mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
        see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
table of contents o homepage o e-mail

Immanuel Velikovsky

The great name associated with a catastrophist explanation of myth is,
of course, Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky realised that the
earth-shaking events mentioned in cosmogonies and deluge myths from
all parts of the world cannot possibly have been generated under the
conditions of an uneventful world. Noting that the planetary gods in
the Old World and beyond had mythical connotations of celestial
upheaval, he drew the conclusion that the original actors of the myths
had been the planets. Worlds in collision was the exposition of his
argument that the planets Venus and Mars had had close encounters with
the earth in the 15th and 8th centuries BCE respectively. After that
time, the planets would only gradually have settled in their current
orbits. Velikovsky's compelling way of writing, the apparent truth of
his argument, and the abundance of scientific disciplines he utilised
on his behalf, all made for good reading and held the world in awe
through the 1950's.

Half a century has now passed since the appearance of the book and the
'Velikovskyan' movement is still quite much alive. Although Velikovsky
was outlawed by the scholarly community and his mythological work is
barely quoted in academic cycles, I deem it prejudiced and unacademic
not to give Velikovsky a fair hearing. If we were to consider
Velikovsky's case, we would find a mixture of useful ideas and ideas
that have to be abandoned. In my opinion, Velikovsky is to be credited
for the notion that major motifs of mythology, particularly dragon
combats, serpentine gods and celestial armies, must have derived from
prodigies that once stood visually in the skies, being witnessed
simultaneously by many peoples scattered over the world. The myths are
eye-witness accounts more than anything else, as Ev Cochrane asserts:

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.

In Mankind in Amnesia Velikovsky, who was himself a psychoanalyst,
offered some great insights in the way mankind as a whole could have
reacted psychologically on such a catastrophe. Using my own terms, we
might say that the rise of human civilisation, mythology included, was
the practical therapy that helped ancient man to get over a collective
trauma. It is all very compelling and seems to bring in line many
independent observations that could not formerly be connected.

The criticism far outweighs the credits, however. Velikovsky actually
made for a very poor and superficial mythologist and theoretical
scholar. He was highly selective in his sources, failed to see
patterns, and relied too much on intuition. His linguistic exercises
are too risible to even discuss. When he assigned some of the most
noteworthy mythical events to the sky rather than to earth, he still
continued to apply many other mythical events, such as the floods and
earthquakes caused by the gods to our own earth. The Exodus of the
Israelites would have been a real event, in spite of its unambiguous
identity with the dragon combat in Hebrew folklore. And how would
Velikovsky legitimate his explanation of real manna dropping on the
earth when everyone agrees that the manna represents the celestial
ambrosia of the gods? Examples can easily be multiplied. Velikovsky
created an unnatural and unmotivated bias in his explanation of the
myths. I have shown that if myths express themselves through symbols,
everything in myth must be regarded as symbolic. To take some things
literally and others symbolically without a truly convincing
justification is eclecticism and false science.

On top of that, Velikovsky also failed to see the consistent patterns
that make up the structure of myths. His approach looks rather picky.
He offers an abundance of material that, on the face of it,
strengthens his case, but he omits loads of material that contradict
or at least question his explanation. When he shows, for instance,
that the planet Venus was widely described in 'cometary' terms, being
a serpent, a torch or a star, he neglects similar traditions
surrounding the moon and the sun. The moon and the sun too were
worldwide described as serpents and torches. Velikovsky not only
decides without reason that the Venus-connection is older than the
moon and sun connections, but worse, does not even mention the fact.
Had he but devoted a few words to the effect that the sun, the moon
and the planet Venus alike were symbols of an archetypal 'cometary'
appearance his work would have looked a lot more professional.

But we look in vain for any acceptable methodological discussions in
Worlds in collision. Velikovsky hardly discusses where he stands
relative to prior schools of mythology and does not bother about the
methodological or epistemological foundations of his reasoning at all:

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 marshaled forth ad nauseam with
only minimal analysis or discussion of historical issues involved
(i.e., is it possible to speak of Sumerian traditions involving Inanna
as reflecting historical events of the mid-second millennium BCE?).
Why he chose one tradition over another conflicting tradition
typically remains a mystery.

Nor did Velikovsky offer a systematic presentation of his physical
model, leaving unclear how exactly the planets Mars and Venus would
have moved, under which angles they would have appeared, and so forth.
No mechanism is given for the way the myths themselves would have been
formed as the result of this observation. It is assumption upon
assumption. Velikovsky is hailed as a hero in certain cycles, and he
deserves his credits as one who has opened up debate about relative
chronology of the ancient world and of celestial catastrophes as the
origin of myth, but that is pretty much all that needs to be said
about his work. He was a pioneer at best and we can concur with
Grego's words:

Today, astronomers still think Velikovsky's work has absolutely no
scientific merit - and rightly so - but it is evident that views on
interplanetary collisions have swung in favour of a historically more
violent solar system in which major impact has been the chief
sculpting force of the terrestrial planets, most planetary satellites
and the asteroids.
_______________________