I've always been fascinated by assertions that a particular kind of "subjectivity" was invented, or took form, at a particular point of history. With Shakespeare, say. It implies, if taken with a certain degree of literalness, that people used to walk around like automata before some magical date. If that is the case, I would be more interested in studying the subjectivity of those without subjectivity than exploring the richness of those who are supposedly more like "us," because possessed of richer, "modern" subjectivity. What does it feel like not to have an inner life in the modern sense? I will never know, and I think the thinking behind this distinction is suspect, though I cannot quite explain why. Can we only read anachronistically?