Rethinking "Damnatio Memoriae": The Case of Cn. Calpurnius Piso Pater in AD 20

Abstract

This article offers a detailed analysis of the penalties imposed on Cn. Calpurnius Piso pater in AD 20 after he had been posthumously convicted of maiestas (treason). Piso was accused of leaving his province (Syria) without permission and then returning to try to retake it after the death of Germanicus in AD 19. He was also believed by many to be implicated in the death of Germanicus. The details of his case have been revealed by a new inscription from Spain, the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone patre, which was first published in 1996. Part of this long and well-preserved inscription records the post-mortem sanctions against memory imposed by the senate and Tiberius on Piso after his suicide. The verdicts for his family members and accomplices are also included. The decree was posted on bronze in the major cities of the Empire and in the winter quarters of all the legions. The article argues for the following conclusions. The decree should be taken at face value and its punishments considered harsh for a member of the Roman office-holding élite. It was widely published throughout the Empire after there had been extravagant mourning for Germanicus. Consequently, it seems that post-mortem disgrace did not necessarily involve the family as a whole. Indeed, sanctions against memory appear to be consciously designed to preserve the Roman élite family, its assets, and social position by removing its erring member. Such sanctions reveal both a tension and an accommodation between remembering and forgetting, between the family and the community, between history and memory.

Archaeologies of Remembrance

“…'the punishment was symbolic rather than practically effective' (Bode I 1999: 44) ; and it focused on punishing and condemning the individual rather than his family (Flower 1998). It is interesting to contrast his treatment with that received by Germanicus, the man in whose death he had been implicated.…”

Demolished Houses, Monumentality, and Memory in Roman Culture

“…49. See generally Flower 2006: 49, Hedrick 2000: 103-105, and Vittinghoff 1936. See also Flower 1998: 172-73 on the particular case of the son of Piso, the conspirator of 20 ce, being asked to change his praenomen (which he shared with his father), in the expectation that he would not be like him (Senatus Consultum de Pisone Patre lines 93-100, Tac.…”

“…76. Just in the past generation, see Flower 2006: 47-48, Smith 2006: 49-52, Fiori 1996: 375-92, Liou-Gille 1996: 170-78, Forsythe 1994: 296-301, Salerno 1990: 83-85, De Cazanove 1989, Panitschek 1989: 234-37, Martin 1982-94: 1.344-49, Lintott 1970 77. On this temple see Ziolkowski 1992: 155-62, Coarelli, LTUR 5.24-25 (s.v.…”

DAMNATIO MEMORIAEORCREATIO MEMORIAE? MEMORY SANCTIONS AS CREATIVE PROCESSES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY AD

“…The work of Harriet Flower, in particular Flower (2006), provides a welcome attempt at a more holistic approach, though its chronological span only extends to the early second century AD. See also Flower (1998) 155–86. Hedrick (2000), while a valuable foray into the later period, promises more than it actually delivers.…”