From: abeggs@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:52 EST
Subject: VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--Two
Nf-ID: #N:peg:483700076:000:13333
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!abeggs    Jan 11 15:52:00 1993



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.

********************************
See the postings ***VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--One, Three, Fnotes***
for the rest of this article.
********************************
This electronic version of the article was prepared by:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*          ===              Efemeral Research Foundation    *
*       //  |  \\            Exploring the Saturn Myth      *
*     //    |    \\                                         *
*    ||-----o-----||                                        *
*     \\    |    //         Internet:  abeggs@peg.apc.org   *
*    //\ \..|../ /                                          *
*   ||  `../.\..'   AARNet/ACSNet: abeggs@peg.pegasus.oz.au *
*   `=''  /   \                                             *
*        /     \              APC Networks:  peg.abeggs     *
*       /       \                                           *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Newsgroups: alt.pagan