Plut. _Quaest. Rom._ 30; Varro, ap. Plin. _N. H._ 8. 194; Festus, 238. It was Reifferscheid’s conjecture that she was a female Dius Fidius (see Wissowa, _Lex._ 1190). Fest. 241 adds ‘cuius ex zona periclitantes ramenta sumunt.’ Footnote 574: _Bull. dell’ Inst._, 1867, 352 foll. Reifferscheid was prevented by death from working his view out more fully; but R. Peter (see _Lex._ s. v. Hercules, 2267) preserved notes of his lectures. Footnote 575: Gellius, 11. 6. 1. For Juno as female equivalent of Genius see article ‘Iunones’ in _Lex._ But it does not seem proved that this was the old name, and not an idea of comparatively late times. Footnote 576: Seneca, _Ep._ 12. 2. Footnote 577: See below, on Aug. 12, p. 194. Footnote 578: This seems a weak point. Bona Dea was not more closely related to Juno than some others. I do not feel sure that the name Juno is not as much an intrusion here as Hercules, and that the real female counterpart of Genius, &c., was not a nameless _numen_ like the Bona Dea. The rise of the cult of Juno Lucina may have produced this intrusion. It is worth noting that in Etruria Minerva takes the place of Juno _(Lex._ 2266, and the illustration on 2267). Footnote 579: Serv. _Ecl._ 4. 62. Footnote 580: Paulus, 63. Footnote 581: Gerhard, _Etruskische Spiegel_, 147. It is also figured in _Lex._ s. v. Hercules, 2259. Footnote 582: e. g. by every writer in Roscher’s _Lexicon_ who has touched on the subject. Jordan seems to have dissented (Preller, ii. 284). Footnote 583: The opposition or conflict of the two is paralleled by the supposed myth of the contention of Mars and Minerva (Nerio) (see above, p. 60; _Lex._ 2265). Footnote 584: See article ‘Iunones’ in _Lex._; and De-Marchi, _La Religione nella vita domestica_, p. 70. Footnote 585: Roscher’s article ‘Juno’ in _Lex._ passim. Footnote 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. Footnote 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. Footnote 588: