07-12-2021, 07:39 PM
I feel like I would understand this argument better if I knew the kind of group of women we are imagining. I believe that there are some consequences to a hypothesis of female authorship.
1) An argument in favor of women being behind the VM relies on a mostly literal reading of the imagery. The plants are medicinal, Q13 has to do with feminine health, basically a scientific compendium. Is this correct? In favor of a "gender-agnostic" interpretation, I have argued that men would also draw "souls" as female figures (anima is feminine), but this requires an interpretation of the nymphs as souls and/or allegorical figures. If I understand correctly, it is the mostly literal interpretation which pushes the balance towards likely female involvement.
2) From this follows the assumption that this group of women made the VM for themselves and/or their peers, is this correct? I mean, if we are thinking about a professional assignment, the gender of the makers is irrelevant because they (man or woman) would just make what the client commissioned. So suggesting female authorship based on the imagery also suggests that the work was not a commission for a professional scribe. Additionally, the VM does not present itself as a professional work.
From this follows that if the VM was made by women, this was a group of women cooperatively making a scientific compendium for themselves, using weird imagery and a secret writing system.
This sounds intriguing, but which women would do this? The examples we have seen so far are either women working professionally in the manuscript business, or nuns. The literal interpretation of the imagery implies that it is scientific and genuinely lacking in religious content. Would nuns make something like this?
1) An argument in favor of women being behind the VM relies on a mostly literal reading of the imagery. The plants are medicinal, Q13 has to do with feminine health, basically a scientific compendium. Is this correct? In favor of a "gender-agnostic" interpretation, I have argued that men would also draw "souls" as female figures (anima is feminine), but this requires an interpretation of the nymphs as souls and/or allegorical figures. If I understand correctly, it is the mostly literal interpretation which pushes the balance towards likely female involvement.
2) From this follows the assumption that this group of women made the VM for themselves and/or their peers, is this correct? I mean, if we are thinking about a professional assignment, the gender of the makers is irrelevant because they (man or woman) would just make what the client commissioned. So suggesting female authorship based on the imagery also suggests that the work was not a commission for a professional scribe. Additionally, the VM does not present itself as a professional work.
From this follows that if the VM was made by women, this was a group of women cooperatively making a scientific compendium for themselves, using weird imagery and a secret writing system.
This sounds intriguing, but which women would do this? The examples we have seen so far are either women working professionally in the manuscript business, or nuns. The literal interpretation of the imagery implies that it is scientific and genuinely lacking in religious content. Would nuns make something like this?
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)