I do my best to answer:
Memory is always reactionary and always serves to determine the limits of identity (collective and otherwise). In this way, “counter-memory” is just a particular kind of memory… although more focused and politically motivated. The very fact that a harmonization interested some within Early Xnty demonstrates something very interesting about Xn identity formation. That many with in Early Xnty preferred a four-fold Gospels tradition tells us something even more interesting about Xn identity formation. Tatian’s work is a textbook example of memory distortion by way of socio-typical categorization.…or not; whatever, it’s not my dissertation topic.
…and what is gained by creating a dichotomy between memory and ease? I’m not being coy, I’m really quite interested in this distinction.