{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021247429746401644, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.304535637149028, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Gender and Scientific Discourse in Early Modern Culture edited by Kathleen P. Long

single word encompassing all three alterities), and presents the sole non-male, nonChristian voice, that of the resolute Auntera. Its conclusion, as well, offers a refreshing counterpoint. Contrary to the literary and historiographical chapters, Meyer finds that the gender of these thirteenth-century moneylenders was less important than their religio-ethnic identity. Many chapters tend to privilege the importance of gender and religious identity over ethnic identity. The potential to examine ethnic difference among Latin Christian Europeans lies largely untapped. There are hints of interest in this topic, but they are left mostly unfollowed. One of the more vexing essays, by Kirsten A. Fenton, starts with a fascinating quote from William of Malmesbury about the unifying effect of the First Crusade on the barbarous Celts and Northmen. However, after positing a sketchy new ‘Christian ethnicity’, Fenton moves quickly onto familiar tropes of Christian versus Muslim and masculine versus feminine. The idea that Christianity may be treated as an ethnicity as well as a religion deserves more thorough exploration. In fact, some of the more effective essays argue explicitly against the importance of ethnic identity. In Simon Yarrow’s persuasive reading of Orderic Vitalis’ Princess Melaz, the supposed ethnic difference between Bohemond and the Turkish princess evaporates through their adhesion to normalising narratives of gender and religion. Yarrow even characterises Melaz as an exemplary Frankish noblewoman. The pairing of religion and gender analyses is pursued much more closely, not surprisingly considering its longer legacy within medieval studies. William Aird’s essay on Bishop Gundulf sets aside ethnicity entirely in order to concentrate upon religion and gender, as does Stephen F. Kuger’s chapter on Gilbert Crispin’s Disputatio Iudei et Christiani. Yet these chapters offer much less that is new; Aird even admits that much of his study underlines the work of Caroline Walker Bynum. The editors freely admit that their studies use biased sources showcasing masculine points of view. Within the constraints of this perspective, an interesting trend appears. As the chapters progress in time, the focus shifts from male concern with masculinity (a là Jo Ann McNamara, to whom many of the authors allude) to male fascination with femininity. This trend is more suggestively than exhaustively examined, but nonetheless, it emphasises the importance of circumstance and selection in European views of gender. As with any collection of essays, the analyses presented in this volume are not equally persuasive nor entirely consistent with one another. Nevertheless, in spite of their limitations, these essays engage in a valuable discussion about the overlap between the study of gender, religion and ethnicity.