Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:23:57.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hellenistic Royal Portraits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Alan J. B. Wace
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper does not pretend to be the result of original research, but to be rather a compilation of the various identifications of bronze or marble portrait heads as kings of the great dynasties of the Hellenistic period, that different archaeologists have proposed from time to time. In the course of my study of the evolution of later Greek art, I proceeded from studying the series of coins of the Hellenistic dynasties to examine the portraits identified by means of the coins. I hoped by that method to obtain surer ground for the succession of styles in the period. But there is so much uncertainty and often complete contradiction as regards the identification of the portraits, that so far a study of the portraits has yielded little. Many of the heads identified as kings are not kings at all. In fact there exists too great a tendency to believe that every fine individual portrait must be that of a king or some other great man. Private portraits must have been even more plentiful than royal portraits, and as works of art would stand an equal chance of preservation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 25 , November 1905 , pp. 86 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1905

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I have purposely omitted all reference to portraits on gems, since they have peculiar difficulties of their own.

2 Winter, , Jahrbuch 1894, Pl. 8Google Scholar. de Villefosse, H., Cat. Somm. 2321Google Scholar.

3 I would refer throughout to Arndt-Bruckmann's Gr. u. Röm. Porträts (cited as Arndt), and Imhoof-Blumer's Porträtköpfe hell. u. hellenisierter Völker. I wish also to express my thanks for assistance received to Miss McDowall, who has read part of my MS., to Mr. Wroth, Mr. Macdonald, and Mr. G. F. Hill. I have also profited much from discussing various points with other archaeologists at home and abroad. I am also under great obligations to Dr. Dressel for permission to publish the Fox tetradrachm.

4 Arch. Anz. 1891, p. 141.

5 See the Plates in Imhoof-Blumer, Die Münzen d. Dynastie von Pergamon.

6 See the Appendix below.

7 A herm in the British Museum, 1741, is called a Ptolemaic portrait. It wears a fillet; but it is iconographically useless, even if it is a Ptolemaic portrait. Mr. A. H. Smith in his recently published third volume of the sculpture catalogue calls it a Heracles (?) herm.

8 B.S.A., 1902–3, p. 226, 4.

9 e.g. Brit. Mus. Sculpture Cat. iii. 1773, from Carthage.

10 Helbig,2 443.

11 For other heads called Cleopatra, see Bernoulli, Röm. Ikon. I. p. 212.

12 v. B.M.C. Seleucids, Pl. I. 11.

13 Cf. a head in the Museo delle Terme. Mariani, , Vaglieri, , Guida, p. 22, 21Google Scholar. Helbig,2 1032.

14 Of course not a priest of Caesar worship under the Antonines. See the quotation from Conybeare in Ramsay, loc. cit.

15 Jahresh. loc. cit. Fig. 131, and Pl. 8.

16 C.I.G. 4458.

17 My friend, Mr. A. M. Daniel, tells me that he arrived at exactly the same conclusion, after studying this bronze independently in Naples. Cf. Waldstein, , Ill. London News, 1903Google Scholar, June 6th, No. 21.

18 v. Bevan, , House of Seleucus, II. 231Google Scholar.

19 Helbig2 426. Brunn-Bruckmann, 527.

20 P. 140, Pl. VII.

21 Cl. Rev., 1903, p. 475.

22 B.M.C. Mysia, Pergamum, No. 36.

23 B.M.C. Mysia, Pergamum, 81. It is usually supposed to have been coined at Syros, but I see no reason why it should not have been struck in Pergamum. Cf. Von. Fritze, , Z.f.N. 1903, p. 118Google Scholar. Cf. Kornemann, , Beitr. z. alt. Geschichte I. p. 89Google Scholar on the deification of the Attalids.

24 Gäbler, , Erythrä, p. 52Google Scholar.

25 Strabo, xiii. 4.

26 Cf. the Apollo on the Omphalos type of the Seleucids, and the Ptolemaic eagle. The Phoenician cities even under the Seleucids still struck with an eagle reverse obviously for commercial reasons.

27 B.M.C. Seleucids, Pl. V. 7.

28 J.H.S. 1903, p. 110.

29 The gem in Paris (Coll. Luynes, 154, Furtwängler, , Gemmen, Pl. 33, 11)Google Scholar, which I previously tried to identify as Attalus, is perhaps judging by the coin a portrait of him. But there are changes in the setting of the eye and mouth; and the omission of the fillet is hard to explain. The British Museum ‘Philetaerus’ gem which Furtwängler said was similar in style to the Paris gem, and perhaps by the same artist, is a forgery. So no assistance towards the identification of the coin portrai is to be obtained from gems. Cf. Journ. Int. Arch. Num. 1903, p. 146, Pl. VII. 9, 10. Furtwängler, , Gemmen, Pl. 33, 10Google Scholar.

30 J.H.S. 1903, Pl. I. 6. 7, p 110. I would refer throughout to this paper by Mr. Macdonald, Bevan's House of Seleucus, and U. Wilcken's articles on the Antiochi in Pauly-Wissowa.

31 The head on these coins has been identified by Dr. von Fritze as a portrait of Antiochus Hierax, (Troja und Ilion, p. 503)Google Scholar. This is shewn by Mr.Macdonald, (J.H.S. 1903, p. 110)Google Scholar to be an impossible identification, and he gives us another portrait of Hierax after proving that the head usually called Hierax, is Antiochus II. (J.H.S. 1903, Pl. II. 1. 3. 4)Google Scholar. I feel myself unable to accept this head as a portrait of Hierax, for the simple reason that there is no difference in the features between it and the heads proved by Mr. Macdonald to be Antiochus II. No other supposed portrait of Hierax stands any real test: and yet it is acknowledged that coins must have been struck for Hierax, if only to pay for troops and supplies during his wars against his brother Seleucus II. and Attalus I. The solution seems to me to be simple: no coins were struck with Hierax' own portrait. Mr.Macdonald, has shewn (J.H.S. 1903, p. 114)Google Scholar that Hierax' supporters, his mother Laodice and her friends, coined with the head of his father Antiochus II. It seems unnecessary to explain a rather younger-looking head of this king, struck after his death, by urging that because it is young it must be Hierax, especially since his party caused it to be struck. Hierax when his father died was about 10 (Beloch, , Gr. Geschichte III.2 p. 454)Google Scholar, and must then have been entirely under his mother's control; this would account for his not coining with his own head when his brother had been driven from Asia Minor after the battle of Ancyra. From 242 to 228 during his struggle with his brother and Attalus he was from 14 to 27: and as he grew older his party's power decreased. He died a fugitive in Thrace before 226 about the age of 28. Hierax probably drew most of his supplies from coinage struck by cities that helped him, such as Alexandria Troas. It is reasonable to believe that these cities in view of Hierax' uncertain position would not have risked their own existence by displeasing the rightful king by coining with his usurping brother's portrait. To continue to strike with the head of Antiochus II. could not displease either brother, whichever eventually proved victor. That these cities in the Troad were but half-hearted supporters of Hierax is proved by their subsequent steadfast loyalty to Attalus (Polybius v. 78). The only evidence that Hierax was made viceroy in Asia Minor by Seleucus II. is Justinus (xxvii. 2. 6). He is not, however, mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions as such.

32 J.H.S. 1903, Pl. I. 3, p. 108. Cf. also Pl. I. 10.

33 App., Syr. 62Google Scholar.

34 Mr. Macdonald suggests a possible answer to this, op. cit. p. 111.

35 C.I.G. 2852 = Dittenberger,1Syll. 170, Hicks, 175.

36 v. Wilcken in Pauly-Wissowa s.n. Antiochus.21Haussoullier, , Rev. Philol. 1898, p. 121, 1900, p. 256Google Scholar.

37 Hicks,1 164.

38 Kern, , Inschrift. v. Magnesia a. M. 18, 19Google Scholar.

39 Hicks,1 165. Dittenb., Syll. 1157Google Scholar.

40 Michel, 486.

41 Gardner, , Num. Chr. 1880, p. 189Google Scholar. Six, , do. 1898, p. 226Google Scholar.

42 Nat. Hist. vi. 18.

43 Obv. Bearded Zeus laurel wreathed. Rev. Athena driving quadriga of elephants.

44 Six, Num. Chr., loc. cit. Cf. Gardner, loc. cit.

45 F.H.G. iv. 538, 55.

46 Prol. xxvi. Malalas says Seleucus died young, p. 205.

47 Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie, vii. p. 226.

48 do. viii. p. 108. For year 59 one tablet gives as king Antiochus, but another tablet of the same year gives as king Seleucus: and in year 59 Antiochus II. was sole king.

49 Schrader, , Keilinschrift. Bibliothek iii. 2, p. 136Google Scholar.

50 Lehmann, , Beitr. z. alt. Geschichte, 1903, p. 526Google Scholar, 1.

51 Mahaffy, , Emp. of Ptolemies, p. 306Google Scholar.

52 Lehmann, op. cit. p. 498 sqq.

53 Her sister Stratonike married Demetrius II. of Macedonia: there is no reason to suppose with Wilcken (Pauly-Wissowa s.n. Apame 3) that Apame was the younger because Eusebius (I. 249) mentions Stratonike first. All the dates as regards Stratonike's marriage and divorce and her husband's birth are conjectural. Cf. Beloch, , Gr. Geschichte III.2, p. 93Google Scholar, sqq.