“…In presenting these three justifications (others could no doubt be added) for (re-)examining the part played by Reik within and outside the psychoanalytic movement, I have generally echoed opinions formulated by historians of psychoanalysis such as Roazen (1975Roazen ( /1992, Bergmann andHartman (1976/1990), Ahren and Melchers (1985) and Hale (1995), including some details found in a small handful of biographical sketches, such as those by Gustin (1953), Natterson (1966), Freeman (1971, Alby (1985), Mühlleitner (1992) and Reppen (2002aReppen ( , 2002b, and drawing on the sparkling insights of the utterly devoted Reik-scholar that is Murray H. Sherman (1965Sherman ( , 1970Sherman ( -71, 1974Sherman ( , 1981. I still believe that the aforementioned reasons may legitimize any research project on Reik, yet I am also more convinced that together they will not constitute a sufficiently solid ground for ensuring his intellectual survival outside the psychoanalytic community, and perhaps not even within its professional confines.…”