(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.