124

VIII

ERRONEOUSLY · CARRIED-OUT ACTIONS

I SHALL give another passage from the above-
mentioned work of Meringer and Mayer (p. 98):
“Lapses in speech üc. not stand entirely alone. They
resemble the errors which often occur in our other-
activities and are quite foolishly termed ‘forgetfulness.’ ”
I am therefore in no way the first to presume that there
is a sense and purpose behind the slight functional
disturbances of the daily life of healthy people.¹
If the lapse in speech, which is without doubt a motor
function, admits of such a conception, it is quite natural
to transfer to the lapses of our other motor functions the
same expectation. I have here formed two groups of
cases; all these cases in which the faulty effect seems to be
the essential element—that is, the deviation from the
intention—I denote as erroneously carried-out actions
(Vergreifen); the others, in which the entire action appears
rather inexpedient, I call “symptomatic and chance
actions.” But no distinct line of demarcation can be
formed; indeed, we are forced to conclude that all divisions
used in this treatise are of only descriptive significance
and contradict the inner unity of the sphere of manifesta-
tion.

¹A second publication of Meringer has later shown me how
very unjust I was to this author when I attributed to him so
much understanding.

125

The psychologic understanding of erroneous actions
apparently gains little in clearness when we place it under
the head of “ataxia.” and especially under “cortical
ataxia.” Let us rather try to trace the individual examples
to their proper determinants. To do this I shall again
resort to personal observations, the opportunities for
which I could not very frequently find in myself.
(a) In former years, when I made more calls at the
homes of patients than I do at present, it often happened,
when I stood before a door where I should have knocked
or rung the bell, that I would pull the key of my own
house from my pocket, only to replace it, quite abashed.
When I investigated in what patients’ homes this occurred,
I had to admit that the faulty action–taking out my
key instead of ringing the bell–signified paying a certain
tribute to the house where the error occurred. It was
equivalent to the thought “Here I feel at home,” as it
happened only where I possessed the patient’s regard.
(Naturally, I never rang my own door-bell).

The faulty action was therefore a symbolic represen-
tation of a definite thought which was not accepted
consciously as serious; for in reality the neurologist is well
aware that the patient seeks him only so long as he expects
to be benefited by him, and that his own excessively
warm interest for his patient is evinced only as a means of
psychic treatment.

An almost identical repetition of my experience is
described by A. Maeder (“Contfib. à la psychopathologie
de la vie quotidienne,” Arch. de Psychol., vi., 1906):

“Il
est arrivé a chacun de sortir son trousseau, en arrivant à
la porte d’un ami particulièrement cher, de se surprendre
pour ainsi dire, en train d’ouvrir avec sa clé comme chez
soi. C’est un retard, puisqu’il faut sonner malgré tout,

126

mais c’est une preuve qu’on se sent–ou qu’on voudrait se
sentir–comme chez soi, auprès de cet ami.”

Jones speaks as follows, about the use of keys:¹ “The
use of keys is a fertile source of occurrences of this kind,
of which two examples may be given. If I am disturbed
in the midst of some engrossing work at home by having
to go to the hospital to carry out some routine work, I am
very apt to find myself trying to open the door of my
laboratory there with the key of my desk at home, although
the two keys are quite unlike each other. The mistake
unconsciously demonstrates where I would rather be at
the moment.

“Some years ago I was acting in a subordinate position
at a certain institution, the front door of which
was kept locked, so that it was necessary to ring for
admission. On several occasions I found myself making
serious attempts to open the door with my house key.
Each one of the permanent visiting staff, of which I
aspired to be a member, was provided with a key to
avoid the trouble of having to wait at the door. My mis-
take thus expressed the desire to be on a similar footing
and to be quite ‘at home’ there.”

A similar experience is reported by Dr. Hans Sachs of
Vienna: “I always carry two keys with me, one for the
door of my office and one for my residence. They are not
by any means easily interchanged, as the office key is at
least three times as big as my house key. Besides, I carry
the first in my trouser pocket and the other in my vest
pocket. Yet it often happened that I noticed on reaching
the door that while ascending the stairs I had taken out
the wrong key. I decided to undertake a statistical
examination; as I was daily in about the same emotional

¹ Jones, loc. cit., p. 79.

127

ERRONEOUSLY CARRIED-OUT ACTIONS

state when I stood before both doors, I thought that the
interchanging of the two keys must show a regular ten-
dency, if they were differently determined psychically.
Observation of later occurrences showed that I regularly
took out my house key before the office door. Only on
one occasion was this reversed: I came home tired,
knowing that I would find there a guest. I made an
attempt to unlock the door with the, naturally too big,
office key.”

(b) At a certain time twice a day for six years I was
accustomed to wait for admission before a door in the
second story of the same house, and during this long
period of time it happened twice (within a short interval)
that I climbed a story higher. On the first of these occa-
sions I was in an ambitious day-dream, which allowed
me to “mount always higher and higher.” In fact, at that
time I heard the door in question open as I put my foot
on the first step of the third flight. On the other occasion
I again went too far “engrossed in thought.” As soon as
I became aware of it, I turned back and sought to snatch
the dominating fantasy; I found that I’was irritated over
a criticism of my works, in which the reproach was made
that I “always went too far,” which I replaced by the less
respectful expression “climbed too high.”

(c) For many years a reflex hammer and a tuning-fork
lay side by side on my desk. One day I hurried off at the
close of my office hours, as I wished to catch a certain
train, and, despite broad daylight, put the tuning-fork in
my coat pocket in place of the reflex hammer. My
attention was called to the mistake through the weight of
the object drawing down my pocket. Any one unaccus-
tomed to reflect on such slight occurrences would without
hesitation explain the faulty action by the hurry of the

128

moment, and excuse it. In spite of that, I preferred to ask
myself why I took the tuning-
fork instead of the hammer.
The haste could just as well have been a motive for
carrying out the action properly, in order not to waste
time over the correction.

“Who last grasped the tuning-
fork?” was the question
which immediately flashed through my mind. It hap-
pened that only a few days ago an idiotic child, whose
attention to sensory impressions I was testing, had been
so fascinated by the tuning-
fork that I found it difficult to
tear it away from him. Could it mean, therefore, that I
was an idiot? To be sure, so it would seem, as the next
thought which associated itself with the hammer was
chamer (Hebrew for “ass”).

But what was the meaning of this abusive language?
We must here inquire into the situation. I hurried to a
consultation at a place on the Western railroad to see a
patient who, according to the anamnesis which I received
by letter, had fallen from a balcony some months before,
and since then had been unable to walk. The physician
who invited me wrote that he was still unable to say
whether he was dealing with a spinal injury or traumatic
neurosis-
hysteria. That was what I was to decide.
This could therefore be a reminder to be particularly
careful in this delicate differential diagnosis. As it is,
my colleagues think that hysteria is diagnosed far too
carelessly where more serious matters are concerned.
But the abuse is not yet justified. Yes, the next association
was that the small railroad station is the same place in
which, some years previous, I saw a young man who,
after a certain emotional experience, could not walk
properly. At that time I diagnosed his malady as hysteria,
and later put him under psychic treatment; but it after-

129

ward turned out that my diagnosis was neither incorrect
nor correct. A large number of the patient’s symptoms
were hysterical, and they promptly disappeared in the
course of treatment. But back of these there was a visible
remnant that could not be reached by therapy, and could
be referred only to a multiple sclerosis. Those who saw
the patient after me had no difficulty in recognizing the
organic affection. I could scarcely have acted or judged
differently, still the impression was that of a serious
mistake; the promise of a cure which I had given him
could naturally not be kept.

The mistake in grasping the tuning-
fork instead of the hammer could therefore be translated into the following
words: “You fool, you ass, get yourself together this time,
and be careful not to diagnose again a case of hysteria
where there is an incurable disease, as you did in this
place years ago in the case of the poor man!” And
fortunately for this little analysis, even if unfortunately
for my mood, this same man, now having a very spastic
gait, had been to my office a few days before, one day
after the examination of the idiotic child.

We observe that this time it is the voice of self-
criticism which makes itself perceptible through the mistake in
grasping. The erroneously carried-out action is specially
suited to express self-reproach. The present mistake
attempts to represent the mistake which was committed
elsewhere.

(d) It is quite obvious that grasping the wrong thing
may also serve a whole series of other obscure purposes.
Here is a first example: It is very seldom that I break
anything. I am not particularly dexterous, but by virtue
of the anatomic integrity of my nervous and muscular
apparatus there are apparently no grounds in me for such

130

awkward movements with undesirable results. I can
recall no object in my home the counterpart of which I
have ever broken. Owing to the narrowness of my study
it has often been necessary for me to work in the most
uncomfortable position among my numerous antique
clay and stone objects, of which I have a small collection.
 

So much is this true that onlookers have expressed fear
lest I topple down something and shatter it. But it never
happened. Then why did I brush to the floor the cover of
my simple inkwell so that it broke into pieces?
 

My inkstand is made of a flat piece of marble which is
hollowed out for the reception of the glass inkwell; the
inkwell has a marble cover with a knob of the same stone.
A circle of bronze statuettes with small terra-
cotta figures is set behind this inkstand. I seated myself at the desk to
write, I made a remarkably awkward outward movement
with the hand holding the pen-holder, and so swept the
cover of the inkstand, which already lay on the desk, to
the floor.
 

It is not difficult to find the explanation. Some hours
before my sister had been in the room to look at some of
my new acquisitions. She found them very pretty, and
then remarked: “Now the desk really looks very well, only
the inkstand does not match. You must get a prettier
one.” I accompanied my sister out and did not return
for several hours. But then, as it seems, I performed the
execution of the condemned inkstand.
 

Did I perhaps conclude from my sister’s words that
she intended to present me with a prettier inkstand on the
next festive occasion, and did I shatter the unsightly old
one in order to force her to carry out her signified inten-
tion? If that be so, then my swinging motion was only
apparently awkward; in reality it was most skilful and
 

131

designed, as it understood how to avoid all the valuable
objects located near it.

I actually believe that we must accept this explanation
for a whole series of seemingly accidental awkward
movements. It is true that on the surface these seem to
show something violent and irregular, similar to spastic-
ataxic movements, but on examination they seem to be
dominated by some intention, and they accomplish their
aim with a certainty that cannot be generally credited to
conscious arbitrary motions. In both characteristics, the
force as well as the sure aim, they show besides a resem-
blance to the motor manifestations of the hysterical
neurosis, and in part also to the motor accomplishments of
somnambulism, which here as well as there point to the
same unfamiliar modification of the functions of innerva-
tion.

In latter years, since I have been collecting such obser-
vations, it has happened several times that I have shat-
tered and broken objects of some value, but the examina-
tion of these cases convinced me that it was never the
result of accident or of my unintentional awkwardness.
Thus, one morning while in my bath-robe and straw
slippers I followed a sudden impulse as I passed a room,
and hurled a slipper from my foot against the wall so that
it brought down a beautiful little marble Venus from its
bracket. As it fell to pieces I recited quite unmoved the
following verse from Busch:–

“Ach! Die Venus ist perdü-¹⁾
Klickeradoms!–von Medici!”

This crazy action and my calmness at the sight of the
damage is explained in the then existing situation. We

¹⁾Alas! the Venus of Medici is lost!

132

had a very sick person in the family, of whose recovery I
had personally despaired. That morning I had been
informed that there was a great improvement; I know that
I had said to myself, “After all she will live.” My attack
of destructive madness served therefore as the expression
of a grateful feeling toward fate, and afforded me the
opportunity of performing an “act of sacrifice,” just as if
I had vowed, “If she gets well I will give this or that as a
sacrifice.” That I chose the Venus of Medici as this
sacrifice was only gallant homage to the convalescent.
But even to-day it is still incomprehensible to me that I
decided so quickly, aimed so accurately, and struck no
other object in close proximity.

Another breaking, in which I utilized a penholder
falling from my hand, also signified a sacrifice, but this
time it was a pious offering to avert some evil. I had once
allowed myself to reproach a true and worthy friend for
no other reason than certain manifestations which I inter-
preted from his unconscious activity. He took it amiss
and wrote me a letter in which he bade me not to treat
my friends by psychoanalysis. I had to admit that he was
right and appeased him with my answer. While writing
this letter I had before me my latest aquisition—a small,
handsome glazed Egyptian figure. I broke it in the
manner mentioned, and then immediately knew that I had
caused this mischief to avert a greater one. Luckily,
both the friendship and the figure could be so cemented
that the break would not be noticed.

A third case of breaking had a less serious connection;
it was only a disguised “execution,” to use an expression
from Th. Vischer’s Auch Einer, of an object that no
longer suited my taste. For quite a while I had carried a
cane with a silver handle; through no fault of mine the

133

thin silver plate was once damaged and poorly repaired.
Soon after the cane was returned I mirthfully used the
handle to angle for the leg of one of my children. In that
way it naturally broke, and I got rid of it.

The indifference with which we accept the resulting
damage in all these cases may certainly be taken as
evidence for the existence of an unconscious purpose in
their execution.

(e) As can sometimes be demonstrated by analysis, the
dropping of objects, or the overturning and breaking of
the same are very frequently utilized as the expression of
unconscious streams of thought, but more often they serve
to represent the superstitious or odd significances con-
nected therewith in popular sayings. The meanings
attached to the spilling of salt, the overturning of a
wineglass, the sticking of a knife dropped to the floor, and
so on, are well known. I shall discuss later the right to
investigate such superstitious interpretations; here I shall
simply observe that the individual awkward acts do not
by any means always have the same meaning, but,
depending on, the circumstances, they serve to represent
now this or that purpose.

Recently we passed through a period in my house
during which an unusual number of glass and china
dishes were broken. I myself largely contributed to this
damage. This little endemic was readily explained by the
fact that it preceded the public betrothal of my eldest
daughter. On such festivities it is customary to break
some dishes and utter at the same time some felicitating
expression. This custom may signify a sacrifice or
express any other symbolic sense.

When servants destroy fragile objects through dropping
them, we certainly do not think in the first place of a

134

psychologic motive for it; still, some obscure motives are
not improbable even here. Nothing lies farther from the
uneducated than the appreciation of art and works of art.
Our servants are dominated by a foolish hostility against
these productions, especially when the objects, whose
worth they do not realize, become a source of a great deal
of work for them. On the other hand, persons of the
same education and origin employed in scientific institu-
tions often distinguish themselves by great dexterity and
reliability in the handling of delicate objects, as soon as
they begin to identify themselves with their masters and
consider themselves an essential part of the staff.

I shall here add the report of a young mechanical
engineer, which gives some insight into the mechanism
of damaging things.

“Some time ago I worked with many others in the
laboratory of the High School on a series of complicated
experiments on the subject of elasticity. It was a work that
we undertook of our own volition, but it turned out that
it took up more of our time than we expected. One day,
while going to the laboratory with F., he complained of
losing so much time, especially on this day, when he had
so many other things to do at home. I could only agree
with him, and he added half jokingly, alluding to an
incident of the previous week: ‘Let us hope that the
machine will refuse to work, so that we can interrupt the
experiment and go home earlier.’

“In arranging the work, it happened that F. was
assigned to the regulation of the pressure valve, that is,
it was his duty to carefully open the valve and let the
fluid under pressure flow from the accumulator into the
cylinder of the hydraulic press. The leader of the experi-
ment stood at the manometer and called a loud ‘Stop!’

135

when the maximum pressure was reached. At this
command F. grasped the valve and turned it with all his
force-
to the left (all valves, without any exception, are
closed to the right). This caused a sudden full pressure
in the accumulator of the press, and as there was no
outlet, the connecting pipe burst. This was quite a
trifling accident to the machine, but enough to force us
to stop our work for the day and go home.

“It is characteristic, moreover, that some time later, on
discussing this occurrence, my friend F. could not recall
the remark that I positively : member his having made.”

Similarly, to fall, to make a mis-
step, or to slip need not
always be interpreted as an entirely accidental miscarriage
of a motor action. The linguistic double meaning of these
expressions points to diverse hidden fantasies, which may
present themselves through the giving up of bodily
equilibrium. I recall a number of lighter nervous ailments
in women and girls which made their appearance after
falling without injury, and which were conceived as
traumatic hysteria as a result of the shock of the fall. At
that time I already entertained the impression that these
conditions had a different connection, that the fall was
already a preparation of the neurosis, and an expression
of the same unconscious fantasies of sexual content
which may be taken as the moving forces behind the
symptoms. Was not this very thing meant in the proverb
which says, “When a maiden falls, she falls on her back?”

We can also add to these mistakes the case of one who
gives a beggar a gold piece in place of a copper or a silver
coin. The solution of such mishandling is simple: it is an
act of sacrifice, designed to mollify fate, to avert evil, and
so on. If we hear a tender mother or aunt express concern
regarding the health of a child, directly before taking a

136

walk during which she displays her charity, contrary to
her usual habit, we can no longer doubt the sense of this
apparently undesirable accident. In this manner our
faulty acts make possible the practice of all those pious
and superstitious customs which must shun the light of
consciousness, because of the strivings against them of
our unbelieving reason.

(f) That accidental actions are really intentional will
find no greater credence in any other sphere than in
sexual activity, where the border between the intention
and accident hardly seems discernible. That an appar-
ently clumsy movement may be utilized in a most refined,
way for sexual purposes I can verify by a nice example
from my own experience. In a friend’s house I met a
young girl visitor who excited in me a feeling of fondness
which I had long believed extinct, thus putting me in a
jovial, loquacious, and complaisant mood. At that time
I endeavoured to find out, how this came about, as a
year before this same girl made no impression on me.

As the girl’s uncle, a very old man, entered the room,
we both jumped to our feet to bring him a chair which
stood in the corner. She was more agile than I and also
nearer the object, so that she was the first to take possession
of the chair. She carried it with its back to her, holding
both hands on the edge of the seat.’ As I got there later
and did not give up the claim to carrying the chair, I
suddenly stood directly back of her, and with both my
arms was embracing her’ from behind, and for a, moment
my hands touched her lap. I naturally solved the situation
as quickly as it came about. Nor did it occur to anybody
how dexterously I had taken advantage of this awkward
movement.

Occasionally I have had to admit to myself that the

137

annoying, awkward stepping aside on the street, whereby
for some seconds one steps here and there, yet always in
the same direction as the other person, until finally both
stop facing each other, that this “barring one’s way”
repeats an ill-
mannered, provoking conduct of earlier
times and conceals erotic purposes under the mask of
awkwardness. From my psychoanalysis of neurotics I
know that the so-
called naïveté of young people and
children is frequently only such a mask, employed in
order that the subject may say or do the indecent without
restraint.

W. Stekel has reported similar observations in regard
to himself: “I entered a house and offered my right hand
to the hostess. In a most remarkable way I thereby
loosened the bow which held together her loose morning-
gown. I was conscious of no dishonourable intent, still
I executed this awkward movement with the agility of a
juggler.”

(g) The effects which result from mistakes of normal
persons are, as a rule, of a most harmless nature. Just for
this reason it would be particularly interesting to find out
whether mistakes of considerable importance, which could
be followed by serious results, as, for example, those of
physicians or druggists, fall within the range of our point
of view.

As I am seldom in a position to deal with active medical
matters, I can only report one mistake from my own
experience. I treated a very old woman, whom I visited
twice daily for several years. My medical activities were
limited to two acts, which I performed during my morning
visits: I dropped a few drops of an eye lotion into her
eyes and gave her a hypodermic injection of morphine.
I prepared regularly two bottles–a blue one, containing

138

the eye lotion, and a white one, containing the morphine
solution. While performing these duties my thoughts
were mostly occupied with something else, for they had
been repeated so often that the attention acted as if free.
One morning I noticed that the automaton worked wrong;
I had put the dropper into the white instead of into the
blue bottle, and had dropped into the eyes the morphine
instead of the lotion.’ I was greatly frightened, but then
calmed myself through the reflection that a few drops of a
two per cent solution of morphine would not likely do any
harm even if left in the conjunctival sac. The cause of
the fright manifestly belonged elsewhere.

In attempting to analyse the slight mistake I first
thought of the phrase, “to seize the old woman by
mistake,” which pointed out the short way to the solution.
I had been impressed by a dream which a young man had
told me the previous evening, the contents of which
could be explained only on the basis of sexual intercourse
with his own mother.¹⁾ The strangeness of the fact that
the Œdipus legend takes no offence to the age of Queen
Jocasta seemed to me to agree with the assumption that
in being in love with one’s mother we never deal with the
present personality, but with her youthful memory
picture carried over from our childhood. Such incon-
gruities always show themselves, where one fantasy
fluctuating between two periods is made conscious, and
is then bound to one definite period.

Deep in thoughts of this kind, I came to my patient
of over ninety; I must have been well on the way to grasp

¹⁾The Œdipus dream as I was wont to call it, because it
contains the key to the understanding of the legend of King
Œdipus. In the text of Sophocles the relation of such a dream
is put in the mouth of Jocasta (cf. The Interpretation of Dreams,
pp. 222–4, etc.).

139

the universal character of the Œdipus fable as the corre-
lation of the fate which the oracle pronounces, for I made
a blunder in reference to or on the old woman. Here,
again, the mistake was harmless; of the two possible
errors, taking the morphine solution for the eye, or the
eye lotion for the injection, I chose the one by far the
least harmful. The question still remains open whether
in mistakes in handling things which may cause serious
harm we can assume an unconscious intention as in the
cases here discussed.

The following case from Brill’s experience corroborates
the assumption that even serious mistakes are determined
by unconscious intentions: “A physician received a
telegram informing him that his aged uncle was very
sick. In spite of important family affairs at home he at
once repaired to that distant town because his uncle was
really his father, who had cared for him since he was one
and a half years old, when his own father had died. On
reaching there he found his uncle suffering from pneu-
monia, and, as the old man was an octogenarian, the
doctors held out no hope for his recovery.’ ‘It was simply
a question of a day or two,’ was the local doctor’s verdict.
Although a prominent physician in a big city, he refused
to co-operate in the treatment, as he found that the case
was properly managed by the local doctor, and he could
not suggest anything to improve matters.

“Since death was daily expected, he decided to remain
to the end. He waited a few days, but the sick man
struggled hard, and although there was no question of
any recovery, because of the many new complications
which had arisen, death seemed to be deferred for a
while. One night before retiring he went into the sick-
room and took his uncle’s pulse. As it was quite weak, he

140

decided not to wait for the doctor, and administered a
hypodermic-
injection. The patient grew rapidly worse
and died within a few hours. There was something
strange in the last symptoms, and on later attempting to
replace the tube of hypodermic tablets into the case, he
found to his consternation that he had taken out the
wrong tube, and instead of a small dose of digitalis he had
given a large dose of hyoscine.

“This case was related to me by the doctor after he
read my paper on the Œdipus Complex.¹ 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).”

It is known that in the more serious cases of psycho-
neuroses one sometimes finds self-mutilations as symp-
toms of the disease. That the psychic conflict may end in
suicide can never be excluded in these cases. Thus I
know from experience, which some day I shall support
with convincing examples, that many apparently acci-
dental injuries happening to such patients are really self-
inflicted. This is brought about by the fact, that there is a
constantly lurking tendency to self-punishment, usually
expressing itself in self-reproach, or contributing to the
formation of a symptom, which skillfully makes use of an
external situation. The required external situation may
accidentally present itself or the punishment tendency
may assist it until the way is open for the desired injurious
effect.

Such occurrences are by no means rare even in cases
of moderate severity, and they betray the portion of

¹New York Medical Journal, September, 1912. Reprinted
in large form as Chapter X of Psychoanalysis, etc., Saunders.
Philadelphia.

141

unconscious intention through a series of special features.
–for example, through the striking presence of mind
which the patients show in the pretended accidents.¹

I will report exhaustively one in place of many such
examples from my professional experience. A young
woman broke her leg below the knee in a carriage accident
so that she was bedridden for weeks. The striking part of
it was the lack of any manifestation of pain and the calm-
ness with which she bore her misfortune. This calamity
ushered in a long and serious neurotic illness, from which
she was finally cured by psychotherapy. During the
treatment I discovered the circumstances surrounding the
accident, as well as certain impressions which preceded it.
The young woman with her jealous husband spent some
time on the farm of her married sister, in company with
her numerous other brothers and sisters with their
wives and husbands. One evening she gave an exhibition
of one of her talents before this intimate circle: she danced
artistically the “cancan,” to the great delight of her
relatives, but to the great annoyance of her husband, who
afterward whispered to her, “Again you have behaved
like a prostitute.” The words took effect; we will leave it
undecided whether it was just on account of the dance.
That night she was restless in her sleep, and the next
forenoon she decided to go out driving. She chose the
horses herself, refusing one team and demanding another.
Her youngest sister wished to have her baby with its
nurse accompany her, but she opposed this vehemently.

¹The self-inflicted injury which does not entirely tend toward
self-annihilation has, moreover, no other choice in our present
state of civilization than to hide itself behind the accidental, or
to break through in a simulation of spontaneous illness. For-
merly, it was a customary sign of mourning, at other times it
expressed itself in ideas of piety and renunciation of the world.

142

During the drive she was nervous; she reminded the
coachman that the horses were getting skittish, and as the
fidgety animals really produced a momentary difficulty
she jumped from the carriage in fright and broke her leg,
while those remaining in the carriage were uninjured.
Although after the disclosure of these details we can
hardly doubt that this accident was really contrived, we
cannot fail to admire the skill which forced the accident to
mete out a punishment so suitable to the crime. For as it
happened “cancan” dancing with her became impossible
for a long time.

Concerning self-inflicted injuries of my own experience,
I cannot report anything in calm times, but under extra-
ordinary conditions I do not believe myself incapable of
such acts. When a member of my family complains that
he or she has bitten his tongue, bruised her finger, and so
on, instead of the expected sympathy I put the question,
“Why did you do that?”. But I have most painfully
squeezed my thumb, after a youthful patient acquainted
me during the treatment with his intention (naturally not
to be taken seriously) of marrying my eldest daughter,
while I knew that she was then in a private hospital in
extreme danger of losing her life.

One of my boys, whose vivacious temperament was
wont to put difficulties in the management of nursing
him in his illness, had a fit of anger one morning because
he was ordered to remain in bed during the forenoon, and
threatened to kill himself: a way out suggested to him by
the newspapers. In the evening he showed me a swelling
on the side of his chest which was the result of bumping
against the door knob. To my ironical question why he
did it, and what he meant by it, the eleven-year-old child
explained, “That was my attempt at suicide which I

143

threatened this morning.” However, I do not believe
that my views on self-inflicted wounds were accessible to
my children at that time.

Whoever believes in the occurrence of semi-intentional
self-inflicted injury—if this awkward expression be
permitted—will become prepared to accept through it
the fact that aside from conscious intentional suicide there
also exists semi-intentional annihilation—with uncon-
scious intention—which is capable of aptly utilizing a
threat against life and masking it as a casual mishap.
Such mechanism is by no means rare. For the tendency
to self-destruction exists to a certain degree in many
more persons than in those who bring it to completion.
Self-inflicted injuries are, as a rule, a compromise between
this impulse and the forces working against it, and even
where it really comes to suicide the inclination has
existed for a long time with less strength or as an uncon-
scious and repressed tendency.

Even suicide consciously committed chooses its time,
means, and opportunity; it is quite natural that uncon-
scious suicide should wait for a motive to take upon itself
one part of the causation and thus free it from its oppres-
sion by taking up the defensive forces of the person.¹

¹The case is then identical with a sexual attack on a woman,
in whom the attack of the man cannot be warded off through the
full muscular strength of the woman because a portion of the
unconscious feelings of the one attacked meets it with ready
acceptance. To be sure, it is said that such a situation paralyses
the strength of a woman; we need only add the reasons for this
paralysis. Insofar the clever sentence of Sancho Panza, which
he pronounced as governor of his island, is psychologically
unjust (Don Quixote, vol. ii. chap. xlv). A woman hauled before
the judge a man who was supposed to have robbed her of her
honour by force of violence. Sancho indemnified her with a full
purse which he took from the accused, but after the departure
of the woman he gave the accused permission to follow her and

144

These are in no way idle discussions which I here bring
up; more than one case of apparently accidental misfor-
tune (on a horse or out of a carriage) has become known
to me whose surrounding circumstances justified the
suspicion of suicide.

For example, during an officers’ horse-race one of the
riders fell from his horse and was so seriously injured
that a few days later he succumbed to his injuries. His
behaviour after regaining consciousness was remarkable
in more than one way, and his conduct previous to the
accident was still more remarkable. He had been greatly
depressed by the death of his beloved mother, had crying
spells in the society of his comrades, and to his trusted
friend had spoken of the tædium vitæ. He had wished to
quit the service in order to take part in a war in Africa
which had no interest for him.¹ Formerly a keen rider,
he had later evaded riding whenever possible. Finally,
before the horse-race, from which he could not withdraw,
he expressed a sad forebod-
ing, which most expectedly
in the light of our conception came true. It may be
contended that it is quite comprehensi-
ble without any
further cause that a person in such a state of nervous-
depression cannot manage a horse as well as on normal
days. I quite agree with that, only I should like to look
snatch the purse from her. Both returned wrest-
ling, the woman
priding herself that the villain was unable to possess himself of
the purse. Thereupon Sancho spoke: “Had you shown yourself
so stout and valiant to defend your body (nay, but half so much)
as you have done to defend your purse, the strength of Hercules
could not have forced you.”

¹It is evident that the situation of a battlefield is such as to
meet the requirement of conscious suicidal intent which, never-
theless, shuns the direct way. Cf. in Wallenstein the words of
the Swedish captain concerning the death of Max Piccolomini:
“They say he wished to die.”

145

ERRONEOUSLY CARRIED-OUT ACTIONS

for the mechanism of this motor inhibition through
“nervousness” in the intention of self-destruction here
emphasized.

Dr. Ferenczi has left to me for publication the analysis
of an apparently accidental injury by shooting which he
explained as an unconscious attempt at suicide. I can
only agree with his deduction: –
“J. Ad., 22 years old, carpenter, visited me on the
18th of January, 1908. He wished to know whether the
bullet which pierced his left temple March 20, 1907,
could or should be removed by operation. Aside from
occasional, not very severe, headaches, he felt quite well,
also the objective examination showed nothing besides
the characteristic powder wound on the left temple, so
that I advised against an operation. When questioned
concerning the circumstances of the case he asserted that
he injured himself accidentally. He was playing with his
brother’s revolver, and believing that it was not loaded he
pressed it with his left hand against the left temple (he is
not left-handed), put his finger on the trigger, and the
shot went off. There were three bullets in the six-shooter.
“I asked him how he came to carry the revolver, and
he answered that it was at the time of his army conscrip-
tion, that he took it to the inn the evening before because
he feared fights. At the army examination he was con-
sidered unfit for service on account of varicose veins,
which caused him much mortification. He went home and
played with the revolver. He had no intention of hurting
himself, but the accident occurred. On further questioning
whether he was otherwise satisfied with his fortune, he
answered with a sigh, and related a love affair with a girl
who loved him in return, but nevertheless left him. She
emigrated to America out of sheer avariciousness. He

146

wanted to follow her, but his parents prevented him. His
lady-love left on the 20th of January, 1907, just two
months before the accident.

“Despite all these suspicious elements the patient
insisted that the shot was an ‘accident.’ I was firmly
convinced, however, that the neglect to find out whether
the revolver was loaded before he began to play with it,
as well as the self-inflicted injury, were psychically
determined. He was still under the depressing effects of
the unhappy love affair, and apparently wanted ‘to
forget everything’ in the army. When this hope, too, was
taken away from him he resorted to playing with the
weapon—that is, to an unconscious attempt at suicide.
The fact that he did not hold the revolver in the right but
in the left hand speaks conclusively in favour of the fact
that he was really only ‘playing’—that is, he did not wish
consciously to commit suicide.”

Another analysis of an apparently accidental self-in-
flicted wound, detailed to me by an observer, recalls the
saying, “He who digs a pit for others falls in himself.”¹⁾

“Mrs. X., belonging to a good middle-class family, is
married and has three children. She is somewhat nervous
but never needed any strenuous treatment, as she could
sufficiently adapt herself to life. One day she sustained a
rather striking though transitory disfigurement of her face
in the following manner: She stumbled in a street that
was in process of repair and struck her face against the
house wall. The whole face was bruised, the eyelids blue
and œdematous, and as she feared that something might
happen to her eyes she sent for the doctor. After she was
calmed I asked her, ‘But why did you fall in such a

¹⁾“Selbstbestrafung wegen Abortus von Dr. J. E. G. van
Emden,” Haag (Holland), ‘Zentralb. f. Psychoanalyse, ii. 12.

147

manner?’ She answered that just before this accident she
warned her husband, who had been suffering for some
months from a joint affection, to be very careful in the
street, and she often had the experience that in some
remarkable way those things occurred to her against
which she warned others.

“I was not satisfied with this as the determination of
her accident, and asked her whether she had not something
else to tell me. ‘Yes, just before the accident she noticed
a nice picture in a shop on the other side of the street,
which she suddenly desired as an ornament for her
nursery, and wished to buy it at once. She thereupon
walked across to the shop without looking at the street,
stumbled over a heap of stones, and fell with her face
against the wall without making the slightest effort to
shield herself with her hands. The intention to buy the
picture was immediately forgotten, and she walked home
in haste.’

“ ‘But why were you not more careful?’ I asked.
“ ‘Oh!’ she answered, ‘perhaps it was only a punishment
for that episode which I confided to you!’
“ ‘Has this episode still bothered you?’
“ ‘Yes, later I regretted it very much; I considered
myself wicked, criminal, and immoral, but at the time I
was almost crazy with nervousness.’

“She referred to an abortion which was started by a
quack and had to be brought to completion by a gynecol-
ogist. This abortion was initiated with the consent of her
husband, as both wished, on account of their pecuniary
circumstances, to be spared from being additionally
blessed with children.

“She said: ‘I had often reproached myself with the
words, “You really had your child killed,” and I feared

148

that such a crime could not remain unpunished. Now
that you have assured me that there is nothing seriously
wrong with my eyes I am quite assured I have already
been sufficiently punished.’

“This accident, therefore, was, on the one hand, a
retribution for her sin, but, on the other hand, it may
have served as an escape from a more dire punishment
which she had feared for many months. In the moment
that she ran to the shop to buy the picture the memory of
this whole history, with its fears (already quite active in
her unconscious at the time she warned her husband),
became overwhelming and could perhaps find expression
in words like these: ‘But why do you want an ornament
for the nursery?—you who had your child killed! You
are a murderer! The great punishment is surely approach-
ing!’

“This thought did not become conscious, but instead
of it she made use of the situation–I might say of the
psychologic moment–to utilize in a commonplace manner
the heap of stones to inflict upon herself this punishment.
It was for this reason that she did not even attempt to
put out her arms while falling and was not much fright-
ened. The second, and probably lesser, determinant of
her accident was obviously the self-punishment for her
unconscious wish to be rid of her husband, who was an
accessory to the crime in this affair. This was betrayed
by her absolutely superfluous warning to be very careful
in the street on account of the stones. For, just because
her husband had a weak leg, he was very careful in
walking.”

If such a rage against one’s own integrity and one’s
own life can be hidden behind apparently accidental
awkwardness and motor insufficiency, then it is not a

149

ERRONEOUSLY CARRIED-OUT ACTIONS

big step forward to grasp the possibility of transferring
the same conception to mistakes which seriously endanger
the life and health of-
others. What I can put forward as
evidence for the validity of this conception was taken
from my experience with neurotics, and hence does not
fully meet the demands of this situation. I will report a
case in which it was not an erroneously carried-
out
action, but what may be more aptly termed a symbolic or
chance action that gave me the clue which later made
possible the solution, of the patient’s conflict.

I once undertook to improve the marriage relations of
a very intelligent man, whose differences with his tenderly
attached young wife could surely be traced to real causes,
but as he himself admitted could not be altogether ex-
plained through them. He continually occupied himself
with the thought of a separation, which he repeatedly
rejected because he dearly loved his two small children.
In spite of this he always returned to that resolution and
sought no means to make the situation bearable to himself.
Such an unsettlement of a conflict served to prove to
me that there, were unconscious and repressed motives
which enforced the conflicting conscious thoughts, and in
such cases I always undertake to end the conflict by
psychic analysis. One day the man related to me a slight
occurrence which had extremely frightened him. He was
sporting with the older child, by far his favourite. He
tossed it high in the air and repeated his tossing till
finally he thrust it so high that its head almost struck the
massive gas chandelier. Almost, but not quite, or say
“just about!” Nothing happened to the child except that
it became dizzy from fright. The father stood transfixed
with the child in his arms, while the mother merged into
an hysterical attack. The particular facility of this careless

150

movement, with the violent reaction in the parents,
suggested to me to look upon this accident as a symbolic
action which gave expression to an evil intention toward
the beloved child.

I could remove the contradiction of the actual ‘tender-
ness of this father for his child by referring the impulse
to injure it to the time when it was the only one, and so
small that as yet the father had no occasion for tender
interest in it. Then it was easy to assume that this man,
so little pleased with his wife at that time, might have
thought: “If this small being for whom I have no regard
whatever should die, I would be free and could separate
from my wife.” The wish for the death of this much
loved being must therefore have continued unconsciously.
From here it was easy to find the way to the unconscious
fixation of this wish.

There was indeed a powerful determinant in a memory
from the patient’s childhood: it referred to the death of a
little brother, which the mother laid to his father’s negli-
gence, and which led to serious quarrels with threats of
separation between the parents. The continued course of
my patient’s life, as well as the therapeutic success
confirmed my analysis.