Whether because of its centrality to medievalism as a whole or to this moment in particular, no other theme in my seventeen years of editing Studies in Medievalism has attracted as many submissions as has politics. Indeed, I could easily have filled a fourth volume on it, and I suspect a journal devoted solely to politics in medievalism would have no problem producing quarterly editions. Every day someone somewhere publicly invokes the Middle Ages as a lens through which to see these troubled times.

Certainly, the authors in this volume, like those in the last two, have found many such references, made not only by professional politicians but also by amateurs operating in political arenas or negotiating everyday exchanges with their opponents. Taken in its broadest sense, politics can be seen as part and parcel of any attempt to persuade others, and common caricatures of the Middle Ages as a crude but zealous era lend themselves to aggressive proselytizing. Those attempting to present themselves as civilized and above irrational bias frequently label their opponents as medieval, while others – often including those opponents – proudly invoke the Middle Ages as a way to claim authenticity and/ or fervency.

Studies of such extreme perspectives therefore provide valuable insights into perceptions of not only the Middle Ages but also the moment in which the respondents are operating, and by “respondents” I do not mean only the subjects of these analyses. Given the challenges of remaining neutral in discussing such biased subjects, many of these studies also shed light on their own author’s or authors’ views of the moment in which they are writing. Indeed, a volume such as the one you are reading can be a particularly enriching survey of such perspectives, for as the authors cover much more range collectively than they do individually they also establish interconnections that, intentionally or otherwise, amplify their observations and conclusions. Thus, even as this volume’s first part offers new approaches to the politics that run throughout the second part, so the latter demonstrates how (well) those approaches work in practice.

Much of the groundwork for perceiving a symbiotic relationship between these two parts is, appropriately enough, exemplified and further explained by Elizabeth Emery in the first part’s first essay as she defends its title, “Public Medievalism: Fustel de Coulanges and the Case for ‘Diplomatic Negotiations.’”