mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material on Velikovsky (1)
Various authors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The controversy around Immanuel Velikovsky of "Worlds In Collision"
fame continues to simmer & might boil up over the stove during the
upcoming internationa symposium slated for Thanksgiving weekend in
Portland entitled: "Velikovsky- Ancient Myth and Modern Science"
whether you love him or you hate him, for this news group the
conclusion is that the birth of science was found in the ancient
observation of the heavens. why is open to question but the
following may open the discussion:
The following series of articles was posted to t.o by the Efemeral
Research Foundation. I have retained it and simply include it in any
large collection of catastrophist literature. I do not see any
copyright signs in it, and assume that they, as I, simply wish this
material to reach as wide an audience as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--Introduction
It was Immanuel Velikovsky's claim in "Worlds in Collision" that the
spectacle of VENUS AS A COMET-LIKE BODY MARAUDING ABOUT THE HEAVENS
was once witnessed by ancient cultures all around the globe.
The next 4 postings (VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--One, Two, Three, Fnotes)
comprise an article recently published in AEON, a Journal of Myth
and Science.
The article shows that the EVIDENCE in favour of Venus' comet- like
past is far more pervasive than Velikovsky ever imagined.
It was Velikovsky's thesis that many ancient myths commemorate
spectacular cataclysms associated with the various planets. Ev
Cochrane shows strong support for this radical view--evidence from
the mythology and astronomy of both the Old World and the New World.
In Ev Cochrane's words: "A Golden Age at the dawn of time was
recalled as the well- spring of civilization and deemed to be the
gift of Saturn for the simple reason that spectacular events
associated with the period of that planet's dominance provided the
"divine" inspiration for the origin and development of cities, laws,
religious rites, systems of writing, etc."
"Our entire conception of the recent history of the solar
system--not to mention celestial mechanics and a host of other
sciences--is fated to be turned upside down."
The title of the article is: TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY:
VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION
The author is: Ev Cochrane
The article was originally published in November 1992 in: AEON--A
Symposium on Myth and Science Vol.III, No.1. Available from 2326
Knapp, AMES, IOWA, 50010, USA (subscription: $US40).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--One
[this and 3 other postings comprise an article from
AEON--A Symposium on Myth and Science,
Vol. III, No. 1, November, 1992]
TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION
By: Ev Cochrane
When all is said and done it may well turn out that Velikovsky's
most enduring claim to fame will be his singular contribution to
comparative mythology; specifically, the thesis that many ancient
myths commemorate spectacular cataclysms associated with the various
planets. This is truly an original thesis, with little if any
precedent in the writings of previous scholars.[Fn.1]
As is the case with any truly seminal work, "Worlds in Collision"
raises as many questions as it answers. Indeed, questions inspired
by Velikovsky's work have since launched hundreds of studies, more
than one of which portends a revolution in our understanding of
ancient mythology. Why is it that the planet Saturn was reckoned the
first king by peoples around the world, and why is it that the
Golden Age associated with that planet- king is recalled with
nostalgic veneration? Why was that same planet called by the name of
the Sun? Such questions formed the backdrop of David Talbott's "The
Saturn Myth," itself a landmark contribution to comparative
mythology.[Fn.2]
One could propose equally provocative questions about the other
planets. Why is it that the planet Mars was represented as a warrior
equipped with sword and/or club by peoples the world over? Why was
the red planet consistently associated with images of the World
Pillar, the latter object being envisaged as the upholder of the
ancient heavens?[Fn.3]
Why were the greatest of ancient goddesses--Inanna, Ishtar, Astarte,
Isis, Anat, Aphrodite, etc.--invoked by the epithet Queen of Heaven
and specifically identified with the planet Venus?[Fn.4] Why were
those same goddesses associated with a destructive epiphany said to
have threatened the very foundations of heaven and earth?[Fn.5] Only
Velikovsky, among the hundreds of scholars who have explored these
traditions, dared to ask the question: Is it possible to explain the
myth of the goddess from the behaviour of the planet?
Close upon the heels of each of these questions follows a host of
others, equally inexplicable from the conventional perspective which
imagines the planets to have varied little in their orbits and
appearances over the course of the past billion years.
A YOUTHFUL SCIENCE
Before proceeding to our discussion of Velikovsky's particular
theory it may prove illuminating to view it from the perspective
provided by the history in the field. The scientific roots of
comparative mythology can be traced back to the 17th century, when
the likes of Samuel Bochart, Bernard de Fontanelle, and Sir William
Jones were composing their works.[Fn.6] These scholars documented
the striking similarities which exist amongst the mythologies of the
world's various cultures. It was in the latter part of the
nineteenth century, however, that real progress was made towards
developing a science of mythology, with numerous attempts being made
to reduce the phantasmagoria of the world's mythology to a common
denominator, frequently a nature-allegory of some sort.[Fn.7] Famous
examples include Muller's sun-god, Kuhn's storm-god, and Mannhardt's
fertility- daemon.
In the twentieth century these ideas fell out of fashion, to be
replaced by the grand interpretations of myth inspired by such
figures as Frazer and Freud. Frazer, like other prominent members of
what came to be known as the Cambridge school (Harrison, Cook,
Murray, Cornford), sought to explain the content of myth by
reference to archaic ritual. According to this view, myth was to be
interpreted as the spoken or written correlate of things done in
ritual. The myth of Osiris' death and dismemberment, for example,
was interpreted as providing the rationale for an Egyptian
harvest-ritual commemorating the annual death of the
vegetation-spirit.[Fn8.]
Although Freud wrote little on myth himself--"Moses and Monotheism"
being perhaps his deepest foray into the area--his psychoanalytic
writings had a profound influence upon the ideas of other scholars
such as Jung, Roheim, and Rank, each of whom devoted extensive works
to uncovering the psychological determinants of myth. The writings
of Jung and Rank, in turn, exerted a formative influence upon
subsequent scholars such as Campbell and Kerenyi, whose works have
done a great deal to bring the subject of mythology to the forefront
of public consciousness.
Alas, the schemes of Frazer and Freud were fated to be replaced as
well, and in recent years the theories associated with the names of
Dumezil, Levi-Strauss, and Eliade have dominated the scene of
comparative mythology. The first two scholars were heavily
influenced by the pioneering efforts of the sociologist Durkheim,
who sought to establish a correlation between the central themes of
myth and underlying cultural patterns.[Fn.9] Dumezil, for example,
looked to the tripartite structure of ancient Indo-European society
for the origin of particular patterns of myth. According to this
view, the behaviour and functions of the warrior-class that
distinguished ancient Indo- European societies accounts for the
fascinating mythology associated with heroes of the warrior-type
(Heracles, Indra, Cuchulainn, etc.).[Fn.10]
Levi-Strauss, on the other hand, looked to the structure and
function of the human brain to explain the origin of societal
patterns together with their attendant mythological motives.[Fn.11]
The myth of Oedipus, according to this view, owes little to
forbidden psychological urges. Rather it reflects the universal
tendency of human beings to think in terms of binary operations,
such as black/white, good/evil, heaven/hell, etc., the function of
myth being to provide a logical form of mediation between apparent
or real contradictions.[Fn.12]
Viewed from this brief historical perspective, Velikovsky's thesis
can be seen as forming a logical variation upon the nature-allegory
school of comparative mythology. Like that school, and in stark
contrast to that which grew up around the ideas of Levi-Strauss,
Velikovsky sought to provide an objective historical basis for the
central themes of ancient myth, the principal difference being that
he substitutes the planets for the sun (or some other meteorological
phenomenon) as the primary referent of myth.
ON PLANETS AND MYTH
Historically, the planets have been virtually ignored by comparative
mythologists. A notable exception to this statement is the
monumental treatise by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von
Dechend--"Hamlet's Mill." Originally published in 1969, and promoted
by the authors as a "first reconnaissance of a realm well-nigh
unexplored and uncharted," Hamlet's Mill documented the surprising
prominence of the planets in ancient myths the world over:
The real actors on the stage of the universe are very few, if their
adventures are many. The most "ancient treasure"--in Aristotle's
word--that was left to us by our predecessors of the High and
Far-Off Times was the idea that the gods are really stars, and that
there are no other actors. The forces reside in the starry heavens,
and all the stories, characters and adventures narrated by mythology
concentrate on the active powers among the stars, who are the
planets.[Fn.13]
Hamlet's Mill warrants mention here not only because it represents a
significant contribution to scholarship, but because it provides
compelling evidence in support of more than one of Velikovsky's
controversial theses; this despite the fact that the authors arrived
at their conclusions independently of Velikovsky and would no doubt
be horrified at the prospect of seeing their researches mentioned in
the same breath as those of the author of "Worlds in Collision."
Regarding the planet Saturn, for example, de Santillana and von
Dechend found that it figured prominently in myths of World-ending
cataclysm, Phaethon's fall and the Deluge being among them. This
finding recalls Velikovsky's understanding of Saturn's recent
history--deduced from ancient myth--whereby it experienced a
nova-like flare-up and inundated the surrounding cosmos with fire
and flood.[Fn.14]
Unlike Velikovsky, however, de Santillana and von Dechend were
hamstrung by a conservative approach to astrophysics and this, in my
opinion, prevented them from entertaining the possibility that
ancient myths recounting cataclysms involving the respective planets
were indeed based upon cataclysmic events. Confronted with Plato's
clear statement that Phaethon's fateful ride had reference to a
great cataclysm caused by a deviation amongst the heavenly bodies,
de Santillana and von Dechend nevertheless object: "The Pythagoreans
were neither idle storytellers, not were they even mildly interested
in unusual sensational `catastrophes' caused by meteors, and the
like."[Fn.15] Here the authors of Hamlet's Mill failed to heed their
own advice: "The only thing to do is proceed inductively, step by
step, avoiding preconceptions and letting the argument lead toward
its own conclusions."[Fn16]
Upon discovering the intimate association of Saturn with the Pole,
de Santillana and von Dechend failed to ask the obvious question
whether Saturn has always travelled on its present orbit? And when
confronted with unequivocal testimony from the Gilgamesh Epic that
the ancient sun-god rose and set over the same mountain (confirmed
by traditions throughout the ancient world), de Santillana and von
Dechend once again turned a deaf ear: "The sun is not in the habit
of rising on the same spot every day, and it needs no profound
astronomical knowledge to become aware of this fact."[Fn.17]
How, then, did the authors of Hamlet's Mill explain their findings?
Here the authors credited the ancients with a sophisticated
understanding of astronomical principles, particularly so the
precession of the equinoxes, supposedly discovered by Hipparchus in
127 BCE, but according to de Santillana and von Dechend, already
well-known in the Near East several millenia earlier.[Fn.18] It was
the diffusion of this ancient "science" (by whom or by what means is
not explained) which accounts for the presence of identical mythical
motives around the globe.[Fn.19] Not surprisingly, this hypothesis
has failed to find favour among historians of science, nor, for that
matter, has Hamlet's Mill had any discernible impact upon subsequent
studies of ancient myth.[Fn.20]
ARCHAEOASTRONOMY
In recent years interest in traditions surrounding the planets has
surged due to the emergence of archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy
as serious fields of research.[Fn.21] Scholars in these respective
fields comb the architectural structures, sacred writings, and
iconography of ancient cultures in both the New World and Old for
some reference to celestial goings-on. Here, too, more than one of
these researchers has stumbled across evidence supportive of
Velikovsky's general thesis of planetary catastrophism, although the
far-reaching ramifications of such discordant data are typically
(mis)interpreted in a more conventional manner. For example, one
leading scholar--Anthony Aveni--has called attention to the
remarkable "coincidence" that both Maya and Babylonian astronomers
credited Venus with a 90 day period of invisibility at superior
conjunction despite the fact the true period is closer to 50
days.[Fn.22] How this could be Aveni offers nary a clue.
Thus there are clear signs that planets will soon be receiving their
just due as objective referents of ancient myth. Most significant,
perhaps, is the fact that even in the works of such scholars as
Levi-Strauss--whose interpretation of myth is diametrically opposed
to that of Velikovsky--there can be found concessions that planetary
bodies formed a prominent factor in the origin of ancient myths:
"Max Muller and his school must be given credit for having
discovered, and to some extent deciphered, the astronomical code so
often used by the myths."[Fn.23]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--Two
[this and 3 other postings comprise an article from
AEON--A Symposium on Myth and Science,
Vol. III, No. 1, November, 1992]
TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION
By: Ev Cochrane
VELIKOVSKY AND ATHENA
If, then, Velikovsky's primary contribution to a science of
comparative mythology is the emphasis upon planets, the question
arises as to the evidentiary basis of this claim and its
ramifications for a science of mythology? Here we will briefly
discuss Velikovsky's analysis of the myth of Athena--arguably the
best example of his method.
If one were to judge solely by its prominence in Worlds in
Collision, one would have to acknowledge that the myth of Athena's
birth forms the cornerstone of Velikovsky's approach to ancient
mythology. That said, it is puzzling to find that there has been
virtually no discussion of this myth or of the theoretical
methodology which inspired Velikovsky's thesis of the recent birth
of the planet Venus, one of the most sensational and heavily
discussed claims of Worlds in Collision. Inasmuch as Velikovsky
offered a revolution in our understanding of ancient
mythology--indeed of ancient history in general--one would have
thought that a close scrutiny of his initial premises would have
been in order to see whether such a revolution was truly in order.
Rather than a close scrutiny, however, Velikovsky's thesis has
generally met with unquestioning acceptance amongst his followers,
and with almost complete silence by his critics.[Fn.24]
The mythology of Athena, Velikovsky maintained, commemorated
spectacular events involving the planet Venus--or, to be more
specific, the protoplanet Venus whilst undergoing a comet-like
phase. And, in fact, the oldest extant account of Athena's epiphany
as a war-goddess, that found in the Iliad, presents the goddess as a
comet-like body shooting across the heavens: "Like a blazing star
which the lord of heaven shoots forth, bright and scattering sparks
all around, to be a portent for sailors or for some great army of
men, so Pallas Athena shot down to earth and leapt into the
throng."[Fn.25]
This passage, of course, has long been the subject of scholarly
debate and was duly emphasized by Velikovsky. Unbeknownst to
Velikovsky, however, was the fact that other traditions surrounding
Athena present a similar picture of the goddess.[Fn.26] Athena's
intimate association with the Palladium (Palladium is the diminutive
of Pallas), for example, has long drawn the attention of scholars,
the latter object being described as a meteor-like object which fell
(or was thrown) from heaven.[Fn.27] This tradition brings to mind
Athena's intimate relation to (and probable identification with)
Zeus' thunderbolt--the latter object being described as a fiery,
serpentine-formed body thrown from heaven. Such traditions suggest
that Homer's choice of imagery with regards to the goddess'
spectacular epiphany was truly inspired.
Although some early mythographers had sought to identify Athena with
the Moon, Velikovsky was the first to see an association between
that goddess and the planet Venus. In support of this thesis,
Velikovsky compared the mythology of Athena with that of surrounding
other goddesses whose identification with Venus was beyond doubt
(e.g., Inanna, Ishtar, Astarte, etc.). Early Sumerian texts, for
example, described Inanna as flying about the skies in
serpentine-form and raining down destruction.[Fn.28]
In a recent paper devoted to the mythology of Athena I was able to
show that Athena's epiphany as a war-like goddess conforms to a
universal pattern, having close parallels in the traditions
surrounding other great goddesses--Inanna, Hathor, Anat, and Kali
among others.[Fn.29] Moreover, our analysis of the mythical imagery
surrounding these goddesses confirmed two points: (1) each of the
goddesses is explicitly described as a celestial body, identifiable
with the planet Venus; and (2) the imagery surrounding each goddess
is consistent with that universally associated with comets (e.g.,
long, dishevelled hair; serpentine form; identification with a
torch; association with eclipses of the sun; etc.).
It is readily apparent, therefore, that Velikovsky's hypothesis is
not as far-fetched as it might appear at first sight. Indeed, as
David Talbott and I have attempted to document in a series of
essays, the truth of the matter is that the evidence in favour of
Venus' comet-like past is far more pervasive than Velikovsky ever
imagined.[Fn.30] In addition to the evidence gathered from
comparative mythology one might point to the common terminology
shared by comets and Venus. Certainly it is significant to find that
the oldest terms employed to describe comets--e.g., "hair- star",
"torch-star", "serpent-star", "smoking-star", "bearded- star",
etc.--were likewise ascribed to the planet Venus, alone among the
planets.[Fn.31] Upon what hypothesis other than Velikovsky's is it
possible to account for this convergence of language?
Equally compelling is the fact that the ancient mythology
surrounding the planet Venus overlaps to a remarkable extent with
that associated with comets. It is well-known, for example, that
from time immemorial comets were associated with such motives as the
end of the world, eclipses of the sun, the death of great kings,
etc.[Fn.32] An especially intriguing motive identifies comets with
the departing souls of great kings.[Fn.33] The imagery attending the
death of Caesar is perhaps the most famous example of this ancient
and widespread motive, recalled in the famous words of Shakespeare
as follows: "When beggars die there are no comets seen; the Heavens
themselves blaze forth the death of princes."
Hitherto unnoticed, however, is the fact that the very same imagery
was associated with the planet Venus, in the Old World as well as
the New![Fn.34] One of the most pivotal events in the sacred history
of ancient Mexico, for example, recalled the cataclysmic occasion
upon which the fiery soul of the ancient sun-god (Quetzalcoatl)
departed and became the planet Venus! The Mesoamerican scholar Nigel
Davies, upon acknowledging that this was the original significance
of the myth of Quetzalcoatl's death and transfiguration,
nevertheless objected that such an interpretation is hardly to be
entertained: "At some point in the account, history ends and legend
begins, unless one is really to believe that the planet Venus was
actually formed from his body and had not previously existed!"[Fn.35]
Here it may well be asked: Granted that Velikovsky may have been
right with regards to the presence of cometary imagery in the cult
of Athena, of what significance is this finding for modern science,
gleaned as it is from the most obscure niches of Greek mythology? It
is the far-reaching ramifications of this finding for ancient
history and astronomy, of course, which have long intrigued
Velikovsky's admirers and incensed his detractors. Stated simply: If
the spectacle of Venus as a comet-like body marauding about the
heavens was once witnessed by ancient man the world over, our entire
conception of the recent history of the solar system--not to mention
celestial mechanics and a host of other sciences--is fated to be
turned upside down.
VELIKOVSKY'S METHODOLOGY
If, as it would appear, Velikovsky's initial foray into comparative
mythology produced some brilliant insights and offered a promising
key to understanding the ancient myths, to what extent is it
possible to speak of "Worlds in Collision" as providing a model for
a science of mythology? Here, as is so often the case in
Velikovsky's writings, it would appear that brilliant insights do
not necessarily reflect a systematic methodology nor a logical
progression of ideas. Rather, traditions from throughout the ancient
world are marshalled forth at length with only minimal analysis or
discussion of the historical issues involved (e.g., is it possible
to speak of Sumerian accounts of the dragon-combat as reflecting
historical events of the mid-second millenium BCE?). Why he chose
one tradition over another conflicting tradition typically remains a
mystery. At his best, Velikovsky deduces the right explanation upon
a modicum of evidence, not from any detailed examination of the
sources. Prominent examples here include his insights into the
origins of the imagery surrounding the dragon and witch. Elsewhere
Velikovsky combs the relevant sources and uncovers nary a credible
idea; e.g., his discussion of the Oedipus myth.[Fn.36]
Nor, for that matter, is Velikovsky's analysis of the traditions
surrounding Athena without its flaws. Consider his discussion of
Athena's epithet Tritogenia, which Velikovsky would interpret as
reflecting the planet-goddess' destructive influence upon a lake
(named Triton) on the African coast shortly after her "birth." In
this interpretation Velikovsky was following a late, patently
aetiological interpretation of Augustine.[Fn.37] The fact that lakes
with this name could be found wherever prominent cults of Athena
were localized went unnoticed, with negative implications for
Velikovsky's interpretation of the goddess' epithet.[Fn.38]
The pitfalls inherent in Velikovsky's lack of a systematic
methodology are best illustrated, perhaps, by the tension in his
work between myth as astronomical allegory and as literal history,
particularly as it applies to his discussion of the Exodus. It was
Velikovsky's interpretation of the unusual circumstances surrounding
the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt, of course, which formed the
theoretical basis for both "Worlds in Collision" and "Ages in
Chaos." Yet here, too, this pivotal event has been virtually ignored
by subsequent scholars influenced by Velikovsky, despite the fact
that his interpretation of the Exodus provided the fulcrum for his
radical reconstruction of ancient history.[Fn.39]
The circumstances which inspired Velikovsky to abandon his medical
practice and emigrate to America whereupon he would launch his
extensive researches ultimately culminating in "Worlds in Collision"
are well-known and need not be rehashed here. By his own admission,
Velikovsky was so disturbed by the appearance of Freud's "Moses and
Monotheism"--the central thesis of which maintained that Moses was
an Egyptian whose monotheistic religion was inspired by the
religious reforms of the heretical king Akhnaton--that he felt
compelled to write a book in order to set the record straight about
the priority of Moses.[Fn.40] It was while researching this book
that Velikovsky arrived upon the idea that a great cataclysm
provided the backdrop for the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt, and for the
next ten years he was to explore the ramifications of this hypothesis.
Fundamental to Velikovsky's understanding of ancient myth, as we
have observed, is the belief that it encodes historical events,
albeit on occasion in a figurative and symbolic manner. In some
notable instances, as in the myth of Athena's birth or the Deluge,
myth relates spectacular events involving the respective planets.
Elsewhere, however, Velikovsky suggested that myth would be found to
record biographical events from recent history. The Greek myth of
Oedipus, according to Velikovsky's analysis, refers in large part to
court intrigue in the Egyptian Thebes of Akhnaton.[Fn.41]
An issue never addressed by Velikovsky is the following: Why do some
myths, such as that of Athena's birth from the head of Zeus,
commemorate the spectacular behaviour of planets, while others, such
as that of Oedipus, commemorate the extraordinary deeds of human
beings? Velikovsky's dualistic approach to ancient mythology,
needless to say, raises a host of questions regarding his
methodology, not the least of which is by what criteria does one
distinguish between the two types of myth?
In order to adequately appreciate the ramifications of this apparent
contradiction in Velikovsky's writings for his historical
reconstruction--as well as for a science of mythology--it is
necessary to attempt a definition of myth, however tentative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--Three [this and 3 other postings comprise an
article from AEON--A Symposium on Myth and Science, Vol. III, No. 1,
November, 1992]
TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION
By: Ev Cochrane
ON MYTH AND SACRED HISTORY
Countless definitions of myth have been offered, needless to say,
none wholly satisfactory. For our purposes here we would endorse the
opinion of Eliade, who defines myth as sacred traditions about the
origin of the world:
Myth narrates a sacred history; it relates an event that took place
in primordial Time, the fabled time of the `beginnings.' In other
words, myth tells how, through the deeds of Supernatural Beings, a
reality came into existence, be it the whole of reality, the Cosmos,
or only a fragment of reality--an island, a species of plant, a
particular kind of human behaviour, an institution.[Fn.42]
In his voluminous writings on myth, religion, and related subjects,
Eliade has argued that myth is typically a sacred story related
about primordial events which are believed to have happened at the
dawn of time, involving such themes as the creation of the world,
the flood, wars of the gods, the dragon- combat, the origin of
culture, etc. Mythological themes formed the focal point of early
culture and religious ritual, countless aspects of daily life being
designed to commemorate these sacred events through imitation,
mimicry, and simulation. Ancient cities and temples, to take but one
example, were designed and oriented in accordance with the sacred
original:
All the Indian royal cities, even the modern ones, are built after
the mythical model of the celestial city where, in the age of gold,
the Universal Sovereign dwelt. And, like the latter, the king
attempts to revive the age of gold, to make a perfect reign a
present reality.[Fn.43]
What was true for ancient architecture was also true of ancient law,
sacrificial rites, art, sports, war, etc. In each case the local
custom was expressly patterned after the divine prototype, revealed
in the distant past.
A recurring theme in Eliade's writings is the intimate relationship
between myth and history. Not only does profane history reveal
numerous attempts to commemorate the sacred events of myth (wars of
conquest, for example), but on occasion myth can be found to
masquerade as history. Indeed, as numerous scholars have come to
recognize, it is not always easy to distinguish between cosmological
myth per se and sacred history as found in many cultures. In early
Rome, for example, Dumezil found that although much of its ancient
mythology had been lost, it resurfaced as "history" in the accounts
of Roman historians. The famous account of Rome's first war and the
taking of the Sabine women is a case in point.[Fn.44]
Countless other examples could be offered in support of Dumezil's
hypothesis. The greatest god of ancient Egypt--Osiris- -can be found
masquerading as a mortal king in "histories" of the Hellenistic
period. Quetzalcoatl, the greatest god of Mesoamerica, was
represented in similar fashion by Aztec chroniclers. Indeed, the
"historization" of great gods as early "kings' and "heroes" is so
commonplace in ancient traditions that one would be justified in
speaking of a rule governing the composition of tribal histories.
To return to Velikovsky's historical reconstruction: How, then are
we to interpret the Hebrew tradition of the Exodus? As
myth--defined, it will be remembered, as sacred traditions
concerning the origin of the gods and world--or as an objective
history of real people and events? If we approach the Old Testament
account of the Exodus from the standpoint of comparative mythology
it is evident that it contains more than a trace of mythical
elements which, were it not that these particular traditions are so
dear to us, we would otherwise recognize as being typical of
cosmogonic myth. It is well-known, for example, that numerous
peoples traced their origins to a great god/hero who personally led
them upon an extended migration to their ultimate homeland. Thus the
earliest settlers of Italy were said to have been led there by Mars;
the Norse remembered a similar migration led by Odin; while the
ancient Aztecs were said to have followed Huitzilopochtli to Mexico
City.[Fn.45] While it was commonplace in the last century to
interpret such accounts in a Euhemerist fashion--e.g., as actual
migrations led by men of flesh and blood--to do so today seems
hopelessly naive.
A mythical aura surrounds other aspects of the Exodus-account as
well. The parting of the Red Sea, as several scholars have
recognized, is strangely reminiscent of the Symplegades-
motive.[Fn.46] Here, it will be remembered, the hero barely succeeds
in passing through some treacherous feature of the natural landscape
such as clashing rocks, while his evil pursuer is caught and
killed.[Fn.47]
The slaying of the Pharaoh, similarly, given his explicit
identification with the dragon Rahab in Rabbinic sources, appears to
bear more than a trace of the imagery associated with the
dragon-combat. The latter theme, alluded to in numerous passages in
the Old Testament, refers to the primeval occasion in which the
demon of chaos was vanquished by Yahweh himself (or with the aid of
a supernatural warrior-hero).[Fn.48] The episode of the wandering in
the wilderness also has numerous parallels in the myths of other
lands, a period of wandering frequently distinguishing the events
associated with the Creation prior to the Creator finding a suitable
spot to settle. The darkness said to have accompanied the period of
the Israelite's wandering, similarly, would appear to relate to the
darkness which is typically said to have preceded Creation, such
darkness signifying a time of chaos.
The pillar of fire, said to have led the Israelites during their
nocturnal peregrinations in the desert, has long troubled all but
the most pious of scholars: "Of all the mysterious phenomena which
accompanied the Exodus, this mysterious Pillar seems the first to
demand explanation."[Fn.49] The account in Exodus 13, so difficult
to reconcile with what we know about the facts of "history," is in
perfect accord with the facts of comparative mythology, where the
World Pillar forms a universal motive.[Fn.50] Indeed, in many
traditions the World Pillar is expressly described as a pillar of
fire.[Fn.51]
In short, while this is not the place to argue the probable origin
of the Exodus traditions in early Hebrew cosmological myth, enough
has been said, perhaps, to at least suggest this possibility. And
such a conclusion, should it be confirmed by future research, would
significantly undermine the rationale behind Velikovsky's attempted
historical reconstruction.
Velikovsky's handling of the Exodus material illustrates what would
appear to be a glaring flaw in his approach to the ancient sources.
For want of a better term, I would note that Velikovsky tended to
favour a literal interpretation of the ancient traditions. If the
texts say the sea parted allowing for the escape of the Israelites,
Velikovsky seeks a meteorological explanation of such an event. If
the texts say that the Israelites wandered forty years in darkness
in the wilderness, Velikovsky imagines the sun being obscured for a
period approximating four decades. If the texts say that manna
rained from the heavens, Velikovsky envisages carbohydrates falling
from the skies and seeks to provide a physical explanation for such
an occurrence.[Fn.52]
Although Velikovsky's interpretations here are within the realm of
possibility, he offered no arguments which would preclude other,
less exotic, explanations of such traditions. A prolonged eclipse of
the sun, for example, such as that described in Exodus, would
naturally tend to disrupt the accurate keeping of time, and thus the
tradition of a 40 year period of darkness might simply be a
conventional way of saying "a significant period of time" (40 years,
after all, is a suspiciously common span in ancient texts).
Certainly it would seem to be a hazardous enterprise to make of such
traditions a foundation block in a radical reconstruction of ancient
history.
In retrospect, Velikovsky's analysis of the Exodus-traditions seems
naive, especially so inasmuch as it comes from a distinguished
psychoanalyst who made his living analyzing dreams, where the
phenomena of displacement, distortion, and condensation feature
prominently. Indeed, as one peruses the wealth of mythological
material in Velikovsky's works one is amazed at the relative dearth
of analysis offered by him. In most cases the myths are simply
accepted at face value, as literal records of ancient experience.
Had Velikovsky applied his formidable analytic tools to the mythical
elements co- mingled with the Exodus account, he would have found, I
suspect, that the flight of the Israelites, the fall of the Pharaoh,
the prolonged darkness, the time of wandering, and the pillar of
fire are all susceptible of alternative explanation, one involving
less strain on credulity.
CONCLUSION
Granted that our analysis has some merit, the question arises as to
how and why Velikovsky went wrong? I, for one, would suggest that
Velikovsky needlessly compromised his magnificent insight that myth
commemorates the spectacular behaviour of planets in an attempt to
proffer a scientific explanation to accommodate the sacred history
of the Jewish people. Had Velikovsky pursued a more systematic
approach in his mythological exegesis, he would have discovered, I
would suggest, that the sacred history of the Jews is best
understood by comparison with that of other peoples, and that such a
comparison reveals that history to be less a record of human
behaviour than an allegorical account of planetary goings-on, albeit
one that has been suppressed and "historicized."
Alas, if Velikovsky's historical reconstruction rests uneasily upon
the historical/mythological record, such is not the case with his
thesis of planetary catastrophism, which is confirmed again and
again by the ancient sources. Indeed, it is my opinion that
Velikovsky's theory offers the best hope for a resolution of the
most fundamental questions facing comparative mythologists. For the
truth of the matter is that neither Eliade nor any other scholar has
offered a satisfactory explanation of the content of myth. A glaring
weakness in Eliade's interpretation of myth, for example, is the
inability to account for the universal belief in a former Golden Age
ruled over by a primeval king under whom all manner of customs were
revealed. Yet as Velikovsky suggested--followed by David Talbott,
Dwardu Cardona, and myself--such traditions are readily understood
if once upon a time the planet Saturn ruled the visible heavens
during an unprecedented period of prosperity and cultural
advancement.[Fn.53] A Golden Age at the dawn of time was recalled as
the well-spring of civilization and deemed to be the gift of Saturn
for the simple reason that spectacular events associated with the
period of that planet's dominance provided the "divine" inspiration
for the origin and development of cities, laws, religious rites,
systems of writing, etc. Having been, as it were, originally
"revealed" by God on high, these patterns of behaviour were not only
held to be sacred, they remained canonical for all time. To quote
Eliade: "This `sacred history'--mythology--is exemplary,
paradigmatic: not only does it relate how things came to be; it also
lays the foundations for all human behaviour and all social and
cultural institutions."[Fn.54]
No doubt we are still a long way from satisfactorily decoding the
astronomical events encoded in ancient myth. Of this much, however,
I feel confident: Velikovsky's discovery of the prominent role
played by Saturn and the other planets in ancient thought not only
ensures his place amongst the truly important figures in the history
of science, it provides the all-important theoretical foundation for
a science of mythology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES TO: TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION
By: Ev Cochrane
1. How Velikovsky first came to entertain such a novel idea as
planetary catastrophism is something of a mystery. Jan Sammer,
Velikovsky's personal secretary during the later years of his
life, has expressed the opinion that the decisive event was
most likely Velikovsky's discovery in an obscure work of
Brasseur de Bourbourg of a quote from Varro, in which it was
said that the planet Venus once changed its appearance and
course in the sky. This finding, coming as it did during the
inspired period associated with his attempt to deduce the
nature of the cataclysmic circumstances surrounding the
Exodus, led Velikovsky to consider the possibility that a
cataclysm involving the planet Venus was behind that event.
For Velikovsky's account of these discoveries, see Stargazers
and Gravediggers (New York, 1983), pp. 38-42.
2. Talbott has acknowledged that his researches were directly
inspired by Velikovsky's intriguing ideas regarding Saturn's
cataclysmic past.
3. E. Cochrane, "The Spring of Ares," KRONOS XI:3 (1986), pp.
15-22; E. Cochrane, "Indra: A Case Study in Comparative
Mythology," AEON II:4 (1991), pp. 61-66; D. Talbott, "Mother
Goddess and Warrior Hero," AEON I:5 (1988), pp. 53-65.
4. W Heimpel, "A Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities," Syro-
Mesopotamian Studies 4:3 (December 1982), pp. 9-22.
5. E. Cochrane, "The Birth of Athena," AEON II:3 (1990), pp. 10-18.
6. For a survey of early scholarship in the field, see B. Feldman
& R. Richardson, The Rise of Modern Mythology 1680-1860
(Bloomington, 1972).
7. See the discussion in J. Puhvel, Comparative Mythology
(London, 1989), pp. 13-20.
8. J. Frazer, The Golden Bough Vol. 4: Adonis, Attis, Osiris (New
York, 1961), pp. 97-114.
9. Lyttleton hold the fundamental Durkheimian principle to be as
follows: "That the persons, places, events, and situations
that received expression in myths are inevitably
representations of important social and cultural realities."
See C. Lyttleton, The New Comparative Mythology (Berkeley,
1973), p. 4.
10. G. Dumezil, The Destiny of the Warrior (Chicago, 1970). For a
survey of Dumezil's extensive writings see C. Lyttleton, The
New Comparative Mythology (Berkeley, 1973).
11. "[Myths] teach us a great deal about the societies from which
they originate, they help us lay bare their inner workings and
clarify the raison d'etre of beliefs, customs ... and most
importantly, they make it possible to discover operational
modes of the human mind, which have remained so constant over
the centuries, and are so widespread ... that we can assume
them to be fundamental and can seek to find them in other
societies and in other areas of mental life, where their
presence is not suspected," Quoted in I. Strenski, Four
Theories of Myth in Twentieth Century History (London, 1987),
p. 132.
12. C. Levi-Strauss, "The Structural Study of Myth," in Myth: A
Symposium, ed. by T. Sebeok (London, 1965), pp. 81-106.
13. G. de Santillana and H. von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill (Boston,
1977), p. 177.
14. I. Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia (New York, 1982), pp. 99- 102.
15. G. de Santillana and H. von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill (Boston,
1977), p. 252-253.
16. Ibid., p. 49.
17. Ibid., p. 293. The authors' discussion of the World Tree
provides a perfect example of their tendency to "correct" the
ancient testimony in order to conform with the tenets of
astronomy. Upon discovering countless examples of Trees said
to have spanned heaven, supporting or obscuring the Sun, the
authors remark of the Indian Pillar (Skambha): "Skambha ...
was the World Tree consisting mostly of celestial coordinates,
a kind of wildly imaginative armillary sphere." Ibid., p. 269.
18. Ibid., p. 66-67.
19. Ibid., p. 3.
20. An exception to this statement is the recent study offered by
J. Worthen, The Replacement Myth (Tucson, 1991), which betrays
more than a trace of the influence of Hamlet's Mill.
21. See, for example, the following books: A. Aveni, ed., Native
American Astronomy (Ft. Worth, 1977); idem., Archaeoastronomy
in the New World (Cambridge, 1982); World Archaeoastronomy
(Cambridge, 1989); J. Carlson, Astronomy and Ceremonny in the
Prehistoric Southwest (1987); idem., "America's Ancient
Skywatchers," National Geographic 177:3 (March 1990), pp. 76-
107; R. Williamson, Archaeoastronomy in the Americas (Los
Altos, 1981); idem., Living the Sky (Boston, 1984); E.C.
Krupp, ed., Archaeoastronomy and the Roots of Science
(Boulder, 1984). Notice also the appearance of such journals
as Archaeoastronomy, published by The Center for
Archaeoastronomy (1978 to present), and Archaeoastronomy,
Supplement to the Journal for the History of Astronomy (1979
to present).
22. A. Aveni, Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico (Austin, 1981), pp.
187, 327.
23. C. Levi-Strauss, The Naked Man (New York, 1981), pp. 45-46,
71, 235.
24. An exception is offered by D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn,"
KRONOS VII:1 (1981), pp. 56-58.
25. Iliad 4:73-79. While this passage has been the subject of
various translations--the above is W. Rouse'e translation, The
Iliad (New York, 1938), p. 49--several distinguished scholars
have pointed to a comet as the source of Homer's imagery. See
the discussion in W. Gundel, "Kometen," RE, op. cit., p. 1145.
See also the discussion of this passage in B. Dietrich,
"Divine Epiphanies in Homer," Numen 30:1 (July, 1983), p. 56
who translates as follows: "Like a comet which the son of
Kronos, crooked in counsel, sends in a shower of sparks as a
shining portent to sailors and the widespread army of
peoples." Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 178, and I. Fuhr, "On
Comets, Comet- like Luminous Apparitions and Meteors," KRONOS
VII:4 (1982), p. 54, likewise compared Athena's descent to a
cometary apparition. It was apparently Dio Cassius 78:30:1 who
first compared Athena's epiphany to a comet.
26. E. Cochrane, "The Birth of Athena," AEON II:3 (1990), pp. 5- 28.
27. See the discussion of Worner, "Palladion," in W. Roscher's
Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und romischen
Mythologie (Hildesheim, 1965), pp. 3448-3449.
28. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1973), pp. 185-186.
29. E. Cochrane, "The Birth of Athena," AEON II:3 (1990), pp. 10-18.
30. D. Talbott & E. Cochrane, "The Origin of Velikovsky's Comet,"
KRONOS X:1 (1984); idem., "On the Nature of Cometary
Symbolism," KRONOS XI:1 (1985); idem., "When Venus was a
Comet," KRONOS XII:1 (1987).
31. E. Cochrane, "On Comets and Kings," AEON II:1 (1989), pp. 53-75.
32. G. Jobe, Dictionary of Mythology, Folklore and Symbols (New
York, 1961), p. 360. See also E. Cochrane, "On Comets and
Kings," AEON II:1 (1989), pp. 53-75.
33. E. Cochrane, op. cit., pp. 56-58.
34. Ibid., pp. 60-64.
35. N. Davies, The Toltecs (Norman, 1977), p. 395.
36. I. Velikovsky, Oedipus and Akhnaton (Garden City, 1960). For a
detailed critique of Velikovsky's interpretation of the
Oedipus myth see E. Cochrane, "Velikovsky and Oedipus," AEON
I:6 (1988), pp. 14-38.
37. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1973), p. 178.
38. Given the prevalence of "Lake Tritons" one would be inclined
to suspect a celestial prototype behind the localized
imitations. Indeed, in a future paper I hope to be able to
establish the origin of this epithet.
39. Indeed, of Velikovsky's reconstruction of the events behind
the Exodus little has been written since the publication of
Worlds in Collision in 1950. A few exceptions to this general
statement include J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest
(Sheffield, 1978); A. de Grazia, God's Fire (Princeton, 1983);
B. Feldman, Passover Marvels (Philadelphia, 1978); and E.
Cochrane, "In Search of Moses," an article distributed at the
annual Canadian Symposium for Interdisciplinary Studies in
September of 1983. Velikovsky's critics, of course, such as
Forrest and Stiebing, have not overlooked Velikovsky's
handling of the Exodus material. See W. Stiebing, Out of the
Desert (Buffalo, 1989), pp. 113-123. B. Forrest, "Papyrus
Ipuwer and Worlds in Collision," SIS Review 6:4 (1984), pp.
108-111.
40. I. Velikovsky, Stargazers and Gravediggers (New York, 1983),
pp. 27-31.
41. See footnote 36.
42. M. Eliade, Myth and Reality (New York, 1975), p. 6.
43. Idem., Cosmos and History (New York, 1959), p. 9.
44. G. Dumezil, Archaic Roman Religion Vol. 1 (Chicago, 1970), pp.
66-77.
45. On the migration(s) led by Mars, see W. Roscher, "Mars,"
Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und romischen
Mythologie (Hildesheim, 1965), col. 2425-2427; on the
migration led by Huitzilopochtli, see H. Alexander, The
Mythology of All Races: Latin American (New York, 1964), p. 114.
46. A. Coomaraswamy, "Symplegades," in Studies and Essays in the
History of Science and Learning Offered in Homage to George
Sarton (New York, 1947), p. 477.
47. On the Symplegades motive see A. Cook, Zeus Vol. 3:2
(Cambridge, 1940), pp. 975-1015.
48. Velikovsky himself dismisses this view in Worlds in Collision,
op. cit., pp. 94-95. For a valuable discussion of the
dragon-combat in the Old Testament see J. Day, God's Conflict
with the Dragon and Sea (London, 1985), pp. 88-101.
49. W. Pythian-Adams, quoted in Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 95.
50. See here M. Eliade, Myths, Rites, and Symbols (New York, 1975)
pp. 380ff. See also my discussion in "The Spring of Ares,"
KRONOS XI:3 (1986), pp. 15-21.
51. In addition to the pillar of fire in Plato's vision of Er,
witness the following passage from Euripides' Bacchae: "So
spake he [Dionysius], and there came `twixt earth and sky a
pillar of high flame."
52. Other examples of this tendency in Velikovsky's writings
include his interpretation of the Deluge as water emanating
from Saturn and inundating the Earth, whereupon it came to
form the Atlantic Ocean; his expectation that gold would be
found on Jupiter, presumably deduced from the report that
Zeus-Jupiter once rained "gold" on Danae; and his hypothesis
that vegetation proliferated on Earth in the wake of a
nova-like explosion upon Saturn, apparently deduced from the
numerous myths in which new flowers appear in the wake of a
death of a great god or goddess. See I. Velikovsky, Mankind in
Amnesia (New York, 1982), p. 99.
53. I. Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia (New York, 1982), pp. 97-
100. D. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (New York, 1980); idem.,
"Reconstructing the Saturn Myth," AEON I:1 (1988), pp. 5-36;
D. Cardona, "The Road to Saturn," AEON I:1 (1988), pp.
108-129; idem., "Intimations of an Alien Sky," AEON II:5
(1991), pp. 5- 34.
54. M. Eliade, Rites and Symbols of Initiation (New York, 1975),
pp. x-xi.
AEON is a journal of science devoted to the collection and
exploration of archaeo-astronomical traditions and analysis of
common patterns in ancient myths from around the world. Articles and
abstracts build upon the pioneering work of Immanuel Velikovsky,
author of the best selling "Worlds In Collision". Featured topics
include:
Evidence of catastrophic planetary interactions in historic times
Reconstruction of standard archaeological dating systems
Evidence for cataclysmic evolution and extinction
Astral worship in the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, the Veda, and ancient
Babylon and mythological traditions surrounding the planets in general
Astral myths of the American Indians, astral worship in Meso-America
The role of Osiris in Egyptian myth; Thor; the Mother goddess; the
birth of Athena; Oedipus in Compartive Mythology; etc.
Common elements in the myths of Heracles, Indra, and Cuchulainn; in
the myths of Heracles and Gilgamesh and myths of the Deluge from
around the world
Please send all manuscripts and inquiries to:
AEON
2326 Knapp,
Ames, IA, 50014.
email: ev at eai.com
Subscriptions are $40 per year* $55 foreign air mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Cosmology ][ Sumeria ]