[90\5: This is the public festival meant by Phryn., p. 103 Lob. = 83, p. 184 Ruth., when, to distinguish it from the birthday celebrations of living persons, ~gene/thlia~ (which did not become common till later), he calls the ~Gene/sia, Athê/nêsin heortê/ [pe/nthimos~ add. Meursius; cf. Hesych. ~gene/sia~; _AB._ 231, 19]. The Antiatticista, in his rather absurd polemic against Phryn. (p. 86, 20 ff.), adds the still clearer statement (taken from Solon's ~a/xones~ and Philochoros) that the ~heortê\ dêmotelê/s~ of the ~Gene/sia~ at Athens was held on the 5th Boedromion. There is not the slightest reason for doubting the correctness of this statement (as many have done). In Rome, too, besides the many moveable _parentalia_ of the families there was an official and public Parentalia held every year (in Feb.). Similarly in ancient India: Oldenberg, 550, 3.] [91\5: The ~Neme/seia~ is mentioned by Dem. 41, 11. The context suggests a rite performed by a daughter in honour of her dead father. It is a quite certainly correct _conjecture_ (~mê/pote--~) of the Lexicog. that the _Nemeseia_ may be a festival of the dead (see Harp. s.v. _AB._ 282, 32: both glosses combined in Phot. Suid. ~neme/sia~). It is clear, however, that they knew nothing further about it. Mommsen declares (_Heort._ 209) the _Nemeseia_ to have been "without doubt" identical with the ~Gene/sia~. I see no reason at all for supposing so.--The name ~neme/seia~ characterizes it as a festival dedicated to the "wrath" of the dead, to the ~ne/mesis tô=n thano/ntôn~, Soph., _El._ 792; ~phthime/nôn ôkuta/tê ne/mesis~, _Epigr. Gr._ 119; cf. 195--this easily becomes a personified ~Ne/mesis~: ~e/sti ga\r en phthime/nois Ne/mesis me/ga~, _Epigr. Gr._ 367, 9. The cult of the dead, like the cult of the underworld in general, is always apotropaic in character (placantur sacrificiis ne noceant, Serv., _A._ iii, 63): the Nemeseia must then have been apotropaic in intention too.]