102 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacy10 to 25.... This pattern, now called the reminiscence bump, also emerges in free life
narratives.... It is not limited to episodic memory: in every cognitive domain, ‘things
learned early in adulthood are remembered best.’”^29 Not only are they remembered
best, but events occurring during adolescence and early adulthood tend to be deemed
more important. “The empirical observation is that people remember, and report as
important, public events that happened in their late teens or early twenties.”^30 Theories
from different areas of psychology have been advanced to account for the repeatedly
corroborated findings. An accounting based on “cognitive abilities or their neural sub-
strates” concludes that “laboratory tests of processing speed and standardized tests
of memory and intelligence support the basic claim of a rapid increase in cognitive
abilities of several kinds until early adulthood followed by a slower decline.”^31 A theory
of identity formation would say, “events from this period will be more likely to be
organized and incorporated into an overall story or view of the self and thus benefit
mnemonically from all the advantages of such schematic organization as well as from
increased spaced rehearsal.”^32 Irenaeus’s own theory to explain why “I remember the
events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently” deserves to
be placed alongside these: “for the things learned from childhood grow up together
with the soul, becoming one with it” (HE V.20.6). Memory studies also confirm that
memories are preserved best when there are repeated reviews or rehearsals of them.^33
Irenaeus attests, “I used to listen eagerly to these things [which Polycarp taught] even
then by the mercy of God given to me, making notes of them not on papyrus but in
my heart. And always by the grace of God truly do I ruminate on them” (HE V.20.7).
It would seem, then, that a great deal of skepticism about Irenaeus’s memory and
testimony based on his alleged tender age when he knew Polycarp has been mis-
placed. This in itself does not, of course, mean that anything he says he remembers
should not be subjected to further scrutiny; it simply means that references to Ire-
naeus’s “childhood” should no longer be regarded as sufficient cause to dismiss what
he says about Polycarp. Nor should his statements about his age be used to judge
adversely the possibility that the remembered words of the presbyter were the words
of Polycarp. Irenaeus was probably in his mid or late teenage years when he was
observing Florinus’s movements in Smyrna. And his contact with Polycarp almost
certainly extended into his early twenties, if not longer. This is precisely the period
of life in which, modern psychology says, human memory operates best, from which
autobiographical memories are best retained and remain most vivid into middle and
old age. Moreover, Irenaeus always placed a high value on what had grown up with
his soul concerning Polycarp, and maintained those memories, which included some
verbal teaching, by frequent review.
Why Didn’t Irenaeus Give the Man with No Name a Name?
Moll’s final objection against identifying the unnamed presbyter of Hae r. IV.27-32 with
Polycarp is, as he puts it, “the obvious objection... the question why in the world Ire-
naeus would fail to mention Polycarp’s name, given that a reference to this authority
would so enormously strengthen his argument.” But how do we know that he thought it
would strengthen his argument, or that he thought his argument needed strengthening?