Hello, was intending to reread my copy of Carruthers’ “Book of Memory”, which I read almost 20 years ago when it was first published. I saw there’s a second edition, apparently quite revised. Has anyone compared the two to see the differences? Is it worth getting the second edition, or just stick with my original copy?
1 Like
Hi Jason,
Mary Carruthers’ The Book of Memory is a seminal work in medieval studies. The second edition (2008) is not just a reprint with a new preface; it is a thoroughly revised and updated version of the 1990 original.
While the chapter titles and general structure remain largely the same, the content within has been significantly reworked. Carruthers explicitly states in the second edition’s preface that she “rethought, recast, corrected, and generally reassessed” her original conclusions.
Here are the primary differences between the two editions:
1. Shift in Focus: Memory as “Composition”
The most significant conceptual shift in the second edition is a stronger emphasis on memory as a tool for composition (creating new work) rather than just retention (storing information).
- 1990 Edition: Focused heavily on how medieval people stored information and the “architecture” of memory (mnemonics).
- 2008 Edition: Expands on how that stored information was used to compose literature, music, architecture, and sermons. Carruthers argues more forcefully that for medieval thinkers, “memoria” was the engine of invention and creativity, not just a passive filing cabinet.
2. Incorporation of “The Craft of Thought”
Between the two editions, Carruthers published another major work, The Craft of Thought (1998), which focused on monastic meditation and mental image-making.
- The second edition of The Book of Memory integrates the insights she gained from writing The Craft of Thought. This results in a much richer discussion of monastic practice, meditation, and the cognitive aspects of “mental pictures.”
3. Updated Scholarship and Bibliography
- New Research: The revised edition incorporates 18 years of intervening scholarship. The field of “memory studies” exploded after her first book, and she addresses new debates and findings that didn’t exist in 1990.
- Corrections: She corrects errors from the first edition, particularly where old conclusions were proven untenable by newer historical evidence.
4. Translations and Illustrations
- Translations: Carruthers re-translated many of the Latin texts cited in the book. The second edition features translations that are often more precise or fluid, reflecting her deepened understanding of medieval Latin nuances over the intervening decades.
- Images: The selection of medieval manuscript images and diagrams was updated. Some images from the first edition were replaced with better examples or ones that better illustrate her refined arguments.
So, whether you’re reading this book for academic research or just a deep interest in the subject, I recommend that you use the second edition (2008). The arguments are more mature, the translations are better, and it reflects a more complete understanding of how memory served as the “matrix” of medieval culture.
2 Likes
Hi and Thanks,
I wasn’t aware of this at all.
Stefos
Thank you, but this just seems like a summary (possibly AI?) of what I’d already read in the preface to the 2nd edition in the kindle sample. Have you read both? Because while that preface seems like the 2nd ed would be the natural choice, reading Prof Carruthers’ comments, I had a lot of concerns. I’m not a scholar of medieval studies (although I do have a bachelor’s in Medieval & Renaissance studies), but I am very much a practitioner of the art of memory, and there’s several statements that have me serious pause. Hence, my reaching out for opinions from those who’ve read both.