Selections
from the bibliography in Alain Gowing, Empire and Memory (Cambridge, 2005).
Memory and History
Carruthers,
M. 1990. The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture.
Cambridge.
Gillis,
J. 1994. "Memory and Identity: The History of a
Relationship." In Commemorations:
The Politics of National Identity,
3-24. Edited by J. Gillis. Princeton.
Hobsbawn,
E. 1997. On History. New York.
"History
is not ancestral memory or collective tradition" (8).
Hutton,
P. 1993. History as an Art of Memory. London.
Le
Goff, J. 1992. History and Memory.
Translated by S. Rendall and E. Claman. New York.
"It
is societies whose social memory is primarily oral or which are in the process
of establishing a written collective memory
that offer us the best chance of understanding this struggle for domination
over remembrance and tradition, this
manipulation of memory" (98).
Oexle,
O. 1995. "Memoria als Kultur." In Memoria als Kultur, 9-78. Edited by O.
Oexle. Gšttingen.
Roth,
M. 1995. The Ironist's Cage: Memory, Trauma, and the Construction
of History. New York.
Small,
J. P. and J. Tatum. 1995. "Memory and the Study of Classical
Antiquity." Helios 22: 149-77.
Terdiman,
R. 1993. Present Past: Modernity and the Memory Crisis. London.
Memory
and Late Antiquity
Felmy,
A. 1999. Die Ršmische Republik im Geschichtsbild der SpŠtantike. Ph. D.
diss., Frieburg.
Memory
and Roman Art
Flower,
H. 1996. Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture. Oxford.
Koortbojian,
M. 1996. "In commemorationem mortuorum: Text and Image along the 'Streets of
Tombs.'" In Art and Text
in Roman Culture, 210-33. Edited by J. Elsner. Cambridge.
*See
also several publications by Tonio Hšlscher.
Livy
Miles,
G. 1995. "History and Memory in Livy's Narrative." In Livy:
Reconstructing Early Rome, Chapter
1. Ithaca.
Memory and Roman Topography
Edwards.
C. 1996. Writing Rome. Cambridge.
Memory
and Roman Civilization
*E. Stein-Hšlkeskamp and K.-J. Hšlkeskamp, eds.
2006. Erinnerungsorte der
Antike.
Die ršmische Welt. Munich.
Collection of essays on various topics and their
relation to memory. Illustrates
interdisciplinarity
of GedŠchtnisgeschichte and its lack of dogmatic theorizing; some of the essays
are more descriptive than analytical.