Hellenistic Bronze statuette of a prince

Hellenistic. c. late 2nd-early 1st Century BC
Height: 14.3 cm

Cf. 1) D. G. Mitten, S. F. Doeringer, Master Bronzes from the Classical World, (Mainz, 1967) p. 130. cat. 132. See also J. Charbonneaux, Mon. Piot. 46 (1952) 37. See also G. M. A. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks, vol. 2 (London, 1965, 2nd end. 1972, 3rd ed. 1984) figs. 1928-1933, 1942-1944.
2) V. Naville, British Museum Doubles & Bertier de Lagarde, Auction catalogue, 18 June 1823, cat. 2333.
3) R. R. R. Smith, Hellenistic Sculpture, (London, 1991) p. 24.
Provenance: private collection UK

The slender naked male stands with his weight on his left leg, his right resting on the ball of his foot. His body twists to the left with his right arm raised and the left held away from his hip, his head turned to the right with his gaze directed slightly downwards.

Originally, both hands held attributes; the left hand probably held a staff, the right hand probably a sword pointed toward the elbow, with index finger twisted against the hilt of the weapon. This detail is very clear on another statuette of a Hellenistic ruler (1). The gripping of the sword hilt is a characteristic of portraits of Alexander the Great. The statuette’s sensitively modelled face, with full lips and a long straight nose with flaring nostrils is framed by long wavy hair, spiralling from the crown in thick exuberant locks over his shoulders and back, and bound in a silver diadem. This is a portrait of a Hellenistic prince, probably Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus. Compare to a silver tetradrachm with a similar portrait of Mithridates VI (120-63 BC), dated 75/4 BC (2).

In contrast to the diadoques who followed Alexander, the period of Mithridates VI saw a more consistently idealised and dashing royal image evolve. Kings were like gods but distinct. They forged their own royal-divine ideal, constructed from the combination of Alexander, divine iconography, and reality. “It is a style which employs longer curling hair and has a wild, youthful, more overtly charismatic aspect. This was an upgraded, more intensified, or more ‘Hellenistic’ royal image. As Hellenistic monarchy lost power, royal portraits sought to emphasize more its ideal qualities. This late royal style was self-consciously the aesthetic and ideological opposite of the harsh, realistic-looking portrait style favoured by the leaders of the Roman Republic, the chief enemy of the kings”. (3).