Above: Artist's depiction of ancient Rome. Wikimedia Commons.
The process of damnatio memoriae serves as a unique lens through which we can view Roman society. As a process that functioned in Rome to erase the memory of someone who somehow had done wrong in the eyes of the public, or those who condemned the individual such as the senate, emperor, or army, it demonstrates the way in which Romans interacted with the notions of memory and honour. After all, the process was explicitly designed to punish those who acted dishonorably in Roman society, to erase their memory from the public, and to perhaps have their experience deter others from doing likewise. As we have seen, damnatio memoriae, as a process that acted to manipulate both the individual’s physical and incorporeal presence, and appeared in various forms. In terms of altering the physical representations of their person, acts included altering the form or erasing completely the name of the individual on inscriptions, disfiguring or erasing manifestations of their person monuments, and even destroying buildings that were representative of the individual. Damnatio memoriae, however, also altered how the public perceived the individual by creating a negative association with their name and person.
In spite of the process’ attempts to erase the memory of an individual, it should also be noted how easily the process could in fact do the opposite, by alluding to and making evident a stark absence. For, instead of solely grazing over an erased inscription or a blank space of a monument, these obvious alterations would arouse curiosity. Instead of forgetting the individual who received the damnatio, it can be seen how such obvious alterations would call forth the memory of the individual each time it was viewed. As Galinsky aptly states,
“absence, in fact, can translate into an even stronger presence because it asks for a greater participatory effort on the part of the viewer.”[1]
This juxtaposition between the true purpose of damnatio memoriae and its actual results acts as only one fascinating element of this unique cultural practice.
By examining damnatio memoriae and cases of it within the Roman world one is able to see the immense weight that the Romans placed on the concepts of dishonour, and memory. Damnatio memoriae is one example of these two factors intertwining, as the alteration of the public’s memory was deemed the appropriate measure to punish those who had acted dishonourably. In sum, the Roman practice of damnatio memoriae offers valuable insights into a highly unique cultural practice and its widespread and palpable effects on the period’s art and architecture.
[1] Karl Galinsky, "Recarved Imperial Portraits: Nuances and Wider Context," Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Vol. 53 (2008): 17, JSTOR.