Statues of Alexander and Hephaestion, National Museum of Athens

[hiphys]

I meant the statuette published in the article in German you posted here. If you compare it with the one of Hephaestion in National Museum of Athens, you may say they are very similar, IMHO.

[system1988]

I am sorry if i didnt make it clear, and i confused you, the statuetes of the National Museum and the ones of the article are the same.

[Alexias]

Andrew Stewart (Faces of Power, 1993) says this about the statuettes:

Their open-toed boots with soles that are strongly indented at the front date them not earlier than the second century, and most prefer to put them in the first. The only full-length marble portraits of Alexander and (presumably) Hephaestion, to survive they echo the pose of the nude Stanford and Fouquet types, respectively, though what Alexander originally held in his left hand is anyone's guess. Neither is diademed, and though the sources are unanimous that Alexander was shorter than Hephaestion, here, not surprisingly, he is the taller of the two (82 and 79 cms high). As the principal, he would presumably have stood on the proper right (the spectator's left).

Otherwise, these two statuettes are most interesting for their costume: a long chlamys, a double-girded chitoniskos, and high-laced, open-toed boots with flaps or piloi at the top. As ancient authors testify, the chlamys and chitoniskos had been standard items of Macedonian hunting and military garb since the fourth century. One or both are worn by several figures on the Hunt fresco at Vergina, by Alexander and his Companions on the Alexander Sarcophagus, and by Hephaestion on the 'Hero Hephaestion' relief in Thessalonike. Yet the boots are a later, Hellenistic fashion: in the fourth century, Macedonians wore net-laced sandals or krepides.

Pauline, who is the figure on the front of the booklet?


Is it Roman? Alexander? One of the Ptolemies? Or is it just possibly a divine representation of Hephaestion, similar in type to the Vatican one of the deified Antinous?

[system1988]

Pauline, who is the figure on the front of the booklet?
[/quote]


Glad to look into it but all the libraries are closed due to the holiday season. Once open, I'll take that look, once the same booklet ends up in my hands again because the one I used to take the photos you see was given to me for a short time by a not-so-willing-to-help colleague.

Best

Pauline

PS Anyway i think the fullbody statue is Antinoos

[system1988]

Concerning the identification of the statuete of H., I would like to add that in the german text the same facial characteristics are found also on Ptolemy's III face. Here are the 2 heads, and indeed they are sort of similar.

both.jpg (34.18 KiB) Viewed 5095 times

I have questions on 2 elements of said text: On the basis of which sources do we know H.'s temple in the city of Alexandria? Also, how do we know that after Antinoos' death/suicide he was re-identified as Hephaestion, making Hephaestion's worship rekindle in the area?

Best

Pauline

[agesilaos]

It is Arrian VII 23

For the letter commanded Cleomenes to prepare chapels for the hero Hephaestion in the Egyptian Alexandria, one in the city itself and another in the island of Pharos, where the tower is situated.

As far as I know they are unconfirmed by archaeology. I think there are dual named pedestals or inscriptions of Hephaistion/Antinous but will have to check.

[system1988]

Oh yes i have forgotten Arrian. As for the pedestals-inscriptions the information is very interesting, thank you . Who is going to check is a question...

[agesilaos]

I'll check it as far as poss, Antinous is not one of my cultural icons so I'll have to search the web.

[agesilaos]

Seems I was wrong, I thought Antinous had a cult name 'Hephaistionas' but it seems not. He had his own cult which was pushed by Hadrian whereas that of Hephaistion lost its prime mover without really establishing itself.

Marcus Antonius Getty

antony.jpg (6.29 KiB) Viewed 5082 times

How about him though?

[Taphoi]

Andrew Stewart (Faces of Power, 1993) says this about the statuettes:

Their open-toed boots with soles that are strongly indented at the front date them not earlier than the second century, and most prefer to put them in the first. The only full-length marble portraits of Alexander and (presumably) Hephaestion, to survive they echo the pose of the nude Stanford and Fouquet types, respectively, though what Alexander originally held in his left hand is anyone's guess. Neither is diademed, and though the sources are unanimous that Alexander was shorter than Hephaestion, here, not surprisingly, he is the taller of the two (82 and 79 cms high). As the principal, he would presumably have stood on the proper right (the spectator's left).

Otherwise, these two statuettes are most interesting for their costume: a long chlamys, a double-girded chitoniskos, and high-laced, open-toed boots with flaps or piloi at the top. As ancient authors testify, the chlamys and chitoniskos had been standard items of Macedonian hunting and military garb since the fourth century. One or both are worn by several figures on the Hunt fresco at Vergina, by Alexander and his Companions on the Alexander Sarcophagus, and by Hephaestion on the 'Hero Hephaestion' relief in Thessalonike. Yet the boots are a later, Hellenistic fashion: in the fourth century, Macedonians wore net-laced sandals or krepides.

Regarding the boots, although Stewart expresses his opinion in a very forthright and confident fashion, the wearing of flip-flops does not in itself exclude the wearing of wellington boots and there appear to be plenty of counter-examples where exactly the same open-toed boots with flaps etc are worn by men and gods in late 4th century BC statues (albeit Roman period copies of late 4th century BC statues). The late 4th century BC Dionysus (below) wears exactly the same boots (together with the rest of the late 4th century BC costume) in more than one Roman copy. And why would a Hellenistic sculptor get all details of the dress except the boots exactly right for Alexander in his own lifetime? And the rest of the dress also fits literary descriptions very accurately, as Stewart very correctly notes.

Since the dress actually seems to be completely authentic, I am sceptical whether the Hephaistion figure can be a Roman emperor (or imperator like Mark Antony) or even a Ptolemaic pharaoh, because they would have known that they were being depicted in a way that made them look like Hephaistion and I doubt whether any of them would have wished to be confused with Hephaistion. Demetrius Poliorcetes was not very popular in Ptolemaic Egypt, since he was one of its principal adversaries, so it seems dubious that somebody in Egypt would have had him depicted as the companion (and successor?) of Alexander.

Best wishes,
Andrew

[amyntoros]

Regarding the boots, although Stewart expresses his opinion in a very forthright and confident fashion, the wearing of flip-flops does not in itself exclude the wearing of wellington boots and there appear to be plenty of counter-examples where exactly the same open-toed boots with flaps etc are worn by men and gods in late 4th century BC statues (albeit Roman period copies of late 4th century BC statues). The late 4th century BC Dionysus (below) wears exactly the same boots (together with the rest of the late 4th century BC costume) in more than one Roman copy. And why would a Hellenistic sculptor get all details of the dress except the boots exactly right for Alexander in his own lifetime? And the rest of the dress also fits literary descriptions very accurately, as Stewart very correctly notes.

Am somewhat doubtful that the boots, as portrayed in these statues of Dionysos, are of any help in proving that such boots were worn in the fourth century. Can't speak for the first image you provided as this statue is to be found at the Hermitage museum and their website doesn't go into any great detail. The second Dionysos image, the so-called "Hope Dionysos" is to be found at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As I've spent many an hour camped out on a nearby marble bench I was already aware of the considerable reconstruction made to the statue in the eighteenth century. As the Met's website says:

The head is ancient but from another statue. Restorations by the eighteenth-century Italian sculptor Vincenzo Pacetti: (on Dionysos) ivy wreath, neck, both arms, lower right leg, calf and boot of left leg, hanging drapery on right side; (on the archaistic image) uplifted corner of drapery, both arms, lower half of lower legs, feet, pedestal, entire base.

Roman copy of Greek original. Adaptation of a Greek work of the 4th century B.C.

So, with both boots a product of restoration, we really can't use this statue to help with dating the Alexander/Hephaistion pair.

Best Regards,

[Taphoi]

Am somewhat doubtful that the boots, as portrayed in these statues of Dionysos, are of any help in proving that such boots were worn in the fourth century. Can't speak for the first image you provided as this statue is to be found at the Hermitage museum and their website doesn't go into any great detail. The second Dionysos image, the so-called "Hope Dionysos" is to be found at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As I've spent many an hour camped out on a nearby marble bench I was already aware of the considerable reconstruction made to the statue in the eighteenth century. As the Met's website says:

The head is ancient but from another statue. Restorations by the eighteenth-century Italian sculptor Vincenzo Pacetti: (on Dionysos) ivy wreath, neck, both arms, lower right leg, calf and boot of left leg, hanging drapery on right side; (on the archaistic image) uplifted corner of drapery, both arms, lower half of lower legs, feet, pedestal, entire base.

Roman copy of Greek original. Adaptation of a Greek work of the 4th century B.C.

So, with both boots a product of restoration, we really can't use this statue to help with dating the Alexander/Hephaistion pair.

Whereas it is perfectly true that there is restoration to the lower legs of the Metropolitan Dionysus, it is equally true that many parts of his boots are original. That is because you can see wear and damage to many parts of the boots, including the flaps and you can see the cracks where original parts have been put back together (close-up photo below). "Restored" does not necessarily mean entirely new. It may just mean repaired. It is unlikely that the two Roman versions of the Dionysus were copies of each other, yet their similarity shows that their sculptors followed the original closely. It follows that the boots were original to the 4th century statue.

Stewart's argument seems to be that he has not noticed such boots in 4th century BC artworks, but that is not a sound argument, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Best wishes,

Andrew

MetDionysusBoots.jpg (150.25 KiB) Viewed 5032 times

[amyntoros]

Stewart's argument seems to be that he has not noticed such boots in 4th century BC artworks, but that is not a sound argument, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm afraid I must disagree. Absence of evidence is normally a sound argument and is certainly used in academic debate/discussion/books and papers, whereas "no evidence of absence" can be applied to just about anything one might want to believe existed.

Best Regards,

[Taphoi]

Stewart's argument seems to be that he has not noticed such boots in 4th century BC artworks, but that is not a sound argument, because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm afraid I must disagree. Absence of evidence is normally a sound argument and is certainly used in academic debate/discussion/books and papers, whereas "no evidence of absence" can be applied to just about anything one might want to believe existed.

Best Regards,

Disagreement is welcome. The forum thrives on it But an argument from absence of evidence is the same as an argument from silence, so it is not sound. The evidence may merely await discovery. If you wish to argue from an absence of evidence, then you need at least to couple it with having made a very thorough search in all likely places. Yet Stewart seems to have overlooked statues on public display in the Hermitage and the Metropolitan Museum!

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Sounds like a logical position; but, were I to say that there were mammals in the Pre-Cambrian we just have not found their fossils, the absurdity of the assertion is apparent. I also think Stewart is being rather more specific in his stylistic description than you are allowing, he is talking about a very specific form of boot. Similarly where is your evidence, Taphers, that the originals were Fourth century? Erant fortes ante postque Agamemnon.

You have also missed the point of the identikit costumes. It is not Hephaistion who is being aped but Alexander, whose imitation was a standard trope, even down to Pompeius' sobriquet Magnus. These two are not fine products of Hellenistic art but either later pieces or low grade IMHO. Stewart actually provides a reasonable solution quite incidentally. He mentions this from Plutarch's 'Antony' 54 iii

3 He was hated, too, for the distribution which he made to his children in Alexandria; it was seen to be theatrical and arrogant, and to evince hatred of Rome. For after filling the gymnasium with a throng and placing on a tribunal of silver two thrones of gold, one for himself and the other for Cleopatra, and other lower thrones for his sons, 4 in the first place he declared Cleopatra Queen of Egypt, Cyprus, Libya, and Coele Syria, and she was to share her throne with Caesarion. Caesarion was believed to be a son of the former Caesar, by whom Cleopatra was left pregnant. In the second place, he proclaimed his own sons by Cleopatra Kings of Kings, and to Alexander he allotted Armenia, Media and Parthia (when he should have subdued it), to Ptolemy Phoenicia, Syria, and Cilicia.5 At the same time he also produced his sons, Alexander arrayed in Median garb, which included a tiara and upright head-dress, Ptolemy in boots, short cloak, and broad-brimmed hat surmounted by a diadem. For the latter was the dress of the kings who followed Alexander, the former that of Medes and Armenians. 6 And when the boys had embraced their parents, one was given a bodyguard of Armenians, the other of Macedonians. Cleopatra, indeed, both then and at other times when she appeared in public, assumed a robe sacred to Isis, and was addressed as the New Isis.

He only mentions viii, but here we have Ptolemy identified with Macedonia and surely Alexander; the portrayal of the actual Alexander son of Antony as the Persian king speaks to the present ambitions of Antony. If the second figure is a teenager it might explain the lesser stature. The boots are also associated with Dionysos and him with Antony, a well known potator.