The Rhetorical Challenge of In Verrem II.4 ("De Signis")

The fourth part of the Second Action against Verres was devoted to a discussion of the statues and monuments stolen by Verres during the latter's tenure as praetor in Sicily. The most obvious rhetorical goal of the speech was to arouse the indignation of the Roman audience at the revelation of Verres' plundering of these works of art. Since many of the works had been removed from temples of the gods, one would assume that no great eloquence would have been required on Cicero's part. The reader of Republican and Augustan literature is often led to envision a society particularly susceptible to the emotional impact connected with such works. One need only think, for instance, of the Roman belief in the numinous power of places and of man-made and natural objects; of the reverence accorded the statues of gods and heroes, especially those of great antiquity, adorning the city's temples and public places; of the significance to the Roman citizen of the many monuments erected to commemorate great leaders and signal events in the city's history; or of the private observances devoted to objects placed in family shrines and sacraria .

It is necessary, however, to draw certain distinctions among objects of this kind. It is surely true that statues and monuments long familiar to a Roman audience, woven over the decades into the very fabric of the city, would have acquired a complex and powerful set of associations. The familiar landmarks of the Comitium and the Forum in particular not only shaped the poetic itinerary of a Plautus or an Ovid but constituted a source of cognitive and emotional orientation for every citizen of Rome. Allusions to these were part of the stock-in-trade of the Roman orator, who would frequently have attempted to connect the arguments, ideas, and themes of his speeches with visual symbols he knew to be rich in patriotic and religious meaning for his audience. In addi-

tion, certain monuments were held in special reverence and were thought to be directly connected with the continuing welfare of the city, such as those struck by lightning or spoken of in oracles.

It is nevertheless clear that special significance could not have attached to every statue and monument, as their very number would have precluded such a possibility. In book 34 of his Naturalis historia Pliny the Elder provides us with an impressive catalogue of statues that stood in the city at various times (34.1–93). The antiquarian reports that during one theatrical show the theater supported three thousand statues (34.36) and that large numbers of statues sometimes were ordered removed from the Forum, apparently due to their abundance there (34.30–31). Thus, while certain Roman monuments acquired a powerful symbolic significance closely identified with the function and meaning of the place where they stood, the importance of others must have been relatively inconsequential. It can be assumed, for instance, that the statues erected to honor still-living generals and politicians would, in many cases, have been held in less awe than those of gods and heroes. Cicero refers in the Verrines to the many statues of Verres erected in Rome, ostensibly "by the people of Sicily as a whole" (II.2.154). The orator expresses little surprise that a politician of no great repute should have been the subject of so many honorary monuments. His only objection to the statues is that the money for these works had been extorted from the Sicilians rather than willingly donated. If such an extensive visual propaganda campaign could have been mounted by a relatively minor figure like Verres, it may be assumed that men of much greater reputation, power, and ambition would have been even more widely represented, and that the commonness of these honorary statues would have dulled their impact.^[27]

If many of the statues and monuments commissioned by the Senate or by private individuals and visible daily to Roman citizens lacked enduring symbolic significance, what of those that had been seized from conquered states? The plunder of precious objects of all sorts had ac-

[27] Cassiodorus (Var. 7.15; cf. 7.13) reports that by his time—the sixth century A.D. —Rome had a "duplicate population" of stone and bronze. Plutarch (Cat. Mai. 19) recalls an anecdote revealing that in the time of Cato the Elder many statues were dedicated to individuals of limited fame. When certain prominent but controversial figures died or fell from favor, their statues were subject to official removal or unsanctioned destruction by their opponents (see, for instance, Suet. Iul. Caes. 75.4 for statues of Sulla and Pompey overturned by the populace; and Verr. II.2.158 for destruction of Verres' statues in Sicily).

companied Rome's military progress throughout the Italian peninsula and across the Mediterranean. In the Italian phase of this expansion, the practice of evocatio and the building of temples dedicated to the divinities of the conquered suggest that the Romans in many cases perceived the gods and heroes of Italians, Etruscans, and south Italian Greeks as either identical with their own gods or worthy of incorporation into their expanding pantheon. This would lead us to assume that the plundered statues, at least of divinities, would have been treated by the Romans with reverence and a sense of religious awe. However, as Rome's victims became more alien and more numerous, religious scruples governing the treatment of such objects must have eroded. The victories over Syracuse, Carthage, and especially Corinth would have resulted in a flood of statues entering Rome and Italy.^[28] By Cicero's day the Roman public had become used to seeing the most precious and sacred works of Greek art exhibited in the games and shows held by the aediles and other magistrates and carried in the triumphs of victorious generals.^[29] Statues that formed part of the booty plundered from a conquered city might later be dedicated in Roman temples or public places, or they might be kept privately by the former imperator to grace his own villas or those of his friends. On the one hand, the practice of public exhibition and donation might be taken as evidence of the interest of the Roman public in objects of this sort and of their effectiveness as tools of propaganda, reminding the viewer of a greater or lesser victory of Roman arms and of the piety, courage, and patriotic generosity of the leader who had won it. On the other hand, such statues, displayed in large numbers and out of their original (usually religious) context, would have been stripped of much of their emotional and symbolic impact.

The objection might be raised that Verres was not the military conqueror of the places where he exercised magisterial power and that we must distinguish the Romans' cavalier attitude towards objects plun-

[28] For Greek artwork imported to Rome, see Pape, Griechische Kunstwerke aus Kriegsbeute . Ancient sources are collected and translated in Pollitt, Art of Rome, 22–95.

[29] See Verr. II.1.57 (triumphal exhibition of P. Servilius); 4.6 (aedileship of C. Claudius Pulcher), 126 (statues and ornaments in the Temple of Felicitas, the Temple of Fortuna, the Porticus Metelli, the villas of Verres' friends, and the shows of aediles), 133 (shows in the aedileships of L. Crassus, Q. Scaevola, C. Claudius).

dered from hostile states in time of war from their attitude towards the confiscated goods of allies, client states, and provinces.^[30] In fact, in one passage Cicero indicates that the Romans believed that sacred objects were "deconsecrated" by falling victim to Roman arms: speaking of Marcellus's actions after the fall of Syracuse, Cicero states that "through his famous victory he had rendered all things profane" (II.4.122).^[31] This was indeed an ingenious method of exculpating Roman actions that could otherwise be viewed as sacrilege, and from a legalistic point of view one could in fact argue that the statues and monuments removed by Verres ought not be compared with those seized in war, since Verres' plunder, unlike war booty, was viewed as sacred and therefore still protected by religious scruples. But as regards the perception of the objects themselves, the treatment of war booty would have had a profound effect on how the Romans responded to all such objects. The Roman public, accustomed to viewing hundreds of statues and works of art exhibited in triumphs and during festivals or donated to the state, would hardly have made fine distinctions among the supposedly "deconsecrated" statues seized from hostile states and those still sacred works bought or borrowed by Romans traveling abroad or illegally extorted from friendly states.^[32]

[30] Even judged by the much wider latitude given the military commander, Verres' actions were of questionable legality, since most historians agree that, with the exception of a certain fixed portion of the booty allotted to the general (manubiae ), the booty seized in war was the property of the state. See Shatzman, "The Roman General's Authority."

[31] The orator goes on to contend that by Verres' day the same objects had once again become sacra and religiosa due to the long period of peace that had since elapsed and the loyalty to Rome exhibited by the Syracusans throughout that time. The lack of logical or emotional force in such a distinction can be seen in the fact that Cicero himself disregards it when he praises Mummius for plundering only "profane" objects in Messana and refusing to touch those that had been consecrated (II.4.4).

[32] If Cicero had praised without reservation the plundering—even in war—of works similar to those Verres had stolen, it would have tended to undermine his attempt to make Verres' theft of such statues an outrage to religious sensibility. Therefore, understanding the dangerous ground on which he was treading, Cicero emphasizes the pious restraint and generosity supposedly exercised by men like Scipio Aemilianus, Mummius, Marcellus, and others. In addition, he underlines the fact that such men had chosen to contribute to the state the works of art they had removed from conquered cities, while Verres, after appropriating such objects illegally, had kept them for himself and his friends. See Verr. II.1.55 (L. Scipio, L. Paulus); 1.57 (P. Servilius); 1.55; 4.129 (T. Quintius Flamininus); 1.11; 2.3, 86–87; 4.73, 93, 97; 5.124 (Scipio Aemilianus); 1.55; 3.9; 4.4 (L. Mummius); 1.11; 2.4, 50; 4.115, 120–23, 130; 5.84 (M. Marcellus); 4.6 (C. Claudius Pulcher); 4.133 (L. Crassus, Q. Scaevola, C. Claudius Pulcher).

For most of Cicero's audience, admiration for works of art was not based on their religious or symbolic significance but would have derived from the precious materials of which they were composed, from their rarity, from the cleverness of artistic conception embodied in them, or from the beauty of their craftsmanship.^[33] If the Roman public responded to displays of artwork enthusiastically, it was an enthusiasm little to be distinguished in many instances from that shown for exhibitions of exotic animals also shipped to Rome for games and festivals. And, as in the case of such animals, jaded sensibilities would have required ever-increasing numbers and rarity in order to guarantee a successful reception. It was only when statues or monuments had long stood within the city that they gradually acquired a new meaning for the Roman viewer, interwoven of associations connected with the origin, subject matter, and appearance of the statue, the circumstances of its arrival in Rome, and the "history" of the statue in its new location.

A passage from the Verrines (II.1.58–59) well illustrates the difference between the response of the Romans, who saw these works abstracted from the surroundings that had given them meaning, and the response of those from whom the statues had been taken. Cicero speaks of the display in the Forum and Comitium of a number of statues plundered by Verres from the Greek communities in the East. While the orator leaves us to imagine the Romans taking in the scene, mentioning only the enthusiasm of the upper classes for possessing such works, he describes in vivid detail the reaction of the ambassadors from Asia and Achaea who happened to be in the city serving on deputations. The orator relates how these men stood in the Forum, tearfully venerating the images of the gods stolen from their temples.^[34]

[33] Herbert I. Schiller, "Pitchers at an Exhibition," Nation, 10 July 1989, 56: "The art object . . . abstracted from its social and historical context . . . becomes merely a product itself—lovely, perhaps, but without meaning or connection."

[34] For the weakness or lack of interest exhibited by Roman patrons in protecting their provincial clients, see Brunt, "Patronage and Politics in the 'Verrines,'" esp. 273–78. As Brunt points out, the Sicilians' Roman patrons were unable to prevent the prorogation of Verres' governorship, despite evidence of abuses.

Cicero also would have realized that he could not with impunity display an extravagant admiration for such works of art, since a certain public philistinism was always in vogue in ancient Rome. Just as in other speeches the orator is careful not to show too deep a knowledge of literature or philosophy, in his attack on Verres he continually affects ignorance of Greek art and artists. This seems a bit startling, considering the growing sophistication of the first century B.C. and the fact that Verres was a product of his time whose interest in the collection of Greek art was shared by many of his class, including Cicero himself. The astute Roman politician, however, carefully separated his private pursuits and inclinations from his public persona.^[35] Thus Cicero claims in the Verrines to have little aesthetic judgment (II.4.94). He calls himself and his audience idiotae (II.4.4) and rudes (II.2.87) in the field of Greek art and is quick to deny that he places any great value on objects of this sort (II.4.13). In an elaborate little charade, he affects not to know for certain the names of artists such as Praxiteles, Myron, and Polyclitus, who had created the statues stolen from a certain Gaius Heius of Messana (II.4.4–5). It is also interesting to note that in several passages describing the pain caused to the Sicilians by Verres' depredations Cicero feels he must carefully explain to his audience the religious reverence felt by the Greeks for the works of art inherited from their ancestors (II.4.132); and he mentions that even statues of their enemies were held in honor and protected by religious scruples (11.2.158–59). Further, Cicero remarks in the most condescending of tones that the Greeks unfortunately took an excessive delight in statues, paintings, and works of this sort (II.4.124, 132–34), objects that, he claims, he

[35] Cicero's "real" attitude towards art is an extremely complex matter in which ars gratia artis played a relatively small role. See Fam. 7.23.2; Att. 1.1.5, 1.3.2, 1.4.3, 1.6.2, 1.8.2, 1.9.2, 1.10.3, 1.11.3. Scholars continue to debate the question: Showerman, "Cicero's Appreciation of Greek Art"; Desmouliez, "Sur l'interpretation du 'De Signis'"; Michel, Rhétorique, 298–327; Pollitt, Art of Rome, 76–79. Recently a number of scholars have begun to explore the importance of the art collection in the creation of an image of the collector. The persona thus created could be called neither strictly public nor strictly private but would share in both realms. See, for instance, Wocjik, La Villa dei Papiri; the review of Wocjik by Leach; and Leen, "Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art," on the "rhetorical" considerations underlying the choice of sculpture for Cicero's Tusculan villa.

and his audience viewed as trifles. It was in recognition of this fact, Cicero goes on, that the maiores had adopted the practice of allowing conquered peoples to retain many of the works in which they took such delight—this as a kind of solace for the loss of their independence (II.4.124, 134).

Against this background of arrogance, abuse, indifference, and hypocrisy, the rhetorical problem confronting Cicero in discussing Verres' theft of the statues and other precious objects was not primarily a legal one. There was no difficulty in proving that Verres was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged; this had, after all, been accomplished in the first part of the trial. Rather the problem was to make Verres' guilt matter. Cicero needed to invest these objects, which were not even visible to the audience and had originally been the property of subject states, with a meaning that could make their loss a matter of deep concern to a Roman audience. The orator himself articulates this challenge in a passage of the Divinatio in Caecilium . In questioning Caecilius's ability to take on the prosecution of so complex a case, he asks: "Do you believe that you are able to accomplish the thing that is most critical when dealing with a defendant of this sort, that is, to make the libidinous, criminal, and cruel things he has done seem as painful and unjust to these men who merely hear of them as they seemed to those who experienced them?" (38).