[*] Reserved for publication.

DISCUSSION

DR. JOHN T. MACCURDY, New York: I have been very much interested in this paper by Dr. Emerson and the part that has interested me most in it has been the therapeutic side. I cannot feel, however, that it adds a great deal to our knowledge of epilepsy, that is, of idiopathic epilepsy. That, of course, is a tremendously difficult problem to tackle. If we are to regard it as a psychosis then we expect it to show other reactions, just as dementia praecox shows manic depressive symptoms. If we are to find out what the epileptic reaction is, we must study it in those who are typically epileptic and nothing else. Or else we may examine those with transitional states grading over into hysteria, for example, excluding from our formulations everything in them that is hysteric. This last case which Dr. Emerson brought forward seemed to me to represent what is essentially an hysteric reaction. The convulsive movements this man went through were symbolic. It is difficult to regard these movements in epilepsy as symbolic because in the true epileptic there is as typical unconsciousness as we know. How can anything going on in almost absolute unconsciousness represent something symbolic to the individual? This is possible however, when the condition grades off from the hysteric side into the epileptic. The fundamental epileptic phenomenon is the disturbance of consciousness, and that is what must be explained.

DR. TOM A. WILLIAMS, Washington, D. C.: I don't know that we can say that the fundamental differentiation of epilepsy is the unconsciousness. That is a psychological division. The paper did not give any differential why they were regarded as epileptics at all. There was no description of the convulsion, except in so far as this formed the hysteric form of convulsion, so I don't think we are in a position to discuss the paper without more clear data of these instances.

DR. WALTER B. SWIFT, Boston: I was interested in hearing about the case of stammering. That will be explained in my own paper and I have also run up against several who have done the same. I should like to ask Dr. Emerson if he considers stammering as an expression of an orgasm.

DR. L. E. EMERSON, Boston: Dr. MacCurdy well remarked that this adds nothing to the understanding of epilepsy. In a certain sense this is true. I do not feel that I could add anything to a deeper understanding of epilepsy. The whole development of psycho-analytic theory, up to a certain point, has been based on the actual recovery of patients, if you do not like the use of the word cure, from particular symptoms. Then this has been generalized. Now that has opened an enormous field for ratiocination. Therefore, I am not at all sure that these conceptions will really apply to essential epilepsies or to the real epilepsies. I do not know how far our conceptions which originate in the therapeutic situation will apply to the situation which appears to be absolutely beyond therapeutics. In regard to what Dr. White said of starting from the known and going through transitional stages to the unknown, you do get insight and it may be that the condition as described in this broad way by Clark and by Stekel and others may be true, but I am not perfectly sure. I am very grateful for Dr. Allen's approval of this way of putting things because perhaps it is a defence reaction on my own part that occasionally I feel it necessary to report things I have seen with my own eyes and really experienced, instead of following my natural tendency to go off into vague philosophizing.

REVIEWS

PSYCHOLOGY IN DAILY LIFE. By Carl Emil Seashore. 1914, XVIII plus 226 pp.,
N. Y., D. Appleton & Co.

This is the first volume of the "Conduct of Mind" series, the purpose of which, as stated by its editor, Professor Joseph Jastrow, in his introduction to the series, is "to provide readily intelligible surveys of selected aspects of the study of mind and its applications." The present work contains seven chapters, which were originally prepared as "semi-popular addresses." As a consequence, the book lacks somewhat in coherence, but, except in a few places, the emphasis is practical throughout. It is perhaps not surprising that the most subtle and modern part of the discussion, viz. the chapter on "Mental Law" should be the least practical in its bearing.

In the first chapter is discussed the practical importance of "Play," not only in offering the opportunity for sensory, central, and motor development in the child, but for releasing the broader life energies of the adult whose mind is confined by specializing work. It is shown that the fundamental motives of the play life are to be found in religion.