polytheistic type of religion; Toutain1o claims that it is polytheistic to a degree equal, if not superior, to Greek religion itself, though the divine beings were not anthropomorphic. If we examine closely the entire passage of each author, however, we see that there is a difference in terms rather than in fundamental idea. Cyril Bailey11 expressed the character more precisely, perhaps, when he spoke of the "multinuminism" of Roman religion. The particular respects in which these two deities, Juno and Mars, originally concerned the life of men have been likewise matters of great dispute, and during the last twenty years. opinions about the origin of Juno-worship have been revolutionized. Preller expressed the general view of scholars of the nineteenth century12 when he said that Juno was Jovino, a feminine power of the heavens and heavenly light, closely connected with the new moon. It is in a second stage of worship that she becomes the birth-goddess and deity of women. His line of reasoning was that as we have light from darkness and birth. is bringing to light, so this later worship arose through allegory; or that the division into months was based on the moon's course, and there was a generally prevalent belief in an inner connection between phases of the moon and the physiological life of women. At the turn of the century Aust,13 Hild,14 and Wissowa,15 publishing within four years important studies in Roman religion, all expressed practically this view. But Wissowa, in his first edition of Religion und Kultus der Römer, was the last to state so positively this opinion about the origin of Juno-worship, for in 1904 Wilhelm Schulze16 brought forward the claim that Iuno was not related to the stem Diovi-. 10 Études de Myth. et d'Histoire des Relig. antiques, p. 104. 11 Enc. Brit. s.v. Roman Religion, p. 577. 12 Hartung, Relig. der Römer (1836) II, p. 62; Preller, Röm. Myth. (1881) I, p. 271; Roscher, Juno und Hera (1875) p. 43 and Roscher's Lex. (1890-4) II, 578-9; Dümmler, Berl. Phil. Woch. 1891, no. 29 and 30= Kl. Schr. II, p. 255. 13 Op. cit. (1899) p. 125. 14 Daremberg et Saglio (1900) III, 628 ff. 15 Relig. und Kult. (1902) pp. 113-4. 16 Zur Gesch. lat. Eigennamen, pp. 470-1. Walter Otto1 in the next year set forth in more than sixty pages of learned argument his contention that Juno originally was not connected with Jupiter, that their names were not derived from the same root, and that she was a goddess of the under-world. He believes that Iuno is a feminine form of iuvenis (similar to iunix).18 Every man and every woman has a god-like nature, he says, but the woman calls hers Juno rather than Genius.19 This derivation was by no means new to the world, for Varro, Cicero, and Plutarch20 had given iuvando or iuvenescendo as a possible source for her name. But Plutarch connected the derivation from iuvenescendo with the nature of the moon, which grows new or young; and so Juno had continued in the thoughts of men primarily as a goddess of the moon and of light. Otto's knowledge of Roman cults is extensive and his ingenuity is great, so that he has woven together a most persuasive argument. Certainly he influenced Wissowa, who in the second edition of Religion und Kultus der Römer (1912) exactly reversed the opinion he expressed ten years before. Though in 1902 he had said that the close and inseparable connection of Juno with Jupiter, which is attested in countless details by the ritual, is of fundamental significance, yet he later declared22 that the roots of the Juno-cult lie in the same circles of thought from which the worship of Genius arose; the fact was long unrecognized, however, as one held formerly to the close relations in which Juno later stood to the sky-god and seized upon the pair Jupiter-Juno as the old Italian parallel to Zeus and Dione. Walde,23 as a student of etymology, and Thulin,24 as a student of religion, have accepted this theory; though in 1906 Thulin 25 17 Philol. N. F. XVIII (1905) pp. 161-223. In the same year A. B. Cook, Folk-Lore, XVI, pp. 277 ff., was holding to the opinion that Janus, Jupiter, and Juno are closely related. 18 Op. cit. p. 222. 19 Op. cit. p. 179. In note 17 the reference to Ihm's article should be Roscher's article. 20 Varro, L.L. V, 67 and 69; Cicero, N.D. II, 66; Plut. Qu. Rom. 77. 21 1st ed. p. 114. 22 2nd ed. p. 181. 23 Etym. Wörterbuch,2 s.v. Juno. 24 Pauly-Wissowa, X, 1114 ff. 25 Die Götter des Mart. Cap. p. 25, note 1. Here he discusses a derivation from ius suggested by C. I. L. XI, 3370, and also a transfer from the Etruscan Uni, but finds both impossible. declared that the etymology of Juno was entirely uncertain, since the connection with Iovis could scarcely be defended and the meaning was opposed to a combination with iuvenis. Within the last three or four years Bickel26 and Pfister27 have expressed the belief that Juno was early related to Genius, though Pfister makes the interesting general assertion that he becomes ever more convinced that the oldest Roman religion, especially the part of it which concerns cults, is very much more similar to the Greek than would appear from the work of Wissowa.28 The great English student of Roman religion, William Warde Fowler, for many years was inclined towards the opinion of Wissowa that the name signifies nothing else than mannbares Weib, junge Frau, and that Juno from very ancient times stands in close connection with Genius. Even in The Roman Festivals, published ten years before Otto's study, he seemed to be tending towards that theory; and The Religious Experience of the Roman People and others of his later writings commend the work of Wissowa in this regard. For instance, in his review of The Year's Work in Classical Studies for 191729 he says that the second edition of Wissowa gives the sanest treatment of Juno. But in his article which appeared the following year in Hastings's Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics30 he writes that Juno "does not seem at all times to have been closely associated with Jupiter, certainly not as his wife, until Greek anthropomorphic conceptions gained ground at Rome. That she, too, represented the light seems probable from the name (Juno Jovino, also from root div-);31 but at some time she became specially associated with the moon." He adds that Juno was at all times peculiarly the numen of the female sex. = Unfortunately, Warde Fowler advanced no reasons for his return to the etymology of the nineteenth century; but aid in 26 Der altröm. Gottesbegriff (1921) p. 26. 37 Pauly-Wissowa (1922) XI, 2126. 28 Op. cit. 2107. 29 P. 106, note. Published in 1918. 30 S.v. Roman Religion, p. 825. 31 This is at variance with his statement in Roman Ideas of Deity, p. 44, note 1: "No doubt the cult of Juno on the Kalends of each month suggests a deity in some way connected with the moon and light; but I agree with Wissowa that this character is derived from her relation to women." this matter of derivation comes from England in an able article by J. Whatmough. In The Classical Quarterly for 192232 he answers objections of Otto and others to an etymological connection for Jupiter and Juno. He has promised at some later time to give further evidence of the relationship by a consideration of the cults of Jupiter and Janus, and fulfillment of his promise has been eagerly awaited by the present writer, as she had started on the quest for such evidence some months before that publication appeared. It is the purpose of this study to make at least a preliminary survey of the field, with a view to a possible return to the former idea that the origin of Juno-worship is related to Jupiter and that she was first a goddess of light. The connections with Genius, though numerous, are of later development and arise after she was regarded as a deity of birth and women. This treatise will first review the questions raised by the etymologists, who have by their study of the name denied that Juno was related to Jupiter; it will then consider the relation of her cult to that of several other deities and examine the special epithets of the goddess, with the hope that thereby her original character may be made clearer. Much of the evidence is of course late, but the very obscurity of the connection with the other gods and the vagueness about meanings of cult-titles will in some cases indicate a use so early that the original significance was lost. In the Homeric question the innovations of the higher critics, led by Wolf, for a time seemed to sweep everything before them, nevertheless the Unitarians today are apparently turning the tide of battle in their favor; so the new theories about Juno have not won a decisive victory. While Otto and others have had great influence in a revolution of ideas, still there is much to be said for the old contention that Juno, if not originally the wife of the sky-god, yet was a kindred power, associated with him as a numen of light and of the moon. 32 Pp. 181-9. Etymology In Roman times the belief was current that Iuno was derived from iuvando1 or from iuvenescendo.2 Varro, who gives the former word as the source, calls the goddess Iovis Iuno coniunx and explains the derivation quod una cum Iove iuvat. But Plutarch says she is called Iuno from the nature of the moon, since the name is derived a iuvenescendo and signifies that which grows new or young. Scholars of the nineteenth century, led by Buttmann,3 compared phonetically Dione and Iuno letter for letter. Usener,4 for instance, says the complete similarity of Iuna (from djov-na or djov-ona) with the Greek Dione is evident and he agrees with Buttmann that Zeus and Dione form the Dodonian counterpart of the heavenly pair, Zeus and Hera. He adds that perhaps there is historical significance in the fact that the only exact parallel to the old Latin Iuna in Greek territory is the Epirot Avn; for Epirus is the country lying next to Italy and the great age of the worship shows itself in the naming of the celebrated cult-seat. Awdwrn is in his opinion formed by doubling the stem syllable, as in Latin dudum is formed from diu. Kretschmer tries to show that, as Dione is nothing more than the feminine Zeus, Juno's primary function is as wife of Jupiter; so the Indians have Indra and Indrānī, Rudra and Rudrānī, Varuna and Varunānī, Agni and Agnānī. In like manner Roscher said Iuno stood for Diou-n-on (stem Diov-e) forming a parallel to Diovis or Iovis. It is true that Mommsen' in the middle of the century had maintained that Iunius is from iuvenis or iuvare, but in his 1 Varro, L.L. V, 67 and 69; Cicero, N.D. II, 66 (in sec. 64 he says, Iuppiter, id est iuvans pater', a derivation given also by Ennius, frg. 507, Bährens). 2 Plut. Qu. Rom. 77. 8-9. * Mythologus, I, pp. 22 ff. Strena Helbigiana, pp. 321 ff.=Kl. Schr. IV, pp. 340-2; Götternamen, pp. 5 Einleit. in die Geschichte der gr. Sprache, p. 91. Juno u. Hera, p. 4; Roscher's Lex. II, 576 and 578-9; supra, p. 3. 7 Röm. Chron. (1859) p. 222, note 15. |