Fragmente einer Kolossalstatue des Kaisers Hadrian - der Kopf wurde umgearbeitet in ein Portrait des Kaisers Konstantin des Großen

Chrystina Häuber behandelt die Feststellung, dass der Kopf einer kolossalen Statue des Hadrian in einen Konstantin (der Große) umgearbeitet worden ist in ihrem Buch über Domitian insbesonders in folgendem Kapitel:

This colossal portrait of Constantine the Great turned out to have originally been a portrait of Hadrian. This hypothesis has (in my opinion convincingly) been suggested by Cécile Evers (1991). It was first followed by Amanda Claridge (1998, 382; ead. 2010, 465, who does not provide a reference though - but who had discussed this fact with me in Rome, as soon as C. EVERS's article had appeared in 1991), and rejected by other scholars. I myself hope to add some new observations, which further support Evers's hypothesis. The same is definitely true in the case of Hans Rupprecht Goette's findings. For his new observations concerning the `metamorphosis´ from Hadrian's to Constantine's portrait here Fig. 11; cf. below, at The Contribution by Hans Rupprecht Goette on the reworking of the portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great).

Evers (1991) had further suggested that five inscriptions, found in the Forum Romanum, could (in theory) have belonged to this colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine; cf. here Fig. 11), among them the fragmentary inscription CIL VI 974 = 40524 (cf. here Fig. 29.1). This inscription belonged to an honorary portrait-statue of Hadrian, dedicated by the Senate and the Roman People to commemorate Hadrian's victorious suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, as has (in my opinion convincingly) been suggested by Michaela Fuchs (2014, 130 with ns. 45-47, Abb. 8 [= here Fig. 29.1]).

According to Geza Alföldy (at CIL VI 40524; cf. here Fig. 29.1) and Michaela Fuchs (op.cit.), this inscription was not found in the Roman Forum, as assumed by Evers (1991), but instead close to, or within, the Temple of Divus Vespasianus; the authors therefore assume that this statue of Hadrian was on display within the Temple of Divus Vespasianus.

At first, I had followed Evers's (1991) hypothesis, according to which the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great; here Fig. 11) could have belonged to the inscription CIL VI 974 = 40524 (here Fig. 29.1), and had, at the same time, considered Geza Alföldy's (at CIL VI 40524) and Michaela Fuchs's (2014, 130) conclusions that the statue, to which this inscription (here Fig. 29.1) belonged, was on display within the Temple of Divus Vespasianus. - But note that neither Geza Alföldy or Michaela Fuchs suggest, which one of Hadrian's statue-types could have belonged to this honorary inscription (Fig. 29.1)

Contrary to my first, above-mentioned hypothesis concerning the inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524; here Fig. 29.1), I now suggest that it belonged to the original portrait-statue of Hadrian, of which almost 30 copies are known, among them the cuirassed statue of Hadrian from Hierypydna in Crete at Istanbul (cf. here Fig. 29).

Cf. below, at A Study on Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (cf. here Fig. 29); and infra, in volume 3-2, at Appendix IV.c.2.).

Consequently, I am unfortunatly unable to make a suggestion, for which context this colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine; cf. here Fig. 11) had originally been created.

...

But as we shall see below, I myself follow now those scholars, who do not believe that the statue of Constantine (here Figs. 11; 11.1) was the one which Eusebius has described.

When the manuscript of this volume was about to be sent to the press, Franz Xaver Schütz alerted me to the book by Klaus M. Girardet (Der Kaiser und sein Gott. Das Christentum im Denken und in der Religionspolitik Konstantins des Großen, 2010, 92), who has likewise come to the conclusion that the colossal statue of Hadrian/ now Constantine the Great (here Figs. 11; 11.1) is not the statue described by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 10,4,16). To Girardet's observations concerning this colossal portrait of Constantine I will come back below.

In the following, I will discuss Cécile Evers's (1991) hypothesis, according to which this portrait of Constantine (cf. here Figs. 11; 11.1) was originally a portrait of Hadrian (together with this portrait will also be discussed the inscription CIL VI 974 = 40524; cf. here Fig. 29.1, which C. EVERS 1991 has tentatively attributed to this portrait). Evers's hypothesis was first followed by Amanda Claridge (1998, 382; ead. 2010, 465, who did not provide a reference though), and we shall see below that Evers's hypothesis is now also followed by Hans Rupprecht Goette (cf. below, at The Contribution by Hans Rupprecht Goette on the reworking of the portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great)), and by myself. After the accounts by Goette and myself were written, Hans fortunately found the article by Klaus Fittschen (2012), from which we learned that already Brigitte Ruck (2007, 242-243) and Klaus Fittschen (2010b, 1103; id. 2012b, 75 with n. 68) had followed Evers's (1991) relevant hypothesis (!).