Piso in Chicago: A Commentary on the APA/AIA Joint Seminar on the Senatus consultum de Cn. Pisone patre
- Piso in Chicago: A Commentary on the APA/AIA Joint Seminar on the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre
The discussion which follows comprises comments on the papers by John Bodel, D. S. Potter, and Richard Talbert which were delivered at the APA/AIA seminar on the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre in Chicago, 28 December 1997. Those papers, now collected (with some minor revisions) in this issue of AJP, cover a variety of topics ranging from Piso’s punishments to the virtues espoused and advertised in the rhetoric of the Julio-Claudians, from the chronology of events in A.D. 19–20 to the relationship between the decree and the account of Piso’s trial in Tacitus (Ann. 3.10–18). They serve to illustrate just some of the many aspects of Roman life which have been illuminated in new and vivid detail by the publication of the decree. My purpose here is to reflect upon these particular papers and to prompt further thought about a number of questions arising from the decree. Remarks below are focused closely on the meaning and interpretation of the new text itself. Rather than seeking to take a definite stance on every issue, my aim here is to explore some interpretations and to prompt further debate. Even as the Senate’s decree provides us with a wealth of fresh insights into events in Rome and in the empire in 19–20, it also reveals the limits of our knowledge and understanding about many areas of Roman life.
J. Bodel, “Punishing Piso”
In his detailed and well-argued paper John Bodel focuses on four of the six penalties imposed by the Senate on Cn. Calpurnius Piso after his suicide:
-
1. The ban on mourning by women (lines 73–75)
-
2. The ban on Piso’s imago (76–82) [End Page 99]
-
3. The erasure of Piso’s name from the statue of Germanicus set up by the sodales Augustales in the Campus Martius near the Altar of Providentia (82–84)
-
4. The demolition of additions built by Piso to link various private houses supra portem Fontinalem (105–8).
Bodel has chosen to comment on these four penalties since they reflect Piso’s public image in Rome. A focus on specific penalties is helpful in getting to grips with the implications of the Senate’s imposition of post-mortem sanctions, commonly referred to as damnatio memoriae. However, all six of the penalties are actually part of the damnatio memoriae, and it is also important to consider them as a group. 1 As Bodel has clearly shown, they were specifically tailored to Piso’s case. They seem to be listed in an order which suggests events in sequence after a death, starting with mourning by women, moving through commemoration, and ending up with questions of property, which would, under other circumstances, have been disposed of through the will of the deceased. The property is actually divided between two generations of Piso’s descendants as provision is also made for his granddaughter Calpurnia. She was the child of his eldest son and must have been very young at the time of the trial. 2
As Bodel has so perceptively emphasized, the penalties imposed on Piso reflect a tension between the desire to remember the villain, by holding him up as an example to warn others, and the desire to erase his memory, since being forgotten is integral to his punishment. This tension is further emphasized by the title of Copy A of the new decree found at Irni, which was added locally by the governor, N. Vibius Seranus. Piso’s name appears in large letters over the very decree which bans his memory. There is an essential contradiction here, but it is a contradiction which is actually typical of sanctions against memory in Roman culture. A similar contradiction is inherent in other traditional penalties not imposed on Piso, such as the celebration of the day on which the disgraced person died. Scribonius Libo Drusus had suffered this disgrace only four years earlier (Tac. Ann. 2.32.4). In the same way, as Bodel has discussed in a recent article (1997), the traitors of...
