xii Introduction
sics.Indeed,scholarsfamiliarwithMillar’sbooks,especiallyhisrevisionof
E. Schürer’s classic three-volume study,A History of the Jewish People in the
Age of Jesus Christ, ..–..(along with G.Vermes, M. Black, and
M. Goodman),will recognize that Fergus Millar has done as much as any
classicalscholarinthetwentiethcenturytomakethehistoricalexperience
oftheJewishpeopleduringtheHellenisticandRomanimperialerascentral
tothestudyofclassicalhistory.
In the second essay of the volume, ‘‘Epigraphy,’’ Millar then provides a
uniquelysuccinctsurveyofinscriptionsfromtheGreco-Romanworldand
theirusestohistorians.InhissurveyMillarcitesanumberofillustrativeepi-
graphicaltextstoshowwhatinscriptionscanandcannottellusaboutthean-
cientworld.Hepointsout,forinstance,thattheexistenceofasingleinscrip-
tion,documentingaparticularpracticefromthegeographicalortemporal
limitsoftheclassicalworld,allowsustodeployakindof‘‘double-negative’’
reasoning.Theexistenceofsuchatextprovesthatitisnotthecasethatthere
arenoexamplesofaphenomenonfromaparticularplaceandtime.Thus,the
existence of one inscription can destroya possible negative generalization
aboutGreekorRomanhistory.Here,andelsewhereinthisvolume,readers
willfindthatMillar’s‘‘rulesofevidence’’characteristicallyderivefromvery
wide reading and analysis of the ancient evidence itself, including manu-
scripts,papyri,andinscriptions.Indeed,theoriginalityof Millar’sscholar-
shiphasbeensustainedoverdecadesbyhisdeepandcontinuedengagement
withtheancientevidenceitself.
Deep engagement for Millar with respect to inscriptions has involved
readingepigraphicaltextsinbulkandanalyzingthemasexamplesoflitera-
ture in their own right. As an example of the value of such an approach,
Millar’sessay‘‘ImperialIdeologyintheTabulaSiarensis’’(chapter)shows
howclosereadingofanumberofrelatedinscriptionscanbeusedtocontrol
distortionsinTacitus’accountofeventsinRomeinrelationtotheposthu-
mous honors for Drusus, the son of Tiberius, in... In this essayand,
indeed,throughoutthiscollection,readerswilldiscoverjusthowremark-
ablethescholarlyresultscanbewheninscriptionsaretreatedasliteraturein
theirownrightandarehistoricallycontextualized.
InpartIIMillarcallsintoquestiontheassumptionfoundinmuchscholar-
shipsincethepublicationof M.Gelzer’sDie Nobilität der römischen Republik
(The nobility of the Roman Republic) in that Republican Rome was
dominatedbyahomogeneous‘‘patrician-plebeian’’élite(theSenate),which
renderedpopularparticipationinpoliticspassiveandnominalthroughanet-
workofpatronagerelationships.Rather,Millarargues,inaseriesofessays
presentedhereandinpartIII,suchpatronagerelationscannotserveasthe