Why Augustus never invoked damnatio memoriae against Marc Antony

[guy]

Marc Antony denarii were known to circulate throughout the Roman Empire more than a century after Antony’s defeat at the Battle of Actium (31 BCE) and his suicide a year later.

Possibly coins from this “enemy of Rome” were allowed to circulate because Antony was never subjected to damnatio memoriae by Augustus.
 

Here’s an interesting paper on possible reasons for Augustus’ “clemency”:

Quote

”In conclusion, perhaps Augustus avoided invoking damnatio memoriae against Mark Antony due to conflicts with several key elements contained in his program of cultural renewal. The process of damnatio memoriae violated the Augustan principles of (1) auctoritas, (2) departure from Hellenism, and ultimately, (3) pietas and clementia. The erasure of Antony would have been hypocritical, and therefore counterproductive, to promoting the propagandized morality of the new regime.”

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=discentesjournal

 

Interestingly, the famous Antony denarii were found among a Roman coin hoard discovered in Wales in 2015. This hoard also had a coin from Marcus Aurelius, minted more than a century after Antony’s death. It is doubtful that a coin of an individual who suffered damnatio memoriae and was an “enemy of Rome” would have circulated freely in the Empire.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3334908/amp/Significant-hoard-Roman-coins-discovered-Wales-Silver-money-issued-Marc-Antony-2-000-years-ago.html

Edited January 14, 2022 by guy

[caldrail]

Well, the document appears to be underpinned by the usual 'conspiracy' theory of Augustus pulling the wool over the Roman's eyes. That is something I've come to argue against. I have several reasons. 

Augustus, as able a politician as he was, is not described as machiavellian. Indeed, his behaviour suggests he wanted everything up front and if he got suspicious of someone else, suspecting them of mischief, he would very likely stamp on him hard. Notice particularly he he got caught out by Julia, his wayward daughter, and only discovered her numerous indiscretions because someone told him about her. Nor did he manipulate the situation. Exile. No, he won't forgive her, the public can plead all they want, she can stay on that island (yes, I know, he relented eventually and brought her back quietly).

If he was no intent on running the empire as a closet monarch, why did he reform the Senate? Why did he persuade senators to get involved in decision making? Why was he mentioned as considering giving up after the death of Antony? Why did he only maintain Egypt as a personal preserve? 

Remember that whilst Augustus had at times gotten quite ruthless and heavy with the Senate, he had received his first imperium propraetoris by promising to protect the Republic. Ultimately he did. He handed back the supreme power he used to contest the Romano-Egyptian faction to the Senate and People of Rome. He refused to become Dictator. He did not sweep away the mechanisms of republican politics and restored the Senate to working order - well, okay, mostly, though he was forced to veto their decision making for seven years because they could not compete for elections without resorting to violence. Afterward, when the Senate was calmer, he returned power to them again.

Augustus established a relationship with the empire. He didn't rule it, he managed it. As Augustus said himself, he had no more power than anyone else, just more authority (presumably because of the victory over Antony and Cleopatra and for surrendering power as tradition demanded). He was acting as patron to his Roman client. Socially superior, authorative, providing leadership that the Senate had sorely lacked since they let Princeps Senatus fall into disuse. 

It is true he maintained control of the legions. Of course he did. It helped prevent another civil war. You could argue it also made it less likely a coup would oust him as Roman patron, and I might well agree. He wasn't stupid, but at that stage, the legions had yet to discover their political clout.

It is true he instituted the Imperial Cult. Well, if you intend to enforce discipline with harsh punishments and expect men to honour your leadership, something has to be put in place to improve morale. No, Augustus was not trying to be a god (although the Senate had in fact debated on what name he could use that was worthy of divinity) but it was playing on superstition. The spirit of Augustus would be with the soldiers. Urging them to victory. A deterrent to lax and improper behaviour. He was using his status to help control Rome's huge military, twenty eight legions around the empire after he had disbanded more than half the existing number following his victory over Antony. And although he created the Praetorian Guard from the bodyguard cohorts left over from the civil war, he was wise enough to disperse them. He did not use them to enforce power.

I know some Romans, Cassius Dio especially, sneer and rant about Augustus as a king by any other name, but I don't think he was guilty. The problem is that without a clear succession, how does he keep Rome stable after his death? Tiberius inherited his status and power in very Roman terms and note that Tiberius too maintained a semblance of Republican government. He needed the Senate probably more than Augustus, given he quickly grew tired of the squabbling and semi-retired to Capri. He even gave the Senate more powers than they normally enjoyed at the expense of the voting assemblies. It was Aelius Sejanus who began the cycle of Praetorian influence, not the Princeps.

it was the successors, the later Julio-Claudian dynasty, that began to build on the precedent that Augustus had set. Rome remained officially a Republic to the end, although I do agree that the Dominate had marked the end of the period of change toward autocracy that we call the Principate.

But what was the Republic? A different, old regime? No, it wasn't, the imperial period is merely a convenience for historians, not an abrupt change, although Rome had clearly made many reforms to their government as and when they felt the need. The Roman Empire was merely the Republic with leadership, until that leadership had managed to erode the Senate into ritual status in the Dominate.

So you see, I think that article was based on a misinterpretation as indeed the popular conception maintains today.