mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
_PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE SATURN THEORY_

The Saturn theory as a whole presents an excellent scenario for the
requirements of the archetypal myth. Close investigations of mythical
universals has led me to propose modification for a number of elements
in the `standard' theory.

_1          no revolving crescent_

David Talbott has postulated the existence of a revolving crescent on
the surface of Saturn, which was due to the effect of the sun's
radiation on the planets Mars, Venus and earth.

The case for a _revolving_ crescent is extraordinarily burdened by the
fact that mythical evidence for this resolution is restricted to a
handful of Old-Egyptian passages only. The observation that a crescent
is pictorially presented in conjunction with the gods is certainly
correct, but this does not necessarily imply the resolution of this
crescent.

In the mythical record, the full moon and the crescentine moon are not
distinguished from each other on a basic level - it seems as if the
two are both allowed to serve as the model for the mythical moon.
Hence the original referent may be a body which shifted from an
orbital to a crescentine form. What we learn about this moon is that
it enveloped the Warrior-Hero, served as the Warrior-Hero's vehicle or
habitat, and was the place whence the Warrior-Hero commenced his
travels. The mythical moon is in all instances a manifestation of the
Mother Goddess, who enacts the same roles as the moon does.

If a revolving crescent distinct from the Mother Goddess is postulated
in the polar configuration, the mythical moon traditions are forced to
be based on either the Mother Goddess or the crescent - and this
bifurcation is false and not inherent with the archetypal myth. The
mythical record presents a unified concept of the moon, which matches
the concept of the Mother Goddess precisely.

I would, therefore, propose the following modification of the theory:

_The mythical moon is a symbolic representation of the Mother Goddess,
who is the planet Venus with her radiation in the Saturn theory. The
Warrior-Hero, who is the planet Mars, was initially locked in the
centre of this moon, but came to be dislodged from his centre and
started to move downward. As this happened, the surface of Mars grew
larger, to the natural effect that the Mother Goddess began to appear
as an inverted crescent on top of the Warrior-Hero._

_2          no (clear) orbital shape of the Father-King_

As the figure of the mythical Father-King is in the Saturn theory
identified as the planet Saturn, it is automatically imagined as a
spheroid form. The only evidence that I can find to confirm the
circular form of the Father-King is, in fact, of a pictorial nature:
it is the outer circle in the image of the encircled dot.

Working from mythology only, we would arrive at a completely different
picture. The Father-King must on structural grounds be imagined as a
dense watery vapour that prevailed in the `cosmos' before the creation
of the world was initiated. This cloud or mist condensed into a
spiralling, serpentine body, which finally congealed into a circular
band around the Mother Goddess and the Warrior-Hero. The most familiar
mythical representation of the image is the serpentine dragon that was
formed from the primeval waters: it started to wind itself round the
Mother Goddess, impregnated her and gave birth to the Warrior-Hero. In
another symbolic structure the band was the swelling cosmic egg. In a
later stage this band was broken and the Axis Mundi was formed from
its materials.

The Father-King should, in sum, not be imagined as an orb right from
the beginning, but as an amorphous cloud, evolving into a spiral and
only finally into a circular band.

_3          no distinction between archetypal gods_

Adherents of the Saturn theory have from the beginning struggled with
questions regarding the archetypal identity of the gods. As the gods
were identified with planets in the theory, every god must be
identified with either one of the planets involved in the scenario.
This mode of thinking was directly inherited from Immanuel Velikovsky.

To me the attempt to identify gods with either Mars or Saturn is
distracting and misleading. The delineation of a divine personality
should be seen as a feature _superimposed on_ the archetypal myth,
rather than inherent with the archetypal myth. The celestial bodies
involved in the polar configuration behaved as an organic whole and
were often understood as representing just one being. The myth of
decapitation is the account of Mars' separation from Saturn. The myth
of emasculation or the ripping of the god's heart too represent this
event. If the head, the heart, the phallus is identified with Mars and
the body with Saturn, it is clear that the decapitated god is Mars
rather than Saturn - as it is normally the head which is identified as
the `owner' of the body. In other sets of symbolism the mutilated god
would be identified with the body rather than the missing organ. It is
precisely the close connection between the two male gods which
accounts for their constant confusion in the mythical record. And it
is a side-effect of the application of symbols which triggered a
distinction between the two facets of the one.

The prime conclusion, the import of which is truly revolutionary, is
that the _names_ of the gods are confused only, not the myths
themselves. Gods with the same name appear variously in `Saturnian'
roles and in `Martian' roles. In many traditions the Hero is the blind
god, in other traditions he is `the one who took the eye away',
originally `who represented the moving eye'. In my essay on the dragon
combat I have shown in detail that the Hero and his mythical opponent
- the dragon, the father, the king - are similar in all respects: they
appear in the same forms and are held responsible for the same crimes.
At the same time it was seen that the underlying archetypal narrative
was uniform. The sole conclusion is that a single narrative of a
visual nature was in various ways interpreted, and the definition of
the gods' identities was part of the process of interpretation.

On a surface level we might say that there are no `Saturnian' gods and
`Martian' gods. All gods refer to the same former conjunction of
planets. Gods have `Saturnian' and `Martian' features, however, the
definiton of which depends on the nature of the symbolism. If the god
is described as _throwing_ the thunderbolt, the image is coloured in a
Saturnian interpretation: the thunderbolt is Mars, the thrower of the
thunderbolt is Saturn. If the god is described as _descending in_ the
thunder, however, an equally widespread tradition, the focus is on the
descending deity, who is Mars. The same god may variously be quoted as
a thrower of the lightning or a being hiding in the lightning, however
- and that is the crucial point.

In all instances Mars is the active, representative side of Saturn:
his head, his spirit, his word, his seed, his will. This implies
directly that no deity central in any rite nor any deity central in
any myth can be Saturn: for as soon as Saturn comes in the focus it is
Mars. Saturn can by definition only appear in those roles in which he
is a redundant opponent of Mars. The notion is mind-boggling at first,
but inevitable.

I would, in short, propose to put an end to endless debates concerning
the `Martian' or `Saturnian' nature of gods. From the viewpoint of the
mythical record such a distinction makes hardly any sense. The
question which planets are responsible for the polar configuration is
entirely separate from this. The point of the matter is, given a
former conjunction of Saturn and Mars, that Mars could be identified
as Saturn and Saturn as Mars after the conjunction had ceased to
exist, just as the skin of an animal represents the animal as much as
its heart does.

This assessment is fully in line with the observation of an apparent
`reversal of roles' that frequently occurs in myth:

_                In myth, if anywhere, we might suppose that we should
find black and white, good and evil, clearly distinguished, especially
if a myth's central theme is going to be the conflict of a good god
against an evil demon. Yet, as in life itself, we find various shades
of gray. We have seen myths in which it was hard to distinguish hero
from villain; and we have seen the hero of one myth become the villain
of another. The enemy is a spirit of both death and fertility; the
champion sends both blessings and death upon men. In fact the role
appears to be determined by the nature of the god rather than by his
good or bad character. It is a heavenly god, in particular a sky god
and ruler god, who becomes the champion. It is possible to run through
the whole list of themes and show that the champion is the duplicate
of his opponent._ [Fontenrose 1980: 469f.]

_We might say that all gods are alike: they can work
both good and harm; they can suffer and die. So it is easy to see how
a reversal of roles might occur. _[Fontenrose 1980: 472]

_ _

_4          the role of the `seven attendants'_

The part of the seven minor beings in the archetypal myth has not been
clarified as yet. I hope to address the subject at length as soon as a
sufficient amount of data has been gathered. I thought it worthwhile,
however, to offer a preliminary summary of my conclusions.

The _shape_ of the seven is not given in a majority of cases. From the
information that we do have, it can be deduced that they were
essentially orbital. The seven often appear as seven heads on a
monster, seven hearts in a monster, seven balls or seven apples in the
Cosmic Tree. In a handful of traditions which must be very archaic a
tail is attached to these beings, who then appear as seven mice, seven
serpents, or seven `tailed persons'. The seven are often said to be
glowing and shining. What strikes me most of all is that this
description mirrors that of the Hero precisely: the Hero too was a
radiating orb with a tail. But the Hero was enveloped by the Mother
Goddess and the seven are not said to have been so.

The _location_ of the seven is even harder to determine. On one hand
they appear in the mythical stationary `centre' of the world: they are
the seven circumpolar stars, seven girls in the paradisiacal garden,
and so on. On the other hand, and this insight is crucial, they
represent the Warrior-Hero's retinue: they are the seven legendary
ancestors, the seven sons of the Hero, the seven demons in his trail,
and so on. This suggests a transition from a position in the centre to
a movement along the Axis Mundi, just like the Warrior-Hero.

_ _

_5          the double origin of the twin motif_

A major source of confusion in the polar configuration is the double
origin of the twin motif. What do I mean with these words?

The twins are a conspicous motif in traditional culture. Almost every
mythical Hero can be shown to have had a less known twin brother.
Typically one of the twin brothers dies in these myths. The twin motif
is also of great significance in decorative patterning. Now, on close
observation it appears that the original referents of the mythical
twins and the `decorative' twins is of different origin.

Mythically, the motif of a Hero and his twin brother is in all
respects matched by the motif of the Hero and his father, the Hero and
his uncle, the Hero and a dragon, the Hero and the king, and so on.
The Hero is confronted with an antagonist bigger than himself, whom he
defeats. It can easily be demonstrated that this bigger figure, which
can be called the `Father-King' or the `Universal Monarch', occupies a
position functionally synonymous with that of the twin brother.
Interestingly, the conflicts between the twin brother are often placed
in the context of the terms of primogeniture and ultimogeniture, even
if they are explicitly believed to have been twins. One of the twins
is always a redundant of figure destitute of mythical traditions:
Jacob is in the focus, Esau is only defeated; Romulus is in the focus,
Remus is only killed in an accident; Jesus is the Heroic Messiah, his
twin brother Thomas is hardly known; and so on. The same situation is
found with the relationship between the Hero and the Father-King, the
Father-King being but a label for an otherwise anonymous opponent
whose sole function is to be `slain' by the Hero. From a systematic
study of the patterning of myth, it appears that this opponent of the
Hero is his bigger environment from which he is dissolved in a later
stage. In terms more familiar to the Saturn group, the Hero would be
the Mars figure, and the twin brother or Father-King the Saturn
figure.

This explanation would seem to be satisfactory, but fails when it
comes to a confrontation with the direct, graphical material of
traditional art. There we find that the twin brothers are often
portrayed as almost identical, _symmetrical_ figures, who are often
opposed as two companions to the left and to the right of a central
figure. As such, their role is functionally identical with that of the
two bulls, the two lions, the two dogs, and other pairs of animals who
pull the divine cart; and also with the two blades of the double axe,
the two wings of the divine bird, the two arms of the god. Clearly
this tradition is essentially different from the situation sketched
above.

How can the two views possibly be reconciled? One option would be to
connect one of the symmetrical figures with the Father-King, and the
other with the Hero. The Hero, the Mother Goddess and the Father-King
were all dynamically linked with each other by substances stretching
in-between them all, which are symbolically interpreted as
navel-strings, hair-locks, hats, and so on. Is it possible that one of
the Hero's flanks was more closely connected with the Hero, and the
other with the Father-King?

A likelier solution would be the assumption of a _blending of
traditions._ The archetypal scenario in itself possessed at least two
dualities, two dispositions apt to be interpreted as pairs, and these
were the Mars-Saturn opposition, and the two flanks to the left and
right of Mars. If it be supposed that the motif of twin-ship was
originally bound up with the pair of Mars and Saturn, which is
strictly required by the structural analysis of the mythical record,
the motif of the twins may easily have been transferred to the
symmetrical twins in later times, by logical application of the rule
of symmetry. This explanation seems to fit best (1) with the general
rule of increasing logic in the development of religion; (2) with the
absence of clear-cut evidence from symmetrical flanking twins in the
mythical record; and (3) with the occasional portrayal of _a-symmetric
_twins in graphic art, as a probable reminiscence of the original myth
- the Australian lightning brothers, for instance, are typically
depicted as a giant and a dwarvish figure. Hence, I would offer this
tentative solution for the problem of the ambivalence of the term
`twinship' in the archetypal myth.

_6          vertical movement along the Axis Mundi: the goddess
descending_

There is one set of parallel mythical motifs which seem to reflect a
pattern that does not fit neatly in the Saturn theory. The central
series of equations in this set of motifs is the following:

the goddess = the earth = the underworld = a dragon or cannibal

The Hero's interaction with the goddess in these aspects is most
commonly described in the metaphors of birth and resurrection. In the
birth cycle, we find how the Hero is born from the goddess, often a
witch or a cannibal, or from the earth alias the underworld. In the
death cycle, we see how the Hero is dead in the body of the goddess, a
dragon or the earth, but comes back to life when he appears from the
goddess' womb, from the earth, or from the dragon's maw or belly.

In these motifs the Axis Mundi is present as the vertical axis along
which the movements of the Hero take place. In the birth cycle, the
descent of the deity from sky to earth is impregnation, and the
subsequent ascent of the deity from the earth to heaven is the birth
of the Hero. In the death cycle and the cycle of the culture Hero, the
descent from sky to earth is the descent of the first ancestor from
heaven onto the earth, signifying his death, and the ascent from earth
to sky is his ascent to heaven and his revival from death.

There is a general correspondence with the conditions set out by the
Saturn theory, as the Saturn theory portrays the Hero as a traveller
along the Axis Mundi in a downward and an upward movement. It is in
relation to the goddess that problems arise, however.

The given set of parallels suggests that the goddess is lower than the
Hero: she is underneath him and he travels towards her. In the Saturn
theory, however, the goddess sojourns either in the stationary centre
or moves in conjunction with the Hero. In the former case, if the
goddess is placed in the stationary centre, the Hero's descent from
sky to earth receives no good explanation, and the Hero's ascent from
earth to sky, which is his birth or resurrection, becomes a _descent_
rather than an _ascent._ In the latter case, if the goddess moves in
conjunction with the Hero as his vehicle, e. g., as the ship in which
he sails to death, there is no clearly defined room for the Hero's
conjunction and disjunction with the goddess at all. How is this
discrepancy to be explained?

One possibility would be that the given set of mythical parallels do
not originate in the standard reconstruction of the Saturn theory.
This is certainly a possibility, but it would imply a basic
incoherence of the mythical record, which we do not advocate. There
are better alternatives

A second possibility is that confusion as to vertical directions has
arisen later _due to the identification of the mythical earth with our
own, physical earth._ If the mythical earth had been the goddess in
the stationary centre, otherwise described as the central sun, the
central moon, and so on, the original birth may have been a descent
rather than an ascent. As soon as this earth had been identified with
the earth on which we live, however, this symbolism of movement must
almost automatically have been transformed in accordance with the
current sky-earth relationship. In this scenario it remains
unexplained how the role of the goddess as the Hero's vehicle must be
explained. Also the `descent into the underworld' receives no physical
explanation, other than a possible ascent to the goddess in her
stationary centre. What is the impregnation of a female earth by a
male sky in this scenario? Certainly the male impregnator is
envisioned on top of the female impregnated?

A third possibility would be that the Hero's birth denotes the process
of descent and subsequent ascent both, rather than the descent only.
This entails a bifurcation of the notions of descent and sojourn in
the underworld, however.

In fact, there seems to be much evidence that the goddess herself was
involved in a certain movement. There are numerous rituals in which
the goddess is bathed or dunked. Elsewhere the goddess is imagined as
a falling star, or as a fiery wheel rolling down a hill. In still
other traditions the mother and the child are both ejected by the
king. The myth of the separation of sky and earth suggests, too, that
the goddess was actually removed from the Father-King upon one
occasion. All this suggests that the goddess on one occasion actually
descended along the Axis Mundi, together with the Hero.

Is it possible that the Hero's descent into the underworld or womb of
the goddess cooccurred with a downward movement of the goddess
herself? The separation of the Hero and the goddess may then have
occurred when the goddess had reached a deepest point. I believe that
this solution is going to be the only fully satisfactory solution. It
implies the following order of events:

1.                  The goddess and the Hero are in conjunction in the
stationary centre.

2.                  Under `catastrophic circumstances' the nucleus of
the goddess and the Hero moves downward along the Axis Mundi. While
this happens a spiralling wire appears between the Father-King and the
goddess-and-Hero. The event is described as (1) a downward journey of
the Hero in a vehicle which is the goddess; (2) a journey of the Hero
who follows the goddess (Maui following Hina); (3) a journey of the
Hero towards the underworld or the earth, which is the goddess; (4)
separation of heaven and earth by the Hero; (5) the Hero residing in
the underworld or womb, which is moving; (6) the descent of the first
man and woman from heaven.

3.                  In the course of the ascent the Hero and the
goddess both swell up enormously.

4.                  When a certain deepest level is reached, the
goddess remains at her low position for a while, and the Hero moves
back up towards the sky, shrinking.

5.                  I have no clue what the subsequent fate of the
goddess or the Hero would be.

The following picture illustrates this sequence of events graphically: