Pteruges

[tlclark]

Re. the Honorius diptych, there is good reason to suspect that these pieces, like the equally famous Symmachus sacrificial panel, are Renaissance forgeries by an artist whose enterprise and ingenuity far exceeded his skill.

Having never seen the Honorius diptych in person I can't say, but the Nicomachi/Symachi diptych is almost certainly not a forgery. Both Lawrence Nees and Dale Kinney, two late antique specialists have looked into this. Rather what the symmachi diptych reveals is the presence of several stylistic varieties in the late Antique period. This is attested to by several other objects, the projecta casket, the famous David Plates and many other late period objects from the Sveso and Mildenhall Treasures.

I suppose we could never know for sure without a carbon-14 test, but I doubt that will be forthcoming.

I will have to look over Eisenberg's reasons for doubting the Symmachi diptych.

One of the reasons for identifying it as such is that the artist has only a vague concept of how the muscle cuirass is supposed to work.

Now I have no investment in its authenticity, but let me play Devil's advocate here for a minute. Perhaps it's not the artist that has a vague understanding of the musculata, but us.

Not only does he have the "tongue pteruges" (or "lappets," as I've called them) as continuations of the cuirass, rather that protruding from under the lower rim of the cuirass as seen in virtually all other representations,

"virtually" being the operative word. I have seen other examples, but they are all late. By the late period stylistic variation increases. Making judgements on late period images is tricky precisely for this reason. Side seams and hinges disappear almost entirely from all representations of the musculata after the 2nd century. Does that mean they don't exist? or rather that the artistic conventions have excluded them.

each "tongue" is rather curiously deocrated with a fleur-de-lis pattern, something that rarely, if ever occurs in Roman art (but was widespread by the Renaissance); also, note how the upper shoulders of the cuirass actually continue right on over the wearer's shoulders— even if this were boiled leather, it would virtually preclude him from raising his arms even to chest level. Finally, he is wearing a sword (with the hilt rather badly copied from the Stilicho ivory) suspended from a baldric, which is something almost never seen on depictions of an officer (or emperor) wearing a muscle cuirass.

All good points, it certainly is an isolate if authentic, but telling the difference between an excellent forgery and an isolate is extremely difficult. Comparing it to the Stilicho panel it doesn't seem to be copied from that image, but I would have to see them side by side.

Moreover, the art is exceedingly ill-proportioned and "clunky," even by late Roman standards (compare it to the elegant Stilicho diptych), so even if genuine, the artist's veracity and his ability to depict something from real life iis questionable, to say the least.

Well I think that's a subjective argument. The stilicho diptych has many features that could be described as 'clunky', but I see your point.

Great post! Thanks.