DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14697#0221
Zeus Ktesios
1059
■nodev efiXaarov, tls pt(a kcikcov, | rlva (F. H. M. Blaydes cj. t'lvl) Set (so Grotius
for Si) L.) p-ciKapcov eKdvaa/j-evovs (so Valckenaer for iicdvcrapivoLS L.) | evpelv fio^dcov
avcnravXav.
(3) Zeus Ktesios as Forefather buried in the House.
Accordingly I would venture to put forward the following hypothesis with
regard to Zeus Ktfcios and his jars. In Italy the forefather of the family, once
buried in the house (Serv. in Verg. Ae?i. 5. 64 etiam domi suae "sepeliebantur:
unde orta est consuetudo ut dii Penates colantur in domibus, ib. 6. 152 apud
maiores...omnes in suis domibus sepeliebantur. unde [ortum est ut Lares
colerentur in domibus, unde] etiam umbras larvas vocamus, nam dii Penates
alii sunt, inde est quod etiam Dido cenotaphium domi fecit marito, Isid. orig.
15. 11. 1 prius autem quisque in domo sua sepeliebatur. These statements are
supported by the custom of burying infants less than forty days old in a sub-
gmndariicm (Fulgent, expos, serm. ant. 7; cp. Corp. inscr. Lat. vi no. 27571 -
Orelli Inscr. Lat. set. no. 4545 = Dessau Inscr. Lat. sel. no. 7938) and by the
myths concerning the birth of Romulus (Plout. v. Rom. 2), Servius Tullius (Plin.
nat. hist. 36. 204), and Caeculus (Serv. in Verg. Ae7i. 7. 678). They are rightly
emphasised by F. Granger The Worship of the Romans viewed in relation to
tJie Roman Temperament London 1895 p. 60, id. in the Class. Rev. 1897 xi. 32 f.
W. Warde Fowler ib. 1896 x. 394 f, 1897 xi. 33 ff. attempted to minimise their
force. But J. E. King ib. 1903 xvii. 83 f. suggested that infants were so buried
in order to ensure their re-birth, and Frazer Golden Bough3: The Magic Art
i. 105 n. 4 extends his suggestion to cover ' The widespread custom of burying
"the dead in the house.' A good example of this practice in the Semitic area is
the case of Samuel, who was 'buried...in his house at Ramah' (1 Sam. 25. 1).
At Bibracte the capital of the Aedui {Mont Beuvray in Saone-et-Loire) Gallic
graves of the third La Tene period {s. i B.C.) were found beneath the houses,
often under the hearth: see M. Hoernes Natter- und Urgeschichte des Menschen
Wien und Leipzig 1909 ii. 128, 440, cp. J. Dechelette Ma?iuel d'arche'ologie pre-
historiqne Paris 1914 ii. 3. 948 ff. for an apercu of the town), was known as the
Lar or Genius of the home (Plaut. mere. 834 familiai Lar pater, Laberius frag.
54 ap. Non. Marc. p. 172, 26 f. Lindsay Laberius in Imagine: Genius generis
nostri parens. For the identification of the Lar with the Genius see further
Censorin. de die nat. 3. 2 eundem esse Genium et Larem multi veteres memoriae
prodiderunt, in quis etiam Granius Flaccus in libro quem ad Caesarem de in-
digitamentis scriptum reliquit, interp. Serv. {i.e. Donatus, according to E. K.
Rand in the Class. Quart. 1916 x. 158 ff.) in Verg. Aen. 3. 63 Appuleius de
Daemonio Socratis (? a paraphrase of Apul. de deo Socr. p. 152 f. Oudendorp):
'Manes,' inquit, ' animae dicuntur melioris meriti, quae in corpore nostro Genii
dicuntur, corpori renuntiantes Lemures ; cum domos incursionibus infestarent,
Larvae appellabantur ; contra, si aequi et faventes essent, Lares familiares,'
Auson. technop. de dis 9 nec Genius domuum, Larunda progenitus Lar, cp. Ov.
fast. 3. 57 f. Wissowa Ret. Kult. Rom!1 p. 175 denies their identity on grounds
that seem to me inadequate) and was conceived as a Iupiter (so at least I have
argued in Folk-Lore 1905 xvi. 296 ff. noting that the Genius of a man cor-
responded with the Iuno of a woman (T. Birt in Roscher Lex. Myth. i. 1614 f.,
M. Ihm ib. ii. 615 ff.), that according to Caesius (Bassus ?), who professed to
. follow Etruscan authorities, the Penates were Fortuna, Ceres, the Genius
Iovialis, and the masculine Pales (Caesius ap. Arnob. adv. nat. 3. 40, cp. ib.
3. 43 Ceres, Pales, Fortuna, Iovialis aut Genius)—this Genius Iovialis being
67 — 2
1059
■nodev efiXaarov, tls pt(a kcikcov, | rlva (F. H. M. Blaydes cj. t'lvl) Set (so Grotius
for Si) L.) p-ciKapcov eKdvaa/j-evovs (so Valckenaer for iicdvcrapivoLS L.) | evpelv fio^dcov
avcnravXav.
(3) Zeus Ktesios as Forefather buried in the House.
Accordingly I would venture to put forward the following hypothesis with
regard to Zeus Ktfcios and his jars. In Italy the forefather of the family, once
buried in the house (Serv. in Verg. Ae?i. 5. 64 etiam domi suae "sepeliebantur:
unde orta est consuetudo ut dii Penates colantur in domibus, ib. 6. 152 apud
maiores...omnes in suis domibus sepeliebantur. unde [ortum est ut Lares
colerentur in domibus, unde] etiam umbras larvas vocamus, nam dii Penates
alii sunt, inde est quod etiam Dido cenotaphium domi fecit marito, Isid. orig.
15. 11. 1 prius autem quisque in domo sua sepeliebatur. These statements are
supported by the custom of burying infants less than forty days old in a sub-
gmndariicm (Fulgent, expos, serm. ant. 7; cp. Corp. inscr. Lat. vi no. 27571 -
Orelli Inscr. Lat. set. no. 4545 = Dessau Inscr. Lat. sel. no. 7938) and by the
myths concerning the birth of Romulus (Plout. v. Rom. 2), Servius Tullius (Plin.
nat. hist. 36. 204), and Caeculus (Serv. in Verg. Ae7i. 7. 678). They are rightly
emphasised by F. Granger The Worship of the Romans viewed in relation to
tJie Roman Temperament London 1895 p. 60, id. in the Class. Rev. 1897 xi. 32 f.
W. Warde Fowler ib. 1896 x. 394 f, 1897 xi. 33 ff. attempted to minimise their
force. But J. E. King ib. 1903 xvii. 83 f. suggested that infants were so buried
in order to ensure their re-birth, and Frazer Golden Bough3: The Magic Art
i. 105 n. 4 extends his suggestion to cover ' The widespread custom of burying
"the dead in the house.' A good example of this practice in the Semitic area is
the case of Samuel, who was 'buried...in his house at Ramah' (1 Sam. 25. 1).
At Bibracte the capital of the Aedui {Mont Beuvray in Saone-et-Loire) Gallic
graves of the third La Tene period {s. i B.C.) were found beneath the houses,
often under the hearth: see M. Hoernes Natter- und Urgeschichte des Menschen
Wien und Leipzig 1909 ii. 128, 440, cp. J. Dechelette Ma?iuel d'arche'ologie pre-
historiqne Paris 1914 ii. 3. 948 ff. for an apercu of the town), was known as the
Lar or Genius of the home (Plaut. mere. 834 familiai Lar pater, Laberius frag.
54 ap. Non. Marc. p. 172, 26 f. Lindsay Laberius in Imagine: Genius generis
nostri parens. For the identification of the Lar with the Genius see further
Censorin. de die nat. 3. 2 eundem esse Genium et Larem multi veteres memoriae
prodiderunt, in quis etiam Granius Flaccus in libro quem ad Caesarem de in-
digitamentis scriptum reliquit, interp. Serv. {i.e. Donatus, according to E. K.
Rand in the Class. Quart. 1916 x. 158 ff.) in Verg. Aen. 3. 63 Appuleius de
Daemonio Socratis (? a paraphrase of Apul. de deo Socr. p. 152 f. Oudendorp):
'Manes,' inquit, ' animae dicuntur melioris meriti, quae in corpore nostro Genii
dicuntur, corpori renuntiantes Lemures ; cum domos incursionibus infestarent,
Larvae appellabantur ; contra, si aequi et faventes essent, Lares familiares,'
Auson. technop. de dis 9 nec Genius domuum, Larunda progenitus Lar, cp. Ov.
fast. 3. 57 f. Wissowa Ret. Kult. Rom!1 p. 175 denies their identity on grounds
that seem to me inadequate) and was conceived as a Iupiter (so at least I have
argued in Folk-Lore 1905 xvi. 296 ff. noting that the Genius of a man cor-
responded with the Iuno of a woman (T. Birt in Roscher Lex. Myth. i. 1614 f.,
M. Ihm ib. ii. 615 ff.), that according to Caesius (Bassus ?), who professed to
. follow Etruscan authorities, the Penates were Fortuna, Ceres, the Genius
Iovialis, and the masculine Pales (Caesius ap. Arnob. adv. nat. 3. 40, cp. ib.
3. 43 Ceres, Pales, Fortuna, Iovialis aut Genius)—this Genius Iovialis being
67 — 2