Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bronwen, post: 585400, member: 5833&quot;]Think we can be sure this one is John:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]175541[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>This one too:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]175542[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Seeing this as Caravaggio may be wishful thinking, but it is certainly John:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.wikiart.org/en/caravaggio/john-the-baptist-reclining-baptist-1610" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.wikiart.org/en/caravaggio/john-the-baptist-reclining-baptist-1610" rel="nofollow">https://www.wikiart.org/en/caravaggio/john-the-baptist-reclining-baptist-1610</a></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]175543[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>I was beginning to wonder whether this one was John after all, until I noticed that there does seem to be a crosspiece on the staff:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]175545[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]175544[/ATTACH]&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>This one, however, despite similarities with the one above, just can&#039;t see this full monty presentation of a joyous youth on intimate terms with what may well be a goat as any sort of saint:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]175547[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Not at all.&nbsp; It is not unheard of for scholars/museum curators to reconsider a work &amp; come to new conclusions that depart from what had been received wisdom.&nbsp; And there is good reason to reconsider the nude boy hugging the ram/goat, see what it says for itself.[/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