“The
necessity of memory to the acquisition of knowledge is inevitably felt and
universally allowed, so that scarcely any other of the mental faculties are
commonly considered as necessary to a student: he that admires the proficiency
of another, always attributes it to the happiness of his memory; and he that
laments his own defects, concludes with a wish that his memory was better.”
The fault
is not in capacity. My Uncle Kenneth once referred to an ample-figured woman as
“ten pounds of sausage in a five-pound casing.” The metaphor doesn’t work for
memory. In my experience, its capacity is elastic and possibly infinite, especially
when we are young. That’s the only way I could have memorized so much
Longfellow and Eliot, not to mention commercial jingles, sit-com theme songs,
Latin verbs and much of the Burl Ives songbook. Strangely, and contrary to much
modern thinking, Johnson disapproves of marginalia and the copying of favorite
passages. His own memory was legendary, of course, and perhaps its prodigality
blinded him to the capacities of lesser mortals. He continues:
“If
the mind is employed on the past or future, the book will be held before the
eyes in vain. What is read with delight is commonly retained, because pleasure
always secures attention; but the books which are consulted by occasional
necessity, and perused with impatience, seldom leave any traces on the mind.”
Common
sense commonly disregarded.
1 comment:
"Johnson disapproves of marginalia and the copying of favorite passages. His own memory was legendary, of course, and perhaps its prodigality blinded him to the capacities of lesser mortals."
Guilty as charged, what with my constant copying, plus note-making on Goodreads.com. (I've hijacked their "Review" feature for personal purposes.)
Even w/out marginalia, I believe his books were the worse for wear, when Johnson set them aside.
Post a Comment