Page:The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis III 1922 1.djvu/137

 REPORTS 129

Dr. I. Hermann believes that the libidioal cathexis of the larynx is just as inadequate to explain musical tone production as the genitalisation of the hand in the cases, here reported, of two draughtsmen could indicate why drawing and no other form of artistic expression performed by the hand was developed in their case; not to mention the fact that it would be impossible to estab- lish artistic canons of drawing from this piece of investigation. Musical tone production on the other hand is subject to many artistic canons. He condemns the uncritical generalisation of the libidinai cathexis of the sphincter and finally propounds the ques- tion whether the speaker's assumption according to which song production is found in the animal world where the period of rutting occurs seasonally may not be interpreted in another way, namely, that both manifestations are subject to the primary function of periodicity.

Dr. S. Ferenczi points to the fact that this evolutionary con- ception of the genesis of musical sound (which is, moreover, an offshoot of the phylogeny of genital development in the animal- world already reported on in a cursory manner in the Hungarian Society and which he hopes to be able soon to examine at length) brings up many interesting and original ideas. The most valuable and plausible seems to be repetition of the narcissistic and object- phase in the producdon of musical sound. This is, however, equally true for the simple phonetic expressions and it would imply that a special explanation is required for that which produces the art- istic impres.sion. He thinks that the phylogenetic characterisation of the specifically artistic element cannot be arrived at before the erotic is not separated psychologically from other kinds of psy- chic emotions; and then he tells what historic, that is evolutionary, opinion he was forced to adopt. He considers the Aict\im ' i'ari pour I'arf as a 'functional' modification of an Art originally always filled with psychic content. He defends the speaker against the accusation of having erred in method and points to the fact that Freud, as well, was able to explain problems of individual psychology (suggestion and hypnosis) with the help of group psych- ology. On the other hand Pfeifer omits entirely the causation based on the individual psycho-analytical factors. Finally Ferenczi says that narcissism, the accumulation of organ libido in certain parts of the body, might be at work as an important factor not only in the formation of sound-producing organs, but also in every

.V'