Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bronwen, post: 912698, member: 5833&quot;]Just spent some time with the Beazley Archive&#039;s Tassie collection photos &amp; the Thorvaldsen Museum&#039;s site.&nbsp; Your questions &amp; my observations are making me rethink some things.&nbsp; I&#039;m always on the lookout for the primary images behind the cameo ones.&nbsp; There are some that are common on Victorian cameos that I have yet to find elsewhere in the glyptics world or in other art.&nbsp; These 2/3 Bacchic figures, both yours &amp; mine, are in that category: ubiquitous in shell; nowhere in engraved stone.&nbsp; I think both figures have their origins among the bacchantes, but the idea that some of them are Bacchus/Dionysus is well established out here in the non-academic world.</p><p><br /></p><p>The one thing on yours that looks masculine in a way I don&#039;t see on female figures is the jaw.&nbsp; It looks influenced by depictions of Antinous, the &#039;companion&#039; of the Emperor Hadrian.&nbsp; After A drowned in the Nile, H had him deified &amp; his worship got conflated with that of Bacchus.&nbsp; Here&#039;s a fragment with the profile of Antinous:</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://fotoarkivet.thorvaldsensmuseum.dk/imgs/e7/4b/12053/large/L284.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> and the &#039;Antinous Mondragone&#039;:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]201019[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>When I bought this I thought of it as a rather homely bacchante, then it occurred to me that it was a perfectly acceptable Bacchus:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]201020[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in