Customer Reviews:
 If "revelatory" weren't such a big word, I'd use it! June 4, 2007
M. L. Arnautov (Bucks., UK)
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
A book about memory? Mnemonics, eh? Dull stuff...
WRONG!!! This is just about the most engrossing scholarly work I have ever read. Quite apart from displaying a masterly grasp of her subject, which is far more interesting than I would have believed before reading the book, Yates throws fascinating light on a number of seemingly unrelated topics: the Roman art of rhetoric, the architecture of the Globe theatre, the foundations of Renaissance syncretism, the rise of the scientific method, the delightful irony of a patron saint of science turning out to be an arch-magician, psychological aspects of imagination... -- the list is a long one.
However, for me, it is Yates' illumination of the profound relationship between the scientific method and earlier attempts at mastering the universe by magical means, that stands out as a single, most important aspect of the book. In fact, I would go as far as to say that no study of history and/or philosophy of science can be complete without acknowledging and exploring the relevant insights of "The Art of Memory".
If you have any interest in human attempts to comprehend and control the universe, a well-thumbed copy of this book should be on your bookshelf!
 Fascinating investigation of the foundations of the "modern" January 5, 2000
28 out of 29 found this review helpful
The great shame about this book is that it is a little wordy in places; a good deal of editing and fine tuning would have made this fascinating and revealing book truly a work of genuis. As it is, it typifies a traditionally academic approach to scholarship from which it occasionally wrestles free to provide the reader with moments of real, valuable insights. Yates's book is hard to classify, for it covers so much ground, from ancient Greek influence, Kabbalistic thought in the middle ages, to the man Yates made her life's study, Giordano Bruno. However, what really is at stake here is the relationship between the "arts" and "science" (in both its conventional and etymological meaning.) This book really ought to be read by the philosophers of mind, cognitive scientists and neurobiologists who are seeking to explain mental phenomenon, for it manages to distill the at times quite pertinent thoughts the medieval thinkers proposed about how we use our minds, and how we relate to the world through art and through language, in a way many more recent, and thus more "rigorous", treatments of the topic often cast aside. Yates seems to propose that the advent of Newtonian physics may be indirectly connected to a more spiritualist approach to the world which is now neglected in the abstracting drive of many sciences. Although it is a tough read at times, it is very rewarding. It is the sort of book which restores one's belief in the value of true scholarship despite all its flaws.
 A thorough, academic study of an ancient art December 8, 1998
17 out of 18 found this review helpful
Yates does an admirable job of researching this art. She begins, as many before her, with the tale of Simonides and his invention of the loci method of mnemonics. She also captures the scope and breadth of an art which traditionally formed part of the liberal studies of any educated westerner, be he Greek, Roman, or German. Yates leads the book towards a more occult vein when she studies Bruno and some of the medieval contributors to this practice. In the book's most interesting moments, she suggests that the Renaissance thinkers' search through the ancient memory treatises directly led to the search for method that Descartes, Bacon, et al. ruminated upon to create the modern foundations of science. Though this is a well-researched, and at times interesting book, the read goes slowly. Many of the themes and ideas appear in an overly repetitive fashion. Further, it is not a 'how to' book but a book on the history of an idea; one will know little about the improvement of memory and all the claims of the ages appear to be tricks at best. The spectacular memories of a few individuals seem less associated with a method and more a function of physiology. Whether or not this ars memoria should be reinstated seems questionable even after this long essay. Worth a read if you have the time and interest; can lead one on a thought-provoking journey with patient reflection.
|
