01-05-2018, 09:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2018, 09:27 AM by davidjackson.)
Sorry Koen, reading back I realised I totally misspoke in my previous thread. I was referring to the exemplar I linked to, not the whole manuscript tradition! 
Rather than staring just at the illuminated manuscripts (Kauffmann cited 10 unilluminated manuscripts and 10 illuminated ones extant in 1960, although there is another one in Edinburgh) it might be worthwhile to actually examine the poem? However, I cannot find any modern critical examination of De Balneis Puteolanis. Kauffmann's work doesn't seem to include any critical edition (See L.C. McKinney's review of his work in Speculum 35(2) | Apr., 1960).
Does anyone know of such a work, or a translation?
Rather than staring just at the illuminated manuscripts (Kauffmann cited 10 unilluminated manuscripts and 10 illuminated ones extant in 1960, although there is another one in Edinburgh) it might be worthwhile to actually examine the poem? However, I cannot find any modern critical examination of De Balneis Puteolanis. Kauffmann's work doesn't seem to include any critical edition (See L.C. McKinney's review of his work in Speculum 35(2) | Apr., 1960).
Does anyone know of such a work, or a translation?