S T U D I A A R C H A E O L O G I C A

187 Anna Trofimova

IMITATIO ALEXANDRI IN HELLENISTIC ART Portraits of Alexander the Great and Mythological Images

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER Anna Trofimova

Imitatio Alexandri in Hellenistic Art Portraits of Alexander the Great and Mythological Images

© Copyright 2012 «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER Via Cassiodoro, 19 - 00193 Roma http://www.lerma.it © Anna Trofimova

English translation Paul Williams

Progetto grafico «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Tutti i diritti risevati. È vietata la riproduzione di testi e illustrazioni senza il permesso scritto dell’Editore.

Trofimova, Anna. Imitatio Alexandri in Hellenistic Art. - Roma : «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER, 2012. - XVI + 192 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. (Studia Archaeologica ; 187) ISBN: 978-88-8265-753-6 CDD 709.01 1. Alessandro : Magno

Cover: Part of a chariot with the head of a warrior. Greece (?). Early 3rd century BC. Bronze (see. Fig. 130). Back-cover: Phalar with gorgoneion. Eastern Mediterranean, Bosporan kingdom (?), 2nd century BC. Silver, gilding (see Fig. 156) (Photos: © The State Hermitage Museum). INDEX

■ Foreword ...... pag. vii

■ Introduction ...... » XI

■ Chapter I The History of the Study of Portraits of Alexander the Great and the “subject of imitations” ...... » 1

■ Chapter II Alexander the Great in Hellenistic Art. The Image and the Reality ...... » 15

■ Chapter III The Influence of Portraits of Alexander on the Hellenistic Iconography of Achilles ...... » 33

■ Chapter IV Alexander in the guise of Heracles and Heracles in the guise of Alexander ...... » 59

■ Chapter V The evolution of the iconography of Dionysus and the myth of Alexander ...... » 81

■ Chapter VI The Royal Image and Deities of the Heavenly Sphere in Hellenistic art Alexander and Helios, Apollo and the Dioscuri ...... » 103

■ Chapter VII Alexander and the Giants of the Pergamon Frieze ...... » 125

■ Chapter VIII The Alexander Type in the Hellenistic Iconography of Water Deities ...... » 133

■ Conclusion ...... » 141

■ Footnotes ...... » 147

■ Acknowledgements ...... » 157

■ Abbreviations ...... » 159

■ Bibliography ...... » 163

■ Sources ...... » 181

■ Index ...... » 185

Index V

Foreword

It is a cliché that Alexander’s face was the works in the Hermitage and other Rus- most influential in history and the most sian museums; and its sympathetic ad- frequently honored in metal, stone, paint, dress to the extensive Russian literature and other media. Yet, amazingly, to my on these objects and on the topic as a knowledge this is the first comprehensive whole, largely unknown to most Western study of the impact of his uniquely rich scholars (this writer included) because of portrait tradition on the vast landscape of the language barrier. ancient divine and heroic imagery. Hith- A brisk but informative Introduction erto, scholars and critics have focused sets the stage, proposing that this “Al- largely on this tradition’s importance for exander component” filled Greek clas- Hellenistic and Roman ruler portraiture, sical mythology with new content and interspersed with occasional asides on its brought individuality into the iconogra- influence upon the private sphere. Their phy of heroes and gods. Resembling a relatively infrequent ventures into the Warburgian Pathosformel but not iden- territory covered by this book have con- tical with it, it was flexible, potent, and sisted largely either of studies of specific loaded with specific political, social, and iconographic types (for example, the god ethical meanings. As a result, “from the Helios) and individual works (e.g., the so- late fourth or early third centuries BC a called Aldobrandini Wedding), or of scat- historical personality − the image of a tered, ad hoc observations about them. human being − became a prototype” for Now, in a hundred and fifty dense- heroic and divine images (xi). To unpack ly packed, profusely illustrated, and well this unique and unprecedented develop- documented pages (the fruit of three ment, a choice array of theorists − includ- decades of intensive involvement with ing Gombrich, Eco, Gadamer, Baxandall, the subject), Anna Trofimova, curator of and Foucault − is mobilized in a quest Greek and Roman art at the Hermitage to define inter alia the key concepts of in St. Petersburg, has both mapped out “type”, “pattern”, and “imitation”, and their its topography and offered many chal- source in this particular case, namely, Al- lenging responses to its extensive array exander’s portraiture. “What is a portrait, of problems. For these reasons alone, a portrait image, and a type? What are the her book should be enthusiastically wel- components of the artistic language of comed − but there are plenty of others. portraiture? What are the specifics of the In particular, these include (but are not concepts of the individual and the ideal, limited to) its inclusive illustration and the unique, the particular, and the arche- detailed discussion of many unfamiliar typal?” (ix). What, in short, do these two

Foreword VII key genres − heroes and gods − borrow imagery and his portraits (continuous- from Alexander’s vast and heterogeneous ly evolving through the end of antiquity) array of portraits, why, and to what effect? permeates and reciprocally enriches all of them, often to the point that when bodies Deferring these questions for the mo- and contexts are lost, heads cannot be se- ment, Chapters 1 and 2 then proceed curely identified as either one or the oth- to summarize and discuss the scholar- er: Alexander? Achilles? Alexander-Achil- ship on Alexander portraiture itself; the les? Achilles-Alexander? and so on. One Greek and Roman literary accounts of it; does not have to agree with all the au- and its surviving relics. The author’s cov- thor’s positions (for example, on the iden- erage of the scholarship is both broad tities of the Pasquino and “Eubouleus”, or and deep; her stance towards it is inde- the precise extent of the “Alexander com- pendently critical; and her grasp of the ponent” on Roman mythological frescoes, ancient testimonia is encyclopedic. (One Dionysiac sarcophagi, and other monu- of the book’s great strengths is its diligent ments) to appreciate both the value and citation of the written sources at all ap- fruitfulness of the observations and ideas propriate points). As to the survivors, the advanced in these three chapters. familiar and oft-rehearsed − but still nec- essary − litany of types and monuments Chapter 6 turns to the deities of the heav- is enlivened by occasional unconvention- ens: Helios, Apollo, and the Dioscuri. Since al asides such as this: “In contrast to earlier Alexander honored Helios for allowing scholars, I am strongly inclined to believe him to conquer the lands of the east, and that such depictions [i.e., the hunting Hellenistic folklore held that the sun nev- scenes at Vergina and on the Alexander er shone on those he failed to conquer Sarcophagus] can scarcely be taken as (this must have been news to their in- historical …, since the action occurs in habitants), it was natural that the image- the afterlife and the main personage is ry of the sun god and the Macedonian Roi the heroized deceased” (32). Soleil should soon merge. Apollo followed suit, as did the Dioskouroi, with whom Al- Chapters 3-5, the core of the book, show- exander had been compared even in his case the three figures most often associ- lifetime, in the notorious outburst of flat- ated with Alexander in the ancient sourc- tery in Sogdiana that preceded the dis- es, and whom he is said to have emulated astrous proskynesis debate. The chap- most fervently and consistently: Achilles, ter closes with the Dioscuri from Monte Herakles, and Dionysos. After thorough- Cavallo and three little-known bronzes in ly discussing their particular places in the the Hermitage, an ancient Etruscan one Greek imagination, and the evidence for (Etruria looms large in this chapter) and Alexander’s relationship and involvement two stunning eighteenth-century French with each of them, she turns to the mon- ones, dubbed “Europe” and America” − uments, both Greek and Roman. Each fig- but “The Dioscuri” or “Alexander taming ure − the peerless warrior, the laboring Bucephalus” would fit them just as well. superhero, and the inspired, almost mes- sianic divinity − contributed to and illumi- Chapter 7 tackles the thorny question of nated the formation of a particular aspect the Alexander-like physiognomies and of Alexander’s character and thus his im- coiffures occasionally found on both age. The ongoing dialectic between their the Giants and Olympians of the Perga-

VIII Imitatio Alexandri in Hellenistic Art mon Altar. The proposed explanation A final, brief chapter discusses Alexan- for this puzzling phenomenon is typical- der’s contribution to the representation ly thought-provoking and challenging. of water deities: powerful entities over Maybe the ambivalent, two-faced Stoic some of which (Aornus, Acesines) he fa- portrait of the conqueror was the catalyst, mously triumphed, and which “in the whether directly via the philosophy of the court art of the Hellenistic rulers … occu- frieze’s designer or mediated through “a pied a special place, expressing in allegor- well-known topos of early Hellenistic rhet- ical form the political creed of the mon- oric: discussions of what elevated Alexan- arch” (133). As a result, the River Orontes, der − valor or fate; [and] whether he owed Tritons, and others soon display the pa- his power to prudence or fortunate im- thos typical of Alexander’s portraits and prudence. … We are clearly not talking even, on occasion, his anastole. of the direct influence of these works on the program of the … frieze. Yet there is In conclusion, imitatio Alexandri “was nei- an obvious analogy between the debates ther local nor sporadic, but general in over Alexander’s fate that became a com- character and was a natural stage in the monplace of ancient philosophy and an formation of a universal artistic language artistic cliché that entered the arsenal of of the Hellenistic era… Since Alexander’s figurative art and found embodiment in image was revolutionary not only for art, the images of Pergamene art. Thus the but also for people’s world-view, it influ- Macedonian’s facial features become a enced conceptions of human beings, he- characteristic of different personages at roes, and gods, of the nature of power, of times opposite in meaning. In the Gigan- virtues and of the limits of human poten- tomachy, for the first time in Greek art, the tial, [and] his individual features became a image of Alexander is perceived in a uni- personification of epochal changes” (141). ty of opposites. The portraits of the con- In short, since images change the way in queror are imitated in the faces of both which people see, Alexander’s not only victors and vanquished and … a type ap- transformed the world − both real and pears that combines the features of Alex- imagined − but also endowed it with un- ander, a Giant, and Achilles” (131-132). expected new meaning.

Andrew Stewart Departments of History of Art and Classics University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6020 – USA

Foreword IX introduction

The literature of classical studies lacks example, there are a great many heads of a special research devoted to the Imi- this sort: Alexander-Helios (A604), Alexan- tatio Alexandri – the influence that por- der-Autumnus (A112), Alexander-Achilles traits of Alexander had on the visual art (A585) and so on. Today it is evident that of the Hellenic era. It is generally acknowl- these works include not only portraits edged that images of the King inspired but also imitations, that is to say, depic- the emergence of new tendencies in the tions of ideal personages executed under representation of rulers, gods and he- the influence of the iconography of the roes and acted as a source for new icono- King. How can the portraits of Alexander graphic motifs, and stylistic prototypes. be separated from their imitations? More This phenomenon has been studied fair- than a century of studying led to the pes- ly well only within the bounds of a sin- simistic conclusion that this is a particu- gle Hellenistic genre – the royal portrait1. larly difficult matter and that we probably Elsewhere researchers have quite often lack adequate methods of research3. In been obliged to limit themselves to mere- actual fact the problem is due not only to ly noting the similarity, although faces the shortage of information, the absence bearing a resemblance to the portraits of of precise foundations for dating and the Alexander and also Alexander-like types paucity of data about the provenance of can be found everywhere – in funerary the works. This state is characteristic for art, in cult and votive statues of gods and the art of the Hellenistic art as a whole. heroes, in small-scale plastic art, in pri- The main reason for the difficulties lies in vate portraiture and architectural orna- the uncertainty of the definitions of the ments and utensils. More often than not ancient portrait as a genre, of Alexander’s it is unclear whether the artist borrowed portrait image and type, specifically and Alexander’s features deliberately or by of its role in the art of the Hellenistic age. chance, and their significance and mean- The topical relevance of the present ing are not clear either2. Yet an analysis of study is determined by issues of both a this phenomenon may shed light on the special and a general, theoretical nature. question of what actually we should call The subject has been little researched in a “portrait of Alexander”. The elements art history and is of vital importance for of his iconography identified back in the further work on the assessment of new nineteenth century (the anastole, turn of portraits of Alexander and imitations of the head and heroic facial type) are pres- them that are constantly being brought ent in an enormous number of works. In into scholarly circulation. The study of this the Hermitage’s sculpture collection, for subject area makes it possible to take a

Introduction XI step forward in tackling one of the key is dominated by subjects that involve a questions in the history of Hellenistic art conflict – battles, hunting, pursuit, single – the use of classical stereotypes in the combat. formation of the artistic idiom of the Hel- One of Gombrich’s most important lenistic era. The conclusions and gener- tenets states that in the visual arts artis- alizations drawn in the course of the re- tic form cannot be separated from the search led to better defining the concepts purposes of a work and the social cir- of the “pattern” and the “imitation”, which cumstances. Greek art is characterized are among the essential categories in the by a continual striving to generalize study of ancient art applicable to the por- everything, to find the highest order – ar- trait, that in this regard is still not suffi- chetypal poses, the formulae of drapery ciently researched as a genre. and movements. At all its historical stag- The interpretation of these catego- es the art of Antiquity was associated with ries became an important task of art his- types. In the realm of iconography this is torians in the twentieth century, when a set of figurative formulae that the art- they were studied extensively with ref- ists repeat – falling, running and standing erence to both general and particular figures. In the words of another outstand- questions: the development of statuary ing historian of ancient art, Andrew Stew- art and ancient painting, the iconogra- art, the chief peculiarity of Greek culture phy of mythological subjects, the evo- is «its supreme sensitivity to the tension lution of styles and local schools, the re- between everyday appearance and cate- lationship between the art of the centre gorically ideal5. and the periphery. Despite the prevailing Remembering the unique form of idea of a considerable gap between the Greek social structure, the polis, we note immense quantity of empirical data and that, as Mary Douglas rightly pointed out, the degree to which they have been sys- following A. Stewart, «In societies where tematized, it should be noted that from there is a strong emphasis on group iden- the 1960s onwards the question of typ- tity, the human body often becomes a ification, the categories of “pattern” and metaphor for the experience of the social “imitation”, were a focal point for the at- body»6. tention of leading historians and theore- As one of the main means of ex- ticians of art. The works of the Anglo-Aus- pression, in ancient art, the human body trian scholar Ernst Gombrich4 revitalized functioned as an extremely important se- the use in reference to ancient art of the mantic and formal-stylistic element. The concepts of “innovation”, “stereotype” problem of typing of the body found re- and “mimesis” – “imitation”. According to flection in the study of movement, space Gombrich, art is a chain of experiments, and composition, and tendencies of an- a continuous reaction of one work to an- cient art, and in the study of key as- other, of an artist’s oeuvre to that of his pects of anthropomorphism, such as predecessors. The purpose of art is a mi- nakedness7. metic process, constant development. At Beside a human body – as the most the basis of ancient art is the separation important incarnation of ancient Greek and correlation of artistic and semantic ideal – the main form of typification in concepts, such as the opposition of mor- Greek art was the myth. Since the ar- tals and gods. So, even at the level of the tistic repertoire (especially before the repertoire, the iconography of Greek art Hellenic era) consisted almost entirely

XII Imitatio Alexandri in Hellenistic Art of subjects from mythology, in other While researches into the iconogra- words, depicting one and the same set phy of mythological subjects have not of personages in one and the same only produced an enormous stock of set of situations, the history of art can factual material, but also given shape be viewed as a process of continuous to several schools with the a theoret- metamorphoses of artistic stereotypes ical-methodological base (Positivism, in parallel with the evolution of artis- Formalism, Structuralism), within the tic forms. And while the storyline – the bounds of our theme matters are not so mythological version of life – remained simple with the portrait genre. As will be unchanged, the evaluation of the event examined below, recent decades have and also the artistic interpretation of the seen considerable successes in the de- myth did change, at times radically, de- velopment of a theory of the ancient pending on the work’s function, time portrait. But, in my view, the question of and place of creation. typification in the portrait requires fur- How precisely did the artist’s atti- ther work. On the one hand, the portrait tude to the personage express itself? genre by definition presupposed individ- First and foremost in the choice of sub- ualization of the appearance; on the oth- ject, in the subtlest nuances of composi- er hand, it was completely subordinated tion and in the personage’s movements to the principles that set the art of An- and gestures. As a rule an artist followed cient Greece apart from all later histor- iconographic tradition. That is to say, he ical stages, since the Greek portrait was copied previous patterns. Compositional founded upon the type. Today the main schemata and figurative templates fixed physiognomic types that were estab- the main situations in the hero’s life out- lished in ancient physiognomic treatises standing and his qualities. In contrast to and found embodiment in the ancient vase-painting, where the artist presented portrait have been fairly well studied8. events sequentially and narrative, a sculp- I would point out that this is just one tor focused attention on the one deed, or aspect of typification, albeit a substan- one aspect of the personage’s character, tial one. The iconic series that made up that interested him. But in either case, the the formal language of the portrait will basis of the image was undoubtedly the undoubtedly become a subject for fu- myth that was very familiar to the artist ture researches. In the present work this and the viewer. question is examined through the exam- The process of typification as the vec- ple of the influence that the portrait im- tor in the development of Greek art also age of Alexander the Great exerted on manifested itself in the form of the suc- the depiction of mythological person- cession of artistic styles – a conglomera- ages in Hellenistic art. Such a phenom- tion of lasting formal structures that ex- enon, unprecedented in its nature, inev- pressed the world-view of Greek society itably necessitates further refinement of at different historical stages (the Archaic, the answers to certain questions: what Classical and Hellenistic eras). A change of is a portrait, a portrait image and a type? style implies a new artistic idiom; the ar- what are the components of the artistic tistic style is seen as the “language of the language of portraiture? what are the era”. A change of style, irrespective of the specifics of the concepts of the individu- chronological framework, signified the in- al and the ideal, the unique, the particu- novative rethinking of a sterotype. lar and the archetypal?

Introduction XIII To achieve this aim an number of small-scale plastic art, marble and bronze tasks are tackled in the course of the heads, bronze, marble and terracotta stat- study: to gather, describe and classify uettes, relief compositions, frescoes, mo- Hellenistic works depicting mythologi- saics, depictions on coins and works of cal personages with an iconography in glyptic art, as well as applied art – paint- which the clear influence of Alexander’s ings on vases, relief decorations on bronze portraits can be established; to identify and silver utensils, ancient arms and ar- the main mythological images in Hellen- mour. These objects come from various istic art that borrowed features and style parts of the Greco-Roman world and the from the depictions of Alexander; to trace Hellenistic East: Greece, Macedonia, Asia the development of the iconography of Minor, Italy, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, these personages and to determine the Bactria, Pisidia, the northern Black Sea role of the “Alexander” component; to as- area, Rome and Roman provinces. The semble and analyse data from various research also adduces data from archae- sources that reflect the influence of Alex- ological excavations: grave goods, evi- ander’s image on conceptions of the gods dence of funeral rites, material evidence and heroes in religious practices, histories of rituals and cults, and epigraphic data. and ancient literature; to give a definition Much attention is devoted to an analysis of the term Imitatio Alexandri as applied of the written tradition – the works of Al- to the mythological images in Hellenis- exander’s historians and ancient authors’ tic arts and to define the concept “Alex- statements about gods and heroes in his- ander type” and to characterize its role in torical, philosophical, mythographic and the formation of the artistic idiom of the poetic works. Hellenistic era. The study employes both tradition- The chronological boundaries of the al methods of research (stylistic analysis, study are set by the material. The main historical analysis, Kopienkritik) and new period examined is from the Late Classi- ones that came into the study of ancient cal era to the end of Hellenism; i.e. from art in the twentieth century from other 338 BC, the year of Alexander’s birth, to disciplines (semiotic analysis, structural 31 BC, the date of Augustus’s victory at analysis and hermeneutics). Actium, which the majority of historians The theoretical basis of the study in- take as an epoch marking the start of the cludes a number of conceptual approach- Roman period. Since we are dealing with es developed in modern scholarship in the evolution of iconography and style in the field of art theory and history. the depictions of Greek mythological per- – Ernst Gombrich’s doctrine about the sonages, reference is also made to the ar- historical determinacy of the visual tistic tradition of earlier times, going back experience and the multidimen- as far as the Archaic period, beginning in sionality of a work of art’s semantic the first half of the sixth century BC. In a field; the concept of the mimetic na- number of instances, when an image has ture of visual art, imitation as its goal “cultural longevity” – presents an endur- and means, the theory of the devel- ing stereotype – it is traced through the opment of art within a framework of history of art in later periods, right up to schema and correction, innovation the end of Antiquity. and stereotype9; The monograph analyses ancient – Umberto Eco’s theory of iconic signs, sculptures, both monumental works and according to which the iconic sign

XIV Imitatio Alexandri in Hellenistic Art reproduces the conditions of per- In the course of the study, it becomes ception and not the properties of the obvious that a sustained influence of Al- object represented, while the codes exander iconography can be detected used in the interpretation of the sign in a considerable volume of material in are not universal, but culturally de- terms of quantity, quality and geograph- termined10; the philosophical herme- ical spread, in a variety of spheres, in vari- neutics of Hans Georg Gadamer, who ous kinds of art throughout the entire Hel- advanced the theory of “effective his- lenistic period and, in some instances, until tory” that consists in the act of inter- the end of Antiquity. This indicates that the pretation being determined by pre- phenomenon is not local, but general in vious history (tradition) and that act character and belongs among the catego- being included in the tradition. Ac- ry of regular patterns in the historical, cul- cording to Gadamer, the experience tural and artistic development of the An- of art is the “experience of truth”; in- cient World. The Imitatio Alexandri in the terpretation consists in construction, iconography of heroes and gods reflects and not reconstruction11. a change in conceptions of these person- – The “contextual analysis” of works ages in a period of religious, political and by Andrew Stewart, who sees art as social changes. The image of Alexander a species of social practice and ad- had a substantial and unprecedented in- vances the idea of the social forma- fluence on the Hellenistic era. The “Alexan- tiveness of the image of Alexander; der component” filled the Greeks’ classical Stewart’s development on the basis mythology with new content and brought of this material of Max Weber’s the- individuality into the iconography of he- ory of charisma, Michael Baxandall’s roes and gods. From the late fourth or ear- “Bouguer principle” and Michel Fou- ly third century BC; a historical personality cault’s concept of the “technology of – the image of a human being – became a power”12. prototype for a divine image.

Introduction XV chapter I The History of the Study of Portraits of Alexander the Great and the “subject of imitations”

“I am not ashamed to admire Alexander,” Despite the large number of papers Arrian wrote, (Arrian, Anab. 7.30; 1.1 – and monographs (the historiography of trad. E.J. Chinnock, 1893) “indeed, there is portraits of Alexander numbers over 70 no other single individual among Greeks works), it is evident that this subject is or barbarians who achieved exploits so far from exhausted. As we shall see be- great or important in regard to either low, further investigation only leads to an number or magnitude as he did.” (Arrian, increase in the number of questions. Re- Anab. I, 12, 4). searchers’ opinions on works, datings and Research into portraits of Alexander the criteria for defining portraiture remain is one of the most popular and diverse contradictory; there is no agreement on themes in classical studies, with a histo- the role depictions of Alexander played ry going back over a hundred years. Peo- in the history of the ancient portrait or on ple of various generations and schools, the assessment of their significance for eminent classical scholars from Germa- the evolution of art in the Hellenistic era. ny, France, Britain, the USA and Russia It seems to me that there are several rea- have turned their attention to portraits sons for this situation – some of a general of Alexander. The undying interest in character, others of a subjective nature. In this figure, the accumulation of material the first place there is the need to devel- and the development of the theory and op a method of research appropriate to method of the study of the art of Antiq- the subject. The question of methods of uity led to this subject area, investigat- historical-and-artistic interpretation is im- ed in breadth and in depth, turning into portant for any art historian, but for clas- an independent field within the history sical art studies in the past few decades of Hellenistic art. In all modern surveys it has become one of the main issues. As of Hellenistic art, the portraits of Alex- the reader will know, the immediate ma- ander are examined as a separate phe- terial for the classical art scholar is not the nomenon that had a considerable in- original, but its manifold reflection in cop- fluence on the content, form, style and ies, the descriptions of works of art in pas- repertoire of art13. Research into them is sages of literature and history, depictions therefore significant not simply as part on coins, data from archaeological exca- of a range of iconographic studies de- vations and so on. The question of the voted to outstanding figures of Antiq- transmission of information contained uity, but because an understanding of in a work of art and, inversely, the ascent this phenomenon is important for our to the original is here especially press- conception of Hellenistic art as a whole. ing. Without an appropriate method it is

The history of the study of portraits of Alexander the Great and the “subject of imitations” 1 impossible to understand the artistic idi- Alexanders)14 derive from works created om of an ancient work of art, and the less in Alexander’s lifetime; the remainder of the amount of data and the more com- the heads are Roman copies of Hellenis- plex the object, the greater effort has to tic portraits. The only reliably authentic be made to decipher it. The history of re- source is coins of the Diadochi bearing a search into portraits of Alexander clear- profile portrait and inscription Alexander. ly demonstrates the development of The portraits of Alexander appeared on the method within the framework of the the coins, however, after the death of the main stages in the history of European art great conqueror as a demonstration of le- studies – from “criticism of copies” (Kop- gitimate inheritance, as a sign of continu- ienkritik) in the iconographic studies of ity of the policies pursued by the founder the late 1800s and early 1900s to struc- of the empire. Thus the coins say far more tural analysis and semiotics at the turn of about how Alexander’s name was used by the twenty-first century. In classical stud- this or that ruler, about the position that ies it is hard to find another subject where his figure occupied in the ideology of the research would require the use of such a Hellenistic monarchies. The depiction of broad methodological spectrum. Alexander on coins is a symbol, an image The second substantial factor con- very far removed from the real appear- sists of problems that are in general char- ance of the model. acteristic for historical researches into the The formation of a consistent picture Hellenistic era and above all the problem is hindered not only by the complexity of of sources. Of all the areas in the history the material, but also by the complexity of ancient art this problem is most acute of context that any researcher into the for Hellenistic studies, as is vividly demon- Hellenistic period encounters. In com- strated by, among other things, the exam- parison with any other stage in ancient ple of research into portraits of Alexander. history – Classical Greece, Republican or A rich, but poorly documented stock of Imperial Rome – there is far less clarity in material has survived down to the pres- the evaluation of the historical processes. ent. Of the numerous pictorial works only This statement also applies to the histo- the Battle of Alexander and Darius has sur- ry of art in the Hellenistic era. The lead- vived in the form of a Roman mosaic copy ing specialists in this field are still debat- of an early Hellenistic painted original. ing a number of “substantial” questions, Other pictures are known to us only from including the definition of what should descriptions and the repetition of individ- form the foundation for the periodization ual motifs, figures and compositions in of Hellenistic art, the applicability of the frescoes, reliefs, vase paintings and glyp- concept of “stylistic evolution”, the differ- tic works. Sculptural portraits have sur- ences between regional artistic schools, vived mostly in Roman copies; there is not how the development of art correlates a single firmly dated Greek original. The with the political history and what the criteria of portrait likeness and dating are relationships are between Hellenic and subjective since they are based on a read- Eastern elements15. The “non-linear” de- ing of literary descriptions, and also on a velopment of styles, the variety of gen- hypothetical reconstruction of the style res and artistic tendencies, the wealth of of Alexander’s portraitists. It is customar- the figurative language and the complex- ily considered that three sculptural types ity of reflection (i.e. references to Classi- (the Azara herm, Dresden and Erbach cal models) number among the specific

2 Imitatio Alexandri in Hellenistic Art peculiarities of this period. The stylistic us today. We have therefore been led to eclecticism of the works, the mobility of assume that this situation prevailed also craftsmen, the moving of works of art and in the Hellenistic period… But is this a numerous copies of compositions in dif- reasonable assumption?”16 This question ferent kinds of art make it exceptionally was taken further in a paper by Anne Ma- difficult to determine the place and time rie Nielsen17. She points out that “verisi- when a work was created, especially in militude is no concern of the Greek por- cases where there is no “external” data at traitist: he is concerned with the message all about the find. behind the features… This meaning is As well as the peculiarities of the Hel- hard to grasp for us… this situation of the lenistic era as a distinctive stage in the his- Alexander iconography, contaminated by tory of the ancient word, the complexity myth and tradition, may be illustrated in of researches into portraits of Alexander the case history of the Rondanini Alexan- was also affected by the specifics of stud- der.”18 The identity of that work in Munich ying the ancient portrait as a genre. It is still remains an open question: for more no coincidence that this topic long since than two centuries the statue was consid- became a centre of attention for special- ered a generally acknowledged portrait; ists tackling theoretical questions in the today, though, researchers are inclined study of ancient art. to believe that it is a depiction of Achil- The main defining element in the les or Ares. theory of the portrait is the concept of In the following decades works ap- likeness, along with the categories of in- peared that made a substantial step for- dividual and typical. The best descrip- ward in working out a theory of the an- tion of the discrepancy between modern cient portrait. The focus of research and ancient conceptions of the portrait shifted from the category of likeness to was given by Brunilde Ridgway: “By ‘like- the function of a work and its context, ness’ we shall here mean the intentional and also to the mythological component reproduction of a person’s features so that of the portrait image. According to To- the resultant portrait could be taken for no nio Hölscher, “Alexander’s features” were other’s. This definition is based on mod- not his personal physical peculiarities, ern standards of faithfulness to a model, but rather sprang from the iconography and is naturally colored by one’s familiar- of ideal personages in the Classical era, ity with still photographs or moving pic- while the image of the king was created tures, from which we can expect a high on the basis of conceptions about Greek degree of accuracy. Yet it does not pre- gods and heroes19. J.J. Pollitt came to the clude a certain range of variation, from conclusion that portraits of Alexander the extreme ‘realism’ of a caricature to represent rather an idea than a person. the idealization of an official painting… In depicting Alexander, Lysippus creates During Roman times, portraits of emper- an artistic image of an “inspired hero” that ors were circulated to the provinces as of- becomes a widespread stereotype in the ficial images of authority, and the face, visual arts of the Hellenistic era20. R.R.R. more or less idealized according to the Smith introduced the term “role portrait”, particular propaganda trends of the pe- examining the genre from the viewpoint riod, was sufficiently recognizable to be of the public function of the portrait in identified at a considerable remove in Hellenistic society21. More recently, An- time and, in most cases at least, even by drew Stewart formulated the idea that “in

The history of the study of portraits of Alexander the Great and the “subject of imitations” 3 antiquity Alexander was a chameleon- Ennio Quirino Visconti34, where Alexan- like figure indeed, more paradigm, than der occupied a place among Greece’s a person”22. outstanding figures. A small monograph In conclusion, a very important cir- published by Friedrich Koepp in 1892 cumstance influencing the historiogra- represented a first attempt to sum up phy of the portraits has been the out- the evidence. Koepp compared referenc- standing role that Alexander played in the es by ancient authors to Alexander’s ap- European consciousness in the Modern pearance, reports about artists who de- Era. In the course of the past two centu- picted the king and the main portraits, ries his figure acquired great significance and charted the main features in the in the development of the philosophy of iconography of the king. Already at that history and social ideology. It could be time the scholar raised the issue of imi- said that interest in Alexander gradual- tations – i.e. the influence of mythologi- ly turned into a cult and – after Antiquity cal and portrait images – and made the – the twentieth century became the true first attempt to explain the phenomenon. era of Alexander. In the past century the Pointing to the similarity between the Al- assessment of his personality and deeds exander type and giants, tritons and oth- was determined not only by advances in er “demons”, Koepp observed that “the academic scholarship, it mirrored chang- Greek artists should have transferred the es in world-view and understanding of type developed in portraits of Alexander history, the emergence of hopes and am- – a semi-barbarian – to beings hostile to bitions of generations and their individ- the Hellenic gods and to a certain extent ual members. Every scholar sees his own un-Hellenic… But this likeness is, as we Alexander, the German historian Ulrich have seen, not at all restricted to the low- Wilken observed23; since ancient times ly demons, but also extends to heroes like this image has become a universal sym- Heracles and indeed to gods like Helios bol, as Alfred Heuss put it24 – like a glass and Apollo”36. which each person can fill with their own Charles Eugène de Ujfalvy engaged wine. in a search for Alexander’s “real” appear- The first wave of fascination came ance37. The French scholar attempted to in the 1800s and early 1900s. Historical reconstruct the King’s physical looks on scholarship at that time was represented the basis of texts and works of art. The by the works of Johann Droysen25, Eduard question of the role played by portraits in Meyer26, Julius Kaerst and Ulrich Wilken the artistic evolution of the era was raised with their apologia for Alexander and the in essays by Oskar Wulff and Oskar Wald- idea of an absolute monarchy embracing hauer. Wulff came to the conclusion that all civilized nations – in contrast to their “the statue of Alexander with a spear was predecessors, who considered Athenian the model for a new type of monumental democracy the ideal for society. It was portrait of rulers in the guise of heroes”38. at this time that the first researches de- Waldhauer pointed out that in the por- voted to the iconography of the Mace- traits of Alexander a new treatment of the donian ruler appeared. Individual works image of the ruler arose, one that was de- were published in the iconographic stud- manded by the age: “Alexander, the suf- ies and general works of Salomon Rein- fering mystic soul”39. ach29, Wolfgang Helbig30, Adolf Furtwän- Numerous finds of Alexander-like gler31, Franz Winter32, Paul Arndt33 and heads and statuettes made in Alexandria

4 Imitatio Alexandri in Hellenistic Art