Imitatio Alexandri?

Ancient depictions of Alexander the Great constitute the ‘hot core’ of portrait research in Classical Archaeology. Yet so far there have been no systematic studies on the history of their reception. In spite of this gap, the assumption that the iconography of Alexander was intensively received and imitated in the most diverse pictorial productions of Ancient art – and in particular in depictions of gods and mythical heroes – is axiomatically repeated in scholarly literature. The present study is the first to systematically investigate the relations of similarity, i.e. the iconographic entanglements between the portraits of Alexander the Great and individual depictions of gods and heroes [such as Helios, Achilles and Heracles] and traces their possible meanings and culture-historical background. Amongst others, it is questioned whether the twin term of Imitatio Alexandri, often used in scholarly literature and implying an intentional reference to Alexander, is even suitable for characterising the relevant linkages. In this analysis, ‘imitation’ as a normative mode of referencing and its unambiguous referent ‘Alexander’ are set against various inter-iconic forms of reference which qualitatively speaking differ markedly in their clarity. This makes it possible to provide a new assessment both of the reception of Alexander iconography and of its intensity. Die antiken Bildnisse Alexanders des Großen machen einen „heißen Kern“ der klassisch-archäologischen Porträtforschung aus. Allerdings fehlen bisher systematische Studien zur ihrer Rezeptionsgeschichte. Ungeachtet dieser Voraussetzung, stellt das Postulat einer intensiven Rezeption bzw. Imitation der Alexander-Ikonographie in den unterschiedlichsten Bildwerken der antiken Kunst, insbesondere aber in Bildern von Göttern und mythischen Heroen eine axiomatisch wiederholte Annahme in der Fachliteratur dar. Die vorliegende Arbeit untersucht die Ähnlichkeitsrelationen, d. h. die ikonographischen Verflechtungen zwischen den Porträts Alexander des Großen und einzelnen Bildern von Göttern und Heroen [wie Helios, Achill und Herakles] erstmals systematisch und versucht, ihre Bedeutungen und kulturhistorischen Hintergründe zu erfassen. Dabei wird u. a. in Frage gestellt, inwiefern sich das in der Forschung gebrauchte Begriffspaar der Imitatio Alexandri, das eine intentionelle Referenz auf Alexander impliziert, überhaupt zur Bestimmung der relevanten Zusammenhänge eignet. Der „Imitation“ als normativer Art der Bezugnahme und ihrem eindeutigen Bezugspunkt „Alexander“, werden in der Analyse verschiedene interikonische Referenzierungsformen entgegengesetzt, die sich in ihrer Deutlichkeit qualitativ unterscheiden. Dadurch wird es möglich, die Rezeption der Alexander-Ikonographie bzw. ihre Intensität neu zu bestimmen.

Ancient depictions of Alexander the Great constitute the ‘hot core’ of portrait research in Classical Archaeology. Yet so far there have been no systematic studies on the history of their reception. In spite of this gap, the assumption that the iconography of Alexander was intensively received and imitated in the most diverse pictorial productions of Ancient art – and in particular in depictions of gods and mythical heroes – is axiomatically repeated in scholarly literature. The present study is the first to systematically investigate the relations of similarity, i.e. the iconographic entanglements between the portraits of Alexander the Great and individual depictions of gods and heroes [such as Helios, Achilles and Heracles] and traces their possible meanings and culture-historical background. Amongst others, it is questioned whether the twin term of Imitatio Alexandri, often used in scholarly literature and implying an intentional reference to Alexander, is even suitable for characterising the relevant linkages. In this analysis, ‘imitation’ as a normative mode of referencing and its unambiguous referent ‘Alexander’ are set against various inter-iconic forms of reference which qualitatively speaking differ markedly in their clarity. This makes it possible to provide a new assessment both of the reception of Alexander iconography and of its intensity.