2017
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50475-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Commemoration and Oblivion in Royalist Print Culture, 1658-1667

Abstract: The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(15 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This poem faithfully reflects the "Royalist print culture" (Peters 2017), becoming a source of knowledge and historical pedagogy for both readers of its time and today. Rachel Jevon's poem evidences her able handling of references to the historical developments and figures of her time.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…This poem faithfully reflects the "Royalist print culture" (Peters 2017), becoming a source of knowledge and historical pedagogy for both readers of its time and today. Rachel Jevon's poem evidences her able handling of references to the historical developments and figures of her time.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Historians like Erin Peters and Judith Pollmann have also begun to reconsider the place of trauma in accounts of the early modern period. Peters in Commemoration and Oblivion in Royalist Print Culture , 1658–1667 (2017) finds evidence of “cultural traumatization” in the “extreme contradiction between acts of commemoration and acts of oblivion” in the Royalist print culture operating in the wake of the English Civil War (p. 110). In Memory in Early Modern Europe 1500–1800 (2017), Pollmann points to examples of recognizable war trauma in the memoirs of the period, but more importantly offers a compelling diagnosis for why the 18th century has been reluctant to recognize trauma's presence or concede the “virtues of anachronism” (p. 47).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%