Talk:Barberini Faun

[Untitled]
This statue also carries a name of “Sleeping Satyr”. Indeed, in most of the printed and electronic sources today, faun is considered to be equivalent to satyr. This fact, however, is not exactly true, as earliest sources on ancient mythology clearly distinguish those two. In ancient Rome Faun was a forest deity, which protected crops and herds. His other name was Lupercus – the deity that allowed the domestication of dogs to help protect cattle against wolfs. Lupercus literally means “the one who protects against wolves”. His festivals, one of which was known as “Lupercalia” included dancing, merrymaking, and singing. In ancient Greece, existed a comparable deity, known as Pan – who was a god of male sexuality, carnal desire, and fertility. Earliest sources depict both of these deities as extremely hairy people, sometimes with “small horns”, but distinctly without goat hind legs and tail. Actually, hairiness and horns are more applicable to pan than faun, deity that was humanoid in shape.

Pan could, however, transform himself into a goat, which allowed him to chase nymphs on the mountain slopes. The word “panic” is derived from his name, as the nymphs would always scatter if he went by. They would not succeed always - Syrinx was a beautiful nymph pursued by Pan who drowned herself in the river to escape him. Gods turned her into the water reeds. When Pan realized that, he fashioned reeds into Pan’s pipe (also known as Syrinx) trying thus to console himself.

Satyrs, on the other hand, are always pictured with hind legs of a goat, goat tail, goat horns, long face, and extremely big phallus. In Greek mythology, they were followers of Dionysius (in Roman mythology Bacchus), good of wine. They were part of so-called Bacchanalias – wine festivals that included orgies, lovemaking, and general drunkenness. They played on Pan’s flutes (flutes made of reed), and were associated with Pan whom they sometimes followed.

As most of these deities were similar, from the Renaissance on, it was a common error to put them all together under one name - Pan, Faun or Satyr.


 * The information in the above unsigned post (after its sources had been cited) would be better placed in an article. In fact, much of the information in the Barberini Faun article could, it seems to me, be rolled into the satyr article, as could, perhaps, the entirety of the faun article. I realize that these creatures were not necessarily the same from a classical standpoint, but since the Renaissance, I believe, they've been lumped together, and most people today think of them as Greek and Roman versions of the same creature. Perhaps it might be more instructive to discuss them together.


 * To sum up, I propose that we
 * Merge Satyr and Faun.
 * Move some of the content of this Barberini Faun article to the merged article.
 * Research sources of the above unsigned, undated post and move it to the merged article, as well.


 * Do I hear any objections from those who know more about the subject than I? In the interest of full disclosure, I have to point out that I lack the time to accomplish this myself, though I'd be delighted to provide copyediting assistance to anyone who wished to tackle it. &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a flattering angle (!)
As with any body, there are flattering angles and unflattering angles; and I don't mean the spread-eagle angle here, but the way the foreshortening makes the guy look skinny; he's not if you see it in a 3/4 profile. I'll see if I can find a better un-copyrighted image. He looks anorexic here compared to the other pictures I've seen (speaking as an ex-bodybuilding photographer who got into THAT business by being interested in classical sculpture).Skookum1 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it a faun?
The article should make reference to the sculpture's faun-like features. To me it just looks human(oid) from the picture. Does it have horns or something?

From its tail
You can see its a faun by the tail sticking out from underneath its buttocks. TDSzevz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.248.43 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Photoshopped illustration?
From what i can see it looks like the main illustration picture is photoshopped, if you zoom in you see that the faun has been cut from another background and placed on this. Im not a Wikipedia expert, but this cant realy be fitting for a encyclopedia?? TDSzevz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.248.43 (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though there’s no problem with the picture being photoshoped as this one was a bad work I changed it for another untouched version of the same pic from commons. --Magnvss (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)