The principle of the scheme of Simonides is, to trans fer a train of ideas, the archetypes of which are not the objects of sense, and are, therefore, of difficult recollec tion, to another train which we cannot fail to recollect, because the archetypes are not only objects of sense, but objects of sight, with which archetypes we are per fectly familiar, or which may be placed actually before our eyes. Suppose then Simonides were to commit to memory a discourse consisting of speculations concern ing government, finances, naval affairs, or wisdom, none of the archetypes of which could be made objects of sense, at least, at the time of delivery ; and to assist his recollection, he were to connect the series of ideas, in that discourse, with a series of objects, which he could either place in sight, or with which he was so familiar that he could not fail to recollect them ; he would pro ceed in the following manner : He would take a house, for instance, either the one in which he might deliver the discourse, or another ; with every part of which he was perfectly acquainted. He would begin at some fixed point of that house, suppose the right side of the door, and he would proceed round it in a circular line, till he arrived at the point from which he set out. He would divide the circumference of the house into as many parts as there were different topics or paragraphs in the dis course. He would distinguish each paragraph by some symbol of the subject it contained ; that on government by the symbol of a crown, or a sceptre ; that on finances, by the symbol of sonic current coin; that on naval affairs, by the figure of a ship; that on wisdom, by the figure of the goddess who presided over it. He would either actually transfer, or suppose transferred, these symbols to the different compartments of the house, and then all he had to do, in order to recollect the subject of any paragraph, was, either to cast his eye on the symhol during delivery, or to remember upon what division the symbol was placed. The memory, by this contrivance, easily recalled the discourse. The orator either saw, or could not fail to remember the compartments, because he was perfectly familial with them. Neither could he forget the symbols of each paragraph, because they were no more than hieroglyphical paintings of the sense.
Such were the origin and principles of the celebrated topical memory of the ancients; from which source are derived all the various modern systems of local and sym bolical memory. Our readers will find this story of Simonides circumstantially related and commented on by Cicero, de Orat. lib. ii. ; by the author of the books ad Herennium, lib. iii.; and by Quintilian in the second chap ter of the eleventh hook of his Institutions. The An thology has preserved the following distich of Simonides, relative to the subject of his memory : We must observe, however, that in spite of these ancient authorities, the claim of Simonides to the merit of in venting the art of memory, has been recently contro verted in a dissertation on the mnemonic art among the ancients, by Professor Morgenstern of Dorpat, who seems to trace this science to the Egyptian hierogly phics.
Several of the Greek philosophers appear to have adopted and recommended certain artificial rules for the assistance of the memory ; Aristotle is said, among others, to have written a work entitled myzpt.1.1,0,09, which has been lost ; and Pliny (Hist. Nat. Lib. VII.
cap. 24.) expressly names Metrodorus, a contemporary of Cicero, as the individual who first brought the art into a systematic and scientific form. It is to him, therefore, that we are probably indebted for the theory of places and images.
In more modern times, this art was cultivated by Raymund Lolly, (in his ..4rs Magna,) and others, whose works we shall notice at the end of this article. The Germans, who are fond of constructing theories upon all subjects, have recently paid much attention to mne monics, and have not only explained the ancient methods, but invented several new systems.
So early as towards the end of the 16th century, the art of memory was revived by Lambert Schenckel, a man who possessed considerable learning, and who wrote various works on grammar, prosody, rhetoric, Sec. He travelled for many years in Germany, the Netherlands, and France ; and he obtained from the University of Paris the privilege of teaching his mnemonic doctrines in that capital. In his old age, he appointed his friend and pupil, Martin Sommer, a Silesian, to be his successor in the mnemonic chair. Sommer published a short tract in Latin, by way of invitation to the study of his art. Like his master, Schenckel, lie travelled a great deal, and realised a considerable fortune by teaching. Schenc kers work on the art of memory appeared, for the first time, in 1610; and Sommer published a new edition of it in 1619. For a long period, the principles of Lullus and Schenckel continued to be studied and commented upon, but little accession was made to the doctrine of mnemonics ; on the contrary, the speculations on this subject degenerated so much into frivolous common place, or mystical jargon, that they tended rather to degrade than to promote the study of the art.
The principal work published in England, on the subject of the local memory, appeared in 1618, under the title of Mnemonica ; sive ars reminiscendi, &c. by John Willis; and was translated, in 1661, by one Sowersby, a bookseller. In the year 1651, Henry Herdson published his Mnemcnica, sive Herdsonus Brusiatus, &c. in Latin and English. It is merely a republication of part of Brux's Simonides Redivivus. The Mcmoria Trchnica of Richard Grey was published in 1730 ; and to the ninth edition are appended the Mnemonics of Solomon Lowe, a small tract, now exceed ingly rare, which was first published in 1737. The system of Dr. Grey is allowed to be very ingenious. Dr. Priestley observes, " It is so easily learned, and may be of so much use in recollecting dates, when other methods are not at hand, that he thinks all persons of a liberal education inexcusable, who will not take the small de gree of pains that is necessary to make themselves mas ters of it ; or who think any thing mean, or unworthy of their notice, which is so useful and convenient." Since the commencement of the present century, the mnemonic doctrine has been again revived on the Con tinent, with considerable success, by Graffe, Aretin, Duchet, Kastner, Feinaigle, and others. Feinaigle tra velled a good deal ; and some years ago, he taught, and exhibited specimens of his method, at Paris, Lon don, and Edinburgh. A small volume was afterwards published, illustrative of the principles of his system, and exhibiting their application to the various sciences; from which we shall endeavour to present our readers with an abridged account of his method.