Fragmente einer kolossalen Portraitstatue des Kaisers Hadrian, die in ein Portrait des Kaisers Konstantin des Großen umgearbeitet wurde

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. 9,9,10-11). 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 (!).

Cécile Evers (1991, 795) has arrived at her conclusion that the colossal portrait of Constantine (cf. here Figs. 11; 11.1) had originally represented Hadrian for the following reasons :

a) following Paul Zanker (1985 I, 149, cat. no. 122, quoted verbatim supra), Evers suggests that the curly coiffure of this portrait of Constantine the Great (cf. here Fig. 11) does not occur at any of the known portraits of Constantine, which is why it must belong to the original portrait of Hadrian. Evers also follows Zanker concerning his observation that the shape of this head of Constantine and its coiffure rule out the possibility that the original portrait could have represented Maxentius;

b) because at close inspection she found out that the man, whom this portrait had originally represented, was bearded;

c) because of the remains of some curls of Hadrian's characteristic << Rollockenfrisur >> at both of Constantine's temples;

d) because of the shape of Constantine's nose; and -

e) because of Constantine's ear lobes, that, in Evers' opinion, preserve the original portrait unchanged, and that are rendered precisely as in all undisputed portraits of Hadrian in the round: "Ces oreilles, grandes, carnues, aux lobes pourvus d'un pli en forme de fourche".

To illustrate Evers' above-mentioned point c), we compare here a photo of the portrait of Constantine by Franz Xaver Schütz (6-III-2020) with a photo of a portrait of Hadrian at Sevilla, published by Max Wegner (Hadrian, Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, Sabina, Berlin 1956, 13): "Sevilla, Museo Aqueologico Provincial, Sala VIIIa", Taf. 11, right.

Scholars call Evers' "fourche sur le lobe" of portraits of Hadrian, mentioned above in point e), a "crease in the ear lobe", the "disegno del padiglione auricolare", or the "charakteristische Falte in den Ohrläppchen".

The introduction to this Chapter reads: `In the following will be discussed the colossal acrolithic statue of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) at the Palazzo dei Conservatori (here Figs. 11; 11.1) ... So far we do not know, for which context this colossal portrait of Hadrian had been created, but it is tempting to ask, whether this could have been the cult-statue of Divus Hadrianus in the Hadrianeum, built by Antoninus Pius [my emphasis]´.