alexander portraiture

[davey1]

as a newcomer to Alexander studies, I have many questions which I hope forum users can help with. For openers, how likely is it that Alex's statues really look like him? I gather that there is some controversy over this yet we do not hear the same questions raised about other famous ancients such as Demosthenes or Plato. Seems to me Alex would have been keen to have true likenesses posted about, minus warts perhaps, but nontheless accurate& would have shunned stock Apollo images. Thanks for your responses

[S]

Greetings,there are three books that may be of especial help to you:Margarete Bieber's "Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art", Andrew Stewart's "Faces of Power" and
Alpay Pasinli's "The Book of Alexander Sarcophagus"These are good starting points because in the first you have a collection of portraits to see the evolution of how Alexander's portraiture changed to fit the needs of a particular time, in the second there is a discussion of how portraiture was used as icons to support social/political ends and in the thrid, you find images of Alexander that are relatively contemporary to him.In the end, it seems people are drawn to those portraits that most fit their personal ideal of Alexander. Regards,
Sikander

[heinrich]

The so-called Azara herm is nowadays considered to be the best representation of Alexander. It is in the Louvre. Cf. http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/Image ... r/4.htmlHM

[Marilyn]

Really? It looks like a copy of a Lysippus by a not-so-good artist to myself- and a few others I know of LOLI think the sarcophagus carvings are the best. The Azara Herme looks elongated and odd to me. Difficult to see that man in the younger carvings etc

[davey1]

Sikander, Thanks for the pointers. Further queries--we have many images Of George Washington including gentleman farmer, Roman Republican, and military hero, all presenting different political or social ideals; yet noone questions the basic true-to-life resemblance of the art. Why do you think commentators often question the reliability of Alexander's images in similar circumstances? Thanks for your views.

[S]

> Why do you think commentators often question the reliability of Alexander's images in similar circumstances? Thanks for your views. Why do you think commentators often question the reliability of Alexander's images in similar circumstances? Thanks for your views. Why do you think commentators often question the reliability of Alexander's images in similar circumstances? Thanks for your views.Greetings,I believe it is because so few of the images are actually comtemporary. They are, instead, copies of copies or copies of supposed originals, whereas the paintings of Washington are based on contemporary originals. The unfortunate cost of invasions, overruns and time itself take their toll on mosaics and statues, as well as paint. Some coins may well be closer to the truth and supposedly the Sarcophagus was relatively contemporary (correct me, Pothosians, if I am in error here) And of course, there is always human intervention, as when the Victorians, in moral fervour, "fixed" certain statues (smile); or how wealthy patrons used to have their own images overlayed onto past heroic events or persons..many factors can contibute to the erroneous portrayal of a person. In time, those false images become the only thing we know..Regards,
Sikander

[Tolis]

Hello davey1, I am glad as a Greek that many people around the globe admire Alexander and are interested in his personality and deeds. According to Plutarch, Alexander was depicted accurately by Lysippos' statues (Lysippos was the only sculptor who had been granted permission to create works of the Macedonian king). Moreover, Apelles portrayed Alexander as more dark skinned and dark haired than he was in reality in his painting of him holding a thunder. So I guess that if Plutarch's statements are reliable, we can presume that Alexander's images that have come down to us are pretty accurate (given the fact that Lysippos was the only sculptor who had the right to depict Alexander the Great). You can find the above mentioned information in Plutarch's life of Alexander, fragment 4. I suggest that you read some study regarding this issue though, since I am not an expert. I hope I was helpful.

[davey1]

Tolis, Thanks for the pointers. Do you think the Vergina couch ivory image of Alexander is reliable?There are many pics of this object under search word "Vergina." Michael Woods in his film "Footsteps of Alexander" interviews a Vergina museum official stating squrely that the ivory is Alexander and done from life. I think it shows a marked resemblance to later images. What do the rest of you think? Best wishes,DB.

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[davey1]

Hello Andrew, I think what makes the Vergina couch ivory interesting is its more personal provenance coming from Philip's tomb and displaying elsewhere in its frieze a portrait of Philip himself. If it is correct that this couch held Philip's body in state prior to cremation,cannot a fair presumption of authenticity in family portraiture be raised? After all, Philip did not see himself as the embodiment of an ideal king (a la Pharoh), but as a uniquely accomplished ruler and would want to be so recognized including his uniquely talented crown prince. Best wishes, David