Above: An image of Agrippina Minor, the wife of Claudius, and a recipient of damnatio memoriae. Wikimedia Commons.
In general, the reasons for women’s damnationes differed from those of their male counterparts – women were often ascribed the process in tandem with men, whether with male family members or the emperor himself. Whereas men would receive the process for an action on their own part, women would most often receive a damnatio in conjunction with their husbands, father or brothers, or as a result of their interactions with a male member of the Imperial family.[1] Thus, it can be stated that women often received a damnatio directly as a result of interactions with men in their lives, since they did not have the same autonomy in their persons to often warrant an independent labelling as often as their male counterparts. The number of women who received damnatio memoriae is extensive, however a few will be taken and examined further.
At least twenty-four women are known to have undergone some form of condemnation, including Julia Maior, Agrippina Minor, Plautilla, Julia Aquila Severa and Prisca.[2] Two others are Milonia Caesonia and Poppaea Sabina, who were condemned in conjunction with their husbands Caligula and Nero (respectively). Though Caligula was not formally allowed to be labelled with damnatio, all portraits of Caesonia and her daughter Julia were removed, and Caesonia’s name was erased from inscriptions.[3] In fact, there are no surviving portraits of Caesonia or Julia, and Poppaea’s portraits were removed and warehoused during the reign of Galba.[4] In the case of Poppaea, examples survive of her damnatio, specifically upon a sardonyx cameo that displays intentional destruction of her nose, lips, and chin.[5] Poppaea also provides a vivid example of the wider effects of women’s damnationes, and their importance as collateral processes. This is because of how Poppaea’s character was diminished and degraded following her damnatio, directly as a result of the actions of her husband which prompted his own.[6]
This form of collateral damnatio was once again perpetuated onto the mother of Elagabalus, Julia Soemias, with the result that no securely identified portraits of her survive. Her name has also been erased from inscriptions and her coins countermarked. An example of this erasure from an inscription is one from a statue base originally located in the front of the curia in Rome, where her and her son’s names have been chiseled out.[7] The wife of Elagabalus, Julia Aquila Severa, who died in 222 CE, may also have received a damnatio. The image below is of Julia Aquila Severa and shows damage upon its face, most likely enacted following the damnatio of either herself or her husband (Wikimedia Commons).
By looking at how other women, such as Julia Mammaea and Caecilia Paulina, suffered collateral unofficial damnationes, one can see how it was often the trend for women to be labelled in the same manner as their husbands, ultimately receiving the condemnation by affiliation. Examples pertaining to Julia Mammaea include two portraits discovered in Italy, which show destruction of the characteristic areas of the face, such as the eyes, nose and mouth.[8] Mammaea was the wife of Severus Alexander, and the two of them were murdered by their troops in 235 CE.[9]
The Emperor Maxentius serves as another example of damnationes being employed collaterally upon Imperial women. After his death following the notorious Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 CE, both he and his wife Galeria Valeria Maximilla received damnatio memoriae. One portrait that is thought to depict her is held in the Capitoline Museum in Rome, which displays deliberate destruction to areas like her forehead, nose, mouth, and chin.[10]
In contrast to these examples, there were indeed Imperial women who independently received a condemnation. One notable example is Julia, the daughter of Augustus, who was charged with adultery. Acting as a sort of de facto damnatio, Augustus forbade Julia to be buried in the Mausoleum with his family and disinherited her from his will. Additionally, her public portraits were destroyed. It is possible that one incident of this is present on the Ara Pacis located in the Campus Martius, with her likeness having been altered to look like someone else. Regardless, some portraits do survive of Julia prior to her disgrace, such as those on coins, yet no sculpted images of her survive.[11] Other women who received independent charges of damnatio memoriae are Julia Minor, Claudia Livia Julia, and Valeria Messalina.
There are several important things to note when speaking of the damnationes of women and their effects upon Roman art. The most important- and is the case for Imperial men as well - is the lack of physical evidence concerning the representation and appearance of many of the affected women. This is the case for all individuals affected by damnatio memoriae, and impedes the identification of individuals in portraits from the ancient world, which then may further impede the correct understanding of certain monuments or their original context. Most importantly, the damnationes of Imperial women, as Varner notes, not only extoll clues about the status of Imperial women in society, but also point to – somewhat incongruously – their “vital political significance.”[12]
[1] Eric Varner, “Portraits, Plots, and Politics: “Damnatio memoriae” and the Images of Imperial Women,” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Vol. 46 (2001): 43, JSTOR.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 44.
[4] Ibid., 44-45.
[5] Ibid., 46-47.
[6] Ibid,. 47.
[7] Ibid., 49.
[8] Ibid., 51.
[9] Ibid., 50.
[10] Ibid., 56-57.
[11] Ibid., 57-60.
[12] Ibid., 44.