Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/660

 principal part of Grey’s method (which may be compared with the Jewish system by which letters also stand for numerals, and therefore words for dates) is briefly this: “To remember anything in history, chronology, geography, &c., a word is formed, the beginning whereof, being the first syllable or syllables of the thing sought, does, by frequent repetition, of course draw after it the latter part, which is so contrived as to give the answer. Thus, in history, the Deluge happened in the year before Christ two thousand three hundred forty-eight; this is signified by the word Del-etok, Del standing for Deluge and etok for 2348.” To assist in retaining the mnemonical words in the memory they were formed into memorial lines, which, however, being composed of strange words in difficult hexameter scansion, are by no means easy to memorize. The vowel or consonant, which Grey connected with a particular figure, was chosen arbitrarily; but in 1806 Gregor von Feinaigle, a. German monk from Salem near Constance, began in Paris to expound a system of mnemonics, one feature (based on Winckelmann’s system) of which was to represent the numerical figures by letters chosen on account of some similarity to the figure to be represented or some accidental connexion with it. This alphabet was supplemented by a complicated system of localities and signs. Feinaigle, who apparently published nothing himself, came to England in 1811, and in the following year one of his pupils published The New Art of Memory, which, beside giving Feinaigle’s system, contains valuable historical material about previous systems. A simplified form of Feinaigle’s method was published by Aimé Paris (Principes et applications diverses de la mnémonique, 7th ed., Paris, 1834), and the use of symbolic pictures was revived in connexion with the latter by a Pole, Antoni Jaźwińsky, of whose system an account was published by the Polish general J. Bem, under the title Exposé général de la méthode mnémonique polonaise, perfectionnée à Paris (Paris, 1839). Various other modifications of the systems of Feinaigle and Aimé Paris were advocated by subsequent mnemonists, among them being the Phrenotypics of Major Beniowsky, a Polish refugee, the Phreno-Mnemotechny (1845) of François Fauvel Gouraud the Mnemotechnik of Karl Otto Reventlow (generally known as Karl Otto), a Dane, and the Mnemotechny of the American Pliny Miles.

The more complicated mnemonic systems have fallen almost into complete disuse; but methods founded chiefly on the so-called laws of association (see ) have been taught with some success in Germany by, among others, Hermann Kothe, author of Lehrbuch der Mnemonik (2nd ed., Hamburg, 1852), and Katechismus der Gedächtniskunst (6th ed. by Montag, Leipzig, 1887); and Hugo Weber-Rumpe, author of Mnemonische Zahlwörterbuch (Breslau, 1885) and Mnemonische Unterrichtsbriefe (1887–1888); in England by Dr Edward Pick, whose Memory and the Rational Means of Improving it (5th ed., 1873) and Lectures on Memory Culture (1899) obtained a wide circulation. Passing over the work of William Day (New Mnemonical Chart and Guide to the Art of Memory, 1845), Rev. T. Brayshaw (Metrical Mnemonics, a very rare work), Fairchild and W. Stokes, the next name of any importance is the Rev. J. H. Bacon, a pupil of Edward Pick. His book (A Complete Guide to the Improvement of the Memory, 3rd ed., rev. 1890) contains a good summary of the history of mnemonics and a very reasonable account of the principles; it gains in value by its comparative simplicity. More or less successful systems were issued by Lyon Williams (1866), T. Maclaren (1866), Thomas A. Sayer (1867), Rev. Alexander Mackay (1869), George Crowther (1870), F. Appleby (1880), John Sambrook, who made use of similarities in sounds (gun, 1; Jew, 2), the French scientist Abbé Moigno, J. H. Noble, and Allan Dalzell. Considerable interest was roused both in London and in America by the controversy which raged round the system of “Alphonse Loisette,” who taught his “art of never forgetting” successively in London and Washington. It claimed to be original in system, but was attacked in England by F. Appleby and in America by George S. Fellows, and is generally regarded as both unoriginal and inferior on the whole to preceding systems (for the litigation in America see. e.g. Part II. of Middleton’s Memory Systems, pp. 96 sqq.). An interesting work (Memoranda mnemonica) was published by James Copner in 1893, containing a system based partly on the use of letters for figures and words for dates, as well as a large number of rhymes for remembering facts in biblical, Roman, Greek and English history. He made use of Grey’s system, but endeavoured as far as possible to invent, where necessary, words and terminations which in themselves had some special fitness in place of Grey’s monstrosities. More complicated systems are the Keesing Memory System (Auckland, 1896), the Smith-Watson System of Memory and Mental Training (Washington), and the Pelman memory system.

MNESICLES, the architect of the great Propylaea of the Athenian Acropolis, set up by Pericles about 437

MOA, apparently the Maori name of the extinct Ratite birds in New Zealand, comprising the group Dinornithes (cf. : Classification; and ). The earliest account of these birds is that of Polack (New Zealand, London, 1838), who speaks of the former existence of some struthious birds in the north island as proved by fossil bones which were shown to him. “The natives added that, in times long past, they received the tradition that very large birds had existed, but the scarcity of food, as well as the easy method of entrapping them, had caused their extermination.” In the North Island the moas seem to have died out soon after the arrival of the Maoris, according to F. W. Hutton, some 700-500 years ago. In the South Island they seem to have lingered much longer, possibly, according to H. O. Forbes (Nat Sci. II. 1893, pp. 374–380), “down even to the time that Captain Cook visited New Zealand.” But these are only surmises, based upon the fact that in various dry caves limbs still surrounded by the mummified flesh and skin, feathers, and even eggs with the inner membrane, have been found. Great quantities of bones have been found in caves and in swamps, so that now nearly every part of the skeleton, of some kind or other, is known.

The most striking feature of the moas, besides the truly gigantic size of some species, is the almost complete absence of the wings. In fact, the whole skeletons of the wings and of the shoulder girdle seem to have been lost, excepting Anomalopteryx dromaeoides, which, according to Hutton had still some vestiges. Such a complete reduction of the whole anterior limb and girdle is unique among birds, but the cassowaries indicate the process. In conformity with these reductions the breastbone of the moas is devoid of any coracoidal facets; there is no trace of a keel, and the number of sternal ribs is reduced to three or even two pairs. The hind limbs are very strong; the massive femur has a large pneumatic foramen; the tibia has a bony bridge on the anterior surface of the lower portion, a character in which the moas agree only with Apteryx amongst the other Ratitae. The number of toes is four, unless the hallux is more or less reduced. The pelvis much resembles that of the kiwis.

The skull has been monographed by T. J. Parker (“On the Cranial Osteology; Classification and Phylogeny of the Dinornithidae,” Tr. Z. Soc. (1893), xiii. 373-431, pls. 56–62); it resembles in its general configuration that of the emeus and cassowaries, while it differs from that of Apteryx most obviously by the short and stout bill.

The feathers have a large after-shaft which is of the size of the other half, likewise in agreement with the Australian Ratitae, while in the others, including the kiwis, the after-shaft is absent. Another important point, in which the moas agree with the other Ratitae and differ from the kiwis, are the branched, instead of simple, porous canals in the eggshell.