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.