The Coda addresses my decision to locate this project, both thematically and textually, during a particular and somewhat localized expanse of time, and to justify that choice by arguing for the value of reconfiguring the way we think about and investigate the past. Because of this decision, it will be tempting for readers to see Collective Understanding as part of the ongoing debates in literary studies about the relative merits of formalism(s) and historicism(s). In recent years, this debate has taken on a renewed sense of urgency as critics, weary of politics, suspicion, and critique, have contended that scholars have strayed too far from the proper focus of disciplinary attention; they no longer talk about literature, aesthetics, or form. Only by rejecting these former focal points, the argument goes, and returning to our disciplinary roots, can we hope to salvage the discipline as both a way of knowing and an institutional presence. It is the Coda’s contention, however, that the current iteration of this dispute does more to distract from the urgent socio-epistemological issues that literary studies faces than it does to help move us towards a meaningful resolution. Rather than rehearsing the dispute between formalism and historicism, the chapter talks about time as a vector that not only resists the process of being “dynamized into a force of history itself,” it organizes the interpretive and cognitive possibilities of hermeneutic movement.