DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.37251#0321
GALLERIA SUPERIORE II. 5
283
about the 1. hand should a!so be compared. Recently Schick has shown
that the Bybios Heracles represented more ciosely the motive of a iost
archetype, while late, possibly Roman, versions intervened between this
archetype and the Conservatori statue. The British Museum bronze has
been brought into connexion by Graef with the art of Scopas, though it
also possesses very distinctive Lysippian traits. The same may be said of
the Conservatori Colossus, and if the two heads be carefully examined, an
intercrossing of Scopaic and Lysippian influences will be observed in both.
In both we have a wide face with rather flat forehead and short upstand-
ing hair lying round it. The line of forehead and nose and the form of
the skull are in the Scopaic manner, but the eyes and eye-sockets have
not the characteristic Scopaic formation, and the realistic conception of
the individual features recalls the master of Sicyon.
The profile of the Colossus should be compared with early coin-types
with head of Melqarth-Heracles (jR Af. CozAy, pi. XXIX.
18, 19), where we note the same combination of Scopaic with Lysippian
forms. The resemblance of the coin-type to the statues is so great that
it leads Schick to suppose that their original was identical with the proto-
type of the coins, and was presumably a cult-statue in Tyred That the
coin-types are derived from a statue is shown by the full-length figure of
a similar Heracles on coins of Thasos (J?. Af. CWm* 0/* p. 122);
the head is like that of the Melqarth, and the body, though the movement
of the legs is reversed and the 1. arm carries the lion-skin, is that of the
Byblos and Conservatori statues.^
In Schick's view, negative proofs are not wanting that the source of
our Heracles type was not Hellenistic but Tyro-Phoenician. Outside of
Phoenicia, he believes that the other coins it resembles are those which
represent Melqarth, the coins, namely, of the Numidian kings Micipsa
(see Muller, A^27727 y 772<2/7y77^ & f<277r7<27777<? A/rz'yzzT?, iii, fig. 17) and Jugurtha
(Head, AAsA 7V77772., second ed., p. 88g, fig. 395). The latter, according
to Schick, go back to the same Tyrian type, though generally taken to be
a portrait of the king himself. The resemblance of forehead and hair to
those of the Colossus cannot be doubted; at the same time the individuality
of the expression and the strong slope of the forehead suggest a portrait
based, like the bronze colossal portrait of a Seleucid ruler in the Terme
(HelbigS, 1347), on a Lysippian tradition. None of the coins is earlier
than about the end of the second century B. c., to which date, on stylistic
1 Herodotus, as Schick points out, mentions only the two pillar fetishes;
previous to the original of our Heracles there was perhaps no cult-statue in the
temple of Melqarth, which may account for the fact that the new unbearded athletic
type of the god in no way agrees with the older bearded representation; it may not
have been set up in the old sanctuary, but in the newly-erected temple of the /cotyoy
which appears on the reverse of coins with head of Heracles (A.
/%Pd73z'H<z, pi. XXXII. 5, 6 ; No. 12 has the Koiyoy with bust of Caracalla on obverse ;
nos. 14 and 15, with bust of Macrinus on obverse, are erroneously cited by Schick as
similar to 5, 6 (cf. Head, y/zA. ZVM77Z., p. 100), and in Hellenistic-Roman times was
a national sanctuary for all Phoenicia.
2 The presence of the lion-skin on the Thasian coins seems to suggest that this
was part of the original composition, and was replaced in the Roman copies by the
apples. In estimating the validity of Schick's conclusions, we must not overlook the
occurrence on coins of Sardes and Blaundus (A. Afi (bzAr, p. 48, no. 48, and
p. 247, no. 81) of a closely-related, if not identical, type of Heracles, which there is
no reason to connect with Tyre.
283
about the 1. hand should a!so be compared. Recently Schick has shown
that the Bybios Heracles represented more ciosely the motive of a iost
archetype, while late, possibly Roman, versions intervened between this
archetype and the Conservatori statue. The British Museum bronze has
been brought into connexion by Graef with the art of Scopas, though it
also possesses very distinctive Lysippian traits. The same may be said of
the Conservatori Colossus, and if the two heads be carefully examined, an
intercrossing of Scopaic and Lysippian influences will be observed in both.
In both we have a wide face with rather flat forehead and short upstand-
ing hair lying round it. The line of forehead and nose and the form of
the skull are in the Scopaic manner, but the eyes and eye-sockets have
not the characteristic Scopaic formation, and the realistic conception of
the individual features recalls the master of Sicyon.
The profile of the Colossus should be compared with early coin-types
with head of Melqarth-Heracles (jR Af. CozAy, pi. XXIX.
18, 19), where we note the same combination of Scopaic with Lysippian
forms. The resemblance of the coin-type to the statues is so great that
it leads Schick to suppose that their original was identical with the proto-
type of the coins, and was presumably a cult-statue in Tyred That the
coin-types are derived from a statue is shown by the full-length figure of
a similar Heracles on coins of Thasos (J?. Af. CWm* 0/* p. 122);
the head is like that of the Melqarth, and the body, though the movement
of the legs is reversed and the 1. arm carries the lion-skin, is that of the
Byblos and Conservatori statues.^
In Schick's view, negative proofs are not wanting that the source of
our Heracles type was not Hellenistic but Tyro-Phoenician. Outside of
Phoenicia, he believes that the other coins it resembles are those which
represent Melqarth, the coins, namely, of the Numidian kings Micipsa
(see Muller, A^27727 y 772<2/7y77^ & f<277r7<27777<? A/rz'yzzT?, iii, fig. 17) and Jugurtha
(Head, AAsA 7V77772., second ed., p. 88g, fig. 395). The latter, according
to Schick, go back to the same Tyrian type, though generally taken to be
a portrait of the king himself. The resemblance of forehead and hair to
those of the Colossus cannot be doubted; at the same time the individuality
of the expression and the strong slope of the forehead suggest a portrait
based, like the bronze colossal portrait of a Seleucid ruler in the Terme
(HelbigS, 1347), on a Lysippian tradition. None of the coins is earlier
than about the end of the second century B. c., to which date, on stylistic
1 Herodotus, as Schick points out, mentions only the two pillar fetishes;
previous to the original of our Heracles there was perhaps no cult-statue in the
temple of Melqarth, which may account for the fact that the new unbearded athletic
type of the god in no way agrees with the older bearded representation; it may not
have been set up in the old sanctuary, but in the newly-erected temple of the /cotyoy
which appears on the reverse of coins with head of Heracles (A.
/%Pd73z'H<z, pi. XXXII. 5, 6 ; No. 12 has the Koiyoy with bust of Caracalla on obverse ;
nos. 14 and 15, with bust of Macrinus on obverse, are erroneously cited by Schick as
similar to 5, 6 (cf. Head, y/zA. ZVM77Z., p. 100), and in Hellenistic-Roman times was
a national sanctuary for all Phoenicia.
2 The presence of the lion-skin on the Thasian coins seems to suggest that this
was part of the original composition, and was replaced in the Roman copies by the
apples. In estimating the validity of Schick's conclusions, we must not overlook the
occurrence on coins of Sardes and Blaundus (A. Afi (bzAr, p. 48, no. 48, and
p. 247, no. 81) of a closely-related, if not identical, type of Heracles, which there is
no reason to connect with Tyre.