Rome and Tabae Crawford, Michael;Reynolds, Joyce Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1974; 15, 3; ProQuest pg. 289

Rome and Tabae 
Michael Grawford and Joyce Reynolds 

ASHARED DISQUIET over the state of the text of the S.C. de 
Tabenis1 prompted a visit to Denizli for inspection of the 
stone; we were perturbed that no treatment indicated the 

relationship of the inscribed area to the total width of the block, that, 
although the squeeze in MAMA VI p1.28 appeared to show an un­
inscribed surface at the end of line 11, all restorations assumed the 
possibility of a lost word here, and above all at the failure of attempts 
to restore lines 7-11 to pinpoint the grammatical difficulties involved. 

The stone was located in the playground of the Elementary School 
at Denizli, just outside a fenced-off area labelled as the Depot of the 
Denizli Museum. The bottom line was sunk in the gravel and the 
whole stone was blackened by use as a windshield for bonfires; but it 
is clear that it is a substantially complete building block (width 
0.58 x height 0040 x depth 1.05), though damaged along the edges 
and at the corners, and shows what are certainly ancient surfaces on 
top, both sides and back (see PLATE 7; in so far as the underside could 
be examined it appeared to have a tooled surface). The inscription 
began on a block or blocks which stood above it and continued onto 
at least one other below it, but did not extend horizontally beyond 
its width. It was possible to establish that the TWV of line 12 is almost 
at the edge of the block and that there are only some 5-6 ems. missing 

1 Published by G. Doublet, BCH 13 (1889) 503ff; revised text produced by P. Viereck, 
Hermes 25 (1890) 624ff; whence W. Dittenberger, OGIS II (1905) 442; F. F. Abbott and 
A. C. Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton 1926) no.16, p.271; 
other restorations suggested by U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, in Mommsen und 
Wilamowitz:: Briefwechsel1872-1903 (Berlin 1935) 392ff; new publication by W. H. Buckler 
and W. M. Calder, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua VI (Manchester 1939) no.162, pp.59ff 
(notably substituting 07TWC for 7T6A€LC in line 10; an allusion in A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the 
Eastern Roman Provinces [Oxford 1937] 391 n.51, unchanged in the 1971 edition, 390 n.51); 
whence J. Robert and L. Robert, La Carie II (Paris 1954) no.5, pp.97ff (cf BullEpig 1955, 20l); 
G. Klaffenbach, Gnomon 27 (1955) 234-35 (cf SEG XIII [1956] 490); G. E. Bean, AJA 60 (1956) 
196 (cf SEG XV [1958] 656), all attempting to restore lines 1c}-1l; F. G. Maier, Griechische 
Mauerbauinschriften: I, Texte und Kommentare (Heidelberg 1959) no.75, pp.245-47, following 
Klaffenbach; R. K. Sherk, GRBS 6 (1965) 295-300, on lines 1c}-1l (cf BullEpig 1967, 555); 
R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore 1969) no.I7 [hereafter. 
SHERK]. 

289 



290 ROME AND TABAE 

from the left of the central portion of the inscribed area; it was also 
possible to observe that there are uninscribed spaces not only at the 
end of line 11, but also (of varying length) at the ends of lines 12-16. 
It follows that the mason responsible for inscribing the S.C. de Tabenis 
was reluctant to break words between lines, and this must be borne 
in mind in restoring the ends of lines 2-10; in fact the only place 
where a break seems unavoidable is at the end of line 5, where it is a 
very easy and unoffensive one to make. It also follows that the total 
line-length is somewhat shorter than has been supposed. Notably 
there is in general less room for supplements at the ends of the lines 
and often a little more at the beginning than has usually been 
supposed. 

We print first a text in the form which our inspection of the stone 
seems to require. The supplements are those printed by the latest 
editor (R. K. Sherk, see n.1) unless otherwise noted . 

.. . ]~q ... 
[8vveX/LEctV] TE J7Td:v8poTaT~ [7TEp£ rijc ' Actac] 
[Ka£ T]7]C <E'\'\a8oc aVTtTETax~[at, ap€CKEW T7Jt] 

[ cvv ]KA-r]TWt Kat T(LIt O~/LWt [7TaVTa] a[ tho LC] 
5 [07TW]~ aptCTa elvat €cEc()al TE, n][v TE cvv} 

[KA7]]TOV Kat T6V 87J/LOV T6V 'PW/La[lwv aVTOVC (?)] 
[Sux] 1!-~/L7]C €XELV E~EW TE vac. OC~ [TE T7JC] 
[TOV]TWV apErijc Kat KaTaA9yfjc E!,[ EKEV ] 

~ET]q; cvv{3ovAlov YVW/L7]c A EVKLOC K9[P~ALOC] 
10 [Ev'\'\]ac aVTOKpaTWp CVVEXWP7]CEV vac. 07TW[C] 

[
' '] ,.., t'/' 1" aptc TOtC TOLC VO/LOLC aLpECEcW TE WCW vac. 

[tI] 'CI'" , ,\ -07TW C TE XWptOV ~v7]CCOV, 0 ECTW EVTOC TWV V. 

[ < '] ,_ , \ Q 1\ " OpLW v aVTwv, EaJI ~OVI\WVTaL, 0XVPWCWCLV vac. 
[ ' ]' \ \ ~- \ <n 1 t T7]V C VVKI\7]TOV TOV TE 07]/LOV TOV rW/LaLWV vaca 

15 [8LaAa]v,8&vEW Taiha aVToLc KaAwc Kat vacat. 
[ .. c6 . . ]cpC Kat. ~lwc aVTwv oE8oc(JaL TE vac. 

LINE 1. Perhaps [-1'0 tC ~YEJ.L6CLV B]<;l~ [L,\EWC MdJpL8a-rov]; we calculate that the 
surviving letters are too far to the right to permit Doublet's ... TOtC TE 

B]<;l~[ LAEWC MdJpLMTOV ~YEJ.L6cLV] based on the S.C. de Stratonicensibus (Sherk 18), 
lines 82-84. 

LINE 3. [T]iJC clear on the squeeze, H no longer clear on the stone. 
LINE 4. The isolated A, tacitly doubted by Robert, is visible on the stone, but 
there is hardly room for the previously accepted [TC?lL 'PwJL]a[{wv 7TCXVTa av]-. 



MICHAEL CRAWFORD AND JOYCE REYNOLDS 291 

LINE 5. [8rrw]~ rather than the previous [TOtC] T-traces on the stone, in­

compatible with T, suggest C. At the end Tn[V TE 7TPOC T~V cvv] seems to us 
overlong. 
LINE 6. <Pw,ua[lwv aVTwv (?) 7TlcTtV] seems too long. 
LINES 7-11. For the main proposals rejected here see n.3. 
LINE 7. i:ca-the stone has broken along the left hasta of A (or, in theory, A). 

LINE 8. €p[EKEV aVTOtc] seems too long. 
LINE 9. K9[pvr7ALoc ]-clear traces of 0 are visible on the stone, crowded up 
against K; crowding is apparent in this line from the latter part of AEVKLOC 
onwards (see above on the length of line 12). 
LINE 10. [EvAA ]ac clear on the squeeze, A no longer clear on the stone. 
LINE 11. There is room for four letters at the beginning-[ aplc ]TOLC seems the 
obvious supplement, given that a word begun on the previous line is unlikely 
to have continued onto this line. [Err' avJTotc seems to yield no sense. 
LINES 12-13. The earlier [OJ-I[pLW]V is opposed to the mason's dislike of 
word-division; there is room for four letters at the beginning of line 13. 
LINE 13. There is no room for [T7]VJ at the end. 
LINE 14. C]VvKA-ryTovon both the squeeze and the stone; there is room for [T~V] 
before it but no room for [8ta]- at the end of the line. 
LINE 15. [DLa,\aJvfiavEtv-N is clear on the squeeze but no longer on the stone, 
and there is room for the five letters at the beginning. For the vaeat at the 
end of the line see above. 
LINE 16. [EV7TpE7T J0c vel sim. The small vaeat surviving at the end of the line 
doubtless extended to the edge of the stone. 

The text as printed is mostly a straightforward consequence of the 
shape of the inscribed area and of the line-length demanded by the 
width of the block. In lines 4-5 the probable sigma before aptCTa 

suggests 01TWC, and the attribution to Senate and People of the simple 
wish that all should be arranged for the best for Tabai is hard to avoid; 
quite apart from considerations of space, [TW£ 'PwfL]a[lwv] is quite 
superfluous in a document produced in Rome and should not be 
restored in line 4.2 In line 6 TavTa, referring to the role of Tabai in the 
war against Mithridates, would also be possible; the overall shape of 
lines 5-8 reflects the emergence of Senate and People as the subject of 
€X€£V Et€£V TE, parallel to 7TCXVTa as the subject of Etva£ €CEc()a{ TE in 
the previous clause. Kopv~A£OC can only be fitted in at the end of 
line 9 on the assumption of extreme crowding, which is, however, 
apparent in the preserved part of the line; it would be theoretically 
possible to allow longer restorations at the ends of lines 2-8 than we 

2 Compare Sherk 26 cline 3; 28 B line 6. 



292 ROME AND TABAE 

have printed, on the assumption of similar crowding; but there is no 
trace of this in the lines in question and no need to make the assump­
tion. The numbers of letters restored at the beginnings of lines 12-16 
follow from the shape of the stone at this point. 

But the major problem is posed by lines 7-12;3 some preliminary 
remarks on the grammatical structure4 of the whole inscription seem 
necessary. The infinitive aV'nT€TaxOCn doubtless depends on a prep­
osition, possiblySL(~ (T6), or on something like i7T€~ <> Sijp.oc <> TafJ'Y}vwv 
7TpodA€TO; [aplcK€Lv], if correctly restored, then depends on a phrase 

h " - , " "~l:. d· If suc as 7T€pt TOVTWV TWV 7Tpayp.aTWV OVTWC €OOs €V an ltse governs 
(a) two pairs of infinitives in lines 5 and 7, and (b) T~V CVVKA'Y}TOV ••• 

StaAav{3&'VELv TaiiTa ••• S€S6c(Jat T€ [e.g. Ka2 CVVK€xwpijc(JaL]. TaiiTa here 
clearly picks up aca. What Sulla granted is then specified in the two 
clauses with a7TWC and the subjunctive; given TOVTWV referring to the 
Tabenes in line 8, there seems no violence involved in making them 
the subject of cLCLV and 6xvpcfJcwCLV. 

Stripped of its verbiage, the surviving portion of the s.c. de Tabenis 
seems to us to record that Senate and People accept the correctness of 
Sulla's grant to Tabae of the right to fortify Thyessus and ap{cTOtC 
TOtC v6p.otc atplc€cLv T€ (€lvat); and this we take to be optimis legibus 
condicionibusque (esse). Despite the plurals used, we suggest as a 
parallel the phrase TCvt ap{cTWt V6P.WL ap{cTwL T€ StKa{WL (€lvat) in the 
letter of Octavian about Se1eucus (Sherk 58), lines 21-22, translating 
optima lege optimo iure esse; compare also Sherk 28 B line 8. The plural 
does in fact occur in Latin, at the beginning of the treaty with 

8 Buckler and Calder: ocr a T£ ifnIt/J,,(JfjvaL] in line 7; 
[EvM]ac a&roKpaTwp cvv£xwPTJc£v VV 07TCfI[C eTT' i]-
[CTJ (sic) av]rote Tote .,,6ILO" alp'c£clv T£ tL"v [KvpLa] in lines 10-1I. 

Robert: oc[ a T£ c/>,).&."BpwTTa ?] in line 7; 
[EtiA>.]ac a&roKpaTwp CVV£xwPTJC£V VV OTTcp[C Tav-ra] 
[eTT' au]rOtC TOLc V6ILmC alp'c£clv T£ tL"v [KvpLa] in lines 10-1I. 

Bean: [EtiA>. lac a&roKpaTwp cvv£xwPTJc£v VV OTTcp[ C KtiPLOL] 
[ec/>' av]ro,c (?) TO'C V6p.oLC alp'cEclv T£ tL"v [xpfjc(JaL] in lines 10-11. 

Klaffenbach: oc[a T£ €1TaB>..a Tfjc] in line 7; 
[EvA>. lac aV-roKpaTwp cw£xwPTJc£v VV 01Tcp[ C &p '] 
[€av]ro tC TO ic v6p.ol.c alp'c€clv T€ JiCtV [nacatc] 

or [EtiM]ac a&roKpaTwp CVVEXWPTJC£V VV OTTcp[C au8aL]-
[P']TOIC 'TO 'c "'0ILo" rupec£clv 'T£ wcw [1Taca,,] in lines 10-11. 

Sherk: oc[ac T£ KWlLac Tfjc] in line 7; 
[EtiM]ac aV-roKpaTwp cw£xwPTJc£v vv 01Tcp[C ao-r]-
[aL au]yoLc TO'C VOILO" alpec€clv 'T€ tL"v [V1T~KOOL] in lines 10-11. 

4 Seen by Wilamowitz and Klaffenbach. 



MICHAEL CRAWFORD AND JOYCE REYNOLDS 293 

Antiochus, amicitia ... his legibus et condicionibus esto (Livy 38.38.2); for 
aLp€CHC with the meaning of condiciones see Dionysius of Halicarnassus 
3.10.1 (misleadingly glossed in LS]); 6.56.5; Cassius Dio 71.17 (72). 
Also relevant, although again using nouns in the singular, is Cicero's 
advice to a Senator (De legibus 3.41), to know of all Rome's allies qua 
quisque sit lege, condicione, foedere. The inscription makes it clear in 
general, in rhetorical terms, that Tabae stands in the most favourably 
placed category of friends of Rome. 

As a whole the text may be translated thus: 

[It was agreed that on account of the Tabenes] having most gallantly resisted 
[the leaders and forces of King Mithridates for the sake of Asia and] of Greece 
it was the wish of the Senate and People that everything now and in the 
future should be for the best for them and that the Senate and People of 
Rome should now and in the future keep the Tabenes in mind; it was also 
agreed that the Senate and People of Rome accepted that what L. Cornelius 
Sulla Imperator granted with the approval of his consilium as a reward for 
the bravery and respect5 (for us) of the Tabenes was rightly and [properly] 
and deservedly given [and granted] them, namely that they should enjoy 
the best laws and conditions (i.e. in their relationship with Rome) and that 
they should if they wish fortify the place Thyessus which is within their 
territory. 

CHRIST'S COLLEGE and NEWNHAM COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE 

May, 1974 

5 See Michael Crawford, "KaTa,\o'Y~-Respectus," (forthcoming). 



eRA WFORD AND REYNOLDS PLA TE 7 

OGIS II 442: SENATUS CONSULTU:Vl DE TABENIS 

(photograpllCd at Denizli, Tllrkey, by :\1. Crawford)