Assimilative Memory - or, How to Attend and Never Forget
by Marcus Dwight Larrowe (AKA Prof. A. Loisette)
1  2  3  4     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE In this plain text version, small capitals have been rendered as ALL CAPS, bold using equals signs and italics usually using underscores. However, the original used italics to highlight certain letters within words where these were intended to help with remembering numbers and dates according to the "Analytic substitution" memory method. For legibility, these have been rendered using {c}u{rl}y {br}ac{k}e{ts}. Some of the numbered lists were originally wrapped together as a paragraph; for legibility some of these have been changed to separate lines. This applies particularly to the lists of questions: these blocks were originally placed like footnotes at the bottom of pages, but here have been moved to an appropriate break in the main text. Some obvious printer errors have been corrected, full details of which can be found in the HTML version of this eBook. The inconsistent hyphenation of several words, and inconsistent use of -ise and -ize spellings, has been left as in the original.









All Rights Reserved

ENTERED AT STATIONER'S HALL, 1896. All Rights Reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.


Prof. A. Loisette wishes to call the attention of those who are now for the first time becoming acquainted with his System of Memory Training, that he was the first teacher of a Memory System to announce and to insist that Memory is not a separate faculty whose office it is to carry the recollective burdens of the other faculties—but that Memory is a Physiological and Psychological property of each mental act, and that such act retains the traces and history of its own action, and that there are as many memories as there are kinds of mental action, and that, therefore, Memory is always concrete, although, for convenience sake, we do speak of it in the abstract, and that consequently all Memory improvement means improvement of the Action or Manner of action of the Mental powers, and that what he imparts is the right way to USE the Intellect and Attention—and that hence his System does make and must make better observers, clearer and more consecutive thinkers, and sounder reasoners as well as surer rememberers; that in short the fundamental principle of his System is Learn by Thinking, and that his achievements as a mind-trainer are completed when he has helped the student of his System to acquire the Habit of Attention and the Habit of Thinking on that to which he is attending on all occasions, which two Habits combined constitute the Habit of Assimilation, and that when this Habit of Assimilation is thus established in the pupil's mind, the System as such is no longer consciously used.




2—BRAIN TONIC; or, The stimulating Power of the Method. 6

3—Educating the Intellect to stay with the senses of Sight and Hearing; or, Cure of Mind Wandering. 15

4—Learning any Series of Proper Names—American Presidents. 25

5—The Unique Case of the English Sovereigns—How to learn their Succession quickly. 31

6—NUMERIC THINKING; or, Learning the longest sets of figures almost instantly. 38

7—DECOMPOSITION OR RECOMPOSITION, AND INTELLECTUAL INQUISITION; or, How to learn Prose and Poetry by heart, with numerous examples, including Poe's Bells. 47

8—ANALYTIC SUBSTITUTIONS; or, A Quick Training in Dates, etc., Dates of the Accession of American Presidents and of the English Kings, Specific Gravities, Rivers, Mountains, Latitudes and Longitudes, etc. 66

9—THOUGHTIVE UNIFICATIONS; or, How to never forget Proper Names, Series of Facts, Faces, Errands, Conversations, Speeches or Lectures, Languages, Foreign Vocabularies, Music, Mathematics, etc., Speaking without notes, Anatomy, and all other Memory wants. 109

10—ACME OF ACQUISITION; or, Learning unconnected facts, rules and principles in the Arts, Sciences, Histories, etc., etc., chapters in books, or books themselves, in one reading or study. 149

11—Learning one hundred facts in the Victorian Era, with dates of year, month, and day of each in one thoughtive perusal. 159



What is the basic principle of my system? It is, Learn by Thinking. What is Attention? It is the will directing the activity of the intellect into some particular channel and keeping it there. It is the opposite of mind-wandering. What is thinking? It consists in finding relations between the objects of thought with an immediate awareness of those relations.

What is the Sensuous memory? It is association through the eye or ear of a succession of sights or sounds without any reflection or consideration of the units of the succession, or what they stand for, or represent. It is learning by rote—mere repetition—mere brainless or thoughtless repetition—a mode of learning that is not lasting—and always causes or promotes mind-wandering.

What is Assimilative memory? It is the habit of so receiving and absorbing impressions or ideas that they or their representatives shall be ready for revival or recall whenever wanted. It is learning through relations—by thinking—from grasping the ideas or thoughts—the meaning and the comprehension of the subject matter. This mode of learning promotes attention and prevents mind-wandering.

What are the two stages of the Memory? Let me illustrate: Last week, month, or year you saw a military procession pass along the streets. Note how your mind was affected. Into your eyes went impressions as to the number composing the procession, their style of costume or dress, the orderliness or otherwise of their march, the shape and form of the musical instruments in the hands of the band, and the appearance of the officer in charge on horseback. Into your ears went impressions of the sound of the tramp and tread of the soldiers, the tune played by the band, and any commands uttered by the officer. These impressions commingling in your brain made up your experience of the passing of the procession—your first and only experience of it at that time. I call this the First Stage of the Memory—the stage of the First Impression, which is always the precursor of the Second Stage.

What is the Second Stage of the Memory? This moment you recall what? Not the procession itself; for it is no longer in existence. You saw and heard it then, but you do not see or hear it now. You only recall the impression left upon your mind by the procession. A ray of Consciousness is passed over that impression and you re-read it, you re-awaken the record. This is the Second Stage of the Memory—the revival of the previous experience—the recall to consciousness of the First Impression. The First Impression with no power to revive it afterward, gives no memory. However great the power of Revival, there is no memory unless there was a First Impression. There are three conditions of memory—(1) Impression. (2) Its Preservation. (3) Its Revival. We are mainly concerned here with the Impression and its Revival.

There are (five) kinds of memories rising from the natural aptitudes of different individuals—(1) First Impressions are apt to be feeble and the power to revive them weak—a poor memory. (2) First Impressions are usually weak but the power to revive them is strong—still a poor memory. (3) First Impressions are usually vivid but the power to revive them is weak—a poor memory. (4) First Impressions on all subjects are strong and the power to revive them is strong—a first-class memory. (5) First Impressions in some particulars are very strong and the reviving power in regard to them is very strong—a good memory for these particulars, or a memory good for mathematics, or music, or faces, or reciting, or languages, &c., but usually weak in most other respects.



The first and principal thing the pupil requires to do in this lesson after learning the definition of the following Three Laws—is to be able to clearly understand the examples under each Law, and whether they verify or illustrate that Law.

I. INCLUSION indicates that there is an overlapping of meaning between two words, or that there is a prominent idea or sound that belongs to both alike, or that a similar fact or property belongs to two events or things as, to enumerate a few classes:—

WHOLE AND PART.—(Earth, Poles.) (Ship, Rudder.) (Forest, Trees.) (Air, Oxygen.) (House, Parlor.) (Clock, Pendulum.) (Knife, Blade.) (India, Punjab.) (14, 7.) (24, 12.)

GENUS AND SPECIES.—(Animal, Man.) (Plant, Thyme.) (Fish, Salmon.) (Tree, Oak.) (Game, Pheasant.) (Dog, Retriever.) (Universal Evolution, Natural Selection.) (Silver Lining, Relief of Lucknow.) (Empress Queen, Victoria.) (Money, Cash.)

ABSTRACT AND CONCRETE.—[The same Quality appears both in the Adjective and in the Substantive.]—(Dough, Soft.) (Empty, Drum.) (Lion, Strong.) (Eagle, Swift.) (Courage, Hero.) (Glass, Smoothness.) (Gold, Ductility.) (Sunshine, Light.) (Fire, Warmth.)

SIMILARITY OF SOUND.—(Emperor, Empty.) (Salvation, Salamander.) (Hallelujah, Hallucination.) (Cat, Catastrophe.) (Top, Topsy.) [Inclusion by sound is not punning.]

SIMPLE INCLUSION embraces cases not found in either of the foregoing classes, but where there is something in common between the pairs, as (Church, Temple.) (Pocket, Black Hole.)

II. EXCLUSION means Antithesis. One word excludes the other, or both words relate to one and the same thing, but occupy opposite positions in regard to it, as (Riches, Poverty.) (Hot, Cold.) (Old, Young.) (Damp, Dry.) (Life, Death.) (Love, Hate.) (Joy, Sorrow.) (Courage, Cowardice.) (Health, Sickness.) (Righteous, Wicked.) (Beauty, Ugliness.) (Peace, War.)

III. CONCURRENCE is the sequence or co-existence of impressions or ideas that have been either accidentally or causally together.—It is either the accidental conjunction of experiences or the operation of cause and effect; since even in the latter case, it is merely the sensuous facts of immediate succession that we know about, as (Gravitation, Newton, Apple.) (Dives, Lazarus, Abraham, Bosom.) (Pipe, Tobacco.) (Michaelmas, Goose.) (Columbus, America.) (Bartholomew Diaz, Cape of Good Hope.) (Grandmother, Knitting.) (Socrates, Hemlock.) (Bruce, Spider.) (Nelson, Trafalgar.) (Demosthenes, Seashore, Stammering, Pebbles.) (Job, Patience.) (Wedding, Slippers, Cake.) (Wellington, Bonaparte, Waterloo.) (Depression, Fall of Silver.) (Lightning, Thunder.)

[In the case of the following pairs, one word has been so often appropriated to the other, that there seems to be something in common in the meaning of the terms—but it is not so, they are mere cases of Concurrence, but of almost indissoluble Concurrence. For instance, a man might examine a "spade" in all its parts and might even make one after a model, and not even know what "dig" means. The mention of "dig" is as likely to make us think of pickaxe as of spade. "Spade" does not mean "dig," nor does "dig" mean spade. "Dig" merely means the action of the "spade," or the use to which it is put. Hence this pair of words does not furnish an example of Inclusion. But as "dig" is frequently appropriated to "spade"—as we have often thought of those words together—this is a case of strong Concurrence. The term "swoop" is almost exclusively applied to "eagle." A certain action or movement of the eagle is termed swooping. But "eagle" does not mean "swoop," nor does "swoop" mean "eagle." We always think of "eagle" when we think of "swoop," but we do not often think of "swoop" when we think of "eagle." It is not In., but Con.]

(Spade, Dig.) (Razor, Shaving.) (Coffin, Burial.) (Chair, Sitting.) (Scythe, Cut.) (Sword, Wound.) (Pen, Write.) (Ears, Hearing.) (Road, Travel.) (Food, Eating.) (Paper, Write.) (Wine, Drink.) (Worm, Crawl.) (Bird, Fly.) (Eagle, Swoop.) (Hawk, Hover.) (Ram, Butt.) (Teeth, Gnash.) (Wheel, Turn.)



Building. } In. by G. & S. Dwelling. }

If we examine the meaning of these two words—Building and Dwelling, we find that both indicate structures made by man. This idea is common to both. Now when we find that two words express the same thought, either completely or partially, we say that it is a case of Inclusion, because the pair of words contains or includes the same idea. Inclusion is the first law of memory.

There are several kinds of Inclusion. What variety have we here? Let us see. Building applies to many kinds of structures; house, stable, church, depot, store, etc. It is applicable to all of these in a general way, but it designates none of them. But dwelling means a special kind of structure—a building occupied by man—a place to live in. This pair of words therefore illustrates Inclusion by Genus and Species, indicated by the abridgement, In. G. & S. or simply by In. Other examples: "Planet, Mars;" "Mountain, Vesuvius;" "River, Mississippi;" "Building Material, Potsdam Sandstone;" "Fruit, Peaches."

We may for convenience include in this class, cases of the Genus and the Individual as "Man and George Washington;" "Judge, Hon. John Gibson;" "New Yorker, Hon. W. W. Astor;" and cases of Species and the Individual, as, "Frenchman and Guizot;" "American, Abraham Lincoln." And also Co-equal Species under a common Genus, as under "Receiver" we may include "Can" and "Bin"—under carnivorous birds we may include the Eagle and the Hawk. "Head-Covering, Hat, Cap;" "Hand-covering, Gloves, Mittens;" "Foot-covering, Boot, Shoe."

Dwelling. } Synonymous In. House. }

Inhabitability by man is the thought common to both of these words. Being nearly alike in meaning, we call them a case of Synonymous Inclusion, indicated by "Syn. In." Other cases: "Near, Close to;" "Likeness, Resemblance;" "Lift, Raise;" "Meaning, Signification;" "John, Jack;" "James, Jim;" "Elizabeth, Bessy;" "Margaret, Maggy;" "Gertrude, Gertie;" "Ellen, Nellie."

House. } In. by Whole & Part. Parlor. }

Another case of Inclusion. House is the whole containing as it does the parlor, dining-room, kitchen, bedroom, etc. Parlor is a part of the whole house. Hence this pair of words illustrates Inclusion by Whole & Part designated by In. W. & P., or merely by In. We may include in this class for convenience the material and the product as "Bureau, Oak;" "Tower, Brick;" "Harness, Leather." Other cases: "Wagon, Wheel;" "Razor, Blade;" "Table, Legs;" "United States of North America, New York;" "State, County;" "City, Street;" "Bird, Feathers;" "Year, Month;" "Week, Sunday;" "Engine, Boiler;" "100, 50;" "10, 5," &c.

PARlor. } In. by S. & s. PARtridge. }

Here we see that there is nothing in common in the meaning of the words, but there is the syllable "Par" belonging to both alike. It is the same in spelling in both words, and virtually the same in pronunciation, the same by Sight and by sound, represented by In. by capital S for In. by sight, and In. by small s for In. by sound, or merely by In. Examples: "Nice, Gneiss;" "Pole, Polarity;" "Popular, Popgun;" "Jefferson, Madison."

Partridge. } In. by W. & P. Feathers. }

Partridge is the name of the bird and feathers constitute part of the Partridge. Other cases: "Coat, Buttons;" "Elephant, Trunk;" "Bottle, Neck;" "Pen, Nib;" "South Africa, Cape Colony."

Feathers. } In. by A. & C. Light. }

Feathers are things perceived by touch and sight. They imply the quality of lightness, but say nothing about that quality. Light has several meanings. Here taken in connection with feathers, it means nearly destitute of weight, or the quality of lightness. It is an abstract term that describes an attribute, but feathers are things and therefore concrete. Hence the pair of words illustrate Inclusion by Abstract and Concrete, and is indicated by In. by A. and C., or merely by In. Other examples: "Sour, Vinegar;" "Sweet, Sugar;" "Coward, Fear;" "Swiftness, Express train," &c.

LIGHT. } In. by S. & s. LIGHTerman. }

As before remarked, "Light" has several meanings. Here it means that which enables us to see. "Lighterman" is the man who works upon a boat called a "Lighter." There is nothing in common in the meaning of this pair of words, but the word or syllable "Light" belongs to both alike. It is In. by Sight and sound. Other cases: "Dark, Darkness;" "Starch, March;" "Rage, Forage;" "Barber, Barbarism," &c.

LighterMAN. } In. by S. Lord MANsfield. }

Here the word or syllable "man" appears in both cases. In the former it signifies the man that manages a Lighter, and in the latter it was primitively connected with Field, as "A Man's Field." After a time it became Mansfield. It is a perfect case of In. by S. and s. Other cases: "Tempest, Temperature;" "Antepenult, Antediluvians."

Lord MansFIELD. } In. by S. & s. FIELDhand. }

As "Field" belongs to both words, it is a case of perfect In. by S. and s. Other cases: "Regiment, Compliment;" "Sell, Selfish;" "Miniature, Mint," &c.

Now let the pupil read over very thoughtfully the ten words just examined, and recall the relation which we found to exist between every pair of them.

Building. Dwelling. House. Parlor. Partridge. Feathers. Light. Lighterman. Lord Mansfield. Fieldhand.

Having finished the reading, let the pupil close the lesson, or put it out of sight and endeavour to recall the ten words from Building to Fieldhand from memory. He will find no difficulty in doing so. He learned the series by heart without any suspicion that he was committing it to memory.

Now let him realise how he did this. It was because he made use of the cementing Laws of the Memory. He sought out and found the relations between the words. By thinking of those relations, he exercised his intellect on those words in a double way—the meaning and the sound of the words were considered and then the similarities of meaning and of sound were noticed. A vivid First Impression was thus received from the words themselves and from the relations between them and an easy and certain recall thereby assured.

Now recall the series in an inverse order, beginning with "Fieldhand," and going back to "Building." You do it easily, because each word was cemented to its predecessor and its successor, and hence it makes no difference whether you go forward or backward. When, however, you learn by rote you know the task as you learned it, and not in the reverse way. Before proceeding, repeat the ten words from memory, from "Building" to "Fieldhand," and the reverse way, at least five times; each time, if possible, more rapidly than before. These repetitions are not to learn the series; for this has been done already, but it is to consolidate the effect of learning it in the right way.


Fieldhand. } Ex. Millionnaire. }

A fieldhand is a labourer who lives by the sweat of his brow, and eats not what he does not earn. A Millionnaire is at the opposite pole, and can have a superabundance of all things. It is a case of opposition. Where two ideas pertain to one and the same idea, but occupy opposite relations in regard to it, it is a case of Exclusion. The means of subsistence is the common idea and Fieldhand and Millionnaire occupy opposite positions in respect to that idea. Other examples: "Upper, Under;" "Above, Beneath;" "Before, After;" "Entrance, Exit;" "Appear, Vanish;" "Cheap, Dear;" "Empty, Full;" "Col. Ingersoll, Talmage;" "Washington, Arnold;" "Minnehaha, Minneboohoo."

Millionnaire. } Ex. Pauper. }

Here is opposition between millionnaire and pauper. It is a case of Ex. Other examples: "Superfluity, Scarcity;" "Fertile, Barren;" "Sorrow, Happiness;" "Straight, Crooked;" "Irregular, Circle;" "Prompt, Tardy;" "Liberal, Stingy;" "Wide, Narrow;" "Open, Shut;" "Inclusion, Exclusion;" "Beginning, End;" "Industry, Idleness;" "Addition, Subtraction;" "Infernal, Celestial;" "Cellar, Garret;" "Miser, Spend-thrift;" "Assimilation, Learning by rote," &c.

Pauper. } Ex. Wealth. }

Here is the extreme of opposition. The state or condition of destitution of the pauper is contrasted with the state or condition of being over supplied. Other examples: "Insufficient, Enough;" "Work, Play;" "Crying, Laughing;" "Awkward, Graceful;" "In, Out;" "East, West;" "North, South;" "Saint, Sinner;" "Fast, Slow," &c.

WEALTH. } In. by S. & s. CommonWEALTH. }

If "Wealth" is taken as "Private" or individual, and "Commonwealth" be taken in its derivative sense, as "wealth in common," or, the "public wealth," then this would be a case of Exclusion. If "Wealth" is taken as the condition of great abundance, and "Commonwealth" as the political body, known as a State, then this is a case of Inclusion by sight, or by sound, the word "wealth" belonging to both alike.

COMMONwealth. } Ex. UNcommon. }

Considering "Common" in relation with "Uncommon" we have Exclusion. In the previous pair, we used wealth of commonwealth to make a relation with the simple word wealth. Here we use the first two syllables of the word to contrast with uncommon.

Uncommon. } Syn. Inclusion. Rare. }

These words are nearly alike in meaning. Other examples: "Choice, Preference;" "Resolute, Determined;" "Economical, Frugal;" "Ugly, Ill-looking;" "Insane, Mad;" "Lie, Untruth;" "Reliable, Trustworthy;" "Air, Atmosphere;" "Resident, Dweller," etc.

Rare. } Ex. Well done. }

This pair requires careful notice. "Rare" with reference to "Uncommon" means unusual, seldom met, or unfrequent; but considered in reference to "well done," it means partially cooked or underdone. This, then, is a clear case of Exclusion. Other examples: "Men whose heads do grow beneath their shoulders, and men whose shoulders do grow beneath their heads;" "Cushion, Mule's Hoof;" "Ungoverned, Henpecked;" "Bed of Ease, Hornet's Nest;" "Waltz, Breakdown."

Well done. } Ex. Badly done. }

A clear case of Exclusion. They are both "done," but one is done "well," and the other "badly done," or the opposite of well.

Badly done. } Ex. Good. }

A relation is sometimes found between one word and a part of another word or phrase. Here "Bad" is the opposite of "Good."

Good. } In. by G. & S. Good Princess. }

"Good" covers all cases, whatsoever, of its kind, but "Good Princess" is a particular kind of species of good things or persons. Examples: "Snake, Copperhead;" "Spider, Tarantula;" "Horse, Dray horse," etc.

Now carefully read over the eleven words, and recall or ascertain the relations between them:

Fieldhand. Millionnaire. Pauper. Wealth. Commonwealth. Uncommon. Rare. Well done. Badly done. Good. Good Princess.

When you have carefully realised the relations between these words, lay aside the lesson and recall the entire series from memory, proceeding from Fieldhand to Good Princess, and back from Good Princess to Fieldhand. Do this five times—each time from memory and more rapidly than before.

Again, repeat from memory, at least five times, the series from Building to Good Princess, and back from Good Princess to Building, reciting as fast as possible each time.


Good Princess. } In. & Con. Pocahontas. }

A proper name as such has little meaning. It is usually a mere sound to which the person that bears it answers as the dog responds to the name "Carlo." It is a sound which we call a name, and which we apply to one person to distinguish that person from all others, as in this case Pocahontas is used to distinguish the daughter of Powhattan from all other Indian women. She knew who was meant when that name was applied to her. But the name Pocahontas does not indicate that she was wise or unwise, learned or unlearned, tall or short, old or young. In saving the life of Capt. John Smith she became entitled to be called a "Good Princess." In this case it would be In. by G. & S. We have heard of all this, and now when we think of Pocahontas, we are apt to remember that she was a good Princess for saving Smith's life. The connection between these words I call Concurrence. We have thought of these words together, and the mind by its own operation has cemented them together, so that when we think of one it is apt to make us remember the other. Concurrence means that which has been accidentally, or as cause and effect, conjoined in our experience. Between the words or ideas thus conjoined, there is, strictly speaking, neither Inclusion or Exclusion. Whenever there are unrelated things which the mind holds together simply because it has occupied itself with them, then we have a case of concurrence to be represented by Con. Other examples: "Harrison, Tippecanoe;" "Columbus, America;" "Washington, Cherry Tree;" "Andrew Jackson, To the Victors belong the Spoils;" "Newton, Gravitation;" "Garfield, Guiteau;" "Gladstone, Home Rule," &c.

Pocahontas. } Con. Capt. John Smith. }

We have read the story of the rescue of Smith by Pocahontas. We have thought of these names together and they have united in our memories by the Law of Concurrence. When we recall the name of Pocahontas, we are apt to revive also the name of Capt. John Smith and vice versa. Another case:—A gentleman was present at Ford's Theatre in Washington when John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln. Just a moment before, he recognised the odour of a hyacinth held by a lady in front of him. The next moment he heard the fatal shot, and turning whence the report came, he saw the murderous result. After the lapse of a quarter of a century, he could not smell, see, or think of hyacinth without at once thinking of that scene, nor could Lincoln's assassination be mentioned in his presence without his instantly thinking of hyacinth. Nothing could have been more purely accidental than the quick succession of the sensation of the odour and the murder of the President. But they were experienced together or nearly together. They became cemented together, so that the revival of one is apt to call up the other, and this is concurrence.

Capt. John Smith. } Con. Anvil. }

A proper name may be also used in other relations. The word, sound, or name Smith may also be a general term applicable to many classes of persons, as coppersmith, goldsmith, silversmith, &c. When we think of Capt. John Smith we use the word as a proper name. But when we think of Smith and Anvil we use the word Smith in its general sense. In either case it is an act of Concurrence. Smiths use anvils. We have thought of these words together, and that mental act has had a tendency to unite them together.

Anvil. } In. by A. & C. Heavy. }

Anvil is a concrete thing that possesses the attribute heaviness; and heavy is an abstract term that applies to heavy things, but does not state what they are. The idea or thought of heaviness is common to both words, and therefore it is a case of In., and as one term is concrete and the other abstract, it is a case of In. by A. & C.

Heavy. } Con. Gravitation. }

Things are heavy that press toward the earth, in consequence of the action of gravity in their case. Gravitation, whatever that is, is what makes them tend toward the earth. We may say it is a Cause, and as we think of Cause producing Effect, and Effect as produced by Cause, such cases are thought of together, or almost simultaneously, and hence we have a case of Concurrence.

Gravitation. } Con. Sir Isaac Newton. }

There is no In. or Ex. here, but Con. We have read or heard that Newton discovered the Law of Gravitation. We have exercised our minds in regard to these two words, in thinking of them together, and that is concurrence.

Sir Isaac Newton. } Con. "Diamond." }

Newton went out of his library on one occasion, leaving his pet dog "Diamond" in the room. The dog jumped up on to the table, overturned the light, which set fire to most valuable manuscripts. They burned up. When Newton returned and discovered what his pet had done, he exclaimed, "O! Diamond, Diamond, thou little knowest what thou hast done." The name Diamond becomes thus vividly associated in our minds with the forbearance of the great Newton. We cannot forget it. We hold them together hereafter by Con.

Diamond. } In. by s. Dying. }

A plain case of Inclusion by sound.

Dying. } Con. Cholera. }

We know that cholera causes numerous deaths; that people die in great numbers wherever it prevails.

Cholera. } Con. Terror. }

Concurrence includes all cases of Cause and Effect, Instrument or Means to End, Person by whom or Thing by which, &c. Cholera causes terror. Terror is the effect of the existence of the cholera. Now carefully read over the eleven words just considered, and think out the relations between them.

Good Princess. Pocahontas. Capt. John Smith. Anvil. Heavy. Gravitation. Sir Isaac Newton. "Diamond." Dying. Cholera. Terror.

Now recite them from memory at least five times forward and backward, and then recite the entire thirty words from Building to Terror, and from Terror to Building, the same number of times.

For further training, let each pupil recite the foregoing series of thirty words forward and backward two or three times per day for an entire month. He need not stop further study, but whatever else he learns let him at least practise this daily recital for one month.


1. Since words have different meanings, we may sometimes find that a pair of words exemplify all three Laws, as plough and sword. The relation between them may be In., since both of them are cutting instruments; one cuts and hacks human beings and the other cuts and turns over the soil. It may be Ex., in a metaphorical sense, as one is the emblem of peace and the other of war, and it may be Con., as we have often thought of them together as we read in the Bible of beating swords into ploughshares.

2. Learning a series of words by heart by thinking of the Relations between them is wholly unlike learning it by rote. In the latter case, three or five words at a time or all ten words are read over from 10 to 20 times. This reading secures scarcely anything more than a succession of sights to the eye or sounds to the ear. No study of the words is required. The action of the intellect is not invoked. It is the mere sensuous impression of Eye or Ear or both together that holds the words together, and thus many or endless repetitions are required to memorise a series which a conscious thoughtful use of those Laws enables us to learn by one painstaking perusal.

Another way of learning such a series by rote, is to limit the extent of the repetitions. Instead of reading over the entire series or a large part of it many times, the series is slowly read over once or several times by pairs, only two words at a time, but the method of acquirement is precisely the same as in the former rote process. Let us look at this last proceeding in detail. (1) It is usually applied only where there is a natural suggestiveness between each pair of words. (2) But no previous study is prescribed in regard to what constitutes this suggestiveness, nor are the varieties of it set forth and required to be mastered. (3) But above all, no study of the pairs of words themselves is insisted upon. On the contrary, all such study is emphatically deprecated. The mind is not allowed to be directed to anything in particular in reading over the pairs. It must be left without a rudder or guide to float wherever it listeth. It is not to be "interfered with" by our will. What is this but intellectual dawdling? A method of Vacuity pure and simple—the exact opposite of Mental Assimilation. (4) If in reading over many times an entire series, only the ear and eye are mainly affected and the intellect is left to wander, much more must it wander here. In running over many words, the intellect might be arrested by chance. But here the series consisting of two words only and all attempt to occupy or engage the intellect being purposely avoided, and nothing being done to enchain the attention to the consideration of the meaning or sounds of the two words, or the relation between them, the intellect wanders away from want of occupation. If when we wish to retain in our memories a paragraph of fine sentiment or lucid reasoning, we find our attention wanders, so it must wander here where only a pair of words is before it, and we are not only not furnished with any tests or guides or stimulus or motive for examining the words or for finding the relation between them, but on the contrary we are forbidden to interfere with the spontaneous action of the mind. The intellect might be abolished so far as its participation in such an operation is concerned. What is absorbed in such a case is absorbed intuitively and blindly. Hence we see that what is accomplished by these two processes of rote learning is weak impressions upon the memory and a distinct cultivation of mind wandering.

This method of rote learning by pairs was invented and first taught by Thomas Hallworth in New York in 1822. His method was adopted without acknowledgment by Carl Otto in Germany and Austria, and his followers in England and America.[A]

[A] These followers make a great boast of learning a series of suggestive words in pairs and without interfering with the mind's action in doing so, when they are clearly indebted to Thomas Hallworth for this inadequate method, yet they never have the grace to acknowledge their indebtedness.

3. The opposite of these two methods of rote learning is my method, which injects an active process between each pair of words. Each pair of words is appraised and dovetailed by the Laws of Memory. And hence the reader can notice the fundamental difference between all other methods and mine. My method is to keep the mind in an assimilating, absorbing condition when trying to learn by making the Intellect stay with the Senses. In the process of endless repetition or learning by rote as evinced in the two methods above given, the mind is in a passive state. But when learning the above series by my method, it was kept in an active state. The intellect was directed by the will into certain channels and kept there. It was searching for what was in common or different between the pairs of words. It was noting points of likeness and classifying them. This is thinking. And the most vivid First Impressions always result from the action of the intellect upon the sensuous stimuli from ear and eye. Intellectual Assimilation is a proper name for my methods.

4. The Three Laws are Forms or Modes of Mental Assimilation. But when used consciously for any length of time, they operate much more efficaciously than formerly—and they greatly increase the Impressionability and Revivability—as any student can affirm who faithfully carries out my instructions, and then his General Memory becomes largely improved without a conscious use of my method.


Whoever wishes to increase his permanent Memory power and his power of Attention must not omit to learn and practise the following exercise precisely as I prescribe. He will experience great satisfaction in carrying out my directions to the letter, because his conformity in this and in other respects will bring the reward of a NEW MEMORY power almost immediately. And if he were to disregard my directions, he will have no one to blame but himself.

He must write down the first two words, "Ice" and "Slippery," the latter word under the former. Let him ascertain the exact relation between these words. He will find that "Ice" is a concrete word, and "Slippery" indicates a quality of "Ice" and of other things. He places opposite the abbreviation In., by A. and C. In a similar way he proceeds to write down one word at a time, and at once ascertaining its relation to the previous word, and indicating that relation by the appropriate abbreviation. When he has analysed ten words in this painstaking manner he must recall them backward and forward from memory at least five times, and each time faster than the other.

Let him deal with the next ten in a similar manner in all respects, and then let him repeat the twenty words both ways at least five times, and so on till he has analysed, learned and recited the entire one hundred words; and, finally, let him recite the one hundred words both ways at least once a day for thirty days, in connection with the Building Series and the Presidential Series and Series of English Sovereigns hereafter given.

As the result of this Analysis and recitals, the pupil will make these Laws of In., Ex., and Con. operate hereafter in an unconscious manner, with a power a hundred-fold greater than before practising this method.

Ice. Hounds. Hose. Chicken. Slippery. Bark. Rose. Feathers. Smooth. Tree. Bush. Down. Rough. Woods. Guerilla. Up. Ruffian. Prairie. Rill. Upstart. Prison. Air. Water-power. Begin. Crime. Wind. Manufacture. Bee. Crimea. Hurricane. Man. Honey. War. Reign. Manager. Hives. Army. Governor. Conductor. Wives. Navy. Steam-engine. Cars. Mormon. Ship. Newspaper. Track. Brigham Young. Sail. Ream. Trotting. Old. Auction. Quire. Fair. Cold. Bid. Inquire. Foul. Winter. Competition. Inquest. Chanticleer. Summer. Petition. Jury. Chandelier. Ft. Sumter. Signatures. Decide. Gas. Stone. Cygnet. Cider. Coal. Mason. Net. Apple. Mine. Maize. Ensnare. Orchard. Shaft. Fodder. Capture. Charred. Arrow. Cattle. Cap. Burned. Quiver. Catalogue. Gun. Stove. Indian. Log. Hunter. Fire. Black-Hawk. Saw-mill.

I occasionally find that a bright, highly-gifted person makes a poor learner of my system, because he acts on hasty inferences of his own instead of attending to my long-tried and never-failing methods. To illustrate: Instead of analysing the above series in pairs, and discovering and noting the relation between each pair as I require, he reads over the entire series. His previous study of the Memory Laws has, however, so impressed his mind with their influence that he is able to retain this series after only two or three perusals. Or, instead of reading over the entire series, he may even slowly read the series in pairs, but without analysis, without trying to ascertain and realise the exact relation between the words. This is the method of Vacuity or Dawdling formerly mentioned. But his study of the three Laws in learning the Building Series has so sharpened and quickened his appreciation of In., Ex., and Con., that he learned the one hundred words in this wrong way very readily.

But why should he not follow my directions? Why not pursue my plan and thereby acquire the full power of my system instead of the small portion of that power gained by disregarding my direction? On the other hand, pupils of only average natural ability are very apt to follow my directions to the letter and thereby acquire an amount of Memory Improvement which the above gifted, but non-complying pupil, seems unable to understand.

If a person is afflicted with a very bad memory in any or all respects, and particularly if this memory weakness is traceable to mind-wandering, or if it co-exist with the latter infirmity, such a person may find it best to make a series of from one hundred to five hundred words on the model of the foregoing series, and learn the same and recite it daily both ways for a month or more in addition to the prescribed exercises, and if any trace of mind-wandering remain after that, let him make and memorise another series of the same extent and practise it for the same period. The worst cases of mind-wandering and of weak memories always yield to this training treatment.

In like manner, but in much inferior degree, the recital of what has just been heard, such as anecdotes, narratives, contents of plays, lectures, &c., not only tends to fix the recited matter in the memory, but also to strengthen the memory generally, provided the recital takes place shortly after the listening, as that is like a continuation of the original experience.


Attention is the Will directing the Intellect into some particular channel and keeping it there. There are virtually two processes involved in Attention. The Intellect is directed into a particular channel, but to keep it there, all intruders must be excluded. To illustrate. A student attempts to learn a proposition in Geometry. To do this he must keep his mind on the printed explanations, and if his thoughts attempt to fly away, he must repress that attempt. To guide his mind into the channel of the printed exposition, he calls into play the Directory power of the attention. To prevent intruders or extruders from withdrawing his mind from the text, he exercises the Inhibitory function of the Attention.

To fully understand what takes place when trying to study, let the pupil recall that there are three sources of knowledge.

First: The Senses carry into his mind reports from the outside world—Sensation—sight of the letters, words and sentences, &c. Second: The Intellect operates on these undigested elementary Sense-reports, or Sensations, and find relations among them. This is Perception, or relations among Sensations. Third: The mind acts on the perceived relations and finds relations among them. This is Reason or relations among relations.

Now the geometrical student in reading the printed instructions to himself or in reading them aloud, might simply occupy his eye, or eye and ear with them and his Reason might soar away to other subjects, climes or ages.

Remember that the Intellect is always active and busy, and the question for us to answer in our own case is—shall it co-operate with the senses or the matter before us, or shall it wander away?

What the geometrical student requires and what we all require in such cases is to compel the Intellect to stay with the Senses, and follow the printed train of thought.

Interest in the subject helps to secure this co-operation. And the Process or Method of study, if it be an Assimilating one, also compels this co-operation. And one of the processes which is most of all effective in TRAINING the Intellect to obey the Will and thereby to stay with the Senses (where it is not a case of pure reflection), and thereby to institute and develop the Habit of the activity of the Intellect co-operating with the action of the mere senses, is practice in the use of the Laws of In., Ex., and Con. To illustrate: In reciting the last training example of one hundred words, the Directory power is exercised and then the Inhibitory power is brought into play, and so on alternately. Suppose the reciter has got to "Signatures." If he does not inhibit or exclude from his mind the word "Petition" he can make no advance. If he dwells upon "Petition" he will never reach "Cygnet." But if he inhibits "Petition" his Directory power sends him on to "Cygnet," and then inhibiting "Signatures" he proceeds from "Cygnet" to "Net," &c., &c. In this most simple, elementary way he exercises and trains the Directory and Inhibitory functions to co-operate in recalling the entire Series, and notice how many distinct and separate times he has exerted the Directory function and how many times the Inhibitory function in reciting a short series. And if he has learned this and other Series as I direct and then recites them forward and backward as long as I require, he is sure to greatly strengthen his Attention and thereby habituate the intellect to stay with the senses and thereby help to banish mind-wandering. And when the Intellect is thus trained into the Habit of staying with the sense of sight or hearing in reading or listening, the geometrical or other student can keep his mind on the subject before him until it is mastered.


It sometimes happens that we wish to quickly learn five or twenty Proper Names, the whole or part of which are entirely new to us, as a list of members of a committee, a series of facts in science, &c. We can usually do this by Analysis.

Recollective Analysis, or Analysis for the purpose of helping to learn by heart, is not an originating or manufacturing process. It simply finds relation already existing between the words or the ideas which the words suggest or evoke. But where there is no existing relation between the words or ideas, it is a case for Synthesis, to be taught hereafter.

The highest Analysis relates to objects, or rather to the ideas we have of them, and the lowest to mere words, to mere articulated sounds, or their written or printed representatives. The great body of examples and illustrations in my lessons pertain to ideas; but in the list of twenty-four Presidents I deal with the proper Names as words only, as words or articulated sounds—words which are nearly devoid of meaning except as marks or sounds for naming persons, or as words containing syllables which may have a general meaning in other applications. I need scarcely add that the Laws of In., Ex., and Con. apply to words merely as well as to the ideas which are, of course, suggested by the words. Let me illustrate: Ulysses S. Grant was succeeded by Rutherford B. Hayes. The initial syllables of Ulysses and of Rutherford make an inclusion by sound. The "U" of Ulysses is pronounced as if spelled "You." We then have in effect "You" and "Ru," or "You" and "Ruth"—when we are supposed to pronounce the "u" in Ruth as a long "u;" but if it be considered to be a short sound of "u," it is only a weak case of In. by s. But if the pupil shuts his eyes, such inclusions will not be observed. It is true that such application is not so high or grand as when they govern ideas, but it is equally genuine. It is only a lower stratum, but still it is a part of terra firma, and on no account is it to be ignored.

Ideas are never words nor are words ever ideas, but words become so associated with ideas by habit, or by the Law of Concurrence, that they arouse certain ideas whenever they are used. They are used as signs of ideas—as the means of communicating them. There is rarely, if ever, any necessary connection that we can discover between a particular idea and the word used to stand for it. Not only do different nations use different words or sounds to arouse the same thought, but different words in the same language are sometimes used to portray practically the same idea, as in the case of Mariner, Sailor, Seaman, Jack Tar, Navigator, Skipper, &c., &c. Nor is this all—the same sound may awaken different ideas, as "I" and "Eye." In the first case "I" stands for the person using it, and in the last case it means the organ of sight. To the eyesight they are obviously unlike. It may be well to remark that in imposing a name in the first place, a reason may exist why that name is given, as Albus (white) was given to the mountains, now more euphoniously called Alps, because they were white or snow-crowned; but Alps does not mean white to the moderns. The word now merely indicates or points out the mountains so called. A word may survive and take a new meaning after its original meaning is no longer ascertainable.

The context helps us to know which meaning of the word was intended when the word is spoken, and the context and spelling tell the same thing when writing or print is used. Take the words "Hounds, Bark." Here Bark means the cry or yelp of the dogs. But in "Tree, Bark," the Bark of the tree is suggested. Yet the word Bark is spelled precisely the same in both cases. The word spelled "Bark" is really used to express two different things and the context generally tells which is meant in any particular case.

Individual letters become so strongly associated with a particular meaning that although the vocal value is exactly the same, yet the one spelling goes to one man and the other to a different man. "Spenser" would never suggest to a learned man the author of the "Philosophy of Evolution," nor would "Spencer" ever suggest the author of the "Fairie Queen." "Mr. Mil" would never mean "John Stuart Mill," although the words "Mil" and "Mill" are pronounced exactly alike. We sometimes cannot recall a Proper Name, yet we feel sure that it begins or ends with S or K or L, or that a certain other letter is in the middle of the word. We usually find that we were right. In these cases our clue to the entire word was found in only one letter of it.

Noticing that the same letter is in common to two words, although all the other letters may be different, is one case of Inclusion by spelling. Take an example: President John Tyler was followed by President James K. Polk. Analyse the two names—Tyler and Polk. The letter "l" alone is common to the two names. Here is one letter found in totally unlike contexts. If this fact is noticed, it cannot but help hold those two names together. The exercise of learning the names of the twenty-four Presidents is a good one for this purpose. It has a training value entirely apart from its practical value in that case. And I give it for its training value alone.

It is infinitely better for him to learn by analysis the order of the Presidents than to learn that order by the only other method the pupil has heretofore known, viz., endless repetition. When the pupil thinks a relation may be weak, let him consider that a weak relation thought about is a hundred-fold stronger than mere repetition without any thinking at all. It is either thoughtless repetition, or thoughtful Analysis that he must use.


The true way to learn such lists as those of the Popes of Rome, the Kings of England and of the American Presidents is to learn them in their places in History, as parts of the Historical order of events to which they belong, as facts in the chain of causes and effects.

Their Terms, Administrations, or Reigns are, however, used by historians as landmarks, and to follow the historians to the best advantage, it may be desirable to know the series as such, as a useful preparation for the study of the Times and age. But whatever the advantages of knowing the order of the American Presidents, I deal with it here solely for the training effect in Analysis and as an example of a method of dealing with any list of mere names.

The mode of dealing with this Presidential series will show how all similar Series may be handled during the period of the pupil's training. I divide the series or list of the twenty-four American Presidents into three Groups: the first Group containing seven names, the second having eight names, and the third having nine names. The number of names in each Group is easily remembered: 7, 8 and 9.

The first Group contains the names of


If the student has mastered the previous exercises, he ought to be able to analyse this Group of names with the greatest ease. Let him try, and if he fail, then let him study my Analysis as given below. Points of Analysis that appear weak to me may be strong for him, or vice versa. At all events, let him if possible learn each of the three Groups by his own Analysis, looking at my work afterwards.


Period of Organisation and Consolidation.

George WashingTON. } In. JOHN Adams. }

"Ton" and "John" make a fairly good In. by sound.

JOHN Adams. } In. THOMas Jefferson. }

"John" and "Thom" (the "h" is silent in both names) make an In. by sound, imperfect but adequate if noticed.

Thomas JefferSON. } In. James MadiSON. }

Both names terminating with the same syllable, "son", makes a clear case of In. by sound and spelling.

JAMES Madison. } In. JAMES Monroe. }

This pair of names furnishes an example of perfect In. by sound and spelling in the Christian names.

James MONroe. } In. JOHN Q. Adams. }

"Mon" and "John" give us a good In. by sound.

JOHN Q. Adams. } In. Andrew JACKson. }

"Jack" is a nickname for John—a case of Synonymous In.

Now let the pupil repeat from memory the series from George Washington to Andrew Jackson at least five times, each time recalling and realizing how each pair of names was linked together. After this let the list be recalled several times forward and backward, and more rapidly each time, without recalling the analysis.


1. This group may well be termed the "Long-Term Group," since all of the seven Presidents except John Adams and his son, John Q. Adams, served two terms.

2. Three of the members of this group died after the close of their terms of office, on the natal day of the Republic, viz., John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, on the 4th of July, 1826, and James Monroe on the 4th of July, 1831.

3. This group also might be called the "J" group, since the initial letter of the Christian name or surname of every member of it begins with "J" or its phonetic equivalent, soft G, as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Q. Adams, and Andrew Jackson.


Period of Territorial Expansion and the Growth of Internal Dissension.

ANDREW Jackson. } In. Martin VAN BUren. }

Two examples of In.: "An" and "Van", and "rew" and "Bu."

Martin Van BuREN. } In. William HENry Harrison. }

A good Inclusion occurs in the case of "ren" and "Hen." The name William belonged to no other of the twenty-four Presidents.

William HenRY Harrison. } In. John TYler. }

A fair example of In. by Sight ["y" occurs in both names] is furnished by the syllables "ry" and "Ty."

John TyLer. } In. & James K. PoLk. } Con.

The letter "l" belongs to both surnames but there is no other letter in common. John and James is a case of Con., for both occur together many times in the New Testament.

James K. Polk. } In. Zachary TAYlor. }

"K" is pronounced as if spelled "Kay," a good In. with "Tay."

ZachARy Taylor. } In. MillARd Fillmore. }

The letters "ar" occur in both the Christian names.

MillARd Fillmore. } Con. FrANklin Pierce. }

The "ar" of Millard and the "an" of Franklin is a case of Con. reversed, i.e., "an" and "ar" is Con. since "n" precedes "r" in the Alphabet. Here the alphabetical order is reversed.

FrANklin Pierce. } In. James BuchANAN. }

The "an" in Franklin is identical in spelling and in sound with the two "ans" in Buchanan.

Let the student recall the series of names from Andrew Jackson to James Buchanan several times, and at each recall let him also recall the relation which bound the pairs together, and then let him recall the series from Washington to Buchanan, both forward and backward, without consciously reviving the relations.


1. This may be called the "Single Term Group," since none of the group served more than one term.

2. The group is notable for the fact that it is the only one in which two Presidents (William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor) died natural deaths while in office.


Period of Civil War and Reconstruction.

JAMes Buchanan. } In. AbrahAM Lincoln. }

This pair of names furnishes an In. by spelling, not sound, "am" in both, but not pronounced alike. This must be noticed, as it is a weak In.

Abraham LinCOLN. } In. Andrew JOHNson. }

The "l" in "coln," and the "h" in "John" are silent. It is a case of In. by sound. To the ear the sound of "Con." is like that of "Jon."

ANdrew Johnson. } In. Ulysses S. GrANt. }

"An" in Andrew and in Grant has the same sound.

UlyssES S. Grant. } In. Rutherford B. HayES. }

"Es" in Ulysses and in Hayes is the same in spelling—but not in sound. It must be noticed, as it is the weakest of all. A stronger tie has heretofore been given.

Rutherford B. HAYes. } Con. James A. GarFIELD. }

There is a strong association between Hay of Hayes and and the field of Garfield, as in the familiar word "Hayfield."

James A. GARfield. } In. Chester A. ARthur. }

In "Gar" and "Ar" there is a strong In. by sound.

Chester A. ArTHUR. } In. GroVER Cleveland. }

Between "thur" and "ver" there is a clear In. by sound.

Grover ClevelANd. } Con. BenjAMin Harrison. }

There is a fair In. by sound between "an" and "am;" but as they are alphabetically reversed, it makes a case of Con. reversed.

BenjAMin Harrison. } In. & Grover ClevelANd. } Ex.

Here "am" and "an" occur in alphabetical order, and is a case of In., and "jam," meaning pressing together, and "cle(a)ve" meaning to separate, are opposites, hence it is also an example of Exclusion.

Let the student, as in the case of the other groups, recall this list several times, and each time revive the relation by which each pair of names was cemented together, and after this let him recall this list several times both ways without reviving the cementing relations, and finally let him recall several times, both ways, the entire series of Presidents from Washington to Cleveland, and from Cleveland to Washington.


1. This group furnishes the notable fact that two Presidents (Lincoln and Garfield) were assassinated while in office.

2. Another peculiarity of this group is that, for the first time since the days of Washington, there was a widespread discussion and effort made to push the claims of a President (Grant) for a third term.

3. This group contains the name of the grandson (Benjamin Harrison) of William Henry Harrison, of the second group. The only other instance of relationship between the Presidents was in the case of John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams of the first group.

4. This group contains the name of the only President (Andrew Johnson) who was ever sought to be impeached. The prosecution failed to convict, having lacked one vote of the number necessary for a conviction.

5. Grover Cleveland affords the first instance where the two terms of a President are separated by the full term of another President (Benjamin Harrison).



The method here used of memorising the order of the English sovereigns from William I., the Conqueror, to Victoria possesses the following novelties:—

(1) We learn the order of the entire series of thirty-seven sovereigns by means of the relations, direct and indirect, which we establish with the reigning sovereign, Victoria.

(2) The precise credit is claimed for this method which it is entitled to receive. In a list of proper names we sometimes have several surnames alike, with usually a difference of Christian names, as in the presidential series we have—William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, and John Adams and John Quincy Adams, and we also sometimes have the same Christian names prefixed to different surnames, as James Madison and James Monroe. But in the Sovereigns of England, from William I. to Victoria, we have many Christian names alike, and the differences indicated by ordinal numbers, as George I., George II., George III., George IV. This order of the English Kings is most extraordinary, neither the Popes of Rome, nor the French, nor any other list of kings, furnishing any parallel in more than a few incidents. It is these unique coincidences and recurrences that make it so easy to find relations between these sovereigns. This method is not applicable to the American Presidents, Prime Ministers of England, or hardly any other series.

(3) No accidental relations of parts of names is resorted to, as was done in the case of the American Presidents.

(4) The series is so taught that it can be recited forwards and backwards—the only true test of learning any series.

(5) The series is completely worked out and nothing is left to chance or possible mistakes so liable to be committed by novices in dealing for the first time with a new process that has to be applied to many details.

(6) When the series is carefully studied and the relations painstakingly characterised, it is quickly learned and it is hard to forget.

(7) When the series is learned by this method and the relations are occasionally reviewed and identified, its recital both ways once or twice a day for a month helps to develop the Attention as well as the Assimilative powers.

(8) The exact name of each Sovereign is learned. The student relies on real relations and names, and not on unidentified jingles of threes and threes and twos and twos, like three Edwards and three Henrys and two Edwards and two Henrys, with the inevitable necessity of having afterwards to learn which Edward and which Henry was meant, &c. But summations can follow specifications.

(9) Pestalozzi [1745-1827] taught that we must proceed from the "known" to the "unknown;" but this principle mainly applies to learning the words of a foreign language. When we begin to learn such words they are wholly unknown to us. But in learning ordinary series of names or prose or poetry by heart, all the names and words used may be equally well known by us; but it is mainly the order in which these occur that we wish to memorise, and we begin at the beginning and proceed as we learn on from the Better Known or Best Known. In the list of American Presidents the series extends back to a little more than a century; but in the case of the English Sovereigns, when we begin with the Conqueror, the series extends back to 1066—upwards of 800 years—and, although in such a series the names of all the Sovereigns may be known, yet the latest is vastly better known to us than the earliest. In such a case it may be most useful to begin with the Best Known.

(10) Fortunately in this case the Best Known Sovereign is a PIVOT around which all the other Sovereigns are directly or indirectly related. How, we will proceed to show. Something of the method will be intimated by the difference of type and spaces between the names:—

William I. Henry VII. William II. Henry VIII. Henry I. Edward VI. Stephen. Mary. Henry II. Elizabeth. James I. Richard I. Charles I.

John. Council of State and Parliament. Henry III. Oliver Cromwell. Edward I. Richard Cromwell. Edward II. Council of State and Parliament. Edward III. Charles II. James II. Richard II. William III. and Mary. Anne. Henry IV. Henry IV. Henry V. George I. Henry VI. George II. Edward IV. George III. Edward V. George IV. William IV. Richard III. VICTORIA.

We begin with the Best Known, or Victoria, and we take note that she is an independent Queen, since she has never shared sovereignty with anyone; but Mary, of "William III. and Mary," was not an independent Queen, because she did share the Sovereign Power with her husband. Hereafter, when I use the word Queen I mean an independent Queen, except when Mary, of "William III. and Mary," is mentioned, and her name will be used only in Connection with William III. England has had only four independent Queens, namely, Mary [Tudor], Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria.

(I.) Victoria is the last queen and Mary was the first queen [Exclusion between first and last, or Ex.], and Mary, first queen, was preceded by the last Edward, or Edward VI. [Ex.] And Mary, the first queen, was followed by the the first and only Elizabeth [In.] And the first and only Elizabeth was followed by James the First, or I. [In.] Again, Queen Elizabeth was followed by King James, making a clear case of Ex. Again, Anne, the third queen, was preceded by Wm. the Third, or III., and Mary [In.] And these two co-equal Sovereigns were preceded by James the Second, or II. [In., between cardinal number two and the ordinal number Second]. This series of Queens concludes with Victoria the fourth Queen, who was preceded by William the Fourth, or IV. [In.], and William the Fourth, or IV., was preceded by George the Fourth, or IV. [In.]; and George IV. by George III., and he by George II., and he by George I.,—a concurrence reversed, and William IV. was preceded, as we have seen, by William III. and Mary—and William III. by William II., and William I. at the very beginning of the series—Con.

Now let us recall in the forward and reverse order what we have learned so far. William I., William II., Edward VI., Mary, Elizabeth, James I., James II., William III. and Mary, Anne, George I., George II., George III., George IV., William IV., and Victoria, and the order reversed is Victoria, William IV., George IV., George III., George II., George I., Anne, William III. and Mary, James II., James I., Elizabeth, Mary, Edward VI., William II., William I.

(II.) Disregarding for the moment the four periods of what is usually called the Commonwealth, we see that between Elizabeth and William III. and Mary, are four monarchs, the two James and the two Charles. We have already learned that Elizabeth was followed by James I. and that William III. and Mary were preceded by James II. Hence we see that the two Charles must come between the two James, and, of course, that Charles I. must precede Charles II., and that the order of these four monarchs must be James I., Charles I., Charles II., and James II.—a plain case of Con. reversed. We saw that there were two of these four monarchs before the Commonwealth; there must then be two after it, making James I. and Charles I. before the Commonwealth and Charles II. and James II. after it.

On the day that Charles I. was executed (January 30, 1649), the Parliament (the House of Commons) abolished the kingly office and House of Lords, and appointed a Council of State of 41 members, which with the House of Commons was to be the government. Intermediate then between Charles I. and Charles II. there came—

Council of State and Parliament. Oliver Cromwell. Richard Cromwell. Council of State and Parliament.

Here we see there was a Council of State and Parliament at the beginning and close of these intermediates, and between them came Oliver Cromwell and his son, Richard Cromwell. Charles I., followed by Council of State and Parliament, made a case of Exclusion and the Council of State and Parliament, followed by the Protector Oliver Cromwell, gives another example of Ex. and a case of In. between Oliver Cromwell and his son Richard, who inherited the protectorate, but a case of Ex. again between the powerful Oliver and his weak son Richard, and another example of Ex. between the protectorate of Richard Cromwell and the Council of State and Parliament, and another between the latter and the full-fledged monarchy of Charles II.

Now review what we have learned so far and we have William I., William II., Edward VI., Mary, Elizabeth, James I., Charles I., Council of State and Parliament, Oliver Cromwell, Richard Cromwell, Council of State and Parliament, Charles II., James II., William III. and Mary, Anne, George I., George II., George III., George IV., William IV., and Victoria. Reverse the recital and we have Victoria, William IV., George IV., George III., George II., George I., Anne, William III. and Mary, James II., Charles II., Council of State and Parliament, Richard Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell, Council of State and Parliament, Charles I., James I., Elizabeth, Mary, Edward VI., William II., and William I.

(III.) We now proceed to learn the eighteen kings intermediate between William II. and Edward VI. We notice at once that the first and last of these intermediates are the first and last Henrys [Ex.], viz., Henry I. and Henry VIII. We see also that Henry the First, or I., is followed by Henry the Second, or II. [Con.], with the first and only Stephen as the first single intermediary [In.]. Returning to Edward VI., we see that he, the last Edward, is preceded by Henry VIII., or the last Henry [In.] We also notice that Edward VI. is preceded by Henry VI., and Henry VI. by Henry III., or the half of six [In. by W. and P.]. Finally we observe that between William II. and Mary, there are three series of kings completed—eight Henrys, six Edwards, and three Richards. Making the three Richards reference points we can easily fix the residue of the eighteen kings for we see that Richard I. or the First, is preceded by Henry II. and followed by Henry III., with the first and only John as the second single intermediary [In.] and that Richard II. is preceded by Edward I., Edward II., and Edward III., or three Edwards, and followed by Henry IV., Henry V., and Henry VI., or three Henrys, and that Richard III. is preceded by Edward IV. and Edward V., or two Edwards, and followed by Henry VII. and Henry VIII., or two Henrys.

Recalling the succession from William I. to Edward VI., we have William I., William II., Henry I., Stephen, Henry II., Richard I., John, Henry III., Edward I., Edward II., Edward III., Richard II., Henry IV., Henry V., Henry VI., Edward IV., Edward V., Richard III., Henry VII., Henry VIII., Edward VI. Reversing the order, we have Edward VI., Henry VIII., Henry VII., Richard III., Edward V., Edward IV., Henry VI., Henry V., Henry IV., Richard II., Edward III., Edward II., Edward I., Henry III., John, Richard I., Henry II., Stephen, Henry I., William II., and William I.

We conclude with the recital both ways of the thirty-seven Sovereigns from William I. to Victoria.

William I. VICTORIA. William II. William IV. Henry I. George IV. Stephen. George III. Henry II. George II. Richard I. George I. John. ANNE. Henry III. William III. and Mary, Edward I. James II. Edward II. Charles II. Edward III. Council of State and Parliament. Richard II. Richard Cromwell. Henry IV. Oliver Cromwell. Henry V. Council of State and Parliament. Henry VI. Charles I. Edward IV. James I. Edward V. ELIZABETH. Richard III. MARY. Henry VII. Edward VI. Henry VIII. Henry VIII. Edward VI. Henry VII. MARY. Richard III. ELIZABETH. Edward V. James I. Edward IV. Charles I. Henry VI. Council of State and Parliament. Henry V. Oliver Cromwell. Henry IV. Richard Cromwell. Richard II. Council of State and Parliament. Edward III. Charles II. Edward II. James II. Edward I. William III. and Mary. Henry III. ANNE. John. George I. Richard I. George II. Henry II. George III. Stephen. George IV. Henry I. William IV. William II. VICTORIA. William I.



When my pupils have gained the quick perception and instantaneous apprehension which always reward the studious use of In., Ex., and Con., they can, amongst other new achievements, always remember and never forget figures and dates.

Pike's Peak, the most famous in the chain known as the Rocky Mountains in America, is fourteen thousand one hundred and forty-seven feet high. Instantly, one who is trained in the use of In., Ex., and Con., perceives that there are two fourteens [Syn., In.] in these figures, and that the last figure is half of fourteen, or 7 In. by W. and P., making 14,147. Of course, one who is not practised in analogies, in discovering similarities and finding differences would not have noticed any peculiarity in these figures which would enable him to remember them. Few people ever notice any relations among numbers. But any possible figures or dates always possess relations to the mind trained in In., Ex., and Con.

Fujiyama, the noted volcano of Japan, is twelve thousand three hundred and sixty-five feet high. Does any pupil who has mastered the first lesson and who is expert in the use of In., Ex., and Con., fail to notice that here we have the disguised statement that the height of this mountain is expressed in the number of months and days of the year, 12,365 feet high? These figures drop into that mould and henceforth are remembered without difficulty. These are remarkable coincidences no doubt, but are not all sets of figures similarly impressive coincidences to the trained eye, and the active, thinking and assimilative mind?

No reader of English history has failed to notice the three sixes in the date of the Great Fire in London, viz., 1666. The "three sixes" are generally resorted to as a signal for fire companies to turn out in full force; yet such a coincidence of figures in a distant date makes a slight impression compared to the vividness of events that happened in the year of our birth, the year of graduation from school, the year of marriage, and the year of the death of relatives, &c., &c. Keep a small blank book for such entries, not to help remember the dates or facts, but to have them together so as to rapidly deal with them, to classify them and otherwise study them under the eye. You will soon be astonished at the accumulation.

The population of New Zealand, exclusive of natives, is 672,265. Bringing the first two figures into relation with the last two we have 67 and 65—a difference of 2 only. The two groups of 672 and 265 have the figure 2 at the end of the first group, and another 2 at the beginning of the second group. These two twos are in sequence (Con.), and each of them expresses the difference between 67 and 65. Thought about in this way, or in any other, the series becomes fixed in mind, and will be hard to forget.

The population of Sydney is 386,400. Here are two groups of three figures each. The first two figures of the first group are 38, and the first two figures of the second group are 40—a difference of 2. Two taken from 8 leaves 6, or the third figure of the first group, and 2 added to the first figure of the second group makes 6. The 40 ends with a cypher, and it is a case of Syn. In. that the last figure of the second group or the third figure of it should likewise be a cypher. Besides, those who know anything at all about the population of Sydney must know that it is vastly more than 38,640, and hence that there must be another cypher after 40, making the total of 386,400.

The population of Melbourne is 490,912. Here we have 4 at the beginning and half of 4 or 2 at the end of the six figures. The four interior figures, viz., 9091 is a clear case of Con.—or 90 and 91. Then again 91 ending with 1, the next figure is 2—a case of sequence or Con. But 490,912 is the population of the city of Melbourne with its suburbs. The "city" itself contains only 73,361 inhabitants, 73 reversed becomes 37—or only 1 more than 36. This 1 placed at the end of or after 36 makes the 361. Now 37 reversed is 73, and then follows 361, making the total to be 73,361.

Let the attentive pupil observe that this method does not give any set of rules for thinking in the same manner in regard to different sets or example of numbers. That would be impossible. Thinking or finding relations amongst the objects of thought must be differently worked out in each case, since the figures themselves are differently grouped.

The foregoing cases in regard to population will suffice for those who live in the Australian colonies, and to others they will teach the method of handling such cases, and leave them the pleasure of working out the process in regard to the population where they reside, or other application of the method they may wish to make.

Great encouragement is found in the circumstance that after considerable practice in dealing with numerous figures through In., Ex., and Con., new figures are self-remembered from the habit of assimilating numbers. They henceforth make more vivid impressions than formerly.

INCLUSION embraces cases where the same kind of facts or the principles were involved, or the same figures occur in different dates with regard to somewhat parallel facts—End of Augustus's empire [death] 14 A.D.—End of Charlemagne's [death] 814 A.D., and end of Napoleon's [abdication] 1814 A.D.

EXCLUSION implies facts from the opposite sides relating to the same events, conspicuously opposite views held by the same man at different periods, or by different men who were noticeably similar in some other respects, or antithesis as to the character or difference in the nationality [if the two nations are frequent foes] of different men in whose careers, date of birth, or what not, there was something distinctly parallel—Egbert, first King of England, died 837. William IV., last King of England, died 1837. What a vivid exclusion here for instance: Abraham died 1821 B.C., and Napoleon Bonaparte died 1821 A.D.

CONCURRENCES are found in events that occur on the same date or nearly so, or follow each other somewhat closely.

Charles Darwin, who advocated evolution, now popular with scientists in every quarter of the globe, and Sir H. Cole, who first advocated International Exhibitions, now popular in every part of the world [Inclusion] were born in the same year 1809 [Concurrence] and died in the same year 1882 [Concurrence].

Garibaldi [the Italian] and Skobeleff [the Russian] [Exclusion, being of different countries], both great and recklessly patriotic generals [Inclusion] and both favourites in France [Inclusion], died in the same year, 1882 [Concurrence]. Longfellow and Rossetti, both English-speaking poets [Inclusion] who had closely studied Dante [Inclusion] died in the same year, 1882 [Concurrence].

Haydn, the great composer, was born in 1732, and died in 1809; this date corresponds to that of the birth [Exclusion and Concurrence] of another famous composer [Inclusion], Mendelssohn, who himself died in 1847, the same year as O'Connell.

Lamarck [1744-1829], advocated a theory of development nearly resembling the Darwinian Theory of the Origin of Species [In.]. This he did in 1809, the year in which Charles Darwin was born [Con.]. Darwin's writings have altered the opinions of many as to the Creation, and the year of his birth was that of the death of Haydn, the composer of the Oratorio "The Creation." [Con. and Ex.].

John Baptiste Robinet taught the gradual development of all forms of existence from a single creative cause. He died in 1820, the year in which Herbert Spencer, the English Apostle of Evolution, was born [In., Ex., and Con.].

Galileo, founder of Modern Astronomy, born in 1564—Shakespeare's birth year [Con.]—died in 1642, the very year in which Sir Isaac Newton was born. Galileo's theory was not proved but merely made probable, until the existence of the laws of gravitation was established, and it was Newton who discovered gravitation. This is an instance of Inclusion as to the men, of Exclusion and Concurrence as to date of birth and death.

Two prominent literati [Inclusion], one a Frenchman the other an Englishman [Exclusion], well-known for the pomposity and sonority of their style of writing [Inclusion], were born in the same year, 1709, and died the same year 1784, a double Concurrence—Lefranc de Pompignan—[pompous In. by S.], and Samuel Johnson.

General Foy, an orator and artillery officer, fond of literature, was born the same year [Concurrence] 1775, as the orator [Inclusion], Daniel O'Connell. He died in 1825, the same year [Concurrence] as Paul-Louis Courier, who was also an artillery officer [Inclusion], fond of literature [Inclusion], and moreover, like O'Connell, a violent pamphleteer [Inclusion].

Two illustrious, uncompromising characters [Inclusion], both brilliant composers [Inclusion], the one musical, the other literary, the one a representative of the music of the future, the other of the obsolete polemic of the past [Exclusion], Richard Wagner and Louis Veuillot, were born in the same year, 1813, and died in the same year, 1883. The last point is a double Concurrence.

Two foremost harbingers of modern thought [Inclusion], Voltaire and J. J. Rousseau, died in 1778—[Concurrence]. Both gained for themselves the reputation of having been the most reckless antagonists of Christianity [Inclusion]. And still the one dedicated a church to the service of God, whilst the other in his "Emile" wrote a vindication of Christianity [Exclusion as to each of them, Inclusion as to both of them].

A little practice makes the pupil prompt in dealing with any figures whatever. Take the height of Mount Everest, which is 29,002 feet. We have all heard that it is more than five miles high. Let us test this statement. There are 5,280 feet in a mile, multiply 5,280 by 5, and we have 26,400. Hence we see that Mount Everest being 29,002 feet high must be more than five miles high. Half of a mile is 5,280 feet divided by 2, or 2,640 feet. Add this to 26,400 and we have 29,040. Hence we see that Mount Everest is 51/2 miles high lacking 38 feet, or that if we add 38 feet to its height of 29,002, it would then be exactly 51/2 miles high. Can we then forget that it is exactly 29,002 feet high?

Shakespeare was born in 1564 and died in 1616. The First Folio Edition of his works was printed in 1623, the Second in 1632, the Third in 1664, and the Fourth in 1685. Can we fix these events infallibly in our memories? We can begin with whichever date we prefer. If we add together the figures of the year of his birth, 1564, they make 16. All the dates hereafter considered occurred in 1600, &c. We can thus disregard the first 16 and consider only the last two figures which constitute the fraction of a century.

Let us begin with his death in 1616 in the sixteens. Is not this a vivid collocation of figures? Can we forget it as applied to the great dramatist? Now if we double the last 16, it gives us the date of the second Folio in [16]32 and 32 reversed gives us the date of the first Folio. Again, seven years after his death ["seven ages of man"] his first Folio was published in 1623. The second Folio was published in 1632 or 23 reversed, and the third Folio in 1664, or 32 doubled, and just 100 years after his birth in 1564. His birth might also be remembered as occurring in the same year as that of the great astronomer Galileo. The fourth Folio appeared in 1685 or 21 years after the third Folio. This period measures the years that bring man's majority or full age.

Attention to the facts of reading will be secured by increased power of Concentration, and a familiarity with In., Ex., and Con. will enable us to assimilate all dates and figures by numeric thinking with the greatest promptitude, especially the longer or larger series.

Try the case of Noah's Flood, 2348 B.C. Here the figures pass by a unit at a time from 2[3] to 4, and then by doubling the 4 we have the last figure 8—making altogether 2348. Another method of dealing with this date is very instructive. Read the account in Gen. ch. vii., vv. 9, 13, and 15. Now we can proceed.

They went into the Ark by twos. This gives the figure 2. Now let us find the other figures. Noah's three sons and their wives make three pairs of persons, or three families. This gives the second figure 3. Then counting Noah and his wife, and his three sons and their wives, there were four pairs of human beings altogether. This gives the figure 4. Finally the total number of human beings who entered the ark were 4 pairs or eight persons. This gives the figure 8. Thus we have the entire set of figures, 2348 B.C. Take the date of the creation according to the accepted biblical chronology as 4004 B.C. We could say the date has four figures, that the expression of it begins and ends with the figure 4, and that the two intermediates are nought, or cyphers; or that the figures are expressed by 40 and forty reversed as 40-04—or 4004.


Having met several persons who claimed that they always remembered figures by reasoning about them [whatever that may have meant], and yet all such persons having shown an inability to remember many dates or numbers, I inferred that they were honestly mistaken in supposing that they could remember numbers, or else that such a method was not adapted to their idiosyncrasies. At that time, I did not suspect that their failure may have arisen from lack of training in In., Ex., and Con. From the circumstance that I myself could use this method with promptitude and certainty, I determined to test it in a strictly scientific way.

I made the experiment two years ago, and all my experience since has corroborated the conclusion then arrived at.

I experimented with the two groups of 20 pupils each. Neither knew any method of dealing with dates and numbers. The first group had had no training in In., Ex., and Con.; the second group had been well practised in those laws. I then gave each member of each group several very difficult cases of dates and numbers to be memorised—one example containing 24 figures. To save time and space in exposition, I have heretofore only mentioned 12 figures, or the half of the amount. All of the first group failed except one. He, however, could not memorise the 24 figures. All of the second group handled all the new examples with success, and only two of them met with much difficulty in dealing with the 24 figures.

Since this decisive experiment, I have heartily recommended the method of finding relations amongst the numbers themselves, to all who are proficient in the use of In., Ex., and Con.

The example of 24 figures must conclude this exposition. They represent respectively the number of the day of the month in which the first Saturday in each month falls in 1895 and 1896. To one without practice in applying analysis to figures, there seems no hope of memorising this long group of figures except by endless repetition. The 24 figures are


Yet reflect a moment and all will be clear. Divide the 24 figures into 2 groups of 12 figures each and number the first group, divided into four sections, thus:—

(1) (2) (3) (4) 522, 641, 637, 527.

Now bring the first and fourth groups into relation, and you see at once that the fourth group is larger than the first group by only five. Bringing the second group into relation with the third group, we find they differ only by four. Again: the third group is larger than the fourth by 100 and by 10, that is 527 becomes 637, the seven alone remaining steadfast. Beginning with the fourth group and passing to the third group we have the fourth group with 110 added. The second group is the third group with only four added, and the first group is the fourth group with only five subtracted. Thinking out these relations you can recall the groups as groups or the separate figures of each group or the entire 12 figures either forwards or backwards—and you have achieved this result by Attention and Thought.

The other twelve figures are easily disposed of. They are 417426415375. Divided into groups of three figures each we have

(1) (2) (3) (4) 417 426 415 375.

Bringing the first group into relation with the third group, we notice that it is larger by two—and considering the second group with the fourth group, we find that the second group is as much and one more above 400 as the fourth is below 400. Other minor matters could be noticed, as that the first two figures of each group are respectively 41—42—41—37, and that the last figure in each group is 7—6—5—5. But these relations are hardly worth observing.

Coming back to the first series, we know that each figure represents the number of the day of the month to which it belongs on which the first Saturday in that month falls. The figures for 1895 are 522—641—637—527. The first Saturday in January, 1895, falls on the fifth day of January, hence the second Saturday must be 5 + 7 = the 12th day of January; the third Saturday the 19th, and the fourth Saturday 26th. It is easy to know on what day of the week any day in January falls. Suppose you ask on what week day the 25th of January falls? You know the 26th is Saturday, and hence the 25th must be the day preceding the 26th, to wit, Friday, the 25th. Suppose you ask on what week day the 9th of January falls. You know the 12th is Saturday (the second Saturday). You now count backward thus: 12 is Saturday, 11 must be Friday, 10 Thursday, 9 must be Wednesday. The first Saturday in January, 1895, is the 5th; of February, the 2nd; of March, the 2nd; of April, the 6th; of May, the 4th, &c., &c. And we can tell on what week day any day of any of the other months falls.


1.—The Ratio of the Circumference of the circle to its diameter is expressed by the integer 3 and 708 decimals, of which I give only eight. Learning these nine figures is good practice in numeric thinking—3.14159265.

2.—The Yellowstone National Park contains 2,294,740 acres.

3.—The Monster Chartist Petition contained 3,317,702 names.



How unobservant and wholly unreliant many pupils are may be seen from the fact that notwithstanding my elaborate handling of the processes of learning prose and poetry by heart, I often receive requests to send some indication of how I would learn a particular chapter or selection by heart! But a chapter consists of paragraphs and paragraphs of sentences. Learning the desired passages by heart is done by applying the methods here so profusely illustrated to the successive sentences of the chapter or selection, until practice and training in these methods will make their further application unnecessary.

In pursuance of my plan to keep the mind in an ASSIMILATING condition when trying to learn and to further aid in making the intellect stay and work with the senses, I proceed to furnish a Training Method for committing prose and poetry to memory.

Endless repetition or repeating a sentence to be memorised over and over again is the usual process. After one perusal, however, the mind in such a case has sated its curiosity in regard to the meaning of the sentence and each subsequent repetition for the purpose of fixing it in the memory merely makes an impression upon the eye or ear or both, and the intellect, being unoccupied, naturally wanders away. Hence, learning by rote promotes mind-wandering: for the Attention always wanders unless wooed to its work by all-engrossing interest in the subject which in case of a weak power of Attention is rarely sufficient, or by the stimulating character of the process of acquirement which is made use of. In the Method about to be given, the intellect is agreeably occupied, and thereby a Habit of Attention is promoted.

The justification for this Method is found in the Psychological maxim that the intellect can assimilate a simple idea more easily than a complex idea, and a few ideas at a time than many ideas.

The process of this New Method of Decomposition and Recomposition is as follows:—Find the shortest sentence or phrase that makes sense in the sentence to be memorised. Add to this short sentence or phrase, modifiers found in the original sentence, always italicising each new addition—one at a time—until the original sentence is finally restored. Suppose we wish to memorise Bacon's definition of education: "Education is the cultivation of a just and legitimate familiarity betwixt the mind and things." Begin with the briefest sentence and then go on: 1. Education is cultivation. 2. Education is the cultivation of a familiarity. 3. Education is the cultivation of a familiarity betwixt the mind and things. 4. Education is the cultivation of a just familiarity betwixt the mind and things. 5. Education is the cultivation of a just and legitimate familiarity betwixt the mind and things. In this process, the sentence is first taken to pieces, and then reconstructed. Finding the lowest terms, "Education is cultivation," we proceed step by step to add modifiers until the original sentence is fully restored.

Each time we make an addition, we recite so much of the original sentence as has hitherto been used, in connection with the new modifiers laying special emphasis on the new matter as represented by the italic words. The intellect is thus kept compulsorily and delightfully occupied from the start to the finish. It seeks the shortest phrase or sentence and adds successively all the modifiers, making no omissions. This analyzing and synthesizing process—this taking to pieces and then gradually building up the original sentence, makes a deep and lasting First Impression.

Every time this method is used the Attention ought to be strengthened and mind-wandering diminished and the natural Memory strengthened in both its Stages.

This process admits usually of several applications in the case of a long sentence. In the foregoing example, it might have proceeded thus: 1. Education is a familiarity. 2. Education is the familiarity betwixt the mind and things. 3. Education is the cultivation of a familiarity betwixt the mind and things. 4. Education is the cultivation of just familiarity betwixt the mind and things. 5. Education is the cultivation of a just and legitimate familiarity betwixt the mind and things. Or we might have taken this course: 1. Education is a familiarity. 2. Education is a familiarity betwixt the mind and things. 3. Education is a just familiarity betwixt the mind and things. 4. Education is a just and legitimate familiarity betwixt the mind and things. 5. Education is the cultivation of a just and legitimate familiarity betwixt the mind and things.

1. To keep the mind in an assimilating condition, what method is furnished? 2. What is the usual process of memorising prose and poetry? 3. After one perusal in such a process what takes place? 4. Does learning by rote promote mind-wandering? 5. Does not the attention always wander unless wooed to its work by great interest in the subject dealt with, or by the method of learning which is given? 6. How is the intellect occupied by using my method? 7. Is the habit of Attention also promoted? 8. Where is the justification of this method found? 9. Can the intellect assimilate a simple idea more easily than a complex idea? 10. Describe the process of learning by the Analytic Synthetic Method.


"Attention is the will directing the intellect into some particular channel and keeping it there." 1. Attention is the will. 2. Attention is the will directing the intellect. 3. Attention is the will directing the intellect into a channel. 4. Attention is the will directing the intellect into some channel. 5. Attention is the will directing the intellect into some particular channel. 6. Attention is the will directing the intellect into some particular channel and keeping it there. Or we may take this course: 1. Attention is directing the intellect. 2. Attention is directing the intellect into a channel. 3. Attention is directing the intellect into some channel. 4. Attention is directing the intellect into some particular channel. 5. Attention is directing the intellect into some particular channel and keeping it there. 6. Attention is the will directing the intellect into some particular channel and keeping it there.


"An estate upon condition is one which depends upon the happening or not happening of some uncertain event whereby the estate may be either originally created or enlarged or finally defeated."

1. An estate is one. 2. An estate upon condition is one. 3. An estate upon condition is one which depends upon the happening of some event. 4. An estate upon condition is one which depends upon the happening or not happening of some event. 5. An estate upon condition is one which depends upon the happening or not happening of some uncertain event. 6. An estate upon condition is one which depends upon the happening or not happening of some uncertain event whereby the estate may be created or enlarged or defeated. 7. An estate upon condition is one which depends upon the happening or not happening of some uncertain event whereby the estate may be either created or enlarged or defeated. 8. An estate upon condition is one which depends upon the happening or not happening of some uncertain event whereby the estate may be either originally created or enlarged or defeated. 9. An estate upon condition is one which depends upon the happening or not happening of some uncertain event whereby the estate may be either originally created or enlarged or finally defeated.

1  2  3  4     Next Part
Home - Random Browse