It would appear I may have been ‘on the money’ with my contemplation viz. Roman Juno Quiritis / Curritis (‘Spear-Juno’)* in as potential Roman correlate for Durgā as applies our recent Navarātrī observance !

Per the Roman religious calendar – the 5th of October was one of the ‘Mundus Patet’ events, wherein an entry to the Underworld (‘Ostium Orci’) would open for the Manes (ref. Pitṛs – ‘Ancestor-Spirits’), enabling them to come up through into the realm of the living (“per quod animae inferorum ad superos manarent”, as noted in Paulus Diaconus’ ‘Festi’).

This was swiftly followed on the 7th by what the Fasti Arvalium refers to as “(I]unoni Curriti in campo” (“Iunoni Q[uiriti] in camp[o]” in the Fasti Paulini) – that is, the veneration of this aforesaid War Aspect of Juno, at the Campus Martius.

Unsurprisingly, we also find said date cited as the ‘Natalis’ of the relevant Temple in question (reportedly, attested within Degrassi’s ‘Inscriptiones Italiae XIII 2’). And while ‘Natalis’, in reference to a Temple, is understood to refer to the anniversary for its Dedication … this, in fact,is a secondary signification. The term itself more usually means ‘Birthday’ – as in, the date of a being’s entry into this world. An ambit which, whilst not entirely remote from the notion of bringing a building to functionality afore its opening, we would nevertheless instead affirm to align much more intuitively to the ‘introduction’ (or ’emplacement’) into the mortal world not of the building – but of the particular ‘presence’ of the Divinity (‘Numen’ ?) that has been invited to take up residence therein.

(This is particularly the case given the Vedic ritual operative understandings via which the Divinity is called forth, which entail exactly such a ‘Natalistic’ conceptual engagement. More specifically – the (Fire-)Altar which forms ‘Portal’ for Divinity is both referred to and functionally described as a ‘Womb’ (‘Garbha’ – Ancient Greek Δελφοί ‘Delphoi’ is, to my mind entirely uncoincidentally, a linguistic cognate), and the Goddess integral to the operation rightfully acclaimed as ‘Mother of the Gods’ (as, for instance we find Yāska attesting within his Nirukta [IV 22] – “Aditir Adīnā Deva Mātā”). Recognizably correlate – if residual – understandings can be identified amidst the Greco-Roman spheres viz. ‘Mother of the Gods’ in such fashion; for instance via the identification with Hestia as evinced in the relevant Orphic Hymnal (XXVI / XXVII – ‘to the Mother of the Gods’), and that correlate presentation of Philolaus via Stobaeus [I 22 1], wherein the understanding is even more overtly phrased. The situation of Leto as ‘Mother of the Gods’ in Lycian (‘Ẽni Mahanahi’ : ‘ẽni’ – ‘Mother’, ‘maha(na)’ – ‘God’), and amidst further conceptual linkages Hekate within Proclus’ VIth Hymnal likewise hailed as ‘θεῶν μῆτερ’, we would also consider to be co-expressive)

Indeed, one finds just such an occurrence, viz. the (Initial) Invocation of the War Goddess and its subsequent annual honouring as applies Kātyāyanī. This theonymic effectively being a ‘patronymic’, derived from the name of the sage Kātyāyana, who had played the key ritual-metaphysical operative role for Her original ‘congealing / arrival’ that forms the major ‘foundation’ for our contemporary observance. The ‘natalistic’ styling of the operation (and its culmination) is expressed via the Jātā (“जाता”) term utilized at Vāmanapurāṇa XVIII 8 for this bringing forth of Her by Kātyāyana; the undertaking (also) described, quite correctly, through the Pūjitā (“पूजिता” – i.e. ‘rite / offering to conducted’) encountered at Kālikāpurāṇa LX 76.

(An alternate tradition, recounted at Skanda Purana VI 1 120 11-13, instead affixes the origination for Her theonym as resultant from Her having been invoked – the energy boiling forth via “vaktradvāreṇa”, the ‘Door of Voice’ in instrumental case – by Kārttikeya … ostensibly Her Son; a situation which we would contemplate in light of Romulus as Quirinus, and the potential ‘assumption of the mantle’ of both Her Son, and ‘incarnate War God’, by a human king, which we intend to delve into more fulsomely elsewhere. Both the Kārttikeya & Kātyāyana narratives, as it happens, situate the Invocation within the context of the run-up to the vanquishing of Mahiṣāsura)

The Autumnal NavRatri is, of course, the Akālabodhana (‘Out-of-Time Awakening’) of the Goddess – which may, perhaps, find (somewhat figurative) parallel with the manner in which the rather unusual timing for this Dies Natalis of Juno Curritis (i.e. upon the Nones – “a deviation from the regular tradition, which considered the Calends sacred to Juno”, as Barrett puts it) likewise presents our Goddess being brought forth in a period in which this would be unexpected (albeit with the obvious difference of ‘different part of the year’ as compared with ‘different part of the month’, respectively; notwithstanding that it is precisely that ‘different part of the year’ Hindu development that brings it into alignment temporally to the ‘different part of the month’ Roman observance in what’s therefore the same part of the year for both of them).

But let us return to our (revenant) Romans.

The rationale for my regarding these two events – the Emergence of the Manes via Mundus Patet of the 5th shortly followed by the worship of Juno Quiritis on the 7th – as supporting the resonance which is our subject, is that such an arrangement closely concords to the Pitru Paksha followed immediately by this Śārada Navarātri (Autumnal 9 Nights of the Goddess) of the Hindu ritual calendar.

Which, admittedly, ostensibly leaves a day’s gap between Roman observances.

Or does it?

As with other Roman observances involving the ‘Vacationing Dead’ (most prominently, the Lemuria & Parentalia), one presumes that the major impetus of the occasion would be nocturnal – and so therefore, whilst commencing upon the 5th, by proceeding overnight it would thusly end up heading (or at least, abutting) the nominal next day upon the calendar (i.e. the 6th).

If correct, this presumably helps to explicate the otherwise curious attestation for the Lemuria being held on the 9th, 11th, and 13th of May (i.e. ‘over three days’, seemingly sequentially but not consecutively) : but in fact, due to being a nocturnal observance, running more akin to the 9th-10th, 11th-12th, and then 13th-14th (i.e. three nights, and thus forming a contiguous period – even if not strictly entered as such based around each third’s commencement upon the calendar).

Additionally, given the military nature of the observance (c.f. Martianus Capella II 149 – “Curitim debent memorare bellantes”, with relation to Juno), we would anticipate that something of the prohibition remarked upon by Varro via Macrobius would be in mind:

“And that is why Varro writes: “When the entrance to the Underworld is open, it is as if the door of the grim, infernal deities were open. A religious ban therefore forbids us not only to engage in battle but to levy troops and march to war, to weigh anchor, and to marry a wife for the raising of children.”
[I 16 18, Davies translation]

For various reasons more clearly elucidated within the Hindu reckoning – we would, indeed, also contemplate the ‘Marriage’ dimension to the above; the Groom assumedly being the Sky Father, whether under the designation of the “Iovi Fulguri” (Jove the Lightning[-Bearer]) that we encounter upon the same day right next to “Iunoni Curriti In Campo” in the aforementioned Arval Calendar, or whether it is the ‘Pater Curris’ (‘Father Spear’) referred to by Tertulian [Apolog. XXIV], or, indeed, Janus (epitheted ‘Quirinus’ &c. – and c.f. Martianus Capella II 1 4 viz. Janus and ‘Argive’ Hera – i.e. Juno Quiritis, for reasons we shall extoll in grander depth elsewhere).

Meanwhile, further speaking in terms of ‘War’ salience – it is further of interest to observe that the (Roman) Rustic Calendars feature October to be under “Tutela Martis” (the tutelary deity Mars).

In this it ‘corresponds’ to March (the ‘mensis Martius’); which, whilst under Minerva as tutelary deity, is (as one should anticipate with the name) nevertheless also strongly Mars salient – as is the heortologically and (roughly) calendrically correlate Hindu month of Chaitra (mid-late March to early April; named for the war-salient & Maṅgala-ruled Nakṣatra Citrā); both of which had once been the first months of their respective calendars.

I say ‘heortologically’ correlate here for them due to the obvious correspondence of the Roman Quinquatria (observed around the Equinox, running from the 19th to 23rd of March) and our Chaitra NavRatri. The (March) Quinquatria, as we have previously explored in greater depth, likewise being a (Spear-)Goddess-oriented War Rite (in that case, to Minerva) in preparation for the Campaign Season, and culminating with the Tubilustrium lustration for the blessing of the implements of the Army (correlate to our Shastra Puja – ‘Weapons-Propitiation’ – similarly situated at the terminus of NavRatri).

Speaking of lustrations of an army – we would likewise note that detailing at Kālikā Purāṇa LX 33 for an occurrence on the (immediately post-Sharada NavRatri) Tenth Day (“दशमदिनम्”) of what the Shastri translation presents as: “Indra on His part held a lustration for the peace of the Army of the Gods, and also for the prosperity of the Kingdom of the Gods”. We would identify said lustration (Nīrājana – “नीराजन”), perhaps, with the ‘Armilustrium’ held slightly later in October (upon the 19th), and which was intended to mark the ‘close’ of the Campaign Season (for what other purpose would one both purify and intend Peace for an Army – of the Gods, or otherwise). To again quote from the Kālikā Purāṇa via way of explication of circumstance, the immediately preceding verse [LX 32, Shastri translation] informs us: “On the Ninth Day when Rāvaṇa the hero, was killed, Brahmā along with all the Gods performed a special worship of Durgā. There after the Goddess was dismissed on the Tenth Day with the celebration of Śāvarotsava.” Or, phrased more directly – the conflict had been won, thus allowing the metaphysical ‘coda’ to be enacted.

As we can see – in both Hindu and Roman tradition we find the same ‘pair’ of corresponding ritual observances, situated amidst recognizably correlate contexts and connected undertakings. It is true that some of these parallels are ‘looser’ or more figurative than others (as, perhaps, one ought anticipate given the divergences of climate, endogenous developments of myth & theology in each respective IE sphere, and the evident protracted ‘difficulties’ undergone by the Roman calendrical structure and its various ‘reformattings’ – one impact of which being how this ‘dysjuncted’ things from the Moon); yet the overarching ‘pattern’ nevertheless should seem at the very least ‘probatively’ in evidence.

There is also quite the constellation of elements which we have – exercising an entirely uncharacteristic restraint – refrained from ‘over-extending’ this piece any further via their (overt) incorporation herein. We do not pretend that this has proven a comprehensive examination, much less exploration, for all which may be said to have bearing here (the ‘Ieiunium Cereris’ (‘Fast of Ceres’ – Greek Demeter) which was shortly prior to these October engagements, and other elements pertaining to seasonal transition and harvest, spring instantly to mind – not least given these, too, are ‘martially correlated’ within our Hindu understanding – ref. Śākambharī , and the conflict against Durgamasur, &c.).

As we move toward that demarcated occurrence for, seemingly, an end toward our ‘Campaign Season’, in one sense upon the 19th of October viz. the Roman Armilustrium, it seems appropriate for us to have ‘made a start’.

After all – Akālabodhana very much in mind – one never quite knows when She may vitally re-appear !

Jai Mata Di .

[*Note: This coin, a fine sestertius of Antoninus Pius (c. AD141-143), in fact depicts Juno Sospita, as you can tell from the almost complete labelling to both left (“IUNONI”) and right (“[ S ]ISPITAE”) which rather literally spells it out.

Again, because we don’t have much in the way of surviving specific Juno Quiritis / Curritis / Curitis depictions – I’ve once again chosen to utilize the more readily available, and plausibly rather iconographically coterminous ‘Juno Sospita’ to illustrate this very brief piece. See Kondratieff’s comments in ‘Mapping Augustan Rome’, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement L (2008), viz. ‘Iuno Curritis / Quiritis’ & ‘Caprificus’, in relation to “a terracotta antefix (now lost) depicting a woman wearing a goat-skin cap found in the *”Area Sacra” of Largo Argentina […] which probably belonged to the Temple of Iuno Curritis.”]

[Illustration in the cover-image being by Kara Mitchell / kara_art03 of the Juno Sospita held by the Vatican]