INTRODUCTION

This book primarily concerns the cult of the during the Roman Imperial period. Specifically, it focuses upon two issues: the connection of Nemesis with the Roman state and her association with the . The cause of its chronological restriction lies in the fact that the Roman Imperial era is the time-frame to which belongs the vast majority of the evidence for the cult. The topical restrictions are rooted in the natural trajectory of the previous scholarship regarding the cult of Nemesis. With regard to the ftrst issue, scholars in the earlier part of this century had come to the conclusion that during the Roman period Nemesis was predominantly a goddess of , slaves, freedmen, and other low status individuals (Schweitzer 1931, 177; Garcia y Bellido 1967,82,84). Canto (1984, 189-93) recently disputed this notion in a reexamination of the evidence from the amphitheater at Italica, Spain, and concluded that there is little credence to the slavellower class hypothesis, with in fact many Nemesis dedicants from the highest levels of municipal society, including public officials. The older idea had gained such currency, however, that as recently as 1988 it still appears in the scholarship (Keay 1988, 160). Foucher's 1974 article is a good example of how pervasive this notion has become. In his survey of Nemesis ftnds in amphitheatrical and theatrical contexts Foucher (1974, 190-91) had admitted that several of the dedicants were of high status, some even government officials, but he retreated into the traditional theory by positing a vast body of Nemesis worshippers composed of lower class and slave individuals whom we simply do not see because they were not wealthy enough to leave us abundant evidence. While such a suggestion could be theoretically correct, it is clearly unprovable, and a survey of the statistical evidence (Tables 1 & 2) shows it unwarranted. In fact, slaves, gladiators, venatores, freedmen, and probable slaves and freedmen together compose only a small percentage of the total (33 out of 216 or 32 out of 185), and are only just over half as numerous among Nemesis dedicants as members of the civilian government and military (33 compared to 63 or 32 compared to 57). Undeniable slaves (even including gladiators and venatores, who were not always slaves) and freedmen number only 11 out of 216 or 11 of 185, and 11 compared to 63 or 57 military and offtcial dedicants, a percentage no greater than that found in a survey of the ratio of indisputable slaves and freedmen to military and 2 INrRODUCTION

official personnel within the cult of and in the same period.1 Slaves and freedmen are therefore no more distinctive of the Nemesis cult than of another cult which has never been characterized as predominantly popular among slaves and freedmen. Furthermore, the inclusion of freedmen in the ranks of low status individuals is highly questionable. Despite their servile origin and the legislative measures taken to exclude them from many public offices, freedmen were quite capable of attaining significant wealth and local importance, especially as augustales (Taylor 1961, 131; Sherwin­ White 1973, 326-27). Methodologically, we must no longer focus upon this minor aspect of the worship of Nemesis, assuming that we are missing the evidence which would in fact confmn it as the major aspect, and thereby constructing our explanations of the cult and its meaning(s) on an argument ex silentio. We must turn instead to the groups which the evidence we do in fact possess indicates as the main component of Nemesis dedicants, persons who are part of the civilian and military arms of the Roman state (close to a third of the total). I will, therefore, examine in detail the connections of Nemesis to the State, to attempt to understand further her importance for this segment of her worshippers, and to base any theories about the meaning(s) and role of the cult in the Empire primarily upon this foundation. With regard to the second issue, the connection of Nemesis with the games, this comprises the main aspect of the cult in the Roman period and the one most extensively addressed by previous scholars. I will provide a more complete catalogue of the evidence than hitherto available and will suggest a new explanation for the phenomenon. In the chapter concerning the role of Nemesis in the agon, I will again draw upon the catalogues in order to evaluate the chronological and spatial distribution of Nemesis' worship in theaters and amphitheaters, the types of people involved, and particular conceptions of the goddess reflected in the evidence. Studies by Von Premerstein (1894) and Foucher (1974) sought to explain Nemesis' presence in theaters and amphitheaters as part of a syncretism with / or /. Such a contention will be more fully analyzed. The pre-Roman evidence for the connection of Nemesis with the games is scanty at best. I intend to see if we can dispense with questions of a pre-Roman association altogether. I hope to determine more precisely what were the kinds of competitions with which Nemesis was linked and why she was present there at all. Also, significant work has still to be done in studying the social origins of the dedicants associated with the games. As recently as 1962 (Bernard &

1 As a quick perusal of the index and appropriate inscription numbers in Vennaseren's Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque I-Vll (19TI-) will show.