Belatedness in the 18th century and what to do about it

Abstract

AbstractIf 18th‐century literary criticism embraces trauma theory, it will do so belatedly. In 2020, trauma theory has become so much a part of the literary landscape that it is hard to imagine literary studies without it. Not only have modern and contemporary literary critics explored its tenets, but also scholars in Romanticism, 19th‐century American literature, and in the last 10 years or so, in Renaissance and early modern studies, although the number of these treatments remain few. By contrast, 18th‐century studies' wholehearted embrace of new historicism has put it on a different trajectory from trauma studies, and only in recent years has it begun to reset its course and make space for trauma theory, among other less unilaterally historicist approaches. Yet if meaning is necessarily and perennially belated—as trauma theorists espouse—then saying that 18th‐century studies will embrace trauma theory belatedly can mean that we may only now understand its significance to our field. It certainly does not mean that it is too late to learn from its lessons or alter what we do in the classroom. In fact, the events of 2020 point to the urgency of more directly serving as historical witnesses to the trauma of the 18th century, and the need to do so with the scholarly rigor and nuance that has so long distinguished our field.