"Furtum" and the Description of Stolen Objects in Cicero "In Verrem" 2.

4
Author(s): Thomas D. Frazel
Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 126, No. 3 (Autumn, 2005), pp. 363-376
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3804936
Accessed: 08-04-2015 18:20 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American
Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FURTUM AND THE DESCRIPTION OF
STOLEN OBJECTS IN CICERO IN VERREM 2.4

Thomas D. Frazel

Abstract. Cicero portrays Verres here in ways that are strikingly similar to those
that would be used against a thief in a civil proceeding: he emphasizes that Verres
carried off goods, characterizes Verres' purchases as forced sales, and describes
the stolen objects in a spare manner like the one used in theft accusations.
Cicero's matter-of-fact descriptive mode also plays a key role in his own self-
presentation as an informed, but not enthusiastic, consumer of art, unlike Verres.
The spare descriptions thus reinforce Cicero's ethical strategies.

In 70 b.c.e., Cicero undertook the criminal prosecution of C. Verres

for repetundae. Cicero accused the former praetor, among other things,
of stealing not only res sacrae from various temples in Sicily but also
objects belonging to individual Sicilians. He recounts the majority of
these thefts in the fourth oratio of the second actio. Cicero, I argue,
portrays Verres here in ways that are strikingly similar to those that
would be used against a thief in a civil proceeding: he emphasizes that
Verres actually carried off most of the goods, he characterizes Verres'
purchases as forced sales, that is to say, thinly disguised thefts, and, finally,
he describes the various stolen objects in a spare manner that is remark?
ably like the one used in theft accusations. As many of those stolen
objects were priceless work of art, Cicero's turn toward the matter-of-
fact descriptive modes familiar iromfurtum also plays a key role, I claim,
in his own self-presentation as an informed, but not overly enthusiastic,
consumer of art, a picture that pointedly contrasts with the one that he
draws for Verres. Thus, the spare descriptions reinforce Cicero's ethical
strategies in this oratio.

FURTUM, REPETUNDAE, AND IN VERREM 2.4

The presence in a repetundae speech of themes familiar from the delict

of furtum might, at first sight, seem surprising. The criminal offense of
repetundae attacked and sought recompense for a praetor's extortions

American ofPhilology
Journal 126(2005)363-376
? 2005byTheJohnsHopkins Press
University

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
364 THOMAS D. FRAZEL

while in office.1 Yet repetundae also included simple theft in its purview;
it thus overlapped, to some degree, with the delict oifurtum. Such com-
mon ground is seen, for example, in the lex repetundarum preserved in
the Urbino fragments (sometimes called the Tabula Bembina), a law
possibly dating from the time of C. Gracchus' tribunates (123 or 122
B.C.E.).2 This lex allows a man to sue for a sum of money double the
amount of property above some (unknown) fixed sum that may have
been "taken, seized, extorted, procured or diverted" {ablatum captum
coactum conciliatum auorsumue, lex rep. 3); it also fixes assessment of
damages on the value of everything "seized, extorted, taken, diverted or
procured" {captum coactum ablatum auorsum conciliatumue, lex rep.
59).3 Now scholars are by no means in agreement either about the
precise meanings of these five verbs or the conceptual relationships
among them.4 A. N. Sherwin-White, for example, offers a characteristi-
cally cautious assessment of the verbs: "Three of these words may have a
criminal undertone, but ablatum and captum are neutral terms that indi?
cate acquisition in any fashion" (1982, 20). However, A. Lintott, in his
1992 edition and translation of this lex, narrows the focus of ablatum
here to "stolen," while M. H. Crawford's 1996 edition of the same opts
for the more neutral "taken."5

1Verres was tried before a

quaestio perpetua whose mandate and scope were defined
and authorized by Sulla's lex Cornelia of 81. Very little is known about the specifics of this
lex, although it is presumed to be substantially tralatitious (Venturini 1979, 237-319); for
the handful of sources about it, see the table in Balsdon 1938, facing 114. In Verrem2.4 is
quoted from Klotz 1949; all English translations of In Verrem 2.4 are from Greenwood
1935; text and all translations of D 47.2 below are of Jolowicz 1940.
2 For the date, see Lintott 1992,166-69, where he also discusses the
possible identi-
fication of this lex with the lex Acilia. Lintott, 16, thinks the date of 122 b.c.e. is "probably"
correct.
3 Text and translations of Crawford 1996, vol. 1, 65, 71, 85, 91; cf. lex
rep. 58-59. On
the evaluation and repayment of claims under this lex and their relationship to civil
jurisdiction, see Sherwin-White 1982, 26-27.
4 For a
sample of differing views about these verbs, see Mommsen 1899, 714, n. 1;
Pontenay de Fontette 1954, 55-56; Eder 1969, 156, n. 4; Venturini 1979, 241-319. Note
Brunt's assessment of Venturini: "[his] exhaustive investigation of these terms fails to
reveal that any had a precise meaning" (1990,494); a reader for this article aptly comments
that the "plethora of verbs suggests an attempt to cover all bases." Because the verbs in the
lex also appear in the Verrines (e.g., 2.1.27,2.3.71, 91), Venturini has attacked the question
of the scope of the crimen repetundarum through a careful study of their usage in these
speeches.
5 Crawford
(1996, vol. 1,112) represents, as I take it, Lintott's final thoughts on the
question: Lintott's initials are given in brackets at the end of the entry on this lex, thus
showing that he is "not responsible" for it, but "made an essential contribution" to it (36).

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FURTUM AND STOLEN OBJECTS IN CIC IN VERREM 2.4 365

One source of difficulty is the fact that auferre is also a technical

term from the delict of furtum. The classical sources, in particular the
Digest title at 47.2, show two different possible standards for the actions
constituting furtum: (1) merely handling an object that legally belonged
to someone else, or (2) actually taking that object away. Both standards
are most often denoted in the classical sources by verbs: contrectare is the
one commonly used for the first, auferre or tollere for the second.6 The
presence of auferre, then, in the criminal lex repetundae raises compli-
cated questions about the degree of the civil component in the concep-
tualization of repetundae at this time. Perhaps not surprisingly, Lintott
initially rendered ablatum in the
Urbino fragments as "stolen," a verb
with civil, rather than criminal, overtones.7
The overlaps between repetundae and furtum are still seen even in
the Verrines.8 For example, Cicero stresses Verres' illicit asportation
throughout 2.4. Take the opening sentence of 2.4.37:

Tu a M. Coelio equite Romano lectissimo adulescente quae voluisti Lilybaei

abstulisti, tu C. Cacuri prompti hominis et experientis et in primis gratiosi
supellectilem omnem auferre non dubitasti, tu maximam et pulcherrimam
mensam citream a Q. Lutatio Diodoro qui Q. Catuli beneficio ab L. Sulla
civis Romanus factus est, omnibus scientibus Lilybaei abstulisti.9

6 See Mommsen 1899, 734-35.

Anglo-American scholars prefer to adopt the nouns
handling and asportation, respectively, for these two standards. Both standards are seen
already in Gaius (Inst. 3.195). Which standard obtained in Cicero's day is a matter of
scholarly controversy; for this paper I accept, without argument, that asportation was the
rule.
In addition to the obligatory objective components, the elements of the offense of
furtum always had important subjective standards as well, namely, the criminal intent of the
thief (this standard is commonly referred to as dolus malus; see Jolowicz 1940, lv and n. 5)
and the owner's will not to be parted from a specific res (this standard is commonly
referred to as invito domino; see Gaius 3.195; D. 47.2.46.7, Ulpian 42 ad Sabinum).
7 On the
development of repetundae from civil law, see Sherwin-White 1982 and
Lintott 1992. Sherwin-White, for example, stresses that the parallels between repetundae
and the civil law still extend to the conceptualization of repetundae even around the time
of Gracchus because this Urbino lex "continues to treat what we call extortion as essen-
tially a civil action for recovery: its only penal consequence?civil disabilities imposed by
the censors?is indirect" (1982, 28-29). For a good example of the criminal law scope of
repetundae by the time of Sulla's lex Cornelia, see Brunt 1990, 496-97.
8 As a reader for this article formulates it,
Riggsby (1999,123-29) "also argues for
the availability of an atavistic understanding of the courts" in Cicero's day.
9 "From Marcus Coelius, an excellent
young Roman knight at Lilybaeum, you car?
ried off all you cared to take. Without scruple, you carried off all the furniture of the active,
accomplished and exceptionally popular Gaius Cacurius.From Quintus Lutatius Diodorus,

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
366 THOMAS D FRAZEL

Here Cicero alleges that Verres carried off these objects {auferre) and
that he did so, by implication, against the owners' wills (compare the
legal standard invito domino). Cicero varies his presentation of the names
of the individual owners and the objects stolen while enclosing that
material inside the triple repetition of tu .. . auferre in order to highlight
the relentless and nearly monomaniacal nature of Verres' depredations.
In the majority of cases in this oration, in fact, Cicero uses the verb
auferre for Verres' thefts.10
Cicero continues his portrayal of Verres as a thief through his
attacks on Verres' purchases of certain goods.11 In his presentation of
these purchases, Cicero repeatedly stresses that there was no bilateral
consent in the contracts and that the agreements were not made to
satisfaction of the sellers. If there was indeed no consensus, the contracts
would not be valid under the Roman law of sale, and so Verres' current
possession of the objects would be fraudulent.12 The invito domino stan?
dard from the law of theft would therefore apply, and Verres would be
liable for the theft of these objects as well. Consider two of these cases.
Verres once visited Haluntium and ordered Archagathus, a leading man
of the town, to round up any high-quality silver and bronze work there
(2.4.51). But Verres did not steal these goods, as is clear even from
Cicero's slanted account: "ac tamen ut posset dicere se emisse, Archagatho
imperat ut illis (sc. Haluntinis) aliquid quorum argentum fuerat, nummu-
lorum dicis causa daret" (2.4.53).13 Realizing that he cannot get around
the fact that Verres did indeed pay something for the silver, Cicero

who through the kind offices of Quintus Catulus was made a Roman citizen by Lucius
Sulla, you carried off a large and handsome table of citrus-wood, to the certain knowledge
of everyone in Lilybaeum."
10For the connection between
auferre and furtum in this speech, see Venturini 1979,
249. The second most common verb that Cicero uses for Verres' thefts in this oration is
tollere, a semantic and etymological equivalent of auferre.
11Verres' advocates
responded to certain of the accusations with the plea, put in his
own mouth, that he bought some items (emi); for particular goods, see 2.4.8, 35, 37,43,44.
There are also two general pleas of emi (2.4.53, 133) applying to all the thefts from
Haluntium and Syracuse, respectively. Finally, Cicero mentions two cases to which Verres
may have pleaded emi (2.4.29, 37).
12The three essentials of sale were a
specific object to be sold, a definite purchase
price, and mutual consent based on good faith about the first two. The good faith require-
ment thus rendered null and void any contract formed through dolus malus, wrongful
deceit, or metus, duress.
13"He did, to be sure, order
Archagathus to pay a few coins, for form's sake, to the
ex-owners of the silver, so as to be able to say that he had bought it."

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FURTUM AND STOLEN OBJECTS IN CIC. IN VERREM 2.4 367

nevertheless does his best to use this fact to his advantage. He therefore
acknowledges that Verres paid money for the goods, but he implies, by
using nummulus, that Verres paid a derisory purchase price.14
Cicero is even more explicit about the true nature of Verres' "pur?
chases" in the case of Heius of Messana's statues. Here he directly asserts
that Verres used vis (2.4.14). Moreoever, in contrast to the purchases at
Haluntium, Cicero has specific sale information because Verres forced
Heius to keep an account of the transactions; thus here he names the
pretium (2.4.12):

ita iussisti opinor ipsum (sc. Heium) in tabulas referre: "haec omnia signa
Praxiteli Myronis Polycliti HS sex milibus et D Verri vendita." sic rettulit.
recita ex tabulis ... Iuvat me haec praeclara nomina artificum quae isti ad
caelum ferunt, Verris aestimatione sic concidisse. Cupidinem Praxiteli HS
MDC! profecto hinc natum est: "malo emere quam rogare."15

By pointing out that the purchase price for the Praxiteles was ridicu-
lously below current, sky-high market valuations {quae isti ad caelum
ferunt), Cicero implies that Heius was "robbed" and that Verres got the
statues "for a steal," as anyone could see.16 Not surprisingly, Cicero calls
this sale a simulatio emptionis (2.4.14). Indeed, Cicero elsewhere explic?
itly states that Verres often chooses his thefts based on their market
value (for example, 2.4.124).

14nummulus is
literally a coinage by Cicero; see OLD s.v.As Zimmermann empha?
sizes (1990, 252), a very low sale price "did not in itself invalidate the sale, as long as the
vendor seriously intended to demand it. Only if it was derisory ('nummo uno') could it
normally be assumed that the parties did not actually have in mind the conclusion of a
genuine contract of sale."The rule about derisory price, it should be noted, is not expressly
stated for emptio venditio in the sources but is extrapolated for sale from discussions of
locatio conductio (D. 19.2.20, 46).
15"You instructed him
(sc. Heius), it appears, personally to record in his accounts
the sale to Verres of these statues, the work of Praxiteles, Myron, and Polyclitus, for a total
sum of sixty-five pounds: and he did so.?Read us out the entry in the accounts.?It is
amusing to hear that the high reputation of the artists whom those Greeks (sic) extol to the
skies has crashed so completely in the judgement of Verres. A Cupid by Praxiteles for ?16!
This surely explains the saying 'Better buy than beg.'"
16See Brunt 1990,494. For a valid contract of sale
(unlike Heius' here), the price was
required to be in money, as well as certum, fixed, and verum, real; it did not necessarily have
to be iustum, or adequate (Zimmermann 1990,251,255-59). Pretium certum "was not taken
to imply that the parties must necessarily name the actual figure": it was enough that it be
certum "in the sense of at least being ascertainable" (ibid., 253). Whatever price was
eventually settled upon, however, had to be meant by both parties seriously; this was the
requirement oi pretium verum. A real price thus distinguished sale from donation.

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
368 THOMAS D. FRAZEL

IN VERREM 2.4 AND THE LEGAL STANDARD

OF DESCRIPTION FOR FURTUM

In addition to his emphasis on asportation and forced sales, Cicero's

descriptions of nearly all the objects in this speech?both those actually
stolen and those not, both res privatae and res sacrae?bear striking
similarities to the legal standard for the degree and type of description
used in an accusation of theft. In a theft pleading, the jurists do not
demand an extensive description of the object. There are two basic
requirements: (1) some definite object must be described to the degree
that it may be identified, and (2) the number of objects alleged stolen
must be stated. Ulpian, in his commentary on Sabinus, sets forth the first
standard: "In the action for furtum the thing stolen need only be so far
described as to be identified."17 Ulpian here also notes that the material
of the object should be specified, because knowledge of the material is
naturally crucial for identification. Ulpian's concern for identification at
the most basic level is seen as well in his commentary on the Edict. There,
he discusses the requirement that the number of objects alleged as stolen
be specified.18 The precise dimensions or weight of the vasa or the pecu-
liar features of the amphorae are immaterial; "I say that you, Titius, did
make a theft of three of my bronze vases" is all that is needed. The legal
standard of description thus allows a prosecutor to begin to establish
liability.19
It should be noted that Cicero, throughout In Verrem 2.4, describes
the objects that Verres carried off only enough for them to be identified.
He parallels Ulpian's concern for the material and number of stolen
objects as well. For example, he accuses Verres of the thefts of twenty-
seven paintings and some carved doors from the temple of Minerva in
Syracuse.20 This passage is especially illuminating for my argument be-

17"In actione furti sufficit rem demonstrari ut

possit intellegi;" he continues: "1. De
pondere autem vasorum non est necesse loqui: sufficiet igitur ita dici 'lancem' vel 'discum'
vel 'pateram': sed adscribenda etiam materia est, utrum argentea an aurae an alia quae sit"
(D. 47.2.19 pr.-l, Ulpian 40 ad Sabinum); compare the earlier legis actio that M. Kaser
reconstructs (1966, 65): "Te mihi furtum paterae aureae fecisse aio."
18"Si linea
margaritarum subrepta sit, dicendus est numerus. sed et si de vino furti
agatur, necesse est dici quot amphorae subreptae sint. si vasa subrepta sint, numerus erit
dicendus" (D. 47.2.52.25, Ulpian 37 ad edictum).
19Note the
compelling argument of Birks 1973, 351.
20The theft of res sacrae
(reckoned as divini iuris) was sacrilegium; see Mommsen
1899, 760-63. Res divini iuris were res nullius; see Buckland 1966,183-84, cf. 577. For the
legal objects oi furtum, see Jolowicz 1940, xv-xvii. At first sight, therefore, it might seem

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FURTUM AND STOLEN OBJECTS IN CIC. IN VERREM 2.4 369

cause Cicero here uses a spare format style similar to that used for the
delict of furtum for sacrilegia; he also explicitly calls attention to the
descriptive mode that he uses (2.4.123-24):

viginti et septem praeterea tabulas pulcherrime pictas ex eadem aede

sustulit, in quibus erant imagines Siciliae regum ac tyrannorum, quae non
solum pictorum artificio delectabant, sed etiam commemoratione hominum
et cognitione formarum . . . (124) confirmare hoc liquido iudices possum,
valvas magnificentiores, ex auro atque ebore perfectiores, nullas umquam
ullo in templo fuisse. incredible dictu est quam multi Graeci de harum
valvarum pulchritudine scriptum reliquerint . . . ex ebore diligentissime
perfecta argumenta erant in valvis: ea detrahenda curavit omnia. Gorgonis
os pulcherrimum cinctum anguibus revellit atque abstulit, et tamen indi-
cavit se non solum artificio, sed etiam pretio quaestuque duci.21

Cicero offers remarkably little detailed, physical description of these

stolen res sacrae. In place of specifics, he tries to achieve emphasis by
asserting that the goods were "magnificent" and claiming that uyou would
think I were exaggerating, if you have not seen them" (2.4.124). Cicero is
quite restrained in his description of the carved doors of the temple,
objects that might have invited a much more elaborate treatment, as they
did indeed receive, according to Cicero, at the hands of numerous Greek
writers: "incredible dictu est quam multi Graeci de harum valvarum
pulchritudine scriptum reliquerint" (2.4.124). Cicero, with this remark,
thus kills two birds with one stone: he casually advertises his own de?
tailed knowledge of the Greek writers while framing an ethical contrast

that Cicero has mixed apples and oranges in Verrines2.4: outside of an extortion prosecu-
tion, the private thefts would legally fall under the delict of furtum, while the temple
robberies, sacrilegia, would be pursued via the criminal quaestio. It seems reasonable to
assume, however, that Cicero groups the furta and sacrilegia together here because, in
classical law, sacrilege is "discussed as a variant of theft" (Robinson 1973,356). Cicero also
rhetorically links Verres' furta and sacrilegia.
21"He removed from the same
temple twenty-seven other beautiful pictures, includ?
ing portraits of the kings and tyrants Sicily, the attractiveness of which lay not merely in
of
their artistic merit, but also in the instructive record they provided of these men's personal
appearance . .. (124) I can assert with a clear conscience, gentlemen, that more splendid
doors, doors more exquisitely wrought in ivory and gold, have never existed in any temple
at all. You can hardly believe how many Greek writers have left us descriptions of the
beauty of these doors.... Upon those doors were various scenes carved in ivory with the
utmost care and perfection: Verres had all these removed. He wrenched off, and took away,
a lovely Gorgon's face encircled with serpents. With all this, he showed that it was not only
the artistic quality of these objects but their cash value that attracted him."

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
370 THOMAS D. FRAZEL

that manifests in contrasting

itself descriptive modes. The line dividing
him from Greeks is drawn by attention
the to pulchritudo', Cicero's
concern, he wishes his reader to infer, is not with that.
Cicero is equally matter-of-fact in his descriptions of four statues
that he claims Verres stole from Heius of Messana (2.4.4-5):

erat apud Heium sacrarium . . . in quo signa pulcherrima IIII summo

artificio, summa nobilitate, quae non modo istum hominem ingeniosum et
intellegentem, verum etiam quemvis nostrum quos iste idiotas appellat
delectare possent, unum Cupidinis marmoreum ... (5) ex altera parte
Hercules egregie factus ex aere . . . erant aenea duo praeterea signa non
maxuma, verum eximia venustate, virginali habitu atque vestitu, quae
manibus sublatis sacra quaedam more Atheniensium virginum reposita in
capitibus sustinebant; Canephoroe ipsae vocabantur . . .22

Cicero here is quite close to the legal standards specified by Ulpian:

number and material of the objects stolen along with description enough
for identification. For example, his description of the Canephoroe, in
addition to being an opportunity, again, to show off his knowledge of
Greek customs, contains just enough information for identification.23
Quite similar to the description of the Canephoroe is Cicero's descrip?
tion of a statue that he says he himself saw at Segesta. He accuses Verres
of stealing the following object from there: "ex aere Dianae simulacrum
cum summa atque antiquissima praeditum religione, tum singulari opere

22"There was in this house of Heius a

chapel . . . in which stood four statues;
admirable works of the greatest beauty and artistic merit, capable of giving pleasure not
only to so highly gifted an expert as Verres, but also to any of us 'outsiders,' as he calls us.
One was a marble Cupid ... (5) and opposite to it stood an admirable bronze Hercules ...
there were two other bronze statues, not very large, but remarkably attractive, in the shape
and attire of maidens, who like the Athenian maidens held with their raised hands certain
sacred objects resting on their heads. The statues were called the Canephoroe."
23Thus I
disagree both with Konig (1863, 5), who finds the descriptions of the
Canephoroe and the Diana of Segesta (2.4.74) to be written perite, and with Ochs, who
claims that Cicero shapes his description of Heius' house here (2.4.3-7) using a "principle
of increasing specificity of spatial location" to start his "visualization effort" (1982, 316);
Ochs, in fact, must at once admit that the amount of "physical description" here is notably
thin and thus, "in retrospect, Cicero's rhetorical detailing of the chapel, the altar, and the
religious statuary was not designed to establish an iconic representation but rather a moral
representation" (316); cf. Vasaly 1993, 88-130, who sees "evidentia," "vivid description,"
throughout Verrines 2.4, especially in this Heius passage (114). The legal standard articu-
lated by Ulpian better explains why Cicero describes the stolen goods in the way that
he does.

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FURTUM AND STOLEN OBJECTS IN CIC. IN VERREM 2.4 371

artificioque perfectum," 2.4.72).24 Cicero again describes the statue only

to the degree that it might be identified (2.4.74):

eum quaestor essem, nihil mihi ab illis est demonstratum prius. erat
admodum amplum [et excelsum] signum eum stola. verum tamen inerat in
illa magnitudine aetas atque habitus virginalis. sagittae pendebant ab umero,
sinistra manu retinebat arcum, dextra ardentem facem praeferebat.25

As can be seen from

all these furta and sacrilegia, Cicero's descriptive
practice throughout this oration is consistent: he gives only the informa-
tion needed to identify the stolen work. If a stolen statue was holding a
bow, Cicero notes that; if the object was simply a silver patera or a
standard representation of Hercules, that is all the information he gives.

IN VERREM 2.4 AND ATTITUDES TOWARD "WORKS OF ART"

The spare, legal standard of description used in theft prosecutions thus

explains a well-known and rather curious feature of In Verrem 2.4, namely,
the paucity of individualizing description offered throughout. Those ob?
jects that Verres stole from Heius, for example, were priceless works of
art?the Cupid was a Praxiteles, the Hercules a Myron. Yet Cicero de?
scribes them in the same way as he describes, say, Cacurius' furniture or
Lutatius' citrus-wood table in 2.4.37 (quoted above). Instead of individu?
alizing description, as Becker acutely perceives, Cicero relies on only a
handful of stereotyped adjectives or adverbs?for exdimiple,pulcherrimus,
pulcherrime factum, egregie factum, summo artificio, eximia, praeclara,
perfectus?to add color to his long catalogue.26 Indeed, if Cicero's

24"... a bronze
image of Diana, regarded from very ancient times as sacred, and
moreover, a work of art of extremely fine workmanship." Good remarks on Cicero's
presentation of this theft are in Vasaly 1993,117-20. For Cicero's autopsy here (Segesta is
not far from Lilybaeum), compare, e.g., 2.4.94,125.
25"... when I was
quaestor, it was the first thing they took me to see there.The figure,
draped in a long robe, was of great size [and height]; but in spite of its dimensions, it well
suggested the youthful grace of a maiden, with quiver hung from one shoulder, bow in the
left hand, and the right hand holding forth a blazing torch."
26Becker 1969, 90: "Am
haufigsten kommen summarische Bezeichnungen vor wie:
pulcherrimus, pulcherrime factum, egregie factum, egregie factum, summo artificio, eximia
pulchritudine, eximia venustate, incredibili pulchritudine. Dies sind wertende, nicht
beschreibende Ausdriicke." Here are some examples: pulcherrime (2.4.29, 37, 84, 93,110,
122,124,128,131; cf. 94); praeclara (2.4.32,94,109; cf. 122,127); perfectus (2.4.64,103,126);
optimus (2.4.32, 37). Note also the combination of opus or artiftcium + miscellaneous

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
372 THOMAS D FRAZEL

descriptive mode is recognized as one similar to that used in theft plead-

ings, then Zimmer's observation that Cicero's descriptive palette offers
few examples from the vocabulary of ancient art criticism will not sur-
prise (1989, 510, and n. 45).27
Cicero chooses such a matter-of-fact descriptive style in this oratio
not simply because it contributes to his portrait of Verres as a thief; such
a mode also allows him to develop an ethos for himself that diametrically
opposes the one he creates for Verres. Through the no-nonsense descrip-
tions, Cicero here gives the impression that he has a indifferent attitude
toward art.28 For example, Cicero makes it quite clear that he personally
does not value a Cupid of Praxiteles as highly as Verres does (2.4.13). He
asserts, moreover, that a dismissive attitude toward art is shared by him
and all the iudices and that it is the norm from which both Verres and the
Sicilians deviate: "etenim mirandum in modum Graeci rebus istis quas
nos contemnimus delectantur" (2.4.134).29 Yet he also, paradoxically, claims

adjectives (opus: 2.4.32, 64, 103; artificium: 2.4.7, 38, 123; both: 2.4.72). Goehling rightly
notes that "'pulcherrima, summo artificio, summa nobilitate' etc. ad 'signa' adjecta nihil
aliud sunt nisi epitheta quae vocamus ornantia, quare nihil nobis adjumenti praebent ad
artis opera planius intellegenda" (1877, 6; cf. 4, 21); cf. Cayrel 1933,122.
27
Konig, for one, is frustrated on this score: "In Verrinis ipse (sc.Tullius) quidem ita
de signis et tabulis pictis loquitur, ut de propria cuiusque artificis virtute nihil discas; in aliis
vero scriptis de diversa insignium statuariorum, sculptorum, pictorum indole et natura
multa egregie observat" (1863,7). The title occasionally used for this oration, De signis, may
perhaps bear some of the blame for creating false expectations of an art historical treatise.
Cicero, however, never used this title (Orator 167,210; cf. 103; see Zumpt 1831, xl) nor is it
included in any of the principal manuscripts (some later MSS do use the titles: Zumpt, xli).
The titles attached to the Verrinesalso appear in Nonius and other later grammarians,who,
most likely, invented them (ibid.).
28
Any discussion of this topic must start from Zimmer 1989, which is fundamental.
On the distinct, yet closely related, questions of how Cicero here presents his knowledge of
art and what his actual knowledge was, see Leen 1991,231-32 (with earlier bibliography),
and, e.g.,Thomas 1894,43-46; Bornecque 1896,17-43; Rossbach 1899,278-79; Cayrel 1933;
Desmouliez, 1949; Jucker 1950, 90-91; Kaus 1992. Quintilian rightly argues that Cicero's
"feigned ignorance" ("eum aliqua velut ignoramus,"9.2.61) about the name of Polyclitus at
2.4.5 allows him to attack Verres' art obsession without seeming to be passionate for such
things himself; for Pliny (1.20.10), In Verrem 2.4.5 is an excellent example of the many
figurae extemporales that Cicero skillfully weaves throughout this oratio. Treatments of
Roman elite attitudes toward art that marshal 2.4.5 as evidence must confront Rawson's
incisive qualification that, elsewhere in 2.4, Cicero "produces obscurer names" than Polyclitus
(1985,193, n. 37).
29"It is indeed
quite astonishing what delight a Greek will take in these things of
which a Roman thinks so little." Cicero, at 2.4.132, claims that Greeks take more pleasure
in art works than Romans and, consequently, feel their loss more keenly.

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FURTUM AND STOLEN OBJECTS IN CIC IN VERREM 2.4 373

both that he and the judges can take pleasure, when they feel like it
(2.4.4), in art objects and that they all know about current values in the
high-end art market (2.4.12-14).30 If Cicero had gone off into minute or
rhapsodic descriptions of the various art works that he mentions in this
speech, he would have had a much harder time portraying himself as a
blase window-shopper or a sometime auction-goer, someone who was
just as knowledgeable as Verres yet not carried away by a mania. Indeed,
as the very first sentence of 2.4 shows, Cicero's attempt to characterize
Verres' art interests as unnatural is one of his highest rhetorical priorities
here (2.4.1): "Venio nunc ad istius quemadmodum ipse appellat studium,
ut amici eius, morbum et insaniam, ut Siculi, latrocinium. ego quo nom-
ine appellem nescio. rem vobis proponam, vos eam suo, non nominis
pondere penditote."31 The "police-report" style of descriptions used in
theft prosecutions plainly contributes to Cicero's own self-presentation.

CONCLUSION

The topic of "Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art" (to borrow the title of
Leen 1991, an important paper) is a broad and enormously complex one;
it has, accordingly, been revisited again and again (and, hopefully, will
continue to be so). I here approach this question not from the angle of
what Cicero says about art but of how he describes the objects found
within In Verrem 2.4.321 argue that Cicero's matter-of-fact descriptions of
the goods in this speech?both res privatae and res sacrae?bear striking
similarities to the legal standard for the degree and type of description
used in an accusation of theft. That recognition underscores my further
claim that Cicero's emphasis on Verres' asportation of goods and his
presentations of Verres' purchases as forced sales are also closely linked
to the conceptual categories from the delict oi furtum. My hypothesis is
that all these gestures toward furtum must have been rather natural for
Cicero given the common ground between repetundae and furtum, to say

30At 2.4.126, Cicero offers more

examples of Romans taking immense pleasure in
art works.
31"I come now to what he himself
speaks of as his favourite pursuit, his friends as a
foolish weakness, Sicily as highway robbery. What name I should myself give it I know not:
I will put the facts of it before you, and you shall judge of it by its nature and not by its
name."
321hope that my discussion, nevertheless, will be of use to students of art criticism in
the Roman world.

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374 THOMAS D. FRAZEL

nothing of his own expert knowledge of civil law.33 Finally, I argue that
the staid descriptions of the stolen objects steadily support Cicero's own
ethical portrait in this oratio.
The various furtum elements that I identify collectively flesh out
that other portrait that Cicero paints here, namely, the one of Verres as a
thief. Cicero's choice, we should not forget, was a damning one. For all
their obvious similarities, repetundae and furtum are miles apart in terms
of settings-in-life. Repetundae focuses on the crimes of representatives of
the state, men who are, by definition, members of the highest social
stratum at Rome; thieves, on the other hand, as Thomas neatly puts it,
"are not generally well endowed with this world's goods" (1976, 360),
unlike every participant in the Roman repetundae court: defendant, ju-
rors, and counsel. In light of this sociological fact, Mommsen acknowl-
edges that the appropriation of other people's property can also be
prosecuted along with repetundae', yet he emphasizes that, in reality, the
early extortion courts focused on illegal gifts and extortion, not the
"hardly aristocratic offense of direct theft."34 Here we see how offensive
Cicero's portrayal of Verres might have been to his fellow aristocrats; it
both denigrates and isolates Verres, turning the former praetor into a
character no juror or reader could ever sympathize with, a common
thief.35

Tulane University
e-mail: tfrazel@tulane.edu

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Balsdon, J. P. V D. 1938. "The History of the Extortion Court at Rome, 123-70

B.C." PBSR 14:98-114. Rpt. 1969. The Crisis ofthe Roman Republic: Stud?
ies in Political and Social History, ed. Robin Seager, 132-50. London: Heffer.
Becker, Norbert. 1969. "Die Darstellung der Wirklichkeit in Ciceros Verrinischen
Reden." Ph.D. diss. Freiburg.

33For Cicero and the law oi

furtum, see, e.g., Fam. 7.22 (to Trebatius, from 44 b.c.e.).
34Mommsen 1899, 716:
"Aneignung fremden Gutes, die den Thatbestand des
Diebstahls in sich schliesst, kann auch mit der Repetundenklage verfolgt werden"; 716 n. 6:
"... sicher hat man bei der Einfiihrung der Repetundenklage unzulassige Geschenke und
Erpressungen im Auge gehabt, nicht das wenig aristokratische Verbrechen des directen
Furtum"; cf. Nicholas 1979, 211.
35
My own furta, I know them: thanks to Dennis Kehoe, Carole Newlands, and the
AJP readers (one, in particular) for their trenchant comments on various versions of this
paper.

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FURTUM AND STOLEN OBJECTS IN CIC. IN VERREM 2.4 375

Birks, Peter. 1973. "A Note on the Development of Furtum." IJ 8:349-55.

Bornecque, Henri. 1896. M. Tullii Ciceronis Oratio In Verrem. De Signis. Paris:
Armand Colin.
Brunt, P. A. 1990. Roman Imperial Themes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Buckland, W. W. 1966. A Text-book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian. 3d.
ed. Rev. by Peter Stein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cayrel, Pierre. 1933. "Autour du De Signis." MEFR: 120-55.
Crawford, M. H., ed. 1996. Roman Statutes. 2 vols. London: University of London.
Desmouliez, Andre. 1949. "Sur Pinterpretation du De Signis." Rev. Univ. 58:155-
66.
Eder, Walter. 1969. "Das vorsullanische Repetundenverfahren." Ph.D. diss.,
Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich.
Goehling, Wilhelm. 1877. "De Cicerone artis aestimatore." Ph.D. diss., Academia
Fridericiana, Halle.
Greenwood, L. H. G. 1935. Cicero: The Verrine Orations, II. Cambridge, Mass.,
and London: Harvard University Press and William Heinemann.
Jolowicz, H. F. 1940. Digest XLVII.2. De Furtis. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer?
sity Press.
Jucker, Hans. 1950. Vom Verhdltnis der Romer zur bildenden Kunst der Griechen.
Frankfurt am Main: V Klostermann.
Kaser, Max. 1966. Das romische Zivilprozessrecht. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Kaus, Eberhard. 1992." Affectation catonischer simplicitat'? (zu Cic. Verr. 2,4,4f.)."
Gymnasium 99:146-56.
Klotz, Alfred, ed. 1949. M. Tulli Ciceronis Scripta Quae Manserunt Omnia. In C
Verrem Actio Secunda TV-V. Stuttgart: Teubner.
Konig, F. S. C. 1863. De Cicerone in Verrinis artis operum aestimatore et judice.
Progr. Jever: C. L. Mettcker.
Leen, Anne. 1991. "Cicero and the Rhetoric of Art." AJP 122:229-45.
Lintott, A. W. 1992. Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mommsen, Th. 1899. Romisches Strafrecht. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Nicholas, Barry. 1979. An Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ochs, D. J. 1982. "Rhetorical Detailing in Cicero's Verrine Orations." Central
States Speech Journal 33:310-18.
Pontenay de Fontette, Frangois. 1954. Leges repetundarum. Paris: Pichon &
Durand-Auzias.
Rawson, Elizabeth. 1985. Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. London:
Duckworth.
Riggsby, A. M. 1999. Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome. Austin: Univer?
sity of Texas Press.
Robinson, O. F. 1973. "Blasphemy and Sacrilege in Roman Law." IJ 8:356-71.
Rossbach, Otto. 1899. "Das Sacrarium des Heius in Messana." RhM 54:277-84.
Sherwin-White, A. N. 1982. "The Lex Repetundarum and the Political Ideas of
Gaius Gracchus." JRS 72:18-31.

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376 THOMAS D. FRAZEL

Thomas, E. 1894. Ciceron Verrines. Divinatio In Q. Caecilium etActionis Secundae

Libri IV et V, De Signis et De Suppliciis. Paris: Librairie Hachette.
Thomas, J. A. C. 1976. Textbook of Roman Law. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Vasaly, Ann. 1993. Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Venturini, Carlo. 1979. Studi sul 'crimen repetundarum' nelV etd repubblicana.
Milan: Giuffre.
Zimmer, Gerhard. 1989. "Das Sacrarium des C. Heius. Kunstraub und Kunst-
geschmack in der spaten Republik." Gymnasium 96:493-520.
Zimmermann, Reinhardt. 1990. The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of
the Civilian Tradition. Cape Town: Juta.
Zumpt, K. G, ed. 1831. M. Tulli Ciceronis. Verrinarum libri septem. Berlin: Ferd.
Dummler.

This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:20:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions