In my most recent post, I made the case that C.S. Lewis possessed an unparalleled memory. By this I do not mean merely uncommonly good, I mean that his faculty of memory was legendary. Whatever was going on with C.S. Lewis’ powers of retention defies medical or neuroscientific description–it is beyond our understanding.
Although the evidence is entirely anecdotal, I do believe the “legend” is true and that the tales in Oxford lore are authentic and not embellished as legends so often are. But I must tell you the truth: I do not know what this capacity was, nor exactly how he did all these things. I wonder, does anyone understand this? I think not.
Please do not misunderstand me. I do believe there was something unusual—perhaps unique in all the world–about C.S. Lewis’ memory that enabled him to perform amazing feats of text recall. Without promising a definitive answer, I think it is useful to reflect upon the matter as we consider Lewis’ unparalleled erudition.
Allow me to frame the discussion by answering a few questions about what I believe to be true (and not true) about C.S. Lewis’ ability to retain text:
- Did C.S. Lewis have a perfect memory? NO.
- Did C.S. Lewis have perfect recall of the text in every book he ever read? NO.
- Did C.S. Lewis have perfect recall of the text in all those books that comprised his “private canon”? YES.
- Did C.S. Lewis have a “photographic memory”? NO.
- Did C.S. Lewis have an “audiographic memory”? NO.
- Was C.S. Lewis’ memory a divine gift from God? YES.
- Did C.S. Lewis use mnemonic techniques and practices to augment his ability to recall text with “perfect retention”? YES.
Did C.S. Lewis have a perfect memory?
No. Only God has perfect memory. Moreover, while Lewis had phenomenal retention of texts that he read, he was reported to have had difficulty recalling specific dates and sequence of events. It is this difficulty which is the basis of Alister McGrath’s speculation on the true timing of Lewis’ conversion to theism.
Did CSL have perfect recall of the text in every book he ever read?
No. I do not believe this is true. I will say that there are no reports of memory challenges that he flubbed, nor stories whereby Lewis fumbled and stumbled to recall text from some book. I disbelieve this for a different reason.
In various remembrances books (for example, Remembering C.S. Lewis by James Como and C.S. Lewis Remembered by Harry Lee Poe and Rebecca Whitten Poe) there are reports by friends that Lewis had perfect recall of the books that he cared most deeply about. These books are referred to as his “private canon” as opposed to some “official canon.” From this it can be inferred that Lewis did not have perfect text recall of all the books that fell outside his “private canon”. These would be those books that he did not value much, or that he disliked. There were, I suspect, many of those.
One anecdote warrants consideration here. It is the story of the American Rhodes Scholar, Richard Selig. As you will recall, once challenged by Lewis, Selig went to The Bodleian Library and returned with the most boring book in Oxford: Siege of Thebes by John Lydgate. This is the only anecdote I am aware of that suggests Lewis had sufficient confidence to allow ANY book from The Bodleian Library to be selected for the “memory test.” Although it speaks to his confidence, this story does not mean he had perfect recall of every book that he ever read.
Did CSL have perfect recall of the text in all those books that comprised his “private canon”?
Yes. I believe that he did. The stories about Lewis performing great memory feats are legendary in Oxford lore. And although they are anecdotes, I believe the stories are mostly true. As noted above, Lewis was said to have “perfect” recall of the books that he cared most deeply about–his “private canon”.
Since most of these “challenges” by students and fellow dons probably occurred in his quarters or in his home, it seems likely that the books selected were nearly always among his “private canon”. Because he owned these books, it is reasonable to assume they are the books that Lewis most valued. They are also the books for which, by virtue of his ownership, he would have had the freedom to mark up with personal notations, underscoring and marginalia.
By my estimate, Lewis read approximately 20,000 different books. There is no way of knowing how many books comprised his “private collection”. To start, I would assume the 6,000 books that C.S. Lewis owned and housed either in his Magdalen College quarters or in his home, the Kilns, would have been among his “personal canon.” Just how many other books that he did not own were also among his “private canon” I cannot say. Perhaps there were thousands.
Did CSL have a “photographic memory”?
No. In the last sentence of the most recent post, I stated that I do not believe Lewis’ had “photographic memory.” Am I contradicting myself? I think not.
Based upon my research, there is no such thing as “photographic memory”. Certainly, there are a very small number of people down through history who have demonstrated a memory so extraordinary that we have created the label “photographic memory” to describe it. Their ability to visualize prior knowledge may have been truly remarkable, but it does not rise to the level of “photographic.”
I have enough of Owen Barfield to grasp that all meaning and, similarly, all memory comes from imagination. To be sure, our imagination is highly visual in nature, but our imaginative toolkit is not limited to visual imagery. The imagination uses all other forms of sentience to impart meaning. Certainly, this includes sound and smell, but also taste and touch. Our imaginative toolkit also includes metaphors, analogies, and stories. Thus, not all memories are visual in nature, and they certainly are not all “photographic.”
It is easy to describe people who have with exceptional powers of retention as having “photographic memory.” But the term has no real meaning, or at least it has long since lost its true meaning. “Photographic memory” has come to mean “unusually good memory,” and in that sense it is useful. But the actual memory and cognition process, though highly visual, is in no true sense “photographic.”
If “photographic memory” were real, people would be able to recall a past scene in detail with great accuracy–just like a photo. When we think of “photographic memory”, there is an embedded assumption that people who have this ability can record visual snapshots in their mind that are just like a photograph. The implication is that they can then retrieve the snapshot from memory and have it fresh in mind in all its original resolution. Just as a camera can freeze a moment in time in the form of a photograph, someone with a photographic memory is supposed to be able to take mental snapshots and then later recall these snapshots without error.
If this were true, these people would be able to zoom in and out on different parts of the snapshot. They would be able to discern small details in the “mental photograph” that their mind had not recognized at first glance—such as license plate numbers on cars in a parking lot. Moreover, if photographic memory were a real thing, then anyone who possesses a “photographic image” in their mind of a page of text should be able to read the text backwards.
But this is not true. Our memory doesn’t work like a camera. Although many people claim they have it, there is no scientific proof that photographic memory exists. There have been actual tests conducted on this by University of San Diego Professor Larry Squire. People who claim to have a true “photographic memory” haven’t stood up to scientific scrutiny. No study has ever been able to prove that true photographic memory exists.
My own memories are highly visual, but not photographic. To the extent memories of places visited in the past are visual images in my mind, they are more like “impressionist art” than 4K resolution photographs. I have stood in front of the Rathaus-Glockenspiel located in the Marienplatz in central Munich a half dozen times. I can even now call up a mental image of being there, but it is a very fuzzy, incomplete, imprecise, low-resolution image at best. I could not begin to draw a picture of the Glockenspiel with any degree of accuracy. The same is true for all my life experiences.
I believe the same is true for C.S. Lewis. He was an amazingly imaginative person, perhaps one of the most imaginative writers in literary history. But did he have a “photographic memory”? I think not.
Did C.S. Lewis have an “audiographic memory”?
No. Most people know what the term “photographic memory” implies, but few are familiar with the term “audiographic memory”. Senator Ted Cruz from Texas claims to have “audiographic memory,” meaning he never forgets anything he has ever heard. The notion is like “photographic memory” in that it implies perfect recall from sentient experience, but in this situation, it is triggered by aural stimuli and not visual.
I tend to think “aural” memory retention is nearly as powerful as “visual” memory retention. How so? When I listen to my favorite music from the 1960s, I am often able to sing along with the entire song. I have never looked at the sheet music nor have I read the lyrics in text form. It is not a visual thing at all. Yet somehow, I can recall not just the words, but the melodies. I think this sort of memory points to what Senator Cruz claims to be his “audiographic memory.”
Here is the limitation. When I hear a snippet from the song, I can recall the lyrics and the basic melody, but not much else. To be sure, I cannot sing the song or hum the music backwards. Similarly, when I hear a passage from a Beethoven symphony, I can usually identify the composition, and continue with humming the primary theme. But I cannot replay the secondary themes, or the harmonies, or the tempos, or the orchestration. In short, thought my experience is aural, it is not “audiographic.”
Here is another example. We have all had the experience of momentarily forgetting some friend’s name. When this happens, we do not attempt to call forth images of that friend in our mind, thus the memory retrieval process is not visual. More than likely that friend is standing right in front of us. No further visual stimulation is required.
Instead, what we do, is go through the alphabet in our mind until we come upon a vowel or consonant that “resonates.” From that we are usually able to summon in our mind the friend’s first or last name. This is entirely an aural process, for it is the sound of the name, and not the visual image of the name, that triggers the memory recollection.
I am sure we all agree, C.S. Lewis was an incredibly imaginative person. Moreover, his imaginative toolkit was in no way limited to images. He is renowned for his talent with metaphors. There is also evidence that Lewis was an “aural” person. For one thing, one reads of his love of Wagner, the Beethoven symphonies, and the emotions of “Northernness” conveyed by Sibelius. But one never reads of his visits to art museums.
There is a little-known story about Lewis’ preference for hearing works read out loud. In his book The Narnian, author Alan Jacobs notes this quote by J.R.R. Tolkien:
“Reading aloud was the main thing. Lewis. had a passion for hearing things read aloud, a power of memory for things received in that way.”
I am inclined to believe that Lewis’ prodigious memory of text may have been as much aural in nature as visual. Perhaps more so.
Was C.S. Lewis’ memory a divine gift from God?
Yes. Absolutely! Although it might be easier for me simply to say that C.S. Lewis had “photographic memory” and be done with it, I do not believe in “photographic memory”. My position is the same on “audiographic memory.” I will instead say that Lewis’ unparalleled retention was of divine origin–an incomparable gift from God. This I do believe in.
We are made in God’s image. All our faculties—not just memory, but also imagination, reason, apperception, and consciousness—are gifts from God. Skeptics may accuse me of waving the proverbial Christian magic wand, chanting “abracadabra”, and declaring the matter beyond further debate. But it is the best I can do. It is also the truth.
Did C.S. Lewis use mnemonic techniques and practices to augment his ability to recall text with “perfect retention”?
Yes. Several of my readers have expressed an interest in Lewis’ powers of retention—not that they aspire to emulate him, but that they hope to learn ways they might do better. There are four mnemonic techniques and practices that Lewis put to good effect. I will discuss them in my next post.
For now, I will leave you with this thought: memory is more like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle than a photograph.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Page 20 | Page 21 | Page 22 | Page 23
