Retranslating fetishism

Freud's extremely interesting 1927 essay on fetishism becomes even more interesting (as usual) when you look at the German. Unable to contain myself, here are the first few paragraphs in which I've tried to bring the German much more into the English edition (which I use as a basis):

In the last few years I have had an opportunity of studying in analysis a number of men whose object-choice was dominated [beherrscht] by a fetish. One doesn't need to presume that these people came to analysis on account of their fetish, for though is recognized [erkannt] by its adherents as an abnormality, it is seldom felt as a symptom that one suffers from [ein Leidenssymptom]. Usually they are pretty happy about it, or even praise how it eases their erotic life. So as a rule the fetish plays the role of a lesser-order phenomenon [eines Nebenbefundes].
The details of these cases have to be withheld from publication for obvious reasons. So I cannot show in what way chance circumstances [zufällige Umstände] have contributed to the choice of a fetish. Most out of the ordinary seemed to be a case in which a young man had exalted into a fetishistic requirement a certain "shine upon the nose." The unexpected explanation of this was that the patient had been brought up in an English nursery [eine englische Kinderstube gehabt hatte], but then had later come to Germany, where he almost fully forgot his mother-tongue [Muttersprache]. The fetish, which came from his first years as a child [ersten Kinderzeiten], could not be read in German, but in English, as the "shine upon the nose" [in German "Glanz auf der Nase"] was really a "glance upon the nose" ["Blick auf die Nase"] (glance = Blick). So the nose was the fetish, which, incidentally, he lent at his discretion that special bright shine [Glanzlicht], which others could not apprehend [Wahrnehmen].
The information which analysis gave of the sense or purpose of the fetish was in all cases the same. It was given so unforcedly [ungezwungen] and appeared to me so forceful [zwingend], that I am ready to expect the same solution for all cases of fetishism. When now I confess that the fetish is a substitute for the penis [ein Penisersatz], I'm sure to create disappointment. So I hasten to add that not a substitute for any old penis, but for a specific, very special penis, which had a great meaning in the early years of childhood but got lost later. That is, it should normally be forsaken, but the fetish is specifically made to protect it from downfall. To put it more clearly, the fetish is the substitute for the penis of the woman (the mother), that the little boy believed in and--we know why--will not foreswear.
So what happened was that the boy refused to grasp [nehmen] his knowledge of the fact that he apprehends [Wahrnehmung] that the woman does not possess a penis. No, that can't be true, because if the woman was castrated, then his own penis was threatened, and against this there rose in rebellion [dagegen sträubt sich] that part of his narcissism with which nature has precisely equipped this organ as a precaution. A similar panic will perhaps later be experienced by the grownup, if the cry goes up that throne and altar are in danger, and will be led into similar illogical consequences...

It is not correct that, after the child has made his observation of the woman, he has saved unchanged his belief that women have a phallus. He has preserved that belief, but also given it up. In the conflict between the weight of the unwished-for [unerwünschten] apprehension [Wahrnehmung] and the strength of his counter-wish [Gegenwunsches] a compromise has come, as is only possible under the dominance of unconscious rules of thought [unbewußten Denkgesetze]--the primary processes. Yes, the woman in his psyche has a penis still, but this penis is not the same as it was before...

(More, perhaps, in the future)