In 1892–3 Freud published his first substantial case history, which concerned a patient treated by means of hypnotic suggestion. For some years this has been one of the few remaining of Freud's dedicated cases histories where the patient has not been identified. More recently, however, two publications independently arrived at the conclusion that the patient was none other than Freud's wife, Martha. This paper sets out the reasons why this identification should always have been treated with suspicion, even if the real identity was not known. Nevertheless, the paper goes on to offer a more plausible identification from among Freud's known social circle. The second part of the paper questions the circumstances under which the original misidentification could plausibly have been sustained in the face of such glaring evidence to the contrary. It concludes that, among other reasons, recent tendencies in controversies about Freud's trustworthiness have the hazard of leading to unreliable assumptions about Freud's honesty being taken as a basis for sound historical investigation.
