“Trotula” is not an example of the Matilda effect: On correcting scholarly myths and engaging with professional history: A response to Malecki et al. 2024

In 1993, historian of American science Margaret Rossiter introduced the concept of the “Matilda Effect,” to describe a common historical pattern of women's achievements in science and medicine being ignored or purloined by male associates. At the same time, she was writing, however, professional work was being done in a variety of areas of women's history, including the medieval period from which Rossiter drew what she thought was her most salient example: the medical figure, “Trotula.” In fact, “Trotula” was not a woman but the title of a book. Extensive research by professional historians has shown that the real historic woman, Trota of Salerno, was widely credited by her contemporaries (and for the next 300 years) not only for her own work but also for the work of two male writers whose texts became attached to hers in the Trotula ensemble. These findings from professional historical research have been known for over 20 years but rarely acknowledged in Science Studies. The present study proposes that a corrected understanding of Trota's story provides a useful example, not of the Matilda Effect, but of the ways gender functions to restrict even famous women to certain roles.