What do you think?
Forgetting in Early Modern English Literature and Culture: Lethe's Legacy
This collection of essays historicizes and theorizes forgetting in English Renaissance literary texts and their cultural contexts. Its essays open up an area of study overlooked by contemporary Renaissance scholarship, which is too often swayed by a critical paradigm devoted to the "art of memory." This volume recovers the crucial role of forgetting in producing early modernity's subjective and collective identities, desires and fantasies.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 2002
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
April 27, 2026
【Forgetting in Early Modern English Literature and Culture / ed. Christopher Ivic and Grant Williams / 2002, Routeledge】
There is a grave issue with this volume, and that is the policy of the editing itself. It does preclude the fact one would be required to see a person's psychology before Freud.
Little known nowadays, but there was already a tradition of psychology long before Freud, and psychological literature, in its narrowest sense, had its heyday in France much before Freud (The Dangerous Liaisons and Adolphe would be the most eminent examples) - as far as reading them with premising Freud while reading stuff from 18th century. Psychology, in that sense, is neither cognitive science nor linguistics.
And you are expected to see a strange mixture of psychoanalytic takes and early modern physiology anywhere in this volume, but you would see that doing that would be extremely close to the notorious homeopathy of the American, which mostly doesn't understand its basis (such as Chinese concept of xi, which is largely from Medieval Confucianism).
The only exception in this volume would be Garrett A. Sullivan Jr., but he went on to write a monograph of a great academic value, silently grounded in the harder part of science, so I would just recommend it instead.
There is a grave issue with this volume, and that is the policy of the editing itself. It does preclude the fact one would be required to see a person's psychology before Freud.
Little known nowadays, but there was already a tradition of psychology long before Freud, and psychological literature, in its narrowest sense, had its heyday in France much before Freud (The Dangerous Liaisons and Adolphe would be the most eminent examples) - as far as reading them with premising Freud while reading stuff from 18th century. Psychology, in that sense, is neither cognitive science nor linguistics.
And you are expected to see a strange mixture of psychoanalytic takes and early modern physiology anywhere in this volume, but you would see that doing that would be extremely close to the notorious homeopathy of the American, which mostly doesn't understand its basis (such as Chinese concept of xi, which is largely from Medieval Confucianism).
The only exception in this volume would be Garrett A. Sullivan Jr., but he went on to write a monograph of a great academic value, silently grounded in the harder part of science, so I would just recommend it instead.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review