04-05-2018, 09:39 AM
04-05-2018, 09:39 AM
04-05-2018, 10:16 AM
(04-05-2018, 09:39 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Interestingly, the title given by Helmut can be found in several places in the net, but as far as I can determine, the title should have "Parma" instead of "Roma".
Here, e.g., is a table of contents of the volume in which it is included:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Like Rene, I have been quoting secondhand from an (usually reliable) bibliography, but I have at present no way of checking the original publication, maybe someone else can
04-05-2018, 10:20 AM
06-05-2018, 09:11 AM
This is an update of a comparison of Sulphatara bath illustrations. I have added the two "new" BAV manuscripts pointed out by Kaupfmann. The Ottobon. illustration is from the BAV site. The Barb. illustration is from Maddalo 2003.
Examination of these images confirms You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. These are details of the lower part of the illustrations, so I will ignore the upper part. The general scheme is:
1. a central tub with several people bathing;
2. one of the persons in the tub is touching his/her head;
3. one or more people on the left of the tub, with a figure dressed in red;
4. one or more people on the right of the tub, all naked.
* In the Angelica ms, there is a single person on the left and a single person on the right. This and the BAV Barb. ms are the only in which none of those in the tub is touching their head.
* BAV Ross. is the most unique of all the illustrations. The tub is smaller and there are more people outside the tub than inside it. The figure in red on the left is accompanied by two more people. There are two persons touching their head, one inside the tub, one on the right.
* BNF Fr.1313 and the Morgan ms have only two people outside the tub. They are positioned similarly to those in the Angelica Library: both are touching the water inside the tub (as to feel its temperature); the person on the left wears a red robe, that on the right is naked. In both manuscripts, the person touching his/her head does so with both hands. As discussed in another thread, these are the only manuscripts in which the tub is decorated with small arches.
* The other four manuscripts (Bodmer, Valence, BAV Barn. and Ott.) all feature the naked figure on the right entering the tub, with her right foot inside the water and her left foot on the ground. Bodmer and Valence have a figure in blue behind the figure in red on the left. In Bodmer and Ott. a person touches his/her hair with both hands; in Valence the gesture is done with a single hand; in Barb. the gesture is not represented.
I would also like to place the other manuscripts (BNF Lat.8161, Edinburgh and Parma) in Kaupfmann's stemma.
Since not all the Angelica illustrations are available online and the manuscript has been disturbed so that the subject of the illustrations is uncertain, I will not consider it in the following comparisons.
The other three branches of the stemma will be represented (somehow arbitrarily) by BAV Ross., Morgan and Bodler.
This image compares the "Subvenit Homini" illustration in Milan, BNF Lat.8161 and Edinburgh. It is clear that the Milan and BNF Lat. manuscripts are closely related. They seem to share elements both from Ross. (the architectural arch) and Bodmer (the pavilion). Since Kaupfmann has associated the Milan manuscript with that in the Bodmer library, I believe also the BNF Lat. ms belongs to that branch.
The Edinburgh illustration is totally unlike the others: the tree-topped mountains are the only pale resemblance with some of the other images.
I made a similar comparison for Tritulus, since that is the only image from the Parma ms I have. The Parma illustration also seems to belong to the Bodmer branch: the stucco figures at the top are identical in number and quite similar in pose. But there also are similarities with the other illustrations: the two boats appear in Morgan and the blocks of the tubs are like those in Ross. Yet I find the parallel with the Bodmer illustration more convincing. BNF Lat. is even more problematic, with elements of all the three illustrations at the top.
Edinburgh is again totally different: the stuccoed room is represented in perspective and the stucco figures are totally different.
In conclusion, the BNF Lat. and Milan manuscripts are closely related; Kaupfmann assigns the Milanese ms to the Bodmer branch and the BNF Lat. appears to be consistent with this classification. On the basis of the only available illustration, the Parma manuscript can also be tentatively assigned to the Bodmer branch. For all these manuscripts, elements from the other traditions seem to be present, so the classification is not without problems. I guess that comparing more images would make things clearer.
Edinburgh appears to be independent from this iconographic tradition. It also breaks with the layout of having text and image on the opposite sides of an open page: in this ms, text and image have been condensed on a single page (a process that is also observed in the evolution of the alchemical herbal tradition and in the Greek herbal in Padua You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
Examination of these images confirms You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. These are details of the lower part of the illustrations, so I will ignore the upper part. The general scheme is:
1. a central tub with several people bathing;
2. one of the persons in the tub is touching his/her head;
3. one or more people on the left of the tub, with a figure dressed in red;
4. one or more people on the right of the tub, all naked.
* In the Angelica ms, there is a single person on the left and a single person on the right. This and the BAV Barb. ms are the only in which none of those in the tub is touching their head.
* BAV Ross. is the most unique of all the illustrations. The tub is smaller and there are more people outside the tub than inside it. The figure in red on the left is accompanied by two more people. There are two persons touching their head, one inside the tub, one on the right.
* BNF Fr.1313 and the Morgan ms have only two people outside the tub. They are positioned similarly to those in the Angelica Library: both are touching the water inside the tub (as to feel its temperature); the person on the left wears a red robe, that on the right is naked. In both manuscripts, the person touching his/her head does so with both hands. As discussed in another thread, these are the only manuscripts in which the tub is decorated with small arches.
* The other four manuscripts (Bodmer, Valence, BAV Barn. and Ott.) all feature the naked figure on the right entering the tub, with her right foot inside the water and her left foot on the ground. Bodmer and Valence have a figure in blue behind the figure in red on the left. In Bodmer and Ott. a person touches his/her hair with both hands; in Valence the gesture is done with a single hand; in Barb. the gesture is not represented.
I would also like to place the other manuscripts (BNF Lat.8161, Edinburgh and Parma) in Kaupfmann's stemma.
Since not all the Angelica illustrations are available online and the manuscript has been disturbed so that the subject of the illustrations is uncertain, I will not consider it in the following comparisons.
The other three branches of the stemma will be represented (somehow arbitrarily) by BAV Ross., Morgan and Bodler.
This image compares the "Subvenit Homini" illustration in Milan, BNF Lat.8161 and Edinburgh. It is clear that the Milan and BNF Lat. manuscripts are closely related. They seem to share elements both from Ross. (the architectural arch) and Bodmer (the pavilion). Since Kaupfmann has associated the Milan manuscript with that in the Bodmer library, I believe also the BNF Lat. ms belongs to that branch.
The Edinburgh illustration is totally unlike the others: the tree-topped mountains are the only pale resemblance with some of the other images.
I made a similar comparison for Tritulus, since that is the only image from the Parma ms I have. The Parma illustration also seems to belong to the Bodmer branch: the stucco figures at the top are identical in number and quite similar in pose. But there also are similarities with the other illustrations: the two boats appear in Morgan and the blocks of the tubs are like those in Ross. Yet I find the parallel with the Bodmer illustration more convincing. BNF Lat. is even more problematic, with elements of all the three illustrations at the top.
Edinburgh is again totally different: the stuccoed room is represented in perspective and the stucco figures are totally different.
In conclusion, the BNF Lat. and Milan manuscripts are closely related; Kaupfmann assigns the Milanese ms to the Bodmer branch and the BNF Lat. appears to be consistent with this classification. On the basis of the only available illustration, the Parma manuscript can also be tentatively assigned to the Bodmer branch. For all these manuscripts, elements from the other traditions seem to be present, so the classification is not without problems. I guess that comparing more images would make things clearer.
Edinburgh appears to be independent from this iconographic tradition. It also breaks with the layout of having text and image on the opposite sides of an open page: in this ms, text and image have been condensed on a single page (a process that is also observed in the evolution of the alchemical herbal tradition and in the Greek herbal in Padua You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).
06-05-2018, 10:12 AM
Another example of the originality of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. The "Tritoli" bath is represented with both an accurate perspective of the architecture and a detailed rendition of the classical decoration. These "grottesche" motifs will be immensely popular in the XVI Century, but seeing them in a work dating to the early XV Century is quite unusual.
[attachment=2097]
[attachment=2097]
06-05-2018, 10:42 AM
Marco, as you might expect the Edinburgh decoration had drawn my attention as well, I was writing a reply but then saw you beat me to it 
Would this indicate that the Edinburgh drawings are somehow closer to an original, and the others are descendant of a MS with specific abstractions? In the stemma you provided earlier, I'd be inclined to add a node all the way on top rather than somewhere at the bottom. The Edinburgh MS on one side and all the others on the other.
Additionally, it seems like the Morgan preserves two rows of figures where the others have one. I say "preserves" because it seems less likely that the copyist would invent an additional row. Would this be similar in the Paris MS?
Would this indicate that the Edinburgh drawings are somehow closer to an original, and the others are descendant of a MS with specific abstractions? In the stemma you provided earlier, I'd be inclined to add a node all the way on top rather than somewhere at the bottom. The Edinburgh MS on one side and all the others on the other.
Additionally, it seems like the Morgan preserves two rows of figures where the others have one. I say "preserves" because it seems less likely that the copyist would invent an additional row. Would this be similar in the Paris MS?
07-05-2018, 07:57 AM
(06-05-2018, 10:42 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Would this indicate that the Edinburgh drawings are somehow closer to an original, and the others are descendant of a MS with specific abstractions? In the stemma you provided earlier, I'd be inclined to add a node all the way on top rather than somewhere at the bottom. The Edinburgh MS on one side and all the others on the other.
I agree. I think the Edinburgh ms derives from the archetype for the poems only. The illustrations appear to have been redesigned from scratch (without following earlier manuscripts), but not arbitrarily. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (in the Jstor paper you linked above, p.155-156) compares the Edinburgh illustration with the XVIII Century engraving in Paoli's book and the Bodmer and BNF Fr.1313 manuscripts. While the Bodmer manuscript might accurately represent the two smaller chambers that appear in the engraving, Yegül observes that the hexagonal stucco pattern on the vault is comparable between the engraving and the Edinburgh ms.
(06-05-2018, 10:42 AM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Additionally, it seems like the Morgan preserves two rows of figures where the others have one. I say "preserves" because it seems less likely that the copyist would invent an additional row. Would this be similar in the Paris MS?
Yes, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is consistent with the Morgan ms.
I see your point, but I think that Yegül's point of view is correct: "The end wall of this hall is decorated with one or two registers of nude figures in various poses of bathing, conversing, or pointing exaggeratedly to their body parts to indicate the maladies that these baths cure".
Since two independent lines (Ross. and Bodmer) represent a single register, it seems unlikely that they coincidentally applied the same simplification producing very similar illustrations. Also, the text says the bath was carved in the rock:
Rupe sub ingenti celte cavata domus
Soubsz une roche grant & lee / Est la Cave au cisel taillee (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in BNF Fr.1313)
The Morgan and Paris Fr.1313 represent a domed building with two lateral turrets: Bodmer, BNF Lat.8161 and other manuscripts clearly represent the bath as a cave under a hill: in this respect, they appear to be more accurate. This suggests that the Morgan and Paris Fr. manuscripts err in exaggerating the architectural elements. Also, as mentioned above, the Bodmer manuscript is a good match for Paoli's engraving, while the BNF Fr. and Morgan manuscripts represent what appears to be a largely fantastic building.
Anyway, we have evidence for both one and two registers, so I believe Yegül is right in considering both possibilities.
05-05-2026, 09:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Guess this version has been looked at? It's chock full of naked women in green pools
Folio 29r in particular reminds me of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in Voynich
Folio 46r appears to have a phantom retracer
Guess this version has been looked at? It's chock full of naked women in green pools
Folio 29r in particular reminds me of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in Voynich
Folio 46r appears to have a phantom retracer
05-05-2026, 09:31 PM
(05-05-2026, 09:15 PM)DG97EEB Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Guess this version has been looked at? It's chock full of naked women in green pools
Folio 29r in particular reminds me of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. in Voynich
Folio 46r appears to have a phantom retracer
Is that an Abril?
05-05-2026, 09:45 PM