I am happy to propose to our readers a fourth monographic issue of the International Forum of Psychoanalysis on the topic “German themes in psychoanalysis,” a topic whose treatment I inaugurated in 2013. That was Issue 4/2013, which contained the following authors and articles: W. Bohleber on the history and profile of the journal Psyche. Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse; H. Stroeken on the dramatic fate of German-Jewish refugee psychoanalysts in the Netherlands ; U. May on Freud’s “Beyond the pleasure principle”; H.-J. Wirth on the militant and peaceful use of nuclear power; an interview with H. Kächele conducted by me, M. Conci, together with I. Erhardt; and my report on the XVIIth IFPS Forum in Mexico City in October 2012. In the second monographic issue, 2/2015, I was able to include the following authors and articles: M. Ermann on the history and profile of the journal Forum der Psychoanalyse; I. Kogan on psychic holes and psychic representations; S. Zepf on Freud’s concept of conversion; M. Buchholz on the concept of psychic growth as a reconciliation of conflicts; H. Kächele, I. Erhardt, C. Seybert, and M. Buchholz on countertransference as an object of empirical research ; and H. Thomä on a utopian vision of the future of the IPA. The third part came out as Issue 1/2018 and centered around the following authors and contributions: an interview with M. Ermann made by M. Conci; H. Will on the German 50-minute hour; M. Conci on his analytic work in Munich with Italian patients; a report by L. Gast on the Berlin International Psychoanalytic University; an analysis by R. Lazar of the history of post-war German psychoanalysis; a paper by G. Hristeva and P. Bennet on W. Reich in Soviet Russia; and a review by H. Lothane of the issue of Psychoanalyse. Texte zur Sozialforschung in honor of B. Nitzschke. Since at least the publication of Edith Kurzweil’s (1926–2016) book The Freudians. A comparative perspective (1989), we have been familiar with the complex relationship between the international and multiple roots of psychoanalysis and the ways in which it has been received, assimilated, and further developed in the individual countries of the world. Having worked in Munich as a Kassenpsychoanalytiker since 1999, after having originally trained at the Milan IFPS institute founded in the 1970s by Gaetano Benedetti (1920–2013) and Johannes Cremerius (1918-2002), and having later become a member of both the German and the Italian Psychoanalytic Societies, and the IPA, I have chosen to publish this series of monographic issues in order to bring our readers into contact with the specific aspects of the German analytic landscape. As I showed in the previous issues, specific areas such as, for example, the historical and empirical research done in Germany in the field of psychoanalysis are so good that they deserve to be more internationally known than they still are. For one thing, German colleagues in contact with the international analytic community still find it more important to cultivate and stress what they have in common with their foreign colleagues than to tell them about the specific aspects I have just mentioned and, furthermore, about how they really work with their patients, in the context of the German Kassensystem – about which the international analytic community would certainly like to know more. This is probably one of the reasons why they seem not to dare to better develop and talk about a “German school of psychoanalysis,” as Edith Kurzweil tried to do in her book. My Italian colleagues, after elaborating a series of analytic concepts typical of our tradition (for example, the analytic field concept), were eventually able to come so far, as they documented with the publication of the anthology Reading Italian psychoanalysis (Borgogno, Luchetti, & Marino Coe, 2016). The specific lines of development and the specific contributions of French psychoanalysis had already been documented in 2010 in the volume Reading French psychoanalysis (Borgogno, Luchetti, & Marino Coe, 2010). And what about German psychoanalysis? From this point of view, the fourth of the monographic issues I have edited also represents my personal stimulus in this direction. A direction that still evokes in the most conscientious of our

中文翻译：

---

精神分析中的德国主题。第四部分

我很高兴向我们的读者推荐国际精神分析论坛的第四期专着，主题是“精神分析中的德国主题”，这是我在 2013 年开始处理的主题。那是第 4/2013 期，其中包含以下作者和文章：W. Bohleber 关于 Psyche 杂志的历史和简介。Zeitschrift für Psychoanalysis; H. Stroeken 谈德国犹太难民精神分析学家在荷兰的戏剧性命运；U. May 论弗洛伊德的“超越快乐原则”；H.-J。Wirth 论军事与和平利用核能；由我 M. Conci 和 I. Erhardt 对 H. Kächele 进行的采访；以及我在 2012 年 10 月在墨西哥城举行的第十七届 IFPS 论坛上的报告。在第二期专着 2/2015 中，我能够收录以下作者和文章：M. Ermann 谈《精神分析论坛》杂志的历史和概况；I. Kogan 关于通灵洞和通灵表征；S. Zepf 谈弗洛伊德的转换概念；M. Buchholz 关于心理成长的概念作为冲突的和解；H. Kächele、I. Erhardt、C. Seybert 和 M. Buchholz 将反移情作为实证研究的对象；和 H. Thomä 关于 IPA 未来的乌托邦式愿景。第三部分作为第 1/2018 期出版，主要围绕以下作者和贡献：M. Conci 对 M. Ermann 的采访；H. 将上德语 50 分钟小时；M. Conci 关于他在慕尼黑与意大利患者的分析工作；L. Gast 关于柏林国际精神分析大学的报告；R. Lazar 对战后德国精神分析史的分析；G. Hristeva 和 P. Bennet on W. Reich 在苏俄；以及 H. Lothane 对心理分析问题的评论。Texte zur Sozialforschung 以纪念 B. Nitzschke。至少从伊迪丝·库兹韦尔 (Edith Kurzweil)（1926-2016 年）的著作《弗洛伊德派》出版以来。从比较的角度（1989），我们已经熟悉了精神分析的国际和多重根源之间的复杂关系，以及它在世界各个国家被接受、吸收和进一步发展的方式。自 1999 年以来一直在慕尼黑担任 Kassenpsychoanalytiker，最初在米兰 IFPS 研究所接受培训，该研究所由 Gaetano Benedetti (1920-2013) 和 Johannes Cremerius (1918-2002) 创立于 1970 年代，后来成为德国意大利精神分析学会和 IPA，我选择出版这一系列专着是为了让我们的读者接触到德国分析领域的具体方面。正如我在前几期中所展示的那样，特定领域，例如，德国在精神分析领域所做的历史和实证研究非常出色，以至于它们应该比现在更广为人知。一方面，与国际分析界接触的德国同事仍然发现，培养和强调他们与外国同事的共同点比告诉他们我刚才提到的具体方面，以及他们如何真正与他们的患者一起工作，在德国 Kassensystem 的背景下——国际分析界肯定想了解更多。这可能是他们似乎不敢更好地发展和谈论“德国精神分析学派”的原因之一，正如伊迪丝·库兹韦尔在她的书中试图做的那样。我的意大利同事在阐述了一系列典型的我们传统的分析概念（例如，分析场概念）之后，最终能够走到这一步，正如他们在意大利精神分析选集的出版中所记录的那样（Borgogno, Luchetti, ＆马里诺科，2016）。法国精神分析的具体发展路线和具体贡献已在 2010 年的《阅读法国精神分析》一书中进行了记录（Borgogno、Luchetti 和 Marino Coe，2010 年）。那么德国的精神分析呢？从这个角度来看，我编辑的第四期专着也代表了我个人在这个方向上的刺激。一个仍然在我们最认真的人中唤起的方向