You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This valuable book makes great linguistic demands on its readers, who need to know not only German but also French and Spanish in order to understand all of the essays. It will probably be tough going for those who do not know German—the very people who ought to read it. For readers who get their Freud from Strachey's Standard Edition need to recognize the limitations of his translation. Despite their repeated—and doubtless sincere—professions of admiration for Strachey's monumental work, the authors relentlessly expose its flaws. Dissatisfaction with Strachey is hardly new, however, and in Translating Freud some, fundamental questions never stay clearly in focus. Why does one want, in 1993, a translation of Freud? What functions can such a translation serve? Do the flaws of the Standard Edition prevent it from doing a “good enough” job of serving them?
In the preface Ornston asks, “Why would someone cut out of context, carry around, and quote the nineteenth-century imagery and ever-varying opinions of Sigmund Freud in any language—including his own?” (p. xiii) Although no one in the volume, even Ornston, addresses this question openly, it goes to the heart of the matter. As psychoanalysis enters its second century, to what extent is Freud more than the most important figure in its history? Why should analysts read Freud today?
These difficult and contentious questions have an immediate bearing on any discussion of translating Freud. If many of his ideas have become primarily matters of historical interest, one need not feel any urgency about revising or replacing the Standard Edition. Those who really care for Freud or want to follow the nuances of his thought and tone have to study him in German. For the serious student, any translation is no more than an aid to understanding, not a substitute for the original, and an annotated critical