One of the most iconic creatures from Greek mythology must surely be the Cyclopes. Best known from Odysseus’ encounter with Polyphemus during the course of the Odyssey, the Cyclopes is one of those classic mythic tropes – the big, brutish monster who must be defeated via cunning and guile lest he devour the hero and (more) of his men.
Yet what if I told you that the Cyclopes is a much more complex figure. And that it’s the actions and affectations of a certain clade of the Cyclopes which have brought the general reputation of the species into undeserved disrepute. What if I told you that there exists a substantive Greek – and, in fact, broader Indo-European – literature which presents quite a different (dare I say, less one-eyed) view of them?
Well, you’d probably think I was attempting to rewrite the mythology. Engaging in some sort of (post-)modernist ‘editing’ of the canon for a presumably-political end. There is certainly a lot of that going on nowadays. Yet that is not what you shall find here. Instead, by highlighting what is actually contained within the actual archaic sources available to us – and then combining this with our Indo-European comparative approach – I seek to amend the otherwise lacking-in-depth perception of the Cyclopes. To restore the actual mythic truth of the matter. Which, never fear, still leaves Polyphemus’ characterization in the Odyssey largely in-tact.
You see, we focus so much upon the ‘younger’ or ‘Hypereian’ Cyclopes – those living upon the isle of Hypereia in savagery – that we utterly neglect their much more impressive ‘Elder’ superiors: the Ouranian Cyclopes. Who are quite a different sort of creature altogether – sharing only their iconic feature of the single eye, a certain degree of divine descent (much more prominent in the Ouranians than the Hypereians), and their gigantic stature.
Yet despite our customary acquaintance with the sort of Cyclopes exemplified by Polyphemus being far more prominent in our mind’s eye … he and his kin are actually much less important than these lesser-known Ouranian Cyclopes.
But who are this loftier brood, and what is it which distinguishes them from the brutes? Well, it is my belief that they represent the Greek understanding, the Greek expression of the ‘Solar Craftsmen’ of Indo-European mythology. Also known amongst the Vedic Hindus as the Ribhus / Rhbus , and with the same underlying typology and linguistics helping to inform the Nordic/Germanic conception of Elves (although in this case, something has gone awry – as there, the ‘Solar’ aspect is not just missing, but actively inverted for the Dwarves (Svartalfar); they are encountered away from the Light, which is fatal to them, and are described as ‘Black’; in contrast to the more obviously Solar aspected (Light) Elves, who are not overtly associated with the ‘Craftsman’ element to the typology – with the potential exception of Volundr, the exact species of whom (‘Black’ or ‘Light’ Elf), Arya Akasha has a long-running argument over). But more upon all of those in due course. For now, let us turn to the primary texts upon the matter.
The major one, of course, being Hesiod’s Theogony. Of a comparable rough antiquity to Homer (although there is some debate about the precise datings of each and therefore which is actually older), it records some rather different perspectives in various matters to that we find in the Iliad and Odyssey. My personal supposition is that this is due to the difference in their purpose – Homer is producing what is, effectively, religiously derived ‘entertainment’ [which does not mean it is not of great value and beauty – only that ‘poetic license’ means that some details are differently emphasized or interpolated as necessary for that prime purpose]; whereas Hesiod is endeavouring to provide a synopsis of the relevant mythology. Both are, of course, figures who are writing from and immersed within their own localized native traditions – perspectives which could disagree quite markedly even from other Greek beliefs prominent at the time a mere few dozen miles down the road (c.f. for instance, the observation that the Athenian mythology around Ares may have quite some bias to it and therefore portray Him in an eminently different manner to the Ares as understood by the Spartans).
I have generally observed that Hesiod’s work often accords in interesting ways with the archaic Vedic canon – and therefore believe that through whatever means, it contains perhaps surprisingly well-preserved kernels from the Urheimat-era of Indo-European mythology [as I explored in, for instance, “MahaShivRatri And The Mytholinguistics Of War [Part 3] – The Mind, The Mania, The Manyu” and “Hail Hydra-Slayer: On The Mythic Combat Of Herakles And Athena – Indra And Vak Saraswati, Against The Demon-Dragon Of The Water”], so it should therefore perhaps prove unsurprising that his Theogony forms such an important source for looking at the Greek recollection from said Urheimat of the Solar Craftsmen semi-divine role.
But enough prefacing – to the text!
“And again, she bare the Cyclopes, overbearing in spirit, Brontes, and Steropes and stubborn-hearted Arges, who gave Zeus the thunder and made the thunderbolt: in all else they were like the gods, but one eye only was set in the midst of their foreheads. And they were surnamed Cyclopes (Orb-eyed) because one orbed eye was set in their foreheads. Strength and might and craft were in their works.”
The ‘She’ in question is, of course, the Earth Mother – Gaia. The Father of these Three being Ouranos. In terms of the names, ‘Brontes’ is ‘Thunder’, ‘Steropes’ is ‘Lightning’, and ‘Arges’ is ‘Bright’ or ‘Flash’. We shall come back to the importance of these names in a moment.
Relations between the young Cyclopes and Their Father are, predictably, strained – this being Ouranos in the course of Greek myth, after all. He imprisons Them along with Their Brothers, the Hekatoncherires [the ‘Hundred-Handed’ ‘Storm-Giants’], which leads to Their playing an important role in Their Brother Kronos’ uprising against Ouranos … only for Them to be imprisoned again by Kronos – and then to carry out a similarly important role in Zeus’ own overthrow of Kronos.
Quoth Hesiod upon the matter:
“And he set free from their deadly bonds the brothers of his father, sons of Heaven whom his father in his foolishness had bound. And they remembered to be grateful to him for his kindness, and gave him thunder and the glowing thunderbolt and lightning: for before that, huge Earth had hidden these. In them he trusts and rules over mortals and immortals.”
So, as we can see, the Names of the Ouranian Cyclopes are not coincidental – they are ‘functional designations’ if you like, for the work for which these mighty artificers are best-known for having produced: the Thunderbolts of Zeus. Mightiest Weapon in His Arsenal.
Later sources, such as Pseudo-Apollodorus, expand this list of output to also make especial reference to the provision of other such ‘iconic’ equipment for this combat ‘gainst Kronos – the Invisibility Helmet of Hades, and the Trident of Poseidon being the most prominent examples. Although to this I would add also the provision of another truly remarkable weapon … albeit one which is not, perhaps, so often thought of as such. Namely, the first Altar – a constellation, an altar in the sky of such name – upon which The Gods swear sacred oath of Unity of purpose against the common foe, and may even have carried out the world’s first (proper) rite of sacrifice in consecration of Their covenant and its divine mission. Piety and Comradeship – these two forces truly are amidst the mightiest weapons known to the Indo-European arsenal. It is therefore only fitting that the Ouranian Cyclopes be the ones to forge the manner via which these come into activated, weaponized being among even The Gods.
To quote Pseudo-Hyginus upon this Altar’s construction – “On this altar the gods are thought to have first made offerings and formed an alliance when they were about to oppose the Titanes. The Cyclopes made it. From this observance men established the custom that when they plan to do something, they make sacrifices before beginning the undertaking.” This is something which likely finds comparative expression in the Vedic canon – wherein the properly constructed fire-altar is the highest of hallows for an oath sworn before it, and is reflected in the Ribhus’ role as Hotars (Vedic Fire-Priests who construct and operate such altars) likewise.
However, before we head off into the wilds of Indo-European reconstructive theology – in order to more properly elucidate just who and what these mighty beings actually are, via our utilization of the rest of the Indo-European mythic spheres to highlight the underlying patterning only fragmentarily portrayed in the Greek and Roman traditions … there are two other points that must be considered.
The first of which being the Ouranian Cyclopes’ association, especially prominent in Roman myth, with Hephaestus / Vulcan. Interestingly, this re-aligns the two different ‘species’ of Cyclopes in some ways – as it situates the Ouranian Cyclopes on or about Sicily, often identified with the Hypereia of the Odyssey where Polyphemus et co are to be found. The reasoning for the Ouranians to be found there is prima facie obvious – the Fires of Mt Etna / Aetna thereupon represent one of the most prominent and potent of the continuously-active volcanoes of the Mediterranean; and the ongoing rumblings and other forms of disruption generated therefrom can easily be rendered as the rumblings of a furiously active forge. To quote Virgil: “Between the Sicilian coast and Aeolian Lipare there’s an island, whose cliffs, sheer-rising, jet out smoke from their crannies : deep within it are vaults, a rumbling volcanic cavern scooped out by the action of the Cyclopes’ fires; you can hear the clang of hard blows on the anvils, the roaring when masses of ore are smelted within, and a throbbing blast of flame form the furnaces.”
Virgil then goes on to depict the Cyclopes hard at work upon a number of other wondrous devices for certain other Gods – including a War-Chariot for Mars, and the Aegis cloak worn by Athena; and, of course, yet another wondrous Thunderbolt for Zeus. This is not an innovation of Virgil’s, but rather a building upon something relatively consistent within the Classical mythology – as we find within the works of the Greek Callimachus, writing some two centuries before Virgil, mention of these Cyclopes, similarly situated proximate to Sicily upon the Liparean Isles to its immediate north, doing likewise for Goddess Artemis and forging Her a most mighty bow and arrows.
The point, as we shall see in our Ribhus-comparative, is that these Three Artificers are associated with the Artificer-God – and, in such a manner that suggests that some degree of competition or rivalry has been involved. Yet with all acknowledging Their superlative skill in producing such bespoke accouterments and apparatoi.
The second concerns Their interaction with Apollo – which is an assumedly lethal one. Although just Whom it is lethal to is a matter of some debate within the Classical source material – some endeavouring to reconcile the seeming contradiction between the near-Godlike and thus immortal status of the Ouranian Cyclopes and the accounts of Ouranian Cyclopes being slain by Apollo by suggesting that it was the four less-Divine sons of the original Three Ouranian Cyclopes that were killed.
As for why Lord Apollo wished to do Them harm … it was an act of revenge, retaliation. For Zeus had just struck down Apollo’s Son, Asclepius, in fear that this young demi-god of Medicine and Healing would transmit his hidden knowledge as to the mechanism for resurrecting the dead on to others. This, I believe, has rather close parallel with Lord Indra’s (attempted) Smiting of the Sage Dadhichi for teaching the secrets of the Soma-producing ceremony to the Asvin Twins via which the latter attained the immortality of the divine – although it is worth noting that there are a number of differences between the two myths as well. Including the rather cunning subterfuge employed by the Ashvins to replace Dadhichi’s head with that of a horse so as to render the latter’s real skull not shattered by Indra when He came to exact sanction upon Dadhyanc for his passing on the knowledge (which, in a perhaps fitting reflection of the earlier occurrence, is then followed up by the Asvins restoring Dadhichi to life via the reattaching of his original, human head with Indra none the wiser) [for more details upon this Vedic mythic occurrence, as well as its ritualine implications, see my earlier “A Cut Off Horse-Head Delivers The Message”].
In any case, following Asclepius’ killing by Zeus, Apollo is (perhaps understandably) enraged – and realizing that even He cannot take vengeance against Zeus directly, He instead resolves to destroy the next best thing : the creatures who produced the Thunderbolt weapon with which the initial fatal deed was done.
So what does all of this mean? Well, let us take a ‘step back’ – three steps back, in a way – from the source-texts, and examine things somewhat in abstract, in aggregate. And then see how this aligns with the other Indo-European mythic examples in order to properly establish our typology.
What we have here are three Divine Craftsmen, Who are justly famed for producing a myriad of wonders for The Gods – and Who have both a close relationship with a Solar aspected (and/or Artificer-Supreme) Lordly Figure, with Whom the three Craftsmen may wind up having quite some contratemps.
But why do I say that these are Solar Craftsmen?
Well, this is where we shall begin turning in earnest to our comparative Indo-European analysis of the trio. Beginning with the iconographic feature that is so prominent it is literally right there in the name. The Cyclopes – the One-Eyed (although the more literal rendering for ‘Cyclopes’ would in fact be the somewhat confusing ‘Circle-Eyed’).
Why is this likely ‘Solar’ in meaning? Because there is a well-known and quite prevalent Indo-European concept of the ‘One Eye’ of the Sky Father being The Sun. Varuna in the Vedas is hailed in such a manner, and there is also mention for this for Zeus, as well. I personally suspect that Odin’s One (‘Flashing’) Eye is at least partially a residual holdover from this which has been retained despite Odin’s loss of the other overt ‘Solar’ conceptry that otherwise tends to be prominent for a Sky Father deific expression.
The ‘One Eye’ of the Cyclopes, in other words, is a way of referring to Their ‘Solar’ association. Something figurative which has become interpreted more literally as the Greeks progressed further down their own mythoreligious development and divergence from the rest of the Indo-European-isphere.
How do we know this is plausible, this symbolic interpretation, beyond the fact of its occurrence in reference to the Sky Father? Because the RigVeda directly states it.
RV 1 111 4 – “The sons of Sudhanvan, the R̥bhus, who have the sun as their eye, in a year became infused with insights.” [Jamison & Brereton translation – another version phrases it as the “Rbhus becoming sun-eyed”]
The parallels with the Ribhus are further in number than just the ‘one’ of the eye, as well. In fact, they are three – both the ‘Hesiodic’ Artificing Cyclopes, and the Vedic Solar-Smithing Ribhus. And there are also the mythic parallels to consider. In particular – the parentage of the Cyclopes lies with Ouranos, whilst their ‘functional’ association lies with Hephaestus, and they also endure some dire ‘rivalry’ or threat from Apollo (another ‘Solar’ aspected Deity), as well as Kronos (Who imprisons the trio). The Ribhus, meanwhile, are hailed as the Sons of Sudhanvan – the Great Archer ; their ‘functional’ association lies with Tvastr, the Forge-Father – as does their ‘rivalry’ or ‘threat’ in the form of a certain well-renowned contest of artificer-skill therewith and its near-fatal outcome.
I do not believe these parallels are at all coincidental. In fact, I am in the course of preparing an article to approach Tvastr as potentially a further and overtly ‘Solar’ expression of the Indo-European Sky Father deific (in particular light of the logical Tvastr-Tuisto connexion, as aspected by, say, Luwian ‘Tiwaz’; as well as the prominent identification of Svarog of the Slavs, an otherwise straightforward Sky Father figure, with Hephaestus in the Hypatian Codex); and it has long been acknowledged that Apollo bears significant coterminity with Shiva-Rudra … the Great Archer. Which does NOT mean, of course, that within the realms of the Greco-Roman mythology, one should be regarding all these three deities – Ouranos, Hephaestus, Apollo – as necessarily being the same … only that it appears more-than-plausible that the underlying mythology of each figure is bearing forward elements that were originally associated with one particular deity in the more archaic Indo-European setup (which should not, either, be read as proffering a ‘monist’ or ‘monotheistic’ baseline for Indo-European theology – quite the contrary. It is one particular deity amidst a pantheon we are speaking of, here). But that is, as I say, another matter for another time. Indeed, several such pieces-in-waiting.
The final piece to the puzzle concerns those much-earlier aforementioned Nordic Alfar. Which I considered in more expansive detail in our Christmas Day piece from last year – “On The Elves Of The North Pole”, from which I shall now quote:
“Let us consider the etymologies. In each case – Elf, and Rhbus – there are two non-exclusive and quite likely decidedly coterminous explanations for the derivation of the terms.
As applies Elf, the main understanding is that of “White” – the “Alf” of the Germanic languages shares obvious coterminity with terms like “Alb” (as in “Albino”) and “Alp” (as in “White” Mountains through Snow) [Interestingly, the Hittite 𒀠𒉺𒀸 [Alpas] appears to have taken this in the direction of ‘Cloud’; which not only combines the characteristic whiteness, but also the ‘elevated’ connotations we should expect of caelestial meaning], deriving ultimately from Proto-Indo-European ‘Albhos’/'(h)elbhos’. [This is also, with deference to a certain other modern writer whose series incorporates worker ‘elves’, the root origin of Latin “Albus”]
It is certainly possible to take the “White” connotation rather literally – as that is exactly and precisely what natural sunlight is. Really, really bright white light [and there is an intriguing ‘Elbid’ in Celtic languages, meaning “Upper World”, which not only conveys the “upper” part, as in ‘above-ground’, but also links to how “Loka” derives from “Lewk” to refer not only to the ‘world’ , as in the ‘visible world’, but also to the faculty of ‘sight’. “Lewk”, of course, meaning “Light” (inter alia) in PIE]. But it also carries inherent within it the connotations of Beauty [see also the Sanskrit semantic field around “Gaura”/”Gauri”], and, due to the source of the ‘Whiteness’ in question, the Caelestial expression.
The ‘Craftsman’ connotation, meanwhile, is supplied by the other chain of etymological derivation – wherein it is instead linked to a close phonetically relative term whose ambit of meaning is almost directly that of the Sanskrit Rhbus. Incorporating not only the physical sense of artifice and invention – but also the mental faculties which are possessed alongside these active expressions of same; those of inventiveness, ingenuity, the adept mastery of a field, skill and wisdom, the courage of one’s burgeoning output.”
This closely affiliated alternate etymology would, in Germanic, run back through terms like ‘arbaz’ and ‘arbaidiz’ (i.e. ‘worker’) – and is reconstructed as ‘albiz’ by the major linguist involved. It is not hard to see how ‘arbaz’ and ‘rhbus’ are likely linked; although it should be noted that in the case of ‘albiz’, the ‘b’ sound is somewhere between how we would say it and something like a ‘v’, whilst the long-acknowledged ‘r’ – ‘l’ sound-shift is also evidently in play. The mytholinguistic pattern for the regular co-development of terms for skillful labour and whiteness/shining light, therefore, I would suggest to be one of the ‘clearness’ – ‘clarity of mind’ – required in order to perform such incredible feats of artifice. The skill whose quality shines forth as the active expression of the ‘radiant mind’ of the creativity within. A pattern which plausibly explains the instances of both the Germanic and Indo-Aryan linguistic canons on the one hand, and the mythic instances from these as well as the Greco-Roman on the other.
So, as we can see, the ‘Bright’ or ‘Solar’ ‘Craftsmen’ are figures that plausibly have a quite ancient Indo-European pedigree. As it would be difficult to explain away the co-occurrence of such a trio in each of the Vedic and the Classical mythologies with these repeated motifs and coterminities of role and function via mere coincidental happenstance.
This does not, of course, answer – nor really even seek to address – just what it is which happened in the Nordic mythology to produce such a dramatic divergence with the Dwarves from what we have seen in these other Indo-European instances that underpin our typology. Certainly, there are tantalizing hints to suggest that the Norse knew these figures too – Volundr the Smith has two brothers, for instance (although his leg impairment may perhaps recollect another Smith, and of the three – only Volundr is well-known for Forging) and is eventually able to take flight in a manner perhaps comparable to the Ribhus at the conclusion of each of their respective cup-involving ordeals. Yet at the same time, too many things are ‘backward’ to truly assert with confidence that these same Angelic Artificers also flew North to the Norse.
The Sons of Ivaldi may produce artefacts of wonder and weapons of prodigious might for The Gods – just as the Ribhus and Hesiodic Cyclopes have done. But it is another group of Dwarves, Brokkr and Sindri, that engage in the contest (which, to be sure, does also produce weaponry – including the analogous instrument to the Vajra of Indra, in the form of Thor’s Mjolnir … the Vajra having been produced by Tvastr Himself rather than the Ribhus) – and it is, in effect, a contest not against a mighty Forge-Lord deity’s output, but rather against the earlier-produced works of the Sons of Ivaldi as part of a bet which also involves Loki and his head (but not neck).
Meanwhile, the essential natures of the Ribhus and the Craftsmen-Cyclopes also do not align with that of the Dwarves. Hesiod is quite direct and specific in hailing the Divine Nature of the Three – “in all else they were like the gods, but one eye only was set in the midst of their fore-heads.” And the Ribhus, too, are directly addressed as having the status of Divinity. There is no such positive regard for the Dwarves. Nor, as we have mentioned towards the outset, can there be ‘Solar’ association for them – as they are customarily regarded as unable to even venture into sunlight, much less actively embody it in the manner of the Ribhus, or bear its energetic symbolism in the manner of the Cyclopes. To go even further, the close companionship of the Ribhus with Indra is the diametric opposite of the customary attitude of Thor to Dwarves – although both do, to be sure, involve the close proximity of fire …
There is some speculative room for a closer association to have yet remained when considering the ‘elves’ of far later German folk-belief – wherein we again find reference to a craftsman (in this case undeniably human) who has his work completed and improved upon by what is often a trio of such creatures; although significantly diminished in both physical and metaphysical stature here – instead of being giants as among the Greeks, or standing amidst the Gods as with the Hindus, these are ‘small’ figures … engaged in cobbling shoes rather than forging weapons of divine destructive capability or miraculous means of conveyance and overcoming of death. Still, one additionally salient parallel does remain – just as with the Vedic Ribhus in RV IV 51 6, these cobbler elves have their works completed ready afore the Dawn.
It would be tempting to proffer some speculation as to just what might have happened to result in the Norse lacking the strong and direct parallel expressions of the Smith-Scions which we so easily attest amidst the Classical and Hindu canons – but that should wait for another time and a more comprehensive examination of the subject in question upon both sociological and mythological grounds.
Instead, let us proceed back to those two expressions which we DO have, and the potential underlying Indo-European understanding which has given rise to each of these.
We know, prima facie, for the Vedas and associated commentary tells us so – that the Ribhus are, in their way, the Sons of the Sun. The Radiating energy and force thereof – hence why They are also called upon to facilitate the workings of Immortality, as They gave Their Parents a renewed span of Days. The Cyclopes are associated in both name and deed with Lightning-bolts – which, per the longstanding conventions upon the subject found in several Indo-European sources, are also the same energy as the Sun in the Highest Heaven and the Fire down here on earth: the difference of appearance attributable to the form and ‘wavelength’ of which it takes as it crashes down through the Mid-Atmosphere betwixt the two [this may also help to explain the Ribhus’ co-invocation and even occasional co-identification with Their Comrades, the Maruts].
In each case, therefore, we have a fundamental Fire association: both in terms of the ultimate origins of either (i.e. The Sun), as well as the expression here on Earth with which they are associated (i.e. the Forge-Fire, but also in both cases an Altar – which, for the Indo-European will customarily involve the Sacred, Living Flame of Offering : the fire upon which Oaths are evidently forged in cast-iron cladding, something which on both elements may also help to explain the Sanskrit customary etymology of ‘Ribhus’ as ‘Rta + Bha’ – the ‘Radiance of Cosmic Law’ ).
The Sun, in the Indo-European view, is a force for creation and life – whether the ‘creation’ in question is the wondrous workmanship of the human race (see our ‘Sons of the Sun’ series, as well as the ‘Radiant Queen of the Heavens’ series for a corresponding implication) or even of The Worlds themselves (c.f the ‘Solar Craftsman’ deific in some Vedic cosmogony, or the ‘Hiranyagarbha’ – ‘Golden Womb’ – in others). It therefore makes a certain form of sense for the Forge-Fire and the Solar-Pyre to be so closely coterminous.
Even though it may seem self-evident that Hephaestus is not a ‘Sky Father’ deific in the proper sense of the term – an Orphic hymnal to the God hails Him as:
“Strong, mighty Hephaistos, bearing splendid light, unwearied fire, with flaming torrents bright: strong-handed, deathless, and of art divine, pure element, a portion of the world is thine: all-taming artist, all-diffusive power, ’tis thine, supreme, all substance to devour: aither, sun, moon, and stars, light pure and clear, for these thy lucid parts [of fire] to men appear. [A variant translation has these various forms of light being rendered as the ‘limbs’ of Hephaestus that we are able to perceive] To thee all dwellings, cities, tribes belong, diffused through mortal bodies, rich and strong. Hear, blessed power, to holy rites incline, and all propitious on the incense shine: suppress the rage of fire’s unwearied frame, and still preserve our nature’s vital flame.”
The Orphic canon is, of course, rather more recent in collation than the works of Hesiod or Homer – yet which nevertheless also carry forward important symbolic and mythological comprehensions from the underlying archaic Classical stratum of belief.
The role of the Cyclopes operating in such close working proximity with Hephaestus, then, simply further underscores the trenchant Solar symbolism of all four of these radiantly mighty beings. Symbolism which was, in any case, never in doubt in the presentational understanding of the Ribhus ; and which is latent in the term if not necessarily its fulgurite-fulsome application in all instances of the Nordic Alfar, as well.
All things considered, then, it seems that the Solar Smiths of the Sky Father are quite an ancient and innately, enduringly Indo-European trio.
Even though They evidently often appear to have been somewhat ineluctably overshadowed by other figures with whom They bear some conspicuous coterminity (for example, the one-eye of the Homeric Cyclopes – such as Polyphemus and his fellows; or, potentially, whatever it is which has happened to Them in the Nordic-Germanic canon) , They yet remain.
It is over to us, I feel, to hail and honour Them – and to grant Them the recognition which every master-craftsman deep(a) down secretly relishes.
To play our small part in the acts of illumination, and of repair , that shall restore Them to their proper and prominent place amidst our ken of mythic vision.
Hail, therefore, to the Solar Smiths of the Sky Father !