Talk:Juno (mythology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This page has had changes by vandals on 22 and 24 May which need to be reverted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:18, May 25, 2007 (UTC)

Royal Mint?[edit]

Rome banished its Kings and had little, if anything, called "Royal." What Royal Mint?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

February 14 celebration of Juno Fructifier needs to be mentioned.[edit]

The amorous activities of the festival Juno Fructifier were later taken over by the Catholic Church and changed into the chaste traditions of love letter writing. An important reverberation of Juno in the practical world of today. Ocdcntx (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can find an ancient reference to this festival, then by all means, let's include it. I suspect you won't find an ancient reference, because I don't think this festival ever existed. Many (though not all) of the associations of Christian holidays with alledged ancient antecedants are merely legends born usually of Christian triumphalism and later augmented by a strange mix of Puritan fastidiousness and neo-classical romanticism. I think it is safe to look elsewhere for the origins of St Valentine's Day. Rwflammang (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing issues[edit]

The epithets Iterduca, Domiduca are indeed lesser ones , i.e. minor indigitations that cannot be placed at the beginning. Conceptually they belong to a lower level. Moreover they refer to children on their way to school and back home, not to the bride that goes to another family: these gods instead are Domiducus and Domitius. This content had been provided by a previous editor. As for spelling: I prefer using Latin spelling as the article aims at providing scientifical information. Please be patient, my editing will take a week.Aldrasto11 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Corruption of names on orthographical issues of Greek and Latin names. The relevant WP guideline is WP:UE (but see also WP:ROMANS for a more expanded discussion of the thinking behind this). "Juno" should be used except when quoting Latin or other sources that use Iuno. Iuno, italicized, would also be appropriate in discussing the name as a word, for instance in an etymological section. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I think this is really not an issue. However the topics to be dealt with are of impressive complexity. Dury-Renard have done a great job but it is still just a glimpse. I shall use also Schilling.

I read that an anonymous editor (96....) has corrected me on Iuno Moneta: I wrote, on the basis of Dury- Renard, that Moneta represents the military or third functon of Iuno for Dumezil together with Curitis. He changed Curits to Caprotina. This is not wrong as she too has military implications, however the citation of the essay is correct. I also checked ARR and D. is clear in saying that Curitis is the military aspect of Iuno: he is detailed in mentioning Tibur and quoting ancient sources, Servius and Martianus Capella. He also identifies the Seispes of Lanuvium with Curitis. So I would appreciate it very much that the person in question restore my version, other I shall have to do it myself.Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done a little work here on red-links, as requested. Some are now piped to the relevant Glossary; possibly a temporary measure in the case of regina sacrorum. V. Basanoff is notable, but has no wikipedia article; I can find no English-language sources to remedy that. Dumezil's Furius Camillus must be identified. I presume this is either L. Furius Camillus, who has no article; or else his probable granddad, the dictator M. Furius Camillus (who evidently does). I thought M. Furius Camillus most likely, but the events and dates don't seem to gell. Regarding the Gracchi, "Gaius" may be an erratic variant of "Caius", but it's fairly standard here, so "Caius Gracchus" directs to the Gaius Gracchus article thus, as Caius Gracchus. Alternatively, just change the spelling and do a straight link; Gaius Gracchus is preferable. If you open the page for editing, you'll notice the syntactical tricks involved in these pipelinks and whatnots. They're very handy things to learn.
I'm going to change Iuno to Juno throughout; as Cyn points out above, it does matter, and this is how it should be. There's no reason we should further challenge the reader of already difficult material with non-standard orthographies. If we're quoting a source directly, rather than paraphrasing, and that source uses forms such as "Iuno" or "Iupitter", then fair enough. But not otherwise; and if we do, we should provide the standard form, parenthesised. Likewise, for the sake of readers, we should avoid abbreviations such as Dion. Hal., Cic., Quaest. Rom., and whatnot. Full names, please, and wiki-links in footnotes where we've an article on author or work.
Have you considered offering the various theonyms and titles in list form? Haploidavey (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I've added a section to Rex Sacrorum (the capitalization of which remains an issue for another day) on the regina sacrorum, which can now be linked to directly via a redirect. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the order of some sections to make the succession more logical and readable.Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On the says who?: Dumezil himself states his interpretation of Juno SMR is hypothetical, also in his ARR. While his comparative analysis offers insightful material, the Greek influence of Argive Heras is apparent in the SMR of Lanuvium and the Heras and Unis of Etruria. Bayet stated this 20 years before Dumezil. Renard and Harmon seem to admit it clearly. The archeological evidence is discussed in the article in the section below.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's a citation requested (if that's what you mean), just supply one. I'm not sure what you're saying here. If there's a {{who?}} tag, it just means it's the kind of statement that WP likes to attach to a particular scholar (or scholars) and thus needs a footnote. But I may not read you correctly here. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think Dury Moyaers-Renard and Harmon can both be cited as sources, but I shall have to check for the pages.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Lego Mini-figure[edit]

Would it be appropriate to include mention of the Juno Lego figure being sent to Jupiter on the Juno spacecraft? Ref: Kevink707 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

To me this is a wonderful example of the continuity of a popular mythological tradition. Others may find it trivial or frivolous, but it's being chosen deliberately as a representation of Earth culture. You might look for additional sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


Coul anyone tell what is the CIL in the 39 reference? Thank you--Dafne07 (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

CIL stands for Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, a quite thorough catalogue of Latin inscriptions: we've an article (now also wiki-linked from current ref 39). Haploidavey (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Roles and epithets[edit]

This section starts out by talking about the Greek Hera! We need some kind of consistency on this. Just talking about the Roman gods as if they were equivalent to the Greek isn't ideal. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

This section seems entirely useless. Should it be removed? (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  • The Jupiter space mission probe Juno need to be added in this section. Aadhitharajan (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)