I am currently reading ‘Cultural Objects and Reparative Justice – A Legal and Historical Analysis’ (2023) by Patty Gerstenblith, OUP. In which she observes that:

‘During the Roman Republic and Empire, principles evolved for the behavior of the conquering army, including limits on how much booty could be taken and what should be done with it. Consistently, with some notable exceptions, the Romans tended to show respect for religious sanctuaries. Even when sanctuaries were looted, the plunder was often recycled for other religious or public purposes. The legitimacy of such looting depended on whether the works were taken from religious or nonreligious context, whether the works were taken for the victors personal benefit or for the public benefit and, whether the works were taken as the result of legitimate warfare or were taken during civil administration or as a private action, which amounted to piracy. Nevertheless, Greek and Roman historians criticized the looting of artworks, sometimes even if works were taken from nonreligious contexts. … The Roman orator and lawyer, Cicero, elaborated on this theme in his prosecution in 70 BCE of Gaius Verres, the Roman civilian governor of Sicily, for corruption. … Cicero distinguish between ordinary war booty (spolia), which a conqueror is free to take, and illegal removal of art (particularly religious art) and architectural decoration (spoliatio). The later writings of the Roman historian Livy (59 BCE-17 CE) and the Greek geographer and traveler Pausanias (second century CE) perpetuated the distinction between takings that were considered legitimate and those that were not. Another theme found in Cicero’s Verrine orations is the distinction between good uses of art (the public, commemorative, and religious purposes) and bad uses of art (for private, consumptive, and decadent purposes). Cicero’s writings and particularly the prosecution of Verres played a significant role in the future development of the Law of Warfare and more general attitudes with respect to cultural objects. The Verrine orations were well known to later Roman authors, such as Livy and Pliny, who wrote in the first century CE and who perpetuated Cicero’s principles concerning looting.’

Cicero’s distinction between ‘Spolia’ and ‘Spoliato’ has shaped the attitudes of Museums about the ethics of returning cultural artefacts that were misappropriated during colonial times.

So, what if any ‘Principle of Restitution’ for the Mediation, can be derived from the Verrine Orations, and earlier attitudes and policies in antiquity?

I have a translation and commentary on the Verrine orations in my office and when I read this literature over the summer, I will reflect on that question.

In other words, what attitudes toward art restitution were there in antiquity, that are relevent to the Mediation of claims today?