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:
"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)...
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.
Considering at the same time the possibility that this statue of Hadrian/ Constantine (here Fig. 11) actually was the portrait of Constantine described by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 10,4,16) , Constantine's above-mentioned addition of his inscription to this portrait becomes all the more understandable. Because, as Constantine stated in this inscription, the choice of the `salvation-bringing sign [that his statue was holding in its right hand - which some earlier scholars have identified with a cross]´, which, as Eusebius reports, Constantine had ordered the artists to represent in the statue, had transformed this `Jupiterlike´ portrait of Constantine (cf. here Fig. 11) into something completely new.
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 (!).
Fig. 11. Colossal acrolithic statue of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great). The ten marble fragments of it were found within and near the Basilica of Maxentius. Palazzo dei Conservatori, courtyard. Photos: Courtesy H.R. Goette (HRG_3320 f.): 7.2.2017, P3010567 (Unteransicht) und P3010577 am 1.3.2008, P3110473: 11.3.2011) and F.X. Schütz (06-III-2020).
Fig. 11.1. "Ricostruzione virtuale del colosso di Costantino realizzata da Konstantin-Ausstellungsgesellschaft Trier mbH, Musei Capitolini e ARCTRON3D" (C. Parisi Presicce 2006b, 147, caption of Fig. 48; cf. p. 127, note *). Courtesy C. Parisi Presicce.
Fig. 29.1. Fragmentary inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524), marble, once belonging to an honorary statue of the Emperor Hadrian, dedicated to him by the Senate and the Roman People to commemorate his victory in the Bar Kokba Revolt (so W. ECK 2003, 162-165; M. FUCHS 2014; C. BARRON 2018); and according to G. Alföldy (at: CIL VI  40524, who restored the inscription as shown here) and M. Fuchs (2014, 130) erected within the cella of the Temple of Divus Vespasianus in the Forum Romanum. From: M. Fuchs (2014, 131, Fig. 8: "CIL, VI, Pars VIII, Fasc. II , 40524". According to C. Barron (2018, who follows in this respect W. ECK 1999-2003), the honorary statue, to which this inscription belonged, stood "beneath (in front of?)" the Temple of Divus Vespasianus, its inscription is kept in the Capitoline Museums, Rome (inv. no. NCE 2529), and is datable: "135 CE Sep 15th to 135 CE Dec 9th". In my opinion, this dedication belonged to the honorary statue, after which Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna at Istanbul (here Fig. 29) and almost 30 replicas of this portrait were copied. See 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".Hier finden Sie eine Vorschau zum Buch von Chrystina Häuber: https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3.html
Datenschutzerklärung | Impressum