But what when the memory itself loses any thing, as falls out when we forget and seek that we may recollect? Where in the
end do we search, but in the memory itself? and there, if one thing be perchance offered instead of another, we reject it,
until what we seek meets us; and when it doth, we say, “This is it”; which we should not unless we recognised it, nor recognise
it unless we remembered it. Certainly then we had forgotten it. Or, had not the whole escaped us, but by the part
whereof we had hold, was the lost part sought for; in that the memory felt that it did not carry on together all which
it was wont, and maimed, as it were, by the curtailment of its ancient habit, demanded the restoration of what it missed?
For instance, if we see or think of some one known to us, and having forgotten his name, try to recover it; whatever else
occurs, connects itself not therewith; because it was not wont to be thought upon together with him, and therefore is rejected,
that present itself, whereon the knowledge reposes equably as its wonted object. And whence does that present itself,
but out of the memory itself? for even when we recognise it, on being reminded by another, it is thence it comes. For we do
not believe it as something new, but, upon recollection, allow what was named to be right. But were it utterly blotted out
of the mind, we should not remember it, even when reminded. For we have not as yet utterly forgotten that, which we remember
to have forgotten. What then we have utterly forgotten, though lost, we cannot even seek after.