Psychoanalytic Review, 100(1), February 2013 2013 N.P.A.P.

NOTES ON THE REVISED STANDARD EDITION

Mark Solms
On the eve of the publication of the Revised Standard Edition of the Com-
plete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (24 volumes) and The Complete
Neuroscientifc Works of Sigmund Freud (4 volumes), the editor of these
works describes the policies he followed in succeeding James Strachey,
and refects on the experience of doing so.
At the time of writing these brief notes, the Revised Standard Edi-
tion of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (RSE) is es-
sentially complete and with the printers. I say essentially because
there are still a few large tasks remaining that cannot be complet-
ed until the proofs are returned. This refers mainly to the index-
ing, which is being done afresh, but can only be fnally completed
when the pagination of the volumes is set. The largest of the other
remaining tasks is the proofreading itself. This is always a chore,
which in this case has to be multiplied by 24.
The job of revising the Standard Edition can only be described
as big. I had to review every sentence of Stracheys translations
of Freuds complete psychological works and check it against the
German texts. In some cases the published German texts also had
to be checked against the original manuscripts, wherever there
was reason to doubt the transcription. (This checking is easier
said than done; almost all of the surviving manuscripts are in
Washington, DC, which means I could not just take a peek when-
ever I wanted to. But in this respect, Ilse Grubrich-Simitis, who is
more familiar with Freuds manuscripts than anyone, and who is
James Stracheys real successor, was extremely helpful to me, as
she has had to perform this task for various German editions of
Freuds works over the past few decades.)
To check Stracheys translations properly, I also had to thor-
oughly familiarize myself with the secondary literature, where
202 MARK SOLMS
many transcription and translation errors have been identifed
over the years. (Not only in English and German; many errors
also came to light in the preparation of uvres compltes de Freud
under the general editorship of Jean Laplanche, for example.)
Strachey himself kept a running list of corrections and additions,
published in the 24th volume, and these intended revisions of his
own were naturally incorporated into the present edition.
Wherever such unequivocal errors had been made (or prop-
agated) by Strachey, my task was simple: I corrected them. If the
corrections were substantial or surprising or otherwise interest-
ing, I added brief editorial footnotes to draw attention to them.
The secondary literature includes many comments on the
way in which Freud has previously been translated that cannot be
described as errors. In many such instancesif not mostthere is
no simply correct alternative. For example, is it better to translate
das Ich as the ego or the I or the me or the self? Anyone
who is familiar with the translation of das Ich in German philoso-
phy, before Freud used the concept, would know that the ego
was the equivalent English term (see, for example, translations of
Kant, Goethe, Fichte and Nietzsche). The same applied to das
Ich in scientifc writing (consider English translations of Meynert
and Wundt). But anyone who is familiar with Freuds writings in
the original German will know that his use of this term (like that
of the German philosophers and scientists) evokes an immediate
understanding of its meaning in the native reader: I am my
Ich; it is me, my idea of my self. This does not apply to ego,
at least not for modern English-speaking readers who lack the
classical education that was assumed for late nineteenth-century
consumers of philosophy and science. On the other hand, now
a century after Freuds frst English translators turned Ich into
egoeveryone knows what the Latinate ego means in psycho-
analysis.
Many people forget that Strachey was not the frst person to
translate Freud into English; all Freuds previous translatorsA.A.
Brill, Joan Riviere, and othersused ego, as did Freud himself
when writing in English, and Strachey was bound not only by
these precedents but also by the decisions of the Glossary Com-
mittee established by Ernest Jones for the express purpose of de-
THE REVISED STANDARD EDITION 203
ciding such matters. By the time that the Standard Edition was
translated, the Committee had long before determined that ego
would be the offcial English-language psychoanalytical equiva-
lent of Ich.
The translator of Freud today has to bear all of this in mind.
So what, then, is the correct translation of das Ich? To my mind
the only sensible answer to this question is that there is no correct
translation. There are several different ways of going about it,
each of which has advantages and disadvantages. What you gain
on the roundabouts, you must lose on the swings.
For this reason, I have taken the view that all such controver-
sial (as opposed to erroneous) translations should be annotated
and discussed (as opposed to corrected) in the Revised Standard
Edition. This entailed my compiling two very extensive sets of edi-
torial notes. I say very extensive because there are an enormous
number of controversial translations in Stracheys Standard Edi-
tion.
In the case of the technical terms, such as the example of
das Ich (there are more than sixty equivalent cases), I have pro-
vided a lengthy discussion of the history of the translation of the
term, in the English language in general and in English-language
psychoanalysis in particular, followed by a review of the criticisms
in the secondary literature of Stracheys choices (including un-
published criticisms in Stracheys correspondences and in letters
sent to me in my capacity as his successor by colleagues around
the world), followed by a reminder of Stracheys counterargu-
ments, followed by a survey of all the alternative translations that
have been suggested. These discussions are collected in the 24th
volume, in the form of endnotes that are referenced upon the
frst use of each of the technical terms in question, in the individ-
ual Freud works. I hope this will inform readers of the RSE suff-
ciently to make them understand, if not actually sympathize with,
my view that there is no simple, correct way to translate technical
terms from one language into another.
The second set of such editorial endnotes, also collected in
the 24th volume, pertain not to general technical terms but rath-
er to specifc words or phrases or to sentences or titles of individ-
ual works, such as, for example, where id was there shall ego be
204 MARK SOLMS
(for wo Es war, soll Ich werden) and Civilization and Its Discon-
tents (for Das Unbehagen in die Kultur). These notes are of course
referenced at the specifc places in which these particular word-
ings are found. Here, too, I have provided the reader with a re-
view of the criticisms, defenses, precedents, and alternatives that
have been suggested in the secondary literature and in selected
unpublished correspondences.
I am aware that the decision not to correct Stracheys trans-
lations in respect of technical terms and other controversial
words, phrases, and titles will bring a barrage of criticisms upon
my head. Having thoroughly considered the alternatives, howev-
er, I am reconciled to my fate.
This is perhaps the best place to mention that I, no less than
Strachey, was not given an entirely free hand in my editorial role.
The decision to produce a revised Standard Edition was made by
the Institute of Psychoanalysis in London (the intellectual custo-
dian and legal owner of the Strachey translation) in 1991. When I
frst began contributing to the planned revision, which was then
under the editorship of Albert Dickson, I was still a candidate in
training. I was initially asked only to undertake the translation of
some previously unknown Freud works that had come to light af-
ter Stracheys death. These requests came from the Revised Stan-
dard Edition Sub-Committee of the Publications Committee of
the Institute, under the Chairmanship of Pearl King. Needless to
say, given my junior status, these commissions came with instruc-
tions, including the instruction that I should craft the translations
in the style of James Strachey, using his technical vocabulary. This
directive was due to the fact that the Sub-Committee had already
come to the view articulated earlier, namely, that there could be
no question of a more correct translation in respect of the techni-
cal terms. Fortunately, in this case, I agreed with them. But just to
complicate things, I should mention that my own analyst (Clifford
Yorke) was a member of that Sub-Committee!
Gradually, as the depth of the revision envisaged by the Sub-
Committee grew, it became apparent that Albert Dickson was not
the best person for the job. His experience was that of a copyedi-
tor at The International Journal (and Review) of Psychoanalysis. His
other qualifcation was that he had been a close friend and col-
THE REVISED STANDARD EDITION 205
laborator of Angela Richards, Stracheys editorial assistant. But he
was not a psychoanalyst, and nor was he a Freud scholar. As the
scholarly component of the task grew, therefore, so it became in-
creasingly clear that he was out of his depth. Accordingly, his rela-
tionship with the Sub-Committee deteriorated, so much so that
communication between them eventually broke down complete-
ly. At that point, Dickson went so far as to submit the entire manu-
script of the RSE to the publishers, who duly produced a full set of
proofs (23 volumes worth), without the Institute knowing any-
thing about it!
As it now turns out, he had submitted the manuscript about
twenty years too early. That premature submission, and perhaps
the fact that I had qualifed in the interim, was the turning point
for the Sub-Committee. I was appointed in Dicksons place. But
psychoanalytic institutes being what they are, few analysts will be
surprised to hear that I still had plenty of problems to contend
with. My problems revolved mainly around my analyst. That is to
say, my problems were political. Clifford Yorke was an old-school
Freudian who had been very close to Anna Freudso close, in
fact, that she appointed him as her successor, as director of the
Hampstead Clinic (now the Anna Freud Centre). His classical
Freudian leanings in what was effectively a Kleinian psychoanalyti-
cal society, and his anointment by Anna Freud, earned him pow-
erful enemies and more than a little jealousy, including from
some members of the Publications Committee and its Sub-
Committee. My initial few months as editor therefore entailed a
trial by fre, as I gained my frst experience of the lengths to which
some individuals will go to prevent an enemy (or an enemys anal-
ysand) from achieving success, even if the fnancial viability and
intellectual integrity of an entire institution depends on it.
Next (and in complicated conjunctions with these attacks) I
had to contend with a legal minefeld that had been created by
Freuds laissez-faire attitude to matters of copyright. This was exac-
erbated further by a historic falling-out between the Institute and
Stracheys widow, Alix, in the1960s, which had resulted in an ex-
tremely complex contractual position between the Institute, Sig-
mund Freud Copyrights, the estate of Angela Richards, and the
Hogarth Press (which had since been absorbed into Chatto &
206 MARK SOLMS
Windus, which was itself then absorbed into Random House), not
to mention further complications later introducedwith perfect-
ly good and proper intentionsby Fischer Verlag, the holders of
Freuds copyright in the original German. The less said about all
this the better, perhaps, except to add that we had also to deal
with Penguin Books, whowith the help of Adam Philipstook
breathtaking advantage of a legal loophole created by the stan-
dardization of copyright law in the EU. They published a rival
translation under the pretext that it had always been their inten-
tion to do so when the Freud copyright expired in England (as
was due to happen in 1996, before it was extended by the Euro-
pean Union), notwithstanding the fact that they had just prior to
1996 attempted unsuccessfully to obtain the rights from the Insti-
tute and Random House to my RSE translation. How ironic that
Penguin Books was subsequently bought out by Random House.
The bottom line is that the fact that it took me over 20 years
to complete the RSE, from the date that the task was formally
transferred to me, was not due only to the straightforward schol-
arly demands of the task. But let me return to my description of
the scholarly task.
I have said already that the revision consisted in a correction
of all unequivocal errors in the Strachey translation. I have said
also that I composed extensive editorial commentaries on his con-
troversial as opposed to erroneous translations. What I need to
add is that there are of course many borderline cases that straddle
the distinction I am drawing here between the erroneous and the
controversial. Certainly the most important instance of this type is
the translation of the technical term Trieb. Strachey translated
this word as instinct. That choice presents many problems, not
least of them being the fact that there is a German word for in-
stinct, namely Instinkt, and that the Anglo-American word
drive is barely distinguishable from the German Trieb. Strachey
gave cogent reasons for his decision in this regard, but in some
important respects the linguistic and scientifc situation has
changed since he gave them: namely, drive as a noun is now ac-
ceptable English usage, and instinct has a far more specifc de-
notation in current biology than it did in Stracheys day. On the
other hand, the word drive is nowadays used in a narrower sci-
THE REVISED STANDARD EDITION 207
entifc sense than Freud probably intended. I resolved the dilem-
ma by translating Trieb as drive throughout the RSE (i.e., treat-
ing instinct as an erroneous translation) and also including it in
the list of endnote commentaries in the 24th volume (i.e., also
treating it as a controversial translation).
I have dealt with other borderline cases differently. For ex-
ample, Strachey translated Freuds concept of Nachtrglichkeit
and its cognates by a wide range of English equivalents, such as
deferred action, in a deferred fashion, deferred effect, af-
ter-effect, subsequently, belatedly, in arrears and later.
This was due to the fact that the German root Nachtrag glides
into a variety of compounds in a way that no single English word
ever could. In this instance my solution was to retain the necessary
variety of English words that Strachey had recourse to, but also to
place the German equivalent in square brackets in each case, so
that the reader is at least made aware that this plethora derives
from a single, underlying Freudian concept.
I have mentioned already that my role in the RSE began with
a series of commissions of fresh translations (in Stracheys style)
of Freud works that had come to light since the publication of the
original SE. I should add that there turned out to be a surprisingly
large number of these: over forty in all, including some very im-
portant ones. Foremost among these are undoubtedly the lost
metapsychological paper on the phylogeny of neurosis, and the
recently discovered original manuscript of Freuds contributions
to William Bullitts highly controversial psychobiography of
Woodrow Wilson (the published version was massively altered by
Bullitt). But also of great interest are several shorter works, in-
cluding some timely unpublished commentaries by Freud on the
question of whether or not homosexuality should be considered
pathological, and whether homosexuals are suited to psychoana-
lytic training. The same applies to a suppressed portion of The
Question of Lay Analysis, where Freud gave vent to his embar-
rassing views about America.
The latter items touch on the question whether the RSE
should include only published works of Freud. After much consid-
eration it was decided that I should follow Stracheys lead and
include only unpublished writings of the most outstanding im-
208 MARK SOLMS
portance (such as the Project for a Scientifc Psychology). There is
undoubtedly a loss in this decision, however, as many conceptual
clarifcations are contained in Freuds voluminous correspon-
dences with his closest colleagues, such as Abraham, Ferenczi,
Jones, Jung, and Anna Freud.
Mention of the Project introduces the question as to wheth-
er the RSE should exclude not only Freuds unpublished works
but also his published pre-analytic, neuroscientifc works. The
policy I decided to follow in this respect was to retain Stracheys
division of Freuds oeuvres into the two periods (pre-analytic
and analytic) and to replicate his inclusion of some transitional
pre-analytical works in the Complete Psychological Works, while si-
multaneously supplementing the complete psychological works
with a companion edition of the Complete Neuroscientifc Works of
Sigmund Freud (in four volumes) in which the same transitional
works appear again. This makes it possible for English-speak-
ing readers to purchase only the Complete Psychological Works if
that is all that interests them, while also making the Complete
Neuroscientifc Works available in English translation for the frst
time.
Unfortunately, I expect that the Neuroscientifc Works (NSW)
will appear in print somewhat later than the RSE, so as not to arti-
fcially delay the latter while I put the fnishing touches to the
former. This is ironical, considering that I was in fact well ad-
vanced with my translation of Freuds complete neuroscientifc
writings when I was asked to take over the editorship of the RSE.
In other words, the RSE has delayed the appearance of the NSW
(by about 25 years), not the other way round, even if I do now
publish them simultaneously.
My work on the RSE entails two other major revisions, in ad-
dition to the revision of the translations themselves and of the in-
dexing, already mentioned.
I am referring, frst of all, to the revision of Stracheys edito-
rial introductions and footnotes. These required very extensive
updating, for the obvious reason that Freud scholarship has ad-
vanced enormously since Stracheys death, almost half a century
ago. There were, however, many tricky decisions to be made in
THE REVISED STANDARD EDITION 209
terms of what to include and what to politely ignore. Much of
what goes under the heading of Freud scholarship entails highly
controversial conclusions. How is one to deal, for example, with
the revelations of Peter Swales and Jeffrey Masson? Even such ap-
parently innocuous questions as whether or not to identify
Freuds patients by their real names raised some awkward edito-
rial problems. On the one hand, it seems silly not to acknowledge
that, say, Anna O has been widely identifed as Bertha Pappen-
heim, or that Sergei Pankjeff has identifed himself as Freuds
Wolf Man. On the other hand, is it not a dangerous precedent
to forgo the absolute rule of patient confdentiality and anonym-
ity, perhaps especially in the authorized edition of Freuds com-
plete works? If the precedent is established that it is acceptable to
identify an analytic patient by name if their analyst becomes very
famous, or if a suffcient amount of public interest attaches to
them, then does that not render analysis impossible? I for one
would not be willing to obey the fundamental rule under those
conditions.
The last aspect of the editorial apparatus that required exten-
sive revision and updating was the Freud bibliography. It might
sound absurd to say that Freuds bibliography continues to grow
every year, even to this day, but grow and grow it does. It is true
that most of the additions are trivial items, published in the cata-
logues of auction houses and the like, but embedded within and
between these bits of Freudiana are many newly discovered arti-
cles (mainly reviews) and letters of considerable importance. Un-
til now, English-speaking readers have been unaware of many of
these gems, for the reason that no updated Freud bibliography
exists in English. Now it will, at least as far as things stood by the
end of 2011. The resultant bibliography is about four times lon-
ger than the original one in Stracheys edition, and it will become
the new offcial version (with altered enumeration of many of
Freuds publications).
The RSE should be on the bookshelves in early 2014, barring
(yet more) major complications. The NSW will follow hot on its
heels, and should be available by 2015 or so. As I said earlier, I
know that the appearance of these works will bring a barrage of
210 MARK SOLMS
criticisms upon my head. But there is nothing to be done about
that. There is no correct way to translate Freud, and I am recon-
ciled to my fate. Bis dann.
Department of Psychology The Psychoanalytic Review
University of Cape Town Vol. 100, No. 1, February 2013
Private Bag
Rondebosch 7701
E-mail: mark.solms@uct.ac.za