[586]. I cannot agree with Mr. Jevons (Introduction to History of Religion, p. 186 foll.) when he makes the Roman genius a relic of totemism, simply because genii were often represented by serpents. The snake was too universally worshipped and domesticated to be easily explained as a totem. Mr. Frazer has an interesting example from Zululand, which is singularly suggestive in connexion with the doctrine of Genius (see Golden Bough, ii. 332), which can hardly be explained on a totemistic basis. The doctrine of Genius may certainly have had its roots in a totemistic age; but by the time it reaches us in Roman literature it has passed through so many stages that its origin is not to be dogmatized about.
[587]. I cannot attach much weight to the argument (see Lex. 2268) that because Aelius Stilo explained Dius Fidius as Diovis Filius he therefore had in his head some such relation of Genius to Jupiter.
[588]. If he had written Genius Iovius, after the manner of the Iguvian inscription, with its adjectival forms which preserve a reminiscence of the older spirit-world, he might have been nearer the mark. It may be that we get back to Jupiter himself as the Genius par excellence, but there is no direct proof of this. The genius of a god is a late idea, as Mr. Jevons points out in a note to Roman Questions, p. liii.
[589]. Livy, 22. 9; Ovid, Fasti, 6. 241 foll.; Aust, de Aedibus sacris, p. 19.
[590]. Livy, 23. 31 and 32; Marq. 270.
[591]. Marq. 358 foll.; Article ‘Sibyllini libri’ in Dict. of Antiquities, ed. 2.
[592]. Livy, 22. 9, 10; 23. 30, 31.
[593]. Ad Aen. 1. 720.
[594]. Plut. de Fort. Rom. 5. 10; Cic. Nat. Deor. 2. 61. Aust (de Aedibus sacris, p. 19) puts it in B.C. 115, in Scaurus’ consulship.
[595]. Ovid, Fasti, 6. 219 foll.; Festus, 250, s. v. Penus: ‘[Penus vo]catur locus intimus in aede Vestae, tegetibus saeptus, qui certis diebus circa Vestalia aperitur. Ii dies religiosi habentur.’