The authors are acutely aware of Freud’s own elisions and distortions, as well as of the complex layering of discussion and elaboration by succeeding generations of analysts, antianalysts, and historians. They are discussing not case material but reports of case material or, in Schreber’s case, thoughts about a published self-description. A "case example" is the clinician’s, not the patient’s. Although aware of Freud’s inability to "hear" certain themes, e.g., the importance of mothers and mothering, they give him full credit for being willing to listen to hysterics (e.g., "A neurosis never says foolish things," p. 106), for his discounting of degeneration theory, for recognizing the significance of our emotional life, and for understanding that what goes on between patient and doctor is important. Perhaps most valuably, they see his work in its historical context and refuse to judge him on the basis of current knowledge. As one of the authors points out, it would be wrong to fault Billroth for not using laser surgery. The authors note the complexity of Freud’s views, e.g., his "complementary series" of etiologic events, and his willingness to rethink and to rehypothesize.