The architecture of Rome was also subject to the consequences damnatio memoriae.
Above: The ruins of the Villa Jovis located in Capri, an imperial residence of Caligula that was originally built by Tiberius. Wikimedia Commons.
As forms of art that could directly embody and represent the person who constructed them, one would assume that if the individual who commissioned a project were to receive a condemnation, the results would be seen on their associated architecture. Indeed, Davies writes that places became
“impassive but powerfully emotive stimuli for memories of events and people.”[1]
However, it must be noted that architecture in the ancient world was not nearly as liable to receive the effects of a condemnation as actual figural representations of an individual. This may be, in part, because of the increased ability of figural representations to recall the individual more clearly, the difficulty of tearing down or destroying a building in comparison with a statue, and laws that were instituted from the late Republican period which protected houses from demolition.[2]
Among architecture that was affected were arches commissioned by emperors who received damnatio, with some of those under Domitian actually being torn down afterwards.[3] As arches often served as propaganda it is easy to see how Romans would strongly associate these structures with the emperor who commissioned them, thus including them in the physical remnants of the emperor that needed to be destroyed after his condemnation. The monuments of the emperor Commodus, for example, were thoroughly eradicated, with almost no trace of them remaining save for his baths. Commodus provides a striking example, for the Historia Augusta stated even at the time of its writing that no public works of his survived and that his name was erased from all inscriptions. This poses significant problems to archaeologists and historians, for not even the nature of the buildings he erected is known. The case of Commodus is also noteworthy solely due to the fact that the damnatio upon his person was in fact removed later on, but not before the Roman world was altered as result.[4]
Other than the arches and commemorative projects created by emperors, houses were also often the target after a damnatio. This is in part due to the status that a house holds as embodying its inhabitant’s past and future. The actions dealt to architecture of the damned in Rome can be seen to have antecedents in Greece, where the homes of traitors would be razed.[5] The same process can be seen in Rome, where houses would be obliterated in order to remove “all trace of a past and all potential for the future family’s future.”[6] One would thus expect for the residences of emperors who received damnatio memoriae to be likewise destroyed, however this does not happen. Instead, often the successors of emperors who received the damnatio would reside in the same residence. For example, Claudius moved into Caligula's imperial residence after his assassination.[7] Alterations, however, do seem to have been made, with land commissioned by the emperor who received damnatio being expropriated by his successor.[8] In this case, following Caligula’s expropriation of buildings for his own use, Claudius reverted them back to their original usage.[9] One case in which the house of a member connected to the Imperial family was razed is Julia, the daughter of Augustus. Augustus justified the act by citing excessive luxury however the destruction was most likely due to her de facto damnatio as a result of charges of adultery.[10]
Ultimately, Roman architecture was not subject to the same depth of alteration and destruction as other objects within the Roman world, such as figural representations of an individual. However, among the most frequently targeted types of architecture were arches, and especially all architecture connected to the emperor Commodus. Architecture serves as a unique way of viewing the results of damnatio memoriae upon the physical ancient Roman world, but it can be seen that the populous focused their erasure efforts on objects that were more closely tied objects to the accused, andwhich more strongly recalled their essence, such as portraits and inscriptions.
[1] Penelope Davies, ““What Worse Than Nero, What Better Than His Baths?”: “Damnatio Memoriae” And Roman Architecture,” in From Caligula to Constantine: Tyranny & Transformation in Roman Portraiture, ed. Eric Varner (Georgia: Michael C. Carlos Museum, 2000), 29.
[2] Ibid., 31.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 35.
[5] Ibid., 37.
[6] Ibid., 38.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 39.
[9] Ibid., 42.
[10] Ibid., 38.