Reviewed
by Julia M. Smith (julia482@gatech.edu)
In
his well-researched book, Medievalism: A
Critical History, David Matthews provides a foundational study for the
multidisciplinary field of medievalism studies. As a foundational study,
Matthews focuses on explaining the similarities and differences between
medievalism and medieval studies. Should
the two forms of scholarship be severed into two separate disciplines or
treated equally within one comprehensive discipline? Medievalism is defined as
“the ‘process of creating the Middle
Ages’ and ‘the study not of the Middle Ages themselves but of the scholars,
artists, and writers who…constructed the idea of the Middle Ages that we
inherited’” (7), a definition provided by Leslie J. Workman. In contrast, medieval
studies concerns just “the period’s literatures, languages, history,
architecture, wars, religions and people, from peasants to popes” (1). As
recent conference presentations and journals such as Studies in Medievalism can attest, the study of the medieval era is
routinely juxtaposed with studies of the uptake of the Middle Ages after the
era ended. The teaching of medieval
studies has likewise been affected. Rather than have students read chivalric
texts alone, professors and scholars often provide students with an opportunity
to see how these stories, themes, and ideals manifest in current remediated works
based on Robin Hood, White Queen, and
Game of Thrones (film, television
shows, graphic novels and books).
While
his work is not exhaustive (and it can’t be), Matthews chooses to explore the
field at points where strong interest and movement in medievalism erupted
rather than a linear progression through a history of the field. As Matthews
puts it, he offers “a meta-commentary on the study of medievalism of a kind
which up until now has been lacking” (ix). To discuss the multi-disciplinary
nature of the medievalism, his book is arranged around specific cultural themes
such as time, space, self, and scholarship. The book also focuses on several
main historical eras—1600s acquisition of antiquities, 1840s rise of interest
in the medieval during the Victorian era, WWI, and decline of medieval studies
in late 20th century concurrent to a rise in interest in
medievalism. These classifications point
to moments where medievalism gained traction in the public sphere--art,
architecture, film, literature. In other
words, audiences less familiar with the material may be initially confused by
the sheer number of ways medievalism can be arranged, but that is the point:
“one major problem that confronts medievalism studies is the sheer diversity of
material” (35).
For
scholars uncertain of the parameters, which make up medievalism as a discipline,
Matthews has advice. He argues that thus
far, medievalism as a discipline and its specific methods of inquiry have not
been defined. Rather medievalism typically operates more as a study of a
subject such as medievalist art or medievalist architecture. Some effort has been made to describe
medievalism as a discipline by Umberto Eco; however Eco’s classifications are
not clearly defined and blur into one another.
In addition, Eco appears to be taking a tongue-in-cheek approach to the
concept. In response to the need to
classify the possibilities and limitations of medievalism, Matthews treats the
subject as a “discourse, which can
appear to greater or lesser degrees in cultural works” (37). He proposes that scholarship might view
studies of the Middle Ages “as it was,” “as it might have been,” “as it never
was,” and “a cultural production, essentially of its own time, looks back to
the Middle Ages with greater or lesser explicitness” (37-8). These categories help to show how the
Middle Ages have been constructed, taken up and used throughout history and
explains how medievalism and medieval studies might be regarded as a blend of
scholarship rather than two fully distinct entities.
Matthews
further proposes two specific types or themes to clarify how the medieval gets
viewed and taken up: the grotesque/gothic medieval and the romantic medieval.
According to Matthews, the grotesque/gothic medieval emerged starting in the 16th
century. In the 16th century, scholars divided historical eras into
Antiquity, Middle Ages, and Modernity.
Since the Middle Ages came before the religious reformations, this
middle ground in history was viewed as a dark, barbaric, and violent time. The perception of the Middles Ages as dark
and violent continues into modern usage; Matthews gives the example of a
British court case in which the judge declared sadomasochistic sex as
‘medieval’ torture and thus the woman who resisted it was a victim in need of
saving. The second category, romantic medieval, “is the Middle Ages of romance, of chivalric
deeds, but also of simple communitarian living and humanly organized labour, a
pastoral time when the cash nexus was unknown, a time of intense romantic love”
(25). A romantic Middle Ages appeals especially to groups (especially during
the Victorian era and the 60s and 70s) who are seeking answers to civic issues
such as industrialization by looking back to the earlier social and political
infrastructures of the Middle Ages.
The
rest of the book treats medievalism as a method of cultural studies, which
allows the work to break from the disciple/not a discipline question, since
cultural studies is consider an anti-discipline (178). Each remaining chapter
2-5 takes on different aspects of cultural studies that has been affected by
interest in the medieval: time, space, self, the canon.
In
particular, time poses some interesting issues. In the 16th century, “the Middle
Ages is not entirely a period, a chronological era with fixed boundaries, but
rather something that might come back, something that continues to exist in
some places though it has been eradicated in others” (46). The ‘middleness’ of the era between antiquity
and modernity increased the fear of the Middle Ages as dark, dangerous, and
barbaric, as mentioned earlier. By the 1800s, the fear that the Middle Ages
will come back had faded and instead, a nostalgia for era increased. This change
can be signified by the change in terminology. The period was originally called
gothic, but later in the Victorian age, the term the Latin term, “medium aevum.” The nostalgia can be seen
especially in time travel narratives of the 1880s and 1890s, where characters
either went back in time to the Middle Ages or went forward in time to find a
new medieval-esque life.
A study of medieval spaces demonstrates the
extent to which the Middle Ages has been constructed throughout history. As Matthews puts it, “What we actually visit,
I suggest, when we go to medieval places, is the contemporary version of a
historical site which we can only experience in its modernity” (68). Essentially medieval spaces are not
authentically medieval. Many have had to be reconstructed or renovated
extensively due to destruction or wear, such as Notre Dame and Warsaw’s Old
Town. Other spaces were never genuinely medieval to begin with, since they were
built by modern or contemporary agents like Old Saint Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney.
Still other spaces must be rescued from
being ‘medieval’ such as Katine, an improvised
village in Africa.
Matthews
turns to questions of the medieval self. He studies historical re-enactments of
the Middle Ages beginning in the 1800s. These re-enactments encourage a
perception that medievalising the self can be potentially liberating. In
contrast, medievalism has also been studied as sites of repressions: colonizing
by the rich. Ultimately medievalising
the self demonstrates preferences of style and solutions for dilemmas faced in
modern world. While re-enactors enjoy their activities, none of those
interviewed by Matthews would want to actually travel back in time, since
hygiene and health are much better now.
The
last couple of chapters discuss the boundaries or limitations that might be
imposed on medievalism: canon and history (118). Matthews states, “if
medievalism really is an endemic theme or set of themes in European culture,
then it can never be made concrete as a single discipline (as the study of
romanticism can be)” (120). According to
Matthews historical and cultural accounting, medievalism has never really
entered into the canon. While medievalist works have gained enormous
popularity, they have not been seen as influential on canonical writers or
regarded as high art themselves. The enduring legacy of medievalism is one of
childhood to modernity as seen in works by Tolkien and Lewis rather than
enduring works of art for adults.
Throughout
this study, Matthews seeks to offer a starting place for those who wish to
study and define medievalism. He does so by ultimately addressing the question
of discipline and boundaries. Where does medievalism start? How do we know what
we are doing is medievalism and not something else? To address these concerns,
Matthews puts forth the idea that without medievalism, the study of the Middle
Ages would not be possible. The two fields co-exist, since medievalism is the “process
of creating the Middle Ages…all such study of the Middle Ages (by definition)
has gone on after the Middle Ages” (172).
To make medievalism a coherent study, Matthews further advocates for
medievalism to embrace cultural studies in order allay anxieties rather than to
fight for a separate discipline; medievalism and medieval studies need to acknowledge
their dual existence.
Julia
M. Smith
Georgia
Institute of Technology
