Latin materials speak of ‘Divine Crows’ [Corniscae Divae – Allen has this as “Crow-Goddesses”, even] which are of Juno; Festus’ Epitome [56L] relates: “Corniscarum Divarum locus erat trans Tiberim cornicibus dicatus, quod in Junonis tutela esse putabatur”, with this being often cited in accompaniment of an engimatic inscriptional “DEVAS CoRNISCAS SACRVM”.

This, whilst lesser-known today, I believe to be very much in alignment with the archaic (and underpinning) theology for Her.

Not least given Allen’s phrasing for these ‘Corniscae Divae’ as being “attendant on Juno”, one instantly thinks of the Corvid cohorts of the Goddess we meet within the Kādambarī of Bāṇabhaṭṭa (& Son):

“ārādhyamānāṃ sarvataḥ kaṭhoravāyasagaṇena … stūyamānām”

“Being worshipped from all sides by the Retinue of Crows both razor sharp and unyielding Who sang Her Glories” – to quote my own translation for the latter verse’s text.

Perhaps, in terms of “Crow-Goddesses”, we might also think of Kauśikī’s Emanation of Vāyasī and Her accompanying Crow-featured war-host of aviocephalic divine female warriors (‘ वायसास्यानां ‘ translated as “Crow-Headed” in Yokochi; although given the use of ‘āsyā’ – ‘organ of speech’ – to specify the Corvid characterization’s expression, perhaps these might also be ‘Crow-Voiced‘ in something approaching the fashion of the Kādambarī verse quoted above), as encountered at 64 20 of the larger Skanda Purana.

As applies Hera, we also have Apollonius of Rhodes’ Argonautica [III 929]; wherein a ‘Cawing Crow’ [“λακέρυζαι […] κορῶναι”] is deployed to Speak with the Voice of the God(des)s [“ὀμφὴν οἰωνοῖο θεήλατον” – III 939] in order to advise our Hero in winning a powerful woman’s Heart.

In that exemplar, both context and word-choice (esp. viz. “ὀμφὴν” – ‘Voice of the Gods’, including as “signified by the flight of birds” per Liddell & Scott) also conjure to mind the Corvid as an avian of augury (not least through the seer Mopsus being described immediately prior as, per Seaton’s translation, “skilled to utter oracles from the appearance of birds” [“ἐσθλὸς μὲν ἐπιπροφανέντας ἐνισπεῖν οἰωνούς”]) – albeit with the rather more ‘efficient’ dynamic, here, of the Corvid moving to ‘cut out the middle-man’ and engage the intended recipient of the Divine Communication directly. This would certainly also resonate with the well-attested significance for the Corvid in Roman augury, likewise.

There is other material in Roman terms to link Juno to the Corvid, as well. To quote from academic analysis other than my own:

“The crow or raven on Juno Sispes’ shield [upon the coin of Q. Cornificius] has brought to the attention of many the association of Juno with these birds.
In 218 were reported the Lanuvian prodigies of a spear moving and a crow flying into Juno’s temple, where it sat on the cushioned couch. Among the prodigies of 215 was a nest of crows in the same temple. Across the Tiber from Rome a grove was dedicated to cornices because they were thought to be under Juno’s protection; its deities were Divae Corniscae. Both the raven and the crow figure prominently in Roman augury and as omens. They were renowned for long and many lives, and the raven’s call was in certain cases reckoned a harbinger of death. Although they may thus have been associated with the notion of a life force such as iuno, we have no indication from the ancients of the way these birds were first considered in religious beliefs.”
[Palmer – Juno in Archaic Italy; Roman Religion and Roman Empire]

Palmer’s comment contemplating potential conceptual linkage between the Corvid and “the notion of a life force such as iuno” may resonate intriguingly with the definitional field for Sanskrit ‘Vayas’ (वयस्) – which, in addition to ‘Crow’, can also mean, per Monier Williams, both “Youth”, and “Energy (both bodily and mental), strength, health, vigour, power, might [etc.]”. (One would reference Mayrhofer [EWA II 508], viz. the prospect for, both ‘senses’ to ‘Vayas’ having overlap at the etymological level)

There is also the situation at Baudhyana Dharmasutra II 8 14 9-10, wherein the food-offering to the Pitrs (‘Ancestor-Spirits’ – literally ‘(Fore)Fathers’) is made to the ‘Vayasas’ (“vayasāṃ piṇḍaṃ dadyāt”), as the Pitrs are recognized to wander in Vayasa forms (“vayasāṃ hi pitaraḥ pratimayā carantīti vijñāyate”). Feeding the Crows as oblation undertaken to nourish the Ancestors is still the Hindu custom to this day – indeed, it is a major focal during the present observance of Pitru Paksha [the ‘Fortnight of the Ancestors’].

Aristeas of Proconnesus furnishes clear Classical co-expression for this concept of a significant figure’s Spirit taking on the shape of a Corvid in order to ‘wander’ (“carantī”). Per the iteration known to Pliny [Naturalis Historia VII 53; Rackham translation] – “the soul of Aristeas at Proconnesus was seen flying out of his mouth in the shape of a raven” (“aristeae etiam visam evolantem ex ore in proconneso corvi effigie”). Herodotus’ version to the telling [IV 15] also features Aristeas post-mortem (and in accompaniment to Apollo) in Raven form.

Latin “Anima”, the word translated there in Pliny as “Soul”, more fundamentally signifies “Wind” or “Breath” (as with its PIE underpinning : *h₂enh₁-mo- , per de Vaan); the ambit of this also entailing, as Lewis & Short phrase it – “the vital principle, the breath of life”, and hence both “Soul” and “souls separated from the body, the shades of the Lower World, manes” (ibid.). Closely correlate conceptry can be readily identified fairly pervasively across the Indo-European world. For instance – Old Norse ‘Andi’ and ‘Önd’ (per Cleasby-Vigfusson: “Breath”, “Current of Air”, “Spirit”, “Spiritual Gift”; and “Breath, Life”, “Soul”; respectively); which, per Kroonen, are both also derived from the same PIE root as “Anima” : *h₂enh₁- (‘Breathe’).

We should similarly find ourselves rather unsurprised for the salient Sanskrit, “Prāṇa”, to likewise align both via root ( ‘Pra-‘ + ‘An’, with the latter being, per Mayrhofer, from PIE *h₂enh₁-) and applicational ambit (“the breath of life, breath, respiration, spirit, vitality”, as Monier-Williams puts it; Apte’s Practical Sanskrit-English dictionary underscoring the “Soul” sense intertwined to “Spirit”). Although where this becomes pertinent to us is due to the fact that, as the Vayu Purana (I 25 67, Tagare translation) declares: “Rudras are Pranas and Pranas are Rudras. The vital breaths are stationed in all living beings.”

Or, per the Shiva Purana (VII 1 12 26-30, Shastri translation) – “Then Rudra, the lord of vital breaths, appeared through the mouth of Brahmā […] Lord Rudra divided Himself into eleven Ātmans. […] Thus spoken to, They cried and ran all round. In view of Their crying and flight They are called Rudras. Rudras are vital breaths and vital breaths are Rudras.” (And note that i) Brahma is, here, supposed to have basically become temporarily deceased, being brought back to life at verse 31; whilst ii) the Rudra emerging from Brahma’s Mouth as Brahma dies, is in direct correlation to that which is observed within the symbolic presentation for Aristeas of Proconnesus mentioned above; particularly with iii) the explication for ‘Rudra’ within this episode as relating to “crying and flight” – and what creature which flies do we know which is famed and indeed often directly named for its harsh ‘crying’ … ) Brahma’s experience here is evidently an ‘illustration-through-ur-occurrence’ of conceptry intended to be understood as applicable also directly to man (albeit with the order of events death event investiture of Rudras / Winds which bring the recipient to life logically .

The Rudras, as a collective designation, can be roughly coterminous to the Maruts (as seen at, for instance RV V 87 7, RV I 39 4, RV VIII 7 12, and RV VIII 20 2 – wherein the Maruts are addressed as Rudras via “Rudrāsaḥ”, “Rudrāso”, “Rudrā” and “Rudrāsaḥ”, respectively); and we also have direct designation of the Maruts as ‘Prāṇa’ – as can be seen at Ait. Br. III 16, which situates Them for the Midday Offering … this, entirely uncoincidentally, being the Offering that Rudras-as-Prāṇas are linked with per Chāndogya Upaniṣad III 16 3-4. (The other frequently cited Upanishadic source – Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad III 9 4 – positions the Rudras as Ten Prāṇas and an Eleventh which is the ‘Soul’, the ‘ātman’; with the nomenclature being to do with these leaving the body at death)

Why do I mention all of this? Because we also find ‘Vayaś’ utilized to speak of the Maruts (as at RV V 41 13, I 103 7, I 155 5); with at least the first and last of these (and plausibly also the middle) being in fashions wherein the term should very much have an ‘Avian’ dimension. We also find reference, per Sāyaṇa’s commentary upon RV X 77 2, for the Maruts (or, at least, an array thereof) being comprised of the spirits of certain great-souled men post-mortem (as I keep meaning to delve into in proper ‘Einherjar’ context in a full-length piece). Placing this alongside our aforementioned situations for both Pitrs appearing as Corvids, and the very Corvid-sounding rationale to the Prāṇas being named Rudras, etc. etc. we can quite viably ‘triangulate’ a complex of association within Hindu understanding. One which also shows itself to have been at least somewhat known amidst the Greco-Roman world, likewise.

It therefore seems to me quite logical to assert there to be a plausible archaic Indo-European saliency for the Soul / Spirit not only as ‘Breath’ – but for this to have the visage of a Corvid.

But how would this connect to Juno ?

Well, to bring things back to the Vedic elements which we have referenced – RV X 77 2, wherein we encounter the Maruts (per Sāyaṇa) as post-mortal great souls, also identifies these Maruts as ‘Ādityas’, that is to say as ‘Sons of Aditi’. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad III 16 5-6, which comes immediately after the verses 3-4 wherein the Prāṇas are Rudras, identifies the Prāṇas as Ādityas, also)

We encounter within Arnobius’ Adversus Nationes’ [III 41] the following, with reference to the Lares (inter alia):

“[…] In different parts of his writings, Nigidius speaks of them now as the guardians of houses and dwellings; now as the Curetes, who are said to have once concealed, by the clashing of cymbals, the infantile cries of Jupiter; now the five Digiti Samothracii, who, the Greeks tell us, were named Idæi Dactyli. Varro, with like hesitation, says at one time that they are the Manes, and therefore the mother of the Lares was named Mania; at another time, again, he maintains that they are gods of the air, and are termed heroes; at another, following the opinion of the ancients, he says that the Lares are ghosts, as it were a kind of tutelary demon, spirits of dead men.”
[Bryce & Campbell translation]

The Maruts ‘map’ fairly strongly onto the Kouretes / Curetes (Who are ‘Sons of Zeus’, as per Their relevant Orphic Hymnal (XXXVIII 21), just as the Maruts are Sons of Rudra; similar Orphic annotation positioning the Kouretes as Sons of Rhea – ‘Earth’; perhaps we should also note Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists (VIII 59) featuring the Corvid as “παιδὶ τἀπόλλωνος”, the ‘Child of Apollo’, from a tradition ostensibly of Rhodes with reference to the ‘Coronist’ offering-collectors), as we have discussed at greater length elsewhere; with ‘Heroes’ being inferred in such designation as connected to ‘Hera’ per Martianus Capella II 160 (“qui ex eo quod Heram terram ueteres dixere, Heroes nuncupati”), in identical fashion as ‘Adityas’ to ‘Aditi’ for our aforementioned RV X 77 2 Marut saliency (i.e. the Maruts as Sons of Aditi – and note the identification of ‘Mania’ as ‘Mother of Lares’ referenced from Varro by Arnobius above). Most intriguingly, Their pertinent Orphic Hymnal (XXXVIII 3) also declares Them as ” ζωιογόνοι πνοιαί” – “life-bearing breaths”, per Malamis (“ζῳογόνος”, as Macedo, Kölligan, & Barbieri note, being an Apollo epithet of considerable prevalence, likewise), exactly as we find the Rudras to be within Hindu conceptualization.

(Nigidius’ correlate identification for the Lares with the “five Digiti Samothracii” or “Idæi Dactyli” further reinforces the Maruts / Rudras ‘interpretatio’. Not only are the Curetes / Kouretes quite readily linked to the Daktyloi elsewhere within the Classical canon (and strongly connected to the Goddess), but we also find the Maruts, even in the same breath as being hailed ‘Rudras’, referred to via the Ṛbhukṣans designation of the priest-smith Ṛbhus – “Rudrā Rbhukṣaṇo” and “Maruta Rbhukṣaṇa ā Rudrāsaḥ” at RV VIII 7 12 & VIII 20 2, respectively. The attestations from Diodorus Siculus [V 64], inter alia, viz. the Dactyloi’s ‘magical’ potency [“ὑπάρξαντας δὲ γόητας ἐπιτηδεῦσαι τάς τε ἐπῳδὰς καὶ τελετὰς καὶ μυστήρια”] and responsibility for introducing operational understandings to man, including those linked to Orpheus, situates them potentially not only alongside the Ṛbhus, but perhaps even the Ṛṣis [“δόξαντας δὲ μεγάλων ἀγαθῶν ἀρχηγοὺς γεγενῆσθαι τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων τιμῶν τυχεῖν ἀθανάτων.”]. Plutarch [De Facie Quae In Orbe Lunae Apparet XXX, XXVIII-XXIX] would seem to identify them as exemplars of ‘post-mortal’ spirits which had achieved a transcendence through self-mastery and virtuous accomplishment, linked to breath (“ἀναθυμιάσεως”; “ψυχή”, i.e. ‘soul’, of ‘breath’ derivation, also heavily featured), ‘crying out’ (“βοώσας” … which I suppose, viz. “βοάω”, means they go ‘Boo’; for ‘shouting’ ref. both etymology of ‘Rudra’ and the figurative “mā rodīḥ” for ‘Marut’ as at Vishnu Purana I 21 41 / Vayu Purana II 6 103) and situated amidst the ‘skyward’ space of air and the Moon functionally coterminous to our Antariksa / Bhuvarloka. At some other time we might explore the prospects viz. other texts’ presentation of a founding ‘hundred’, via way of the founding hundred Patricians of Rome, &c., for our Pitr clade, also.)

The ‘overlap’ of ‘Ghosts’ and ‘Gods of the Air’ (viz. “Manes” and “Aerios […] Deos”) with ‘Heroes’ (“Heroas”) is all in order for our Maruts. Familial ‘Genii’ (“genios”) which are “spirits of dead men” (“animas mortuorum”), are likewise not all that removed from the Pitrs; the ‘familial’ dimension being rather inferential to its etymology (de Vaan briefly comments, referencing ‘Genus’, and Proto-Germanic *Kunja), and description (per Martianus Capella II 152) as “germanus” (“kinsman”) to the living man for whom this is ‘Tutelary’ spirit (“Medioximos”, as encountered shortly after (II 154), going handily with the Antarikṣa ‘Mid-Atmosphere’ between Earth and Heaven where the Maruts & Rudra(s) range, along with (per Vayu Purana II 39 29 & 30), the Ṛbhus, Sādhyas, Aṅgiras-Ṛṣis, & Pitṛs, inter alia – c.f. “a medietate vero aeris […]” at II 160 for the ‘Hemithei’ and ‘Heroes’). Similarly, the Lares as ‘Guardians of Houses and Dwellings’ (“tectorum domumque custodes”) find direct correlation through the Pitrs’ description at SBr II 6 1 42 & II 4 2 24 as “gṛhāṇāṃ ha pitara īśata” – “the Fathers are the Guardians of Houses”, to quote Eggeling’s translation.

(Although, to speak as applies ‘Dead Men‘ – it is worth noting that whilst in Vedic terms, the Pitrs, utilizing the male parental terminology, are more familiar, one also encounters mention for the ‘Mothers’, the ‘Wives of the Pitrs’; a particular exemplar for which that shall prove pertinent to our purposes being what Keith reports as a Mānava Gṛhya Sūtra detailed Crossroads-conducted sacrifice featuring offerings to such. We mention this, in part, because we are, of course, in theory (also) looking for Female Crow-Spirits, viz. Allen’s rendering for ‘Corniscae Divae’ – and whilst the Maruts would be male, They are often accompanied by Mātrikās (‘Mothers’). One certainly encounters female ‘Dactyloi’, along with other female spirits of Curete-correlate role such as the Hekaterides, Oreiades, and Meliae; and there are also female clades of attendants attested for Hera, likewise)

Meanwhile, courtesy of Martianus Capella, we are intrigued to observe amidst these Manes of the Mid-Air, the Divine Pair of ‘Mana & Mantuona’, Who are called ‘Aquilus’ (“dii etiam, quos aquilos dicunt” – II 164). We shan’t get hugely into the comparative theology which leads us to link these theonymics (as with ‘Mana’ / ‘Mania’, and ‘Mantus’; the connexion is well attested, see Altheim etc.) to the rather unsurprising broader Indo-European constellations of God & Goddess represented also through Rudra & Aditi (She Who is, per SBr VIII 4 3 7 / VS XIV 29 & TS IV 3 10 1, the Queen of the Pitrs, the ‘Adhipatni’; and as Vāc or Earth, likewise, the “pitryā rāṣṭry” / “pitre rāṣṭry”, per AV-S IV 1 2 / AV-P 2 1). But instead highlight that ‘Aquilus’ hailing. Which ostensibly means “Dark” (so, here, “Dark Ones”) – but is of clear resemblance and inferential resonance for “Aquila” (‘Eagle’). Kilday references an underpinning to ‘aquila (avis) as ‘dark bird’, particularly if it originated as a technical designation in augury, ‘dark(est) one of the augurial birds’. Not least given the saliency for Corvidae within Roman augury – we would suggest these “Dark Ones” amidst the Mid-Sky and cohort of Ghosts to be of plausible Corvid linkage.

Although to bring it back more overtly to Juno / Hera – the sectors of Martianus Capella referenced above are all, in his writing, ‘Word of Juno’; Her being called upon by the poet (II 149) to explain, as he puts it (per Stahl, Johnson & Burge’s translation) “what goes on in the vastness of the sky and in these fields of living souls glowing with conflicting atoms, and which of the deities is said to fly here” – the rationale proving the Hellenic association for Her, viz. ‘Hera’, as “named from Your Kingdom of the Air” (ibid.; “hic ego te Heram potius ab aeris regno nuncupatam uoco”).

Which is certainly the demesne where one would anticipate to encounter avian life – but we can do better.

The Orphic Hymn to Hera (XIV) features the following verses:

ψυχοτρόφους αὔρας θνητοῖς παρέχουσα προσηνεῖς.
ὄμβρων μὲν μήτηρ, ἀνέμων τροφέ, παντογένεθλε.
χωρὶς γὰρ σέθεν οὐδὲν ὅλως ζωῆς φύσιν ἔγνω·

Malamis renders these as:

“furnishing mortals with soft, soul-feeding breezes,
Mother of Rains, Nurse of the Winds, Birth of All:
for without You nothing knows wholly the nature of life;”

Although we would perhaps favour HellenicGods’ “Apart from You life and generation cannot be found” for the last of these.

Much of the hymnal is of decidedly ‘Aerial’ suite and substance, but it is the particularly progenitorial array of acclamations quoted above that are of chief pertinence to our purpose now. In essence, we would infer that the Orphic verses in question attest a linkage for Hera with the Wind-Breath-Soul complex commented upon above (c.f. Proclus’ ascribing of Juno responsibility as She Who “imparts the generation of the soul” [VI 22, Taylor translation]); whilst also resonating with the idea of Aditi as ‘Mother of Maruts’ – the Maruts being, via broad significance, understood to connect to ‘Winds’ and ‘Rain’ (as at RV VIII 7 4, for instance, hailing the Maruts as correlate with both), as well as ‘Storms’ (indeed, ‘ὄμβρος’, or ‘rain-storm’, the Orphic Hymnal’s specific term used for those Storms which Hera is Mother of, has an ostensible Sanskrit cognate, ‘Abhra’ or ‘Rain-Cloud’ – employed in relation to the Maruts’ storm-saliency as at RV V 63 6, X 77 1, V 85 4).

Yet for our purposes, this should prove somewhat insufficient. After all – it is not the birth end of proceedings which we are interested in. Nor the phase for its existence wherein the Spirit / Breath of Life is ’embodied’, in human form and occurrent amongst the living.

As we have observed through our earlier-extolled exemplars, the expression for the certain Soul as Corvid should seem a most decidedly ‘Post-Mortal’ experience – whether the ‘freshly deceased’ Soul’s ‘metempsychotic’ metamorphosis to the black-winged visage as it exits the body via the mouth immediately ‘post-‘ the ‘mortem’ (as illustrated via Pliny’s presentation for Aristeas’ ‘departure’; broadly correlate to what we had found at Shiva Purana VII 1 12 26-30), or the form worn by the Ancestral Dead (who are, rather unsurprisingly, almost by definition both dead and often for quite some time) for their ‘return visits’ to the mortal world (as we had seen viz. the Pitrs at Baudhyana Dharmasutra II 8 14 9-10).

We should therefore be anticipating a Goddess Form more closely correlated to these ‘post-mortal’ realms. Which we can quite readily point toward viz. Juno Inferna (i.e. ‘Underworld Juno’), more immediately known as ‘Proserpina’ (‘Persephone’); and part of a correlate underpinning ‘complex’, Who is also hailed via ‘Trivia’ (i.e. Hekate / Hecate). Interestingly, perhaps, for us, is the phenomenon whereby ‘Proserpina’ and ‘Trivia’ are both expressly presented as alternate hailings to “Juno Lucina” [Varro V 68-69; Catullus, Carmina XXXIV, 13-15; respectively] – Juno Lucina being particularly related to Childbirth, in a syzygy which I believe may have some resonance viz. our (Hindu) understanding concerning Aditi, and the ritual operations enabled through the Amāvāsyā (akin to the Kalends), as we have explored somewhat elsewhere.

The Hecate dimension is, of course, particularly significant given that we elsewhere have Her similarly accompanied by a Sepulchral Senā (viz. for instance, the “τυμβιδίην, ψυχαῖς νεκύων μέτα βακχεύουσαν” from the 3rd line to Her Orphic Hymnal and rendered as “Of the Tomb, Revelling with the Souls of the Dead”, per Malamis; or, as prof. L.R. Taylor draws from Rohde with relation to, potentially “μήτηρ δαιμόνων” – and ref., we would suspect, the ‘δαιμόνων μήτηρ’ gloss upon Philoxenus LA 66, assumedly from Festus, viz. “Larunda”).

Yet it is a specifically ‘Juno’ identification to the inscription which had initially piqued our interest; and so whilst I can wax rhapsodical about how the aforementioned Goddess-Forms, even beyond the Roman ascriptions briefly cited above (inter alia), are properly to be considered ‘Aspects’ of the Goddess thusly involved … I am sure it shall prove to the preference of various of the readership if a similarly express ‘Juno’ can be identified within the relevant contextual role.

That would be the ‘Juno Dea Dia’ which we find cited within the ‘Acta Fratrum Arvalium’ (“Iunoni deae Diae oves II”, as per ‘Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae’ II 1 5047), identified by Taylor as the hailing of the ‘Mater Larum’ therein.

This ‘Dea Dia’, is ‘Juno’ ‘twice over’, so to speak – as observed by García-Ramón, the former being the “continuant of IE *diu̯-ih₂- in Latin” correlate to Ancient Greek ‘Δῖα’ (ref. also, as he notes elsewhere, both ‘Diana’ and Διώνη / ‘Dione’, as well as Linear B ‘Di-Wi-Ja’ & ‘Di-u-ja’, taken as ‘Diwiā’ – we would also add Vedic ‘Diva’ to this list, along with, perhaps not uncontroversially, ‘Juno’). The underpinning root is, unsurprisingly, the ‘feminine counterpart’ (as García-Ramón puts it – he means it linguistically, we would also say ‘theologically / matrimonially’) for that which becomes Sanskrit ‘Dyaus’, the ‘Ju-‘ of Roman ‘Jupiter’ (via Proto-Italic *Djous, per de Vaan – who also ascribes ‘Dispiter’, as in ‘Dis’, here) , and Ancient Greek ‘Zeus’ (Hellenic iterations also including Linear B ‘Di-we’, and the somewhat rarely encountered ‘Δεύς’ of Boeotia – as well as, apparently, a ‘Δίς’ / ‘Dis’ formulation in reference to Zeus, also).

It is indeed interesting to see that where we encounter ‘Juno Dea Dia’, it is as the eclectic combination of the prevalently familiar theonymic affixed almost in ‘clarification’ afore an archaic and all-but-displaced forerunner.

Where I am going with this, is downhill. Rather literally, in fact – that being the trajectory of the offering made by said Arval Brotherhood, thrown from the entrance to the temple of the aforementioned ‘Dea Dia’ down the slope before it, and intended as a ‘dinner’ for the Mother of the Lares (“cena matri Larum”, as the literature tends to put it – “[…] ollas acceperunt et ianuis apertis per clivum matri Larum cenam iactaverunt”, per Woodard for the more involved actual phrasing). This is shortly followed via, as Taylor phrases it, “the children of the goddess to whom the dinner was thrown [being] called upon by the [Arval] brothers in the ancient song beginning enos Lases iuvate.”

As for the identity of this ‘Mother of Lares’ – Macrobius’ Saturnalia [I 7 34-35], in the context of the Compitalia rites (the name rendering as ‘of the Crossroads’), speaks of Her as ‘Mania’, honoured there via severed heads so as to ensure safety for one’s family (one would infer one’s children to be particularly entailed, given the pointedly correlate nature of the humans purportedly offered, we would assume ‘in lieu’, more archaically). More intriguingly, he then informs us that the Rites in question were reformed (to instead feature more symbolic ‘heads’) by one Junius Brutus (a further feature, per Festus [pp. 121M & 239M], reportedly being woollen hangings placed at crossroads, seemingly effigies or balls and intended to represent each individual of the living), a Consul of the eminently antique gens Junii. This being a family whom, upon multiple fronts, Taylor has shown to have had a “particular connection with the Mother of the Lares” – and who are also popularly supposed to have enjoyed similar with Juno (ref. Gołyźniak’s identification for Her as “a divine patroness of gens Junia”, etc.).

There would seem to me to be a rather obvious reason why this might be so.

In any case, to return to those Rites of the Compitalia – it is these several salient features for the observance which direct our attention toward a further potential support for our inference as to the underlying deific identity for this ‘Mother of Lares’.

The Vedic ‘Tryambakāḥ’ Rite [SBr II 6 2; Tait. Br. I 6 10; KātyŚr V 10; TS I 8 6; etc.] is, likewise, to be performed at the ‘catuṣpatha’ (‘Four-Path’, i.e. the ‘Cross-Roads’); is undertaken so as to safeguard the lives of the supplicant’s children (“prajā”, both born and unborn – “jātā yāścājātāstā” [SBr II 6 2 2]); and features the hanging of an offering (entailing an animal skin – which we would hold to be analogous to the fleece utilized in correlate Hellenic observance, viz. the Pompaia); the deity in question, Rudra (‘Manyu’ – cognate for ‘Mania’ not least in terms of ‘state’, ‘Mantus’ being the male deific), being rather prominently linked to a Severed Head and the punishment of Sin (via the severing of said head, as applies the mythic ‘templating’). Where all this becomes decidedly pertinent for us concerns a) the fact that the Tryambakāḥ is, for instance, in the Sākamedha context performed immediately following Mahāpitṛyajña (i.e. the Great Offering to the Pitrs) [see also the situation at Kātyāyana Śrautasūtra V 8-9] ; and b) the Rite, itself, is one which is to both Rudra and His ‘Sister’ (‘svasā’ – we would take it as ‘Female Counterpart’), Ambika – hence its naming, per SBr II 6 2 9, as the Tryambakāḥ, due to the offering being to both Him and also to the ‘Strī’ (‘Woman’, or ‘Wife’).

As Rudra is correlate to Zeus, Jupiter (a cause which we have committed quite some energetic and expansive commentary toward over the past few years, and so shall not seek to re-litigate further herein, for the moment …), so too do we hold His Woman to be correlate to Juno, Hera. And thus, just as with our demonstration viz. Aditi encapsulated above – we have our further support to this ‘Mother of Lares’ (ref. also the Manes – under the rule of ‘Mana and Mantuona’, “Gods Whom they also call the Dark Ones”, per the Stahl & Johnson translation for Martianus Capella II 164, the “Aquilus” which we had remarked upon earlier).

And what have our eminent Corvid cadrae to do with these, ritual observances and otherwise ? Well, we Feed the Crows – to borrow the well-known idiom of Skaldic Old Norse (viz. ‘Feed the Ravens’), albeit in a slightly different (and not-so-battlefield) occasion – when we propitiate our Pitrs (indeed, it is the active mechanism for such, often). This is because this is the form in which the Pitrs choose to come back (flying back across the gulf between worlds?). And so, too, perhaps, would the Lares have done so, once. Back when, prior to these ‘reforms’ of the observance, ‘offerings’ more … substantive than substitutive (with reference to the woollen effigies and ‘heads’ which took their place – their forerunners) were hung from trees. Certainly, this would attract the Crows, the Corvidae. Who are, after all, also Rudra’s Birds (ref. AV-S XI 2 2; and c.f. the situation for Swans, Hamsa, as both Rudra-linked, viz. AV-S XI 2 24, and also connected to the Soul; perhaps we might also connect this to the series of ‘Swans of Odin’ style kennings for Ravens which one finds within the Old Norse, also …).

To return toward our ‘core’ of concept – we have sought via the our efforts here to contemplate an extensive ‘constellation’ of comparanda, both in service of sketching out the potential (otherwise basically all-but-lost) suite of relationships between Juno and the Corvid specifically, as well as the more general sweep of interconnected clusters of elements for which the Crows and Ravens should prove at the very least to be resonantly linked. While I suspect that our contemplations have, herein, of necessity entailed somewhat more of a ‘theoretical’ scaling than would usually be the case, this has hopefully been accompanied by reasonable demonstration as to the probative value of the prospective modelling which has been involved.

Perhaps, with due deference to both Goddess and the Divine Corvidae, it might even constitute ‘Ancestral Wisdom’.

Jai Mata Di.

So says this Corvinus, anyway.

[Art is a concept-piece done by a Jeff Simpson – not of Juno; but certainly with a regal bearing, an umbral quality to the garmentry, and the all-important Corvid in attendance; all of which meant it felt about as close as one would readily find, for now]