An infallible method of remembering proper names is (1) Get the name
when introduced. If not quite sure, ask for it. (2) _Pronounce_ the
_name aloud_ whilst _looking at_ the person. Do this several times, if
possible. The object is to produce a concurrence or connection between
the _sight-image of the Person_ and a _sound-image of his Name_. (3) To
help the ear for sound, always pronounce everyone's name aloud whenever
you meet him. This helps nature. These directions carried out never fail
to make a pupil perfect in remembering proper names.
To remember PROPER NAMES in the absence of the person, correlate the
Person's Name to the name of some Peculiarity of the Person (as the BEST
KNOWN and) which you are sure to THINK of whenever you think of the
Person. If you _memorise_ the Correlation, you will recall the Name
whenever you think of this Peculiarity (whatever struck you about him).
To remember a proper name, Mnemonists resort to In., by S. But this
_alone_ gives no starting point, no "Best Known" which you are certain
to think of, and which will enable you to recall the name, _provided_
you cement by a memorised Correlation the "Best Known" to the name
itself; in fact, a similarity of sound _alone_ and _by itself_ is likely
to mislead you into reviving itself instead of the name. A celebrated
Member of Parliament (who in the days of his youth, before he had
greatly tested Mnemonics, gave a high opinion of its value) was to
deliver an address at the Birkbeck Institution, some years ago. Having
difficulty in remembering proper names, he thought he would _fix_ the
name of its founder in his memory by the Mnemonical device of finding a
word that sounded like it; he said to himself, "It reminds me of
'Pinchbeck.'" He commenced as follows: "Before coming to the subject on
which I am to speak this evening, I desire to pay a deserved tribute of
praise to the founder of this great Institution, the celebrated Mr.
PINCHBECK." A shout of laughter revealed to him that Mnemonics may get
us into trouble, and fail to help us out: he could not remember the real
name, Birkbeck, until it was told him. If he had mastered this System,
his NEW memory-power would have enabled him to remember the true name
_without any device_; or, if he was but a beginner at my System he could
have remembered the name Birkbeck--which he was afraid he would
forget--by correlating it to the word--"Founder," which he did remember,
thus:--FOUNDER ... lost way ... hark-back ... Birkbeck; or, FOUNDER ...
foundered horse ... chestnut horse ... chestnut ... bur ... BIRKBECK. If
he had memorised either of these Correlations, or one of his own, by
repeating the intermediates forwards and backwards two or three times,
and then recalled the two extremes, "Founder," "Birkbeck," several
times, the moment he thought of Founder, he would instantly have
recalled Birkbeck, one extreme recalling the other without the
intermediates being recalled. When one has received only a third of the
benefit of this System as a Memory-TRAINER, the mere _making_ of a
Correlation ensures remembering two extremes together without thinking
of intermediates.
1. To what must we correlate a person's name?
2. What will be the result if we memorise the correlation?
3. To what do Mnemonists resort to remember proper names?
4. Does this _alone_ give a starting point?
5. What is a similarity of sound alone likely to do?
[Dr. Johnson, when introduced to a stranger repeated his name several
times aloud and sometimes _spelled_ it. This produced a vivid first
impression of the man's _name_; but it did not _connect_ the name to the
man who bore it. People who have adopted the Johnsonian Method
sometimes remember the name but apply it to the wrong person, because
they did not establish any relation between the name and the man to whom
it belonged.]