Senatus Consultum de Tabenis Sherk, Robert K Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1965; 6, 4; ProQuest pg. 295

Senatus Consultum de Tabenis 
Robert K. Sherk 

I N HIS SETTLEMENT of Asian affairs at the conclusion of the First 
Mithridatic War Sulla examined the status of the various citie£ and 
states and made whatever changes he considered desirable. Some of 

the cities were rewarded for their loyalty to Rome, others were 
pUnished. When the reorganization of the province had been com­
pleted, early in 84 B.C., he departed. 

Among the cities which had been rewarded was the Carian city of 
Tabae. Deep in the confines of the mountains and surrounded by 
canyons it nevertheless had been involved in the war. In 1889 a 
fragment of a senatus consultum was published which indicated beyond 
doubt that Tabae steadfastly resisted Mithridates and accordingly had 
earned the gratitude of Rome. In the period 85-84 B.C. Sulla had made 
certain grants or concessions to the city, and, a few years later, the 
Roman Senate had confirmed them. Tabae itself then had a copy of 
the decree engraved and erected in its own city, probably on the anta 
of some temple.1 

Unfortunately the first publication of this Senatorial decree con­
tained a faulty reading that caused scholars to make certain assump­
tions about the nature of the concessions made to Tabae. But in 1933 
and 1934 the block containing the decree was located a second time 
and examined very carefully by Buckler and Calder. Eventually they 
published it anew, this time with an excellent photograph of their 
squeeze. Their publication reveals the mistake of the first editor and 

1 Bibliography: G. Doublet, BCH 13 (1889) 503ff; P. Viereck, Hermes 25 (1890) 624-31; 
T. Mommsen, Hermes 26 (1891) 145ff (= Gesammelte Schriften V, 514ff); V. Chapot, La 
province romaine proconsulaire d'Asie (Paris 1904) 38ff; W. Dittenberger, OGIS 442; Abbott­
Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton 1926) 271 no. 16; Ulrich 
von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Mommsen und Wilamowitz. Briefwechsel 1872-1903 (Berlin 
1935) 392ff (the pertinent parts assembled and quoted by Robert, below); w. H. Buckler 
and W. M. Calder, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua VI (Manchester 1939) 59-60 (plate 28); 
D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950) I, pp. 234-35, and II, pp. 965, 1003, 
1112; L. and J. Robert, La Carie II: Le Plateau de Tabai et ses environs (Paris 1954) 97-102 no. 5; 
G. Klaffenbach, review of Robert in Gnomon 27 (1955) 234-35; G. E. Bean, review of Robert 
in AJA 60 (1956) 196; F. G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften I: Texte und Kommentare 
[Vestigia, Beitrage zur alten Geschichte I] (Heidelberg 1959) 245-47 no. 75. 

5-G.R.B.S. 295 



296 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE TABENlS 

establishes the true reading. In 1954 L. and J. Robert published the 
text again, profiting by the revision of Buckler-Calder and offering 
many new suggestions together with very full notes. The text which 
is printed below is basically that of the Roberts but differing in one 
respect. Their restorations of lines 7 and 10-11 are omitted. Those 
lines contain the cruces of the entire document and it is with their 
restoration that we are here concerned. 

[- - Toi!) TE ,B]Q:q[ tAlw!) MdJpaDaTov ~YE/LoaLv] 
[DvVa/LEalv] TE €TTaVDpOTaTa [TTEpt Tfj!) , Aala!)] 

[Kat T ]fj!) • EMaDO!) aVTLTETaxO[ at, aplaKELV -rflL] 
4 [avv]KA~TWt Kat TWL D~/LWL [TWL 'Pw/Lalwv TTaVTa au]­

[Toi!)] rapLaTa ElvaL EawOal TE. T~[V TE TTPO!) TIJV aVv]­

[KA7J]TOV Kat TOV Dfj/LOV TOV 'PW/La[twII aUTWII? TTlaTLII] 

lDUX] /LII~/L7J!) EXELV E~ELV TE vac oa[- - - - --] 
8 [TOV]TWV apETfj!) Kat KaTaAoyfj!) EII[ EKEV aUToi!)] 

[/LET]~ uvv,BovAtov YIIW/L7J!) AEVKLO!) K[ OP~ALO!)] 
[ EVAA ]a!) aUTOKpaTWp UVVExwp7JaEV vac OTTqJ [!) - - - ] 
[- - ]ro i!) TO i!) VO/LOL!) a{plaEalv TE £LaLli [- - ], 

12 [ OTTW]!) TE xwplov 8V7Jaaov 0 €aTLII €VTO!) TWV [0]­
[Plw]1I aUTwv. €aV ,BovAwVTaL, 0xvpwawaLv' [T~V] 
[TE aV]IIKA7JTOV TOil TE Dfj/LOV TOil 'Pw/Lalwv [DLa]­
[Aa ]v,BaVEtV TaVTa aUToi!) KaAW!) Kat vac [TTPOU7J]-

16 [KOVT ]W!) Kat a~lw!) aUTWV. DE86a8aL TE [- - - -] 

Before considering the many proposals for restoring lines 7 and 
10-11 it is necessary to outline briefly the suggestions made prior to_the 
revision of the stone by Buckler-Calder. These were all conditioned 
by the mistaken reading of [TT ]6A[ EL!)] in line 10 where the stone actually 
has OTTcp[!)]. This led Viereck to believe that cities had been granted to 
Tabae, for the presence of the word could hardly be explained any 
other way. Unfortunately he then restored [lSt]OL!) at the beginning of 
line 11, feeling that those cities were to be autonomous. But how 
could autonomous cities be granted to Tabae ? It appeared impossible. 
Mommsen could not agree. He saw an allusion to a league of Carian 
cities, the avaT7J/La XpvaaopLKov. Thus Sulla and the Senate were not 
dealing with Tabae alone, but with a confederation of cities. Wilamo­
witz, in private correspondence with Mommsen, objected to any 



ROBERT K. SHERK 297 

allusion to a confederation. He felt that the text was wrong and 
suggested o[1TwS'l in place of [1TJ6A[ELS'J. Thus he anticipated the true 
reading made thirty-five years later! He could not believe that dties 
could have been granted to Tabae and refused to consider a con­
federation. He was the first to suggest that Tabae had been granted 
special privileges. He restored the passage as follows: 

ou[a T€ €17'a8Aa T?JsJ 
[TOVJTWV ap€Tfjs Kat KaTaAoyfjs E[V€K€V U~TOtS'] 

[&'1TOJ UVJL{3ovAtov YVWJLTJS AEVKLOS [KOpV7JALOS] 
[EVAA]US' U~TOKpd.TWP UVV€XWpTJU€V, O[1TWS TotS LSt]-
[ J '8 ~, ." '" OLS' € < >ta < JL >0 LS' VOJLOLS' ULP€UEULV TE WULV. 

He explained the peculiar datives of the last line as the equivalent 
of Latin ablatives, for the Greek copies of senatus consulta are all 
translations of the Latin originals. His interpretation of the final 
phrase may be seen in his translation back to Latin: ut suo iure suis 
legibus essent. Thus" cities" disappeared and "privileges" took its place. 

Let us now examine the proposals for lines 7 and 10-11 which were 
made after the revision of the stone. 

Buckler-Calder proposed ou[a TE t/n7¢ta8fjVUL] in line 7 and 017'W[S' £17" 
tlan a~JTOtS' TOtS' V6ILOLS' U[pEUW{V T€ c1JULV [KVpLU] in 10-11. This makes 
the grant broader than one of privileges alone, for it includes all the 
decrees which the Tabenians had voted with Sulla's permission. This 
was rightly rejected by Robert, who saw that the phrase "all that Sulla 
permitted them to be voted" was impossible on historical grounds. 
Sulla had not been in Tabae and could hardly therefore have given 
them his permission to vote anything at the time when they had 
resisted Mithridates. 

Robert proposed ou[ a T€ ¢LAd.v()pw17'a ?] in line 7 and 017'W[S TUUTa I 
E17" UV]TOtS' TOtS VOJLOLS' atpl.uEutv T€ clJULV [KVptUJ in 10-11. He understood 
the last line to mean that the privileges granted by Sulla were valid 
"aux memes lois et aux memes conditions." He could, however, 
offer no parallels for such a combination of words and ideas. He was, 
nevertheless, convinced that the sense of the passage was established. 

Klaffenbach, in his review of Robert, was not convinced. With a 
great deal of reserve and hesitation he suggested ou[a T€ €17'a()Aa TfjS'] 
for line 7, following Wilamowitz, and 017'W[S' v¢'1 €UVJTOtS' TOtS' VOILOLS' 



298 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE TABENIS 

aip€UEutv TE 6JUW [1T<luaLS] for 10-11. And Maier later agreed substan­
tially with this. 

Bean also could not agree with Robert, for he maintained, rightly, 
that only E1Tt TOLS aVToLS v6/1-OLS could carry the meaning he had 
suggested. Bean felt that the Tabenians were to be allowed to make 
their own laws and decisions: 01TW[S KVPLOL I eq/ avJToLS (?) TOLS v6/1-OLS 

aip€UEutv TE 6JULV [xp7juOaL]. But he was not satisfied with his own 
restoration. 

And there the matter stands: complete disagreement on the issue 
of exactly what sort of concessions had been made to the Tabenians. 
That the city is being treated as autonomous, however, seems clear. 

Ever since "cities" had been removed from the decree almost all 
editors and commentators have assumed that E1TaOAa or some similar 
word should be restored in line 7. Therein lies the source of the 
difficulty. Apparently only Bean has felt that such a word could not 
be the subject of the phrase in lines 10-11. The old theories of Viereck 
and Mommsen had been dismissed. The new reading of the stone had 
removed H cities" and therefore anything of a similar nature does not 
seem to have been considered possible. But E1TaOAa in line 7 must carry 
over to lines 10-11, and that creates a strange combination of words. 
One does not ordinarily speak of "privileges" in connection with 
"laws" and "policies." 

The true nature of the concessions made to Tabae and, consequently, 
the correct restoration of the noun in line 7, may be discovered by an 
examination of the concessions made by Sulla about this same time to 
other cities. A list of these with a quotation of the pertinent clauses 
must be given. 

A. Stratoniceia. S. C. de Stratonicensibus of 81 B.C. (OGIS 441), lines 
53-56: xwpta [KwfLas ALfL€vas 1Tpou6loovs rE TeVVJ 1T6AEWV, <1)11 AEVKLOS 

Kopv[ ~ALOS EvMas aVToKparwp I TfjS TovrwIIJ apETfjs KaTaAoyijs TE 

E[V€K€II7TPOUWPLUEVUVIIEXWPYJ IUEII, o1TwST]avTaaVrOLS€X€LV e~TfjL ·KTA. Simi­
lar expressions appear in lines 93-97 and 102-104 of the same document. 
The great similarity between this decree of the Senate and the one 
concerning Tabae was, of course, noticed by the first editor and its 
phrases used for the purposes of restoration and interpretation. 
Robert quotes large sections of the Stratoniceian decree. 

B. Thasos. S. C. de Thasiis of80 B.C., first published by C. Dunant and 
J. Pouilloux in Etudes thasiennes V (Paris 1958) pp. 37-45, no. 174, lines 
13-16 of frag. E: as T€ 1Tpoa6oovs Tfjs TOVTWV ap[ €rfjs Ka2 KaTaAoyfjs EVEK€V 



ROBERT K. SHERK 299 

am) aVJL{3oVA.LOV YVWJL'YJs] I AEVKLOS KOpV~A.LOS [2vJAAas aVTOKp[aTWp TOtS 
,~ ] I I 1\[ 'J" • [ 1 , ~.. ] I aVToLS avv EXWP'YJaEV v 7TOI\ EtS XWpt a Kat Ta v 7TapxoVTa aVToLS r - - ---

ALJLlvas KTA. 

C. Oropus and the god Amphiaraus. S. C. de Oropiis (SIG3 747), 
1· 20 23" " .... .... f) , , l' (I .... 1nes - . E'TT<€)L EV TWL TTJS fLLa wa€ws VOfLWL aVTaL aL xwpaL 
• C. 1 "" A 1 n 1\ \ 8 ~ '8' ..... .... I V7TtEstELp'YJf-tEvaL ELaw, as tEVKLOS .::.,vl\I\as €WV a avaTWV LtEpWV TtEf-ttEVWV 
.1.\ .... ., 1 {' l:. 1 "} 1 , 'f'Vl\aK'YJS EVEKEV aVVExwp'YJaEV V7TEsELp'YJJLtEVaL ELaw, TCXVTas TE Tas 

I /~ '''''' ,.... A 1 n 1\ \ .... 8 .... 'A ..I.. 7Tpoa ooovs, 7TtEpL wv aYETaL TO 7TpaYJLa, tEvKLOS .::.,vI\I\CXS TWL EWL JL'f'La-

paWL 7Tp<o>aWLptlatEv (!), CJ7TWS KTA.. 

From an examination of these passages and a comparison with the 
phraseology of our present decree it is possible to suppose that Sulla 
had also granted Tabae control of KWJLCXL or XWpLCX. These are in no 
sense cities and have nothing at all to do with a confederation of any 
sort. Clearly Sulla had no objections to the granting of villages, 
districts or even revenues to those cities which had displayed their 
loyalty to Rome. And since our decree grants Tabae the privilege of 
fortifying nearby Thyessus (lines 12-13), one may assume that the city 
had been concerned about its military security. And accordingly it 
could have asked Sulla for control of certain villages which were of 
importance from a strategic point of view. Sulla, convinced of Tabae's 
loyalty and therefore of its usefulness to Rome in this part of Caria, 
may have agreed. 

But Robert was struck by the absence of 7TpoaWptaEV in the Tabenian 
decree and therefore felt that avVtExwP'YJaEv alone was insufficient to 
convey the meaning of attributing territories to the city. But does not 
the passage quoted from the S. C. de Oropiis (above, C) show that the 
verb alone was quite sufficient? The verb also appears alone in lines 
25-27 of that same document: aVTaL ai xwpaL tJ7TEgELp'YJJLl.vaL ElaLv,1 as 
A ' n 1\ \ 8.... '8 1 ..... .... .I. \ ....., I 1 EvKLOS '::"VI\I\CXS tEWVa avaTWV LEPWV TEJLtEVWV 'f'Vl\aK'YJs EVtEKtEV aVVExwp'YJaEV, 

OVTE 0 'Af-tcptapaos, KTA.. Does not this parallel suggest that Sulla granted 
Tabae control over villages or districts in the area? 

With a new subject for the verb at the end ofline 11 the restoration 
of that line becomes somewhat less complicated. A clue may be found 
in lines 17-19 of col. 1 of the letter written by Cn. Cornelius Dolabella 
to the Thasians, as published by Dunant and Pouilloux, op.cit. pp. 
45-55, no. 175: 0JLIOLWS TE Kat llE7Tap'YJ8LOLS Kat [.EKta8toLS] ypaJLJLaTa 

" \., ...... 1 'i' '" I • 1 I \ • 1 '8 1\ a7TEUTELl\a Lva VJLLV V7T'YJKOOL waw WL TP07TWL 'YJ auy KI\'YJTOS 'YJJLETEpa 'YJ EI\'YJaEV. 

Similar phrases are found in the same document in lines 15-16 of col. 1 
and line 7 of col. 2. Thus V7T~KOOL may be restored at the end of line 11. 



300 SENATUS CONSULTUM DE TABENIS 

Such a restoration accounts nicely for the datives that precede it. And 
then both the construction and the sense become clear immediately. 
The passage may be restored as follows: 

OG[ a~ TE KWf.La~ ~s J 
[Tov1TWV apE7'fj~ KaL KaTaAoyfj~ EV[EKEV aVToi~J 
(f.LET J ~ avv{3ov>.lov yvwfI:'JS AEVK'OS K[ opV1JAWS J 
[.EvMJas aVToKpaTwp avVEXWpTJG€V vac 01T~[S aOTJ-
[ 'J A A' ." l' [ ., J a, av TO'S TO'S VOf.LO'S a'pEGEGLV TE WG'V V1TTJKOO' 
KTA. 

" ... , and whatever villages 
L. Cornelius Sulla imperator granted to them 
after consultation with his consilium for the 
sake of their courage and honor, that these 
villages should be subject to them, to their 
laws and to their policies." 

The lack of conjunctions and the use of TE in the last line are due to 
the influence of the Latin original. Similar constructons abound in the 
leges and senatus consulta. See, for example, line 17 of the S. C. de 
Asclepiade (S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris romani antejustiniani2 , Pars Prima 
[Florence 1941] no. 35): Tl.lCVa lKYovo, yvvrtiKI.S T€ aVTwv. 

It is difficult to see what the Latin original of atpI.GEG'V might have 
been. The use of the plural is odd, but it must reflect a Latin plural. 
Its usual meaning in the singular in the Hellenistic age is "policy" or 
"inclination."2 And one may assume that such is its meaning in our 
decree, that is, the inclinations, wishes, or general policies of the 
Tabenians. The plural serves to indicate not one policy at a particular 
point in time but any policy at any time.3 Thus the villages are made 
completely subject to the laws and 'future wishes of Tabae. 

THE STATB UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO 

December, 1965 

I See C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (New Haven 1934) 310. The 
word also occurs, in the singular, in the S. C. de Asclepiade, line 18 of the Greek portion. 
Unfortunately the Latin Original at that point is missing, but F. De Visscher in L'antiquite 
clJusique 13 (1944) 26 n.2, suggested optio. With good reason, for the Greek has ~sovala Ka~ 
atp£ats. 

II If oar a Tf: xwpla is restored at the end of line 7, then of course lines 10-11 would have to 
appear thus: 01TW[S TaiilTa aV]TO;:S Tots voP.OtS a.pla£atv T£ ~atv [Vm7Koa]. The use of a plural 
verb in this case poses no obstacle, for parallels exist. Examine the S. C. de Stratonicensibus 
(OGIS 441) 50-52: oaa T£ [ifn1",tap.aTa ~1TolTJaav TovlTOV TOV 1To]MILOV lV£K£V, 8v 1TPOS l3aa[tMa 
MtOpa8&TT]vavl8£tSav,1 01TWS T]ai/Ta 1TaJITa KVpta ~atJI. And Inschriften von Prime no. 40, A. 
line 5: Ka2 Jaa KptT"IJpta K£KptlLEva £la[L ..•