Exploring Mysticism, and Parapsychology.This blog is also an attempt to promote awareness of a Modern Universal Paradigm known as Multi-Dimensional Science. It offers a "Scientific" testable Hypothesis for a more "objective" understanding of claimed Psychic and Spiritual Phenomena. A link to this subject should be found onsite or alternatively easily traceable via a word search. Please note that the Internet articles here may not reflect the views of the Blogger.
Winged genius facing a woman with a tambourine and mirror, from southern Italy, about 320 BC.
In ancient Roman religion, the genius was the individual instance of a general divine nature that is present in every individual person, place, or thing.[1]
The rational powers and abilities of every human being were attributed to their soul, which was a genius.[2] Each individual place had a genius (genius loci) and so did powerful objects, such as volcanoes. The concept extended to some specifics: the genius of the theatre, of vineyards, and of festivals, which made performances successful, grapes grow, and celebrations succeed, respectively. It was extremely important in the Roman mind to propitiate the appropriate genii for the major undertakings and events of their lives.
Bronze genius depicted as pater familias (1st century CE)
Although the term genius might apply to any divinity whatsoever, most of the higher-level and state genii had their own well-established names. Genius applied most often to individual places or people not generally known; that is, to the smallest units of society and settlements, families and their homes. Houses, doors, gates, streets, districts, tribes, each one had its own genius.[3] The supreme hierarchy of the Roman gods, like that of the Greeks, was modelled after a human family. It featured a father, Jupiter ("father god"), who, in a patriarchal society was also the supreme divine unity, and a mother, Juno, queen of the gods. These supreme unities were subdivided into genii for each individual family; hence, the genius of each female, representing the female domestic reproductive power, was a Juno. The male function was a Jupiter.[4]
The juno was worshipped under many titles:
Iugalis, "of marriage"
Matronalis, "of married women"
Pronuba, "of brides"
Virginalis, "of virginity"
Genii were often viewed as protective spirits, as one would propitiate them for protection. For example, to protect infants one propitiated a number of deities concerned with birth and childrearing: Cuba ("lying down to sleep"), Cunina ("of the cradle") and Rumina ("of breast-feeding").[5] Certainly, if those genii did not perform their proper function well, the infant would be in danger.
Hundreds of lararia, or family shrines, have been discovered at Pompeii, typically off the atrium, kitchen or garden, where the smoke of burnt offerings could vent through the opening in the roof. A lararium was distinct from the penus ("within"), another shrine where the penates, gods associated with the storerooms, was located. Each lararium features a panel fresco containing the same theme: two peripheral figures (Lares) attend on a central figure (family genius) or two figures (genius and Juno) who may or may not be at an altar. In the foreground is one or two serpents crawling toward the genius through a meadow motif. Campania and Calabria preserved an ancient practice of keeping a propitious house snake, here linked with the genius.[6] In another, unrelated fresco (House of the Centenary) the snake-in-meadow appears below a depiction of Mount Vesuvius and is labelled Agathodaimon, "good daimon", where daimon must be regarded as the Greek equivalent of genius.
Head of a genius worshipped by Roman soldiers (found at Vindobona, 2nd century CE)
Etymologically genius (“household guardian spirit”) has the same derivation as nature from gēns (“tribe”, “people”) from the Indo-European root *gen-, "produce."[7] It is the indwelling nature of an object or class of objects or events that act with a perceived or hypothesized unity.[8] Philosophically the Romans did not find the paradox of the one being many confusing; like all other prodigies they attributed it to the inexplicable mystery of divinity. Multiple events could therefore be attributed to the same and different divinities and a person could be the same as and different from his genius. They were not distinct, as the later guardian angels, and yet the Genius Augusti was not exactly the same as Augustus either. As a natural outcome of these beliefs, the pleasantness of a place, the strength of an oath, an ability of a person, were regarded as intrinsic to the object, and yet were all attributable to genius; hence all of the modern meanings of the word. This point of view is not attributable to any one civilization; its roots are lost in prehistory. The Etruscans had such beliefs at the beginning of history, but then so did the Greeks, the native Italics and many other peoples in the near and middle east.
No literature of the monarchy has survived, but later authors in recounting its legends mention the genius. For example, under Servius Tullius the triplets Horatii of Rome fought the triplets Curiatii of Alba Longa for the decision of the war that had arisen between the two communities. Horatius was left standing but his sister, who had been betrothed to one of the Curiatii, began to keen, breast-beat and berate Horatius. He executed her, was tried for murder, was acquitted by the Roman people but the king made him expiate the Juno of his sister and the Genius Curiatii, a family genius.[9]
The genius appears explicitly in Roman literature relatively late as early as Plautus, where one character in the play, Captivi, jests that the father of another is so avaricious that he uses cheap Samian ware in sacrifices to his own genius, so as not to tempt the genius to steal it.[10] In this passage, the genius is not identical to the person, as to propitiate oneself would be absurd, and yet the genius also has the avarice of the person; that is, the same character, the implication being, like person, like genius.
Implied geniuses date to much earlier; for example, when Horatius Cocles defends the Pons Sublicius against an Etruscan crossing at the beginning of the Roman Republic, after the bridge is cut down he prays to the Tiber to bear him up as he swims across: Tiberine pater te, sancte, precor ..., "Holy father Tiber, I pray to you ...." The Tiber so addressed is a genius. Although the word is not used here, in later literature it is identified as one.[11] Horace describes the genius as "the companion which controls the natal star; the god of human nature, in that he is mortal for each person, with a changing expression, white or black".[12]
Octavius Caesar on return to Rome after the final victory of the Roman Civil War at the Battle of Actium appeared to the Senate to be a man of great power and success, clearly a mark of divinity. In recognition of the prodigy they voted that all banquets should include a libation to his genius. In concession to this sentiment he chose the name Augustus, capturing the numinous meaning of English "august." This line of thought was probably behind the later vote in 30 BC that he was divine, as the household cult of the Genius Augusti dates from that time. It was propitiated at every meal along with the other household numina.[13] The vote began the tradition of the divine emperors; however, the divinity went with the office and not the man. The Roman emperors gave ample evidence that they personally were neither immortal nor divine.
Inscription on votive altar to the genius of Legio VII Gemina by L. Attius Macro (CIL II 5083)
If the genius of the imperator, or commander of all troops, was to be propitiated, so was that of all the units under his command. The provincial troops expanded the idea of the genii of state; for example, from Roman Britain have been found altars to the genii of Roma, Roman aeterna, Britannia, and to every legion, cohors, ala and centuria in Britain, as well as to the praetorium of every castra and even to the vexillae.[14] Inscriptional dedications to genius were not confined to the military. From Gallia Cisalpina under the empire are numerous dedications to the genii of persons of authority and respect; in addition to the emperor's genius principis, were the geniuses of patrons of freedmen, owners of slaves, patrons of guilds, philanthropists, officials, villages, other divinities, relatives and friends. Sometimes the dedication is combined with other words, such as "to the genius and honor" or in the case of couples, "to the genius and Juno."[15]
Surviving from the time of the empire hundreds of dedicatory, votive and sepulchral inscriptions ranging over the entire territory testify to a floruit of genius worship as an official cult. Stock phrases were abbreviated: GPR, genio populi Romani ("to the genius of the Roman people"); GHL, genio huius loci ("to the genius of this place"); GDN, genio domini nostri ("to the genius of our master"), and so on. In 392 AD with the final victory of Christianity Theodosius I declared the worship of the Genii, Lares and Penates to be treason, ending their official terms.[16] The concept, however, continued in representation and speech under different names or with accepted modifications.
The genius of a corporate social body is often a cameo theme on ancient coins: a denarius from Spain, 76–75 BC, featuring a bust of the GPR (Genius Populi Romani, "Genius of the Roman People") on the obverse;[17] an aureus of Siscia in Croatia, 270–275 AD, featuring a standing image of the GENIUS ILLVR (Genius Exercitus Illyriciani,[18] "Genius of the Illyrian Army") on the reverse;[19] an aureus of Rome, 134–138 AD, with an image of a youth holding a cornucopia and patera (sacrificial dish) and the inscription GENIOPR, genio populi Romani, "to the genius of the Roman people," on the reverse.[20]
Scene from Lararium, House of Iulius Polybius, Pompeii
Jump up ^Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles (2009). "genius". A Latin Dictionary. Meford, MA: Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University. Retrieved 1 July 2009.
Jump up ^St. Augustine. "VII.13". In Dyson, R.W. The City of God against the Pagans. p. 284. ISBN0-14-044894-2. "Varro says that a 'genius' is the rational soul of each man ... and that the soul of the world itself is a universal 'genius', and that this is what they call Jupiter."
Jump up ^Grimal, P. (1965). "Rome: Gods by Conquest". Larousse World Mythology. The Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited. p. 181.
Jump up ^Fox, William Sherwood (1916). Gray, Louis Herbert; Moore, George Foot, eds. The Mythology of All Races. I Greek and Roman. Boston: Marshall Jones Company. p. 291. ISBN0-8154-0073-X.
Jump up ^Schmitz, Leonhard (1867, 2005). "Cuba". In Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology1. Little, Brown & Company, The Ancient Library. p. 900.Check date values in: |date= (help)
Jump up ^Orr, David Gerald (1980). "Roman Domestic Religion: The Archaeology of Roman Popular Art". In Browne, Ray Broadus. Rituals and Ceremonies in Popular Culture (Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press). pp. 88–103
Jump up ^Harper, Douglas (2001). "Genius". Online Etymological Dictionary. Retrieved 2 July 2009.
Jump up ^*gen- assumed many related meanings. A (g)natura was the thing with which one was "produced" or "born"; i.e., something innate. The writers of the late Republic and empire viewed it in that way (see introduction). An alternative view is repeated by De Grummond, Nancy Thomson (2006). Etruscan myth, sacred history, and legend. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. p. 143. "The name Genius belongs to a fertility spirit and means literally 'the begetter'...."Unknown parameter |unused_data= ignored (help) De Grummond draws some parallels to Etruscan geniuses (so labelled by the Roman writers), such as Tages and his father Mariś. Presumably, the meaning of family protective spirit would have been the original; however, without definitive connecting evidence the origin of the Roman genius remains speculative. It was either male or female, performed any function, and was associated with anything, not just people.
Jump up ^Fishwick, Duncan (1987-2005). The imperial cult in the Latin West: studies in the ruler cult of the western provinces of the Roman Empire. 2 Part 1. Leiden ; New York: E.J. Brill. pp. 375–377. ISBN90-04-07179-2.Check date values in: |date= (help)
Jump up ^Ward, John (1911, 2003). "Chapter VI Religions of Roman Britain". Roman Era in Britain. London, Chicago: Methuen & Co. Ltd.; LacusCurtius, University of Chicago. pp. 102–103.Check date values in: |date= (help)
Jump up ^Murley, Joseph Clyde (1922). The cults of Cisalpine Gaul as seen in the inscriptions. Menasha Wisconsin: Geroge Banta Publishing Company. pp. 19–24.
Jump up ^Duruy, Victor (1885). Mahaffy, John Pentland, ed. History of Rome and the Roman peopleIV. Boston: Dana Estes & Charles E. Lauriat. p. 165. ISBN1-4325-5089-6. The authors cite Codex Theodosianus XVI.x.xii.
Jump up ^Rasche, Christopher, ed. (1785). Lexicon Universae Rei Numariae Veterum et Praecipue Graecorum ac Romanorum. 2 Part 1. Libraria Gleditschia. p. 1379.
Dwight, Mary Ann (1860). "Genii and Inferior Deities". Grecian and Roman mythology. New York: A.S. Barnes & Burr. ISBN0-524-02016-7.
Fowler, W. Warde (2007). "Lecture I: Sketch of the Course: Domestic Deities". Roman Ideas of Deity in the Last Century before the Christian Era - Lectures Delivered in Oxford for the Common University Fund. Holyoake Press. ISBN978-1-4067-6774-2.
Schmitz, Leonhard (1867, 2005). "Genius". In Smith, William. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology2. Little, Brown & Company, The Ancient Library. pp. 241–242.Check date values in: |date= (help)
Brewer, E. Cobham, ed. (1894, 2009). "Genius, Genii (Roman mythology)". Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. fromoldbooks.org. Retrieved 3 July 2009.Check date values in: |date= (help)
"Genius". mythindex.com. 2007-2008. Retrieved 3 July 2009.Check date values in: |date= (help)
The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion (retitled The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion in its second edition) is a wide-ranging, comparative study of mythology and religion, written by the Scottish anthropologist Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941). It was first published in two volumes in 1890; in three volumes in 1900; the third edition, published 1906–15, comprised twelve volumes. The work was aimed at a wide literate audience raised on tales as told in such publications as Thomas Bulfinch's The Age of Fable, or Stories of Gods and Heroes (1855).
Frazer offered a modernist approach to discussing religion, treating it dispassionately[1] as a cultural phenomenon rather than from a theological perspective. The influence of The Golden Bough on contemporary European literature and thought was substantial.[2]
The Golden Bough attempts to define the shared elements of religious belief to scientific thought, discussing fertility rites, human sacrifice, the dying god, the scapegoat and many other symbols and practices whose influence has extended into twentieth-century culture.[3] Its thesis is that old religions were fertility cults that revolved around the worship and periodic sacrifice of a sacred king. Frazer proposed that mankind progresses from magic through religious belief to scientific thought.[4]
This thesis was developed in relation to J. M. W. Turner's painting of The Golden Bough, a sacred grove where a certain tree grew day and night. It was a transfigured landscape in a dream-like vision of the woodland lake of Nemi, "Diana's Mirror", where religious ceremonies and the "fulfillment of vows" of priests and kings were held.[5]
The king was the incarnation of a dying and reviving god, a solar deity who underwent a mystic marriage to a goddess of the Earth. He died at the harvest and was reincarnated in the spring. Frazer claims that this legend of rebirth is central to almost all of the world's mythologies.
The Judgement of Paris - an Etruscan bronze-handled mirror of the fourth or third century BC that relates the often misunderstood myth as interpreted by Frazer, showing the three goddesses giving their apple or pomegranate to the new king, who must kill the old king - Campana Collection, Greek, Etruscan and Roman Antiquities, Sully
Frazer based his thesis on the pre-Roman priest-king at the fane of Nemi, who was ritually murdered by his successor:
"When I first put pen to paper to write The Golden Bough I had no conception of the magnitude of the voyage on which I was embarking; I thought only to explain a single rule of an ancient Italian priesthood." (Aftermath, p. vi)
The book's title was taken from an incident in the Aeneid, illustrated by the British artist Joseph Mallord William Turner: Aeneas and the Sibyl present the golden bough to the gatekeeper of Hades to gain admission.
The book scandalized the British public when first published, as it included the Christian story of Jesus and the Resurrection in its comparative study. Critics thought this treatment invited an agnostic reading of the Lamb of God as a relic of a pagan religion. For the third edition, Frazer placed his analysis of the Crucifixion in a speculative appendix; the discussion of Christianity was excluded from the single-volume abridged edition.[6][7]
The book's influence on the emerging discipline of anthropology was pervasive and undeniable. For example, Bronisław Malinowski, stricken with tuberculosis shortly after receiving his doctorate in physics and mathematics, read Frazer's work in the original English to distract himself from his illness.
"No sooner had I read this great work than I became immersed in it and enslaved by it. I realized then that anthropology, as presented by Sir James Frazer, is a great science, worthy of as much devotion as any of her elder and more exact studies and I became bound to the service of Frazerian anthropology."[8]
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein returned time and again to The Golden Bough, so much so that his commentaries have been compiled as Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough, edited by Rush Rhees, originally published in 1967 (the English edition followed in 1971).[10] He writes, "Frazer is much more savage than most of these savages."[11]Weston LaBarre observed that Frazer was "the last of the scholastics" and wrote The Golden Bough "as an extended footnote to a line in Virgil he felt he did not understand."[12]
Some modern critics set Frazer in the broader context of the history of ideas, for example, Robert Ackerman in his The Myth and Ritual School: J. G. Frazer and the Cambridge Ritualists. The myth and ritual school includes scholars Jane Harrison, Gilbert Murray, F. M. Cornford, and A.B. Cook, who were connecting the new discipline of myth theory and anthropology with traditional literary classics at the end of the nineteenth century. This school was an important influence on much Modernist literature.[citation needed]
Abridged edition, edited by Theodor H. Gaster, 1959, entitled The New Golden Bough: A New Abridgment of the Classic Work.
Abridged edition, edited by Robert Fraser for Oxford University Press, 1994. It restores the material on Christianity purged in the first abridgement. ISBN 0-19-282934-3
Jump up ^Chapter 4., Magic and Religion: 'The dispassionate observer, whose studies have led him to plumb its depths, can hardly regard it otherwise than as a standing menace to civilisation.'
Jump up ^Karbiener, K. and Stade, G., Encyclopedia of British Writers, 1800 to the Present, Volume 2, Infobase Publishing, 2009, pp. 188-190. [1]
Jump up ^Hamel, Frazer, ed. The Golden Bough, London: Wordsworth, 1993.
Jump up ^Hamel, Frazer, ed. The Golden Bough, London: Wordsworth, 1993.
Jump up ^Frazer, Sir James. The Golden Bough, London: Wordsworth, 1993.
Jump up ^Leach, Edmund R. "Kingship and divinity: The unpublished Frazer Lecture, Oxford, 28 October 1982." HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 1.1 (2011): 279-298.
Jump up ^Smith, Jonathan Z. "When the bough breaks." History of Religions 12.4 (1973): 342-371.
Jump up ^Hays, From Ape to Angel: An Informal History of Social Anthropology, p. 314, cited in L. L. Langness, The Study of Culture (Corte Madera: Chandler & Sharp, 1974), p. 75
Jump up ^Paglia, Camille (1993). Sex, Art, and American Culture: Essays. London: Penguin Books. p. 114. ISBN0-14-017209-2.
_01.jpg)
