315Arheološki vestnik 74, 2023, 315–329; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AV.74.10; CC BY-SA Lysippean models on two roman reliefs from Poetovio Lizipovski zgledi pri dveh rimskih petovionskih reliefih Katarina ŠMID Izvleček Prispevek obravnava reliefni upodobitvi, ki sledita deloma grškega mojstra Lizipa. Delno ohranjeni relief z upodo- bitvijo mladeniča v gibanju, ki ga zaznamuje koder las nad čelom, je bil v literaturi različno interpretiran, Josip Korošec je denimo predlagal razlago s Kairosom. Upodobitve tega božanstva si delijo izstopajoči koder las nad čelom, goloto, držo in tehtnico na vrveh, ki bi jo zlahka držal tudi petovionski lik. Glede na preostale kamnite reliefe neobičajna smer gibanja sledi upodobitvam na nekaterih gemah, ki bi – tudi zaradi odstopanj v drži rok in nižje kakovosti – lahko pred- stavljale neposreden zgled. Na stranici delno ohranjenega oltarja, votivnega oziroma nagrobnega, je upodobljen Herkules, ki posnema Lizipu pripisan tip utrujenega Herkula. Ta je v nasprotju z redkeje posnemanim Kairosom eden izmed najbolj razširjenih v cesarski dobi. Upodobitev opera nobilia na petovionski reliefni plastiki nedvomno priča o tem, da so kultivirani prebivalci poznali in naročali posnetke dobro znanih del grškega kiparstva. Ključne besede: Poetovio; Panonija; rimska doba; Lizip; Kairos; utrujeni Herkul; ikonografski tip; ara Abstract This contribution discusses two relief depictions, which follow the works of the Greek master Lysippus. One of the partially preserved reliefs, depicting a youth in motion, characterised by the lock of hair on the front has been in the hitherto literature differently interpreted; Josip Korošec explained it as Kairos. The depictions of that deity share the lock of hair above the front, nakedness, posture, and scales, attached to the cords of the scales, which could also be held by the Poetovian youth. Regarding the other stone relief, the direction of the movement is quite unusual and can be taken after gem depictions, which could (also due to some alterations in arm posture and lower quality) serve as the direct source. In the lateral side of the ara (either votive or funerary) Hercules, who follows the type of Weary Hercules, ascribed to Lysippus is depicted. The latter is (in contrast to the rarely imitated Kairos) one of the most widespread types in the Imperial era. The depictions of opera nobilia in Poetovian relief sculpture doubtless attest to the fact that the cultivated inhabitants were aware of and commissioned representations of the well-known works of Greek statuary. Key words: Poetovio; Pannonia; Roman era; Lysippus; Kairos; Weary Hercules; iconographic type; ara 316 Katarina ŠMID KAIROS By the stairway railing of the city tower (so-cal- led Povodnov muzej/Povoden Museum)1 in Ptuj, Slovenia (Roman Poetovio in Pannonia Superior, German Pettau), a relief bearing the image of the youth, rapidly moving to the right, is positioned (Fig. 1). It was translocated to its current place between 1962–1964 when some Roman spolia by the Northern and Eastern towers, where the relief had been previously allocated2 were reinstalled by the Maribor Monument Protection Institute (now Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Regional Office Maribor).3 The marble relief panel (0.84 × 0.47 m)4 is divided into two tiers. Within the moulded wi- der right portion, a figure of the young nude is positioned (Fig. 2). He moves to the right with the right leg ahead. In his outstretched arms, he holds an object that is tied to the strings. A clearly visible distinctive detail is a lock of hair above his forehead. Even though the upper part of his back is damaged, some vestiges in the upper cornice could indicate the possibility of the voluminous wings that would reach above his head.5 In the moulded left field, a female servant stan- ds (Fig. 1).6 She is dressed in the local so-called 1 Povoden Museum is named after Simon Povoden (1753–1841), the local historian and vicar, who around 1830 collected and immured several Roman stones from Ptuj in the town tower and has therefore established one of the oldest lapidaries sub divo in the territory of the nowa- days Slovenia (about Simon Povoden see Skrabar 1933). 2 Cf. Abramić 1925, 139, Fig. 99. 3 Korošec 1997–1998, 38; Curk 1962–1964, 237. 4 Lupa 4844. 5 Cf. Korošec 1997–1998, 46. 6 Although Josip Korošec suggested a rather Roman outfit, stolla and pallium, instead of the local garment Fig. 1: Relief plate with Kairos and Norican girl (Povodnov Muzej, Ptuj). Sl. 1: Relief s Kairosom in noriško deklico (Povodnov muzej, Ptuj). Fig. 2: Kairos, relief, detail (Povodnov Muzej, Ptuj). Sl. 2: Kairos, relief, detajl (Povodnov muzej, Ptuj). Fig. 3: Kairos, relief (St Nicolaus Benedictine monastery, Trogir). Sl. 3: Kairos, relief (benediktinski samostan sv. Nikolaja, Trogir). 317Lysippean models on two roman reliefs from Poetovio Norico-Pannonian wear: a long tunic, overtunic and underskirt.7 In her lifted right arm, she holds an unidentified object, a mirror (?). Or flabellum? In the lowered right hand perhaps a jewellery box (?). Her attributes, outfit and posture match the depictions of the so-called Norican girls, who appear to be a popular decoration of the lateral relief fields of the funerary monuments. They were widely spread mainly in the province of Noricum but are to a lesser extent also present in the neighbouring Pannonia.8 In the unpreserved right field perhaps a male servant stands, as he is often a counterpart of the female servant in the sepulchral monuments. In all probability, the relief panel was a part of the funerary monument, whe- reas according to Josip Korošec it could form the upper side of the stele, just below the “architrave”,9 while the other scholars had it for the part of the funerary tomb10 or of the ossuary.11 Especially captivating is the youthful figure within the main relief field, whose interpretation is made difficult due to the preservation state and the scarceness of the comparable depictions. (Korošec 1997–1998, 43), she wears the traditional costume of the Norican girl. 7 On the female Norico-Pannonian wear, see Rothe (2012, 179–183) with the cited literature. 8 Cf. Diez 1954, 107–110; Rothe 2012, 141–142. 9 Korošec 1997–1998, 38. 10 Lupa 4844. 11 Djurić, 2001, 119; Pochmarski 2015, 217. Fig. 4: Kairos, reconstruction of Lysippus’s statue (after Moreno 1990). Sl. 4: Kairos, rekonstrukcija Lizipovega kipa (po Moreno 1990). Fig. 5: Kairos, relief (Museo di Antichità, Turin). Sl. 5: Kairos, relief (Museo di Antichità, Torino). At first, in 1925 Mihovil Abramić described it as the dancing or striding man, who is stretching his arms towards the unpreserved figure on the right. He interpreted the scene as possibly being of grape pressing.12 Some years later, the same author dedicated his attention to the high-quality relief fragment of the unknown provenance in Trogir (It. Traù; St. Nico- laus Benedictine monastery; Fig. 3), depicting the naked winged youth, grabbing the pair of scales.13 Due to the attributes, iconographic characteristics and especially the hair lock above his forehead,14 he interpreted it as Kairos, the deity or daimon of the opportune moment, whose prototype would be the bronze statue, made by the famous Lysi- ppus of Sicyon (cf. Fig. 4).15 Without any further explanation, he dated it into the 1st century BC,16 whereas Nenad Cambi later suggested the earlier dating to the end of the 4th or beginning of the 3rd century BC; if the latter dating is correct, the 12 Abramić 1925, 143, No. 159. 13 Abramić 1929; Abramić 1932; Cambi 1980–1981, 8. 14 According to Plinius the Elder (Nat. Hist. 34.65) Lysippus dedicated great effort to the detailed hair-dress. 15 Abramić 1932, 3–12. On the relief: Schwarz 1975, 256; Cambi 1980–81; Cambi 1988; Moreno 1990, 922, No. 2; Cambi 1994–1995, 2–4; Moreno 1995, 192, No. 4.28.1; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 95–96, 141, No. 1. 16 1st century BC (Abramić 1932, 2; Schwarz 1975, 257; Moreno 1990, 922, No. 2; Moreno 1995, 192, No. 4.28.1; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 95). Marcel Gorenc dated it between the 3rd and 1st century BC (Gorenc 1967, 24). 318 Katarina ŠMID Kairos in Trogir would be the oldest replica in the stone relief of that free-standing masterpiece.17 Due to the visual characteristics of the stone, Cambi indicated the possibility that it could be made of Pentelic marble, like the reliefs of Kairos in Turin (Museo di Antichità, Inv. No. 610; Fig. 5)18 and Athens (Acropolis Museum, Inv. No. 2799);19 to my knowledge, the characterisation of the material has not been conducted yet.20 Per analogiam to the Turin relief, it could form the lateral side of the Attic sarcophagus,21 although it is (after Cambi) unclear whether the Turin relief is de facto the part of the sarcophagus.22 Although Abramić was more than aware of both reliefs, Poetovian and Tragurian, he inter- preted them differently and did not consider the Poetovian youth to be Kairos; nor did most of the other authors. Later, Bojan Djurić noted the youth from Po- etovio as “probably Actaeon”,23 whereas Erwin Pochmarski interpreted it as the satyr, whose counterpart would be the maenad, whereby the whole scene would represent the so-called type B24 of a satyr-maenad group, in which the satyr is (in opposition to type A) represented on the left (cf. Fig. 6).25 17 Cambi has, regarding its stylistic characteristics and sculptural treatment, ascribed it to the School of Lysippus, to one of the master’s epigones (Cambi 1980–1981, 10–15; id. 1988, 39–40; id. 1994–1995 2–5). 18 On the relief: Schwarz 1975, 257; Barra Bagnasco 1976–1977; Moreno 1990, 922, No. 4; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 96–97, 142–143, No. 4; Oakley 2011, 26–27. 19 On the relief: Cambi 1980–1981, 12; Schwarz 1975, 256; Moreno 1990, 922, No. 3; Moreno 1995, 193, No. 4.28.2; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 96, 141–142, No. 2. 20 Cf. Cambi 1980–1981, 40. 21 Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 96. 22 Cf. Cambi 1994–1995, 5. As most probably the right lateral side of the Attic sarcophagus, it is included in corpus Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs (Oakley 2011, 26–27). 23 Djurić 2001, 119. 24 On the so-called type B group cf. Matz 1956, 21–24; Pochmarski-Nagele 1992, 177–179; Kranz 1997, 146. 25 Pochmarski 2015, 217. In type B the pair is applied to the oil lamps (Matz 1956, 23), to one bronze cantharos (St. Petersburg, Hermitage, Inv. No. 36; Matz 1956, 21), to the tomb of Spectatius (Klemenc, Kolšek, Petru 1972, 28, No. 56; Pochmarski-Nagele 1992, 90–91, No. 79; Lupa 13259), on the lateral side of one Attic sarcophagi (Ioannina, Ar- chaeological Museum in Ioannina, Inv. No. 412; Matz 1968, 104–106, No. 8; Pochmarski-Nagele 1992, 179–180) and of one metropolitan sarcophagus, which was carved after Attic pattern (Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano – Museo delle Terme; Matz 1956, 21, No. 2) and to the mosaic in Nevertheless, both types of satyr-maenad groups, are always represented with a uniform attitude, without exception. On all the so-called type B of the satyr-maenad group, the satyr is depicted in three-quarter view turned to the maenad with left and not right leg ahead,26 whereas his left arm rises in the air. The maenad in type B invariably pushes him away with her right arm,27 aimed at the thorax or grabbing him by his curly beard, as is represented on the oil lamps and on cantharos from the Hermitage. However, there are no vestiges of her right arm on the Poetovian relief nor of the tail on the satyr’s tailbone, which is present in all the type B representations. Also, the hair-dress of the youth with the distinctive lock of hair above the front and beardlessness on no occasion matches the iconography of a satyr in that scene; furthermore, the object held in his arms cannot be recognised as the maenad’s drapery as it always covers her only below the waist and falls smoothly down her legs. More than seven decades after Abramić, Josip Korošec interpreted the figure as Kairos due to his dynamic movement, the distinctive hair lock above the front of his head and especially due to some iconographic resemblances to the relief in Trogir.28 He even pointed out that it could be made after the abozzo of the relief in Trogir, which could also be confirmed by the gem in the Archaeolo- gical Museum in Split.29 His interpretation was, according to my knowledge, mentioned only in the guidebook of Ptuj (as “maybe Kairos”)30 and in one footnote, in which the Poetovian relief was addressed as a comparison to the high-quality Tragurian example.31 The prototype of the relief depictions of Kairos is purportedly a bronze statue, which was mo- ulded by the famous Lysippus of Sicyon during 336–334 BC for Alexander the Great in Pella.32 cubiculum in Édifice du satyre et de la nymphe in Pupput, Tunisia (in situ; Muth 1998, 383–384, No. A 26). 26 With the right leg ahead, he is represented only in the sarcophagus from Ioannina. 27 Only in the sarcophagus in Ioannina does she hold her garment by both hands in the waist-line and with the right elbow fends off his assault. 28 Korošec 1997–1998, 45, 47. 29 Korošec 1997–1998, 47–48. On the gem: Cambi 1994–1995, 6. 30 Lamut 1996, 42. 31 Di Folco 2017, 165, No. 30. 32 Moreno 1990, 922, No. 1, 925; Moreno 1995, 190. The master made some bronze replicas, of which one was located in Sicyon (Ensoli 2017a, 42). 319Lysippean models on two roman reliefs from Poetovio Although the original has long since been lost, and no free-standing copy has been found,33 its appearance is well-known from literary sources, which have, regarding the preserved depictions in several media, pointed out the possible existence of more variants of Kairos.34 Some of them would more or less faithfully follow Lisyppus’ statue, as reconstructed by Paolo Moreno (Fig. 4),35 whereas others digress from the purported archetype and add some further attributes or show the deity accompanied by other figures.36 Especially thorough is the appearance of Lysippus’s Kairos described in the epigram, ascribed to the Greek epigrammatic poet Posidippus of Pella, written within a generation after the sculptor’s death:37 Who, whence is thy maker? Sicyon. His name is what? Lysippus. What art thou? Kairos, the all-sub- duer. Why doest thou stand on the tips of thy toes? I turn forever. Why hast thou double wings on either foot? I fly carried by the wind. In thy right hand why carriest thou a razor? To men a sign that quicker than any edge I am. But thy hair, why is it over the eye? In order to be grasped, forsooth, by him that meets me. The back of thy head, why is it bald? Because he, whom I have once rushed by with winged feet, will never grasp me afterwards, though he desire it. Why did the artist fashion thee? For thy sake, o stranger, he placed this warning lesson into the doorway.38 The famous statue has purportedly been por- trayed only in one painting in the amphitheatre in Ptolemais,39 in a small number of reliefs and a sufficiently larger group of gems.40 Apart from the 33 According to tradition, Lysippus embodied in the statue of Kairos his canon and his idea of the ideal proportions, regarding the συμμετρία, ρύϑμος, αχρίβια. Therefore, it was almost impossible to replicate it a tutto tondo, as the great master was unachievable (Stewart 1978, 163, 165–169). 34 Cf. Moreno 1990, 922–923, Nos. 1–8; Adornato 2015, 168. 35 Cf. Moreno 1990, 922, No. 1. On the reconstruction of the original see lately: Adornato 2015, 169–171 with the cited literature. 36 Cf. Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 136–139. On attributes: Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 97–114. 37 On the literary sources see esp. Schwarz 1975, 243–255; Barra Bagnasco 1976–1977, 14–15; Moreno 1981, 173–174; Bäbler, Nesselrath 2006, 71–72; Mattiacci 2011, 127–133; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2012, 132–134; Boschung 2013, 15, No. 24; Adornato 2015, 161–165. 38 Translated by John E. Matzke (Matzke 1893, 315). 39 Bacchielli 1993, 77; Ensoli 1995a, 395. 40 Stewart 1978, 164, No. 3; Ensoli 1995a, 395; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 76; Oakley 2011, 26; Ensoli 2017a, 42; Di Folco 2017, 163. already mentioned Tragurian relief (Fig. 3), Kairos is represented only in the reliefs of the unknown provenance in Turin (Museo di Antichità, Inv. No. 610; Fig. 5)41 and the partially preserved relief in Athens (Acropolis Museum, Inv. No. 2799) of which only the winged left leg (lacking the foot) and the lower part of the thorax have been preserved.42 The dating of the Turin relief ranges from the Trajanic to the Antonine period,43 while the Athenian was supposedly carved in the 1st century BC.44 Mutual visual characteristics to all two-dimensi- onal depictions of Kairos are the hair-do with the distinctive hair-lock, which indicates that one can 41 Cf. footnote 18. It supposedly originates from Rome, whereas its provenance is not firmly proven (cf. Adornato 2015, 166, No. 22). It was also considered as the Renaissance replica of the Roman original (Barra Bagnasco 1976–1977, 18), which was later generally rejected (cf. Cambi 1994–1995, 4–5 with the literature; Oakley 2011, 26, No. 100). 42 Cf. footnote 19. Although the fragment was in the hitherto literature considered as Kairos, Dietrich Boschung stated a possibility that it could represent Tempus instead (Boschung 2013, 16, No. 32). 43 Adornato 2015, 166–167. 44 Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 96. Fig. 6: Satyr and Maenad, Tomb of Spectatius (Šempeter, Roman Necropolis Šempeter in the Valley of Savinja). Sl. 6: Satir in Menada, grobnica Spektacijev (Šempeter, rimska nekropola Šempeter v Savinjski dolini). 320 Katarina ŠMID only seize the Opportunity when it approaches,45 the pair of scales held in the out-stretched hands,46 the wings on his ankles and the dynamic movement with one leading leg, whilst the other one touches the ground on the tiptoes.47 As the bowls of the scales are attached by strings, it can be held also by the Poetovian youth, whereas only the strings and perhaps one bowl, as there are some vestiges below his arm, would have been preserved. All stone relief depictions share the posture (while the figure from Poetovio differs in the position of the left arm, which is hidden behind the right one) and the wings on the ankles (on the Poetovian depiction, that part of the relief has unfortunately deteriorated), as well as on the shoulders, although the latter can be omitted in the gems.48 Nevertheless, the wings on the back have been overlooked in the literary sources, which, in contrast, emphasise the winged feet and the running pose.49 In the Poetovian relief behind the occiput of the youth, a curve bends. It reaches the upper cornice of the relief and could hypothetically form the fringe of the wings, as was hinted at by Josip Korošec,50 although it could merely arise as the result of the deteriorated surface. Summa summarum, nudity, the lock of hair above the front, running pose, posture, both hands grabbing the object on the strings (per analogiam with other depictions of the pair of scales) and hypothetically maybe the voluminous wings al- lude to the interpretation of the Poetovian youth as Kairos, as has already proposed Josip Korošec. All of the stone reliefs are oriented to the left, while Poetovian figure moves to the right. The opposite direction is not unprecedented. It is well-attested on the gems bearing the image of Tempus, whose attributes were merged with tho- 45 Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 78; Di Folco 2017, 162. 46 Due to the presence of the pair of scales in the relief depictions, Paolo Moreno counted it among the original Lysippean attribute, whereas Annapaola Zaccaria Ruggiu (2006, 102–118; ead. 2012, 132, 134) had it for an attri- bute, designed especially for the funerary monuments, as it is explicitly mentioned only by Himerius. In contrast, Silvia Mattiacci drew attention to some deficiencies in the conclusions of Zaccaria Ruggiu, like the word pendens mentioned by Phaedrus (V, 8: cursu volucri, pendens in novacula) that could in all likelihood indicate to the scales (Mattiacci 2011, 134–136). 47 Cf. Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 78–79. 48 Cf. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Inv. No. FG 7358 (Moreno 1990, 923, No. 13; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 147, No. 12; Fig. 6). 49 Adornato 2015, 169, 175. 50 Korošec 1997–1998, 46. se of Kairos in Antiquity. Even more, due to the parallel analysis of the deities, the literary sources (especially Posidippus as the oldest and the most detailed) and some attributes (voluminous wings on the shoulders, the balance on the razor’s edge), which are overlooked in most of the literary sour- ces, Gianfranco Adornato has recently questioned the identification of the youth in the marble reliefs as the two-dimensional depiction of Lysippus’s Kairos and as an alternative solution suggested Tempus, whose sculptural type was developed from Lysippus’s free-standing Kairos.51 In contrast to the youthful male in stone reliefs, Tempus in gems is depicted as a bearded mature man, who possesses several key attributes of Ka- iros (lock of hair on the front, pair of scales on the razor, winged ankles and shoulders, running pose).52 Nevertheless, not only aged Tempus but, as attested by the cornelian gems in Berlin 51 Adornato 2015, 161–174. 52 Moreno 1981, 178; Moreno 1990, 926; Paolozzi Strozzi, Schwarzenberg 1991, 313; Ensoli 2017a, 42; Di Folco 2017, 164. Cf. charneol in London (Collection C. Newton Robins), dating between the 1st and 2nd century AD (Furtwängler 1900, 207, No. 49, Pl. XLIII, No. 49; Moreno 1990, 922–923, No. 7; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 146–147, No. 11; Adornato 2015, Fig. 7: Kairos, cornelian gem (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin). Sl. 7: Kairos, gema iz karneola (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin). 321Lysippean models on two roman reliefs from Poetovio (Staatliche Museen, Inv. No. FG 7358; Fig. 7)53 or in Split (Arheološki muzej Split),54 also young beardless Kairos can be carved as moving to the right. Nevertheless, also the distinctive hair-lock of Poetovian youth better resembles the depictions in gems as the stone reliefs in Trogir and Turin. In latter cases, the lock extends horizontally abo- ve Kairos’ front, while in Poetovian relief it rises vertically above the front, just as it is attested in some gems.55 The interconnectedness of the gems and the Classic or Hellenistic statues a tutto tondo is well-attested, as there are numerous statues or even groups that have been preserved in both a great scale and in much smaller gems, whereby they had to a certain extent adapt to two-dimensional limited space,56 bearing in mind that the image- -makers did not have the objective of creating an exact copy of the statue but rather the recognisable, although simplified and reduced, image.57 Due to the direction of the movement that differs from the stone reliefs but matches with some gems, the position of the hair lock and dissimilar arm positions, the Poetovian Kairos could be taken after the depictions in the easily portable gems. Its quality is a prima vista of far lower rank than the other preserved stone reliefs, which could also be explained (apart from the poorer skilled carver) by imitating the gem depiction that is much less detailed, concentrating on the essential attributes, than the large-scale reliefs. The right portion of the relief is unfortunately deteriorated. As the type of Kairos, who derives from the Lysippean prototype, is always represented alone, he is in all likelihood the only figure in the Poetovian main relief field. In the outstretched arms, he holds the scales, perhaps placed on the razor. Unfortunately, nothing firm can be said on behalf of its dating. It was found in a secondary location and is without any distinctive features that would limit its time span as the dating of the other comparable stone reliefs spreads from the 3rd century BC to the Antonine era. 167) or the gem of the unknown ownership (Furtwängler 1900, 207–208, No. 50, Pl. XLIII, No. 50). 53 Moreno 1990, 923, No. 13; Ensoli 1995a, 397, No. 6.16.2; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 147, No. 12; Adornato 2015, 168. 54 Cambi 1980–1981, 13, Pl. II; id. 1994–1995, 6. 55 Cf. Stewart 1978, 165, ill. 1. 56 Cf. Horster 1970, 2–6; Toso 2007, 243–244. 57 Sena Chiesa 1966, 41–42; Horster 1970, 110; Mo- ormann 1986, 69; Moormann 2015, 650. WEARY HERCULES In 1961, in the ramparts of the so-called Large Barracks (“Velika kasarna”)58 in Ptuj (Ulica he- roja Lacka), which was demolished during bomb raids in 1945, a marble block (1.52 × 0.70 × 0.27 m; Ptuj-Ormož Regional Museum, Inv. No. RL 820) was found (Figs. 8–9).59 Its right portion is lacking, but the preserved half bears the relief of the bearded male figure, while the counterpart has in its upper right cornice the vestiges of the Norico-Pannonian volute.60 The man stands on the pedestal61 in a contrapposto attitude with the left leg in motion. His right arm is hidden behind his back and the head is slightly leaned to the right. The musculature is highly stressed and underlines the relatively good quality of the depiction. Despite the partial preservation, it can easily be interpreted as one of the numerous depictions of the Weary Hercules, whose arche- type is attributed to Lysippus (cf. Fig. 10).62 Per analogiam with other depictions, he leans on the club, covered with the skin of Nemean lion.63 However, despite its clearly visible resemblances to the Weary Hercules and relatively good quality, he has been largely overlooked, and an in-depth study has not been conducted yet. The iconographic type of the Weary Hercules was highly popular in Hellenism and even more in the Roman period, down to the Byzantine era. It was transferred to coins or medallions,64 small- 58 The barracks were built in the place of the large city palace, which burnt down in 1744, and in 1754 the ruins, as well as the site were sold by the owners, Counts Sauer von und zu Ankenstein to k.k. Militär-Invalidenhaus which built later so-called Large Barracks (Raisp 1860, 5–6; Janisch 1885, 460; Šamperl-Purg 1985, 176). 59 Jevremov 1988, 112, No. 125; Lupa 4217. 60 Jevremov 1988, 112, No. 125. Unfortunately, the block is currently inaccessible (cf. footnote 82) and to my notion, the photo of that side has not been taken. 61 The pedestal could allude to the free-standing stat- ues, which embellished the villas or gardens of the well-off citizens (Boschung 1989, 14). 62 Cf. Krull 1985, 4–7; Palagia 1988, 762–763; Moreno, Smith 1995a, 51–56; Moreno, Shepered 1995, 103–110, Moreno, Smith 1995b, 242–250; Ensoli 1995b, 352; Ensoli 2017b, 99; Kansteiner 2020, 123–124. On the question of the attribution to Lysippus, cf. Kansteiner 2020 126–128. 63 Unfortunately, his left leg has not preserved; therefore, it is impossible to claim which exact type is represented (cf. Vermeule 1975, 324–331; Moreno 1982, 397–524; Kansteiner 2020, 121–124). 64 Cf. Moreno 1991, 504–568. 322 Katarina ŠMID and large-scale sculptures65 and wall paintings,66 whereas the immense widespread speaks of its importance as well as the accessibility of a mo- del.67 All of the mass-produced images in various media reveal the bearded hero, who reclines on his club. As is attested in the free-standing replicas, he conceals behind his back the stolen apples of the Hesperides. In all probability, the rectangular solid was originally an altar, either funerary or votive, set in honour of Hercules. The relief of Hercules would 65 Cf. Ensoli 1995b, 352–355. 66 Cf. Moormann 1986, 75. 67 On the appropriation of the schemes of Greek opera nobilia in Roman provincial sculpture, see Dorka Moreno et al. 2021, 4–9. most likely be its left lateral side,68 the unworked side its backside, whereas the unpreserved front would be fulfilled by the inscription, which corre- sponds to the vast majority of the (either funerary or votive) altars.69 Above the figural relief, a curve of the Norico-Pannonian volute is located, which marks the upper cornice of the relief field. The figure stands on the pedestal and was therefore for certain the only figure represented within the moulded frame. In funerary art, the images of Hercules have been numerous ever since the 2nd century AD, although 68 Although Jevremov (1988, 112, No. 125) had it for the right side, it is far more likely that it was the left side of the ara, as the unworked side could only be its back. 69 Cf. Dexheimer 1998, 16. Fig. 8: Hercules, ara (Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj Ormož, Ptuj). Sl. 8: Herkul, ara (Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj Ormož, Ptuj). Fig. 9: Hercules, ara, detail (Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj Ormož, Ptuj). Sl. 9: Herkul, ara, detajl (Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj Ormož, Ptuj). 323Lysippean models on two roman reliefs from Poetovio the hero has been generally more in favour in non-sepulchral contexts. He was eligible mainly due to his virtues and was therefore understood as exemplum virtutis, alluding to the deceased’s own qualities.70 As such, he was mostly chosen by liberti.71 Ever since the Claudian era, funerary altars in Rome have been embellished with figural motifs, which were frequently modelled after the famous works of the Greek statuary, whereby the sculptors had to adapt the motif to a certain extent to two-dimensional space.72 If opus nobile was on the front, it could be either flanked by some 70 Grassinger 2007, 111, 116. 71 Wrede 1981, 114. 72 Boschung 1989, 13, No. 40. assistant figures that share no interconnectedness in terms of the content or, more commonly, it could be dominated by the inscription and some decorative elements (like garlands or pillars).73 The replication in relief of the single mythological figure on the funerary ara, in contrast, in all pro- bability, alludes to the personal characteristics of the deceased.74 Therefore, these monuments had to be commissioned directly and were not mass- -produced, as was common for funerary aras.75 In Danubian provinces, the funerary altar is quite a common funerary monument, which was often chosen by the local authorities and military commanders,76 whereas Hercules was certainly one of the most popular mythological figures in the provinces.77 Dedications to Hercules on votive altars, reliefs, or inscriptions were widely present from the Late Republic to the 3rd century AD in Rome, Italy and the provinces, whereas the founders were mostly liberti or slaves, who easily identified themselves with the hero, who achieved deification due to his valiant life.78 However, among the several dedicands, attested in the votive inscriptions to Hercules are (apart of the well-off liberti) also the members of the middle class, soldiers, and officers, and even the members of familia Caesaris, whereas the preserved inscriptions often hint at the ascension of the social ladder by the founder.79 Due to the only partially preserved marble block lacking the inscription, the commissioner of the Poetovian ara remains unknown, but for certain the hero had to be of special meaning to him. Perhaps as the deity, to whom he expressed his vows or as the hero, with whom he shared some personal characteristics. The depiction is of good quality for the provincial production, which speaks in favour of the well-off and educated commissioner, who could afford to hire skilled stonemasons. To my knowledge, there is no other ara in Poetovio bearing the image of Greek opus nobile and the taking over the well-known motive is a display of his connoisseurship for sure. Unfortunately, the ara was found in a secondary place and the- refore nothing firm can be said about its dating, 73 Boschung 1989, 13–14. 74 Wrede 1981, 105–106; Boschung 1987, 18, 49; id. 1989, 14; Dexheimer 1998, 18. 75 Cf. Boschung 1987, 42; id. 1989, 14. 76 Scholz 2012, 246–247. 77 Cf. Toynbee 1977, 406–407. 78 Maderna 2019, 274–275. 79 Wojciechowski 2011, 449–450. Fig. 10: Weary Heracles, reconstruction of Lysippus’ statue (after Ensoli 2017b). Sl. 10: Utrujeni Herakles, rekonstrukcija Lizipovega kipa (po Ensoli 2017b). 324 Katarina ŠMID as the motif was well-known and widely imitated throughout the empire from the 1st century AD to the Severan era.80 Beside the altar of Hercules, four other Roman stones have also been found among the rubble of the barracks. Of special interest is the marble nude torso of the good quality of the hero or deity in contrapposto attitude (Ptuj, Ptuj-Ormož Regional Museum, Inv. No. RL 434).81 Due to the muscularity, youthful look and contrapposto, it in all likelihood followed one of the Greek masterpieces or their derivations; regrettably, because of the current inaccessibility of the lapidarium and therefore also the torso,82 further discussion can only be pure 80 Ensoli 2017a, 37; Ensoli 2017b, 109. 81 Jalen 1950, 190–191; Bratanič 1952, 304; Lupa 9380. 82 The lapidarium has been located in the Dominican Monastery in Ptuj since 1928. In 2012, it was moved out as the monastery has been renovated into a congress and conference centre. The stones were deposited in the crates and transferred in a neighbouring building with the prom- ise of the new exhibition building (cf. Ciglenečki 2012, 187–188). However, the Roman stones have remained in the boxes and therefore hidden to the scholars, as well as to the public, which is deprived of the abundant material remnants of the Roman past. speculation. As the city palace of the noble family Sauer von und zu Ankenstein stood in that place, it is possible that the stones were immured into the palace and later also in the barracks. Roman Poetovio was a thriving provincial mer- chant and economic centre, which was doubtless well-connected with other centres through river transport;83 therefore, it is unsurprising that the cultivated inhabitants commissioned monuments bearing the depictions that follow the well-known and to educated Romans doubtless familiar Greek masterpieces, as Lysippus was a deeply regarded and highly copied Greek sculptor in the Roman imperial era. Lysippean patterns were widespread throughout the Roman empire ever since the Pto- lemaic age,84 whereas the type of Weary Hercules was favoured since the 1st century AD85 In contrast to it, Kairos was mostly copied in the Late Republic and Augustan era, although the gems testify its presence also in later times.86 83 Horvat et al. 2003, 180–181; Djurić 2005, 75; Šašel Kos 2020, 225–226. 84 Cf. Ensoli 2017a, 17–18. 85 Ensoli 2017a, 33–34; Ensoli 2017b, 99–110. 86 Ensoli 2017a, 42. ABRAMIĆ, M. 1925, Poetovio. Führer durch die Denkmäler der römischen Stadt. – Wien. ABRAMIĆ, M. 1929, Ein neues Kairos-Relief. – Jahreshefte des österreichischen archäologischen Institutes Wien 25, 1–8. ABRAMIĆ, M. 1932, Novi relijef božanstva Kairos. – Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 50, 1–12. ADORNATO, G. 2015, Lysippus without the Kairos. – Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 130, 159–182. BÄBLER, B., H.-G. NESSELRATH (eds.) 2006, Ars et Verba. Die Kunstbeschreibungen des Kallistratos. – München, Leipzig. BACCHIELLI, L. 1993, Pittura Funeraria Antica in Cire- naica. – Libyan Studies 24, 77–116. BARRA BAGNASCO, M. 1976–1977, Il rilievo torinese del Kairos. – Bollettino della Società piemontese di archeologia e belle arti 30–31 (1979), 12–18. BOSCHUNG, D. 1987, Antike Grabaltäre aus den Nekro- polen Roms. – Bern. BOSCHUNG, D. 1989, Nobilia opera. Zur Wirkungsge- schichte griechischer Meisterwerke im kaiserzeitlichen Rom. – Antike Kunst 32, 8–16. BOSCHUNG, D. 2013, Kairos as a Figuration of Time. A Case Study. – Morphomata Lectures Cologne 6. BRATANIČ, R. 1952, Rimske najdbe iz Petovione. – Ar- heološki vestnik 3, 300–307. CAMBI, N. 1980–1981, Kairos. – Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 20. Razdio društvenih znanosti 9, 7–14. CAMBI, N. 1988, The Relief of Kairos from Trogir (Dal- matia). – In: Πρακτικά του XIIe Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Κλασικής Αρχαιολογίας (Athena, 4-10 Septemvriou 1983), 37–41. – Athens. CAMBI, N. 1994–1995, Još jedanput o Lizipovim djelima u Dalmaciji. U povodu izložbe u Rimu. – Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 34, Razdio povijesnih znanosti 21, 1–10. CIGLENEČKI, M. 2012, Dominikanski samostan na Ptuju in njegova usoda po razpustu. – Acta historiae artis Slovenica 17/2, 169–190. CURK, J. 1962–1964, Umetnostni in urbanistični spomeniki. Ptuj. – Varstvo spomenikov IX, 237. DEXHEIMER, D. 1998, Oberitalische Grabaltäre. Ein Bei- trag zur Sepulkralkunst der römischen Kaiserzeit. – BAR. International series 741. DI FOLCO, A. 2017, Kairòs e la sua fortuna letteraria. La concettualità nelle opere di Lisippo. – In: S. Ensoli (ed.), La fortuna di Lisippo nel Mediterraneo. Tra “imprendi- torialità”, “politicizzazione” e “strategie di reimpiego”, Ptolemaica 1, 161–170. DIEZ, E. 1954, Norisches Mädchen in besonderer Tracht. – Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Ins- titutes Wien. Beiblatt 41, 107–128. DJURIĆ, B. 2001, Ossuaria Poetovionensia. Iconography and structure. – In: T.A.S.M. Panhuysen (ed.), Die Maastrichter Akten des 5. Internationalen Kolloquiums über das provinzialrömische Kunstschaffen im Rahmen 325Lysippean models on two roman reliefs from Poetovio des CSIR. Typologie, Ikonographie und soziale Hinter- gründe der provinzialen Grabdenkmäler und Wege der ikonographischen Einwirkung, Internationales Kolloquium über Probleme des Provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens 5, 117–129. – Maastricht. DJURIĆ, B. 2005, Poetovio and the Danube Marble Trade. – In: M. Mirković (ed.), Römische Städte und Festungen an der Donau. Akten der regionalen Konferenz, 75–82. – Beograd. DORKA MORENO et al. 2011 = M. Dorka Moreno, J. Griesbach, J. Lipps 2021, ‘You are all Individuals!’ Towards a Phenomenology of Sculpture Production in the Roman Provinces. – In: J. Lipps, M. Dorka Moreno, J. Griesbach (eds.), Appropriation Processes of Statue Schemata in the Roman Provinces / Aneignungsprozesse antiker Statuenschemata in den römischen Provinzen, Material Appropriation Processes in Antiquity 1, 1–19. – Wiesbaden. ENSOLI, S. 1995a, Kairós. – In: P. Moreno (ed.), Lisippo. L’arte e la fortuna, 395–397. – Monza. ENSOLI, S. 1995b, Eracle in riposo. – In: P. Moreno (ed.), Lisippo. L’arte e la fortuna, 352–355. – Monza. ENSOLI, S. 2017a, L’eredità delle iconografie Lisippee a partire dall’età tolemaica. – In: S. Ensoli (ed.), La fortu- na di Lisippo nel Mediterraneo. Tra “imprenditorialità”, “politicizzazione” e “strategie di reimpiego”, Ptolemaica 1, 17–50. – Padova. ENSOLI, S. 2017b, Eracle: dall’Epitrapezio al Meditante, dalle sue Imprese al suo Riposo. – In: S. Ensoli (ed.), La fortuna di Lisippo nel Mediterraneo. Tra “imprendi- torialità”, “politicizzazione” e “strategie di reimpiego”, Ptolemaica 1, 75–116. – Padova. FURTWÄNGLER, A. 1900, Die antiken Gemmen. Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im Klassischen Altertum 1–2. – Leipzig, Berlin. GORENC, M. 1967, Antika. Mala istorija umetnosti. – Beograd. GRASSINGER, D. 2007, Durch virtus und labor zu gloria. Herakles in der römischen Sepulkralkunst. – In: G. Koch (ed.), Akten des Symposiums des Sarkophag-Corpus, Sarkophag-Studien 3, 111–116. HORSTER, G. 1970, Statuen auf Gemmen. – Habelts Dissertationsdrucke. Reihe Klassische Archäologie 3. HORVAT, J. et al. 2003 = J. Horvat, M. Lovenjak, A. Dolenc Vičič, M. Lubšina-Tušek, M. Tomanič-Jevremov, Z. Šubic 2003, Poetovio. Development and Geography. – In: M. Šašel Kos, P. Scherrer (eds.), The Autonomous Towns of Noricum and Pannonia / Die autonomen Städte in Noricum und Pannonien. Pannonia I, Situla 41, 153–189. JALEN, A. 1950, Poročilo o novih antičnih najdbah v Ptuju. – Arheološki vestnik 1, 177–194. JANISCH, J.A. 1885, Topographisch-statistisches Lexikon von Steiermark mit historischen Notizen und Anmer- kungen II. – Graz. JEVREMOV, B. 1988, Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj. – Ptuj. KANSTEINER, S. 2020, Lysipps Statuen des Herakles. – Archäologischer Anzeiger 2020/1, 120–137. KLEMENC, J., V. KOLŠEK, P. PETRU 1972, Antične grobnice v Šempetru. – Katalogi in monografije 9. KOROŠEC, J. 1997–1998, Il Kairos dei lapidari di Ptuj. – Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 37, 37–55. KRANZ, P. 1997, Überlegungen zur Herkunft südnorischer Bildhauerwerkstätten. – In: B. Djurić, I. Lazar (eds.), Akten des IV Internationalen Kolloquiums über Prob- leme des provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens / Akti IV. Mednarodnega kolokvija o problemih rimske provincialne umetnosti, Situla 36, 141–149. KRULL, D. 1985, Der Herakles vom Typ Farnese. Kopi- enkritische Untersuchung einer Schöpfung des Lysipp. – Europäische Hochschulschriften. Archäologie 5. LAMUT, B. 1996, Povodnov muzej. – In: Ptuj. Vodnik po mestu, 37–45, Maribor. LUPA = UBI ERAT LUPA – F. und O. Harl, lupa.at (Bild- datenbank zu antiken Steindenkmälern) [01.08.2022]. MADERNA, C. 2019, Heracles als Zeitgenosse. – In: J. Fouquet, S. Herzog, K. Meese, T. Wittenberg (eds.), Argonautica. Festschrift für Reinhard Stupperich, Boreas Beiheft 12, 266–284. MATTIACCI, S. 2011, Da Kairos a Occasio: Un percorso tra letteratura e iconografia. – In: L. Cristante, S. Ravalico (eds.), Il calamo della memoria. Riuso di testi e mestiere letterario nella tarda antichità IV, Polymnia. Studi di filologia classica 13, 127–154. MATZ, F. 1956, Ein neuattisches Motiv und seine helleni- stischen Voraussetzungen. – Marburger Winckelmann- Programm 1956, 21–30. MATZ, F. 1968, Die dionysischen Sarkophage. Die Typen der Figuren die Denkmäler. – Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs IV/1. MATZKE, J.E. 1893, On the Source of the Italian and English Idioms Meaning ‘to Take Time by the Forelock,’ with Special Reference to Bojardo’s Orlando Innamorato, Book II, Cantos VII-IX. – PMLA 8/3, 303–334. MOORMANN, E. 1986, La pittura parietale Romana come fonte di conoscenza per la scultura antica. – Nijmegen. MOORMANN, E. 2015, Images of Statues in other Me- dia. – In: The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture XIV, 638–652. MORENO, P. 1981, Modelli lisippei nell’arte decorativa di età repubblicana ed augustea. – In: L’art decoratif à Rome: à la fin de la République et au début du Principat. Table ronde, Collection de l’École française de Rome 55, 173–206. MORENO, P. 1982, Il Farnese ritrovato ed altri tipi di Eracle in riposo. – Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome. Antiquité 94, 379–526. MORENO, P. 1990, Kairos. – In: Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae V/1, 920–926; Lexicon Icono- graphicum Mythologiae Classicae V/2, 597–598. MORENO, P. 1991, Statue e monete dall’Eracle in riposo all’Ercole invitto. – In: R. Martini, N. Vismara (eds.), Ermanno A. Arslan studia dicata 2, Glaux. Collana di studi e ricerche di numismatica 7, 503–580. MORENO, P. 1995, Kairós. – In: P. Moreno (ed.), Lisippo. L’arte e la fortuna, 190–195, Monza. MORENO, P., E. J. SHEPERED 1995, Eracle in riposo tipo Anticitera-Sulmona. – In: P. Moreno (ed.), Lisippo. L’arte e la fortuna, 103–110, Monza. MORENO, P., F. SMITH 1995a, Eracle in riposo ad Ar- go. – In: P. Moreno (ed.), Lisippo. L’arte e la fortuna, 51–56, Monza. MORENO, P., F. SMITH 1995b, Eracle in riposo tipo Farnese-Pitti. – In: P. Moreno (ed.), Lisippo. L’arte e la fortuna, 242–250, Monza. 326 Katarina ŠMID MUTH, S. 1998, Erleben von Raum – Leben im Raum. Zur Funktion Mythologischer Mosaikbilder in der römisch- kaiserzeitlichen Wohnarchitektur. – Archäologie und Geschichte 10. OAKLEY, J. H. 2011, Die attischen Sarkophage. Andere Mythen. – Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs IX/1.3. PALAGIA, O. 1988, Herakles. – In: Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae IV/1, 738–790; Lexicon Iconogra- phicum Mythologiae Classicae IV/2, 451–530. PAOLOZZI STROZZI B., E. SCHWARZENBERG 1991, Un Kairos mediceo. – Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 35 (2/3), 307–316. POCHMARSKI, E. 2015, Aschenkisten und Sarkophage aus Poetovio. – In: B. Porod, G. Koiner (eds.), Römische Sarkophage, Akten des internationalen Werkstattgesprächs, Schild von Steier, Bh. 5, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Klassische Archäologie der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz 12, 212–225. POCHMARSKI-NAGELE, M. 1992, Die dionysischen Re- liefs in Noricum und ihre Vorbilder, Dissertationen der Universität Wien 228. – Wien. RAISP, F. 1860, Das k. k. Militär-Invalidenhaus zu Pettau von der Errichtung bis zur Auflösung. – Graz. ROTHE, U. 2012, Clothing in the Middle Danube Provinces. The Garments, their Origins and their Distribution. – Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 81, 137–231. SCHOLZ, M. 2012, Grabbauten in den nördlichen Grenzpro- vinzen des Römischen Reiches zwischen Britannien und dem Schwarzen Meer, 1.-3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. – Monogra- phien des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseums 103. SCHWARZ, G. 1975, Der lysippische Kairos. – Grazer Beiträge. Zeitschrift für die klassische Altertumswissen- schaft 4, 243–266. SENA CHIESA, G. 1966, Gemme del Museo Nazionale di Aquileia. – Padova. SKRABAR, V. 1933, Simon Povoden. 1753–1841. – Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 28/2–4, 213–229. STEWART, A. 1978, Lysippan Studies 1. The Only Creator of Beauty. – American Journal of Archaeology 82, 163–171. ŠAMPERL-PURG, K. 1985, Invalidski dom in Invalidska uprava Ptuj v letih 1750 do 1860. – Kronika. Časopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino 33/3, 175–177. ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2020, V srcu rimskega imperija. Zgodo- vina slovenskega prostora v antiki do vlade Maksimina Tračana. – Zbirka zgodovinskega časopisa 51. TOSO, S. 2007, Fabulae graecae. Miti greci nelle gemme romane del I secolo a.C. – Roma. TOYNBEE, J.M.C. 1977, Greek Myth in Roman Stone. – Latomus 36, 343–412. VERMEULE, C. 1975, The Weary Herakles of Lysippos. – American Journal of Archaeology 79, 323–332. WOJCIECHOWSKI, P. 2011, Dedikanten von stadtrömischen Weihinschriften. Untersuchungen zur Anhängerschaft des Hercules-,Silvanus- und Mithraskultes. – In: S. Ruciński, C. Balbuza, K. Królczyk (eds.), Studia Lesco Mrozewicz. Ab amicis et discipulis dedicate, Publikacje Instytutu Historii UAM 103, 449–457. WREDE, H. 1981, Consecratio in formam deorum. Vergöt- tlichte Privatpersonen in der römischen Kaiserzeit. – Mainz am Rhein. ZACCARIA RUGGIU, A. 2006, Le forme del tempo. Aion, Chronos, Kairos. – Ricerche. Collana della Facoltà di lettere dell’Università di Venezia 41. ZACCARIA RUGGIU, A. 2012, Dal “Kairos” greco all “Occasio” latina. – In: S. Lusuardi Siena, M. P. Rossignani, M. Sannazaro (eds.), Michelangelo Cagiano de Azevedo. Inventario di un’eredità, 129–150, Milano. RELIEF Z UPODOBITVIJO KAIROSA Pri stopniščni ograji mestnega stolpa na Ptuju (t. i. Povodnov muzej) najdemo slabše ohranjen relief (0,84 × 0,47 m)1 z upodobitvijo noriške deklice (sl. 1)2 na levem stranskem polju, desno stransko polje ni ohranjeno, osrednjega pa zapolnjuje težko razlo- žljiva podoba golega mladeniča v profilu (sl. 2). Lik 1 Lupa 4844. 2 Čeprav je Josip Korošec menil, da nosi rimski oblačili, stolla in pallium (Korošec 1997–1998, 43), ima očitno na sebi lokalno nošo t. i. noriških deklic (cf. Diez 1954, 107–110; Rothe 2012, 141–142). je obrnjen proti desni z desno nogo naprej, v predse iztegnjenih rokah drži predmet, pritrjen na vrvi. Kljub nezavidljivi ohranjenosti je dobro razviden koder las, ki se mu viha nad čelom, nekaj sledi v zgornjem kotu reliefa nakazuje možnost, da bi lahko lik na hrbtu imel velika krila,3 po drugi strani pa lahko gre le za poškodbo površine. Mladenič je bil različno interpretiran. Mihovil Abramić je menil, da morda pleše ali hodi ter pri tem izteza roke proti neohranjeni (eni ali več) figuri na desni, prizor pa bi morebiti lahko predstavljal stiskanje grozdja.4 3 Cf. Korošec 1997–1998, 46. 4 Abramić 1925, 143, št. 159. Lizipovski zgledi pri dveh rimskih petovionskih reliefih Povzetek 327Lizipovski zgledi pri dveh rimskih petovionskih reliefih Isti avtor je nekaj let pozneje pozornost namenil delno ohranjenemu reliefu iz Trogirja (benediktin- ski samostan sv. Nikolaja; sl. 3),5 na katerem je v profilu upodobljen goli mladenič, ki z iztegnjenimi rokami grabi tehtnico na vrveh. Zaradi atributa, ikonografskih značilnosti in zlasti poudarjenega kodra las nad čelom6 ga je interpretiral kot Kairosa, božanstvo pravega trenutka, katerega prototip naj bi predstavljal slavni Lizipov prostostoječi bronast kip (prim. sl. 4).7 Čeprav je Abramić očitno dobro poznal oba reliefa, ju je kljub nekaterim skupnim značilnostim različno interpretiral, podobno tudi nekateri drugi avtorji. Bojan Djurić je petovionski lik označil verjetno za Aktajona,8 Erwin Pochmarski pa je menil, da predstavlja satira – temu bi nasproti stala me- nada, par bi tako predstavljal tip B9 velikokrat upodobljene skupine satira in menade (prim. sl. 6).10 Skupina satira in menade tega tipa je vselej prikazana enako: satir se v tričetrtinskem zasuku obrača proti menadi z levo nogo naprej11 in v zrak dviguje levico, menada ga odriva z desnico,12 ki jo usmerja v toraks ali pa ga z njo, kakor je videti na oljenkah in kantaru v Ermitažu (inv. št. 36), vleče za skodrano brado. Na petovionskem reliefu ni nobene sledi morebitnega repa, ki bi bil približno v višini trtice, kakor je na vseh primerkih tega tipa, prav tako ne ustreza zasuk ohranjene figure. Tudi pričeska z izstopajočim kodrom las in golobradost se nikakor ne ujemata z ikonografijo satira v tem prizoru, pa tudi predmet, ki ga petovionski lik drži v rokah, ne more predstavljati menadine draperije, saj jo ta v vseh primerih zakriva le pod pasom in gladko polzi z njenih nog. Več kot sedem desetletij po Abramićevi objavi je Josip Korošec zaradi dinamičnega gibanja, kodra las in ikonografskih sorodnosti z reliefom iz Trogirja lik opredelil za Kairosa.13 Lizipov original, ki naj 5 Abramić 1929; Abramić 1932. O reliefu: Schwarz 1975, 256; Cambi 1980–81; Cambi 1988; Moreno 1990, 922, št. 2; Cambi 1994–1995, 2–4; Moreno 1995, 192, št. 4.28.1; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 95–96, 141, št. 1. 6 Po Pliniju Starejšem (Nat. Hist. 34.65) je Lizip prav v detajlno pričesko vložil veliko truda. 7 Cf. Moreno 1990, 922, št. 1, 925; Moreno 1995, 190. 8 Djurić 2001, 119. 9 O t. i. skupini B cf. Matz 1956, 21–24; Pochmarski-Nagele 1992, 177–179; Kranz 1997, 146. 10 Pochmarski 2015, 217. 11 Z desno nogo naprej je upodobljena le na sarkofagu iz Joanine (Joanina, Arheološki muzej Joanine, inv. št. 412). 12 Samo na sarkofagu iz Joanine se za oblačilo drži z obema rokama, z desnim komolcem pa odbija satira. 13 Korošec 1997–1998, 45, 47. bi mu bolj ali manj zvesto sledile upodobitve tega božanstva, je znan iz številnih primarnih literarnih virov (najpodrobneje je opisan pri Pozejdipu iz Pele)14 ter iz redkih likovnih upodobitev, in sicer božanstvo najdemo na le treh kamnitih reliefih v Trogirju, Torinu (Museo di Antichità, inv. št. 610; sl. 5)15 in odlomku iz Aten (Muzej Akropo- le, inv. št. 2799),16 na stenski sliki iz amfiteatra v Ptolemaidi17 ter na več gemah.18 Predlogi datacije kamnitih reliefov segajo pri trogirskem od konca 4. oziroma začetka 3. st. pr. Kr.19 do 1. st. pr. Kr.,20 pri torinskem od Trajanove do antoninske dobe,21 atenski relief pa naj bi domnevno nastal v 1. st. pr. Kr.22 Skupne značilnosti vseh reliefnih upodobitev so zlasti koder las nad čelom, golota, razgibana drža in tehtnica, pritrjena na vrvi. Večina si jih deli še krila na gležnjih in ramenih, četudi so slednja na gemah nemalokrat izpuščena,23 prav tako jih 14 O literarnih virih gl. predvsem: Schwarz 1975, 243–255; Barra Bagnasco 1976–1977, 14–15; Moreno 1981, 173–174; Bäbler, Nesselrath 2006, 71–72; Mattiacci 2011, 127–133; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2012, 132–134; Boschung 2013, 15, št. 24; Adornato 2015, 161–165. 15 O reliefu: Schwarz 1975, 257; Barra Bagnasco 1976– 1977; Moreno 1990, 922, št. 4; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 96–97, 142–143, št. 4; Oakley 2011, 26–27. Domnevno prihaja iz Rima, četudi njegova provenienca ni trdno dokazana (cf. Adornato 2015, 166, št. 22). Imeli so ga tudi za renesančno repliko rimskega originala (Barra Bagnasco 1976–1977, 18), a je bilo to pozneje ovrženo (cf. Cambi 1994–1995, 4–5 z literaturo; Oakley 2011, 26, št. 100). 16 O reliefu: Cambi 1980–1981, 12; Schwarz 1975, 256; Moreno 1990, 922, št. 3; Moreno 1995, 193, št. 4.28.2; Zac- caria Ruggiu 2006, 96, 141–142, št. 2. Dietrich Boschung je izpostavil tudi možnost, da ohranjeni fragment lahko pripada Tempusu in ne Kairosu (Boschung 2013, 16, št. 32). Upodobitveni tip Tempusa se je nedvomno razvil iz Lizipovega Kairosa, oba pa sta bila asimilirana že v antiki, tako da je Gianfranco Adornato celo menil, da bi na vseh kamnitih reliefih Kairosa lahko bil dejansko upodobljen Tempus (Adornato 2015, 161–174). 17 Bacchielli 1993, 77; Ensoli 1995a, 395. 18 Stewart 1978, 164, št. 3; Ensoli 1995a, 395; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 76; Oakley 2011, 26; Ensoli 2017a, 42; Di Folco 2017, 163. 19 Nenad Cambi ga je sodeč po slogovnih značilnostih in izdelavi pripisal Lizipovi šoli, enemu od mojstrovih epigonov (Cambi 1980–1981, 10–15; id. 1988, 39–40; id. 1994–1995 2–5). 20 1. st. pr. Kr. (Abramić 1932, 2; Schwarz 1975, 257; Moreno 1990, 922, št. 2; Moreno 1995, 192, št. 4.28.1; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 95). Marcel Gorenc ga je postavil v čas med 3. in 1. st. pr. Kr. (Gorenc 1967, 24). 21 Adornato 2015, 166–167. 22 Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 96. 23 Cf. Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. št. FG 7358 (Moreno 1990, 923, št. 13; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 147, št. 12; sl. 7). 328 Katarina ŠMID ne omenjajo literarni viri, ki poudarjajo krila na stopalih in pozo v teku.24 Tako koder las nad čelom, golota, drža in ro- ke, s katerimi drži vrvi, na katere je pritrjen neki predmet (per analogiam z drugimi upodobitvami gre za tehtnico, od te bi se ohranile le vrvi in ena od skled, katere sledi je razbrati pod roko), kažejo na interpretacijo petovionskega lika kot Kairosa. Gibanja proti desni ni zaznati na preostalih kamni- tih reliefih, temveč to smer najdemo na nekaterih gemah (prim. gema iz Berlina, Staatliche Museen, inv. št. FG 7358; sl. 7).25 To bi poleg nižje kakovosti in delnega odstopanja v upodobitvi rok, leva roka je skrita za desno, kazalo na to, da bi bil petovionski Kairos lahko posnet po kateri izmed gem. Nemalo monumentalnih kipov tako klasične kot helenistične dobe je bilo namreč v močno pomanjšanem merilu upodobljenih tudi na gemah. 26 Kamnorezci so se pri tem seveda morali prilagoditi dvodimenzio- nalnemu in skopo odmerjenemu prostoru, zato so se praviloma osredotočili le na ključne atribute, saj njihov namen še zdaleč ni bil ustvariti repliko, temveč podati poenostavljeno, a še vedno prepo- znavno podobo.27 H gemam kot mediju, po katerem bi se zgledoval petovionski kamnosek, napelje tudi kakovost. Ta je že na prvi pogled veliko nižja kakor pri preostalih treh ohranjenih kamnitih reliefih, kar bi se dalo pojasniti s posnemanjem bistveno manj detajlnih gem s še vedno dobro razvidnimi ključnimi atributi. Žal o natančnejši časovni opredelitvi reliefa ni mogoče reči nič določnejšega, saj je bil najden na sekundarni lokaciji, predlogi datacij drugih primerljivih reliefov pa segajo od 3. st. pr. Kr. do antoninske dobe. OLTAR Z UPODOBITVIJO UTRUJENEGA HERKULA Na levi stranici28 delno ohranjenega oltarja z dimenzijami 1,52 × 0,70 × 0,27 m (Pokrajinski 24 Adornato 2015, 169, 175. 25 Moreno 1990, 923, št. 13; Ensoli 1995a, 397, št. 6.16.2; Zaccaria Ruggiu 2006, 147, št. 12; Adornato 2015, 168. 26 Cf. Horster 1970, 2–6; Toso 2007, 243–244. 27 Sena Chiesa 1966, 41–42; Horster 1970, 110; Mo- ormann 1986, 69; Moormann 2015, 650. 28 Čeprav je Blagoje Jevremov (1988, 112, št. 125) menil, da gre za desno stranico oltarja, je veliko verjetneje, da gre za levo, saj neobdelana stran skoraj zagotovo predstavlja zadnjo stran, na neohranjeni čelni pa bi bil napis, kakor je na veliki večini – nagrobnih in votivnih – oltarjev (cf. Dexheimer 1998, 16). muzej Ptuj - Ormož, inv. št. RL 820; sl. 8–9),29 najdenega med ruševinami nekdanje kasarne, je deloma ohranjena upodobitev Herkula, ki že na prvi pogled spominja na tip Utrujenega Herkula, pripisanega Lizipu (prim. sl. 10).30 Ikonografski tip je bil nadvse priljubljen vse od ptolemajske dobe – s klimaksom v rimski dobi – pa do bizan- tinskega obdobja, kar govori o pomembnosti ter tudi dostopnosti replik osnovnega modela,31 saj ga najdemo tako na novcih oziroma medaljonih,32 kipih in reliefih različnih dimenzij33 ter tudi v stenskem slikarstvu.34 Prav vse upodobitve si delijo podobo utrujenega bradatega junaka, ki se naslanja na kij ter za hrbtom skriva ukradena jabolka Hesperid. Čelna stran z napisom na petovionskem spo- meniku ni ohranjena, zato ni mogoče opredeliti, ali gre za votivni ali nagrobni oltar ter kdo ga je postavil in zakaj. Na ohranjeni stranici se nad ju- nakom boči vijuga noriško-panonske volute, junak pa stoji na podstavku; to kaže, da je zagotovo bil edini upodobljenec na reliefnem polju. V nagrobni umetnosti so upodobitve Herkula pogosteje nastopale od 2. stoletja naprej. Junak je s svojim krepostnim življenjem in junaštvi utelešal exemplum virtutis, naročnik pa se je zanj lahko odločil, da bi skozenj aludiral na lastne osebnostne kvalitete.35 V Rimu so bili nagrobni oltarji vse od Klavdijeve vladavine okrašeni s figuralnimi mo- tivi. Ti so pogosto sledili slavnim delom grškega kiparstva (opera nobilia),36 pri tem so se seveda kamnoseki morali prilagoditi dvodimenzionalni površini, izbira lika pa je bila velikokrat odvisna od osebnih želja, zato ti niso mogli biti serijsko izdelani, kakor je značilno za nagrobne are, temveč je šlo za neposredno naročilo.37 Pogosti so bili tudi votivni oltarji v Herkulovo čast, ohranjeni napisi pa često pričajo o vzponu 29 Jevremov 1988, 112, št. 125; Lupa 4217. 30 Cf. Krull 1985, 4–7; Palagia 1988, 762–763; Moreno, Smith 1995a, 51–56; Moreno, Shepered 1995, 103–110; Moreno, Smith 1995b, 242–250; Ensoli 1995b, 352; Ensoli 2017b, 99; Kansteiner 2020, 123–124. O vprašanju atribucije Lizipu cf. Kansteiner 2020 126–128. 31 O shemah, ki izvirajo iz grških opera nobilia in se prenesejo v rimsko provincialno kiparstvo, gl. med zadnjimi Dorka Moreno et al. 2021, 4–9. 32 Cf. Moreno 1991, 504–568. 33 Cf. Ensoli 1995b, 352–355. 34 Cf. Moormann 1986, 75. 35 Grassinger 2007, 111, 116. 36 Boschung 1989, 13, št. 40. 37 Cf. Boschung 1987, 42; id. 1989, 14. 329Lizipovski zgledi pri dveh rimskih petovionskih reliefih posvetiteljev po družbeni lestvici, pri čemer se ti bržkone primerjajo s herojem, ki je zaradi svoje- ga junaškega življenja bil sprejet med bogove.38 Med dedikanti najdemo premožne osvobojence, pripadnike srednjega sloja, vojake in poveljnike ter celo člane familia Caesaris.39 Zaradi odsotnosti napisa naročnik petovionskega oltarja ostaja neznan, a za provincialne razmere vsekakor dobra kakovost priča o premožnem pre- bivalcu, ki si je lahko privoščil veščega kamnoseka in je bil obenem gotovo dobro seznanjen z moj- strovinami grškega kiparstva. Kakor mi je znano, na nobeni drugi petovionski ari ni upodobljeno grško opus nobile, odločitev zanj pa nedvomno priča o naročnikovem poznavalstvu in izobrazbi, ki ju je želel pokazati navzven. Enako kot o reliefu s Kairosom tudi pri tem oltarju žal ne moremo reči nič določnejšega o njegovi dataciji, saj je 38 Maderna 2019, 274–275. 39 Wojciechowski 2011, 449–450. bil motiv dobro znan in močno razširjen vse do severske dobe.40 Rimska Petoviona je bila provincialno trgovsko in gospodarsko središče,41 zato ni prav nič nena- vadno, da se v njej najdejo liki, ki so sledili dobro znanim mojstrovinam grškega kiparstva. Lizip je bil v cesarski dobi med najpogosteje posnemani- mi, upodobitve, ki odsevajo njegove stvaritve, so bile dobro razširjene po celotnem imperiju vse od ptolemajske dobe,42 Utrujeni Herkul pa je bil priljubljen od 1. st. po Kr.43 V nasprotju z njim je bil Kairos večinoma posneman v poznorepublikan- skem in avgustejskem obdobju, a geme dokazujejo njegovo prisotnost tudi v poznejšem času.44 40 Ensoli 2017a, 37; Ensoli 2017b, 109. 41 Horvat et al. 2003, 180–181; Djurić 2005, 75; Šašel Kos 2020, 225–226. 42 Cf. Ensoli 2017a, 17–18. 43 Ensoli 2017a, 33–34; Ensoli 2017b, 99–110. 44 Ensoli 2017a, 42. Katarina Šmid Univerza na Primorskem Fakulteta za humanistične študije Titov trg 5 SI-6000 Koper katarina.smid@fhs.upr.si ID orcid: 0000-0003-3736-7175 Illustrations: – Figs. 1, 2 (photo: Ortolf Harl). – Fig. 3 (©Benedictine monastery Trogir). – Fig. 5 (©MiC – Musei Reali, Museo di Antichità). – Fig. 6 (© ZRC SAZU UIFS, photo: Andrej Furlan). – Fig. 7 (©Antikensammlung, Staatliche Mu- seen zu Berlin – preussischer Kulturbesitz, photo: Johannes Laurentius). – Figs. 8, 9 (©Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj – Ormož, photo Boris Farič). Slikovno gradivo: – Sl. 1, 2 (foto: Ortolf Harl). – Sl. 3 (©Benedictine monastery Trogir). – Sl. 5 (©MiC – Musei Reali, Museo di Antichità). – Sl. 6 (© ZRC SAZU UIFS, foto: Andrej Furlan). – Sl. 7 (©Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – preussischer Kulturbesitz, foto: Johannes Laurentius). – Sl. 8, 9 (© Pokrajinski muzej Ptuj – Ormož, foto Boris Farič).