DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.5065#0050
40 HISTORICAL EVENTS WITH WHICH THE BRONZES ARE CONNECTED.
hastened to the consul Laevinus, crying aloud that Pyrrhos was no more. A shout of joy
arose in the ranks of the Romans, and the consternation amongst the Greeks was at its
height, when the king perceiving the mistake advanced with his head uncovered, and restored
the courage of his troops.2
Such are the principal facts connected with the discovery of the bronzes of Siris ; and I
have endeavoured, as concisely as the subject admitted of, to describe them as works of great
interest, both in an historical and assthetical point of view, and no less important as offering
types of heroical character, than as master-pieces of one of the most beautiful branches of
imitative art.
Notwithstanding that these bronzes were found in the vicinity of the field of battle, in which
the Romans first felt the prowess of the arms of Pyrrhos, I do not pretend to assert as a fact,
that they formed part of the spoils of that day, much less to say that they had belonged to
the armour either of Pyrrhos himself, or of any of the generals who served under him : but one
or the other of these suppositions is not unlikely, and they may be defended on the coincidence
of the time, the site, historical propriety, and the school of art to which the bronzes belong.
The cuirass to which they were attached must have been a Q&paZ, ETri^pva-og ; it must
have been worn by some one of distinguished eminence ; he must have been a Greek; and he
must have lived not prior, nor long subsequent, to the age of Alexander. All these circum-
stances unite in Pyrrhos; but they might agree too with others, his contemporaries, whose
name and fate are unknown to us : Hellas was never so rich in eminent individuals, who were
at the same time opulent, luxurious, patrons of the fine arts, and proud of an exalted lineage,
as during the time of the early successors of Alexander. But, after all, the Bronzes of Siris
are of such extraordinary beauty, that the question, to whom they may have belonged, being
a mere question of curiosity, does not by any means either affect or heighten their real value
as a work of art.
As the bronzes are undoubtedly of the school of Lysippos, we have only to observe that
that distinguished artist did in all probability reside for a time and work at Tarentum. Two
of his great productions in bronze were erected in that city, and we cannot suppose that
these statues, 60 or 80 feet in height, could have been modelled and cast on the other side of
the Adriatic. Such a proceeding would have been contrary to the analogy of the most precise
notions that we have of the practice of Phidias and other great artists under similar circum-
stances. Besides what Pliny recounts of an ingenious expedient, by means of which one of
these colossi was sheltered from the violence of the wind, seems sufficiently to indicate that
Lysippos had come in person to Tarentum, and had there himself erected this monument.3
The victories of Q. Metellus, and the conquest of Macedonia, caused in the sequel numerous
and bulky works of Lysippos to be removed to Italy. In later times doubtless, the pillage of
hapless Greece by the Romans brought in more. Adhering only to Pliny's statement, we count
nearly thirty statues of bronze by the same artist, which were transported to Rome.4
* Plutarch. Vita Pyrrhi, ed. laud. pag. 393-394.
3 These are Pliny's words in the remarkable passage here alluded to: Hist. Natur. 1. XXXIV. sect. 18 (ed. Franzii,
torn. IX. p. 233) :--------talis colossus et Tarenti factus a Lysippo XL, cubitorum. Mirum in eo, quod manu ut ferunt
mobilis (ea ratio libramenti est) nullis convellatur procellis. Id quidem providisse et artifex dicitur, modico intervallo, unde
maxime datum opus erat frangi, opposita columna. Itaque propter magnitudinem difficultatemque movendi non attigit
eum Fabius verrucosus, quum Herculem, qui est in Capitolio, inde transferret.
4 Compare the article on Lysippos in " Catalogus artificum Graecorum et Romanorum auctore Julio Sillig" (Lipsise,
1827, in 8vo) p. 252 sq.
hastened to the consul Laevinus, crying aloud that Pyrrhos was no more. A shout of joy
arose in the ranks of the Romans, and the consternation amongst the Greeks was at its
height, when the king perceiving the mistake advanced with his head uncovered, and restored
the courage of his troops.2
Such are the principal facts connected with the discovery of the bronzes of Siris ; and I
have endeavoured, as concisely as the subject admitted of, to describe them as works of great
interest, both in an historical and assthetical point of view, and no less important as offering
types of heroical character, than as master-pieces of one of the most beautiful branches of
imitative art.
Notwithstanding that these bronzes were found in the vicinity of the field of battle, in which
the Romans first felt the prowess of the arms of Pyrrhos, I do not pretend to assert as a fact,
that they formed part of the spoils of that day, much less to say that they had belonged to
the armour either of Pyrrhos himself, or of any of the generals who served under him : but one
or the other of these suppositions is not unlikely, and they may be defended on the coincidence
of the time, the site, historical propriety, and the school of art to which the bronzes belong.
The cuirass to which they were attached must have been a Q&paZ, ETri^pva-og ; it must
have been worn by some one of distinguished eminence ; he must have been a Greek; and he
must have lived not prior, nor long subsequent, to the age of Alexander. All these circum-
stances unite in Pyrrhos; but they might agree too with others, his contemporaries, whose
name and fate are unknown to us : Hellas was never so rich in eminent individuals, who were
at the same time opulent, luxurious, patrons of the fine arts, and proud of an exalted lineage,
as during the time of the early successors of Alexander. But, after all, the Bronzes of Siris
are of such extraordinary beauty, that the question, to whom they may have belonged, being
a mere question of curiosity, does not by any means either affect or heighten their real value
as a work of art.
As the bronzes are undoubtedly of the school of Lysippos, we have only to observe that
that distinguished artist did in all probability reside for a time and work at Tarentum. Two
of his great productions in bronze were erected in that city, and we cannot suppose that
these statues, 60 or 80 feet in height, could have been modelled and cast on the other side of
the Adriatic. Such a proceeding would have been contrary to the analogy of the most precise
notions that we have of the practice of Phidias and other great artists under similar circum-
stances. Besides what Pliny recounts of an ingenious expedient, by means of which one of
these colossi was sheltered from the violence of the wind, seems sufficiently to indicate that
Lysippos had come in person to Tarentum, and had there himself erected this monument.3
The victories of Q. Metellus, and the conquest of Macedonia, caused in the sequel numerous
and bulky works of Lysippos to be removed to Italy. In later times doubtless, the pillage of
hapless Greece by the Romans brought in more. Adhering only to Pliny's statement, we count
nearly thirty statues of bronze by the same artist, which were transported to Rome.4
* Plutarch. Vita Pyrrhi, ed. laud. pag. 393-394.
3 These are Pliny's words in the remarkable passage here alluded to: Hist. Natur. 1. XXXIV. sect. 18 (ed. Franzii,
torn. IX. p. 233) :--------talis colossus et Tarenti factus a Lysippo XL, cubitorum. Mirum in eo, quod manu ut ferunt
mobilis (ea ratio libramenti est) nullis convellatur procellis. Id quidem providisse et artifex dicitur, modico intervallo, unde
maxime datum opus erat frangi, opposita columna. Itaque propter magnitudinem difficultatemque movendi non attigit
eum Fabius verrucosus, quum Herculem, qui est in Capitolio, inde transferret.
4 Compare the article on Lysippos in " Catalogus artificum Graecorum et Romanorum auctore Julio Sillig" (Lipsise,
1827, in 8vo) p. 252 sq.