Still more period OB-GYN
Jun. 8th, 2005 04:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bunnyjadwigaThe two major 'threads' of gynecological texts before 1601 can be represented by the Trotula and De Secretis Mulierum.
Trotula of Salerno may or may not have been a real woman, there is some argument about this. However, the major manuscripts that generally are labelled the Trotula manuscripts were attributed to her in period. Trotula was supposed to be a woman physician at the 11th century medical school of Salerno, where women were known to have studied and taught. In later years, male, University-educated physicians were prone to make fun of 'Dame Trot' because of their abhorrence of women medical personnel; however, there's no question that much of the gynecological writing of the period was influenced by those manuscripts.
Of course, medieval and Renaissance obstetrical and gynecological 'knowledge' was also influenced by the writings of Aristotle (who didn't believe that women had a separate opening for urine) and by Galen and other Greek and Roman medical writers. The result of that tradition, especially in Italy, is works like the pseudo-Albertus Magnus text, De Secretis Mulierum, Of the Secrets of Women. This text, written by a very suspicious monk or monks, is such a marvel of misanthropy that Christine de Pisan complained about it. It was probably influenced by the extremely heavy emphasis on fertility and conception in well-off Italy in the Renaissance
There were a lot of not-terribly attractive items in De Secretis. Here's some:
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/medsex/psalbert1.htm
Texts like this, though they often had decent ideas of fetal positions, usually had very poor grasp of anatomy. The author believed that women had multiple chambers to their uteri (pigs, which were often used for sample dissection, have two chambers, which may have led to the start of the confusion). He also believed that certain evil women would anoint their sex organs with oil of roses or some other protective ointment, then put metal bits, broken glass, or acids inside to cause harm to men. My bet on this was that early STDs were involved.
The author was also overly concerned with ways to detect virginity and the chance that women might try to decieve men about their virginity and/or pregnancy. Things like urine analysis (the urine of a virgin is clear and sparkling; that of a woman who is 'corrupted' is cloudy... etc.) and waving things under women's nose that might cause virgins to urinate, such as a head of lettuce.
Trotula of Salerno may or may not have been a real woman, there is some argument about this. However, the major manuscripts that generally are labelled the Trotula manuscripts were attributed to her in period. Trotula was supposed to be a woman physician at the 11th century medical school of Salerno, where women were known to have studied and taught. In later years, male, University-educated physicians were prone to make fun of 'Dame Trot' because of their abhorrence of women medical personnel; however, there's no question that much of the gynecological writing of the period was influenced by those manuscripts.
Of course, medieval and Renaissance obstetrical and gynecological 'knowledge' was also influenced by the writings of Aristotle (who didn't believe that women had a separate opening for urine) and by Galen and other Greek and Roman medical writers. The result of that tradition, especially in Italy, is works like the pseudo-Albertus Magnus text, De Secretis Mulierum, Of the Secrets of Women. This text, written by a very suspicious monk or monks, is such a marvel of misanthropy that Christine de Pisan complained about it. It was probably influenced by the extremely heavy emphasis on fertility and conception in well-off Italy in the Renaissance
There were a lot of not-terribly attractive items in De Secretis. Here's some:
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/medsex/psalbert1.htm
Texts like this, though they often had decent ideas of fetal positions, usually had very poor grasp of anatomy. The author believed that women had multiple chambers to their uteri (pigs, which were often used for sample dissection, have two chambers, which may have led to the start of the confusion). He also believed that certain evil women would anoint their sex organs with oil of roses or some other protective ointment, then put metal bits, broken glass, or acids inside to cause harm to men. My bet on this was that early STDs were involved.
The author was also overly concerned with ways to detect virginity and the chance that women might try to decieve men about their virginity and/or pregnancy. Things like urine analysis (the urine of a virgin is clear and sparkling; that of a woman who is 'corrupted' is cloudy... etc.) and waving things under women's nose that might cause virgins to urinate, such as a head of lettuce.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Thank you
Date: 2005-06-09 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-17 02:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:50 pm (UTC)I will get back to writing about this SOON.