Author’s Prologue ago. An infinityof different emphases,or starting points, is possible, from
studyingtherhetoricofCiceroorthebiblicalexegesisofSaintJerome,or
examining the literarycharacterof Tacitus’ portrait of Tiberius, to assess-
ing the organic remains from excavations as evidence for diet, surveying
wholelandscapes,excavatingsettlements,analysingthechemicalcomposi-
tionofpottery,assemblingthecoinsofasmallGreekcity,readingmultilin-
gualdocumentsfromtheshoresoftheDeadSea—oraskinghow,ifatall,
wecanunderstandwhatwemeanby‘‘Roman’’religion.
IfIreflectonmyownpathwithinthistracklessforestofpossibilities,itis
easytoseethattheworkdonebelongsveryclearly,andfairlyconsistently,ata
definablelogicallevel.Thatistosay,ithasbeenalmostwhollydependenton
verbalevidence,documentaryandliterary.Butitnowhereapproachesliter-
arycriticisminthepropersense,norontheotherhandhasitbeenconcerned
withtheinitialpublicationofnewlydiscovereddocumentarytexts.Thearea
ofoperationcanthusbeseenasstretchingfromstrictlypoliticalhistoryon
theonehand,topoliticalinstitutionsandformsofbehaviour,socialvalues,
and conceptions—and not least conceptions and expectations directed to
rulersbythosebelowthemandincontactwiththem—tosociallifeproper,
inthesenseinwhichitisaccessiblethroughliteraryanddocumentarytexts.
Thearrangementofthestudiesinthisvolume,inthebroadchronological
sequenceofthetopicsofperiodscovered,servestoobscuretheirchrono-
logical sequence in the other sense, the time of writing, which is not far
frombeingthecompleteconverse.Thatistosay,theearlierstudiesrepre-
sentedherefocusonAugustusandhisregime,anddosoprimarilythrough
the medium of theway in which the newemperor, and his personal role,
hisformofgovernment,andhisactions,areconceptualisedincontempo-
raryliteraryanddocumentarytexts.Thereisnoneedtorehearseanyofthis
here.ButIwouldwishtounderscoreoneprincipleofmethodandonecon-
clusion.Theprincipleofmethodisinasenseademocratisingone,oratany
rateisconcernedwithseeingtheimperialrulethroughtheeyes,oratleast
thewords,ofaswideageographicalandsocialrangeof hissubjectsasthe
evidenceallows.Putanotherway,itaffirmsthat‘‘theemperor,’’conceivedof
astheaddresseeofaletteranddecreeofaGreekcity,tobebornetohimby
ambassadors,isatleastasvalidlythe‘‘real’’emperorastheonerepresented
inalaterLatinnarrative.
Theoneconclusionwhichmaybeworthre-statinghereisthatnothing
anywhereintheevidencejustifiestheideathatitwaseverclaimedofficially
thatAugustushad‘‘restoredtherepublic’’inthesenseofre-creatingarepub-
licansystem.Itwas,ofcourse,claimedthattheres publicahadbeenrestituta;
butthatisnotthesamething.IfanyonehadwishedtoclaimthatAugus-