Chapter 3

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.

HOW TO LEARN PROPER NAMES IN A CERTAIN ORDER OF SUCCESSION.

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

GEORGE WASHINGTON, JOHN ADAMS, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, JAMES MONROE, JOHN Q. ADAMS, ANDREW JACKSON.

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.

FIRST GROUP.

_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.

REMARKS.

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 _G_eorge Washington, _J_ohn Adams, Thomas _J_efferson, _J_ames Madison, _J_ames Monroe, _J_ohn Q. Adams, and Andrew _J_ackson.

SECOND GROUP.

_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.

REMARKS.

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.

THIRD GROUP.

_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 Ulyss_es_ and in Hay_es_ 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 _Hay_es and and the field of Gar_field_, 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.

REMARKS.

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).

ENGLISH SOVEREIGNS.

A UNIQUE EXERCISE.

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.