|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Janus was nominated as a good article in the category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: January 27, 2013
- 1 Dianus/Janus and Diana/Jana
- 2 Action not equal to word / deception?
- 3 Hypocrisy?
- 4 Clean shaven face?
- 5 Popular culture?
- 6 Do you mean two-faced?
- 7 Janus and "endings"
- 8 Help on a Janus project
- 9 "Fight the Skies" in Popular culture
- 10 Pronounciation?
- 11 Titus Pullo
- 12 Baptism
- 13 Jana
- 14 Popular culture
- 15 Source?
- 16 Start of year
- 17 Origin of the god and etimolgy
- 18 Ganesha
- 19 Editing
- 20 Rating
- 21 'Cultural' epithets?
- 22 Is Janus A god of time?
- 23 Term sort forms confusing
- 24 Editing
- 25 Berosus
- 26 Infobox
Dianus/Janus and Diana/Jana
Guy there is a lot of information about Janus here that you have excluded. Janus is but another form for Dianus as Jana is for Diana, and they are supposed to be "married" to each other. Also, theres a lot more about him then explained here yes he is seen as a symbolism to the door but he is also related to fecundity and (is later attributed) aspects of the sun, and the two headed aspect of him supposedly comes from the Etruscan influence.
For more info look here:
- http://mythindex.com/roman-mythology//J/Janus.html - Firestorm10 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's more of a hypothesis than actual fact, and this is especially suspicious since where the Latin di- changed to j-, we lost the word with di- in it. This we don't see Diuppiter along with Iuppiter, we only have Iuppiter. James Frazer is far too old of a source and there's not enough scholarly opinion to back it up. Chris Weimer (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Action not equal to word / deception?
Hey there, can someone clarify exactly what you mean by action not equal to word (action != word)? Does that mean the Janus head refers to the act of deception, or that deception is when your actions are not equal to what you said, or what? Thanks. - Jsan 23:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Janus head typically refers to hypocrisy; that is, when you say one thing and do another. -- X-G, 30 Jun 2004 01:07 UTC
- If so, is it possible then that Janus is the god referred to in the motto "In God We Trust" that's inscribed on the face of all U.S. currency?
Clean shaven face?
Does anyone have a source for the clean shaven face of Janus? Also, I've never heard of the greek origin Myth before, and I don't think Ovid mentioned it in his Fasti either..
how about a section "Janus in popular culture"? so far that James Bond villain (in one of the latest films of that franchise) comes to mind. There's also Janus Chess, a chess variant using a piece called Janus (wikilink got me to this page) (clem 10:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC))
- The true name of the Chrono Trigger character Magus is Janus. There's another (possible?) reference. --BPM (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, in Vampire: The Masquerade, the Malkavian protagonist refers to another Malkavian vampire as a "Daughter of Janus" - this is because she has a dual personality disorder as part of her dementation. Also as a tongue-in-cheek to the fact she is "two-faced". Also, in the end of the santa-monica arc of said game, there is a scene where this "Daughter of Janus"'s face is split into two - one for each personality, much like Janus' face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean two-faced?
I've never heard Janus Headed used as a comment for deception, I'm pretty sure you meant Two-Faced... Robgea
Shakespeare used the term "Janus-faced" in one of his plays referring to "two-facedness." I'm unsure of the specific work, but I want to go with Othello.
- Othello I: II:
- OTHELLO Not I. I must be found:
- My parts, my title and my perfect soul
- Shall manifest me rightly. Is it they?
- Othello I: II:
- IAGO By Janus, I think no.
- Merchant of Venice I: I:
- SALARINO Not in love neither? Then let us say you are sad,
- Because you are not merry: and 'twere as easy
- For you to laugh and leap and say you are merry,
- Because you are not sad. Now, by two-headed Janus,
- Nature hath framed strange fellows in her time...
- Merchant of Venice I: I:
I am reasonably confident that those are the only Janus references in Shakespeare's plays anyway. I was unable to find any in his poetry, but I don't stand bail for it. JonRichfield (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, nice. Both references to Janus are referring to time though, not "two-facedness". The last sentence is the clearer one by far, however the context of the first reference is not two-facedness even if its not also about time. brill (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Janus and "endings"
Augustine acknowledges Janus as the god of origins with Terminus as the god of endings.
- This is a late imperial misunderstanding of earlier theology. Terminus was the god of boundaries (thus the termini, boundary markers), and Ianus would have been seen as the god of origins seeing as his month started the year. It's developmental theology. Chris Weimer (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Help on a Janus project
Hi I have a project in school and my god given to me was Janus. I have to make a product that would represent Janus and I was wondering if anyone can help me. The only thing I've come up with is a door but it sounded bland and if it was to be a door, what kind of attributes would it have? Thanks in advance.
Well if your're making a 3D model than a gate is easily more impresive than a door but maybe you could have one side light and the other dark, to represent beginnings and endings. It's sounds like a hard project so good luck!
Do you go to a high school in corona? if you do im doing the same exact project as you, but id say that ^ is good advice, or a lie detector would be a good idea
"Fight the Skies" in Popular culture
This link to a myspace band seems rather out-of-place in the list. If anyone thinks it should be there, feel free to put it back. 18.104.22.168 05:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
How is Janus pronounced? Is it Jay-nuss, or Ya-nuss? Aaadddaaammm 07:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd imagine it's pronounced Ja-nus, as it says that the month of January is named after him on the main article. Colbarr 12:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. It's Jay-niss: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?janus001.wav=Janus
Jay-niss is the accurate modern pronunciation, but I've seen a claim that the ancient pronunciation was something more like Yah-niss. I doubt this is accurate though. Probably confusion from the ancient Roman spelling: IANVS (the i would be pronounced like a j). Also could be confusion from the eastern European name Janos (Yah-nos or Yah-nosh, I think). That name is just a form of John; no connection to Janus as far as I know. 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. The I in IANVS is pronounced like a /j/ not j, the former being and English y and the latter is phonetically /dʒ/. "Iah`-nuss would be the non-IPA way of correctly pronouncing it in Latin. Chris Weimer (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is astounishing, that Janus do not connect to wiki page about John(name). So called East-europeans do not pronounce name with /dʒ/ but with /j/. That is the way, how english speaking people pronounce name... apart from the rest of Europe. As far as I'm concerned there are many similarities of Janus and Jānis(to some people with pronouncation difficulties it could be Yaaniss), because:
1)dainas portray Jānis as a father and basically he has sacral fertility functions. As a matter of fact he also stands out of gods pantheon... sometimes dainas related to festivities uses God as synonymous. I have read(if I had proper source, I would write wiki article right away), that till 16th century Jānis was not given name to the children. It could be only given to males, who had children, family etc. - apparently because Jānis was prosperous father of many children. 2)I have read, that some time ago people were making solstice gates for sun path from woods and called then jēnes. No one is doing this nowadays - it can be found as an occassional written memory only. 3)Connection to the tree - in this case oak. Crowns of Jānis are made from oak branches. There are many sacral meanings that connects name.
Also I am astonished how easily wiki(some time ago there was just grouping of John and related pronouncation variations... now it is A FACT, that all of them are with one root) have put Jānis, Ivan and apparently John or Iain as a christian name origin, because Latvian festivities of Jānis, despite of christian church attempts, even after millenia still are pagan. They are so old, that predates christian St. John's celebration, because many dainas have gained finnougrian influence on naming - it happened way back before german arrival. Some of dainas contain refrain(that repeats many times), that when translated from finnish tribe language liivi means - become. If not of this, I would agree, that Jānis, Ivan, Iain and even John were descended from some hebrew name by christian influence, but probably some of it is true, but it could be the case, that christianity adapted some of the customs of pagans to convert them... I'm not antichristian, but come on - that was the way of religion to convert people and why we have to continue with these lies and deception? I forgot to mention one more thing - name Juhan in finnish comes from baltic, as there are some places of originally prechristian finnish name, that were renamed to Ivangorod by russians. There is also slavic tradition of Ivan-kupala SOLSTICE festivities, which clearly are paganic by form and content... I assume, that celtic and germanic(as closest relative to balto-slavic) nations can find same connections to their variant of the name. The name is common to wide of cultures, that were using way back before christians and leaving this side of history is very controversial for wiki... besides, there are many myths and connections, that connected christian saints(including Jesus) to previous pagan deities... when you read wikipedia, sometimes there is sensation, that christians bring all the things - come on people... actually I am astounished how people in UK have not preserved anything ancient, that predates christians. Do not fall into the same gap, when judging other cultures. Hereby, probably even english(as a matter of fact - germanic angles came from place, that have preserved some connections to early baltic hydronims) name John probably have the same roots as other - prechristian.
I removed the wording
- who has a penchant for praying directly to whatever god interests him at the moment
bcz (whatever you may have been taught playing Dungeons & Dragons) that is how polytheism works: you pray to the god having dominion over your current problem, even if you have more of a "personal relationship" with others. Similarly, when Pullo is treated for a depressed skull fracture, the physician recommends to Vorenus a specific sacrifice to a specific god. Read up on your Christian saints, & you'll find they similarly have dominion over (to me surprising combinations of) various things like lost objects or lost causes or travel or specific relationships among relatives. If "interests him at the moment" means "depending on his situation" it's unremarkable behavior; if it means "at random", it's original research in the absence of verifiability that Pullo is known to fans for that.
--Jerzy•t 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Any corelation between janus and baptism.
I believe the link to Janus' wife Jana is wrong...
"Janus was usually depicted with two faces looking in opposite directions, generally facing towards naked homosexual men."
I've never heard a statement like this before. Is it possible to have a citation for this? Also, I think it doesn't make much sense, since Janus is facing in two opposite directions. Subumloc (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds like subtle vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Start of year
This article (and other references I've seen mentions Janus as associated with January which begins the new year. But surely in early Roman times when the name would have been adopted, the year began in March. --rossb (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is as yet an unfounded assumption. We should for consistency go with the Wikipedia article on January *until* anyone has evidence. Chris Weimer (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Origin of the god and etimolgy
Dear unknown wikifriend who deleted my addition to the etimology section without notice, would you please be so kind to give your explanation?
I know this is a place where everybody writes what he likes provided he can support it with some sort of academic backing, and often conflicts of views may arise, however it is a question of good manners to respect others' editing and points of view.
At least according to the spirit of wikilove one should first make his point in the discussion section before proceeding to delete anything.
I do not even dream of deleting what someone here has written based on his personal view and/or original research. But I see that the principles of wikipedia are applied in a peculiar way in some places.Aldrasto (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC) janyse was the creator and the ender of things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would be willing to consider your etymology if you would have spelled "etymology" correctly. Alas, your "Betham's hypothesis" is bunk - and the Classics community wholly backs me up on this. Check it out for yourself. Chris Weimer (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You should read and edit more carefully: it is not me who wrote about Bentham's hypothesis. It is odd however that you deleted my edits and left the Bentham part untouched.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm looking for some opinions on whether this section could just be deleted. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I wondered whence did the previous material come from. I preserved it at the best of my ability. Later I did a search and found it in a site named Myhtindex. They boast a copyright, but the content sounded from a scholarly work like the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. And indeed it was from a work named something like biographical dictionary of classical antiquity. Same author W. Smith available at the site of the University of Michigan. The article Janus is signed L. S. which should mean Leonhard Schmitz. The quality of his articles is usually excellent but in this case I found to my disappointment some errors. Here is the detail for the sake of the reader: Cicero Nat. Deor. II 27: nothing to do with Janus. Pliny XXXIV 7 on the right hand showing no. three hundred and the left 55: not found. Importance of beginning: Pliny XXXVI 5: not found. Gellius V 12 : no mention of Janus (is about Iove and Veiove and the meaning of -ve). Ovid Fasti I 179: this is on augury but Ovid does not state that if something got wrong the undertaking was started afresh as Schmitz would have he say. Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Capdeville gives Pliny XXXIV 33 (verified as correct) for the statue of Janus Geminus dedicated by Numa showing with its hands no. 365 (cfr. also Macrobius I 9, 10). However Schilling supposes this statue should have been that of the temple of the Forum Holitorium. It looks impossible Pliny made such a mistake (the context shows he is talking of the antiquity of sculpture in Rome, Hercules's statue being due to Evander and Janus's to Numa), though it is unexplicable that Numa could have a statue cast showing 365 whereas his year was of 12 lunar months.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I cannot supply a suitable citation for the non IE etymology of Janus. The article carried one hypothesis on Baal Ianus or Belinus by William Betham. I am no expert of ME religions: a glance at the relevant articles of WK shows there are at least 3 or 4 possible interpretations. P. Grimal's article either is not accessible to me and the scholars who cite him are not explicit about his exact identification of Janus with a Syro-Hittite uranic supreme deity. I do invite other people's contribution, who are experts on the relevant topic.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The article was first rated B in the Classical Greece and Rome project, later it has been rerated to C. I do not really care about ratings, however I will be pleased if the people concerned would be so kind and helpful as to point out what shortcomings they found in the article so that they may be adressed.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- That may have been me. Reasons: copyediting (including standardized spellings of English proper nouns in body text other than quotations), wikification (linking etc.), untranslated passages, formatting, organization. A B-class article has to be free of these kinds of technical and surface errors. The rating was not a comment on quality of content or thoroughness. Apologies, I had meant to leave a note to that effect. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at the problems you mention, but apart from some untranslated quotations, I was unable to find not standard spellings . Linkings are given wherever useful. As far as formatting and organisation are concerned I do not see what you mean concretely. Please let me know.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Quite right; there seems to have been some cleanup, or I was unduly influenced by the untranslated passages and redlinks. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I am aware the article could be still improved and even expanded. I invite comments. I will translate the remainig untranslated quotations little by little. As for the redlinks: some seem due to the lack of an article, other are need a further look.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- A redlink is OK if it's of sufficient notability to sustain an independent article, and you think such an article should and will be written. You might also want to look over phrases that are not in English within the body text; these should be italicized. As for overall organization, I often find that when I write a long article and leave it a while, when I return I see many ways to improve it through consolidating and reordering sections. Some information that was part of my thought process in assembling the material may prove to be unnecessary for a general article in an encyclopedia (that is, it may be overly detailed or technical), or might be better relegated to a footnote. For a major mythological figure like this, I feel strongly that an article, or at least its top sections, should be comprehensible to an intelligent and motivated 17-year-old who may be looking up the figure on Wikipedia because she's found it in a work of fiction or something. To me that's the purpose of Wikipedia, since even college students doing research for a paper will at best be using WP as an introduction or overview of the topic, and should use the scholarship itself for actual research. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I do agree on the need of being clear and readable for the 17 yo schoolgirl. I think she should be be able to read my article and enjoy it. I write with the aim of sparkling the interest of readers and encourage them to research the topic by themselves: I feel nothing I write is too technical or difficult. The topics concerning Roman religion though are unavoidably technical to some degree, as the issues are complex and debated. I tried to be exhaustive and systematic. I feel the organisation of the article is simple and clear. Of course after some time I may feel I can still improve it by rearranging some sections.Aldrasto11 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- What I said was just in general. Food for thought. And only my opinion, which I'm not shy of voicing. Others might regard what I said as a desire to "dumb down." It's just something I'm aiming for in my own contributions. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This article has a great deal of brilliant information, but it is definately not user friendly in my opinion. I would agree that the beauty of wikipedia is delivering clear, concise and accessable information to everyone (even to 17 year old boys..), and yet you have to wade through a lot of what my old history teacher would call 'waffle' in the article to get to the salient points. Using words such as whence is very archaic in modern English, personally I would avoid using it unless there was a very good reason to do so. Similiarly using the word gentilician, without a link to gens at the very least, isn't the best way to get across a clear meaning. I don't think streamlining this article would be dumbing down; it is needed to stop the drifts into obscurity, improve the grammar and sentence syntax and raise the overall standard. I think someone needs to make sweeping changes and I only wish I had the experience on wikipedia to do so. That said, a great contribution in terms of content and in depth information. --Skorpius83 (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed this when it was corrected from "cultual". I think "cultic" might be intended, or simply "cult" (= "cult title"), meaning the epithet that pertains to a particular form of cult devoted to the god. Aldrasto may know what was intended. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Janus A god of time?
I've looked at other websites and none of them mention Janus to be a god of time. Could someone please check that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Term sort forms confusing
I see someone's removed the
edit box a couple of times but given no explanation for deletion, so they've been reverted. I think there is a good case for removing the edit box. The picture is fine but the material below it is strange - nothing but parentage and siblings. The Romans didn't care much about such things; Ovid wrote jolly verses but narrative myths and theological genealogies just didn't have the same importance as we sometimes ascribe nowadays - perhaps because we tend to confuse Roman religion with Greek mythology. Yet this infobox has nothing but this rather irrelevant information. Similarly, he wasn't worshipped so much because he was the "god of beginnings and transitions" as because he was one of the principal three ancient gods of Rome and therefore it was essential that the proper rites should be performed. Couldn't we just lose the box and keep the picture? NebY (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm the one who has reverted both times and I think removing the infobox is probably fine, provided we aren't also removing the hatnotes for no apparent reason. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)