The Hercules of Agrigentum
After the theft of the candelabrum, Verres is no longer content with stealing from households. He now targets major sanctuaries and takes objects that have been consecrated to the gods.
Although not every theft in the second part of Verr. II 4 is set at a temple, the candelabrum is the last object in the speech that is explicitly identified as sacred even though that label is legally dubious. From here on Verres's activities tend to meet even the strictest definition of temple robbery.[204]A particularly detailed and dramatic narrative in the second part of Verr. II 4 is the attempted removal of a statue of Hercules from Agrigentum (Verr. II 4.94-95). The episode once more exemplifies how differently worshipers and Verres treat objects. The orator starts by setting the scene (Verr. II 4.94):
Herculis templum est apud Agrigentinos non longe a foro, sane sanctum apud illos et religiosum. Ibi est ex aere simulacrum ipsius Herculis, quo non facile dixerim quicquam me vidisse pulchrius—tametsi non tam multum in istis rebus intellego quam multa vidi—usque eo, iudices, ut rictum eius ac mentum paulo sit attritius, quod in precibus et gratulationibus non solum id venerari verum etiam osculari solent.
There is a temple of Hercules at Agrigentum not far from the forum, especially sacred and revered among the town's inhabitants. In that place there is a bronze image of Hercules himself, I cannot readily say whether I have seen anything more beautiful—though my understanding of these matters does not reflect the number of beautiful things that I have seen—but it is so beautiful, members of the jury, that its mouth and chin are a little rubbed off, because in their prayers and acts of thanksgiving the inhabitants of Agrigentum are not just accustomed to worship the statue, but also kiss it.
The Hercules of Agrigentum is simultaneously a typical and an unusual target for Verres.
On the one hand, it is an exceptionally beautiful object made out of precious metal. It therefore has a high artistic and material value and is the sort of object that Verres has been attracted to time and again in the speech. On the other hand, as the end of the passage reveals, this statue does not have the pristine beauty of Heius’s Cupid or the candelabrum. Its use as a religious object has left behind marks.[205]Unlike in the case of Heius’s Cupid, the artist plays no role; the general description of the object suffices to establish both its importance to the pious inhabitants of Agrigentum and to Verres. The introduction also emphasizes that touching the object will play a major role in the narrative. In the case of the people of Agrigentum, physical interaction with the Hercules is a sign of reverence even though it damages the object. In the case of Verres’s men, touching the object is an act of aggression that risks the destruction of the statue. So the orator continues his narrative (Verr. II 4.94):
Ad hoc templum, cum esset iste Agrigenti, duce Timarchide repente nocte intempesta servorum armatorum fit concursus atque impetus. Clamor a vigilibus fanique custodibus tollitur; qui primo cum obsistere ac defendere conarentur; male mulcati clavis ac fustibus repelluntur. Postea convulsis repagulis ecfractisque valvis demoliri signum ac vectibus labefactare conantur.
At this temple, when that man [Verres] was in Agrigentum, there was a sudden coming together and an attack by armed slaves in the middle of the night under the leadership of Timarchides. A shout was raised by the guards and watchmen of the temple. First, when they tried to resist and defend the building, they were driven back badly beaten by clubs and fists. Afterward, when the bars had been wrenched off and the doors broken, they [Timarchides' men] tried to pull down the statue and loosen it with crowbars.
The beginning of the passage already marks this as one of Verres's most shameful attacks: it takes place in the middle of the night and with the help of armed slaves—a notorious source of instability in Rome whose use was regularly attributed to thugs of the worst kind.[206] It is clear that Verres will go to any length to obtain the statue and that careful planning has gone into the attack.
This impression continues when the orator describes how the slaves mistreat the guards and, finally, how they approach the statue itself. Here Cicero's choice of vocabulary, “pull down” (demoliri) and “loosen with crowbars” (vectibus labefactare) leaves no doubt that the act is more one of destruction than simply attempted removal.[207] The men seem so keen on acquiring the object that they combine an attempt at temple robbery with an attempt at destroying the statue of a god.[208]The orator's care in describing this shocking manifestation of Verres's acquisitiveness makes it easy to overlook an important aspect of the narrative: the former governor is not present at the site. All that is explicitly said about his location in the Agrigentum narrative is that he is in town. His physical proximity and the fact that his henchman Timarchides is the leader of the band of slaves, however, are enough evidence for Cicero to tie Verres to the attack itself. Every temple robbery that happens near Verres is automatically his doing.[209] While there is never any firm evidence that he even authorized the heist, the near destruction of a valuable and religiously significant bronze statue fits Cicero's portrait of the defendant perfectly.
The reaction of the inhabitants of Agrigentum to the break-in also supports the orator's image of Verres. He is now widely regarded as a reviled plunderer. To continue (Verr. II 4.94-95):
Interea ex clamore fama tota urbe percrebruit expugnari deos patrios, non hostium adventu necopinato neque repentino praedonum impetu, sed ex domo atque ex cohorte praetoria manum fugitivorum instructam armatamque venisse. Nemo Agrigenti neque aetate tam adfecta neque viribus tam infirmis fuit qui non illa nocte eo nuntio excitatus surrexerit, telumque quod cuique fors offerebat arripuerit. Itaque brevi tempore ad fanum ex urbe tota concurritur. Horam amplius iam in demoliendo signo permulti homines moliebantur; illud interea nulla lababat ex parte, cum alii vectibus subiectis conarentur commovere, alii deligatum omnibus membris rapere ad se funibus.
Ac repente Agrigentini concurrunt; fit magna lapidatio; dant sese in fugam istius praeclari imperatoris nocturni milites.In the meanwhile, thanks to the uproar, there was a report in the whole town that the ancestral gods were under siege, and that the attack had not come from the unexpected arrival of an enemy or from a sudden assault of plunderers, but from a band of fugitives drawn up and armed by the household and cohort of the governor. No one in Agrigentum was so advanced in age or weak that he did not get out of bed that night stirred up by the news and did not grab the weapon that chance afforded him. So the whole city came together at the temple in a short time. For more than an hour very many men were working on pulling down the statue; it, in the meanwhile, was not coming loose anywhere though some were trying to move it with crowbars placed underneath it and others were trying to pull it toward them with ropes tied around all its limbs. And suddenly the citizens of Agrigentum rushed together; there was a great shower of stones, the nighttime soldiers of that distinguished general took flight.
The attack is now not just against Hercules, but also against all of the gods that the inhabitants are accustomed to worship. Next, Verres's men are described as being worse than plunderers or foreign enemies. The passage goes on to detail the activities of Timarchides's band and repeats language found earlier, especially the use of the verb demolior, “pull down.”[210] Once again the audience is reminded that the attackers are willing to destroy the statue with their actions.
The men try for over an hour to remove the statue from its pedestal, but are unsuccessful because everyone else is working against them. The Hercules does not move, and although Cicero does not specifically attribute this to divine intervention, the idea is there implicitly: it is a trope in Greek and Roman literature that the statues of the gods can express their displeasure at human behavior through a variety of physical actions (see, e.g., Bremmer 2013).
The famous story of the arrival of the goddess Cybele in Rome is one example that illustrates the perceived connection between a divine power's willingness to relocate and the relative ease or difficulty of moving the deity's statue (see, e.g., Livy 29.14 or Ovid Fast. 4.179-372). The force that Verres's men use in their attempt to remove the bronze therefore both illustrates their disrespect for the treasure and the god's desire to remain in the temple (see also Stewart 2003, 274). This implied divine intervention further authenticates the sacredness of the Hercules of Agrigentum. The god is doing his part to thwart Verres's efforts. The citizens of Agrigentum, in turn, come together to resist the attack and drive off the governor's men. Even though gods and mortals in the Verrines are mostly seen as the helpless victims of Verres's assaults, the Agrigentum narrative marks a rare moment of victory.[211]Although Verres is not himself present at the temple of Hercules, the scene has all the characteristics of his usual interactions with sacred objects: he targets artifacts of artistic significance made out of valuable material and has no regard for their religious importance. The Hercules scene also shows an aspect of Verres's acquisitiveness that we have not seen in the case of the Cupid or the candelabrum: he is willing to risk the destruction of the object while acquiring it. This detail shows that for Cicero the former governor is purely motivated by greed: for him the Hercules is neither a religious object nor even a work of art; it is a pile of precious material that he must possess.