Sub quo prima quies, nec labor ullus erat.’—l. 12, E. 63.
I have mentioned that he was supposed, καταπινειν, to have swallowed up his children; he was also said to have ruined all things; which, however, were restored with a vast increase.”—Orphic Hymn, 12, v. 3. Compare Calmet, supra, pp. [211 and 212].
Martianus Capella and Varro de Ling. Lat. lib. i. 18, call him Sator, a sower, “Saturnus Sator.” Now it is curious that the ancient Germans had a god “of the name of Sator.” He is described by Verstegan as “standing upon a fish, with a wheel in one hand, and in the other a vessel of water filled with fruits and flowers.”
N.B.—I was surprised to find in Carver’s “Travels in North America” (p. 282) the phrase among the North American Indians, of things being done at the instigation “of the Grand Sautor.”
[173] “Saturn is by Plato supposed to have been the son of Oceanus.”—Bryant, ii. 261.
[174] Vide [Autochthones, ch. vii.]
[175] “The Scriptures tell us that Noah cultivated the vine; and all profane historians agree in placing Bacchus in the first ages of the world” (in proof of early cultivation of the vine).—Goguet, “Origin of Laws,” i. 116. Compare supra, [p. 213], “Saturnus Sator.” Bryant says, “The history of Dionusus is closely connected with that of Bacchus, though they are two distinct persons.” He supposes Dionusus to be Noah, and Bacchus Ham. But he may very well have embodied the traditions of both. Pausanius (lib. iii. 272) says Dionusus was exposed in an ark and wonderfully preserved. He was also said to have been twice born, and to have had two fathers and two mothers, in allusion to the two periods of his existence separated by the Deluge.
Dionusus (Orphic Hymn, 44, 1) is addressed as ἔλθε, μακαρ Διονυσε, πυρισπορε ταυρουμετωπε.
[176] The phrase “Father Bacchus,” current among the ancients (vide Hor. Odes. i. xviii.) has always struck me as singular. It is perfectly congruous with the tradition of Noah; but who will tell us its appropriate solar or astral application?
[177] Montfauçon, from whom I have quoted, was simply an antiquarian—a very erudite and laborious antiquarian, but one whose sole concern was to discriminate facts without reference to their bearings, and who would have had, I have little doubt, a supreme contempt for the speculations in which I have indulged. He says in his preface—“I have a due regard for those great men who have excelled in this sort of learning, but must own at the same time I have no taste for it.... It signifies very little to us to know whether they who tell us Vulcan was the same with Tubalcain, or they who say he was the same with Moses, make the best guess in the matter.” Though the general opinion may not incline any more now than then to the biblical interpretation, yet I think a great change has taken place in public opinion as to the importance of the inquiry.