Site Section Links
KRONOS Vol VIII, No. 4
THE COSMIC SERPENT by Victor Clube and Bill NapierReviewed by
It is an act of faith among most people with scientific training that everything contained in Velikovsky's books is wrong. I suspect that it is an act of faith among many readers of KRONOS that everything Velikovsky said can be taken as gospel truth. Faith is a dangerous thing in science, which ought to be concerned with doubt. Only by asking questions, and casting doubt on established ideas, has science progressed over the centuries. Galileo, Darwin, Einstein and the rest were all heretics in their day, and have all been deified since. The Cosmic Serpent is not in that league. But it has just provided me with the most powerful reminder I have ever had that no scientist should take anything at face value – that because some crackpot theory contains elements that are irrefutably false does not prevent it from also providing important new insights. I thought I was a doubter – many scientists would class me with the crackpot theorizers. But Victor Clube and Bill Napier have shown me that I, too, have fallen into the trap of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in an area of science crucially important to mankind.
This is no crackpot book, and, perhaps in a conscious effort to avoid that tag, Immanuel Velikovsky makes an appearance no earlier than page 256 (out of 299). Nevertheless, it is a book Velikovskians ought to welcome with open arms, even though it does not endorse all of Velikovsky's ideas. The authors are highly respectable professional astronomers, both working at the Scottish Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, and for years they have been developing an interest in the interaction of the Earth with fragments of cosmic debris, meteors and comets. Their paper in Nature [282 (29 November 1979), pp. 455-459] suggesting that such cosmic encounters could explain the death of the dinosaurs appeared in print before the Alvarez team announced their discovery of the now famous iridium anomaly in strata 65 million years old. Somehow the popular press missed the point that the Alvarez' discovery provided a classic example of a successful scientific prediction – the ultimate test of any theory.
The first half of this book is a comparatively low-key discussion of the Earth's place in the Galaxy, the nature of comets, and the possible role of cometary impacts in causing mass extinctions of life on Earth, triggering ice ages, and producing geological changes such as reversals of the Earth's magnetic field. But having established their credentials and their theme, Clube and Napier then proceed to the heart of the matter.
The authors argue that in recent prehistory a major comet, or comets, was deflected into the inner part of the Solar System and made many passes around the Sun before it disintegrated.* For hundreds of years, at more or less regular intervals, this provided spectacular heavenly displays as viewed from Earth, and from time to time fragments of the comet collided with our planet. Weaving a cloth from threads of Greek, Biblical, and Egyptian history, Clube and Napier argue convincingly that many of the myths and legends of ancient times can be explained in terms of the evolution of this comet. Cometary fragments, seen apparently fighting in the night sky, were regarded as gods and named accordingly; meteor impacts can explain the Biblical flood and other phenomena.
Much of this will be familiar, of course, to readers of this review; but there is a blindingly simple insight here which moves the whole package out of the crackpot arena and into that of sober science. The one thing everyone who has heard of Velikovsky "knows" about his theory is that Venus is alleged to have been born out of Jupiter as a comet and later settled into its present orbit. This is dynamically impossible, and so any scientist who understands dynamics looks no further into the theory.** Clube and Napier, however, argue that the original identification of heavenly bodies as gods was with the comets that dominated the sky some 4,000 years ago, and point out that as the comets faded into insignificance it would be easy and natural for later generations to transfer the names to the other wanderers among the stars, the planets.+ Thus the name Venus could have been transferred from the fading comet Venus to the planet Venus, without any physical metamorphosis.
So it is possible for two astronomers at the height of their profession to say that Some aspects of Velikovsky's work are "sound and reasonable", although they stress that the astronomical hypothesis Velikovsky invoked to explain the catastrophic events of prehistory is "quite impossible". "The Velikovsky thesis was . . . not SO much wrong as hopelessly misguided"++
The Cosmic Serpent is a superb book, showing science at work in the way science ought to work, providing new insights and presenting a convincing case that the Earth has been bombarded by Cometary encounters during recent prehistory. No review can do credit to it, and no reader of KRONOS or of any of Velikovsky's books can afford not to read it. It's hard to make Comparisons; for intellectual pleasure and excitement it beats anything I have read since Carl Sagan's The Dragons of Eden. But really it is in a class of ifs own, and deserves to be a huge best seller.]
*Leaving the present comet Encke, the Apollo asteroid Hephaistos, and the daytime Taurid meteor stream in Earth-crossing orbit. The orbits of these bodies are very similar. Whipple has shown that some Taurids may have been ejected 4,700 years ago from comet Encke. Hephaistos was only discovered in 1978 and more recently another large asteroid, 1982TA, whose orbit compares closely with that of Hephaistos and Encke was discovered. - CLE
** But see Ragnar Forshufvud's "On the Circularization of the Orbit of Venus" in KRONOS VII:2 (1982), pp. 3-28 for a good start at explaining the dynamics. Ejection of core material from a Jovian planet, like many processes in astronomy, is an unsolved problem. However, the putative origin of Venus from the core of any Jovian planet is decidedly a secondary question. The fission process described by Lyttleton and often cited supportively by Velikovsky and others, unfortunately, is not applicable to the problem because a viscous and/or rocky core would not participate in the fissioning. John A. O'Keefe has studied planetary fission after core formation in a series of papers beginning in J. Geophys Res. 74 (May 15, 1969), pp. 2758-67. - CLE; See also Eric W. Crew, "Stability of Solid Cores in Gaseous Planets", KRONOS III:1 (1977), pp. 18-26. – LMG
+As it happens, the reverse appears to be the case since the Greeks – following Babylonian astronomical knowledge – often "referred to comets by the same names as they did to planets" (see F. Boll Antike Beobachtungen ... W. Gundel, Naive Ansichten ... as cited by I. Fuhr in KRONOS VIII:1 (1982), pp.43,50, n. 51). – LMG
++ The publisher's announcement for the U.S. edition, however, stated that "according to the authors, their book 'provides the first demonstration that Velikovsky was after all half-right' ". This belief was quoted in the 49 word review in Sky & Telescope, December 1982, pp.559-560. – CLE; N.B. that Clube and Napier all-too-frequently use the word prehistoric when referring to historic times. The question is: Why? – LMG
The Cosmic Serpent
Reviewed by BERNARD NEWGROSHThe Cosmic Serpent is a book about cosmic catastrophism, a subject which has become increasingly popular and respectable in scientific circles during recent years. It is also interdisciplinary, covering topics as diverse as astronomy, geology, evolution, mythology, archaeology, and ancient history. Whereas most modern authors of quasi-catastrophist theories limit themselves to a single event or a series of related events, in this their first book, Victor Clube and Bill Napier are putting forward an all-encompassing theory. Small wonder that its dust jacket boasts the words of Patrick Moore: "This is one of the most extraordinary books I have ever read."
Clube and Napier are accredited astronomers at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, and have many publications to their names. It is therefore not surprising to find that their book is strongly astronomy oriented. Their first two chapters make hard reading for the nonspecialist because they are replete with astronomical theory. But since the science of astronomy is currently in a state of flux, these preliminary chapters are most important. In them, the authors have succeeded in producing a thesis which will be compatible with theories of astronomy whichever way the fashion might go in years to come. From this astronomical springboard they are then able to launch into a discussion of catastrophes that have affected the Earth catastrophes caused by asteroids, meteors, and comets. Controversially, they propose that these catastrophes have taken place in geological, archaeological, and historical times.
VELIKOVSKY'S UNIQUE SYNTHESIS
Of course, a book like this could not have been written without repeated reference to the works of Immanuel Velikovsky, especially as the other ingredients of the book include:
A reader might think that this is eloquent testimony to the sustained vitality of
Velikovsky's ideas, for the ingredients of this "most extraordinary" book contain most (but not
all) of the major themes of Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, and Earth in Upheaval.
Why is so little credit given to Velikovsky? The answer surely lies in Velikovsky's
pursuit of "a quite impossible astronomical hypothesis to explain the catastrophic events".
In the Prologue to this work, which draws so heavily on Velikovsky's unique synthesis,
one finds a bit of special pleading. The authors do not want to be tarred with the same brush
that was used to blacken the name of Velikovsky. They do not like to admit it, but their thesis
is vulnerable to the same sort of attack that led to the scientific community's rejecting
Velikovsky in the 1950s. Clube and Napier ask for open-mindedness in assessing their book,
pointing out that people have defended wrong ideas in the past – and indeed the history of
science is replete with such defenses – while noting cryptically that "a disproof of
Velikovskian logic can deprive ancient legends of their catastrophic message".
It should be stated that The Cosmic Serpent is not a straight rewrite of Velikovsky's works. Not by a long way! The whole emphasis and the catastrophic scenario are sufficiently different for the authors to be able to call it their own theory, and to present it as novel. In essence, their theory boils down to very infrequent, but periodic, disturbances to the Solar System in its wanderings through the Galaxy on encountering "dusty" (i.e., debris-littered) regions. This is shown to be statistically probable and compatible with current theories of the Galaxy. On its last encounter with a dusty spiral arm of the Galaxy, in the Gould Belt ~10-12 million years ago, the Solar System would have acquired comets and meteors, causing irregular collision activity that has been declining ever since. On a notable previous encounter, at the Cretaceous-Tertiary divide, there was a massive asteroidal or cometary impact on Earth, with enormous consequences for all Earth's life forms.
As a matter of course most of the material acquired on encountering these debris-littered spiral arms will be thrown straight out of the Solar System, but there will be sufficient material, in the form of long-period comets and asteroids, to ensure subsequent havoc. This periodic havoc forms the basis for Earth's punctuated geological record, a record of recurrent world-wide catastrophes. In this respect the theory is extremely attractive – even to supporters of Velikovsky – for it can be shown that long-period comets can be deflected in their orbits by Jupiter and become short-period comets, and, ultimately, end up as asteroids, as is thought to be the likely fate of comet Encke.
In its own way this all-encompassing thesis embraces much modern work and most of the latest fashionable catastrophic literature. It salutes the Alvarez et al. theory on the asteroid/meteor impact at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the work of Hsü et al. on a comet impact at the same boundary, and the tektite studies of Glass and Swart relating such falls to major geological hiatuses – to name a few of the many. It also takes under its wing the unfashionable but meritorious work of Rene Gallant, whose Bombarded Earth (London 1964) has been largely ignored since publication.
The assumptions of Clube and Napier's theory are worth scrutinizing. One major
assumption is that the spiral arms contain "dusty" material, or debris. There is currently no
way of knowing exactly what is in these spiral arms. Because it is thought there are no large
bodies, it is postulated that any matter there must be in small bodies. This assumption is not
currently testable. The authors postulate comets there, and offer this theory of comet origin in
preference to the currently fashionable, but equally unproven, Oort Cloud hypothesis.
Following the theoretical discussion of comets in the spiral arms, we are told that
comets characteristically have a diameter of "only a few kilometres".
By and large, though, their astronomical theory looks good even if it rests on
untestable assumptions. It is not without flaw, however. In calculating the weight of a
water-ice object of I km diameter they give a value of 4 billion tons;
There are some quite interesting facets to their geological scenario. They postulate
rapid continental drift at around 10-100 million times the normal rate of drift.
Unfortunately, in the field of geology they have repeated the mistakes of others.
Following prevailing (and incorrect) ideas about the Pleistocene glaciations, they attribute
these "Ice Ages" to deteriorating climate and a drop in mean global temperature.
In discussing geomagnetic reversals, those dramatic inversions of Earth's polarity, they
again settle for an unproven theory – the "dynamo" theory – as the origin of Earth's magnetic
field. And this despite having to admit that the nature of the mechanism of generation of this
dynamo field is "uncertain".
One of the new tools of catastrophist geology is the sea-bed core, which has revealed
anomalously high levels of rare elements, like iridium, at major geological boundaries
associated with extinctions. This is taken as evidence for impacts of extra-terrestrial bodies.
Thus, in a discussion of anomalous iridium levels found in sediments, they note that the 2.3
million year old Antarctic sediment had a high iridium content. This they found "disconcerting"
for "there were no significant extinctions at that time".
Sadly, in the field of mythology, Clube and Napier are unable to match the standard
they set for their astronomy. Their effort, although plausible, is riddled with errors and
misconceptions. Take, for instance, the section on Norse mythology.
Their treatment of the Bible, alas, is no better. Psalm 18: 7-1 5 is quoted selectively as
evidence of a pre-Flood disturbance.
The idea that there was a religious reform instigated by the prophet Amos,
Errors in the handling of mythology notwithstanding, their cosmological set-up for the
era 2000-700 B.C. is worth examining. Although decrying Velikovsky for his having
suggested that the planets Venus and Mars could have been in wandering orbits and have
tangled with Earth, they have certainly been impressed with the evidence for "Venus" and
"Mars" events. Using a bit of jiggery-pokery with numbers, they find "commensurabilities"
between the orbits of comet Halley and Mars in a 684 year cycle, as also one of 56 years
between comet Encke and Venus. There is no denying that cycles of 684 and 56 years were of
some significance in ancient usage, so they postulate that the comets Halley and Encke, which
would have exceeded the present brightness of Venus in this period, became irrevocably
associated with the planets Mars and Venus at some "late" date.
Like their astronomical scenario, this is seductive. But unfortunately it does not stand
up to scrutiny. For, at each and every critical point where it appears that ancient myth has
described Venus in terms of a comet, they dodge the issue. They note that Quetzlcoatl, the
plumed or feathered serpent, was thought of in terms of a comet, yet "sometimes represents
the Sun and sometimes, with his twin Xolotl, the planet Venus".
But let us, for the sake of argument, suppose for a while that they are right in their
totally unsupported assertion that the attributes of a comet were given to Venus at some "late"
date, i.e., one when the comet no longer threatened Earth and the comet mythology no longer
had any meaning for contemporary folk. At one stage in their discussion they state: "Both
objects [i.e., the planet Venus and the progenitor of comet Encke] would have the
characteristics of being lost in sunlight at intervals, and being seen as morning and evening
Other descriptions of Inanna, from texts of a similar epoch, and from earlier times,
describe her vividly: "Of her flaring in the sky – a pure torch"; as "the heavenly light, shining
bright like the day"; as "the one revered in heaven and earth, crowned with great horns"; and
as the "wild cow of Enlil".
Yet here is a paradox, one which Clube and Napier may well have been aware of, but
were unable to draw the right conclusion. Right down from the time of Agade,
To follow this idea to its logical conclusion, let us explore the relationship between the
comet Halley and the planet Mars that the authors have proposed. It involves the assumption
that "Ares-MarsNergal-Verethragna-Herakles" was known as a comet before it was used as a
label of the planet Mars.
On Velikovsky's handling of archaeological data, Clube and Napier wrote: "His later
identifications contravened the usual stratigraphic sequence of events, however, and
archaeologists have generally found them quite unacceptable."
Their archaeological evidence for the Flood of Noah was perhaps fated to doom, for as
hard as generations of investigators have sought, convincing world-wide evidence for the same
has still not come to light.* [* Of interest, however, is Byron C. Nelson's The Deluge Story in
Stone (Minneapolis, 1931). – LMG] Actually, their evidence is but a single piece, and
out-of-date information at that. They have managed to dig out Woolley's discredited "flood"
stratum at Ur in southern Mesopotamia as their indicator of a 2500 B.C. flood,
Over Thera, Clube and Napier come into difficulties with stratigraphy, for they see the
eruption of Thera as both a part of and a consequence of the world-wide disturbance that took
place at the time of the Exodus.
A NEW "ASSURUBALLIT PROBLEM"
In tying in Thera with the Exodus they have posed some new problems because Thera
erupted in Late Minoan IA and this era correlates most strongly with the Egyptian New
Kingdom. Velikovskians have no such headache over the Exodus. Velikovsky placed the
Exodus at the end of the Middle Kingdom. Curiously, Velikovsky himself seems to have been
deceived by Thera, accepting its (then) conventional date of ~1500 B.C.
As to their chronology, they offer no specific synchronisms of their own to elucidate
the problems of tying Biblical with Egyptian, or Egyptian with Mesopotamian, history. Their
reasons for having a revised chronology at all are most questionable: it is to make things fit the
uncalibrated radiocarbon date of ~ 1390 B.C. for Thera,
Because their quarrel is with calibrated radiocarbon dates and the system of Egyptian
calendars according to Parker,
Further, they contradict themselves in writing of a major error in conventional
chronology which "makes all Old, Middle and New Kingdom dates before 512 B.C. too early
by 468 years".
A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
"The Cosmic Serpent, then, is a reconstruction of knowledge in several fields, an adventure in paradigm. There is something here to outrage everyone." These far-sighted words in the Prologue are perhaps the most apposite judgement of the book, and a lesson that one should not write a book of such ambitions in the spirit of "adventure". The adventure had already taken place in 1950 with the publication of Worlds in Collision; and had Clube and Napier put as much research and effort into archaeology, mythology, ancient history, et cetera as they obviously put into the astronomy there would have been no need to "adventure". They had a golden opportunity to make catastrophism into the prevailing paradigm of our time, not merely to make it seem respectable. That opportunity was missed.
NOTES AND REFERENCES1. As has been noted in a short, pithy letter to New Scientist (18 November 1982) by A.H.A. Parker. Appropriately enough, the letter appeared under the caption "Worlds in Collision".
2. Curiously, Clube and Napier do not seem to be aware of this correct title, instead calling it "Ipuwer Chronicle" (p. 256), "Ipuwer Papyrus", and "Admonitions of a Sage" (p. 238). It is also notable that they fail to list this important document amongst their references.
3. The Cosmic Serpent (London and N.Y., 1982), p. 256; hereafter, Serpent.
3a. [How coincidental is it that the uncredited translation (p. 220) from Rockenbach's De cometis is word for word identical to the translation Velikovsky made from the Latin for "The Comet Typhon" in Worlds in Collision? That such a translation is not as straightforward as "Veni, vidi, vici" is demonstrated by Carter Sutherland in Pensée IVR V, pp. 33-34 and the letters from Rubbens and Fitton in Pensée IVR VI, pp. 6465. - CLE]
4. Serpent, p. 256.
5. Ibid., p. 257
6. Ibid., p. 13.
7. F. B. Jueneman in Industrial Res. & Dev., October 1982, p. 17, writing of Serpent reminds us that: "Although there doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence for this Oort cloud of comets, Clube and Napier speculate that it is both depleted and replenished by a passing dark nebula with its gas and debris." His parting glance at the hypothesis of Clube and Napier is to quote the late John W. Campbell, Jr.: "Ifs piled ten deep can explain anything."
8. Serpent, p. 44.
9. Ibid., p. 151.
9a. [Note that, whereas Velikovsky maintained that the Exodus was caused by the near collision of an enormously massive comet, Clube and Napier advocate the close passage of an ordinary comet accompanied by the impact of at least one fragment accompanying it. While Velikovsky was not ignorant of fragments accompanying a primary, as with the barad (meteorites) at Beth-horon, it is ironic that, after he had to expend so much effort countering the false notion of critics that proto-Venus collided with or grazed Earth, now a rival hypothesis comes along advocating out-and-out cosmic bombardment of the Tunguska type and greater. – CLE]
10. Serpent, p. 154.
11. Ibid., p. 76.
12. Pointed out by C. L. Ellenberger in private correspondence, 16 August 1982.
13. Serpent, p. 128.
14. M.A.Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London, 1966).
15. Serpent, p. 120.
16. Ibid., p. 125.
17. Ibid., p. 121.
18. Ibid., p. 123.
19 I. Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (N.Y. and London, 1955), "Greenland".
20. C. H. Hapgood, The Path of the Pole (Phila., 1970) and P. Warlow, The Reversing Earth (London, 1982).
21. Serpent, p. 126.
22. Ibid., p. 116.
23. The so-called Great American Interchange – see G. G. Simpson, Splendid Isolation (New Haven, 1980). Jill Abery has indicated the correlation - see SIS Workshop 4:4 (1982), p. 11. 24. Serpent pp. 187-188.
25. Ibid., p. 270.
26. Ibid., p. 180.
27. See, for instance, Dwardu Cardona, " 'Let There Be Light' ", KRONOS III:3 (1978), pp. 34-55.
28. Serpent, p. 179.
29. Ibid., pp. 163-164.
30. Ibid., pp. 210-211.
31. Indeed, this is a general criticism of the book. Statements are made throughout the book which are not supported by a reference in the text, and many of them have to be accepted by the reader as an act of faith. Where references are given it is in a list of reading matter, and no page numbers relating to the specific issue are to be found.
32. Serpent, p. 165.
33. Ibid., pp. 218-222.
34. J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton, 1969),p. 11.
35. S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (Chicago, 1963), p. 162.
36. Serpent, pp. 266, 285. This "late" confusion does not stop them, however, from quoting late sources like Lucretius and Plato extensively – in support of the catastrophist interpretation of myth!
37. Ibid., p. 188.
38. New Scientist (8 October 1981), p. 101.
39. Serpent, p. 164.
40. E.g., P. Masson-Oursel and L. Morin in Larousse Encyclopaedia of Mythology (N.Y., 1968), p. 311.
41. L. E. Rose and R. C. Vaughan, "Analysis of the Babylonian Observations of Venus", KRONOS II:2 (1976), pp. 3-26; L. E. Rose, " 'Just Plainly Wrong': A Critique of Peter Huber", KRONOS III:2 (1977), pp. 102-112 and KRONOS IV:2 (1978), pp. 33-69; and L. E. Rose and R. C. Vaughan, "Ninsianna Update", KRONOS V:3 (1980), pp. 5154; Idem., KRONOS VIII:1 (1982), pp. 15-37.
42. Serpent, p. 257.
43. T. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness (New Haven, 1978),pp. 138-139.
44. Ibid., p. 139.
45. J. B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East in Pictures, Relating to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Princeton, 1974), p. 219.
46. Ibid, p. 222.
47. Ibid., p. 175.
48. Ibid., p. 176.
49. Ibid., pp. 120, 122.
50. Ibid., p. 206 on a seal from Assur, dated conventionally to the last quarter of the 2nd millennium B.C.
51. E.g., see Ibid., p. 176.
52. Serpent, p. 272.
53. Ibid., p. 257.
54. Ibid., pp. 209 ff. One is hard-pressed to find amongst the references where Clube and Napier have disinterred this "old hat" evidence. Besides the modern preference for Ur in the district of Haran in northern Mesopotamia as the site of the Ur of Abraham, it is nowadays quite clear that Woolley's flood stratum was freshwater, caused by inundation of the great river, and that it was not particularly widespread, even within the Persian Gulf.
55. Ibid., p. 255. Cf. L. M. Greenberg, "Atlantis", Pensée IVR VI (1973-74), pp. 52-54, and the remarks by Isaacson in KRONOS I:2 (1975), pp. 93-96. 56. C. Doumas and L. Papazoglou, "Santorini tephra from Rhodes", Nature 287 (1980), pp. 322-324.
58. Serpent, pp. 254-255.
59. Velikovsky, "Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Comets".
60. H. Goedicke, Egypt and the Early History of Israel (Baltimore,1981) .
61. This is a recurring complaint; see note 54.
62. Serpent, p. 237. Despite their reservations over some of the assumptions underlying 14C dating, they see fit to accept uncalibrated
63. Ibid., p. 238.
64. Ibid. (Cf. p. 252.)
65. R. A. Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt (Chicago, 1950). Clube and Napier put up a good case for Parker's reconstruction lacking validity.
66. Serpent, p. 239.
67. Ibid., p. 236.
68. Ibid., p. 237.
69. Ibid., p. 235.
70. Ibid., p. 239. Again, there is no sign of any reference to texts on the Hittites and the Hyksos for the reader to refer to. [Clube and Napier may have arrived at their conclusion about the Hittites and Hyksos as a result of a typographical error in one of their sources. On p. 131 of The Egyptians by Cyril Aldred (the very first reference in the bibliography of The Cosmic Serpent), the city of Avaris is inadvertently referred to as "the Hittite capital" while only two lines later campaigns against the Hyksos are discussed. - LMG] Their system of references is most annoying to the present reviewer (see notes 2, 54, 61, etc. above). Sometimes the references seem inadequate: D. Goldsmith, Scientists Confront Velikovsky (Ithaca, 1977) is the sole source on the "discrediting" of Velikovsky. The response by KRONOS is nowhere mentioned. And, from the era of Pioneer and Voyager they hark back to 1962 for a reference book on Saturn – that of A. F. O'D. Alexander, the chief merit of which is presumably the list of ancient citations of the planet. Notably, Clube and Napier then proceed to confuse Saturnian with Jovian gods.