I don’t deny that such techniques are useful in some circumstances, for example if it’s necessary to recall a sequence of items in the order in which they were heard. Those who employ these techniques will set the items in the places they have learned previously, a table, say, in the entry-hall, a platform in the atrium and all the rest, then read them off from where they have placed them. The procedure may also be helpful to those who, after an auction, recall what they have sold and to whom, with the clerks checking against their notebooks. (It’s said that Hortensius9 could do just this.) But the same technique is less useful for memorizing a continuous oration. Thoughts don’t supply images the way objects do, but they require invention of a new sign. Still, a particular place may remind us of them, for example the locale in which a given conversation was held.
But how can a connected series of words be grasped using this method? Never mind that some words cannot be represented by likenesses, for example conjunctions. Even assuming that we could provide definite images for everything, like scribes using shorthand, and had an infinite supply, enough to express every word in the five speeches of the second action against Verres,10 and that we can recall all of them, as if they had been placed in a safe-deposit box, won’t the flow of our speech be hampered by this double process of remembering? How can words flow as linked units if for each word we must seek out a unique form? So let Charmadas and the Metrodorus of Scepsis11 I just mentioned, both of whom used this system, according to Cicero, keep it for themselves. We shall pass along a simpler approach.
If a speech of some length is to be memorized, it will be helpful to learn it part by part. For memory struggles under too great a burden. And the parts must not be too short; otherwise their large number will cut the memory to bits. I’m not going to specify a particular length – that will be determined by the boundaries of the passage, unless it happens to be very long, in which case it too will need to be divided. Still, boundaries must be set so that frequent and continuous practice can preserve the order of the words (which is the most difficult thing), and further repetition can unite the parts that have been memorized. In the case of passages that are difficult to remember, it will be helpful to associate symbols or markers that can serve as reminders and prompt recollection. For no one is so inept as to be ignorant of the symbol he has assigned to each locale. Even if a person is a little slow in this regard, he can use the device of attaching appropriate symbols to the ideas that otherwise slip away. For example, as I mentioned above, an anchor if he needs to speak about a ship, a spear if the topic is a battle.
Symbols are very effective, and one idea can proceed from another, as when we move a ring or tie something to it to remind ourselves of why we did so. Even more useful is to lead the memory from one item to something it resembles. For example, in the case of names, if we need to remember someone named Fabius, we associate him with the famous Fabius the Delayer,12 who can’t be forgotten, or to a friend with the same name. This is even easier in the case of Aper (Boar), Ursus (Bear), Naso (Nose) or Crispus (Curly), since we can recall the etymology of the names. Origin also helps in remembering derived names, like Cicero, Verrius or Aurelius.13 But enough of this.
A technique that will be helpful for everyone is to learn a speech from the tablets on which you composed it. The orator will track down his recollection by following certain signs, and as if with his eyes he will see not just the pages but even the lines, and he will sometimes speak as if he were reading. If there is a deletion or addition or alteration there are certain marks that keep us from going astray. This procedure bears some resemblance to the technique I discussed earlier, but, based on my experience, it is simpler and more effective.
To memorize the speech in silence would be best (for I have been asked about this), were it not that other thoughts often occur as if to a mind at ease. Because of this, the mind should be prompted by the voice, and memory assisted by the double effort of speaking and hearing. But the voice should be low, almost a whisper. The person who learns his speech by listening to someone else read it is hampered in that sight is a keener sense than sound; but he’s helped in that after he’s listened to the speech once or twice he can test his memory and try to keep up with the person who is reading it aloud.
More generally we should test ourselves from time to time, for continuous reading passes over passages that are harder and easier to recall at an equal pace. In testing whether we remember something or not, our focus improves and we waste less time on passages we already know. Only passages that have escaped memory are repeated, to be shored up with frequent repetition, although they tend to stick in the mind precisely because they had once slipped out.
Learning by heart and writing have this in common: they both benefit when health is good, food has been thoroughly digested and the mind is free of other thoughts. In recalling what we have written and retaining what we think, pretty much the only things that matter (not counting practice, which is the most important) are division and composition. If you make the proper division, you cannot go wrong about the sequence of things. For there is a particular correct order in both the distribution of questions or issues and in their development, that is, first, second and so on. The entire sequence will be so cohesive that any addition or omission will be obvious. Aren’t we told that Scaevola, in a game of twelve rows,14 in which he had moved a pebble first and still been defeated, while he headed back to his farm, recalled the sequence of the entire game, and being reminded of where he had gone wrong, went back to the person he had been playing against, who admitted that it had happened just as he remembered? Will order be less important in a speech, especially when it’s entirely determined by our judgement, than when a rival participates equally?
A well-composed speech will lead memory according to its sequence. Just as we learn verse more easily than prose, we learn tightly structured prose more readily than loose or random. Even passages that appear to have been uttered extemporaneously can be recalled verbatim. I’ve managed this, although there’s nothing special about my memory, on occasions when someone who was worthy of the honour interrupted one of my declamations and asked me to repeat something. There are witnesses still alive who can verify that I am not lying.
Still, if anyone asks what I consider the single most effective memory technique, I answer: practise, practise, practise. Learn much by heart, think up much and, if possible, do so every day, which will be most effective. Nothing benefits as much from attention, or declines as much from neglect. From the outset boys should be memorizing as much as possible; and whoever, regardless of age, wishes to improve the memory will swallow their initial distaste at regurgitating what they have written and read and chewing the same old cud. The task will go more easily if we begin with just a little and memorize only as much as does not repel us, then increase the amount by a verse each day, an addition of labour that we will barely notice, until at last we can absorb an unlimited amount. We should start with poetry, proceed to oratory and finally attempt writings that are loose in rhythm and far removed from everyday speech, like those of the legal specialists. For training should be more difficult than what we are training for, as with athletes who practise while carrying lead weights, even though their hands will be empty and bare in the actual contest. Nor should I fail to mention that slow minds are least reliable when it comes to recent memories, as will be obvious from everyday experience.
There’s no apparent reason for the remarkable fact that even a single night will greatly improve memory – perhaps it’s the break from labour that had made it grow tired, perhaps recollection (which is the strongest aspect of memory) ripens and strengthens. Things that could not be recalled on the spot are reassembled on the following day, and time, which is generally considered a cause of forgetfulness, actually strengthens memory. Memories acquired quickly disappear just as quickly. They depart as if, having accomplished their present duty, they have no obligation to the future. It’s not really a surprise that memories that have been implanted in the mind over a long period of time are more likely to stay put.
Given the differences in natural talent that I’ve referred to, we might ask whether a speech should be memorized word for word, or whether it’s sufficient to recall the force and order of things to be discussed. Without a doubt there is no universally applicable answer to this question. For if the memory is reliable and there is plenty of time, I would rather not let a single syllable escape. Otherwise there would be no point in writing. This precision is especially to be sought for in boys and their memories should be trained in this habit. We must not grow accustomed to making excuses for ourselves!
For the same reason I think it’s a mistake for the boy to be prompted or to look at his notebook, which provides an excuse for inattention. Nor will he recognize that he hasn’t learned it well enough if he’s never afraid of losing track of something. This is how delivery gets interrupted, and the speech becomes hesitant and irregular. It’s as if the speaker is still learning his speech; he loses all the charm of what he has carefully written by making it obvious that he has in fact written it. Memory, on the other hand, creates a reputation for a quick wit. We will seem to have invented what we are saying right then and there, instead of transporting it from home. This will be a big advantage for the orator as well as his case. For a judge admires more and fears less what he does not imagine to have been prepared against him. In courtroom pleading we must take special care that what we have composed so brilliantly we present as flowing naturally and that we sometimes seem to be thinking out and hesitating over the very words we have brought with us.
So the best course of action is clear to all. But if our memory happens by nature to be a little dull or time is insufficient, it will be useless to bind ourselves to each and every word. Forgetting even one of them can prompt an unattractive hesitation or even silence. It’s safer by far to hold in mind the facts of the case and allow ourselves to speak without constraint. All of us are reluctant to let go of a word we have carefully selected, and it’s difficult to find another when we are searching for the one we wrote. But even this is no compensation for a weak memory, unless the speaker has developed the capacity for talking off the cuff. If he can’t do either,15 I would urge him to give up the work of a pleader and if he has any talent for literary arts, turn to writing. But this is a rare type of incapacity.
Be that as it may, there are numerous examples of the power of memory, whether natural or cultivated. Take Themistocles, who is said to have spoken Persian exceptionally well after only a year; or Mithradates, who is said to have known twenty-two languages, as many as the nations he commanded; or Crassus the Rich, who, when he was in charge of Asia, understood five dialects of Greek, so that whatever the language of the petition, he responded in the same; or Cyrus,16 who is believed to have known by heart the names of all of his soldiers. Why, it’s said of Theodectes17 that however many verses he heard just once, he could repeat them immediately. People used to say that there are some alive today who can perform the same feat, but I’ve never had the opportunity to be present. Well, this much we can rely on: whoever believes such things can hope to achieve them.