Chapter XVII.

       Artificial Systems.

       Table of Content

      Treating of the many artificial systems of memory training which have been offered the public in all ages and among all people, showing the general nature of the principal systems, and calling attention to their weak points—The history of these systems takes the reader back to the time of Simonides, 500 b. c., and shows how the old systems are dressed up and offered as new systems by their “discoverers”—This chapter will prove interesting to those who like to go back to the root of things, and then follow up the development of the subject—The reading of this chapter will enable the reader to understand the claims of many of the widely advertised systems, and will show him that there is “nothing new under the sun” so far as “patent” systems of memorizing are concerned.

      FOR OVER two thousand years there have been numerous “methods” of memorizing urged by their several promoters and followers, many of which systems were for a time quite popular and which brought to their promoters much publicity and wealth. These methods, artificial in theory and strained in practice, bear a striking resemblance to each other, in spite of the fact that they originated in countries far distant from each other, and that they are separated by centuries of time. They are all based upon the laws of Association, Resemblance, Contiguity, Contrast, etc., which have been touched upon in several chapters of this book. Some of these systems are very clever, and their followers have often been able to memorize a great variety of things, the result being apparently wonderful until one is informed of the method and takes a peep behind the scenes. Anyone can commit things to memory by even a slight acquaintance with the principles underlying these systems, but the result is in the end unsatisfactory, as the systems are artificial and, notwithstanding the claims of their promoters, more or less like the “trick methods.” They may aid in the memorizing of special things, but they do not strengthen or develop the memory as a whole, and in the end are apt to confuse and bewilder the mind and render weak the ordinary faculties of memory. Most of these systems have “chains,” “links,”

      “posts” etc., by which the thing to be memorized is connected with some other thing. This works for a while, and then the student finds it harder to remember the connecting links than to remember the thing itself; or he finds his attention so much taken up with the links that he forgets the original fact.

      The first “artificial” system of memorizing, or mnemonics, originated with Simonides, the Grecian poet, who lived about 500 b. c. The poet was invited to a banquet at which he read a poem. Before the conclusion of the feast he was called for by a messenger, and regretfully left the hall. Scarcely had he stepped over the threshold when the roof fell in and the walls collapsed, killing the giver of the feast and all his guests. The bodies were so badly mutilated that it was utterly impossible to identify them, and the relatives and friends became most anxious about the matter, manifesting great grief. Simonides then came to the rescue, relating that he had noticed where each person had been seated, and that he distinctly remembered the same. He drew a plan of the hall, marking the position of each guest, and, as the bodies were still in the same position, they were identified by his chart. Upon this occurrence is believed to rest the responsibility for the numerous systems of memorizing generally grouped under the term “Mnemonics.”

      Shortly after the above mentioned occurrence, Simonides invented a system of artificial memory, which met with very great success among the Greeks. He based his system upon the idea of the seating of the guests at the banquet. His system taught the pupil to form a mental picture of a building, divided and subdivided into apartments, corridors, ante­chambers, etc. These apartments, etc., were thoroughly committed to memory, and other things which the pupil desired to memorize were associated with them. Each apartment was numbered, and in it was stored the memory of some special thing, or part of a subject. Then the next room was filled, and so on. When the pupil wished to recall the objects or subjects memorized, he would go mentally from room to room, calling to mind the contents of each in turn. An enlargement of this idea, called for the building of another house, then a whole street, etc. Some modern advocates of this system bid their pupils commit to memory the location of the furniture in their parlors, and then connect with these articles the things to be memorized, passing from the table to the chair, from chair to vases, etc. Simonides’ system was afterward developed in Rome by Metrodorus, and has formed the base of innumerable systems in ancient or modern times, each promoter adding something to it, or altering it in some particular, and then announcing that he had “discovered” a new system. These “discoveries” are likely to be made for centuries to come.

      Several hundred years ago Conrad Celtes promoted a system which achieved much success, and which was practically a modification of Simonides’ plan, except that letters of the alphabet were used instead of the apartments of the Greek poet’s system. Toward the end of the sixteenth century Thomas Watson, an English poet, advanced a system similar to the one above mentioned, except that he used a mental wall instead of the apartments or letters, his wall being subdivided into numerous spaces appropriately numbered. Schenkel, a German, also taught a variation of this same system, and came very near being executed as a sorcerer by reason thereof. He made a great deal of money teaching his system, until it was exposed by one of his pupils in 1619.

      In 1648 Stanislus Winckelmann made a new departure in mnemonics, which has also been used as the basis of innumerable systems since that time. Although he used, in part, a modified form of Simonides’ system, he went further, and originated what is now called the “figure alphabet.” Each subsequent “discoverer” has used a different “figure alphabet,” but for the purpose the original one is here reproduced:

      WINKLEMAN’S FIGURE ALPHABET.