Genius There are undoubtedly connections and parallels in the worship of Genius and Juno, so that the only question is whether the similarities arose late or early. Certainly in Republican and Imperial times, to every woman belongs a Juno, as embodiment of her higher divine ego, and to every man a Genius. But was this differentiation made in earliest Rome? Wissowa1 in his last edition of Religion und Kultus der Römer has declared that we may unhesitatingly count it among the oldest elements of the Roman religion. Much of the evidence depends on an Arval prayer2 which mentions a Juno Deae Diae. Birt, however, is right in thinking that the idea expressed by this name does not belong to the earliest period because of the anthropomorphic and strongly individualized tendency which it manifests. It is correct to suppose that the designation Genius is the original and general term, including both sexes. Such is the opinion of Ihm, for instance, and of Otto, who says we possess no proof that the differentiation between Genius and Juno existed in the original worship. In fact we have no evidence earlier than Tibullus for the Juno of a woman. But Wissowa comments that before Tibullus there is no record of the Genius of an individual man, either. 5 It is indeed unsafe to rely too much on negative evidence, but at the same time it is reasonable to ask whether it was characteristic of the Roman nature to emphasize and develop the cult of gods pertaining to the individual as greatly as such differentiation for man and woman would imply. If we consider carefully, we realize that attention was concentrated on the state and family. This god, Genius, was the only one pertaining to the individual, as Carter observes. Warde Fowler' in fact is 1 Relig. und Kult. p. 182. 2 Henzen, Act. Fr. Arv. p. 144. 3 Roscher's Lex. I, 1619. 4 Roscher's Lex. II, 615. 'Pauly-Wissowa, VII, 1157. Relig. of Numa, pp. 11-2. Roman Ideas of Deity, pp. 17-9 and 22. inclined to believe that "the Genius in the earliest times stood for the permanent principle in social life, the continued existence of the family and the gens. . . . . Permanence, benevolence, and personality are all elements to be found in the Genius." Wine, life-giving and strengthening, is the regular libation to Genius, but wine is also the libation to Jupiter as Liber. Even this individual deity seems to be "the special idea of the mysterious power of the pater familias to continue the family and keep up its connexion with the gens.' 719 There was an old shield on the Capitoline with the dedication, genio urbis Romae, sive mas sive femina and a picture of a serpent.10 Otto" maintains that the shield could not have been so dedicated if the idea of the Genius had excluded the feminine. As has been said in connection with Juno Deae Diae, the idea of the Genius of a god is not in keeping with those vague numina of the earliest religion. The Genius of the city of Rome is rather one of the abstractions of later times; and in that period, as the inscription shows, the Genius was sometimes used to include the feminine. Though there are numerous instances in Imperial times where the Juno of a woman corresponds to the Genius of a man, yet the naming of the Genius of a woman is not unrecorded.12 In one inscription the word Genii13 is used of both mother and father. Otto thinks that the following statement of Censorinus,14 therefore, may not be called inaccurate, nonnulli binos Genios in his dumtaxat domibus, quae essent maritae, colendos putarunt. There is also the old Arval prayer,15 sive deo sive deae in cuius tutela hic lucus locusve est which shows that in the case of the Genius loci the question of gender was unsettled. It is interesting also to note that the Juno of a pagus is mentioned, and yet countless inscriptions record only the Genius of colonia, provincia, legiones, centuriae. There is also the Genius of victoria, fama, luna, fortuna, and fatum, and even the Genius of Juno Sospita.16 From such an arbitrary use of the terms in later centuries, it looks as if Genius was originally used to designate the permanent force in man or woman. When the differentiation arose, the prevalence of the earlier idea frequently made itself felt and careful discrimination about genders was never made. It is true that women sometimes swore by their Juno, just as Tibullus17 says: Etsi perque suos fallax iuravit ocellos Iunonemque suam perque suam Venerem. But, as this quotation shows, Juno may not have been originally a goddess of the individual any more than was Venus. One of the most important testimonies to the close connection between Juno and Genius would seem to be the fact that the chief festival of Genius is the birthday.18 Juno is characterized by the epithet Natalis. Otto supposes the question might be asked why there is no Genius Natalis. This, he explains, would be a tautology; for Genius is understood as the daemon of the birthday, but in the case of Juno this element must be expressly emphasized. Besides the birthday of the individual, Genius had one fixed festival, on the ninth of October;19 and accordingly it might be argued that this was connected with the observances for Juno on the seventh, since early festivals were usually held only on the odd days of the month. The sacrifice on the ninth, however, is shared by Genius Publicus with Fausta Felicitas and Venus Victrix. It is argued that the marriage bed was called lectus genialis;20 also that the serpent is the symbol of Genius.21 On the other hand, in the wedding ceremony Juno, goddess of marriage, is not in any way paired with Genius. The only instance where the snake may be included in Juno-cult is at Lanuvium.22 On 16 C.I.L. II, 2407c and XIII, 9740a; Martial, VII, 12, 10; Mommsen, Inscr. Confoed. Helvet. Lat. 133; Mart. Cap. I, 53. 17 III, 6, 47-8. 18 Otto, Philol. N.F. XVIII (1905) pp. 179 ff. and Pauly-Wissowa, VII, 1158. 19 Wissowa, op. cit. pp. 589 and 179. 20 Birt, Roscher's Lex. I, 1615. 21 Wissowa, op. cit. p. 176. 22 Infra pp. 67-8. coins which depict Juno Sospita of that town, the serpent is represented with the goddess. But though she is attended by the serpent, she never seems to have been represented by it, as was Genius. A. B. Cook23 even thinks that the representation of Genius as a snake suits Jupiter, who was known to appear as a serpent on the lectus genialis. The additional argument is employed that the forehead was sacred to Genius24 and that in reverence to him the Romans touched the forehead, while women offered their eyebrows to Juno. Otto truly says that hair is associated with life and strength among primitive peoples; but he seems incorrectly to assume that the proximity of the forehead and the eyebrows is in this case significant. The hair of the head also borders the forehead. Varro25 in giving his testimony about the offering of eyebrows is perhaps more correct when he adds, ubi ab düs lux datur [oculis]. An inscription found on a lead tessera26 at Tarquinii is inscribed, Iunoni Reginae and Genio iuven(um) Tarquin(iensium) and presents Genius with a seated figure of the goddess. This does not seem to provide support for the view27 that "Genius and Juno are in origin a pair representing the male and female principle of life." It seems rather to have been inscribed to one of the chief protecting deities of the place and to the evercontinuing youthful life and strength there. Compare with this, for instance, the inscription which reads,28 I(ovi) O(ptimo) e[t] Iun(oni) Reg(inae) et G(enio) loc(i) and also another,29 Iovi Optimo) M(aximo) et Deae Suriae et Genio venalici, where obviously no original connection between Genius and the other deities is implied. As Otto30 says, it is manifest that the Genius must in earlier times have been called ein seelischer Begleiter of the individual man, as a tenant of his body, somewhat in the way of the yuxń; "Folk-Lore, XVI (1905) p. 296. Varro, L.L. V, 69; Servius, Aen. III, 607 (Ecl. VI, 3). 25 L.c. 26 Rostovzev, Röm. Bleit-tesserae, Klio, Beiheft, III (1905) p. 80; Taylor, Cults of Etruria, pp. 143-4. 27 Taylor, l.c. 28 Ephem. Epigr. II2 (1874) p. 399. 29 C.I.L. VI, 399. 30 Pauly-Wissowa, VII, 1165. and, as among many peoples, this in-dwelling spirit was extended to every place, every collective group of men or things. This movement may have been fostered by the spread of the Greek belief in man's individual daíμwv. The Greek view according to which the daiμoves stand between god and men, if subject to mythological influence, might very well account for the curious story which says that Tages was the son of Genius and grandson of Jupiter.31 We must beware of mixing Greek beliefs with the native Italian ones. We should omit, therefore, any consideration of Tages here. "The Genius and Even the Lar Familiaris, though they attained great dignity of conception, and were the centre of family life, and to some extent of family morality, never quite rose to the position of full-grown gods," says Cyril Bailey.32 The Genius always remained a numen with no anthropomorphic tendencies. Temples were seldom built to him and it was customary to signify his presence by a serpent. Juno, on the other hand, became one of the most important deities, possessing some of the handsomest shrines in Rome and other Italian cities. The principal day sacred to Genius was the birthday of the individual, whereas Juno's festival day was the Calends of each month. It seems futile to explain this difference in development as due to the highly varied aspects and functions of a man's life and the monotonous form of a woman's. Much more probable it is that when Juno later became a tutela pariendi, even as Genius was the tutela generandi, the two were associated in cult and the situation to which Seneca refers came about, singulis enim et Genium et Iunonem dederunt.34 As Warde Fowler says, "It does not seem proved that this (Juno as equivalent of Genius) was the old name, and not an idea of comparatively late times." This view met with the approval of Carter,36 who made the comment that "the scepticism in regard to the age of the term Juno Genius muliebris is well in place." = 31 Otto, Pauly-Wissowa, VII, 1169. See L.R. Taylor, op. cit. pp. 143-4. 32 Relig. of Anc. Rome, p. 12. 33 Cassius Dio, XLVII, 2, mentions a temple roû reviou Toù dýμov. Epist. 110, 1; Pliny, N. H. II, 16. 25 Rom. Fest. p. 142, note 2. 36 C. R. XIV (1900) p. 90. |