Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development Part 8

"The diagram of numerals which I usually see has roughly the shape of a horse-shoe, lying on a slightly inclined plane, with the open end towards me. It always comes into view in front of me, a little to the left, so that the right hand branch of the horse-shoe, at the bottom of which I place 0, is in front of my left eye. When I move my eyes without moving my head, the diagram remains fixed in s.p.a.ce and does not follow the movement of my eye. When I move the head the diagram unconsciously follows the movement, but I can, by an effort, keep it fixed in s.p.a.ce as before. I can also shift it from one part of the field to the other, and even turn it upside down. I use the diagram as a resting-place for the memory, placing a number on it and finding it again when wanted. A remarkable property of the diagram is a sort of elasticity which enables me to join the two ends of the horse-shoe together when I want to connect 100 with 0.

The same elasticity causes me to see that part of the diagram on which I fix my attention larger than the rest."

Mr. Schuster makes occasional use of a simpler form of diagram, which is little more than a straight line variously divided, and which I need not describe in detail.

Fig. 22 is by Colonel Yule, C.B.; it is simpler than the others, and he has found it to become sensibly weaker in later years; it is now faint and hard to fix.

Fig. 23. Mr. Woodd Smith:--

"Above 200 the form becomes vague and is soon lost, except that 999 is always in a corner like 99. My own position in regard to it is generally nearly opposite my own age, which is fifty now, at which point I can face either towards 7-12, or towards 12-20, or 20-7, but never (I think) with my back to 12-20."

Fig. 24. Mr. Roget. He writes to the effect that the first twelve are clearly derived from the spots in dominoes. After 100 there is nothing clear but 108. The form is so deeply engraven in his mind that a strong effort of the will was required to subst.i.tute any artificial arrangement in its place. His father, the late Dr. Roget (well known for many years as secretary of the Royal Society), had trained him in his childhood to the use of the _memoria technica_ of Feinagle, in which each year has its special place in the walls of a particular room, and the rooms of a house represent successive centuries, but he never could locate them in that way. They _would_ go to what seemed their natural homes in the arrangement shown in the figure, which had come to him from some unknown source.

The remaining Figs., 25-28, in Plate I., sufficiently express themselves. The last belongs to one of the Charterhouse boys, the others respectively to a musical critic, to a clergyman, and to a gentleman who is, I believe, now a barrister.

DESCRIPTION OF PLATE II.

Plate II. contains examples of more complicated Forms, which severally require so much minuteness of description that I am in despair of being able to do justice to them separately, and must leave most of them to tell their own story.

Fig. 34 is that of Mr. Flinders Petrie, to which I have already referred (p. 66).

Fig. 37 is by Professor Herbert McLeod, F.R.S. I will quote his letter almost in full, as it is a very good example:--

"When your first article on visualised numerals appeared in _Nature_, I thought of writing to tell you of my own case, of which I had never previously spoken to any one, and which I never contemplated putting on paper. It becomes now a duty to me to do so, for it is a fourth case of the influence of the clock-face. [In my article I had spoken of only three cases known to me.--F. G.] The enclosed paper will give you a rough notion of the apparent positions of numbers in my mind. That it is due to learning the clock is, I think, proved by my being able to tell the clock certainly before I was four, and probably when little more than three, but my mother cannot tell me the exact date. I had a habit of arranging my spoon and fork on my plate to indicate the positions of the hands, and I well remember being astonished at seeing an old watch of my grandmother's which had ordinary numerals in place of Roman ones. All this happened before I could read, and I have no recollection of learning the numbers unless it was by seeing numbers stencilled on the barrels in my father's brewery.

"When learning the numbers from 12 to 20, they appeared to be vertically above the 12 of the clock, and you will see from the enclosed sketch that the most prominent numbers which I have underlined all occur in the multiplication table. Those doubly underlined are the most prominent [the lithographer has not rendered these correctly.--F. G.], and just now I caught myself doing what I did not antic.i.p.ate--after doubly underlining some of the numbers, I found that all the multiples of 12 except 84 are so marked. In the sketch I have written in all the numbers up to 30; the others are not added merely for want of s.p.a.ce; they appear in their corresponding positions. You will see that 21 is curiously placed, probably to get a fresh start for the next 10. The loops gradually diminish in size as the numbers rise, and it seems rather curious that the numbers from 100 to 120 resemble in form those from 1 to 20.

Beyond 144 the arrangement is less marked, and beyond 200 they entirely vanish, although there is some hazy recollection of a futile attempt to learn the multiplication table up to 20 times 20."

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE II. _Examples of Number Forms_.]

"Neither my mother nor my sister is conscious of any mental arrangement of numerals. I have not found any idea of this kind among any of my colleagues to whom I have spoken on the subject, and several of them have ridiculed the notion, and possibly think me a lunatic for having any such feeling. I was showing the scheme to G., shortly after your first article appeared, on the piece of paper I enclose, and he changed the diagram to a sea-serpent [most amusingly and grotesquely drawn.--F. G.], with the remark, 'If you were a rich man, and I knew I was mentioned in your will, I should destroy that piece of paper, in case it should be brought forward as an evidence of insanity!' I mention this in connection with a paragraph in your article."

Fig. 40 is, I think, the most complicated form I possess. It was communicated to me by Mr. Woodd Smith as that of Miss L. K., a lady who was governess in a family, whom he had closely questioned both with inquiries of his own and by submitting others subsequently sent by myself. It is impossible to convey its full meaning briefly, and I am not sure that I understand much of the principle of it myself.

A shows part only (I have not room for more) of the series 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, each as two sides of a square,--that is, larger or smaller according to the magnitude of the number; 1 does not appear anywhere. C similarly shows part of the series (all divisible by 3) of 6, 9, 15, 21, 27, 30, 33, 39, 60, 63, 66, 69, 90, 93, 96. B shows the way in which most numbers divisible by 4 appear.

D shows the form of the numbers 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 41, 42-49, 81-83, 85-87, 89, 101-103, 105-107, and 109. E shows that of 31, 33-35, 37-39. The other numbers are not clear, viz. 50, 51, 53-55, 57-59. Beyond 100 the arrangement becomes hazy, except that the hundreds and thousands go on again in complete, consecutive, and proportional squares indefinitely. The groups of figures are not seen together, but one or other starts up as the number is thought of.

The form has no background, and is always seen _in front_. No Arabic or other figures are seen with it. Experiments were made as to the time required to get these images well in the mental view, by reading to the lady a series of numbers as fast as she could visualise them. The first series consisted of twenty numbers of two figures each--thus, 17, 28, 13, 52, etc.; these were gone through on the first trial in 22 seconds, on the second in 16, and on the third in 26. The second series was more varied, containing numbers of one, two, and three figures--thus 121, 117, 345, 187, 13, 6, 25, etc., and these were gone through in three trials in 25, 25, and 22 seconds respectively, forming a general result of 23 seconds for twenty numbers, or 2-1/3 seconds per number. A noticeable feature in this case is the strict accordance of the scale of the image with the magnitude of the number, and the geometric regularity of the figures.

Some that I drew, and sent for the lady to see, did not at all satisfy her eye as to their correctness.

I should say that not a few mental calculators work by bulks rather than by numerals; they arrange concrete magnitudes symmetrically in rank and file like battalions, and march these about. I have one case where each number in a Form seems to bear its own _weight_.

Fig. 45 is a curious instance of a French Member of the Inst.i.tute, communicated to me by M. Antoine d'Abbadie (whose own Number-Form is shown in Fig. 44):--

"He was asked, why he puts 4 in so conspicuous a place; he replied, 'You see that such a part of my name (which he wishes to withhold) means 4 in the south of France, which is the cradle of my family; consequently _quatre est ma raison d'etre_.'"

Subsequently, in 1880, M. d'Abbadie wrote:--

"I mentioned the case of a philosopher whose, 4, 14, 24, etc., all step out of the rank in his mind's eye. He had a haze in his mind from 60, I believe [it was 50.--F.G.], up to 80; but latterly 80 has sprung out, not like the sergeants 4, 14, 24, but like a captain, farther out still, and five or six times as large as the privates 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, etc. 'Were I superst.i.tious,' said he, 'I should conclude that my death would occur in the 80th year of the century.'

The growth of 80 was _sudden_, and has remained constant ever since."

This is the only case known to me of a new stage in the development of a Number-Form being suddenly attained.

DESCRIPTION OF PLATE III.

Plate III. is intended to exhibit some instances of heredity. I have no less than twenty-two families in which this curious tendency is hereditary, and there may be many more of which I am still ignorant.

I have found it to extend in at least eight of these beyond the near degrees of parent and child, and brother and sister. Considering that the occurrence is so rare as to exist in only about one in every twenty-five or thirty males, these results are very remarkable, and their trustworthiness is increased by the fact that the hereditary tendency is on the whole the strongest in those cases where the Number-Forms are the most defined and elaborate. I give four instances in which the hereditary tendency is found, not only in having a Form at all, but also in some degree in the shape of the Form.

Figs. 46-49 are those of various members of the Henslow family, where the brothers, sisters, and some children of a sister have the peculiarity.

Figs. 53-54 are those of a master of Cheltenham College and his sister.

Figs. 55-56 are those of a father and son; 57 and 58 belong to the same family.

Figs. 59-60 are those of a brother and sister.

The lower half of the Plate explains itself. The last figure of all, Fig. 65, is of interest, because it was drawn for an intelligent little girl of only 11 years old, after she had been closely questioned by the father, and it was accompanied by elaborate coloured ill.u.s.trations of months and days of the week. I thought this would be a good test case, so I let the matter drop for two years, and then begged the father to question the child casually, and to send me a fresh account. I asked at the same time if any notes had been kept of the previous letter. Nothing could have come out more satisfactorily. No notes had been kept; the subject had pa.s.sed out of mind, but the imagery remained the same, with some trifling and very interesting metamorphoses of details.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE III. _Examples of an Hereditary Tendency to see Number-Forms_, _4 Instances where the Number Forms in same family are alike_ _3 Instances where the Number-Forms in same family are unlike_]

DESCRIPTION OF PLATE IV.

I can find room in Plate IV. for only two instances of coloured Number-Forms, though others are described in Plate III. Fig. 64 is by Miss Rose G. Kingsley, daughter of the late eminent writer the Rev.

Charles Kingsley, and herself an auth.o.r.ess. She says:--

"Up to 30 I see the numbers in clear white; to 40 in gray; 40-50 in flaming orange; 50-60 in green; 60-70 in dark blue; 70 I am not sure about; 80 is reddish, I think; and 90 is yellow; but these latter divisions are very indistinct in my mind's eye."

She subsequently writes:--

"I now enclose my diagram; it is very roughly done, I am afraid, not nearly as well as I should have liked to have done it. My great fear, has been that in thinking it over I might be led to write down something more than what I actually see, but I hope I have avoided this."

Fig. 65 is an attempt at reproducing the form sent by Mr. George F.

Smythe of Ohio, an American correspondent who has contributed much of interest. He says:--

"To me the numbers from 1 to 20 lie on a level plane, but from 20 they slope up to 100 at an angle of about 25. Beyond 100 they are generally all on a level, but if for any reason I have to think of the numbers from 100 to 200, or from 200 to 300, etc., then the numbers, between these two hundreds, are arranged just as those from 1 to 100 are. I do not, when thinking of a number, picture to myself the figures which represent it, but I do think instantly of the place which it occupies along the line. Moreover, in the case of numbers from 1 to 20 (and, indistinctly, from 20 up to 28 or 30), I always picture the number--not the figures--as occupying a right-angled parallelogram about twice as long as it is broad. These numbers all lie down flat and extend in a straight line from 1 to 12 over an unpleasant, arid, sandy plain. At 12 the line turns abruptly to the right, pa.s.ses into a pleasanter region where gra.s.s grows, and so continues up to 20. At 20 the line turns to the left, and pa.s.ses up the before-described incline to 100. This figure will help you in understanding my ridiculous notions. The asterisk (*) marks the place where I commonly seem to myself to stand and view the line. At times I take other positions, but never any position to the left of the (*), nor to the right of the line from 20 upwards. I do not a.s.sociate colours with numbers, but there is a great difference in the illumination which different numbers receive. If a traveller should start at 1 and walk to 100, he would be in an intolerable glare of light until near 9 or 10. But at 11 he would go into a land of darkness and would have to feel his way. At 12 light breaks in again, a pleasant sunshine, which continues up to 19 or 20, where there is a sort of twilight. From here to 40 the illumination is feeble, but still there is considerable light. At 40 things light up, and until one reaches 56 or 57 there is broad daylight. Indeed the tract from 48 to 50 is almost as bad as that from 1 to 9. Beyond 60 there is a fair amount of light up to about 97, From this point to 100 it is rather cloudy."

In a subsequent letter he adds:--

"I enclose a picture in perspective and colour of my 'form.' I have taken great pains with this, but am far from satisfied with it. I know nothing about drawing, and consequently am unable to put upon the paper just what I see. The faults which I find with the picture are these. The rectangles stand out too distinctly, as something lying on the plane instead of being, as they ought, a part of the plane. The view is taken of necessity from an unnatural stand-point, and some way or other the region 1-12 does not look right. The landscape is altogether too distinct in its features. I rather _know that there is_ gra.s.s, and that there are trees in the distance, than _see_ them. But the gra.s.s within a few feet of the line I see distinctly. I cannot make the hill at the right slope down to the plane as it ought. It is too steep. I have had my poor success in indicating my notion of the darkness which overhangs the region of eleven. In reality it is not a cloud at all, but a darkness.

"My sister, a married lady, thirty-eight years of age, sees numerals much as I do, but very indistinctly. She cannot draw a figure which is not by far too distinct."

Most of those who a.s.sociate colours with numerals do so in a vague way, impossible to convey with truth in a painting. Of the few who see them with more objectivity, many are unable to paint or are unwilling to take the trouble required to match the precise colours of their fancies. A slight error in hue or tint always dissatisfies them with their work.

Before dismissing the subject of numerals, I would call attention to a few other a.s.sociations connected with them. They are often personified by children, and characters are a.s.signed to them, it may be on account of the part they play in the multiplication table, or owing to some fanciful a.s.sociation with their appearance or their sound. To the minds of some persons the multiplication table appears dramatised, and any chance group of figures may afford a plot for a tale. I have collated six full and trustworthy accounts, and find a curious dissimilarity in the personifications and preferences; thus the number 3 is described as (1) disliked; (2) a treacherous sneak; (3) a good old friend; (4) delightful and amusing; (5) a female companion to 2; (6) a feeble edition of 9. In one point alone do I find any approach to unanimity, and that is in the respect paid to 12, as in the following examples:--(1) important and influential; (2) good and cautious--so good as to be almost n.o.ble; (3) a more beautiful number than 10, from the many multiples that make it up--in other words, its kindly relations to so many small numbers; (4) a great love for 12, a large-hearted motherly person because of the number of little ones that it takes, as it were, under its protection. The decimal system seemed to me treason against this motherly 12.--All this concurs with the importance a.s.signed for other reasons to the number 12 in the Number-Form.

There is no agreement as to the s.e.x of numbers; I myself had absurdly enough fancied that _of course_ the even numbers would be taken to be of the male s.e.x, and was surprised to find that they were not. I mention this as an example of the curious way in which our minds may be unconsciously prejudiced by the survival of some forgotten early fancies. I cannot find on inquiring of philologists any indications of different s.e.xes having been a.s.signed in any language to different numbers.