The will of returning past facts through memory is directly opposed to the singleness of every fact of life, but also to the habit of conceiving our life as a progressive movement.
That habit has an organic nature, since the natural bent of the body is to move itself forward, while its backward move is always caused by other thing that appears as an obstacle or as a threat.
In this case, the appeal to memory for turning the past facts back is a position that changes entirely our apprehension of ourselves as bodily beings. Therefore, the memory needs to be supported by something else than the past things which belongs to our apprehension of bodily movement.
We may remind that gods were usually spoken about as beings acting in the past. Even the emphasis of ancestors power over next generations keeps something from the idea that memory cannot be wholly human.
In the trivial contexts of using memory, there is a custom of replacing godly institutions of memory with the high power of mind or of the self as such. It is a wrong replacement, since the self or the mind never does the work of a god that generates or keeps under his providence the human bodily life and the physical world. Mind isolates itself from what is the primarily object of gods’ activity.
In Nietzsche’s style, we can impute the separate position of the mind to the spiritualistic development of Christian theology.
A more adequate use of memory for returning past facts would be that of recognizing in present facts a share that cannot be entirely comprehended, like God’s incomprehensibility.
Thus, we would not be able to return things by memory, but to use it for investigating that incomprehensibility that lays both in the past and present things, being different from all what we affirms we know, not only from our bodily existence.