Konstantin, Hadrian, Koloss, Rom, Kapitel 1

Hadrian / Konstantin in Rom

- die Kolossalstatue in Rom, die in ein Bildnis Konstantins des Großen umgearbeitet worden ist

- die Fragmente der Kolossalstatue Konstantins des Großen im Konservatorenpalast in Rom -

- umgearbeitet aus Domitians Kultbild des Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus ?

- oder umgearbeitet aus dem Kultbild des Divus Hadrianus im Hadrianeum in Rom ?

- die im Maßstab 1:1 rekonstruierte Kolossalstatue Konstantins des Großen in den Musei Capitolini, im Giardino der Villa Caffarelli

von Chrystina Häuber aus FORTVNA PAPERS vol. III-2.

Der folgende Text enthält Literaturangaben und viele Abbildungsnummern. Vergleiche FORTVNA PAPERS vol. III-1, S. 1097 ff. für die entsprechenden Bildunterschriften ("List of illustrations"), S. 1128, für die Abkürzungen ("Abbreviations") , und S. 1129 ff., für die Literatur ("Bibliography") .

Dieser Band ist open access auf unserem Webserver publiziert. Siehe: https://FORTVNA-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3.html

Addenda et Corrigenda concerning some subjects discussed in FORTVNA PAPERS vol. III-1

- to supra, vol. 3-1, at pp. 693-778: I should like to add some more information to Domitian's (fourth) cult-statue of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus (cf. here Fig. 10) and to the colossal statue of Hadrian/ now Constantine the Great in the Cortile of the Palazzo dei Conservatori (here Figs. 11; 11.1; 156)

Claudio Parisi Presicce (2022, 401) calls this portrait of Constantine "the largest surviving ancient portrait [my emphasis]". In the Garden of the Villa Caffarelli is since 6th February 2024 on display (cf. the caption of here Fig. 156) the "life-sized integral reproduction of the Colossus of Constantine"; cf. the left-hand side information panel, standing in front of it. And on the right-hand side panel we read: "Since the end of 15th century, the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori (Fig. 1) has housed nine [corr.: eight; see below] Parian marble fragments of one of ancient Rome's most impressive statues, the Colossus of Constantine (306-337 AD) [my emphasis]" (for both panels; cf. here Fig. 156).

In addition to this, I should like to alert the reader to the fact that Claudio Parisi Presicce (2006b, 147, Fig. 48 [= here Fig. 11.1]; and id., 2022; cf. here Fig. 156) could only order those two reconstructions to be made in the way that those were done for the following reasons:

a) Heinz Kähler found in 1951 immediately to the west of the western apse of the Basilica of Maxentius "A portion of the left chest [of the colossal portrait of Constantine], 126 centimeters high, with the shoulder and arm attachment ... [which] is currently housed in a storage room of the Parco archeologico del Colosseo (formerly in the first cloister of the Church of Santa Francesca Romana, site of the Antiquarium of the Roman Forum) [ILL. 18] [my emphasis]"; cf. Parisi Presicce (2022, 405, with n. 51; here Fig. 11.1, where this fragment is visible). This fragment was published by Kähler (1952) and mentioned by Helga von Heintze (1966, 252-253; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, 732) as still being in the Roman Forum. But because I had (in vain) searched for this fragment on Easter of 1975 at the site, indicated by Kähler in his lecture course of 1972/73, I believe that Heintze, when writing her account (1966), had not herself checked whether the fragment was still there. Parisi Presicce (2006b, 136 with n. 11, Figs. 33-36) reports on Kähler's find of this fragment of the statue's left chest (who states that since Kähler's publication it had not been seen by any other scholar any more);

b) Parisi Presicce has rediscovered this fragment of the left chest of Constantine's colossal portrait (cf. here Fig. 11.1, where it is visible) in the Antiquarium of the Forum Romanum; cf. Parisi Presicce (2006b, 136-138, p. 139, Figs. 33-37; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, 733); see also Claudio Parisi Presicce (2022, 405, ILL. 18);

c) Parisi Presicce ordered that the marble of all the so far known 10 fragments of this colossal portrait of Constantine were tested: with the result that they are all carved from the best quality of Parian marble, called lychnites; cf. Parisi Presicce (2006b, 152, n. 46; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, 727); see also id. 2022, 396.

But Constantine's neck, the marble of which Parisi Presicce had likewise ordered to be tested, turned out to be carved from Carrara marble, proving that the portrait's neck is a modern addition; cf. Parisi Presicce (2005, 146; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, 754, 759; id. 2022, 396, 399, 400); cf. also Adam Lowe (2022, 413).

This result means that all 10 fragments of this colossus had belonged to the same statue; cf. Parisi Presicce (2005, 146 with n. 43; id. 2006b, 130 with n. 8, p. 152 with n. 46; id. 2022, 396). Previously, several scholars had believed that this colossal statue had been created by re-using parts of different sculptures; cf. Parisi Presicce (2006b, 149-152; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, 753-754); and id.(2022, 394, with ns. 26, 29);

d) Parisi Presicce ordered `3D´-scans to be made of all the 10 fragments of Constantine's portrait for the digital reconstruction of the statue, which he has commissioned; cf. Parisi Presicce (2006b, 147, Fig. 48 [= here Fig. 11.1]). In 2022, a team of the Company Factum Foundation for Digital Technology in Preservation "used photogrammetry to record the freestanding fragments" of the portrait of Constantine in the Cortile of the Palazzo dei Conservatori; cf. Adam Lowe (2022, 411). Those data, plus a scan of the tenth fragment, became the basis for this "life-sized integral reproduction of the Colossus of Constantine [my emphasis]"; cf. the text on the left-hand side panel, on display in front of this reconstruction of the colossal portrait of Constantine in the "Giardino di Villa Caffarelli" (cf. here Fig. 156).

I have mentioned here those remarkable achievements of Heinz Kähler and Claudio Parisi Presicce for the following reason. In a different context, while writing my book on the Laocoon (FORTVNA PAPERS vol. IV, forthcoming, Chapter I.1., with n. 67), I have asked myself, who has made the most important findings in our field during the 20th century.

I have suggested some scholars, inter alia Ludwig Pollak, who recognized the right, at the time still missing arm of the Laocoon, when he saw in 1903 in a shop of a "scalpellino" what is now known as the "Braccio Pollak"; cf. Ludwig Pollak ("Der rechte Arm des Laokoon", 1905). Later Filippo Magi (Il ripristino del Laocoonte, 1960) has actually proven that this is indeed Laocoon's right arm. Another of my candidates is Walter Trillmich, who found out that marble fragments, excavated in the Marble Forum at Mérida in Spain, belonged to a copy of the sculpture group representing Aeneas, Anchises and Askanios that was created for the Forum of Augustus; cf. Walter Trillmich ("Aspekte der ``Augustus-Nachfolge´´ des Kaisers Claudius", 1994, p. 83). See for this finding also supra, in volume 3-1, 469-470.

To those `important findings of the 20th century in our field´, I should like to add now another one, which relates likewise to a sculpture created for a context in the City of Rome, but that, contrary to the other two previously mentioned ones, was later re-used for a second context there: Kähler's realization and publication in 1951/1952 that the fragment of the left chest of a colossal marble statue (which is visible on here Fig. 11.1), which he had found immediately to the west of the western apse of the Basilica of Maxentius, had belonged to the colossal statue of Constantine discussed here. But note that Kähler knew only the `second phase´ of this sculpture: its re-use as a portrait of Constantine. Note also that without Claudio Parisi Presicce's (2006b) rediscovery of it, he could not have integrated `Kähler's fragment´ into his reconstructions of the statue; and without Cécile Evers (1991) observation that this statue had originally represented Hadrian, we could not possibly try to define the statue's first context.

Of this statue of Constantine (that at the time had not been recognized as such) 8 fragments had already turned up in the late 15th century within the Basilica of Maxentius, and are since then on display in the Cortile of the Palazzo dei Conservatori; cf. Claudio Parisi Presicce (2006b, 130, with n. 9) (cf. here Figs. 11; 11.1, where all 10 fragments are marked in their precise positions); a ninth fragment, a section of the statue's right forearm, had been found in the 20th century to the west of the western apse of the Basilica of Maxentius and had been brought "negli anni del Governatorato di Roma", to a deposit in the Musei Capitolini, and later put on display, together with the other 8 fragments, in the Cortile of the Palazzo dei Conservatori; cf. Claudio Parisi Presicce (2006b, 135, with n. 10, Fig. 29 [MC, dep. 12]): who states that Kähler (1942, 14) was the only scholar who had published this fragment; Kähler wrote that this fragment `had been found by the Italians´. See Parisi Presicce (2006b, 136 with n. 11, Figs. 33-37; cf. supra, in vol. 3-1, at p. 733) for the tenth fragment, part of the left chest of Constantine's portrait, found by Heinz Kähler in 1951 and published in 1952; see in addition: Parisi Presicce (2022, 404 with n. 50).

Interestingly, Kähler had seen this `10th´ fragment of the colossus, of Constantine's left chest, in a dream, when he had fallen asleep on the Palatine (to this dream I will come back below). Woken up, he walked down to the place, seen in his dream, and found this fragment (!). In his publication of 1952, Kähler did not mention his dream, but in his lecture course of 1972/73, which I - luckily - had happened to attend. Eberhard Thomas, at the time one of Kähler's Assistant Professors, who had likewise attended this last lecture course of Heinz Kähler, has kindly confirmed this fact (cf. supra, in volume 3-1, 731).

The importance of Kähler's find and identification of this fragment of Constantine's left chest, as first observed by Eugenio La Rocca (2000, 24-25; cf. supra, in vol. 3-1, 731, 735), lies in the fact that this fragment proves that this portrait of Constantine was based on a statue-type of Jupiter (with bare chest). To this we can now add the fact, proven by Claudio Parisi Presicce (2006b), but still unknown to La Rocca (2000), that this portrait-statue of Constantine was created by re-using only one earlier portrait-statue (of the Emperor Hadrian, as I myself, following C. EVERS 1991, believe, contrary to E. LA ROCCA, op.cit.; and contrary to C. PARISI PRESICCE 2006b; 2022). Both observations have opened up completely new possibilities to interpret the statue, also concerning its original context, than could be imagined before.

Especially because we can, therefore, be sure that Constantine was not represented as wearing a cuirass, as suggested in the first reconstruction drawing of the statue by Eugen Petersen (1900); cf. Claudio Parisi Presicce (2006b, 136; id. 2022, 405), because that was typical for Christian emperors (cf. supra, in volume 3-1, 731).

In volume 3-1, I have summarized the scholarly discussion, at the time known to me, that concerns this statue of Constantine, and I maintain my judgement, following Cécile Evers (1991), that this colossal statue was recarved from a portrait of Hadrian. I also maintain my tentative suggestion that this colossal statue of Hadrian could have been the cult-statue of Divus Hadrianus in the Hadrianeum (cf. supra, in volume 3-1, 498-499, 726, 729, 737-738, 758).

Cf. supra, in volume 3-1, p. 724 ff., at A Study on the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome (cf. here Fig. 11). With The Contribution by Hans Rupprecht Goette on the reworking of the portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great).

But I had overlooked the publication by Claudio Parisi Presicce (2022), in which he suggests that this portrait of Constantine was instead created by reworking Domitian's (fourth) cult-statue of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus. Therefore, this article by Parisi Presicce will be discussed in the following. My thanks are due to Claudio Parisi Presicce, who has been so kind as to send me this article.

I.) Heinz Kählers Traum, der zu seiner Entdeckung eines Fragments der linken Brust der Kolossalstatue Konstantins des Großen führte (s.o., in Band 3-1, 731; vgl. hier Fig. 11.1, wo dieses Fragment sichtbar ist)

"Heinz Kähler hatte die charismatische Gabe, den Dingen Glanz zu verleihen. Dies kann man nicht lernen. Es ist ein Geschenk der unerforschlichen Götter".

Ernst Künzl, 2004, 917 (Hervorhebung von mir).

Weil ich wissen wollte, ob er womöglich mehr über diesen Traum Heinz Kählers wisse (s.o., in Band 3-1, 731), habe ich am 14. Januar 2024 Ernst Künzl eine Email geschrieben, von dem ich wusste, dass er Kählers Assistent in Köln gewesen war. Leider kannte Künzl diesen Traum aber noch gar nicht. Wie ich inzwischen Künzls Publikation über Kähler entnommen habe, hatte Künzl im Jahre 1966 bei Kähler in Köln promoviert und war dann von 1969-1970 sein Assistent gewesen; vergleiche Künzl (2004, S. 913 [Tabelle], S. 907, in: Ernst Künzl, "Heinz Kähler als Archäologe und akademischer Lehrer zu seinem 100. Geburtstag am 21. Januar 2005", Kölner Jahrbuch 57 (2004) 907-920 ).

Ernst Künzl hat am 19. Januar 2024 meine Email beantwortet und ist auf meine Erwähnung von Kählers Traum eingegangen. Mit seiner freundlichen Genehmigung (per Email vom 13. Juni 2024) darf ich hier die Passage aus seiner Email an mich vom 19. Januar 2024 über Kählers Traum zitieren:

"Die Geschichte von Kählers Traum auf dem Palatin und seinem traumhaften Fund von Teilen des Constantinkolosses kannte ich gar nicht. Nach dem Traumbuch Artemidors könnte man das als einen Traum erster Klasse bezeichnen, ein persönliches Traumgesicht, in dem man selbst aktiv erscheint (Artemidor I, 2). Noch mehr allerdings erinnert mich die Geschichte an den Traum des Pharaos Thutmosis IV., um 1400 v. Chr., dem der Sonnengott Harmachis erschien und ihn aufforderte, seinen Sphinxkoloss vom Sand der Wüste zu befreien. In all diesen Fällen gibt es keinen nachprüfbaren Beweis, sondern nur die Erzählung des Träumers. Thutmosis IV. hat dafür gesorgt, dass man ihn ernst nahm: Die Traumstele steht bis heute zwischen den Vordertatzen des großen Sphinx bei Gizeh [Hervorhebung von mir]".

Mit Email vom 13. Juni 2024 hat mich Ernst Künzl außerdem darauf hingewiesen, dass er den in seiner ersten Email erwähnten Traum des Pharaos Thutmosis IV. publiziert hat (vergleiche ders., Liebeszauber und Wahrsagung. Aberglaube, Magie und Prophezeiung im Altertum, 2021, 88):

"DER TRAUM DES PHARAOS

... In Ägypten ragt der Traum des Thutmosis IV. (um 1400 v. Chr., 18. Dynastie) aus der Überlieferung hervor. Ein Denkmal aus dem ersten Jahr seiner Regierungszeit steht noch heute zwischen den Tatzen der kolossalen Sphinx von Gizeh (Abb. 41-42). Es ist eine Granitstele mit dem Bericht des Pharaos über eine Traumerscheinung. Als jungem Mann sei ihm nach einer Jagd im Schlaf zur hohen Mittagszeit der Sonnengott Harmachis erschienen. Harmachis war im Neuen Reich der Name für die große Sphinx von Gizeh, die man als Bild des Sonnengottes ansah. Der Gott habe ihm die Pharaonenkrone versprochen, wenn er ihn, den Sphinxkoloss, vor dem Sande schützen würde ("[....] ich bin in einem Leiden aller meiner Glieder. Mir naht der Sand dieser Wüste, auf welcher ich mich befinde". A. Erman, Die Sphinxstele. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften X-XII, 1904, 436). Die Inschrift ist das bisher älteste Zeugnis für den Wunsch nach einer Maßnahme der Denkmalpflege (Bau einer Schutzmauer) an einem Monument der Vergangenheit".

Bildunterschrift von Künzls "Abb. 41: Die Pyramiden von Gizeh. Die Sphinx. Ausgrabung der Sphinx. Zwischen den Tatzen ragt mächtig die Traumstele des Pharao Thutmosis IV. empor. Aquarell von Ernst Karl Eugen Koerner 1887".

Bildunterschrift von Künzls "Abb. 42: Gizeh. Sphinxkoloss. Traumstele des Pharao Thutmosis IV. (um 1400 v. Chr.). Granit. H 3,61 m. Zeichnung von Carl Richard Lepsius 1949".

II.) Claudio Parisi Presicce's (2022) Interpretation und plastische Rekonstruktion der Kolossalstatue Konstantins des Großen im Hof des Konservatorenpalastes (hier Figs. 11; 11.1; 156)

Im Folgenden werden die Hypothesen Claudio Parisi Presicces diskutiert, die er in seinem letzten Aufsatz zum Thema veröffentlicht hat: "From Jupiter to Constantine: A Marble Colossus Reused, Dismembered, `Reconstructed´", in: Salvatore Settis und Anna Anguissola (Hrsg.), Ausstellungs-Katalog Recycling Beauty (Milano: Fondazione Prada 2022), 389-417 (mit den Texten "46" und "47"); vergleiche S. 548-555 ("Texts in Italian").

Ich berücksichtige in meiner folgenden Diskussion auch den Beitrag von Adam Lowe von der Firma Factum Foundation for Digital Technoloy in Preservation: "47 Reconstruction of the Colossus of Constantine 2022 ...", in: Parisi Presicce 2022, 411-413 (innerhalb seines Katalogtextes "47"), die diese plastische Rekonstruktion des Kontantinkolosses im Maßstab 1:1 ausgeführt hat (vgl. hier Fig. 156).

Dies geschieht vor dem Hintergrund meiner eigenen Erkenntnisse zu diesem Themenkomplex:

Siehe oben, in Band 3-1, 693-697, in: A Study on Domitian's cult-statue of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus (cf. here Fig. 10), Part I. The wall painting `Aldobrandini Wedding´ in the Vatican Museums and the statuette of the `Euripides´ in the Louvre (cf. here Fig. 12), which has been discussed together with it; S. 698-723: Part II. The Capitoline Triad in statuette format at Guidonia Montecelio (Roma), Museo Civico Archeologico `Rodolfo Lanciani´ (cf. here Fig. 13) and the colossal statue of Jupiter at the Hermitage (cf. here Fig. 10); sowie S. 724-778: A Study on the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome (cf. here Fig. 11). With The Contribution by Hans Rupprecht Goette on the reworking of the portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great);

vergleiche S. 1023-1024, im Kapitel: Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse dieses Buches über Domitian;

sowie S. 1266-1267: The Contribution by Hans Rupprecht Goette on the reworking of the portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great);

Cécile Evers (1991, 797 mit Anm. 72) hat vorgeschlagen, dass zu dem hier betrachteten Koloss des Hadrian (jetzt Konstantin; hier Figs. 11; 11.1; 156) fünf Ehreninschriften für den Kaiser Hadrian gehört haben könnten, die auf dem Forum Romanum gefunden worden sind.

Dazu zählt das Fragment CIL VI 974 (jetzt: 40520; hier Fig. 29.1), das 134-136 n. Chr. datiert wird. Inhalt und Fundort zeigen an, dass diese Inschrift zu einer Ehrenstatue Hadrians gehörte, die der Senat und das Römische Volk in Auftrag gegeben hatten, weil Hadrian den Bar Kochba-Aufstand (132-135 oder 136 n. Chr.) niederzuschlagen hatte, und dass diese Ehrenstatue unmittelbar vor oder im Tempel des Divus Vespasianus aufgestellt war. Ich bin zunächst Evers darin gefolgt, dass diese Inschrift zu der hier diskutierten Hadrian/Konstantin-Statue gehört habe (Figs. 11;11.1; 156). Jetzt schlage ich statt dessen vor, dass Hadrians Panzerstatue aus Hierapydna in Istanbul (hier Fig. 29; von der nahezu 30 Repliken bekannt sind, und die zwischen 132-138 n. Ch. datiert wird), wegen ihrer Datierung und Ikonographie, als eine Kopie dieser verlorenen Ehrenstatue für Hadrian zu betrachten ist; das Original dieses Hadrian-Portraits (hier Fig. 29) erscheint auf stadtrömischen Sesterzen Hadrians (hier Fig. 129), die `nicht vor 134 n. Chr.´ geprägt wurden. Wir werden unten, zu Punkt 4.), sehen, dass die Studie über dieses Portrait Hadrians aus Hierapydna von Bedeutung ist für die Beurteilung des von Titus im Jahre 80-81 n. Chr. geprägten Cistophors (hier Fig. 157e):

s.o., in Band 3-1, S. 899-959: A Study on Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (cf. here Fig. 29).

Siehe auch in diesem Band, unten, Appendix I.g.4.) Domitian's sacellum of Iuppiter Conservator, his Temple of Iuppiter Custos, and his (fourth) Temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus (cf. here Fig. 83). With The first Contribution by Peter Herz.

Vergleiche online at: