Senatus Consultum de Asclepiade

Typology: Decree

Original Location: Capitoline Hill, Rome

Current Location: Rome (Italy), Musei Capitolini, Sala delle Colombe, inv. 7340

Date: 78 BCE

Centuries: 1st BCE

Material: Bronze

Measurements: The combination of the surviving fragments measures 38 centimetres in height and between 64-57 centimetres in width. The original height of the entire tablet would have been c. 45 centimetres. Letters are on average 6 centimetres tall

Languages: Latin, Greek

Category: Roman, Greek

Publications: Raggi, “Senatus consultum de Asclepiade” (SEG 51.1427; CIL I² 588, VI.8.3 40890; IG XIV.951; IGUR I.1; EDR 111254)

Description: The tablet was found in several fragments. The Greek copy is almost complete and very well preserved, unlike the Latin. As the content of both texts was identical, it is possible to state that the tablet had a total of approximately 35 lines. The Latin version featured on top and the Greek translation below. The first lines of each of the documents were highlighted with letters of a bigger size. This visual difference also appears in the last three lines.

Edition :
I reproduce the edition of the Greek text contained in Raggi, Andrea, “Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque,” in ZPE 135, 2001, p. 81-82.

	ἐπὶ ὑπάτων Κοίντου Λυτατίου Κοίντου υἱοῦ Κάτλου καὶ Μάρκου Αἰμ[ιλίου Κοίντου υἱοῦ]
	Μάρκου υἱωνοῦ Λπδου, στρατηγοῦ δὲ κατὰ πόλιν καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ξένων Λευκίου Κορνηλίου [- - - -υἱοῦ]
	Σισέννα, μηνὸς Μαίου. Κόιντος Λυτάτιος Κοίντου υἱὸς Κάτλος ὕπατος συγκλήτωι συνεβούλ[ευσεν].
	πρὸ μερῶν ἕνδεκα καλανδῶν Ἰουνίων ἐν κομετίωι γραφομένωι παρῆσαν Λεύκιος Φαβέριος Λευκίου υἱὸς Σεργία, Γαῖο[ς - - - - Λευ]-
5	κίου υἱὸς Ποπιία, Κόιντος Πετίλλιος Τίτου υἱὸς Σεργία. περὶ ὧν Κόιντος Λυτάτιος Κοίντου υἱὸς Κάτος ὕπατος λόγους ἐποιήσατο, Ἀ[σκληπιάδην]
	Φιλίνου υἱὸν Κλαζομένιον, Πολύστρατον Πολυάρκου υἱὸν Καρύστιον, Μεσκον Εἰρηναίου τὸν γεγονότα Μενίσκον Θαργηλίου υἱὸν Μιλήσ̣[ιον, - - - - ]
	ἐν τοῖς πλοίοις παραγεγονέναι τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ Ἰταλικοῦ ἐναρχομένου, τούτους ἐργασίαν ἔπανδρον καὶ πιστὴν τοῖς δημοσίοις πράγμασιν τοῖς ἡμετέρο[ις παρεσχηκέ]-
	ναι, τούτους ἑαυτὸν κατὰ τὸ τς συγκλήτου δόγμα εἰς τὰς πατρίδας ἀπολῦσαι βούλεσθαι, ἐὰν αὐτῶ φαίνηται, ὅπως ὑπὲρ τῶν καλῶς πεπραγμένων ὑπ’ αὐ[τῶν καὶ ἀνδρα]-
	γαμάτων εἰς τὰ δημόσια ράγματα τὰ ἡμέτερα καταλογή τις αὐτῶν γένηται· περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος οὕτως ἔδοξεν· Ἀσκληπιάδην Φιλίνου υἱὸν Κλαζο[μένιον],
10	Πολύστρατον Πολυάρκου υἱὸν Καρύστιον, Μενίσκον Εἰρηναίου υἱὸν Μιλήσιον τὸν γεγονότα Μενίσκον, ἄνωθεν δὲ Θαργηλίου, vac. ἄνδρας καλοὺς κὶ ἀγαθοὺς καὶ φίλ̣[ους π]ροσ-
	αγορεῦσαι· τὴύκλητον καὶ τὸν δῆμον τὸν Ῥωμαων διαλανβάνειν τὴν τούτων ἐργασίαν καλ καὶ ἔπανδρον καὶ πιστὴν τοῖς ημοσίοις πράγμασιν τοῖς ἡμετρο[ις γε]γονέναι,
	δι’ ἣ αἰτίαν τὴν σύνκτον κρίνειν ὅπως οὗτοι τέκνα ἔκγονοί τε αὐτῶν ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτῶν πατρίσιν ἀλειτούργητοι πάντων τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ ἀνείσφοροι ὦσιν· εἴ τινες εἰσφο̣[ρα]ὶ̣ ἐκ τῶν
	ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῶν εἰσπεπραγμέναι εἰσὶν μετὰ τὸ τούτους τῶν δημοσίων πραγμάτων τῶν ἡμετέρων χάρ ὁρμῆσαι, ὅπως αὗται αὐτοῖς ἀποδοθῶσιν ἀποκατασταθῶσιν· εἴ τέ τινε{ι}ς {τη}
	ἀγροὶ οἰκίαι ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῶν πέπρανται μετὰ τὸ ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος τῶν δημοσίων πραγμάτων τῶν ἡμετρων χάριν ὁρμῆσι, ὅπως ταῦτα πάντα αὐτοῖς εἰς ἀκέραιον ἀποκαταστα-
15	θ· εἴ τέ τις προθεσμία παρεήλυθεν, ἀφ’ οὗ ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος τῶν δημοσίων πραγμάτων τῶν ἡμετέρων χάριν ὥρμησα, μή τι τοῦτο τὸ πράγμα αὐτοῖς βλαβερὸν γένηται
	μηδέ τι αὐτοῖς διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν ἔλασσον ὀείληται μηδέ τι ἔλασσον αὐτοῖς μεταπορεύεσθαι πράσσειν ἐξῆ· ὅσαι τε κληρονομίαι αὐτοῖς ἢ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῶν
	παρεγένοντο, ὅπως ταύτας ἔχωσιν διακα{ι}τέχωιν καρπεύωντα τε· ὅσα τε ἂν αὐτοὶ τέκνα ἔκγονοι γυναῖκές τε αὐτῶν παρ’ ἑτέρου μεταπορεύωνται, ἐάν τέ τι πα-
	ρ’ αὐτῶν τέκνων ἐκγόνων γυναικῶν τε αὐτῶν ἕτεροι μεταπορεύωνται, ὅπως τούτων τέκνων γυναικῶν τε αὐτῶν ἐξουσία καὶ αἵρεσις · ἐάν τε ἐν ταῖς πα-
	τρίσιν κατὰ τοὺς ἰδίους νόμους βούλωνται κρίνεσθαι, ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀρχόντων ἢ ἐπταλικῶν κριτῶν, ἐάν τ ἐπὶ πόλεως ἐλευθέρας τῶν διὰ τέλους
20	ἐν τῆι φιλίαι τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Ῥωμαίων μεμενηκυιῶν, οὗ ἂν προαιρῶνται, ὅπως ἐκεῖ τὸ κρτήριον περὶ τούτων τῶ{ι}ν̣ π̣ραγμάτων γίνηται· εἴ τινα κριτήρια
	περὶ αὐτῶν ἀπόντων μετὰ τὸ ἐκ τῆς πατρίδος ὁρμῆσαι γεγονότα ἐστίν, ταῦτα ὅπως εἰς ἀκέραιον ἀποκατασταθῆι καὶ ἐξ ἀκεραίου κριτήριον κατὰ
	τὸ τῆς συνκλήτου δόγμα γένηται· εἴ τινα χρήματα αἱ πόλεις αὐτῶν δημοσίαι ὀφείλωσιν, μή τι εἰς ταῦτα τὰ χρήματα δοῦναι ὀφείλωσιν·
	ἄρχοντες ἡμέτεροι, οἵτινες ἄν ποτε Ἀσίαν Εὔβοιαν μισθῶσιν ἢ προσόδους Ἀσίαι Εὐβοίαι ἐπ̣ιτιθῶσν, φυλάξωνται μή τι οὗτοι δοῦναι ὀφείλωσιν·
	ὅπως τε Κόιντος υτάτιος, Μάρκος Αἰμίλιος ὕπατοι ὁ ἕτερος ἢ ἀμφότεροι, ἐὰν ατοῖς αίνηται, τούτους εἰς τὸ τῶν φίων διάταγμα ἀνενεχθ-
25	ναι φροντίσωσιν· τούτος τε πίνα χαλκοῦν φιλίας ἐν τῶι Καπετωλίωι ἀναθεῖναι θυσίαν τε ποιῆσαι ἐξι, ξένιά τε αὐτοῖς κατὰ ὸ διάτα-
	γμα τόπον παροχήν τε τὸν ταμίαν τὸν κατὰ πόλιν τούτοις μισθῶσαι ἀποστλαί τε κελεύωσιν· ἐάν τε περὶ τῶν ἰδίων πραγμάτων
	πρεσβευτὰς πρὸς τὴν σύγκλητον ἀποστέλλειν αὐτοί τε παραγ̣ί̣νεσθαι προαιρῶνται, ὅπως αὐτοῖς τέκοις ἐκγόνοις τε αὐτῶν
	πρεσβευταῖς παραγ̣ί̣νεσθαι καὶ ἀποστέλειν τε ἐξῆι· ὅπως τε Κόιντος Λυτάτιος, Μάρκος Αἰμίλιος ὕπατοι ὁ ἕτερος ἢ ἀμφότεροι,
	ἐὰν αὐτοῖς φαίνηται, γράμματα πρὸς τοὺς ἄρχοντας τοὺς ἡμετέρους, οἵτινες Ἀσίαν Μακεδονίαν ἐπαρχείας ιακατέχουσιν
30	καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἄρχοντας αὐτῶν ἀποστείλωσιν τὴν σύνκητον θέειν καὶ δίκαιον ἡγεῖσθαι {ς} ταῦ{ι}τα οὕτω γ̣ί̣νεσθαι,
	οὕτως ὡς ἂν αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων πραγμάτων πίστεώς τε τῆς ἰδίας φανηται.  vac. ἔδοξεν.
	Ἀσκληπιάδου τοῦ Φιλίνου Κλαζομενίο̣υ· vac. Πολυστράτου τοῦ Πολυάρκου
	Καρυστίου· Μενίσκου τοῦ Εἰρηναίου Μιλησίου.

English translation:

I reproduce the translation prepared by Raggi, Andrea, “Senatus consultum de Asclepiade Clazomenio sociisque,” in ZPE 135, 2001, p. 83-84.

In the consulship of Quintus Lutatius Catulus, son of Quintus, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, son of Quintus and grandson of Marcus, when the urban and peregrine praetor was Lucius Cornelius Sisenna, son of - - -, month of May.

The consul Quintus Lutatius Catulus, son of Quintus, consulted the senate in the Comitium on the eleventh day before the Kalends of June. Witnesses present at the writing were Lucius Faberius, son of Lucius, of the tribe Sergia, Gaius - - -, son of Lucius, of the tribe Poplilia, Quintus Petillius, son of Titus, of the tribe Sergia.

Whereas the consul Quintus Lutatius Catulus, son of Quintus, said that Asclepiades, son of Philinos, the Klazomenian, Polystratos, son of Polyarkos, the Karystian, Meniskos, son by adoption of Eirenaios, who was Meniskos son of Thargelios, the Milesian - - -, as had been present in (their) ships at the beginning of the Italic war, had given to our state valiant and faithful service, and that he wishes, if it seems good to him, to send them back to their countries in accordance with the decree of the senate, that to reward their fine accomplishments and brave deeds for our state, they might receive honour; concerning this matter (the senators) have decreed as follows: Asclepiades, son of Philinos, the Klazomenian, Polystratos, son of Polyarkos, the Karystian, Meniskos, son by adoption of Eirenaios, who was previously Meniskos son of Thargelios, the Milesian, are to be called (receive the title of) fine and good men and friends (of Rome).

The senate and the people of the Romans consider that their deeds have been good, brave and loyal to our state; for this reason the senate decides that they, their children and their descendants are to be in their own cities immune from all liturgies and from financial contributions; if any taxes have been levied on their properties since they left in the service of our state, these (taxes) are to be given back and restored in full; if any of their fields, houses or properties have been sold, since they left their homeland in the service of our state, all of these are to be returned to them in full; if any fixed day for payment of debts has passed, since they left their homeland in the service of our state, this is not to be detrimental to them, and for this reason no debt owed to them is to be less valid, nor is it to be any less lawful for them to sue or exact payment (of debts); whatever inheritances have come to them or their children by chance, these they are to fully hold, possess and enjoy; whatever lawsuits they, their children, their descendants or their wives may bring against another person, or if other persons lawsuits against them, their children, their descendants or their wives, these men, their children, or their wives are to have the right of choice: if they wish of having the case decided in their own cities by their own laws, or before a magistrate of ours with Italian judges, or in a free city, one which has remained constantly in the friendship of the people of the Romans, wherever they may prefer, there the trial about these matters is to be held; if any judgments have been made about them in their absence, since they left their homeland, the situation is to be restored to what it was before and a trial is to take place afresh according to the decree of the senate; if their cities owe any public debt, they are not to be obliged to contribute towards these debts; our magistrates, any of them who will farm out (the contracts for) Asia and Euboea or impose taxes on Asia and Euboea, are to take care that these men are not obliged to give anything; the consuls Quintus Lutatius and Marcus Aemilius, one of them or both, if it seems good to them, are to take care that these men be entered on the roll (formula) of friends (of Rome) and that they be permitted to set up a bronze tablet of friendship on the Capitolium and to perform a sacrifice, and (the consuls) are to instruct the quaestor urbanus to provide gifts for them according to the official roll (formula), to rent a lodging and to send furnishings; if they desire, concerning their own affairs, to send envoys to the senate or to come themselves, permission is to be granted to them, their children and descendants to come as envoys or to send them; the consuls Quintus Lutatius and Marcus Aemilius, one of them or both, if it seems good to them, are to send letters to our magistrates who are in charge of the provinces of Asia and Macedonia and to their (city) magistrates, that the senate wishes and considers it just that these things be done in this fashion as may appear to them to be timely in keeping with the interest of the state and their own good faith. Decreed.

(Tablet) of Asclepiades (son) of Philinos the Klazomenian, of Polystratos (son) of Polyarkos the Karystian, of Meniskos (son) of Eirenaios the Milesian.

Commentary:

This bronze tablet recorded both the Latin and Greek versions of the text in full. The Greek edition of the text is considered here, as it is more complete than the original Latin version of the inscription. Indeed, the long restorations suggested by modern scholars for the Latin text are based on the Greek. Moreover, this document is particularly relevant to the status of Greek communities under Roman rule and, consequently, will have to be connected with related sources from the eastern Mediterranean, which are written exclusively in Greek.  

The text opens with a Roman dating formula naming the consuls Quintus Lutatius Catulus and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. They held office in 78 BCE; so the year of the document is unquestioned. One of them, Lutatius Catulus, consults the Senate on May 22 and three Roman witnesses are present in the meeting (κομέτιον/kometion; note the Latinism). The same consul states the reasons for which three Greeks are to be considered “fine and good men” (ἄνδρες καλοὶ καὶ ἀγαθοί/andres kaloi kai agathoi) and “friends” (φίλοι/philoi). They are Asclepiades, son of Philinos, from Klazomenai; Polystratos, son of Polyarkos, from Karystos; and Meniskos, son of Eirenaios, from Miletus. These sea-captains (ναύαρχοι/nauarchoi) came from the Greek East – two from Asia and one from Euboea – and had helped the Romans with their ships in an Ἰταλικός πόλεμος (l. 6). Given the year in which the S.C. was decreed, this reference most likely corresponds to the end of the Social War, but Sulla’s later campaigns in 83 and 82 cannot completely be ruled out (Sherk, Roman Documents, p. 129). On account of their bravery and loyal service on behalf of the common good (δημόσια πράγματα = res publica) the Senate decides to reward their actions not only with the honorific titles aforementioned, but also with a series of privileges recorded in the rest of the document.  

The first privilege involves fiscal immunity. The technical terms used in line 13 are ἀλειτούργητοι καὶ ἀνείσφοροι, which corresponds to the Latin liberi omnium rerum et immunes. This “freedom from everything” refers to the local burdens (or λειτουργίαι/leitourgiai) to which the Greeks had to contribute in order to sustain the functioning of their home cities. With the second term, the Senate is reassuring that these men, their sons, and descendants will not have to pay whatever fiscal obligations – be it local or Roman – may arise in the future. The following provisions stated in the document (l. 14-18) sought to mitigate the disadvantages resulting from their absence while they were supporting the Roman navy. As stated in line 8, the captains had decided to return to their homelands (πάτρις/patris) and, now, had to face problems such as properties that may have been sold (ὑπάρχοντα πέπρανται/hyparchonta peprantai), repayment or exaction of old debts (προθεσμία/prosthemia), and inheritances (κληρονομίαι/klêronomiai). 

The second group of benefits are of judicial nature and connected to the privilegium fori (l. 18-23). The Greek captains had the possibility of choosing the courts that would judge trials affecting them. The three options were: their own cities according to their local laws (ἐν ταῖς πατρίσιν κατὰ τοὺς ἰδίους νόμους), Italian courts with Roman magistrates (ἐπὶ Ἰταλικῶν κριτῶν), or judgement in a free city (ἐπὶ πόλεως ἐλευθέρας). The latter possibility is reminiscent of a Greek practice by which cases between contentious parties were tried in such autonomous entities (see Ferrary, “La liberté des cités”). It is interesting to note that the S.C. narrows the choice to the free cities that had traditionally been allies to the Romans; since – probably – much trust could not yet be placed on those awarded this status after the first Mithridatic War. In addition to this privileged range of choice, the Senate released these men from contributions towards public debt and informed the Roman tax farmers (ἄρχοντες μισθῶσιν = publicani) in Asia and Euboea about their decision.

The final clauses contain some honorary advantages (l. 24-31). They all derive from the admission of the Greek men into the “roll of friends” (τὸ τῶν φίλων διάταγμα = formula amicorum). They were allowed to set up a bronze copy of this decision on the Capitol. Thanks to this, we can today read the S.C. as fragments were found precisely at the foot of the hill. Indeed, this seems to be the original tablet despite the fire that, according to Suetonius (Vespasian 8.5), burnt 3000 documents at this location in 69 C.E. (see Raggi, “Senatus consultum de Asclepiade,” p. 84-86). The other prerogatives – including the sacrifice (θυσία; see Masri, “Rome, Diplomacy”) – can also be found in other contemporary testimonies of envoys sent by cities that were “friends of the Roman people” and could make use of the ius legationis (e.g. Mytilene under Julius Caesar, IG XII 2.35); which was also given to Asklepiades, Polystratos and Meniskos (l. 29-30).  

Since this is practically the only record of a personal grant of amicitia relating to the Greek world, our document is unique. In spite of the many attestations of the title φίλοι [καὶ συμμάχοι] τοῦ δήμου Ῥωμαίων (= amici [sociique] populi Romanorum), the S.C. de Asclepiade confirms details which are otherwise only suggested in other sources. The concept of friendship played a prominent role in Rome’s conquest of the eastern Mediterranean (see Badian, Foreign Clientelae; Gruen, The Hellenistic World, p. 54-95; Lintott, Imperium Romanum, p. 32-36; Morstein Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, p. 184-197); hence its importance for understanding the impact on provincial societies. For example, we know that updated records were kept at the archives of Rome whenever new “friends” were accepted and needed to be registered in the roll. The advantageous status of embassies sent by the amici could also give them the upper hand when Roman institutions were to settle international affairs. This also helps us to corroborate testimonies such as Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities XIV.190-198, which record how Julius Caesar started to consider Hyrcanus “a friend” after the Civil War and ordered the preparation of precisely a bilingual bronze table that was to be deposited on the Capitol. Nonetheless, the S.C. de Asclepiade has also caused academic controversy regarding the exact benefits that amicitia entailed. This is mainly caused by the fact that fiscal immunity and privilegium fori were also granted in this case, and scholars argue whether such a procedure was customary (see Raggi, “Senatus consultum de Asclepiade,” p. 109-113).  

Finally, this document is also important for the issue of Roman citizenship in the Greek East. We can see that neither Asklepiades, Polystratos, nor Meniskos are enfranchised despite the many privileges given to them. This contrasts heavily with a much-related testimony recording the grant of Roman citizenship, fiscal immunity, privilegium fori and ius legationis by Octavian to another sea-captain, Seleukos of Rhosos. Even if only 40 years separate both cases, this was exactly the period in which the landscape of citizenship was transformed in the eastern provinces (see Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, p. 306-311; Ferrary, “Les Grecs”). Our grant of amicitia after the Social War still belonged to a context that can be connected with an anecdote reported by Diodorus Siculus (XXXVII.18). The consul of the year 90 B.C.E. offered Roman citizenship to a Cretan in exchange for his services, but the man refused the reward because he disregarded it as purely honorific and was rather interested in pecuniary benefits. Similar advantages had also been given by Sulla to special groups such as the Synod of Dionysiac artists (Sherk, Roman Documents, no. 49, p. 263-266). In the case of Asklepiades, Polystratos, and Meniskos, we also need to take into consideration the problem of dual citizenship. They had expressed their desire to return to their homelands and, at this point, Roman law did not allow simultaneous local citizenships. Thereafter, testimonies of Greeks granted Roman citizenship significantly increase – e.g. Gn. Pompeius Theophanes of Mytilene; but especially under Julius Caesar and in the subsequent triumviral period to which the case of Seleukos of Rhosos belongs. The culmination of this transforming process was reached under Augustus when dual citizenship was allowed according to the information contained in another fundamental testimony available in our collection: the Cyrene Edicts.