Talk:Genius loci

genii loci

could somehow genii loci be linked to this. Which term is more commonly known as to link it better?

Genii loci is the plural. The singular is about 300 times more common than the plural on Google, so it's safe to say that the singular is more common, plus Wikipedia prefers using the singular form of a word whenever possible. -Silence 02:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

What's the proper capitalization of the term? The article uses Genius Loci, Genius loci, and genius loci. Surely only one should be used consistently. :) -Phoenixrod 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Genius? Loci

Isn't the phrase actually Genus Loci? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.17.130.184 (talk) 16:31, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Every version I've personally seen before now has always been "genius loci," and a quick Google search of both phrases has genius far outnumbering genus. The Online Etymology Dictionary says "genius" originally referred to a spirit of some kind, particularly a guardian spirit present from birth. It's the same root that was used when the Arabic term "jinni" was turned into "genie" by Europeans (the resemblance is accidental). "Loci" is a plural of "locus," which means place, location. Thus, "genius loci" means "spirit of a place," while "genus loci" would mean something like "kind of a place" (if it even made any kind of sense put together like that). Myself, I've always wondered why it's not genius locus considering it's supposed to be a spirit of a single place, not a multitude of places, and loci is the plural form. Nerrin 04:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Genius is in the Latin nominative case, loci is in the genitive case ("of the place"), similar to modus operandi or corpus delicti. What I'd like to know is what is the accepted pronunciation, since the accurate Latin pronunciation (GAY-nee-us LO-kee) sounds stilted in conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfitz (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The spelling, capitalization, and pronunciation are all questions that can be answered by consulting a dictionary. According to the Random House College Dictionary, it's genius loci, pronounced GENioos LŌkē (US) or JĒnēəs LŌsi (British). "Genus" is also common but incorrect. (I assume it is simply a confusion with the completely separate Latin word genus.) In Latin, loci is either the nominative plural or genitive singular of locus. In this case it's the genitive singular -- "of the place". -- Margin1522 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Added section discussing monster in fantasy settings

I've added a chunk of text discussing the genius loci as a monster in high fantasy settings, such as DND. I had to do some paraphrasing so that I didn't overwhelm the original article. Between the fact that I can't find anything about it more official than my own analysis here and my lack of citation expertise in situations like this, I've left it completely uncited, with a list of good sources here.

I'm sorry for putting what is technically "original research" here, but we Tolkien geeks tend not to write in-depth, thoroughly researched papers about this sort of stuff. We've generally all read the original material, and can relate everything necessary to transfer a concept like this in two or three sentences. That doesn't provide anything useful for an encyclopedia entry, though, so there isn't really anything to cite.

These were my primary sources while writing this, but I've encountered genius loci in a number of other works (mostly short stories by various authors, although they're occasionally the monster of the week in epic fantasy novels).

Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 epic level handbook

Turn Coat: book 11 of the Dresden Files

Many high fantasy settings that use a more literal hot-and-cold-running-mana system, as described in Niven's works, also sometimes feature intelligent mana pools. These share many similarities with genius loci even though they're not named as such. I haven't found any really good similar term/page for these, and I tend to conflate them anyway, so I've stuck a reference to intelligent mana pools in there.

71.112.89.139 (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

The recent addition of a disambiguation seems unnecessary. Opinions?--Mavigogun (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed after consultation with Disambiguation Guidelines.Mavigogun (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, my friend. In the first place, this is not disambiguation, it is a hatnote. Hatnotes are useful when the title wholly or partly, or the topic, appears in another article. So, I suggest you read the guidelines on hatnotes. Second, I would like to know what part of that huge help article applies to this situation. Can you give us a quote? Exactly what is it you object to? Don't you want to know that there are other articles on genius? I don't see it at all as unnecessary. I got to this article looking for articles on genius and it took me a while to find it. Third, what put you onto me? As far as I know only a few people like to do disambig pages. I do them when it seems warranted. Now, In other cases I would revert your changes until we discussed it properly. Since however there is a proposal of mine to merge these two articles it seems a waste of time to put a hatnote in right now. After we decide whether to merge is the best time. Meanwhile, I would appreciate your arguments if you have any. Frankly, "it seems unnecessary" isn't much of an argument as anyone can directly contradict it. I'll be back.Dave (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The requested quote to which I referred:

There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to add a link to Solaris (novel) (but not, say, Solaris (operating system)) to its "See also" section.

A reading of the usage guidelines for Hatnotes did not produce any supporting material; however, guidelines are just that- a utility for guidance to be moderated by the application of common sense (as indicated on the Hatnote page). A connection between Genius loci and the array of articles the titles of which contain the word Genius has not been demonstrated; by my estimation it is a contrived connection, as sensical as a hatnote linking to the disambiguation page for Locus.--Mavigogun (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your lucid answer. I see what your reasoning is and what the problem is. You lack some information (we all do of course) on the "connection" that "has not been demonstrated." That information is the etymology and uses of the terms "genius." Every use of it is in fact connected. That is exactly what these fragmentary and mainly incorrect and unsupported articles lack, and what drew me to them in the first place. None of them are in any way minimally adequate articles in my opinion. But - not too many people know Latin or know classical literature, so they do not know that they do not know. Now, if those articles were correctly filled out, the connection would be manifest. This question has come up because they are not. This is probably the main reason I have these reversions and discussions on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the underlying solution is to do the articles right. As you know one person cannot fix every wrong article on Wikipedia. I have other things I want to work on. I would have said, you should have followed my judgement. But, lacking my knowledge, how are you supposed to distinguish me from all the hacks? I would say, if the current pathetic state of "information" leads you to think there is an error in having that hatnote, someone else might be puzzled by it also. Genius is an important concept but no one actually has done it yet so there is no merit in providing misunderstood links between wrong articles. I'm not doing the work so maybe it is better to leave it alone. True, the misinformation and unhelpful reversion represent everything that is wrong with Wikipedia - Caliban casts out Ariel - or misinformation polices itself - but there is insufficient return in my making an issue I am not inclined to adequately address at the moment. I did want to know why you did it. You used your judgement. It isn't your fault if you can't know everything. About the best I can say is, persons assuming the encyclopedist role ought to be cautious and cognizant of human limitation, but that applies to me also. In summary, I'm letting this sleeping dog lie, even though he breaks wind in his sleep. Thanks for your explanation. It is often true that the letter of the law breaks the spirit of the law, but I'm getting beyond the size of the error now. Ciao.Dave (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunning-Kruger effect--Mavigogun (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Spirit of place be merged

The merge tag has been added, but without a rational. I am for. The concepts differ but, in practice, when people write now of 'Genius loci' they mean its atmosphere rather than literal Spirits. --Duncan (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote. Let me give you some rationale: "spirit of the place" translates the Latin and is the same concept. If we don't merge we will have one article on a Latin phrase and another on its translation. For the apparent difference in concept, there are a lot of senses of the phrase. They both have the same set of senses however. True it can refer to the atmosphere, and someone who does not believe in spirits would prefer that sense. Do we need an article for every sense? I don't think so. In fact it might be useful to list the Frech or German translations.Dave (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DuncanBCS, I must disagree with your assertion that when people write now of 'Genius loci' they mean its atmosphere rather than literal Spirits. You're overgeneralizing: certainly among NeoPagans, for example, the term 'genius loci' is indeed used to refer to "literal spirits."

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 03:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I vote for. I did a dissertation in Romantic poetry (Wordsworth), and in literary criticism genius loci and "spirit of place" are very common and interchangeable. They refer to the same concepts. -- Margin1522 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote "against". I have graduate degrees in anthropology and landscape architecture (historic) and certainly understand the contemporary impetus to merge the concepts. Although in design and modern western culture, the terms have merged and are interchangeable, there are still many indigenous cultures who retain the older usage of a place-spirit. In addition, neopaganism retains the older usage and meaning as well, as in Asatru which has landvaettir, land spirits. I am also Native American and definitely still believe in and have experienced literal Spirits that protect and inhabit specific springs, mountains, and trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.149.255 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So you would prefer to keep "spirit of place" for the more general usage, and "genius loci" for the tradition that begins with the Latin usage? I can agree with that. Right now I am translating a text by a Japanese architect who is planning a museum on the island of Omishima, site of the ancient Ōyamazumi Shrine. Everyone involved in the project describes (very convincingly) how they feel something spiritual about this island. I'm using "spirit of place" to translate that.--Margin1522 (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I vote against, quite emphatically. I also think there's not enough information in this article about the specifically Roman idea of the genius loci, it's an important concept (after all you you can find altars and other other artefacts to them all over Western Europe), and importantly one to which the cult of the Emperor developed from (first to the local district genii of the city of Rome, and then to the empire itself - think of the Empire as a 'place' and the genius of the emperor then at its genius). Anyway, I think this should be a Roman Religion stub and all the subsidiary ideas split into their own article when they have enough information in them. I'll see what I can contribute over the next week or so. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Against. Strongly. The two subjects are quite different. This one is strictly religious and very Roman. It's got nothing to do with English romantic poets and their interpretation of Genius loci. See the illustration i just added. Kleuske (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have the merge urge, merge spirit house; and also tutelary deity and Lak Mueang, which is a pillar dedicated to the genius of a city, not necessarily to a tutelary, though it is hard to distinguish between geniuses, tutelaries, and a palladium. Ya Mo's statue is treated by the locals like the latter — though she died in 1852, who's to say her spirit is not hanging around as a genius? Geniuses and tutelaries and their spirit houses abound in Thailand, as they do in all the adjacent countries. So do a great many of the practices which those in the west erroneously think died out with the ancient Roman religion — many of which were ancient when Rome was just a neophyte. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I'm unclear why the Latin term should be applied to Asian beliefs. This seems reductive. Unless the Latin term is used regularly in English scholarship to describe a certain type of spirit outside ancient Roman religion, I think these other spirits should be considered in their own articles, not as some kind of lesser subset of Roman beliefs. I don't oppose including modern-era usage, such as by the Romantics, if it's a deliberate evocation of the classical tradition (as would be the case with the Romantics). In other words it's misleading to deal with an Asian belief system under a Western heading; it isn't misleading, if explained properly, to include classical revivalism. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Church of St. Giles

The statue at this church has been part of the article since this revision, but does it really depict a genius loci? The linked page of the Tockenham village website says that the status depicts Asclepius. If that is true, then the snake is the Rod of Asclepius, which is a symbol of healing. It is a snake, but has nothing to do with genius loci? -- Margin1522 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is a Genius. The identification of the St Giles relief as Asclepius is faulty - it's a local tradition to be sure, but not one supported by evidence, even on cursory identification. The picture which can be seen here - http://www.oodwooc.co.uk/web_pics/tockenham/DigiTock004.jpg - clearly shows in the figure's left hand, carrying a Cornucopia, which makes the identification almost certainly a Genius Loci. In the 1994 episode of Time Team that did a investigation of the church site, Guy de la Bédoyère walked up to the figure and at one glance immediately identified it as a Genius Loci - a conclusion almost certainly correct. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit someone removed the link with the explanation "the sites say it is Acscelpius", which teh web site may indeed say that, but they are wrong. I am undoing the edit. The full reference is Time Team, Series 2, ep 3, 1995 where Guy de la Bedoyere id'd teh statue as a genius loci, not Asceplius. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman Mythology - or Roman Religion

I disagree with the characterisation that it is in Roman mythology that "a genius loci was the protective spirit of a place". It is actually in Roman religion that we have the much broader evidence of the Genius Loci -- the thousands of altars that are at least in part dedicated to the Genius loci, plus the idea that aspects of the imperial-era Emperor-cults evolve from local Roman municipal cults to Lares Compitales which were reorganised by Augustus into the Lares Augusti and combined with the Genius Augusti. This stuff is religio, not superstitio or fabulae. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

After a brief think about it, I just amended the article as above, added a reference, etc. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Architecture & the Built Environment

When talking of Genius Loci in Western context it is critical to Include the work of Christian Norberg-Schulz in his book 'Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture'. This book is required reading in many schools of architecture to introduce the notion of creating a 'spirit of place', it would be good to see it acnowleged here if anyone who knows enough about the topic could add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.190.253 (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Spirit of place

What is the difference or relation between Genius loci and Spirit of place? --S.Asadi (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Spirit of place

1. These refer to the identical idea, and indeed the two titles translate into one another. There is relatively little material in Spirit of place that is not already in this article. I would be surprised if anyone found a merger objectionable. (Go ahead, surprise me!)
2. If it is agreed to merge these, should it be under the commonly used but nevertheless Latin term Genius loci or under the English term Spirit of place? Clean Copy^talk 23:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

   Genius loci. This is the article with a long history, while Spirit of place has a total of 3 edits in its history.Clean Copy^talk 23:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

   "Genius Loci". This is a specific technical term you find in classical archaeology. I don't necessarily think they should be merged though; or only merged if the generic usages are clearly separated from the classical 'proper' uses. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

   I tend to agree with GermanicusCaesar, here. The two terms are certainly connected, but not equivalent: 'spirit of place' indicates a literary/artistic appreciation of place, while 'genius loci' indicates a Roman religious concept (as seen in epigraphy and classical sources. If we were to merge (and I'm not a big proponent) these two should be clearly separated in order not to confuse the reader. Kleuske (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

   I see your point. On the other hand, this article already includes a section on spirit of place...either this section should be merged into the article on that theme, or vice versa.Clean Copy^talk 10:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I am closing this proposal for lack of support. Clean Copy^talk 13:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Tutelary deity

These refer to the identical idea, and indeed the two titles translate into one another. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. A good proposal, but not quite. ' can mean e.g. Athena being the goddess of intelligence (tutelary deity of brains, if you will); or the Capitoline Triad / Jupiter, the deities/y *of* Rome, yet not just *in* Rome, but everywhere. These are senses that 'genius loci' doesn't have. Its place - the locus - is more paramount in its concept, and it's more related to the idea of ancestor worship, if i was forced to choose. GermanicusCaesar (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Redefinition

TV tropes redefines the word as a location itself with sentience. Like Ego the Living Planet. Booger-mike (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)