# A Handbook of Phrenotypics for Teachers and Students/Phrenotypic Classification of Human Studies

Layout 2
PHRENOTYPIC CLASSIFICATION OF HUMAN STUDIES.
We have just seen that in the business of committing to memory any piece of knowledge, we have always to connect together two notions; and we have also seen above that notions are either familiar or not familiar; hence it follows that in our studies we shall have to connect together either—
* Two notions, each of which is a familiar one.
* Two notions, one of which is a familiar one, and the other a not-familar one; or,
* Two notions, each of which is a not-familiar one.
In symbols I will represent these three kinds of studies, which I will call the three phrenotypic problems, thus—
* 1. To connect a with a
* 2. To connect a with a
* 3. To connect a with a
​There must exist three such classes of human studies, and there can exist no more.
This is a rather new classification of human studies: it is not with respect to something inherent in these studies themselves; it is according to the bearing these studies have upon the individual student. I will illustrate this by the following example:—
Suppose a London publisher, who being for many years a constant reader of newspapers and periodicals, cannot fail of becoming familiarly acquainted with the names of the leading members of the House of Commons; he knows about the biography, literary productions, and political principles of Dr. Bowring, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Melbourne, &c., as much as any man living. Suppose also, that having on many occasions seen these personages themselves, as at chapel, the opera, museum, &c., he has their physiognomies, their gait, &c. perfectly impressed upon his brain. Suppose, moreover, that they are his occasional customers, although he never knew who these customers were; he never in the least suspected that these customers are the very individuals whose speeches he was just anatomizing, and whose political conduct he was just praising or deprecating. He knows well their names; he knows a host of circumstances connected with these names; he knows well the personages themselves; he saw ​them, he conversed with them, he dealt with them; still he had never an opportunity of learning that such names had any thing to do with such personages. A visit to the gallery of the House of Commons during the debate on the (say) libel question, is the occasion on which those names and their owners are for the first time to come into contact with each other in his brain. The Speaker, one of his customers, takes the chair, and immediately our publisher bursts into an "Is it possible!" He can scarcely believe it, that the gentleman whom he has seen so often before, was the very Speaker of the House of Commons, whose name and person he knew separately for so many years. His surprise increases by seeing Dr. Bowring, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Melbourne, &c. addressing the House. He knew them all—he had seen all three in his own shop—he had conversed with them—nay, had made serious allusions to their names when present. He is now determined to commit to memory the names of all these personages; in other words, he is determined to stick together the names with their respective personages.
Next to him sat a colonial publisher, just arrived, say, from Quebec. This colonial gentleman is perfectly familiar with the names of the above M.P.'s; but he indeed never saw any of them. He also attempts to commit to memory the names of various speakers on the occasion.
​In another corner of the same House sat a Chinese, just arrived in London, who also wishes to commit to memory the names, shapes, gait, dresses, &c. of the Barbarians that spoke and legislated in his presence.
The Londoner, the Colonial gentleman, and the Chinese, have evidently the same piece of knowledge to heave into their brain; but for the Londoner it is the 1st phrenotypic problem; he has to stick together a name which is to him a familiar notion, with a personage which is for him a familiar notion also—thus, a with a
For the colonial gentleman it is the 2nd phrenotypic problem; he has to stick together a name which is for him a familiar notion, with a personage which is for him a not-familiar notion:— thus . . a with a
For the Chinese it is the 3rd phrenotypic problem; he has to stick together a name which is for him a not-familiar notion, with a personage which is for him a not-familiar notion, thus:—
a with a
A child attempts to commit to memory the alphabet; it has continually to connect together two notions, viz. a visible sign, a letter which it never saw before, with an isolated sound of which ​it knows very little; the child has to connect together a not-familiar notion with a not-familiar notion; it is in the 3d phrenotypic problem.
The committing to memory the value of the ten arabic numerical figures belongs, for the child, to the same problem.
In Geography, to connect together the name of a country, suppose Ukraine with the outline of that country; the student never heard such a word; never saw such an irregular figure; here the student is again in the 3d problem.
These illustrations will suffice for the present purpose, of merely understanding what is meant by 1st, 2nd, and 3rd phrenotypic problems.