Material on Velikovsky (1)
Various authorsThe 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.