middle ages vs. medieval

seems like there are a lot of smart people here. I am an autodidact with no formal education in history. I am particularly interested in byzantium and in the religious upheavals of the middle ages.
I want to understand the difference between the terms medieval and middle ages. somewhere I learned that the term "middle ages" refers to roughly 1000 to 1500 AD. What does the term medieval refer to?

Middle Ages in my discipline refers to the time period from 510CE - 1550CE (or AD if you prefer). Medieval is an adjective describing people, places, events, and things from those years.

Although, strictly speaking, doesn't "medieval" literally mean "middle age?" "Medi" / middle + "eval," age or epoch? From the Latin? But I might be off-base on that.

Agreed, Middle Ages & Medieval really speak to the same time range, they're just used in different instances, with a lot of overlap. You never hear "Middle Ages literature." Of course the time included varies dependent on the field you're talking about (literature, architecture, art, etc.) and the region - Italy is generally considered to have moved into the Renaissance well before places further to the north (like Britain).

Multilingual linguistic note: In English, the noun is always plural -- "Middle Ages" -- wheras it (apparently) tends to be plural in a lot of other European languages -- "Moyen Age."

Good elaboration, LostMuse. The time difference for different countries is why I listed specific ones for mine -- Britain, of course. And Old Saxon, the continental connection.

AnnaClaire -- did you mean singular, as in the French "moyen age"?

Yes, I did. Thanks for catching that.

Obviously, I shouldn't be typing after 11PM.

I think this is only really important when you are looking in a database that has used one of the other of these as a subject heading. I'm surprised how much this varies.
My heart likes medieval but too many people have said "what, evil, huh?" with it so I try to used middle ages.

What a peculiar problem!

Essa, far from being "off base", hit it right on the head with ... ""medieval" literally mean "middle age?" "Medi" / middle + "eval," age or epoch".

As described by medievalmama and LostMuse, medieval is simply an adjective that modifies a noun by informing us that it relates to the middle ages. The difference is rather mundanely just grammatical. Different conotations (as related by mhasel) aside, the difference is like that between "high" and "height". It's indeed never "the Medieval" ... but always a "medieval" something or other.

One could, I suppose, try to say "the medieval times" but that would simply be wrong ... a pleonasm ... like saying "the middle ages times".

What #9 said. Medieval is the adjective, Middle Ages is the noun, in the same way that beautiful is the adjective and beauty is the noun.

>9 askar:
Anything for a buck....Medieval Times Dinner & Tournament

I love the word medieval -- it rolls off the tongue so beautifully, especially when you play with the diphthong. I just wish my students would learn how to spell it. I shudder everytime I see midevil!

#5
In Norwegian it is singular:
'Middelalderen' ='The Middle Age', or should I translate it 'The Medieval Age' (singular)?

Confused ;-?

It's also a singular noun in German: Mittelalter. Adjective just adds -lich rather than switching to another word.

It can get slightly complicated in that there used to be a distinction between the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages (the former, in England at least, dating from c.400 to c.1000) but it now seems to be correct academic practice to refer to the Dark Ages as 'the early medieval period'. However, I've never heard them called 'the early Middle Ages'. Very confusing...

Where does Late Roman end and early middle ages begin?

Again, this is specific to England, but we tend to take c.410 as an end date for Roman rule in Britain, when Honorius wrote to Romano-British telling them to look to their own defences. Although that's a bit of an arbitary date, as Roman rule was breaking down before that (and there's a *lot* of debate as to how much Roman culture and systems of governance continued thereafter...)

Oh yeah, and what's people's preference: medieval/mediæval/mediaeval?

>16 varielle::
It depends where you're talking about, and also to some degree on what changes you want to emphasize. Late Roman can refer to a political-cultural system, which ended during the fifth century in many parts of western Europe but not until the late seventh century in some eastern areas. Or it can refer to a socioeconomic system, which ended in the late fourth or fifth century in many frontier areas, but not until the seventh century in the more developed parts of the empire (east and west). Some people accept an overlap between late Roman and early medieval, in that the fifth and sixth centuries had aspects of both in many places.

>18 ladycassilis: Oh yeah, and what's people's preference: medieval/mediæval/mediaeval?

Please let's go with simplicity and "medieval" -- I'm fighting the battle with my undergraduates who want to spell it "midevil." I personally think "mediæval" is lovely -- but an æsch is not be had in the 21st century lexicon.

"Where does Late Roman end and early middle ages begin?"

Depends who you're talking to. I use 312/313 because IMO Constantine's official recognition of Christianity (when that happened is debatable but The Edict of Milan was a big part of it) established what was the number 1 distinctive feature of the Middle Ages. Others will use 476 or some date in between - 410 is handy because Alaric sacked Rome then which was quite the shock, in addition to Rome leaving Britain. Some consider Adrianople a key event though IMO that's been overemphasized.

The real problem is thinking there's a single date. That really doesn't work very well. There were Medieval elements around by Diocletian and Roman elements predominant in the East into the 7th century and present (not dominant) even in the West into the 9th. Part of the attraction of the use of Late Antiquity is recognizing that the 5th-8th centuries were transitional.

>15 ladycassilis:: I think that distinction is typical for the British (or maybe English speaking) historian. As a continental European I have always used the concept of "early middle ages" - never using "dark ages", and certainly not to set them apart from the medieval period.

And, of course, there's the interesting question of what the actual inhabitants of various quarters thought. Gregory of Tours certainly thought of himself as a Roman. I don't know however, what Fredegar and Isadore of Seville thought.

>22 Nicole_VanK:: Yes, I think it probably is a British-specific problem, maybe because we have less sources than the Continent. Although even here, it's definitely no longer acceptable to call them the Dark Ages: I'd get a major ticking-off if I used it in one of my essays.
>20 janeajones:: I know medieval's the standard form, and the most simple, but I just love mediæval too much! I actually have to type 'æ' quite a lot anyway (when writing stuff for Old English) so it actually feels quite normal for me to use it. So far, no-one's tried to stop me...

Re # 15: In a scholarly medieval list I belong to, "Dark Ages" is only applied by some English medievalists to part of English history. Reactions ranging from irritation to laughter appear when someone tries to apply it to Europe. As for England, the time span you cite would wipe out the period around the time of Alfred the Great, for which we have sources that "lighten" it nicely.

As for "early" "high" and "late" medieval, when they supposedly "begin" or "end" differs with scholar and country. There is no real consensus, but lots of continuing disagreement.

>25 erilarlo:: Absolutely, I agree with you. It's certainly not a helpful term and I wouldn't use it (although I can see why it was used for England in the past, when scholarship was not so advanced and much less was known about the period). However, it might be useful to know what time-period is meant when the term is used, as (in the UK at least) it's still very common to find it in 'non-academic' contexts. Example: the blurb for an episode of The History of Maths currently on the BBC iPlayer is 'A look at the rise of mathematics in the East, as the West entered the Dark Ages'.

Oh, well, non-academic sources can mess up ANY terminology. Personally, if someone wants dates from me, I say "medieval" is roughly 500-1500, varying drastically with country, but it can at least be given a time period of sorts. "Renaissance", on the other hand, is more a movement than a time period, because it begins in Italy, for instance, well before most of the rest of Europe, and was a good century later in England. In a couple cultural histories of Germany I own, it doesn't even rate its own chapter; the movements have quite different labels.

Erilario... which Renaissance do you mean? 12th Century?? That later one??

;))

That's just it. We have Haskins' The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (and he's not alone there), then we have a Renaissance starting up fairly soon after in Italy, but the English Renaissance is a couple centuries later. That's why "Renaissance", like "Reformation" is a movement occuring at different times in different areas. "Medieval", on the other hand, covers such a large time period that the term can be applied over much of Europe, even if the "beginning" and "end" are ragged. And then there's "humanism". It's a bit late for me, but I think we're talking "movement" rather than "time period" again.

In art history we also speak of a Carolingian and of an Ottonian renaissance (c. 800 and c. 1000 respectively).

Yeah - "renaissance" has gotten to be about as useful of a term as "feudalism" or, worse, "feudal system."

They're OK if you spend a bunch of time explaining just what, where, when and how you mean to use them. By the time you get there you almost don't need the term except people love to be able to label things.

Late Antiquity is a field of study which emphasizes continuity between the Ancient world and the Medieval - Late Antiquity roughly begins in the 3rd century and ends around the time of Charlemagne. Where does that leave "Early Middle Ages"? This tends to emphasize a more dramatic break with Antiquity, usually focused on the "fall" of the Roman Empire, surrounding the sack(s) of Rome and/or disposing of the last Roman Emperor. It's a compelling narrative story. It is also very convenient, to neatly segregate academic disciplines - and its probably wrong.

So whatever periodization term you choose comes loaded with some pre-conceptions that emphasis certain parts of history. I tend to prefer Late Antiquity as its more holistic and not so hemmed in by the traditional tri-view of history (Antiquity-Middle-Modern).

>32 Stbalbach:: You are right of course, but I find myself usually sticking to traditional designations.

Also, it very much depends on the topic of your studies. I would find "Late Antiquity" a bit silly if you're talking about Europe beyond the Roman limes for instance - something like "Late Iron Age" might be more appropriate there.

Middelalderforeningen i Oslo er en interesseorganisasjon med mange medlemmer, også medlemmer som kommer fra andre deler av østlandet.

Det blir arrangert turer både i innland og utlandet. Årets tur går til Normandie.

Medlem Johanne

>34 Johanne4:
<scratches head>
Uh, what?

This cleared it all right up for me, Thanks. Simply put.

>35 AnnaClaire:
my guess:
"The medieval society of Oslo is a special interest group with many members, as well as members who come from other parts of eastern norway.

There are organised tours both at home and abroad. This year's tour goes to Normandy."

And if your focus is religious, we now have The Reformation of the Twelfth Century, to boot!

The paradigms for the "long twelfth century", roughly 1050-1190's or even as late as 1215, if you're using Lateran IV as a terminus, now include "Renaissance" (Haskins), Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Benson and Constable's edited effort from the '80's to reappraise Haskins), Constable's "Reformation", and Bisson's most recent The Crisis of the Twelfth Century.

I'm writing a novel about English Templars in the Third Crusade and have as one of the major characters a Hospitaller priest. Does anyone know what honorific was used when addressing priests during this era? "Father" has only been used for the past 150 years or so.

>39 aalatham:: I posted the more involved answer in the other thread (http://www.librarything.com/topic/167450 ), but the short answer is that a Hospitaller priest would have been addressed as "Brother" (Frater).

It's plural in Dutch as well: " middeleeuwen"

Singular in Swedish: medeltiden "the middle time"

When discussing Scandinavian history, it's usually taken to begin sometime in the eleventh century, 1066 being a popular choice if a specific year is needed. When discussing the rest of the world (incl the British Isles) I normally take it as ca AD 500-1500.