It has been rightly argued that there is a difference between the historical and the historiographical Middle Ages, this second generally called “medievalism,” that is, the application of medieval models to contemporary needs, and the inspiration provided by the Middle Ages in all forms of post- medieval art and thought. It can also be said, using different words, that modern medieval historians cannot escape (probably they should not escape) their own context, and they have to describe, analyze, interpret not only what happened in the Middle Ages, but also the projection of what really happened in the past depending on the current circumstances in which the medievalists articulate their texts. Although we have obviously only one historical reality in the Middle Ages, we perceive multiple readings of it – what modern historiographers have called “medievalisms.”

Much attention has been given in the last decades to what I would call “epochal medievalisms”: the different images of the Middle Ages projected by other, later ages. Thus, we understand very well the distinctions among, for instance, Renaissance medievalisms, Enlightenment medievalisms, Romantic medievalisms, modern medievalisms, and postmodern medieval- isms. Yet, after the professionalization of the historical discipline and the emergence of scientific historicism in the mid-nineteenth century, these “epochal” categories have been complemented by others connected with the main historiographical and ideological tendencies that the discipline of history has experienced during the last century and a half, such as romanticism, positivism, historicism, Marxism, structuralism, and, more recently, poststructuralism, cultural studies, and gender studies. Thus, in modern and postmodern medievalisms, new categories are emerging in the complex area of medieval studies: Marxist modern medievalisms, structuralist modern medievalisms, gendered postmodern medievalisms, cultural studies/post- modern medievalisms, and so on.

Nevertheless, and perhaps paradoxically, less attention has been given to what have been called the “national traditions.” The process of globalization may affect other social and cultural spheres, but the passage of time has shown that national (and even nationalistic) historical traditions are still valid as historiographical categories.