Alexander the Great was a man of action. According to the ancient sources he was famous both for his actions (praxeis; erga) and for his personal charisma and qualities, especially his braveness (andreia). His deeds were recorded in sculpture, painting and other media. Unfortunately, except for a few works such as the Alexander Mosaic and the Alexander Sarcophagus, the extant visual representations seldom depict him in action, either fighting or hunting. Portraits are plentiful, but mainly confined to heads, thus failing to render the full picture. The present book turns from the discussion of Alexander's physiognomy and public image to that of compositions and narratives that may qualify as ‘action portraits’ (the German word Handlung can indicate both an act and an action, doing and deed). V.d.H. makes a clear distinction between Einzelfiguren and Handlungsporträts, the first showing potential for doing, the other showing the actual deed (p. 10). Yet, while there is an ontological difference between a statue and a narrative, some two-figured groups may be conceived as shorthand forms of larger narratives; besides, we are not always in a position to tell whether a vigorous head could be a fragment of a sculpture that originally belonged to a larger composition, an action portrait.
In connection with action portraits v.d.H. employs the term agency quite often (pp. 12, 16, 17, 28, 31, 39, 40). Agency may refer to the active role of images, the work of art as an agent, the active enargeia of the image and its ability to stir the imagination of the viewer. However, it would appear that v.d.H. has in mind the dynamis of the living Alexander, the king's capacity for action, rather than the embodied power of his images. Still, the distinction is subtle, as some ancient viewers might have perceived Alexander's agency transferred to his images (for problems of the term see M. Rampley, Journal of Art Historiography 24 [2021]).
The book is divided into thirteen short chapters. Some chapters are almost too short, the total text amounting to no more than about 54 pages. General aspects (pp. 7–18) are followed by case studies of large and small monuments in a variety of media: the lost Granikos monument (pp. 19–20), Apulian vases (pp. 21–7), the Poros medallions (pp. 28–32), the Alexander Sarcophagus and the Alexander Mosaic (pp. 33–40), Etruscan and Italian reliefs (pp. 41–53), the equestrian bronze statuette from Herculaneum (pp. 54–60), Tabula Iliaca (pp. 61–9) plus an epilogue on the emperor and third-century Macedonia (pp. 70–7). This comprehensive selection covers a chronological range from early Hellenism to examples that show the impact of Alexander in later antiquity.
A key monument, Lysippos’ turma Alexandri celebrated the battle at Granikos in 334 bce. It was set up at Dion in Macedonia, but brought to Rome in 146 bce. An equestrian statuette from Herculaneum is generally assumed to reflect Alexander as he appeared in the midst of the cavalry squadron. V.d.H. presents a thorough discussion of the statuette, but disassociates it from the monument. It is difficult to imagine the appearance of a composition consisting of 25 equestrian statues in bronze. V.d.H. refrains from speculation, leaving the question open. Focusing on the paramount significance of victory in battle, the heroic action of the hunt is given less attention. Images of the hunt, foremost the hunting frieze of the royal Tomb II at Vergina, c. 336 or c. 316 bce, might provide some ideas of potential schemata for the horsemen in the Granikos monument. Another possible clue: most Hellenistic equestrian monuments are inscribed on the short side of their bases, indicating that they were intended for a frontal view. The frontal aspect differs from that of a two-dimensional battle scene, which privileges the side view, the protagonist shown in profile moving towards the right.
In paintings and reliefs several visual traditions must have coexisted. The excellent Alexander Sarcophagus from Sidon, c. 312 bce, is, along with the Alexander Mosaic, the most significant visual testimony. V.d.H. notes that the sculptor conceives the image of the fighting king by presenting Alexander with the lion pelt of Heracles as depicted on coins, thus using a different model than the artist of the mosaic. Another pictorial tradition, now relating to the Indian campaigns, is hinted at by the silver ‘Poros medallions’, c. 325 bce. This was a new medium for extolling the ruler's virtues, Alexander taking the place of gods and heroes. The medallions delineate in shorthand form Alexander's campaign against the Indian king and his elephants. Various pictorial narratives may have existed in the Indus valley, if we are to believe Philostratos, who states that, after the death of Alexander, Poros dedicated in the temple at Taxila bronze tablets that commemorated the exploits of Poros and Alexander wrought in silver and gold (Vit. Apoll. 2.20).
The most remarkable action image is undoubtedly the Alexander Mosaic from Pompeii. V.d.H. argues that the original of this high-quality mosaic dates from around 300 and was commissioned by either Kassander or Ptolemaios. Given the Alexandrian tenor of the motifs from the villa, it is tempting to see the prototype in the Battle of Issus painted by Helena of Alexandria (as advocated by M.-L. Säflund, Medusa 11 [1990]; M. Pfrommer, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Komposition des Alexandermosaiks auf antiquarischer Grundlage [1998]; O. Palagia, ‘Alexander's Battles against Persians in the Art of the Successors’, in T. Howe et al. [edd.], Ancient Historiography on War and Empire [2017]). V.d.H. gives a good description of the battle scene with its strong focus on the confrontation of the two kings. It should be noted that Darius III was known for his bravery (Diod. Sic. Bibl. 17.6), and yet he took flight both at Issus and at Gaugamela. Possibly his action was determined by his role as cosmic king. Facing defeat, the Great King should withdraw so as not to put the cosmic order at risk (C. Nylander, ‘Darius III – the Coward King’, in J. Carlsen et al. [edd.], Alexander the Great: Myth and Reality [1993]). The mosaic therefore presents the crucial moment for the ruler to choose flight rather than fight.
The Darius painter's Apulian vases, although close to Alexander's lifetime, give evidence of the myth of the hero in Southern Italy, but are of limited avail when it comes to imagining the appearance of large-scale pictures of an Alexander battle. Reliefs on Etruscan cinerary urns and a relief on an Italic drinking cup display shortened forms of battle scenes that reproduce the Alexander mosaic's schema of the hero on horseback thrusting his lance against a Persian on a collapsing horse. The first-century Tabula Chigi is of interest for its reference to the shield of Achilles and the association between Alexander and Achilles. The archaeological evidence from Macedonia in the third century provides examples of the enduring fame of the Hellenistic ruler and the new post-mortem iconographies that either refer to Alexander or have become general heroic paradigms.
This booklet is one in a series of Figurationen des Heroischen and therefore follows the layout of the series – no cover photograph and comparatively few illustrations. V.d.H.'s small book has the merit of presenting the archaeological material succinctly. It is well researched with plentiful and up-to-date endnotes that enable readers to consult specialised publications including several by the author. The book provides a good and balanced overview of the visual potential of action portraits of Alexander the Great.
