Spanish Caravaggist (?)

It is definitely a full grown ewe.

Maybe. I would bet Youth with Ram is correct:
https://www.caravaggio-foundation.org/St.-John-The-Baptist-Youth-With-Ram-2.html
Rams have been associated with lust forever. I would buy this as a young Bacchus before any saint.

They seem more confident in their IDs of these two:

https://www.caravaggio-foundation.org/St.-John-The-Baptist.html

 

Where are you looking?

 

Hi Jivvy,
That photo you have shown is NOT John the Baptist with a ram. John was a nice Jewish boy who was cut. Have the same problem with Michelangelo's DAVID.
greg

 

Thank you all.
Personally I think that the iconography allows to identify both a mythological subject and a sacred subject. Nor can it be ruled out that the ambiguity was not intended by the artist himself.
What perplexes me is the manner of the painting. On the one hand there is a Caravaggesque influence but on the other a geometrical synthesis that I have never seen reconciled in this way.
Does anyone know examples?

 

That whole corner of the painting gives me difficulty. Until you enlarged it, thought that was a leaning tree back there. Now it looks more like a spear planted butt down in the sand. May just indicate the figure hunts when he can. I don't see any water.

 

El Greco's figures always look like they are at death's door. Thin, elongated limbs and face and very pale skin. This young man looks quite healthy, but not nearly as alive as Caravaggio's young men. There is some strange stylisation going on.

 

I live with a Caravaggio fan -- who has massive Caravaggio knowledge and books. I called him in -- apparently, 17th century references thought it obvious that this was John the Baptist. Yes, it has been disputed since. John the Baptist is still favored as the proper identification. Not everyone agrees.

 

But I'm pretty sure it's an accurate representation of the model's genitalia.

 

I agree that it's water, but I do not know what's going on with it.

 

Definitely the case, almost a touch of surrealism in places.

I'm holding down the minority opinion here, but see absolutely nothing to indicate this was ever meant to be a religious or an ambiguous subject. I know full well sellers on 1stdibs do not always know what they are talking about. If the painting had not been described by seller as John the Baptist, would it ever have occurred to you to see it that way?

Ditto here. If you saw it with no preconceptions, would it ever strike you, or the resident Caravaggio fan, as a religious subject? If I showed it to you for the first time & told you it was the young Dionysus, would you have trouble believing me? Painters of the period put clues in the composition viewers of the time understood. I would bet the plant in the lower right corner of the painting with the seated [correction: lolling] young St. John has meaning, if we recognized it.

 

I would have no problem believing it's Dionysus!

As to the resident fan? It's hard to separate him from his knowledge. And to him, if you know Caravaggio, you know that that is John the Baptist. Because that is how Caravaggio depicts John the Baptist.

Mr. Jivvy is not here right now, but he mentioned the red cloak, the fur, the ram, and he did indeed say something about the plant... but my mind may have wandered by that point.

 

On that one, I have to point to the reed staff. Not, to my knowledge, typical for a shepherd. Totally typical for John the Baptist.

When I asked earlier, Mr. Jivvy did think that the OP's piece was supposed to be John the Baptist -- because of the heavy Caravaggio influence (and the reed staff), but mentioned that he found the lack of fur problematic.

I think maybe the fur (and the correctly modified genitalia) are hidden under the cloak.

 

Suppose an argument can be made that C. always depicted Bacchus in white:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2293936

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacchus_(Caravaggio)

While he does seem to favor red for John, it is not reserved for him:

https://az333959.vo.msecnd.net/imag...ptist-caravaggio-caravaggio-1609-d3d0baca.jpg

https://az334034.vo.msecnd.net/imag...of-saint-matthew-caravaggio-1602-ca909651.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Jerome_Writing-Caravaggio_(c._1607).jpg

I would argue that, before he disrobed, this individual was wearing white:



The plant looks like something with a spadix & spathe, & faintly sexual, the way orchids are. It is not St. John's wort.

Knowing what something is & what books say it is are not always the same thing. Later books take info from earlier ones & later authors do not bother to verify everything they read. After all, who would have put it in a book if it weren't true, right?

 

He just looks like one of Caravaggio's boys to me. He was wearing a white shirt, I think I see a collar. A reddish cloak, and Caravaggio had probably hidden his trousers.

 

Looks like a G, doesn't it?

 

While I'm sure Mr. Jivvy would enjoy some point/counterpoint on this topic... he's not here. I do know that the plant he mentioned as being St. John's symbol was not St John's wort (but that's all I know).

Gotta say that's a little insulting to Mr. Jivvy, but you don't know him like I do.

 

The ram - is it a billy goat? - ate them.