, in this way, Schur hinted that Freud planned to kill Fliess.  And he further explained that, In the language of infantile wishes, Fliess would be killed off. (1)  Oddly, Schur seems unaware that there’s nothing infantile about killing off a person. 

All my friends, Freud revealed, have … been re-incarnations of this first figure ... they have been revenants."  Who was this first figure? Schur believed that it was Julius, Freud’s younger brother, who died in his infancy. Notably, all of Freud’s revenant “friends”, except for Fliess, just like Julius, died. Thus, the surest way of getting oneself killed was to become a Freudian revenant. 

Remarkably, Freud rationalised his murderous actions, stating, not once but twice, in the same paragraph, that, no one's irreplaceable. (2) Thus, the repetitive killing that started with Julius' death clearly illustrates Freud’s idea of compulsion to repeat.

(1) Schur, (1972, p. 170). 

(2) Schur, (1972, p. 165). 

Julius birth and death

According to Freud's biographer, Marianne Krull, Julius was born in October 1857. In a footnote, she added: Julius does not seem to have been born in Freiberg, for no record of his birth could be found there.

She further explained that, Sigmund was seventeen months old when Julius was born. … And, at the time of his brother's death, he was just two years old. Contradictorily, the authorised biographer, Ernest Jones mentioned, his young brother's death when Freud was nineteen months old and the little Julius only eight months. (2)

As Krull recounted, 

the official record of his death … states that he died on 15 April 1858 at the age of six months from "bowel infections," and … he was buried in the Jewish cemetery at Weisskirchen (Hranice), some twenty miles from Prague. (3)

 Further, Krull explained that, The Freuds also seem to have lived, at least temporarily, in house No. 417 in the immediate vicinity, for in Julius Freud’s death record that address is given as his residence. (4) As it’s been alleged, the Freud family's permanent address was Zámečnická street, number 117, rather than 417. (5) Would the family have left their place of residence to move temporarily with two infants to a new location where Julius would die?

Since we don’t know Julius' date of birth, we cannot know how old he was when he died. All we know is that, according to Freud, Julius died within a few months. Without a doubt, Julius’ whole existence, from birth to death, is shrouded in secrets.

 A case in point: Krull stated that, the nearest Jewish cemetery was in Weisskirchen (Hranice), about twenty miles away. (6) But this is incorrect. According to the information of the International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies, The unlandmarked Jewish cemetery [in Freyberg] originated in 1855, (7) thus three years before Julius' death.

Oddly, even though there was a local Jewish cemetery at the time of Julius’ death in 1858, rather than to bury Julius there, his body was interred at another Jewish cemetery, 30 km away from Freiberg. Was it to hide his true cause of death, i.e. murder by his older brother?

Or which is not improbable. Julius' body was buried not in a cemetery but in an unmarked grave somewhere in the forest. As a matter of course, the clerk recording the death of the child would be relying on the information provided by the father. 

The record of Julius‘ death states: Julius, Sohn des Jakob Freud, Händels-Mannes zu Freyberg. [Julius, the son of Jakob Freud, a merchant from Freyberg]. The name of the mother wasn’t mentioned.

In the dream book, Freud revealed that all the dreams he recounted were his own. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that when dreaming about time, he was hinting at the chronology of his youngest brother’s birth. As he explained, in a dream, for example, 5.15 a.m. means to one dreamer the age of five years and three months; when he was that age, a younger brother was born. (8) Whether it is some kind of clue about when Julius was born is anyone's guess.

In the dream book, Freud that a child is able to estimate the disadvantages which he has to expect on account of a new-comer. Further, this is how Freud explained the source of his negative attitude toward the younger brother: If the child should come to realize only at a later stage that its happiness may be prejudiced by a younger brother or sister, its enmity will be aroused at this period.. And the enmity can be expressed by violence. I know of a case, Freud wrote, where a girl, not three years of age, tried to strangle an infant in its cradle, because she suspected that its continued presence boded her no good. This murderous girl, without a doubt, was Freud himself,

 Further, Freud explained that, Children at this time of life are capable of a jealousy that is perfectly evident and extremely intense. Of course, the jealousy must have been intense if the younger brother was to be killed. As Freud revealed further, the strangling was a success: the little brother … soon disappears, and the child once more draws to himself the whole affection of the household.

 Unfortunately for him, already on 31 December 1858, his sister, Anna, was sent by the stork. As one would expect the little Sigmund wanted her gone, too, which is obvious from his question, is it not natural that the favourite should conceive the wish that the new rival may meet the same fate as the earlier one, in order that he may be as happy as he was before the birth of the first child, and during the interval after his death. (9)

Here we have the explanation of what happened to Julius and why. If we are to take Freud at his word, to remain in “the possession of the field” (Freud’s expression in the dream book), Freud killed a few-month-old, baby Julius, by strangling the baby in the cradle.

(1) Krull, Marianne, Freud and his father, (1986, p. 260).

(2) Jones, (1953, p. 7).

(3) Krull, (1986, p. 260).

(4) Krull, (1986, p. 256).

(5) House of Birth of Sigmund Freud, https://turista.pribor.eu/sights/house-of-birth-of-sigmund-freud/, 30.05.2025.

(6) Krull, (1986, p. 103).

(7) International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies; Pribor: Novy Jicin, Moravia, https://iajgscemetery.org/eastern-europe/czech-republic/pribor#:~:text=The%20unlandmarked%20Jewish%20cemetery%20originated,via%20a%20continuous%20masonry%20walll, 29.05.2025.

(8) Freud, Sigmund, The Interpretation of Dreams, (1913, p. 260).

(9) Freud, (1913, p. 150).