chapter (6) to the most famous patron of female Cistercians in France, Blanche of Castile. Blanche founded two nunneries, namely Maubuisson (1236) and Lys (1248), both of which went on to be very successful. The remaining two chapters then take a closer economic look at Saint-Antoine-des-Champs, one of the “most successful houses of Cistercian nuns in the ecclesiastical province of Sens” (150) and nunneries in Champagne. The nuns of Saint-Antoine were well educated and, as in the other cases, their community was wealthy enough to sustain 120 nuns (188), an impressive number for the time. Part 3 consists of only one short chapter of twelve pages and three appendices. The former compares the economics of Cistercian nunneries with those of Fontevraud and the Paraclete. “Overall, the comparison . . . suggests little differences” as “Cistercian nuns managed their properties inways thatwere not so different from those of earlier communities of nuns” (231). Berman’s knowledgeable discussion of nunneries as economic entities with strong ties to the world is without a doubt the great strength of the study. Establishing these institutions as independent and their nuns as versed and expert managers stands in sharp contrast to the marginalizing and misogynistic image portrayed by twelfthand thirteenth-century Cistercian narratives. However, some of Berman’s more general observations are less novel than the author seems to suggest. Female patrons of high and even late medieval nunneries were commonplace in Europe, within and without the Cistercian order, and many of these women acted independently frommale control. Nor is the notion of nuns and abbesses as able managers of a diverse portfolio of assets per se new. Rather, this idea has been a staple in European scholarship on medieval monasticism, which has a tradition of emphasizing administrative sources over narratives; see, for example, the works of Franz J. Felten and Gabriela Signori, alongwith the encyclopedicHelvetia sacra as a whole. These and other works would have provided great material for comparisons on a European scale. And while there certainly remain remnants of the aforementioned misogynistic conceptions in contemporary Cistercian studies, the field has become much more balanced in recent decades. The works of Alexis Grélois on French Cistercian nunneries testify to this. However, Berman pays them little notice (Grélois is cited only once, p. 22). Such omissions seem to serve the purpose of making some of the study’s observations appear more innovative than they really are. This seems an unnecessary twist, as themonographwould not have lost any of its unquestionable value andmerit if recent scholarship had been referenced more holistically.

中文翻译：

---

Kathleen Bickford Berzock（编辑）：黄金大篷车，时间碎片：中世纪撒哈拉非洲的艺术、文化和交流

第（6）章致最有名的法国女性西多会的赞助人，卡斯蒂利亚的布兰奇。布兰奇创立了两个尼姑庵，即莫比松 (1236) 和赖斯 (1248)，两者都取得了巨大的成功。剩下的两章然后仔细研究了圣安托万德香榭的经济，它是“桑斯教省最成功的西多会修女之家”（150）和香槟修女院之一。Saint-Antoine 的修女受过良好教育，与其他情况一样，他们的社区足够富裕，可以养活 120 名修女（188 名），这在当时是一个令人印象深刻的数字。第 3 部分仅由一章 12 页和三个附录组成。前者将西多会修女院的经济学与 Fontevraud 和 Paraclete 的经济学进行了比较。“总的来说，比较。. . 表明差异不大”，因为“西多会修女以与早期修女社区没有太大不同的方式管理他们的财产”（231）。伯曼对尼姑庵作为与世界有着密切联系的经济实体的知识渊博的讨论无疑是这项研究的巨大力量。将这些机构建立为独立的机构，将其修女视为精通专家的管理者，这与 13 世纪西多会叙事所描绘的边缘化和厌恶女性的形象形成鲜明对比。然而，伯曼的一些更一般的观察并不像作者所暗示的那样新颖。高级甚至中世纪晚期女修道院的女性赞助人在欧洲很常见，无论是在西多会秩序内部还是外部，其中许多女性独立于男性控制行事。修女和修道院院长作为多样化资产组合的有能力管理者本身的概念也不是新的。相反，这个想法一直是欧洲中世纪修道学研究的主要内容，它具有强调行政资源而非叙事的传统。例如，参见 Franz J. Felten 和 Gabriela Signori 的作品，以及整个百科全书 Helvetia sacra。这些和其他作品将为在欧洲范围内进行比较提供很好的材料。虽然在当代西多会研究中肯定仍然存在上述厌恶女性的概念，但近几十年来该领域变得更加平衡。Alexis Grélois 在法国西多会修女院的作品证明了这一点。然而，伯曼很少注意到他们（Grélois 只被引用了一次，第 22 页）。这种遗漏似乎是为了使研究的某些观察结果看起来比实际情况更具创新性。这似乎是一个不必要的转折，因为如果更全面地引用最近的学术成果，该专着就不会失去任何不容置疑的价值和优点。