Above: A porphyry statue of a togatus, originally housed in the Curia Julia, a senate house in the Roman Forum. Wikimedia.
Not much is known concerning the application of damnatio memoriae upon those in Rome who were not members of the Imperial family, in contrast to the relative abundance of sources and evidence for its employment onto emperors and their families. However, there is evidence of Roman senators receiving the process, such as senators. In these cases, one scholar argues its application was onto those who had “betrayed their community or acted to undermine its stability and general well-being” [1], who could have been considered to have forfeited their status as citizens, as well as their right to be remembered as such, after death. The process of “damnation of memory” was one of the most severe ways in which the image and memory of those within the senatorial aristocracy could be affected.[2] One example of a senatorial damnatio has been examined by scholars, it being the case of Cnaeus Calpurnius Piso dating to 20 CE.
Since much art and architecture within Rome during the Imperial period was commissioned by and depicted members of the Imperial family, much of current scholars’ knowledge about the damnatio memoriae of private citizens of Rome stems from inscriptions that were specifically created to announce a damnatio. The case of Cn. Calpurnius Piso is no exception, with information concerning his damnatio stemming from one original inscription and six copies, found within the Roman province of Baetica. It must be noted that nowhere in the written list of Piso's punishments are the words damnatio memoriae ever mentioned, nor any other technical term to describe the process.[3] This, again, denotes the modernity of the term.
The issue that caused Piso’s trial for treason and his subsequent damnatio was the suspicion that was placed upon him after the death of Germanicus Caesar, a man who had been friends with Piso however had renounced the friendship shortly before his death. [4] The inscription tells of Piso’s punishments, which “reveal the precise terms of the ban on his memory and its relationship to other sanctions, such as the confiscation of his property.”[5] The punishments included the declaration that no women were allowed to mourn Piso’s death. This punishment bore significant weight in relation to his damnatio, for as mourning was integral to honouring the deceased and marking his membership within his family it subsequently disallowed Piso’s recognition as a family member.[6] In the more traditional practice of damnatio memoriae, all public and private portraits of Piso were ordered destroyed and Piso’s name was to be removed from an inscription on the statue of Germanicus.[7]
The example of Cn. Calpurnius Piso demonstrates the extent to which those in Roman society were willing to respond to acts they deemed unforgivable, in such a way as to erase the memory and legacy of the individual. Harriet Flower aptly notes the role that the damnatio played in the case of Cn. Calpurnius Piso, by stating the following:
“the memory of Piso was suppressed by destroying his position in the state and especially within his own household and family.”[8]
[1] Harriet Flower, “Rethinking “Damnatio Memoriae”: The Case of Cn. Calpurnius Piso Pater in AD 20,” Classical Antiquity 17 no. 2 (1998): 155, JSTOR.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 156.
[4] Ibid., 157.
[5] Ibid., 158.
[6] Ibid., 158-59.
[8] Ibid., 172.