Save the Scribe: the women who worked with medieval manuscripts(laphamsquarterly.org)
laphamsquarterly.org
Save the Scribe: the women who worked with medieval manuscripts
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/save-scribe
28 comments
> Cum soror una cui usus erat scribendi membranam, dum ad lineas punctaret subulam incaute trahens, oculum transfigit.
Ugh! :-(
I didn't know about this part of the process of manuscript preparation. Apparently, awls were used to score or rule the guidelines onto a parchment, or to perforate an entire set of parchment leaves with very tiny "pricking" marks showing the desired spacing for the guidelines (which would then be identical on every page in that set).
http://web.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/MMM/ruling.html
So that explains "punctaret" (a very post-classical word).
"Then one sister, whose custom it was to write parchment, while she was carelessly carrying an awl in order to prick the lines, impaled her eye."
Ugh! :-(
I didn't know about this part of the process of manuscript preparation. Apparently, awls were used to score or rule the guidelines onto a parchment, or to perforate an entire set of parchment leaves with very tiny "pricking" marks showing the desired spacing for the guidelines (which would then be identical on every page in that set).
http://web.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/MMM/ruling.html
So that explains "punctaret" (a very post-classical word).
"Then one sister, whose custom it was to write parchment, while she was carelessly carrying an awl in order to prick the lines, impaled her eye."
David Bull (in one of his YouTube videos [1]) relates a piece of similar advice he was given. An old carver advised him when he was younger to never scratch his face with his carving hand. Apparently accidentally impaling your eye is enough of a risk to make this safety habit an oral tradition.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKSrgKjevPmNZxCAyTZP5cQ
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKSrgKjevPmNZxCAyTZP5cQ
Back in the days when one did "paste-up", I removed my X-Acto knife from the work with a flourish, and it stopped in my thigh. There was no significant damage, but I was more cautious after that.
With minor modifications I frequently feel that way about various current writers, analysts, bloggers, vloggers, podcasters and influencers (of all genders)
Adult literacy in general across deep time fascinates me. It has all kinds of implications for leasure vs work life balance, the nature of society, social status. We've allowed an image of life to perpetuate which implicitly alienates 50% of the world's productive labour to a secondary role except for a 9-18 month window of child birth and breastfeeding, ignoring all the other lifetime when economically (I know this is dehumanising) this makes absolutely no sense.
Hunter-gatherers notoriously actually live off women's gathering labour, the hunt part is supplementary protein, and entertainment for idle jackasses: women do most of the work. Why do we allow reading of history to tell us scribes, and implicitly literate people were "mostly men" when evidence is at best one sided? Collectively, religious women may well have outnumbered monks. Men had to do other things, including dying in pointless activity far more than women. Marian reverence implies a religious status of women which demands economic relevance as well.
Hunter-gatherers notoriously actually live off women's gathering labour, the hunt part is supplementary protein, and entertainment for idle jackasses: women do most of the work. Why do we allow reading of history to tell us scribes, and implicitly literate people were "mostly men" when evidence is at best one sided? Collectively, religious women may well have outnumbered monks. Men had to do other things, including dying in pointless activity far more than women. Marian reverence implies a religious status of women which demands economic relevance as well.
Men provide most of the calories in most societies. Most hunter-gatherer societies get more than 50% of their calories from meat -- it's not supplemental protein.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt4wc9g8g4/qt4wc9g8g4.pdf
Cross-culturally, men provide about 60% of the calories.
This makes sense when we consider how humans are different from most other primates. We have relatively long term pair bonding, which is unusual in great apes -- but very common in species, like many bird species, where males make a significant contribution to feeding the offspring.
The idea that men's contribution to food stuffs and the general welfare is a sort of supplement or entertainment, while "women do most of the work", is an early modern feminist myth, a product of a time when a lot of comparative anthropology had been considered but very little had actually been done. It's not dissimilar to how we discuss the wage gap, where the most basic number -- of hours worked -- tells a very different, more gritty story than the one characteristically told by feminists.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt4wc9g8g4/qt4wc9g8g4.pdf
Cross-culturally, men provide about 60% of the calories.
This makes sense when we consider how humans are different from most other primates. We have relatively long term pair bonding, which is unusual in great apes -- but very common in species, like many bird species, where males make a significant contribution to feeding the offspring.
The idea that men's contribution to food stuffs and the general welfare is a sort of supplement or entertainment, while "women do most of the work", is an early modern feminist myth, a product of a time when a lot of comparative anthropology had been considered but very little had actually been done. It's not dissimilar to how we discuss the wage gap, where the most basic number -- of hours worked -- tells a very different, more gritty story than the one characteristically told by feminists.
That’s cultures not percentage of population.
It’s very dependent on location, with far northern cultures being significantly more dependent on meat due to long winters. However population density isn’t uniform across cultures, most prehistoric people lived in warm climates.
Also, that link provides zero mention of the breakdown between calories gathered by men, women, or children. Hunting and fishing was far from an exclusively adult male activity in prehistoric cultures. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd0310
It’s very dependent on location, with far northern cultures being significantly more dependent on meat due to long winters. However population density isn’t uniform across cultures, most prehistoric people lived in warm climates.
Also, that link provides zero mention of the breakdown between calories gathered by men, women, or children. Hunting and fishing was far from an exclusively adult male activity in prehistoric cultures. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abd0310
An older discussion of the more general observation about caloric production was published in 2000:
https://www.unm.edu/~hkaplan/KaplanHillLancasterHurtado_2000...
The cultures surveyed are in Africa, Australia, India...
The article you link is an analysis of a burial mound in the Andean highlands and surveys a few other excavations in the Americas. It concludes "The sample is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that female participation in early big-game hunting was likely nontrivial—greater than the trace levels of participation observed among ethnographic hunter-gatherers and contemporary societies.". This leaves several questions open -- their survey is of the Americas, and we do have to acknowledge that widespread female participation in hunting is very unusual to find in hunter-gatherer societies today. Which one represents the ancestral state?
At present, it seems that in most societies, males contribute most of the calories.
https://www.unm.edu/~hkaplan/KaplanHillLancasterHurtado_2000...
The cultures surveyed are in Africa, Australia, India...
The article you link is an analysis of a burial mound in the Andean highlands and surveys a few other excavations in the Americas. It concludes "The sample is sufficient to warrant the conclusion that female participation in early big-game hunting was likely nontrivial—greater than the trace levels of participation observed among ethnographic hunter-gatherers and contemporary societies.". This leaves several questions open -- their survey is of the Americas, and we do have to acknowledge that widespread female participation in hunting is very unusual to find in hunter-gatherer societies today. Which one represents the ancestral state?
At present, it seems that in most societies, males contribute most of the calories.
That study is looking at a very different population than primitive hunter gathering.
Food acquisition data have been collected since the early 1980s among the Northern Ache of eastern Paraguay, shortly after peaceful contact. All ethnographic evidence suggests that the Northern Ache were hunter-gatherers without horticulture before contact in the 1970s (Hill & Hurtado, 1996; Clastres, 1998). Since then the Ache fre- quently trek into the forest with family groups and return to a permanent reser- vation settlement after several days to a month. The Ache have exclusive use rights to the Mbaracayu Reserve where they are allowed to hunt with hands, machetes, and bows and arrows but not using firearms or dogs. In 1998, the Ache at the Arroyo Bandera settlement, where most of the data in this study were collected, spent 14% of all person days (range 0–50% for individuals) on trek (McMillan, 2001).
During the pre-contact period (i.e., prior to the mid 1970s), hunters spent almost every healthy day of their lives hunting, with the exception of bad weather days. On the reservation today, school and then horticul- tural activities and wage labor compete with hunting for a young man’s time. Thus, by the year 2000, most young men had very little hunting experience. In May 2000, a selected group of 11 men, ages 14–37, who were relatively inexperienced at hunting, agreed to participate in a hunting experi- ment.
https://www.unm.edu/~robwal/achehunt.pdf
Food acquisition data have been collected since the early 1980s among the Northern Ache of eastern Paraguay, shortly after peaceful contact. All ethnographic evidence suggests that the Northern Ache were hunter-gatherers without horticulture before contact in the 1970s (Hill & Hurtado, 1996; Clastres, 1998). Since then the Ache fre- quently trek into the forest with family groups and return to a permanent reser- vation settlement after several days to a month. The Ache have exclusive use rights to the Mbaracayu Reserve where they are allowed to hunt with hands, machetes, and bows and arrows but not using firearms or dogs. In 1998, the Ache at the Arroyo Bandera settlement, where most of the data in this study were collected, spent 14% of all person days (range 0–50% for individuals) on trek (McMillan, 2001).
During the pre-contact period (i.e., prior to the mid 1970s), hunters spent almost every healthy day of their lives hunting, with the exception of bad weather days. On the reservation today, school and then horticul- tural activities and wage labor compete with hunting for a young man’s time. Thus, by the year 2000, most young men had very little hunting experience. In May 2000, a selected group of 11 men, ages 14–37, who were relatively inexperienced at hunting, agreed to participate in a hunting experi- ment.
https://www.unm.edu/~robwal/achehunt.pdf
It looks at several peoples. None of them are primitive enough, to your thinking? What are the peoples we should be looking at?
Unfortunately, we can't go back in time to see what those people in the Americas, in the study you linked to, were actually doing, 9000 years ago.
One of the points of the study is that men provide a majority of calories in many types of societies -- that it is a relatively common finding. We'll never be able to visit people in the ancestral state -- starting 200000 years ago -- but this idea does dovetail with what we know about other species where there's long term pair bonding. Typically, the male in those species contributes a great deal of calories to the offspring.
Unfortunately, we can't go back in time to see what those people in the Americas, in the study you linked to, were actually doing, 9000 years ago.
One of the points of the study is that men provide a majority of calories in many types of societies -- that it is a relatively common finding. We'll never be able to visit people in the ancestral state -- starting 200000 years ago -- but this idea does dovetail with what we know about other species where there's long term pair bonding. Typically, the male in those species contributes a great deal of calories to the offspring.
We can look at historic documentation of primitive cultures and archaeological evidence, which is of course biased but hardly useless. Single parents with children are documented as being at a significant disadvantage, but that’s true after the loss of either parent.
Food sharing between tribe members is also common, skilled labor like napping is rewarded. Food gathering is also highly variable with excess food is of limited value in times of plenty, significant amounts go to waste. Making food preservation a major long term benefit.
Calculating lifetime contributions is therefore tricky especially if you try to account for lifespans. Hunting large animals is flat out dangerous.
Food sharing between tribe members is also common, skilled labor like napping is rewarded. Food gathering is also highly variable with excess food is of limited value in times of plenty, significant amounts go to waste. Making food preservation a major long term benefit.
Calculating lifetime contributions is therefore tricky especially if you try to account for lifespans. Hunting large animals is flat out dangerous.
So in your opinion, it is not correct to say that men did the majority of the hunting, or that men usually contribute a majority of calories?
"skilled labor like napping"?
"skilled labor like napping"?
ok, I'll take the correction. but, 60/40 is still a huge distance from a historical perspective which weights mens activity in the record a lot more toward 80/20 or better.
To me, the laphams article is a re-balance which probably understates, more than overstates the contribution of womens literacy in the scribe records. Thats the point here, not the hunter-gatherer story.
To me, the laphams article is a re-balance which probably understates, more than overstates the contribution of womens literacy in the scribe records. Thats the point here, not the hunter-gatherer story.
>economically (I know this is dehumanising) this makes absolutely no sense.
Honestly, I think the breadwinner-homemaker dynamic makes a lot of sense.
Life has become harsher for everyone now that two incomes are required in order to remain competitive, and the work that women used to do as homemakers in a stable marriage has primarily been replaced by immigrant labour in insecure and underpaid jobs.
Yes, GDP has risen, but I don't think that necessarily means the new system works better.
Honestly, I think the breadwinner-homemaker dynamic makes a lot of sense.
Life has become harsher for everyone now that two incomes are required in order to remain competitive, and the work that women used to do as homemakers in a stable marriage has primarily been replaced by immigrant labour in insecure and underpaid jobs.
Yes, GDP has risen, but I don't think that necessarily means the new system works better.
And the moment man gets sick, dies, becomes alcoholic (not an exception in past), becomes dangerous, the partner is utterly absolutely effed.
If you look at employment rates per gender in 1950, you find surprisingly a lot women working. It is not like legend has it as if only middle class existed.
Notably, Rosa Parks employment mattered to her family a lot and loss of it caused the issues after protests.
If you look at employment rates per gender in 1950, you find surprisingly a lot women working. It is not like legend has it as if only middle class existed.
Notably, Rosa Parks employment mattered to her family a lot and loss of it caused the issues after protests.
I don’t know if life became more harsh; rather a few decades of the 20th century were anomalies.
Before automation and modern conveniences, running a household was a very demanding job.
Have you tried washing clothes using a bar of soap and a scrubbing board?
Or firing up a meal using an old stove? Or preserving foods (canning, drying, pickling) because no refrigeration.
Or drawing water for a bath from a well, and firing up hot water?
Never mind the kids…
Edit: Not aimed at you specifically. I just think people don’t appreciate that historically, both genders had to contribute a LOT to build a successful family.
Before automation and modern conveniences, running a household was a very demanding job.
Have you tried washing clothes using a bar of soap and a scrubbing board?
Or firing up a meal using an old stove? Or preserving foods (canning, drying, pickling) because no refrigeration.
Or drawing water for a bath from a well, and firing up hot water?
Never mind the kids…
Edit: Not aimed at you specifically. I just think people don’t appreciate that historically, both genders had to contribute a LOT to build a successful family.
And animals. Milking cows, feeding chicken, killing chicken and all that were done by women, at least here.
By men too, it is not that men slacked. And a lot of work was physical and superior strength mattered. But there was ton of work all the time and even kids had to be useful.
The situation in which you have full adult boring her brains out being idle was not historical norm except for richest classes.
By men too, it is not that men slacked. And a lot of work was physical and superior strength mattered. But there was ton of work all the time and even kids had to be useful.
The situation in which you have full adult boring her brains out being idle was not historical norm except for richest classes.
So, if we took the breadwinner-homemaker dynamic, which of the two is more likely to have the time to be literate? the one in the field, or the one by the hearth?
Neither, because books are completely unaffordable to anybody who is a part of the working class. ;)
Literacy is not a binary. It was apparently common for working class people to have some practical literacy; the ability to recognize and write words in their local vernacular that were relevant to their lives and professions. A little bit of literacy goes a long way to facilitate trade and commerce, even if you're not comfortable reading a whole book. In fact there are still some people who go through life like this in developed countries today.
These books, yes. Horn books, chapbooks, slates and wax tablets, not to mention lead scrolls, have been available in volume since people had leather, shoulder bones, horn and lead. They found letters from ordinary Romans home to wives and mothers in vindolanda, there have been overt religious/political diatribes against widespread literacy and women's literacy and I think that begs questions too: arguing to keep people illiterate suggests a state of literacy at large.
>arguing to keep people illiterate suggests a state of literacy at large.
I don't think anybody is arguing this.
I don't think anybody is arguing this.
Historically, at some points in time I believe both the church and state did. The reformation is blamed in part on increasing adult literacy, and the translation of the bible into the vernacular, combined with a drastic drop in the cost of the means of production of written materials.
There was apparently a letter written by a nun, so it only stands to reason that women were medieval scribes writing manuscripts.
Well, there was at least one.
The article is an excerpt from the book, written by the author of the article.
The article is an excerpt from the book, written by the author of the article.
>Not only men, but women were thus occupied, to whose insufficiency the defects of many manuscripts are assignable. (P. Sarti de Profess. Bonon.) This authority refers to the female scribes of Bologna. We may, however, believe the practice to have been general; for Engelhardus (anno 1200) reports an accident which happened to a nun in the exercise of her employment: "Cum soror una cui usus erat scribendi membranam, dum ad lineas punctaret subulam incaute trahens, oculum transfigit." Defective transcript is, however, not solely to be attributed to females; for the accurate and elegant Petrarch indignantly exclaims, "Who shall prescribe an effectual remedy for the ignorance and worthlessness of copiers, who spoil and confuse the performances they undertake?---At this time, every one who can redden letters or guide a pen, though void of learning, skill, or ability, assumes the character of a scribe. I should not censure their defects in orthography (for that is a long forgotten art,) if they would faithfully transcribe what is before them. They might betray their insufficiency, but we should have in the copy the substance of the original. They now confound both together, and, by substituting one thing for another, we can scarce identify the author from which they transcribed. If Cicero, Livy, and many other illustrious writers, could return to life, and re-peruse their own compositions, would they understand them, and doubting the whole, would they believe them to be their own, or rather, those of some barbarous people?"