LAINE E. DOGGETT and daniel E. o'suLLiVAN, eds., Founding Feminisms in Medieval Studies: Essays in Honor ofE. Jane Burns. Gallica 39. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2016. Pp. 280. ISBN: 978-1-843-84427-3. $99.Where has feminism gone? This question is relevant both within and beyond the academy, and the answer in one arena invariably impinges upon the other. Ideally, academic and mainstream feminism are mutually reinforcing: second-wave political movements gave rise to women's studies programs, even as women's studies courses introduce many students to feminist viewpoints that guide their perspectives beyond their undergraduate careers. Conversely, in our current 'postfeminist' era, feminism is frequently construed as a past political movement that has fully achieved its goals. Within academia, feminist studies can be similarly dismissed as a throwback to a previous, superseded era of scholarship. It is no surprise, then, that medievalist feminist scholars find themselves at a point of reassessment: what have we accomplished, and where can we go from here?The contributors to this edited volume face these questions head on, as they honor E. Jane Burns and her imaginatively versatile scholarship in and beyond medieval French literature. The volume consists of fourteen essays written predominantly by scholars of medieval French but also those hailing from history, art history, and German literature, with an afterword by a Middle English specialist. Appropriately, the volume's essays are organized into four parts, each taking up a key strand of Burns' scholarship. These strands include her claim that ostensibly misogynistic texts can nonetheless give voice to female perspectives (Part 1: 'Debating Gender'); her claim that clothes comprise complex symbolic systems in medieval literature and culture (Part 2: 'Sartorial Bodies'); her examination of silk, as both material object and literary topos, to tease out Western/non-Western cultural dynamics (Part 3: 'Mapping Margins'), and her attention to material culture and the lives of actual medieval women (Part 4: 'Female Authority: Networks and Influence'). The essays are astute in their readings of Burns' scholarship and innovative in their application to new texts, objects, and contexts. While full consideration of these incredibly rich, diverse essays is beyond the scope of this review, I describe two as examples of the volume's consistently high quality.In their essay 'John/Eleanor Rykener Revisted' in Part 2 of the collection, Ruth Mazo Karras and Tom Linkinen reconsider the case of Rykener, a fourteenth-century cross-dressing prostitute. In her earlier scholarship, Karras described Rykener as 'transvestite.' In this essay, the authors follow Burns to claim that because clothing is constitutive of medieval gender systems, 'transgender' is a better term for Rykener. Karras and Linkinen are keenly aware both that transgender is a modern term not recognized in the Middle Ages and that so little is known about the historical Rykener that reconstructing her gender is an act of speculation. They therefore argue that two twenty-first-century creative reimaginations of Rykener, the play John/Eleanor by Linkinin and Timo Vantsi and the novel A Burnable Book by Bruce Holsinger, usefully open up perspectives on Rykener that traditional scholarship might foreclose. …

中文翻译：

---

在中世纪研究中建立女权主义：纪念 E. Jane Burns 编辑的论文。作者：Laine E. Doggett 和 Daniel E. O'Sullivan

LAINE E.DOGGETT 和 daniel E. o'suLLiVAN 编辑，在中世纪研究中建立女性主义：纪念 E 的论文。简伯恩斯。Gallica 39。剑桥：DS Brewer，2016 年。Pp。280. ISBN：978-1-843-84427-3。99 美元。女权主义去哪儿了？这个问题在学院内外都是相关的，一个领域的答案总是会影响另一个领域。理想情况下，学术和主流女权主义是相辅相成的：第二波政治运动催生了女性研究项目，即使女性研究课程向许多学生介绍了女权主义观点，这些观点指导了他们在本科职业生涯之外的观点。相反，在我们当前的“后女权主义”时代，女权主义经常被解释为已经完全实现其目标的过去的政治运动。在学术界，女权主义研究同样可以被认为是对以前被取代的学术时代的倒退。因此，毫不奇怪，中世纪女权主义学者发现自己处于重新评估的阶段：我们取得了哪些成就，我们可以从这里走向何方？这本编辑过的卷的撰稿人直面这些问题，因为他们向 E. Jane 致敬伯恩斯和她在中世纪法国文学内外富有想象力的多才多艺的学术。该卷由 14 篇文章组成，主要由中世纪法语学者撰写，但也有来自历史、艺术史和德国文学的学者撰写，后记由一位中世纪英语专家撰写。适当地，该卷的论文分为四个部分，每个部分都占据了伯恩斯学术的一个关键部分。这些线索包括她声称表面上厌恶女性的文本仍然可以表达女性的观点（第 1 部分：“辩论性别”）；她声称衣服包含中世纪文学和文化中复杂的象征系统（第 2 部分：“裁缝机构”）；她对丝绸作为物质对象和文学主题的研究，梳理西方/非西方文化动态（第 3 部分：“映射边缘”），以及她对物质文化和实际中世纪女性生活的关注（第 4 部分： '女性权威：网络和影响'）。这些论文在阅读伯恩斯的学术方面非常精明，并且在对新文本、对象和上下文的应用方面具有创新性。虽然对这些令人难以置信的丰富多样的文章的全面考虑超出了本评论的范围，我将其中两个作为该卷一贯高品质的例子。在他们的文章“John/Eleanor Rykener Revisted”中，该系列的第 2 部分，Ruth Mazo Karras 和 Tom Linkinen 重新考虑了 Rykener 的案例，Rykener 是一名 14 世纪的变装妓女。在她早期的奖学金中，Karras 将 Rykener 描述为“异装癖者”。在这篇文章中，作者跟随伯恩斯声称，因为服装是中世纪性别系统的组成部分，所以“跨性别”是 Rykener 的一个更好的术语。Karras 和 Linkinen 都敏锐地意识到变性是一个在中世纪不被承认的现代术语，而且对历史上的 Rykener 知之甚少，以至于重建她的性别是一种猜测行为。因此，他们认为 Rykener 的两次 21 世纪创造性的重新想象，林肯和蒂莫·万西 (Timo Vantsi) 的戏剧《约翰/埃莉诺》以及布鲁斯·霍尔辛格 (Bruce Holsinger) 的小说《可燃之书》(A Burnable Book) 有益地开辟了传统学术可能会排斥的关于莱克纳的观点。…