The article takes its bearings from Freud's remarks on the significance of primary identification, only referred to as such at one single point in his writings (and this in the German original only; Strachey's translation does not employ the term). These remarks range from “earliest and original form of emotional tie” (1921c) and “the individual's most important identification (with the father of his/her personal prehistory)”(1923b) to the notes on “Having and being in children” (1941f). Fenichel and Gaddini emphasize the proximity of the concept of imitation, Ferenczi to that of mimicry. Anna Freud, Freeman, Cameron & McGhie, Kristeva and Loch point to its restitutional influence in severe pathologies. For Simo Salonen, primary identification is not so much restitutional in itself; instead he sees the restitution of primary identification as a crucial factor in the treatment of psychotic patients. Sandler & Sandler, Amati-Mehler and Ogden have linked primary identification with sensory perception. Cesar and Sara Botella have explicitly linked individual and collective primary identification to the prehistorical father. Mirror neurons represent a neurobiological correlative of primary identification. In the article, a case vignette indicates the clinical relevance of primary identification and relates it to Bion's reflections on caesura, preconception and the “emotional storm”.