The Early Modern Period

I've offered my own idea of when the Middle Ages ended, but of course there are other ways to look at it. I suggested specific events taking place in or around 1453, but we can look at the Middle Ages not just about specific events so much as it was about cultural norms.

At the foundation of this question—and all discussions about periods in history—is whether you can accurately establish periodization at all. One of the first to "break up" the flow of events was Leonardo Bruni, mentioned as a tutor of Lorenzo Valla. Bruni has been called the first modern historian, and was the first to define human history as three periods: Antiquity, Middle Ages, and Modern. He was influenced by Petrarch, who described the glorious Classical Roman period versus the post-Classical tenebrae or "darkness." (This may have been the origin of the popular modern term "The Dark Ages.")

For Bruni to describe "Modern" as his lifetime (c.1370 - 1444) may cause us to smile, but of course it was modern to him...and may in fact still be considered the start of the Modern Era. Was there a shift in something in the 1400s that allows us to think of it as the start of our own era?

What trends or cultural shifts were significant enough—and continuous enough—to motivate modern historians to say that the Modern Era started in the 1400s? What was so different? We talk about the Renaissance as a rebirth of art and culture, but there was more:

•Globalization, with the expansion of mercantilism and sophisticated international economics
•The Age of Exploration/Discovery, with increased travel and improved methods of transport
•Religious dissent, and the development of secular policy
•The decline of feudalism, and the development of civic politics

The point is not just that these were different from what came before, but that these changes are still in place. Many of the changes that started in the 1400s are still with us, making the argument that what makes us "modern" and not "medieval" has in fact been going on for about six centuries, not just two or three.

A modern medievalist named Nancy Partner once said that if Medieval Studies wanted more respect from historians in general, they should start calling the Middle Ages the "Really Early Modern Era." Well, that may be stretching it, or maybe not, at least when it comes to the English language. Of the 1000 words most commonly used in Modern English, 83% come from Old English. Tomorrow I'll give you one idea of how much Old English you are speaking on a daily basis.

Medieval Sociology

Sociology, the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society, is probably best done when the sociologist can observe the society in question. Studying societies from centuries ago relies on written records—which are not always accurate or objective—and on assumptions. Different historians and sociologists, therefore, described the social and political structure of the Middle Ages from their own points of view.

Karl Marx, for instance, considered the Middle Ages significant as a step in social evolution: the social relations stablished through the feudal system determined modes of production. Max Weber (1864 - 1920, German sociologist), on the other hand, saw the feudal relationship to a lord as less important than the rise of the "occidental city" which developed in the West.

[Weber] saw in the history of medieval European cities the rise of a unique form of "non-legitimate domination" that successfully challenged the existing forms of legitimate domination [such as lords and kings—Tim] that had prevailed until then in the Medieval world. This new domination was based on the great economic and military power wielded by the organised community of city-dwellers ("citizens"). [The Max Weber dictionary: key words and central concepts]

(Much of sociology, after all, refers to "in-groups" and "out-groups." It may be of interest while discussing the rise of cities to note the difference between the terms citizen and denizen. The former comes into use in c.1275-1325 and refers to a native of a nation or city. The latter does not appear until c.1425-1475 and refers to a non-native inhabitant, suggesting a distinction being made in city-dwellers to those who "belonged" and those who did not.)

A 1995 article points out that these two opinions "marked simultaneously the begin­ning and the end of sociological inquiries into medieval culture, since sociologists have shown little interest ever since." [link] The author claims the period between 500 CE and 1500 CE was remarkable for many changes, not least of which was the shift from a "gift and barter" system to a profit-based economy that led to "the splendid display of wealth and powering the urban centers of trade." Also, that the rule in cities was far more stable than the previous rule by what Weber called "legitimate" systems.

The article outlines one of the issues with sociological study of the Middle Ages being that the chief source of records has a clerical bias, and offers no information on the everyday lives of ordinary men and women. The author uses the Waldensians to illustrate. The Waldensian movement was a lay religious movement of those aforementioned ordinary men and woman. What we learn about them, however, comes from clerical references that focus on the leaders of the movement, not the rank and file, and from to their "peculiarities," and from the records of the Inquisition that are designed to underscore practices considered vulgar and heretical.

The sociological study of the Middle Ages is fraught with error caused by assumptions due to the enormous gaps in information and understanding. This can also offer the would-be scholar a chance to treat it as clay to be molded according to his or her whims and interests, which can be tempting, but ultimately must be viewed with a critical eye.

I producing this post, I realized that I have hardly explained the Waldensians, a widespread lay religious movement that lasted centuries after its founding. I shall rectify this omission next time.

Hug a Medievalist

This is worth knowing.

A bear hunter hugging a bear?
Early 16th c. German "Geese Book"

Sarah Laseke, writer of a medieval blog here, in 2011 decided that if librarians get a "Hug a Librarian" Day, then medievalists should get a "Hug a Medievalist" Day. She started with a Facebook page, from which the idea gained widespread interest.

Folk in the Middle Ages knew about hugging, although it does not seem likely that it was a very public gesture. As one website puts it:

The nobility ... had plenty of space and did not press closely on each other. Gentlemen and ladies allowed a lot of personal space to each other. Hugging and hanging on each other was simply not done in public, especially not by ladies in a broad-spreading double-horned headdress, except with great care. Getting close enough for a kiss required a lady's co-operation... [link]

In the 21st century, however, we do not have the same taboos about personal space—or the clothing that prohibits closeness. Feel free to find and hug a Medievalist today, and we will return to more scholarly (and less self-serving) topics tomorrow.

Why "Middle" Ages?

So if the phrase "Dark Ages" was coined by Petrarch to describe the loss/lapse of much classical learning and advancement since the Decline of Rome (5th century CE), why do we say "Middle Ages," and what were they in the "middle" of?

Petrarch's term didn't become a widespread label; the centuries immediately following him didn't study history dogmatically the way a modern liberal studies education demands. It was a German classical scholar named Christoph Cellarius (1638-1707) who standardized the three general periods of the past two millenia with his mammoth work Universal History Divided into an Ancient, Medieval, and New Period. "Medieval" was from the Latin medium aevum (literally, "middle age"). This triple division struck the right note and entered the realm of conventional wisdom.

Still, the "Dark Ages" didn't go out of fashion, although its definition and popularity shifted. The American Cyclopaedia in 1883 said:

The Dark Ages is a term applied in its widest sense to that period of intellectual depression in the history of Europe from the establishment of the barbarian supremacy in the fifth century to the revival of learning about the beginning of the fifteenth, thus nearly corresponding in extent with the Middle Ages.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911) defined the Dark Ages as the period from the fifth to the tenth centuries, affirming that "the Dark Age was a reality."

In 1929, however, the 14th edition of Britannica removed the term "Dark Ages" and stated:

the contrast, once so fashionable, between the ages of darkness and the ages of light has no more truth in it than have the idealistic fancies which underlie attempts at mediaeval revivalism.

A scholarly view of the "Dark Ages" has largely been eliminated in favor of the generic term "medieval" to distinguish between the Classical and Modern eras (Cellarius would be proud). In fact, because artistic, cultural, political and technological (et alia) development is a continuum, the division of "eras" has been muddled with a recent trend to refer to the Renaissance as the "Early Modern Era" (I remember a lecture from my grad school days in which we joked that maybe the Middle Ages would soon be labeled the "Really Early Modern Era."

Part of this desire to eliminate the concept of "dark" Ages is also 20th century understanding that not only was the period not a complete intellectual wasteland, but also that there were at least three "re-births" of education and art prior to what we think of as the European Renaissance.

But that's a topic for another day.