that blames thewomen. Thus, he claims that Sitt al-Mulk killed her brother, the caliph al-Hakim (p. 204). In contrast to earlier chapters, he admits that there are contradictory accounts of the death of al-Hakim, but they “are not our concern here” (p. 203). I have to ask: Why not? Is it simply that accuracy destroys a good story? Sometimes, parallels are drawn between ferocious women across time, as in Chapter 6: “Just as Khayzuran had behaved before with her son ... in 1104 Khatun Safwat al-Mulk decided to murder her son” (p. 294). I do not want to imply here that Safwat al-Mulk did not kill her son, only that it cannot be taken as an unquestionable truth. This statement is actually part of reused material from a chapter written by el-Azhari in D’hulster and Vermeulen (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VI (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2010), but there, he has added the crucial words “according to Ibn ʿAsakir” (p. 113). At least four pages are duplicated (unacknowledged) from this chapter, almost verbatim but with less precision. The same is true for Chapter 7, on two Ayyubid queens and their atabegs, where at least eight pages are copied, unacknowledged, from another chapter by el-Azhari in the same volume. In both cases, el-Azhari’s previous writing is better. The versions in Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines have less of an academic focus and less precision, as references to sources in the text are deleted. It is unfortunate, considering the amount of time el-Azhari must have put into it, but sadly, I have to conclude that this book is not reliable. The uncritical reliance on primary sources could be a matter of negligence, but it is also plausible that it is an actual choice. Priority is given to telling a “good story”, and, in line with medieval storytelling, a good story often involves women governed by desires; women, sometimes ferocious, sometimes only disloyal, who give in to their lower nature and plot to get what they want. A positive interpretation is that el-Azhari wishes to give priority to explanations that accentuate women’s agency and that the negative representations of them are accidental, but even so, this book should be read with caution.

中文翻译：

---

性，法国和阿拉伯男人，1962-1979。Todd Shepard（芝加哥：芝加哥大学出版社，2018 年）。pp。317. $50.00 布。国际标准书号：9780226493275

这归咎于女性。因此，他声称 Sitt al-Mulk 杀死了她的兄弟哈里发 al-Hakim（第 204 页）。与前几章相反，他承认对哈基姆之死有自相矛盾的描述，但“我们不关心这些”（第 203 页）。我不得不问：为什么不呢？仅仅是准确性破坏了一个好故事吗？有时，跨越时间的凶猛女性之间存在相似之处，如第 6 章：“正如 Khayzuran 之前对她儿子的行为......在 1104 年 Khatun Safwat al-Mulk 决定谋杀她的儿子”（第 294 页）。我不想在这里暗示 Safwat al-Mulk 没有杀死她的儿子，只是不能将其视为不容置疑的事实。该声明实际上是 el-Azhari 在 D'hulster 和 Vermeulen (eds.)、埃及和叙利亚在法蒂玛、阿尤布和马穆鲁克六世 (鲁汶：Peeters Publishers，2010 年），但在那里，他添加了“根据伊本·阿萨基尔（Ibn ʿAsakir）”（第 113 页）的关键词。本章至少有四页重复（未确认），几乎是逐字逐句，但准确性较低。第 7 章也是如此，关于两个阿尤布女王和他们的阿塔贝格，其中至少有八页是从 el-Azhari 同一卷的另一章中复制的，未经确认。在这两种情况下，el-Azhari 以前的写作都更好。《皇后》、《太监》和《妃嫔》中的版本缺乏学术重点和准确性，因为删除了文本中对来源的引用。不幸的是，考虑到 el-Azhari 必须投入大量时间，但遗憾的是，我不得不得出结论，这本书不可靠。对主要来源的不加批判的依赖可能是疏忽的问题，但它也是一个实际的选择也是合理的。优先讲“好故事”，按照中世纪的叙事方式，好故事往往涉及被欲望支配的女性；女性，有时凶猛，有时只是不忠诚，她们屈服于自己的低级本性并阴谋获得自己想要的东西。一个正面的解释是 el-Azhari 希望优先考虑强调女性能动性的解释，而对她们的负面描述是偶然的，但即便如此，还是应该谨慎阅读本书。