All the volumes in the series Oldenbourg Outlines of History share what the editors describe as “a proven three-part structure” comprising “an introduction to the . . . subject” (“Historical Survey” in the volume under review but “aktuelle Stand der Forschung”— i.e., “current state of research” in all the other volumes in the series), a “survey of the research” (“State of the Art” in the volume under review but “Grundprobleme und Tendenzen der Forschung”—i.e., “fundamental problems and trends in research” in all the other volumes in the series), and a bibliography (v). The volumes are intended primarily to serve as introductory textbooks (“a means of orientation”) for university students, and secondarily as supports for instructors preparing lectures and seminars (v).

Inaugurated in 1978, for the first two decades the series featured German-language treatments of standard chronological periods in European history (for example, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Reformation and Counter-Reformation, Age of Imperialism, Interwar Europe, and so on); all of those volumes were repeatedly revised and republished, in most cases five or more times. During the third, fourth, and fifth decades of its existence, the series expanded to include German-language treatments of standard chronological periods both within and beyond Europe (for example, Africa in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, India to 1750, Europe 1815–1850, Latin America 1800–1930, and so on); many of those volumes were also revised and republished, generally two or three times. Clearly, “the proven three-part structure” of these textbooks suits history courses taught in German (and presumably also Austrian) universities, and more are on the way; both the publisher's website and Wikipedia provide (divergent) lists of volumes currently in preparation, all but one of which (Ian Wood's treatment of Europe in Late Antiquity) are German-language treatments of chronological periods.

The question for this review is whether Steven Vanderputten's Medieval Monasticisms—which stands alone in the Oldenbourg Outlines series as both Anglophone and thematic—is a suitable textbook for courses in North American (and other Anglophone) universities. My feeling is that it could be useful, but I have serious reservations. My hesitation derives entirely from what, to me, is a major shortcoming of the “proven three-part structure” of the Oldenbourg Outlines (which I had never before examined closely), at least as it has been translated into this outlier (Anglophone and thematic) contribution.

All three parts of Medieval Monasticisms follow an identical outline. Each individual discussion unit comes in under (and typically far under) ten pages (for instance, “Cluniac and Other Nebulas” at 73–79 and 189–192). The first time through a given topic, Vanderputten discusses some of the relevant historiographical debates and current interpretations of the issue with no explicit reference to the scholars involved in the conversation; the second time through the given topic, Vanderputten goes over the exact same ground, repeating some aspects of the initial discussion and adding some new details, this time with acknowledgements of the scholars who contributed to his understanding. I simply cannot see the benefit to having two (in my view, artificially and arbitrarily) separated discussions of the same topic, rather than one integrated discussion. In order to get a full picture, it is imperative to read both iterations, and it would be much more convenient to have the entire discussion presented as a single unit.

Consider the two treatments of Pope Gregory the Great's depiction of Benedict of Nursia in the former's Dialogues (24–27 and 154–157). Vanderputten introduces Gregory's “much-debated testimony” concerning Benedict, including the fact that the latter “allegedly wrote a Rule” (24). Vanderputten tells readers that “some historians . . . argue that Gregory's biography of Benedict is strictly a work of fiction, and that the abbot represents little more than the pope's attempt to create a literary ideal of combined charismatic and pragmatic leadership” (25). Vanderputten also notes “the growing realization by scholars that the abbot's double achievement [community leadership and rule authorship] was far from unique or exceptional” (25). He concludes that Gregory's account of Benedict's ideal and experiences “functioned first and foremost as a means to express the author's preference,” leaving open and unanswerable questions such as “whether Benedict himself actually had stood for these ideals” or “how these various experiences related to those of Benedict himself” (26). Vanderputten goes on to report that scholarly specialists not only question the attribution of the Rule to Benedict but also diminish its significance as but one of several similar literary efforts (including the Rule of the Master) to represent the characteristics of an ideal monastic community (27). Subsequently, Vanderputten reveals the names of some of the scholars who questioned “Gregory's reasons for presenting [Benedict] as a monastic founder and legislator” as well as the identity of one historian who argued “that Benedict is most likely entirely fictional” (155). He concludes again “that Gregory used Benedict's persona to reflect his own views” (155) and reveals the name of one of the scholars who argued that Gregory's “reference to Benedict's authorship of a rule is . . . rooted in his own personal experiences and expectations” (156). Finally, Vanderputten identifies the scholars who have been working to understand the relationship between the Rule attributed to Benedict and “that other monument of sixth-century rule-making, the Rule of the Master” (156). Some readers (with devotees of the Oldenbourg Outlines chief among them) will presumably disagree, but I see no benefit whatsoever to having this information presented twice, once without and once with credit to the relevant scholars.

Everything Vanderputten has written in Medieval Monasticisms is clear, solid, accurate, and even sophisticated. I have no major problems with his assertions, representations, or recommendations for future research, and I could not agree more with his overall picture: medieval European monasticisms were immensely diverse, continuously evolving, and embedded in specific contexts, such that no singular grand narrative can describe them without grave distortions of the evidence (3–4). However, all this and much more can be gathered from the dozens of top-notch contributions to The Cambridge History of Medieval Monasticism in the Latin West, edited by Alison Beach and Isabelle Cochelin and published in two volumes in 2020; I would both urge and expect university-level instructors to consult that monumental achievement rather than an Oldenbourg Outline. Instructors can also use the Cambridge History to complicate, supplement, and enrich (including by assigning some chapters directly) a readable, student-friendly synthetic treatment of the topic such as Gert Melville's The World of Medieval Monasticism (2016), which sells for almost the same price as Vanderputten's Oldenbourg Outline. However, I do recommend that university libraries acquire Medieval Monasticisms, not least for its extensive (albeit not comprehensive) Bibliography (231–279).