DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.37251#0322
284
GALLERIA SUPERIORE II. 5
grounds, the statue must be assigned. The gilded bronze can hardly be
the original transported to Rome, on account not only of the manner of
rendering the eyes, but also of the inequality and want of freshness in the
execution, which at once become apparent if we compare the fleshy parts
with an original like the Seleucid portrait just mentioned (HelbigS, 134*7),
which, as Schick supposes, likewise derives from Lysippian models and
may be attributed to the same Syrian school. Further, behind the colossal
bronze and the small Ludovisi marble replica, there is probably a Roman
adaptation of the original Tyrian archetype, for it is unlikely that the
statuette derives from the Colossus. There is a want of harmony in the
Colossus between the spontaneous turn of head and upper part of body
and the rigid pose of the legs which is unworthy of an adaptation at first-
hand. The straining on the muscles of the arm is quite meaningless,
seeing that the club rested on a rock, an addition necessitated by the
alteration, at the hands of the Roman bronze-worker, of the position of the
leg. The Renaissance restorer must have felt the incongruity, since he let
the club hang free Like a riding whip', as in the Byblos figure, and as
must have been the case with the Tyrian original. Thus everything
tends to show that the Byblos statuette more faithfully reproduces the
original motive/ while the Conservator! and Ludovisi works derive from
a Roman adaptation of the same cult-statue, a work presumably of
second-century date. Schick recalls another replica from Delos, where
there was a rich Tyrian colony (Reinach, ii. 213. 8; A?. (7. AA (1895),
p. 4*7*7, fig. 4), and also compares with the head the Heracles of Aequum
(GAsATT*. AAA/., Plate I and p. gg).
Found under Sixtus IV 2, when the H713 TZMjczlwa AAv^rzAA near the
Circus Maximus was discovered and destroyed, and acquired by the Con-
servatori (inscr. ap. Albertini, 6^22^2*22/72772, f. 86) and set up on a high base
in the courtyard of their Palace on the r. hand (Fulvio, H72/zy2z%rz'% (igi3),
f. t. ii., /A; A^AyaA/aAr (1327), p. 21; Fichard, p. 28); in the time of
Aldrovandi (p. 273) it stood in a room next to the Sala Grande on the
altar dedicated to Hercules Victor, now in Mus. Cap., GAzA 6 a (cf. vol.
i, p. 346). In 1378 the other bronzes were brought into the same
room, and a new base was provided for it (Forcella, i. 70); but by 1627
(Inv.) it had been transferred to the seventh room, which took its name
from it. It was transferred to Salone of the Mus. Cap. by Pius VII in
1816 (Tofanelli (1816), p. 82, no. 2g), where it remained until 1846 (To-
fanelli (1846), p. 8r, no. 24), and was later removed to the Sala dei Bronzi.
Drawn by Ueemskerck, i, f. 33^ (Arwz. AAA. vi (1891), p. 17, fig. 3). Engraved
in 1381 by Diana Ghisi in Lafrery, 67W22/22772, 182 ; Quaritch 119 ; Htilsen xv (Bartsch,
p. 449, n. 38) ; De Cavalleriis, i, ii. 73 ; Vaccaria, 23 ; Franzini, E, 1 ; Maffei-de
Rossi, 20; Montagnani-Mirabili, i. 41 ; Righetti, i. 35 : Armellini, iii. 247; Clarac,
802 E, 1969 B (p.473 R) ; Furtwanglerin Roscher, art. A/DYzrAf, p. 2172 ; W. Schick
in vol. 33 (1914), pp. 18-36, and plate 1;
HelbigS, ioog; Lippold, &*77z<$zA/zz73gv72, p. I30;A<2^7*L xl (1923), p. 187, PI. 9 (Ger-
hard-Krahmer).
Alin. 6037; And. 1672 ; B. 16639.
1 The tree, according to Schick, possibly belonged to the original composition,
and expressed in the terms of later art the ' holy tree' of Melqarth-Heracles.
2 The Boccapaduli archives contain the following entry under the date March 8,
1368 : Per auer leuato la statua del Hercole di bronzo et messo nella Camera con suo
posamento sc. 1. Under the date Jan. 2, 1370 we read: per auer tirato il posamento
di marmo done si a da mettere la statua dell' Ercole dalla stanza del boattiere in lo
salotto 6*30 (.AzvA Azw. Ann. II, Mazzo iv, no. 32).
GALLERIA SUPERIORE II. 5
grounds, the statue must be assigned. The gilded bronze can hardly be
the original transported to Rome, on account not only of the manner of
rendering the eyes, but also of the inequality and want of freshness in the
execution, which at once become apparent if we compare the fleshy parts
with an original like the Seleucid portrait just mentioned (HelbigS, 134*7),
which, as Schick supposes, likewise derives from Lysippian models and
may be attributed to the same Syrian school. Further, behind the colossal
bronze and the small Ludovisi marble replica, there is probably a Roman
adaptation of the original Tyrian archetype, for it is unlikely that the
statuette derives from the Colossus. There is a want of harmony in the
Colossus between the spontaneous turn of head and upper part of body
and the rigid pose of the legs which is unworthy of an adaptation at first-
hand. The straining on the muscles of the arm is quite meaningless,
seeing that the club rested on a rock, an addition necessitated by the
alteration, at the hands of the Roman bronze-worker, of the position of the
leg. The Renaissance restorer must have felt the incongruity, since he let
the club hang free Like a riding whip', as in the Byblos figure, and as
must have been the case with the Tyrian original. Thus everything
tends to show that the Byblos statuette more faithfully reproduces the
original motive/ while the Conservator! and Ludovisi works derive from
a Roman adaptation of the same cult-statue, a work presumably of
second-century date. Schick recalls another replica from Delos, where
there was a rich Tyrian colony (Reinach, ii. 213. 8; A?. (7. AA (1895),
p. 4*7*7, fig. 4), and also compares with the head the Heracles of Aequum
(GAsATT*. AAA/., Plate I and p. gg).
Found under Sixtus IV 2, when the H713 TZMjczlwa AAv^rzAA near the
Circus Maximus was discovered and destroyed, and acquired by the Con-
servatori (inscr. ap. Albertini, 6^22^2*22/72772, f. 86) and set up on a high base
in the courtyard of their Palace on the r. hand (Fulvio, H72/zy2z%rz'% (igi3),
f. t. ii., /A; A^AyaA/aAr (1327), p. 21; Fichard, p. 28); in the time of
Aldrovandi (p. 273) it stood in a room next to the Sala Grande on the
altar dedicated to Hercules Victor, now in Mus. Cap., GAzA 6 a (cf. vol.
i, p. 346). In 1378 the other bronzes were brought into the same
room, and a new base was provided for it (Forcella, i. 70); but by 1627
(Inv.) it had been transferred to the seventh room, which took its name
from it. It was transferred to Salone of the Mus. Cap. by Pius VII in
1816 (Tofanelli (1816), p. 82, no. 2g), where it remained until 1846 (To-
fanelli (1846), p. 8r, no. 24), and was later removed to the Sala dei Bronzi.
Drawn by Ueemskerck, i, f. 33^ (Arwz. AAA. vi (1891), p. 17, fig. 3). Engraved
in 1381 by Diana Ghisi in Lafrery, 67W22/22772, 182 ; Quaritch 119 ; Htilsen xv (Bartsch,
p. 449, n. 38) ; De Cavalleriis, i, ii. 73 ; Vaccaria, 23 ; Franzini, E, 1 ; Maffei-de
Rossi, 20; Montagnani-Mirabili, i. 41 ; Righetti, i. 35 : Armellini, iii. 247; Clarac,
802 E, 1969 B (p.473 R) ; Furtwanglerin Roscher, art. A/DYzrAf, p. 2172 ; W. Schick
in vol. 33 (1914), pp. 18-36, and plate 1;
HelbigS, ioog; Lippold, &*77z<$zA/zz73gv72, p. I30;A<2^7*L xl (1923), p. 187, PI. 9 (Ger-
hard-Krahmer).
Alin. 6037; And. 1672 ; B. 16639.
1 The tree, according to Schick, possibly belonged to the original composition,
and expressed in the terms of later art the ' holy tree' of Melqarth-Heracles.
2 The Boccapaduli archives contain the following entry under the date March 8,
1368 : Per auer leuato la statua del Hercole di bronzo et messo nella Camera con suo
posamento sc. 1. Under the date Jan. 2, 1370 we read: per auer tirato il posamento
di marmo done si a da mettere la statua dell' Ercole dalla stanza del boattiere in lo
salotto 6*30 (.AzvA Azw. Ann. II, Mazzo iv, no. 32).