the weary herakles

The Weary Herakles of Lysippos: Some Art Historical Concerns

Introduction:

The sculpture type called “Weary Herakles” was an artistic creation of Lysippos, who was one of the most important sculptors of the Classic Period. This statue soon became a prototype to be copied in several forms of media, including coins and later came to our day as one of the most common features of the Classical Art. Besides its popularity in all art book and many museums, the particular statue of Lysippos is an important benchmark. First of all, Lysippos was the personal sculptor of Alexander and thus was one of the pioneers of Hellenistic sculpture.
On the other hand, Lysippos was still a sculptor belonging to the Classical Greek tradition, a contemporary of other important artists such as Praxiteles and Skopas, and a follower of Polykleitos. Lysippos enjoyed a long life and a long career and he achieved fame as the most creative and influential artist of the Hellenistic period. His numerous Works or art include the famous Apoxyomenos, Herakles Farnese, Herakles Epitrapezios, Agias, and many portraits and colossal works. In this paper, I intend to study some aspects of the “Farnese” type, together with its many copies, because it is an interestingly popular work of art and it aptly reflects some of the problems art historians face today. Also, its popularity through different ages and geographies depicts the artist’s arability to create an attractive, influential iconography.

Because there are many copies of the weary Herakles statue, I find it useful to divide the subject into pieces and start from the very beginning, the original work of art which comes to our day only thanks to the written sources. An account of Lysippos’ art and style will be given as it is the key factor in identifying both the closest copies of Lysippos’ Herakles and the “ Lysippic” Herakleses which are iconographically similar but deviate in style. The main emphasis will be given to the sculptural works which are grouped an un-grouped by several scholars according to their style. Because of the high number of statues and fragments, only the most relevant will be mentioned, in order not to go beyond the scope of this paper.
The passage from Hellenistic into Roman copies is striking and another interesting feature of this statue is that Commodus had himself sculpted in the same fashion. In Asia Minor, the iconography is conservative, but the style is closer to Aphrodisian School.
A different medium that represents the “Farnese” Herakles is the numismatic evidence. Although the type existed in Corinthian coins, it found great popularity in Imperial coins and it shows that the image of Lysippos’ creation reached an iconic level in the late Imperial period.

Lysippos and his Weary Herakles:

Among all other ancient sculptors, Lysippos holds a special place because of his very long and innovative career (according to ancient sources he was artistically active for 75 years) and his split artistic achievement which made him one of the creators of the Hellenistic art.
We learn about his life from ancient writers; especially Pliny the Elder. According to Pliny, Lysippos was from the city of Sikyon and not a student of any artist, but a self-made bronze worker having been influenced by the painter Eupompos. Pliny places him in the 113th Olympiad (328 BC) ( N.H. XXXIV. 76), and we know from several sources that he was very popular and active during Alexander the Great’s reign (336-323 BC). Pliny mentions that he
made numerous portraits of Alexander beginning from his boyhood (N.H. XXXIV, 63). Athenaios (XI, 784) mentions that Lysippos was a friend of Kassandros. All these dates place Lysippos’ artistic activities to the second half of the fourth century. We learn from Pliny again, that he was more prolific than any other artist. According to Pliny (XXXIV, 87) when Lysippos died his statues amounted to 1500, and that “all of such artistic value that each would sufficed by itself to make him famous. The number became known after his death, when his heir broke open his strongbox, since it had been his custom to set aside a piece of gold from the price of each statue.” Among the many works of Lysippos, the very famous is mentioned: the Youth Scraping Himself (Apoxyomenos) of which the Emperor Tiberius was very fond. Pliny mentions that Lysippos was also famed for his “Flute-Girl”, “Quadriga of Helios” belonging to the Rhodians. According to Plutarch, Alexander liked Lysippos’s art so much that he ordered that only Lysippos should make his portrait. (De Alexandri Fortitudine seu Virtute,II, 2,3). In one passage Pliny cites a colossal Herakles made at Tarentum by Lysippos and praises the weight distribution system (Pliny, N.H.XXXIV, 40), such that, no matter how strong the winds and storms are, the statue holds itself together. Libanios, a fourth century rhetoros, (Ekphraseis, XV- see Pollitt 1990) defines the Farnese Herakles in great detail:
To begin with his head bends towards the earth and he seems to me be looking to see if he can kill another opponent. Then his neck is bent downward along with his head and his whole body is bare of covering, for Herakles was not one to care about modesty when his attention was directed towards excellence. Of the arms, the right one is tautand is bent behind his back, while the left is relaxed and stretches towards the earth… And so the club supports him while he rests just as it saved him when he fought… Of Herakles’ two legs the right one is beginning to make a movement, while the left is placed beneath and fitted firmly on the base, and this arrangement makes it possible fort he onlookers to learn just what sort of man Herakles is, even though he ceased from his labours.
Pausanias, the second century AD traveler, mentions a bronze Herakles by Lysippos in the agora at Sikyon (2.9.8.). Although the ancient author does not describe the statue, it is sometimes assumed that it was the original work. However, Pliny gives a specific description of Lysippos’s style:
He is said to have contributed much to the art of casting statues by representing the hair in detail, by making the head smaller than earlier sculptors had, and by making the bodies slenderer and more tightly knit. There is no Latin term for symmetria which he observed with the utmost precision by a new and previously unattempted system which involved altering the square figures of the older sculptors; and he used commonly to say by them men were represented as they really were, but by him they were represented as they appeared. What seem to be especially characteristic of his art are the subtle fluctuations of surface which were apparent even in the smallest details (N.H.XXXIV, 65).
We learn from this passage that Lysippos tried to incorporate an ideal set of proportions in his statues and ultimately developed his own canon, which is different than, for example, Polykleitos’ canon. He tried to use the optical experience of the viewer in his art works, so he modified the proportions of his works in order to make them look tall, and slender. (Pollitt 1986:47).



Weary Herakles: Generalia

The original of the colossal statue of Herakles Farnese is in Naples, signed by Glykon of Athens as a copyist. The statue was copied fort the baths of Caracalla in Rome, probably during 3rd century AD, which is also the date fort his bath complex. It is the most often copied and imitated Lysippic Herakles, the one that is leaning on his club, portrayed as weary after his deeds during his twelve labors. This statue is about twice life-size and it is characterized by the heavy, imposing musculature and “strong” appearance (Richter 1950: 289)
In order to understand Lysippos’ style, one must look at his many works, which would surpass the aim of this paper, but we should assume that at least in his younger years, Lysippos followed the Classical canon before developing his own style. It is the pure Lysippos style that we are interested in. Lysippos was a master in athletic sculpture, and in the representations of male divinities and heroes; such as Herakles. Apoxymenos type is the best example to understand Lysippos’ style and the statue is best represented in bronze from Ephesus in the Kunsthistorischen Museum in Vienna and a marble copy from Ufizzi. There are a few striking points in the statues. The representation of the hair is very careful, detailed, giving a realistic effect of thick locks. The attention that Lysippos gives to the hair is already attested by Pliny and the hair is reproduced faithfully detailed in the Ufizzi version. The body and the legs are proportionately slim, and there is a general vigor on the poses. The heavy muscularity of the shoulders and torso is also striking (Morgan 1949:228-234).
In the surviving works which can be plausibly associated to Lysippos, three specific stylistic features present Lysippos’s principles of design. First the heads of his statues are smaller than it had been the case with the Classical Greek sculpture (about one eighth the height of the body, as opposed to one seventh). Second, torsion is used in the composition in such a way that there is no single point from where the viewer can best study the work of art. So the viewer has to adapt to the statue’s space. Third, arms and knees Project out of the Classical envelope, attracting the attention of the viewer. All these effects make the sculptor achieve his aim of presenting the human body as “it was seen” or “it appeared”. The Apoxymenos type is Lysippos’ most typical “Classical” work, perhaps from the sculptor’s early phase. So the young Lysippos was an artist who had a sense of tradition but also who wanted to break through the traditional canons and measures and who concerned with the emotional effect this works had on his viewers (Pollitt hell.art.:48-49).
The Farnese Herakles has the torsional pose and the unstable balance typical of the era and his head is relatively small with respect to his body; this increase the size of the body even more. On the other hand, Lysippos’ Herakles figure offers a different element of his style. It offers the development of emotional expressionism. The colossus at Tarentum and the Farnese Herakles types are not only important for their size and vigor, but they also bare a certain pathos. The weary Herakles who endured the trials of life yearns for rest. So the musculature and the scale of the figures are contrasted by the pathos and weariness so vividly expressed in their faces. The worn faces and the heavy brows all reflect to us the hero who experienced the stages of ponos, (labor), and pothos, (great yearning). Perhaps Lysippos attempted to capture a human psyche with his statues of Herakles – which was an important element of Hellenistic thought- so we can say that Lysippos was one of the early followers of this philosophy (Pollitt 1986:52).
The massive corporality of the statue is not just a product of proportions, although in this copy the statue is ten feet high and very muscular. The treatment of the surface and the lines which stand through the thin and worn flesh make this a portrait of a man whose life and body have been spent in achieving heroic acts. Masculinity is basic in this and other copies. The expectations of the viewer are over-confirmed by Lysippos and the fatigued and over- developed body of Herakles draws attention to the expectations form this hero, which is not only saving the world from dangers but also achieving the limits of his power. (Osborne 1998: 23-24)
Because of this reasons, the Farnese Herakles is attributed to the more mature years of the artist, when he was fully involved in theatricality, emotional expressionism ant pathos. We can see that there is a stylistic difference between the “Apoxymenos” type and the “Weary Herakles” type. There is a certain evolution from the Classical towards Hellenistic, and with the presence of ethos and pathos in his works, we can also assume that he was an early Pioneer of the later Hellenistic Baroque. In order to persuade, he exudes good character, moves the viewer by appealing to emotions, and, of course, advance good reasons. He persuades the viewer by directly addressing to the emotions. The Farnese Herakles is still the symbol of strong superhuman masculinity, but on the other hand, there is this weariness, the fatigue that can be read on the face of the hero, which calls for sympathy for Herakles who runs throughout his life from adventure to adventure, achieves the things unachievable by the ordinary human being, but this is the human side of Herakles that Lysippos tries to present us in here.
From the very detailed descriptions of Pliny, we can at least assume that the original weary Herakles was probably cast in bronze, then copied and re-copied in marble. Here the problem of bronze originals and marble copies comes forth, because actually it is thought that none of Lysippos’ originals, just like many Hellenistic bronzes, survived to our day and marble copies come in slightly differing styles. We should also keep in mind that none of the sculptural works attributed to Lysippos were dated on a very firm basis, so a chronological ordering of the statues can only be made by purely stylistic grounds.

The Problem of Originals vs. Copies:

It has been questioned by scholars whether it is appropriate to assess Lysippos’ style on the basis of copies, made by other artists in other media, and to argue from those where the original statue fits into the career of a man whose works are all lost.
Other statues that are similar to Farnese Herakles come from different places and were made at difference dates. Among the close parallels are three large scale marble statues. One is dating from 1st century BC, found in the Antikhytera shipwreck, the other is from Roman Argos and the third is a third century twin of the Farnese Herakles. If a prototype was made by Lysippos, Mattusch states that it should be questioned whether his bronze statue was colossal and very heavily muscled like the Farnese Herakles or smaller and more delicate like the statue from Argos. We should ask if Glykon’s Herakles, which has no less artistic magnificence than other works attributed to Lysippos, is the closest copy to the lost work of Lysippos (Mattusch 2004: 277-291).
The weary Herakles type was attributed to the sculptor because of the label on a statue found in the second half of the 16th century at the foot of the Palatine, now the Piti Palace in Florence. On the other hand, a silver tetradrachm from Peloponnese dated to 330-280 BC, shows that the type existed to the late 4th early 3rd century BC. Troxell attributed the coin to Corinth which implies that the original statue stood in that city (H.A. Troxell, “The Peloponnesian Alexanders”, ANSMN 17 (1971) 44-50). The statue type also appeared in Athenian coins during the first century AD, which led some scholars to suggest that the original statue stood there (LIMC 4 763 no.694). By the middle of the second century AD the type spreads to Asia Minor and appears on coins from Phrygia, Bithynia and Propontis (LIMC 4 763 nos. 688, 691, 692, 695, pl.492). Some Hellenistic remains, like the Antikhytera shipwreck Herakles for example, show that at least in the 1st century BC the original statue was in Greece and had not been carried off to Rome (Edwards 1996:146).
In the early comparisons of those artworks, there was a thought that the marble statues could also be made by Lysippos, or at least made by the Lysippian workshop. Hyde (1907: 396-416) thought that even if the marble statues were copies, the inference is that they reproduced the originals, if not mechanically as it was the case in Rome, but at least faithfully, for having employed noted artists like Lysippos, the dedicator would have wished a careful and accurate reproduction. This view is not plausible because we know that Lysippos was a sculptor working in bronze, and that the marble copies are probably later in date. The copies are spread over a large period of time from early Hellenistic to late Roman, and it would be naive not to expect any deviations in style.
In 1928, Franklin Plotinus Johnson identified at least fifty marble and bronze statues, torsos and heads based on the Weary Herakles motif ( see Pollitt 1974 for a review of the book). The book shows that type was copied in different geographies by different sculptural schools.
Krull (1985: 305-351) stated that the most accurate copies of the original statue by Lysippos are the statues found in the Baths of Caracalla and in the Piti Palace (these are twin copies). He gives less credit to the Antikhytera shipwreck statue, which differs in the more erect position of the club and a shift to the right in the upper chest. The same issue can also be observed in the Roman Argos statue. On the other hand, the Antikhytera Herakles is alert and attentive, but the Farnese Herakles is in a kind of daydream.
There is no intrinsic evidence to indicate that the two monumental statues were the original ones. So there is a need to compare with a better attributed example. The Farnese Herakles has traditionally been compared with the Antikhytera and Argos types, which are stylistically related to the Apoxymenos. Opposing Krull, Edwards (1996: 148) thinks that the compositional principles of the Antikhytera and Argos Herakleses are more in accordance with other works attributed to Lysippos, and that the Farnese Herakles is a copy that is modified from the original design.
Neither Ridgway (1997: 306) is sure if the original was by Lysippos, but she states that it was a very influential work that set the traits of all Herakles portraits. After its creation, Herakles was seen with the traits of the Farnese type. Its composition is very complex and the viewer has to turn around the sculpture in order to see the apples of Hesperides that Herakles is hiding behind to understand the story that the statue is narrating. Ridgway also thinks that it is the Apoxymenos, which is the most consistent attribution to Lysippos.
In his article “The Weary Herakles of Lysippos”, Cornelius Vermeule tried to put certain statues and fragmentary pieces into a chronological order, form the early third century BC to Late Roman Imperial period (Vermeule: 1975:323-332). Vermeule thinks that the original works were the colossal versions, which survived almost till Late Antiquity, and which were copied in smaller forms in Asia Minor (like the Herakles from Nicosia, from Basel, from the Metropolitan Museum). There was no full sized bronze fragment or copy of any of the works Weary Herakles. These are the full-scale marble copies which give us an idea about the lost bronze(s) of Lysippos. Vermeule’ s Group Two, is called the Hellenistic or Pergamene version of the Lysippic Herakles. Examples from the New York Metropolitan Museum are counted, on which a clear influence of Pergamene Scholl can be observed. This version proves itself to be the most common copy type, and implies that the archetype was probably available in many centers by that time. Vermeule puts the Farnese Herakles and its forerunners to Group Three and groups the remaining –mainly the Roman copies- as Group Four. In this case, the Farnese Herakles is placed in the Late Roman Period and is joined with the statues adapted as the portraits of Commodus, who, in his last years of reign was thinking he was Herakles. Vermeule states that the Farnese Herakles is based on a late Hellenistic or Roman imperial version, which became especially popular in the late Antonine or Severan Age. He puts the statue together with the Antikhyreta shipwreck Herakles and the Argos Herakles and states that this shipwreck dates around 80-65 BC, so the third group can also be late Hellenistic rather than purely Antonine or Severan in origin. Here Vermeule opposes other art historians who place the Farnese and the Antikhyreta and Argos Herakleses to two different categories according to style.
It is not sure which Herakles reflects the creation of Lysippos but if we assume that he invented this particular depiction of Herakles, it is clear that his creation was much appreciated and spread quickly during the Hellenistic period to Asia Minor and was being copied there, then to Rome. Expecting the copyists to be one-by-one loyal to the original work is not plausible, as there are several sculptural schools and individual artists working on the same subject. It is possible that the Weary Herakles first comes as a production of Lysippos, but then it becomes an iconic figure that is much appreciated and copied by several artists. It can become a subject on its own, and can be worked by other sculptors, being stylistically more and more independent from Lysippos’ initial work.

The Roman Figures, Statues and Coins: the Fame of Weary Herakles throughout the Late Antiquity

An interesting and hilarious example showing the popularity of the iconography created by Lysippos is a fragment of a statue which is now in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, having a portrait of the emperor Commodus depicted as weary Herakles. Large bronze medallions which are depicting the same are also dated to the same period and identify the statue (C.Vermeule, AJA 68 (1964) 331, pl, 106 fig 18; Vermeule 1975: 327). During the reign of Commodus and Septimius Severus the cult of Herakles had gained great importance and became an instrument of Roman imperial power.
In the excavations at Side in Pamphylia, a small Weary Herakles was found near the theater and agora complex (Mansel 1963: 21,24, fig.10) and was associated with the Aphrodisian School which reflects the mannerist style of Asia Minor sculptural works.
The last example of Weary Herakles in Classical art are the Roman Imperial coins of the last quarter of the third and the first decade of the fourth centuries AD. These coins are the aureus of Carnius (283- 285) where the weary Herakles stands at the reverse of the coin together with the inscription VIRTVS AVGG which shows the hero’s connection with the emperor. Another coin is a bronze follis of Maximinus Daza, the image probably derived from a representation on a Greek Imperial coin of Asia Minor at around AD 175-275 (Sutherland C.H.V. and Carlson R.A.G. 1967: 639, no.152, pl.15.).

Conclusion:
The weary Herakles of Lysippos poses the same basic problem that if faced with every Classical Greek or Hellenistic sculptural work. None of the original works of the sculptor exist; there are only copies that are not totally consistent in style. However, the Weary Herakles type became so popular in the antiquity that it was copied in mass amounts, and the hero’s fatigue and great yearning was worked out so masterfully that it is still one of the most famous art objects of the world.







Bibliography:

Dobbins, E.
1993
“Inscribed statue of ‘Weary Hercules’ Solves Numismatic
Mystery in Characene” Celator 1/1993, 32f.
Edwards, C.M.
1996
“ Lysippos” pp. 130-153 in Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture Ed.by O.Palagia and J.J. Pollitt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
Hyde, W.W.
1907
“Lysippus as a Marble Worker” AJA 11: 396-416
Johnson F.P.
1928
Lysippos. Durham: N.Carolina
J.J. Pollitt, J.J.
1974
The Ancient View of Greek Art: Criticism, History and Terminology. New Haven: Yale University Pres
Krull, D.
1985
“Der Herakles vom Typ Farnese Kopienkritische Untersuchungen einer Schopfung des Lysipp”. s.v. Herakles: 305-351 in LIMC 4 frankfurt am Main
Mansel A.M.
1963
Die Ruinen von Side. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.
Mattush, C.
2004
“Naming the Classical Style” pp. 271-291 in Essays in Honor of Sara A.Immerwahr Ed.by Chapin. American School of Classical Studies in Athens
Morgan, C.H.
1949
“The Style of Lysippos” Hesperia Suppl 8: 228- 234
Osborne, R.
1998
“Sculpted Men of Athens: Masculinity and Power in the Field of Vision” pp 23-43 in Thinking Men: Masculinity and Its Self- Representation in the Classical Tradition ed.by Lin Foxhall, J B Salmon, London: Routledge
Plinius
1997
Naturalis Historiae… Cambridge: Harvard University Pres
Plutarch
1973
De Alexandri Fortitudine seu Virtute, in The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives London: Penguin Books
Pollitt, J.J.
1986
Art in The Hellenistic Age Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
Pollitt, J.J.
1990
The Art of Greece 1400-31 BC, Sources and Documents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres
Eichter, G.
1950
The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks. New Haven: Yale University Pres
Ridgway, B.S.
1997
Fourth-century styles in Greek sculpture Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Pres.
Sutherland C.H.V. and Carlson R.A.G. (eds)
1967


The Roman Imperial Coinage VI. London: British Museum Pres
Troxell, H.A.
1971
“The Peloponnesian Alexanders”, ANSMN 17: 44-50
Vermeule, C.
1975
“The Weary Herakles of Lysippos” AJA 79: 323-332