In order to embark on this research journey, I want to begin with the seminal work on memory—Frances Yates’ "The Art of Memory," which was selected as one of Modern Library’s 100 Best Nonfiction Books of the Twentieth Century.
The book was published in 1966, followed by its second paperback printing in 1974 (the year I was born…what a coincidence, right?)
The first chapter of Yates’ book presents the three classical Latin texts about memory: Cicero’s "De oratore," the anonymous "Ad C. Herennium libri IV," and Quintilian's "Institutio oratoria".
The first chapter of Yates’ book presents the three classical Latin texts about memory: Cicero’s "De oratore," the anonymous "Ad C. Herennium libri IV," and Quintilian's "Institutio oratoria".
At the beginning of her chapter, Yates describes how the art of memory was said to have been invented by the poet Simonides, who recited a poem of honor as a guest at a banquet hosted by Scopas, the nobleman of Thessaly. As a compensation, Scopas paid Simonides half of his fee because the other half was to be paid by Castor and Pollux, two other individuals praised in his tribute poem.
After reciting the poem, and meanwhile the banquet was being held, the poet was asked to see two young men outside the banquet. When outside, Simonides found there was no one outside. At that moment, the roof of the banquet caved in, which crushed all of the banquet's guests. When attempting to identify the bodies crushed by the roof, Simonides used his memory from the seating arrangement of all guests in order to identify all the bodies. From this incident, Simonides realized that "orderly arrangement" was "essential for good memory" (Yates 1-2).
Afterward, places (loci) and images (imagines) served as a “wax writing tablet and engraved letters” (Yates 2).
Being the first paragraph of her book about the art of memory, Yates could not have chosen a better tale about the invention of mnemotechnics that, without a doubt, proves memorable to readers. The tale is simple, yet utterly grotesque in that Simonides identifies crushe d bodies based on the seating arrangement that he memorized based on loci and images. It is amazing how the tale itself is a product of mnemotechnics since it presents such a memorable tragedy from a simple situation. So, it is completely acceptable to deem this story a "gothic" one which I figure would appeal to audiences during the Middle Ages.
After re-telling the tale, Yates states:
"The first basic fact which the student of the history of the classical art of memory must remember is that the art belonged to rhetoric as a technique by which the orator could improve his memory, which would enable him to deliver long speeches from memory with unfailing accuracy. And it was as a part of the art of rhetoric that the art of memory travelled [sic] down through the European tradition in which it was never forgotten, or not forgotten until comparatively modern times, that those infallible guides in all human activities, the ancients, had laid down rules and precepts for improving the memory" (2).
So, the "classical art of memory" is rooted in the rhetoric and ancient rhetoricians, most likely Greek rhetoricians, laid the foundations.
Being the first paragraph of her book about the art of memory, Yates could not have chosen a better tale about the invention of mnemotechnics that, without a doubt, proves memorable to readers. The tale is simple, yet utterly grotesque in that Simonides identifies crushe d bodies based on the seating arrangement that he memorized based on loci and images. It is amazing how the tale itself is a product of mnemotechnics since it presents such a memorable tragedy from a simple situation. So, it is completely acceptable to deem this story a "gothic" one which I figure would appeal to audiences during the Middle Ages.
After re-telling the tale, Yates states:
"The first basic fact which the student of the history of the classical art of memory must remember is that the art belonged to rhetoric as a technique by which the orator could improve his memory, which would enable him to deliver long speeches from memory with unfailing accuracy. And it was as a part of the art of rhetoric that the art of memory travelled [sic] down through the European tradition in which it was never forgotten, or not forgotten until comparatively modern times, that those infallible guides in all human activities, the ancients, had laid down rules and precepts for improving the memory" (2).
So, the "classical art of memory" is rooted in the rhetoric and ancient rhetoricians, most likely Greek rhetoricians, laid the foundations.
Afterward, Yates presents “the general principles of the mnemonic”:
"The first step was to imprint on the memory a series of loci or places. The commonest, though not the only, type of mnemonic place system used was the architectural type. The clearest description of the process is that given by Quintilian. In order to form a series of places in memory, he says, a building is to be remembered, as spacious and varied a one as possible, the forecourt, the living room, bedrooms, and parlours, not omitting statues and other orna ments with which the rooms are decorated. The images by which the speech is to be remembered --as an example of these Quintilian says one may use an anchor or a weapon--are then placed in imagination on the places which have been memorised [sic] in the building. This done, as soon as the memory of the facts requires to be revived, all these places are vitied in turn and the various deposits demanded of their custodians" (3)
So, in other words, the mnemonic involved architecture, space and a memorable object, such as a weapon. Simple enough to modern readers, right? She adds:
"The first step was to imprint on the memory a series of loci or places. The commonest, though not the only, type of mnemonic place system used was the architectural type. The clearest description of the process is that given by Quintilian. In order to form a series of places in memory, he says, a building is to be remembered, as spacious and varied a one as possible, the forecourt, the living room, bedrooms, and parlours, not omitting statues and other orna ments with which the rooms are decorated. The images by which the speech is to be remembered --as an example of these Quintilian says one may use an anchor or a weapon--are then placed in imagination on the places which have been memorised [sic] in the building. This done, as soon as the memory of the facts requires to be revived, all these places are vitied in turn and the various deposits demanded of their custodians" (3)
So, in other words, the mnemonic involved architecture, space and a memorable object, such as a weapon. Simple enough to modern readers, right? She adds:
"We have to think of the ancient orator as moving in imagination through his memory building whilst he is making his speech, drawing from the memorised [sic] places the images he has placed on them. The method ensures that the points are remembered in the right order, since the order is fixed by the sequence of places in the building" (3).
Here, once again, we can think about the tale of Simonides and how a particular or der which constituted the seating arrangement of the banquet shaped his memory.
Yates adds:
"Cicero emphasises [sic] that Simonides' invention of the art of memory rest, not only on his discovery of the importance of order for memory, but also on the discovery that the sense of sight is the strongest of all the senses" (4)
So then the art of memory privileges sight as the primary sense. Next, my fellow audience, Yates keeps us, her readers, wittingly and historically minded:
"We moderns who have no memories at all may…employ from time to time some private mnemotechnic not of vital importance to us in our lives and professions. But in the ancient world, devoid of printing, without paper for note-taking or on which to type lectures, the trained memory was of vital importance. And the ancient memories were trained by an art which reflected the art and architecture of the ancient world, which could depend on faculties of intense visual memorisation which we have lost" (4).
I find the initial part of this quote humorous but true with regard to the contemporary absence of memory, due large in part to the presence of a textual and technological culture which depends on paper and computers as sites where we imprint our memories instead of in our minds.
Afterward, Yates examines the art of memory as presented by Ad Herennium, which is the basis for my next blog, so stay tuned!
In the meantime, I hope you’ll join me in watching Keanu Reeves’ 1995 Sci-Fi flick “Johnny Mnemonic,” which you can probably rent at your local video store for a dollar or two. Enjoy, my fellow mnemoteknics!
No comments:
Post a Comment