The thought probably has never occurred to anyone, with the exception of Norman Kiell, that people would be interested in reading the 19th-century and early 20th-century reviews of the works of Sigmund Freud. Almost 100 years later, why would we care what a reviewer had to say about Freud's writings? Obviously Dr. Kiell cares and, as we know from Freud's letters to his analytic colleagues, he also cared. And it is this caring that gives the reviews of his contemporaries a certain academic importance in discovering that no matter how many good reviews Freud received, his attention inevitably became focused on those reviews that carried some negative connotation. He had many admirers and dedicated followers, but when it came to what reviewers had to say about his writings, he had eyes only for the commentaries of his opponents; and in reading their statements about his work, he