The Persistence of the Image of Alexander the Great in Sculpture and Art

Alexander the Great left behind a legacy that gave his name nothing short of its deserved praise. Even after his death, the attributes and accolades of Alexander continued to creep into folklore, sculpture, and architecture, with many leaders using the likenesses of him to further their own gains and legitimize their power. Some minted their images onto coins that bore his name, while Ptolemy even went so far as to steal Alexander’s body in order to strengthen his claims to power. In the second century AD, as the Roman empire extended into northern Africa and Asia, much as Alexander’s had done, the trend continued. Examining the sculptures of Alexander with Lance and the Statue of Emperor Trajan in the Sackler Museum, one can surmise the legitimacy to rule Trajan claimed by incorporating the Hellenistic attributes of Alexander, while still retaining the traditional Roman ideal of leadership in the piece’s greater framework.
The bronze statuette of Alexander the Great, sculpted sometime between the first and second centuries CE, is a Roman copy of the Greek original, and thus sculpted after Lysippos. Alexander is portrayed looking left with his usual attributes. Particular to this statuette are his sunken eyes, possessing a piercing and powerful gaze, and his hair, perhaps his most distinctive feature, falling over his face in the typical anastole. With his right foot ahead of his left, Alexander is depicted stepping forward in the contrapposto stance. Though not shown in this statuette, Alexander appears to have been holding a lance in his hand, proudly raising it high to the heavens. This particular statue depicts Alexander as a warrior, as it is in the contrapposto stance often shown to portray action, in addition to his possession of the lance to show himself as a warrior in battle. In accordance to with Hellenistic tradition and the way in which Alexander wanted to portray himself, the sculptor displays him heroically nude, with his torso muscles especially accentuated. The accentuation of these muscles creates a sense of tension throughout the piece, as if Alexander has just been in battle, and hence adding to the sense that he is in action.
The Statue of Emperor Trajan depicts the emperor possessing similar Alexandrian features with a hint of traditional Roman influence. The statue, sculpted in 120 AD and composed of marble, portrays Trajan with his head slightly tilting right and his glazed eyes looking upward toward the heavens, embodying the attributes that Alexander’s sculptors often depicted in their sculptures of him. Additionally, Trajan’s right foot protrudes in the same contrapposto pose. Furthermore, the emperor’s hairstyle bears a resemblance to Alexander’s; as Beiber points out, however, “[t]his attempt of imitating Alexander looks rather ridiculous in the sober and ugly Roman features” (Sourcebook 95). Though Trojan’s coiffure does not possess quite the untamed style of Alexander, this incorporation of Greek hairstyle is significant, as Romans were traditionally portrayed with stately and cropped styles. As Trajan had expanded the Roman Empire into the East and was a leader loved by his men, it is only appropriate that his likeness should somewhat resemble that of Alexander.
While the posture and hairstyles of the two are nearly identical, there exist several key differences that illustrate the differences in purpose that each sculpture served. The most obvious difference between the two pieces is the scale that each artist sculpted in. The statuette of Alexander with Lance is just that—a statuette no more than five inches tall. However, Trajan’s statue is colossal in size, towering over the viewers and clearly constructed to be larger-than-life. As with most art, form must fit function, and clearly this is displayed in the sizes of these pieces. While many pieces bearing Alexander’s name or attributes were used as propagandistic means to the rulers who spread them, this particular piece of Alexander with Lance is more practical than it is political. Instead of displaying Alexander as larger-than-life, the piece’s purpose is more of that of a household item, allowing Alexander’s supporters to display their admiration in the convenience of their own homes. The original Lysippos statue from which this statue was modeled was probably comparable in size to that of Trajan, but as the statuette was created many years after Alexander’s death, the new model was not intended to fulfill the imposing commemorative ends that pieces often take on when created during or near the times of their associated rulers. This is exactly how Trajan’s statue is presented to the public. Sculpted but a few years after Trajan’s death, the statue clearly was a commemoration for the great emperor, and thus its size served as a reminder to the public of his greatness. Using a distortedly large scale, the statue’s purpose was to be put on public display for all to remember Trajan’s larger-than-life accomplishments. In a sense, statues of such great size can serve to almost literally replace the leader, while Alexander’s statue need not commemorate his greatness in such grandeur.
Perhaps the most distinctive difference between the two statues lies in the clothing, or lack thereof, in which each statue is displayed. As the statuette of Alexander was a Roman copy of the Greek original, Alexander is shown in heroic nudity, which was often the case in statuary depictions of him. Hellenic tradition valued heroic nudity as a depiction of the leader’s strength and power. Even without clothes, the person sculpted still retains his greatness as a leader, with muscle accentuation to further fortify his power. For Alexander, heroic nudity him Alexander as not just a man, but additionally, compares his form to the likenesses of heroes and the Gods. On the opposite spectrum is the Statue of the Emperor Trajan, fully clothed from head to toe. Trajan dons ceremonial armor, with an ornate cuirass over his chest, a long cloak worn around his left arm and shoulder, and a tunic underneath it all. The decision not to put Trajan in heroic nudity, and rather depict him fully clothed in royal Roman garb, relates to the sense of royalty and dignity that Trajan wished to be depicted. Thus, the lavish clothes illustrate Trajan as a very successful, Roman emperor. On Trajan’s cuirass is displayed a scene of an Amazon or Arimaspean fighting two griffins, altogether representing Trajan’s wars on the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire. In the center of this breastplate sits the head of a gorgon, likely meant to intimidate his enemies. Alexander commemorates his accomplishments and honor by displaying himself in heroic nudity, while Trajan does the same by symbolically recreating the scenes of battle and atmosphere of fear that won him the honor.
The material in which each statue is composed presents another difference between the two and how each incorporated the ideals of their times. The statuette of Alexander is molded in a bronze cast, while the Statue of the Emperor Trajan is carved out of Pantelic marble. The bronze cast of the Alexander statue was a cheaper material, but nonetheless a more durable material in which to cast the statue. This affordability and durability of material facilitates the everyday household use of this item, contributing to the general purpose of its size. Trajan’s statue, on the other hand, is composed of marble, expensive, often hard-to-work-with, yet an honorable material in which to depict oneself. Clearly this is illustrative of the commemorative purpose that the statue would soon serve after his death. Regardless of the wear and tear that the marble may endure in the future, the sculptors were more concerned with how their leader would be honored in their own times and not as much concerned with its survival for future generations.
The posture of each statue is a final key difference that remains a distinguishing feature between how each statue incorporated the ideals of their times, particularly how Trajan’s statue incorporated Hellenistic ideals while still maintaining some Roman ones as well. Both the Alexander and Trajan statues are depicted in the contrapposto pose, meant to display the person in action. However, the type of action that each is meant to be displayed in represents a key difference between the two statues. The original statuette of Alexander displays him raising a spear high in his hand, and thus, as suggested earlier, Alexander appears as the warrior. The stance in which Trajan is sculpted, though in contrapposto, nonetheless displays a more relaxed and poised emperor. While Alexander’s pose reveals his military prowess and involvement in his battles, Trajan appears to be in a stance of addressing his troops, with his outward gaze and ornate, long cloak around his arms and legs. While the Hellenistic ideal of the contrapposto is an element of the piece, Trajan’s position alludes more to the Roman ideals of oratory, as was a key element of the Roman senate, and hence keeps some of the old Republican ideals in the iconography. Although Trajan is wearing armor, it is of a ceremonial type, made clear through the ornate battle scenes and detailed masks around his tunic and cuirass. Additionally, as the contrapposto pose depicted Alexander in the ideal from, so it does with the statue of Trajan. However, Trajan’s head on the statue does not depict him as ideal in any way; in fact, it could be argued that Trajan was an ugly man. Though his body muscles are accentuated through his breastplate, Trajan’s head seems disproportionate from the rest of his body. Thus, Trajan’s statue combines Hellenistic idealism with Roman realism, following a hybrid that became characteristic of leaders after Alexander’s time.
Though the statues differ in their depictions of the leaders and how each wished to portray himself, they nonetheless relate to the same impression that sculptors sought to convey—a powerful leader with an everlasting influence on his people. The fact that the statuette of Alexander is a Roman copy of the Greek original is a testament to Alexander’s continual influence even after his death on the sculptural and artistic depictions of future leaders. Similarly, the assimilation of Hellenistic ideals to the Roman Statue of Trajan represents the emperor’s desire to be associated with the greatness that was Alexander’s rule, while still maintaining the individual accomplishments and prominence that accompanied his own rule. Appealing to the Roman visual traditions, including realism in the face, the oratory stance, and ornate ceremonial attire, the statue of Trajan successfully embodies the greatness of a Roman emperor in the shadow of a Greek hero.

Registered Members, login
Join now, it's free

Property of EssaySwap.com