Kanzer is gratified by the confirmation of his hypothesis that Marius was the subject of Tausk's A Contribution to the Psychology of Child Sexuality. He insists, however, on the

correctness of his finding that the case history in the paper on alcoholic occupation delirium was autobiographical. He is content to leave unsettled Tausk's part in naming his sons, the reason for Tausk's acceptance of baptism, and the precise age of Marius when the dreams reported in his father's paper occurred.