ABSTRACT
Why should historians and political scientists care about medieval and Renaissance political thought? In this chapter, we consider the evolution of the field since the 1980s. The sub-discipline has become of notably less interest to political scientists. However, far from fossilizing, we establish that it has undergone revolutionary changes, many in response to the work of Cary J. Nederman. The chapter argues that we can group change into three key areas. First, as a result of a re-evaluation of the influence of Cicero and other classical sources, there has been a shift in long-standing historiographical debates. Second, the thought of key figures has been re-evaluated. To illustrate this, we offer two cases studies, John of Salisbury and Marsilius of Padua. Finally, significant new debates have emerged, of which we take those concerning periodization and toleration as examples. We argue that all three changes are of considerable relevance to those working beyond the sub-field. We propose that the study of medieval and Renaissance political thought should be a critical focus for those interested in the “global” turn: it offers important tools that can assist in contextualizing western Europe within a wider “global” Middle Ages.
