A more important question is whether Aristotle meant to limit the application of these laws to voluntary recollection (ἀνάμνησις), or whether he intended to include spontaneous reproduction (μνήμη) as well.
The opinion commonly held by students of Aristotle, from Themistius down, has been that he applied the law of association only to voluntary recollection. Hamilton, however, argues forcibly that Aristotle taught the universality of the law of association. It seems natural enough to suppose that one who saw so clearly that in the voluntary train of thought the sequence conforms to the law of association, would have seen that the same laws apply to the spontaneous activity of the mind. But while Aristotle states the law of association clearly for the former, he at most merely alludes to the latter, and obscurely enough at that. Later in the same treatise Aristotle gives an illustration that may serve to elucidate the principles of association that have just been stated. In recollection there are certain movements which serve as standpoints or clues. Milk suggests whiteness, whiteness the clear atmosphere, the atmosphere moisture, this the rainy season. So too, Themistius in commenting upon the passage quoted above, uses an illustration somewhat similar. “I see a painted lyre, and moved by this, as the prior and leading image, I have the reminiscence of a real lyre; this suggests the musician, and the musician, the song I heard him play.”[[21]] Again, Aristotle uses an illustration somewhat as follows: Let A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. represent a series of ideas, one of which we will to recall. From D E, as a starting point we may be moved forward by E or backward by D, by the association of ideas. If, then, on the suggestion of D E, we do not find what we would recall, we may find it by running over the series E ... H; if not, we shall at any rate find the desired idea by running over the series backward from D to A. Not much stress, however, should be put upon this last illustration; for the text is so obscure that many different interpretations have been given by commentators. Perhaps Aristotle meant to illustrate something more profound than the mere linkings of presentations in a series, and the process of recollecting the mental train. But the illustration of such a simple matter as this was not unimportant in the first scientific study of memory.
The place of memory in the Aristotelian psychology in relation to the lower psychic activities is plain from what has been said. The relation of memory, as voluntary recollection, to the higher activity of the Nous is indicated by Aristotle when he says that recollection is a syllogistic process. Thus it is that, while many animals have the lower kind of memory, man alone has the higher form. “The reason is”, says Aristotle, “that Reminiscence is, as it were, a kind of syllogism, or mental discourse. For he who is reminiscent, that he has formerly seen or heard, or otherwise perceived, anything virtually performs an act of syllogism.”[[22]] With Aristotle the higher functions of the soul are based upon the lower. “Without nutrition, there is no sense; without sense there is no phantasy; without phantasy there is no cogitation or intelligence.”[[23]] The place of memory among the soul’s functions is, with the phantasy or imagination, mediate between sensation and intelligence.
In connection with Aristotle’s doctrine of recollection, one passage in his Psychology is interesting, although its importance has, perhaps, been exaggerated. “Recollection,” he says, “starts from the soul and terminates in the movements or impressions which are stored up in the organs of sense.”[[24]] Siebeck interprets this passage as meaning that the soul has the power by means of the heart to effect a sort of efferent movement towards the sense organs and thus to arouse anew the persisting residua of former motions. Recollection, then, with Aristotle as in modern psychology, is an excitation of the sense organs, reproduced in a less degree; and the same organs are excited and the same movements repeated as in the original sensation.[[25]] This passage is certainly a remarkable anticipation of Bain’s famous doctrine that a reproduced impression “occupies the very same parts and in the same manner” as the original impression.[[26]]
In the foregoing sketch of Aristotle’s view of memory the attempt has been made to give only what can fairly be found in Aristotle’s text. Much of his tract upon memory is obscure. Commentators have held very conflicting opinions in regard to the importance of what he wrote upon association and recollection. Sir Wm. Hamilton calls him “the founder and finisher of the theory of Association,” looks upon the commentators as marvellously stupid in their interpretations, and deems it a proof of Aristotle’s genius that it took the world 2000 years to become intelligent enough to understand him. Indeed, in reading Hamilton’s erudite discussion one may be led almost to believing that Aristotle was the first Scottish philosopher. But while Hamilton’s Scottish apperception probably found too much in Aristotle’s treatise, and while, on the other hand, Lewes may be right in saying that “here as in so many other cases modern knowledge supplies the telescope with its lenses”, nevertheless Aristotle’s doctrine of association was a valuable contribution to science. And it is manifestly unfair to charge him with ignorance of its importance, because he did not spin out as many volumes upon the subject as the English associationalists have done.[[27]]
III.
The Stoics took Plato’s figure of the wax almost literally! They held that the mind is originally a tabula rasa. Sensations are the first writing upon this tablet. The object of sensation makes an impression upon the perceiving subject, as the seal impresses the wax. Memory depends upon this impression. This was the view of Zeno. Chrysippus found difficulties in such a crude materialistic theory. How could the mind receive and retain at the same time a number of different and partly incompatible impressions? Accordingly he replaced this view by the theory that the sense impression consists in a qualitative change (ἀλλοίωσις) of the passively receiving organ, the soul.[[28]] The presentation (φαντασία) is a state of the soul. The relation of memory to the general theory of knowledge with the Stoics was briefly as follows:—The lowest act of the soul is mere perception (αἴσθησις); the next is presentation (φαντασία), which adds conscious observation, its function being to make a first test of the truth of the material furnished by sense. If perception has offered a true picture of the external object, this presenting activity of the mind becomes so intensive that the understanding is brought into action. The understanding or judgment approves or disapproves the presentations. If it approves, there arises the empirical fact, which bears upon it the mark of truth. These facts memory stores up. By combination of the separate facts empirical concepts are formed which make up the treasure of memory or experience.[[29]]
The psychology of Epicurus and the other atomists was a simple kind of mechanical sensationalism. Eidola or images from external objects enter the soul through the sense organs. The mind stores up a great multitude of these eidola. Whenever we call up a picture of memory or of the imagination, we turn the attention to one of these images. Thus the mind sees in the same way that the eye does, with this difference, that it perceives much thinner eidola.[[30]]
Cicero and Quintilian both dwell upon the importance of memory; and both seem to adopt the common theory of the time, that impressions are stamped on the mind as the signets are marked on wax. They are especially concerned, however, with principles relating to the exercise of memory; and they give instructions for mnemonic aids in oratory. Cicero lays special stress upon order as an aid to memory; and as sight is the most acute of the senses, those things are best remembered which are visualized by the imagination. In accordance with the ancient mnemonic systems he would have these imagined forms localized. The advice of Quintilian in respect to memory is especially sensible. According to him, nothing can take the place of exercise and labor. Next in importance is the division and arrangement of one’s subject. He notices also the importance of good health; and says that for slow minds an interval of rest is a good thing, though he seems to be uncertain whether the advantage is due to the rest, or whether it gives reminiscence time to mature.[[31]]