LYSIPPUS, a Greek sculptor whose professional activity falls between the years 372 and 316 b.c. In addition to the sketch with accompanying illustrations of his style given under Archaeology (vol. ii. p. 361, figs. 9 and 11), it may here be stated that the head of Alexander the Great (fig. 11 just referred to) is now admitted tobe the best existing representation of the style of Lysippus in portrait sculpture. When we read of successful portraits by him of Socrates and Aesop, as well as of Alexander, we are driven to believe that one of the forces of which he was conscious within himself was that of seizing the spiritual expression and making it illumine faces and forms which under other conditions would be more or less repulsive. This in fact is confirmed by the head of Alexander in the British Museum (fig. 11 supra). But with the possession of this force it is difficult to reconcile the tradition of his having taken as his model the Doryphorus of Polycletus, the style of which may be seen in the bronze statuette fig. 6 in the article Archaeology, and, to a less extent, in fig. 7 of the same article. There everything turns on the refinements of physical form. It is admitted that Lysippus introduced great changes in the accepted rules for the proportions of the human figure, and from a number of sculptures traceable to his time, or shortly after his time, it is not only obvious but strikingly in contrast with earlier works that the legs are made long and massive while the body is proportionately shortened, though still retaining a very powerful rendering of the forms. Among the best examples of this are two bronze statuettes of Neptune and Jupiter in the British Museum found at Paramythia in Epirus, or, less satisfactory, the larger bronze of Hercules from Byblus, also ...in the British Museum. In these cases the limbs and various parts of the figure are studied with extreme skill worthy of the best time. Yet the combined effect is such as to do away with the impassive beauty which is ascribed to Polycletus, and to replace it with a beauty of expression so far as was consistent with powerful physical form. One of his works famed in antiquity was a bronze statuette of Hercules, called Epitrapezius, because, as the story goes, Alexander the Great carried it with him to be placed always on his table. A copy of this, in stone, enlarged somewhat from the original, was obtained by the British Museum from Babylonia in 1881. It is signed with the name of an artist, Diogenes, apparently otherwise unknown, and it bears clearly the evidence of having been copied from a work in bronze. But except in the face, which is carefully executed (“argutiae operum custoditae in minimis quoque rebus” is said of Lysippus by Pliny, Hat. Hist., xxxiv. 65), the sculpture is poor and could not be quoted as illustrating any particular style of art, though not inconsistent with the characteristics of Lysippus. With reference to the marble statue of Alexander the Great in Munich, standing with one foot raised on a helmet, it is clear that this affected attitude, which occurs in several other existing statues, such as the so-called Jason in Lansdowne House, cannot fairly be traced to the invention of Lysippus, since it is to be found twice on the frieze of the Parthenon. At the same time the merit may belong to him, as has recently been claimed, of having first applied this attitude in producing a new type of the god Neptune for his temple on the isthmus of Corinth. It was a bolder step to apply this attitude to a draped female figure as in the existing statues of the Muse Melpomene standing with one foot raised on a rock, and if this was really introduced into art by Lysippus it would confirm to some extent his reputation for novelties of representation. But at present we cannot do more than say that he is known to have made a group of the Muses for the town of Megara, and that several statues still exist representing a Muse in an attitude corresponding with that of the Alexander in Munich, which is reasonably inferred to be a copy from a work of Lysippus. If it could be proved that in these cases Lysippus had worked upon Athenian types, we should then understand how it happens that in some respects he was in ancient times classed with the Athenian Praxiteles (Quintilian, xii. 10, 9, “ad veritatem Lysippum ac Praxitelem accessisse optime affirmant ”), and is still compared with him so far as the remaining works of both, or copies therefrom, enable a comparison to be made.
[814 words — estimated reading time: 5 minutes]
