Critics and Criticisms of Hamlet's Mill by Gary D. Thompson
Copyright © 2004-2008 by Gary D. Thompson
Part 1: The Book
1999 Italian-language edition of Hamlet's Mill , which was translated/edited by Alessandro Passi and comprised a new and expanded edition (630 pages).
The authors of Hamlet's Mill: Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend at MIT circa 1967/1968 - photographed in de Santillana's office. (Photographs used with the written permission of the copyright holder.)
Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time by Giorgio de Santillana (1902-1974) and Hertha von Dechend (1915-2001) was first published in 1969. (It is mistakenly believed by some persons that there was also a German-language edition published in 1969.) Though the English-language edition has been reprinted four times (i.e., 1970, 1977, 1983, and 1998) the authors never revised or corrected the book. Also, they did not publish any other book on the theme outlined in Hamlet's Mill. Hertha von Dechend incorporated some changes and additions to the German-language edition (Die Mühle des Hamlet) first published in 1993. (This was an authorized translation from the English by Beate Ziegs.) The German edition was 17 pages longer (x, 522 pages (but also indicated as comprising 578 pages)) than the original English edition (x, 505 pages). It would appear that the errata list that was enclosed in this German-language edition was left out of the 1994 reprint of such. (It would appear that this German-language edition was basically a translation of the English-language edition.) The Italian-language edition (Il Mulino di Amleto) published in 1983 was apparently simply a translation of the 1969 English-language book. It was reprinted in 1984, and 1998. However, the 1999 Italian-language edition, which was translated/edited by Alessandro Passi, comprised a new and expanded edition (630 pages). This particular edition was reprinted in 2000 and 2003. (The preface to this expanded edition was also written by Hertha von Dechend.) Also, a Hungarian translation (Hamlet malma) was published in 1995. From the time of publication of Hamlet's Mill in 1969 it appears that Hertha von Dechend began collecting materials for a second book on the astro-mythological interpretation of the Pyramid Texts, the Amduat, and the Book of the Dead. However, it appears she only had four chapters completed (and ready for printing) by 1998. She procrastinated and never got around to completing the (final) fifth chapter. (It appears she had an English title Archeoastronomy for the title of the draft manuscript.) Her unpublished lecture manuscripts are now in the Renaissance Institute at the University of Frankfort. (In his book The Origin of Scientific Thought (1961) Giorgio de Santillana had set out his belief in an astronomical origin of myth and fairytale.)
Giorgio de Santillana was born in Rome, Italy, and was of Jewish descent. (Several sources give 1901 as year of birth - not 1902.) He received a degree in physics from the University of Rome in 1925. He then did 2 years of graduate work in philosophy (at the Sorbonne?) in Paris and then he also did 2 years of graduate work at the University of Milan (Physics Department). (He later also obtained his PhD from the University of Rome.) Circa 1930 he was asked by Federigo Enriqucs, Professor of Higher Geometry at the University of Rome, to help organise a department for the History of Science. As an assistant of Federigo Enriqucs he taught the history and philosophy of science. He also collaborated with Federigo Enriqucs on a history of scientific thought that gave particular attention to antiquity. In 1935 he gave a series of lectures at the Sorbonne, and he also conducted colloquia (seminars) in Brussels (Belgium) and Pontigny (France). There seems to be two versions of how he came to the USA. One version implies Giorgio de Santillana left Mussolini's Italy in 1938 when the race laws (discriminating against Jews) were introduced in November, 1938, and sought shelter in the USA (as a displaced foreign scholar). The race laws, amongst other things, excluded Jews from State controlled employment. (See: Italian Mathematics Between the Two World Wars by Angelo Guerraggio and Pietro Nastasi (2005, Page 141).) According to a second version Giorgio de Santillana left Mussolini's Italy in 1936 (as discriminatory measures against Jews there were increasing) and came to the USA, assisted by a committee in the USA, as a displaced foreign scholar. (Either way, he sought shelter in the USA at that general time.) From 1937 to 1938 he was an instructor at the New School for Social Research, in New York City. This was originally founded in New York City in 1919 as a private coeducational institution of higher learning for adults. (In 1997 its name was changed to New School University.) (He was actually connected with the University in Exile. This was founded in 1933 as a graduate division of the New School for Social Research as a haven for scholars who had been dismissed from teaching positions by totalitarian regimes in Europe. See: Intellectuals and Exile: Refuge Scholars and the New School for Social Research by Claus-Dieter Krohn (1993; Page 209).) He then became a visiting lecturer at Harvard University. He joined MIT in 1941 as Professor of English and History. As late as circa 1950 he was referred to as George de Santillana.
Giorgio de Santillana first met Hertha von Dechend when he participated in a symposium organised by Willy Hartner at the Institut für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, in Frankfurt, in 1958. She sent him a summary of her ideas on precessional mythology in 1959 and he immediately accepted her arguments. (Giorgio de Santillana's close support helped the credibility of Hertha von Dechend's ideas. Without the good luck of meeting him her ideas would undoubtedly have remained little known.) (Another version of their 1958 meeting holds that they identified that, by different routes, both had independently reached the conclusion that world-wide myths at the end of the prehistoric era used metaphors to describe celestial phenomena, especially the precession of the equinoxes.) There is little doubt that de Santillana's existing beliefs concerning the origins of intelligence and early science predisposed him to readily accepting von Dechend's ideas. De Santillana was keen to introduce revolutionary ideas, such as an early (Neolithic period) date for the establishment of scientific (astronomical) knowledge, into the history of science. There is reason to believe that at least some of his ideas concerning the early history of science bordered on the mystical. In a 1994 (1997?) interview Jerome Lettvin related that de Santillana would conduct Tarot readings (and seemed to earnestly believe in the veracity of such). According to Lettvin de Santillana conducted a Tarot reading for his wife Maggie and multiple Tarot readings for Walter Pitts, who constantly requested such. (At least one academic offered that in 1944 Giorgio de Santillana gave a talk in which he appears to have indicated his belief in a "quasi-mystical unanalyzable sort of event." (See: The Foundational Debate: Complexity and Constructivity in Mathematics and Physics edited by Werner DePauli-Schimanovich et. al. (Series: Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, Volume 3; 1995, Page 271).) It appears de Santillana held the fantasy that he was the reincarnation of Merlin travelling backwards in time.) His advice enabled Hertha von Dechend to receive a Sloan Foundation grant for post-graduate studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he lectured. He also assisted her to become a research associate (within the Humanities Department) at MIT. (Within a university the title research associate is given to post-doctorates who are conducting post-doctoral research. Hertha von Dechend's research would have been leading towards the book Hamlet's Mill.) It would also appear that Hertha von Dechend remained a research associate at MIT throughout the 1960s and between 1960 and 1969 either stayed in the USA or made regular (annual) lengthy research and teaching visits to MIT. During this period, with leave-of-absence from Frankfurt University, she apparently resided in the USA for at least a considerable number of years on one visit. Some sources hold she resided in the USA from 1960 to 1969. (This period was her only break with her otherwise continuous employment, since November 1943, at the Institut für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, in Germany. In 1969 she returned to the University of Frankfort and her post as Professor of the History of Science.) (According to one source at the Institut für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften her regular research and teaching visits to MIT spanned 1960-1969. According to another source she was a research associate at MIT for five winters spanning, 1962-1967.) It would appear that Giorgio de Santillana organised the two seminars on archaic cosmology at MIT (in 1961 and 1966) that Hertha von Dechend lectured at. She presented, at least in 1966, the topic titled Introduction to Ancient Cosmology. It also appears that at these seminars Giorgio de Santillana actually gave most of the presentations. (Hertha von Dechend, though considered an excellent presenter and able to demonstrate enormous learning, was not comfortable speaking in English - her lack of fluency in English was a major barrier.) On several occasions Jerome Lettvin presented (but I am not sure during which year(s)). (See his articles: "The Use of Myth." in Technology Review, Volume 78, Number 7, 1976, Pages 52-57, 63; and "The Gorgon's Eye." in Technology Review, Volume 80, Number 2, 1977, Pages 74-83. Technology Review is an MIT publication.) The core persons for the two seminars in the 1960s were undoubtedly Giorgio de Santillana, Hertha von Dechend, Harald Reiche, Jerome Lettvin, and Philip Morrison. In her 1961 seminar notes Hertha von Dechend refers to seminar speakers (plural). The language of some parts of the 1961 seminar notes indicate that sometimes it is Giorgio de Santillana that is presenting. This leads to the conclusion that her seminar notes reflect what was jointly presented by multiple presenters. (The collection of essays comprising the book Astronomy of the Ancients edited by Kenneth Brecher and Michael Fiertag (1979) was published in the same year as the last MIT seminar on ancient astronomy given by Hertha von Dechend. Both editors were MIT staff and 3 of the 8 essays were by MIT staff. Many of the essays in it can be considered an extension of Hamlet's Mill.)
Unfortunately, the nature of von Dechend's involvement with the [Introduction to] Archaic Cosmology seminars at MIT, though mentioned by both herself and Uta Lindgren, are not clearly explained. (The seminars are nowhere mentioned in The Tech, MIT's oldest and largest newspaper, established in 1881.) It is indicated that they were not student seminars but seminars specifically convened for specialist academics. However, this may not be quite correct. The neurologist and psychiatrist Jerome Lettvin, a former professor at MIT and close associate of both Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend, recollects that each year the seminars were held there were a series of 5 or 6 seminars that would span a single term (or per each term for the year?) and the duration of each seminar was around 2 hours. (The organising of the seminars by way of fixing the dates was sporadic.) Circa 1967 Jerome Lettvin was focused on teaching the "History of experimental approaches to epistemology." Hertha von Dechend's lecture notes for the 1966 seminars are marked "Autumn, 1966, Introduction to Ancient Cosmology." For the 1979 seminars her lecture notes are simply marked "Fall, 1979." (The seminar title seems to have consistently been: Introduction to Ancient Cosmology. This was the exact title used for the 1966 seminar.) The seminars were open to everybody - students, faculty, and the public. The seminars were possibly held in the Charles Hayden Memorial Library Lounge (Hayden Library Lounge, Room 14E-310 (also written as 14-E310)). (The starting time was likely 5.00 pm and the finishing time was likely 7.00 pm.) This room was frequently utilised by Giorgio de Santillana, and also other Humanities Department staff, when organising the presentation of lectures by visiting academics. (It was located on level 4 mezzanine?) It was the Humanities Library (built 1950), and Giorgio de Santillana was in the Humanities Department. The colloquium to honour Giorgio de Santillana on his retirement was held in the Hayden Library Lounge (in May, 1967) which comfortably seated several hundred people. (The exact location of 14E-310 is a little confusing. Building 14E is described as being located near the Hayden Library. The address for 14E-310 appears as 160 Memorial Drive, Cambridge.) During 1961 at least Giorgio de Santillana was teaching the course "The Origins of Scientific Thought." Immediately before his retirement he was focused on teaching Greek and Renaissance scientific thought.
My copy of Hertha von Dechend's MIT course notes (purchased from France) may not be entirely complete, at least regarding the "cover pages." Only 2 course codes are given. These course codes are: (1) 21.93 T, Autumn, 1966; and (2) 21.965 J = STS 630 J, Fall, 1979. These course codes, even given my remoteness in time and space and familiarity, help to identify the nature of her MIT seminars. The number 21 identifies Course XXI (= Humanities) that was begun in 1952 at MIT. This identifies that the seminars were conducted as part of (or under the auspices of) Course XXI (Humanities). STS is the MIT abbreviation for: Science, Technology, and Society. The seminars (or at least the latter 2) would seem to be presented as part of the Independent Activities Period (IAP) which is a special 4-week term held each year that runs from the first week of January until the end of January. The IAP provides members of the MIT community (students, faculty, staff, and alumni) with the opportunity to organise, sponsor, and participate in a wide variety of activities, including forums and lecture series that are not possible during the semester. All of these short courses of one term duration, were, and still are, open to the MIT university community. Judging by recent examples a seminar series conducted during this short term would, and still do, usually consist of a weekly evening lecture of 2-3 hours (by one of more presenters), some expected core reading, and some minor essays/projects. (An IAP could also occur during the Spring.) Strictly speaking Winter (89 days) begins on December 21. Autumn/Fall (90 days) begins on September 22. The nature of the seminar coding, however, seems to clearly support this type of identification of von Dechend's seminars.
For information on the authors see the sympathetic (English-language) obituary of Giorgio de Santillana (1902-1974) by Nathan Sivin (a former student of de Santillana at MIT), Professor of Chinese Culture and the History of Science, University of Pennsylvania, in Isis, Volume 67, 1976, Pages 439-493; and the (English-language) obituary of Hertha von Dechend (1915-2001) by Uta Lindgren, Professor of the History of Science, University of Bayreuth in Isis, Volume 94, 2003, Pages 112-113). (Professor Uta Lindgren mistakenly credits Hertha von Dechend with being was the first person to analyse myths for their astronomical content. Such was a common 19th-century pastime for some writers such as George St Clair and Gerald Massey. A 20th-century precursor to Hamlet's Mill was contained in the unpublished Mystery of the Zodiac (dated circa 1948) by (the somewhat obscure Polish writer) Witold Balcer.) Each obituary contains a photograph of the respective author. Both authors were experienced, though not major, historians of science. Giorgio de Santillana described himself as as a scientific rationalist but, on the basis of Hamlet's Mill, he could also be described as an eccentric historian. It is undoubtedly correct to describe him as a polyhistor. See also "Ein Vulkan ist erloschen: Hertha von Dechend in memoriam." by Uta Lindgren in Nachrichtenblatt der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft und Technik, Jahrgang 51, Heft 2, Sommer, 2001, Pages 148-151; "The Foundations of Archaic Cosmology: Hertha von Dechend (1915-2001)." by Lindgren Uta in XXII International Congress of History of Science, Book of Abstracts, 2005, Pages 338; and the (German-language) obituary for Hertha von Dechend by Yas Maeyama in UniReport 5, 13. Juni 2001, Jahrgang 34, Page 14. (This is a publication of Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main.) Further, see "In Memorium: Hertha von Dechend." in The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, Volume 24, 2006, Pages 296-297.
Work on the manuscript of Hamlet's Mill had begun in 1967. In the Preface to his book Reflections on Men and Ideas (1968) Giorgio de Santillana mentions a forthcoming book by himself in collaboration with Hetha von Dechend with the (working) title An Introduction to Archaic Cosmology. Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend received supportive funding for much of their their research in the nature of a grant from the Twentieth Century Fund. (However, a number of other persons, both MIT students and academics, were also involved in the research for the book.) Hamlet's Mill is basically and attempt to re-introduce some of the basic ideas of Panbabylonism. The two key ideas of Panbabylonism that the authors attempt to revive are (1) Mesopotamian establishment of an equally divided, 12-constellation zodiac by circa 4000 BCE, and (2) Mesopotamian knowledge of the effects (at least) of precession (and the incorporation of such into ancient mythological themes), by circa 4000 BCE. Abe Aronow, a student at MIT from 1958 to 1962, knew Giorgio de Santillana, Hertha von Dechend, and Harald Reiche. (He also participated in some of the research for Hamlet's Mill. In her 1961 seminar notes Hertha von Dechend openly invites interested listeners to help in the research.) He recollects that Anacalypsis by Godfrey Higgins (2 Volumes; 1833-1836, Reprinted 1965) was a favourite book of Hertha von Dechend. The author identifies and discusses similar (religious) beliefs held world-wide. A basic theme of the book is that there is a universal basis to all languages and religions and Godfrey Higgins sought to identify the common thread. (Hertha von Dechend mentioned Godfrey Higgins and his book Anacalypsis in her 1979 seminar.) At MIT Giorgio de Santillana, Hertha von Dechend, Harald Reiche, Jerome Lettvin, Warren McCulloch, and Walter Pitts were all part of a group which called itself the Experimental Epistemology Laboratory. (Norbert Wiener may have been also.) This was Jerome Lettvin's laboratory and office and was a gathering point for group meetings. Tim Wilson, writing in 2005 about his student experiences at MIT in the early 1970s, recollects that he "got to hang out at Lettvin's lab, which was a kind of nearly-never-ending bull session on everything." Norbert Wiener, Warren McCulloch, Walter Pitts, and Giorgio de Santillana discussed the construction of a practical philosophy of technology for the modern age. In 1951 Giorgio de Santillana and Walter Pitts collaborated in a rebuttal of Erich Frank's attempt in the 1920s to reject all the fragments attributed to the 5th-century Greek philosopher Philolaus as spurious. (See: "Philolaos in Limbo, or: What Happened to the Pythagoreans?" by George de Santillana and Walter Pitts (Isis, Volume 42, 1951, Pages 112-120).) Walter Pitts and Hertha von Dechend were also very close friends, had lots of lengthy conversations, and Walter Pitts had a small influence on Hamlet's Mill. Walter Pitts was a participating audience member for the 1961 seminar. He also prepared a critical summary of Norman Lockyer's work, The Dawn of Astronomy, which Hertha von Dechend presented as the 1961 seminar continued. (During the early 1960s Giorgio de Santillana and Walter Pitts collaborated on a book on Parmenides. It later appeared as an essay only. Walter Pitts believed that he had a metaphysical experience when he was young that enabled him to see that logic rules the universe.)
Mark Stahlman (son of the eminent science historian William Stahlman) has enabled some insights into Giorgio de Santillana's time at MIT and the background to Hamlet's Mill. It appears that Norbert Wiener (Professor of Mathematics at MIT, and also a capable historian) was a close collaborator with Giorgio de Santillana. Both wished to understand the nature of "genius" and "discovery." (Giorgio de Santillana was obviously not prepared to sweep aside the question of genius as many historians had frequently done.) Giorgio de Santillana was no doubt taken by the fact that many ancient cultures believed consciousness was not linear by cyclical. (Norbert Wiener had an interdisciplinary approach to his work and was known for his ability to find connections between mathematics and other fields.) In the mid-1950s Norbert Wiener turned his attention to the question of "genius." He shared his interest in "genius" with Giorgio de Santillana and other historians (both at MIT and elsewhere). Mark Stahlman believes that Hamlet's Mill is the primary statement of Norbert Wiener's investigations to understand how genius had functioned throughout history. It appears Norbert Wiener believed that the Greek-Egyptian polymath Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus, astronomer, mathematician, geographer, life dates circa 90-170 CE, resided in Roman Egypt) was the best example of genius in history.
William Stahlman, later to become a science historian and Ptolemy specialist, was a student of Giorgio de Santillana at MIT. (He was a Class of 1948, Course XXI - Humanities graduate.) More broadly he was a student of Greek and pre-Greek mathematical astronomy. In 1960 William Stahlman earned a Ph.D. from Brown University, History of Mathematics Department, under Otto Neugebauer. His doctoral dissertation was: The astronomical tables of Codex Vaticanus graecus 1291. William Stahlman had already taught at MIT, Harvard University, and University of Wisconsin prior to gaining his Ph.D. (At the time of his employment (tenureship) at University of Wisconsin in 1960 he was completing his Ph.D.) At University of Wisconsin he taught courses in science in antiquity until his death in 1975 from serious illness. In March 1963 William Stahlman gave a talk at MIT on early astronomy. Mark Stahlman states that William Stahlman was a member of Giorgio de Santillana's "project group" contributing towards Hamlet's Mill. Mark Stahlman also states that William Stahlman was a protégé of Giorgio de Santillana and was perhaps encouraged by him to study the genius of Ptolemy and his discoveries. While a student at MIT and a member of Giorgio de Santillana's "project group" Abe Aronow states he worked on the mythological and cosmological references in the Midrash and the Zohar. (This appears to have been directed by Giorgio de Santillana.) It is difficult to accept Mark Stahlman's claim that William Stahlman was the primary resource for Hamlet's Mill. At the time of his early death in 1975 William Stahlman was with the Department of history of Science, University of Wisconsin. It would seem that Giorgio de Santillana had a practice of assigning persons (including students) to study various topics related to the "Hamlet's Mill project."
Giorgio de Santillana believed that genius and the origin of scientific discovery is to be found in the Neolithic Period. Hertha von Dechend believed that she had discovered one expression of this Neolithic Period genius and discovery, namely, knowledge of precession transmitted through mythology as a technical language.
Hamlet's Mill has received, and continues to receive, an enormous amount of uncritical support despite the fact that it presents an obscure and confusingly argued case. It is highly speculative, its arguments are base on little evidence, and there is little substantiation of its arguments. The contents of the book are poorly organised and presented. The book contains an immense amount of loosely related information but there is no persuasive evidence presented for the connections being made. The case being made is attempted with dis-jointed and piece-meal arguments. There is no reason to believe that much of the evidence cited in the book has actual relevance to the claims being made. A glaringly obvious defect is that both authors lack an expert knowledge of the history of Babylonian astronomy. (They chose to use early and unreliable sources from the pioneering stage of recovery of Babylonian astral sciences.) Remarkably, though the central theme relies on the establishment of a very early zodiac any attempt to establish evidence for such is ignored by the authors. The authors simply write their book on the assumption that an early zodiac and precessional mythology both existed. Apart from Giorgio de Santillana being seriously ill when he put the manuscript of the book together (his health had began failing quite rapidly) the process of publication itself was apparently a nightmare with material and notes to the publisher becoming lost.
It is usually stated that the book was basically written by Giorgio de Santillana. However, Hertha von Dechend states that she worked on the manuscript of the book during the 1960s. There is little doubt that the numerous appendices were exclusively written by Hertha von Dechend. (This is stated by Santillana within the Preface of the book.) It is also easy to discern that the greater contents of the book are von Dechend's work and owes much to her early MIT seminars. During 1961, 1966, and 1979 Hertha von Dechend (when a research associate at MIT) delivered (or help to deliver) seminars on ancient cosmology at MIT. (It is likely that the 1979 seminar was organised by Harald Reiche.) It appears that for all of these occasions she was hosted i.e., stayed as a house guest with a MIT faculty member. (An ex-student of de Santillana, who was a student at MIT from 1962 to early 1966, states that a least during most of the first half of the 1960s von Dechend was a frequent (though largely unidentified) presence in de Santillana's office. Richard Flavin advises that she most often stayed with Harald Reiche and his wife. It appears she also stayed with Jayant Shah and his wife over many years.) (Her lecture notes for these seminars were available for a time and they are full of errors regarding both spelling and sense.) The basic role of Giorgio de Santillana as "co-author" was evidently that of editing her English-language material. The problem of the book being poorly organised, and lacking unity and coherence, undoubtedly largely originates from the combination of von Dechend's MIT lecture notes being poorly organised and also the fact that de Santillana was seriously ill at the time of his involvement in the preparation of the manuscript of the book. However, de Santillana's collaborative connection with von Dechend probably had its roots in their 1958 meeting. Undoubtedly, he was probably interested in the theme of an astronomical basis for mythology prior to their 1958 meeting. His somewhat independent thoughts on the issue appeared briefly in his book The Origins of Scientific Thought (1961). In it de Santillana holds the origin of Greek science (especially astronomy) can be traced to the Neolithic period. Aspects of the book present a radical and unconventional view of the origins of Greek science. It appears reasonable to assume that during the early 1960s the (flawed) work of the British astronomer Joseph Lockyer (The Dawn of Astronomy (1894)) on the astronomical alignments of Egyptian temples also influenced de Santillana's ideas. Giorgio de Santillana wrote a new and extensive Preface for the 1964 reprint issued by MIT Press.
In the decade following World War II Giorgio de Santillana was one of a handful of scholars who ensured that the history of science as a discipline was established on a firm scientific footing. It is worth mentioning that Giorgio de Santillana was usually an excellent writer. In 1958 he was honoured with the Sidney Hilman Foundation journalism award (magazine reporting category) for his article "Galileo and J. Robert Oppenheimer." (The Reporter (1958)). At MIT Giorgio de Santillana was considered a visionary philosopher. Both de Santillana and Lettvin were regarded as excellent teachers by their students. (Giorgio de Santillana wrote 5 articles on Italian literature for the first edition of the Columbia Dictionary of Modern European Literature (1947).)
The book Hamlet's Mill also clearly shows the influence of Hertha von Dechend's teacher Leo Frobenius (who had written several books mirroring some Panbabylonian ideas, and the correspondence between mythological themes and celestial phenomena). The major influential book by Leo Frobenius influencing von Dechend was Das Zeitalter des Sonnengottes (1904). During and after her studies at Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität von Dechend was a co-worker at the Frobenius-Institut and the Museum für Völkerkunde. Another strong influential source for Hamlet's Mill would have been two Panbabylonian books by Alfred Jeremias listed in the Bibliography of Hamlet's Mill - Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients (3rd Revised Edition 1916 (2 Volumes); and Handbuch der Altorientalischen Geisteskultur (2nd Revised Edition, 1929). In the former Alfred Jeremias sets out such ideas as: (1) zodiacal world ages due to precession, (2) the change in world ages represented in myths, and (3) the celestial earth in the zodiac (ecliptic). Hertha von Dechend published very little material. Her PhD dissertation Die kultishe und mythische Bedeutung des Schweins in Indonesien und Ozeanien (Frankfurt University, 1939) remains unpublished. In 1973 and 1977 she published 2 short articles on the subject of ancient cosmology. (On of these was "Bemerkungen zum Donnerkeil." in: Prismata (Festschrift für Will Hartner), 1977.) Giorgio de Santillana published substantial material on the history of science.
The only real support for the book came from certain faculty members of MIT who were associated with Giorgio de Santillana. See the sympathetic (English-language) book reviews by Philip Morrison in Scientific American, Volume 221, Number 5, November, 1969, Page 159 (at which time he was the book review editor); and by Harald Reiche in The Classical Journal, Volume 69, Number 1, October/November, 1973, Pages 81-83. (Giorgio de Santillana and Harald Reiche had previously jointly-authored the book Aristotle and Science: A Critical Controversy which was published in 1959. It also appears that they worked at least on the draft of an essay titled: "A Memorandum on Greek Science.") Philip Morrison (who also wrote the Introduction to Astronomy of the Ancients edited by Kenneth Brecher and Michael Feirtag (1979), was Professor of Physics at MIT, and Harald Reiche was Professor of Classics and Philosophy at MIT. (See also the (English-language) book review by Arthur Meadows (University of Leicester) in Ambix, Volume XIX, 1972, Page 220. Further, see the sympathetic (Estonian-language) book review by Heino Eelsalu in Akadeemia [an Estonian journal], Number 6, 1995 Pages (Columns?) 1300-1301. Heino Eelsalu (Life dates: 1930-1998) was an astronomer.) After the retirement of Giorgio de Santillana his history of science classes at MIT were continued by Harald Reiche, a Professor of Classics and Philosophy at MIT, who was an avid supporter of Hamlet's Mill. In 1960 Harald Reiche was promoted to Associate Professor, Department of Humanities. He stayed at MIT and progressed through to Professor and then Professor Emeritus. (After his retirement it appears Giorgio de Santillana continued to lecture at MIT until he became seriously ill.) It would appear the intention of Harald Reiche to edit Hertha von Dechend's extensive German-language lecture notes, from lectures and seminars at Frankfurt University beginning 1970, was never fulfilled. He did make use of her unpublished material in at least one of his essays. It has been stated that Harald Reiche borrowed heavily from Hertha von Dechend. (It appears that von Dechend left her papers to Jerome Lettvin as executor. The library of Giorgio de Santillana also passed to Jerome Lettvin.) These lecture notes have, to my knowledge, never been translated or made generally available.
Some of the critical (English-language) book reviews of Hamlet's Mill are by Edmund Leach in The New York Review (of Books), February 12, 1970, Page 36, (Giorgio's De Santillana's protest letter regarding this review appeared in "Letters," The New York Review, May 7, 1970); by Jaan Puhvel in The American Historical Review, Volume LXXV, Number 6, October, 1970, Pages 2009-2010; by Lynn White Junior in Isis, Volume 61, 1970, Pages 540-541; by Geoffrey Kirk in The Spectator , Number 7434, 19 December, 1970, Page 809; by Gerald Gresseth in Journal of American Folklore, Volume 84, Number 332, April/June, 1971, Pages 246-247; by Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin in Journal for the History of Astronomy, Volume 3, 1972, Pages 206-211; by Albert Friedman in Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume X, 1972, Page 479; by Hilda Davidson in Folklore, Volume CXXXV, 1974, Pages 282-283; by David Leeming in Parabola, Volume III, Issue 1, 1978, Pages 113-115; and the (German-language) book review by Thomas Barthel in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Band 99, Heft 1 und 2, 1974, Pages 284-287).
For a short critique by Otto Neugebauer of the inaccuracies of Giorgio de Santillana as an historian of early science see "The Survival of Babylonian Methods in the Exact Sciences of Antiquity and Middle Ages." in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Volume 107, Number 6, December 20, 1963, Page 531. See also the short critique of Giorgio de Santillana by Asger Aaboe in the book review "Historians of Science." in The Yale Review, Volume 52, Winter, 1962, Pages 326-328. Further, see the short critique by Marshall Clagett, of de Santillana's uncritical acceptance that Thales predicted a solar eclipse in 585 BCE, in The American Historical Review, Volume LXVII, Number 4, July, 1962, Page 999. Giorgio de Santillana also supported the views of Frances Yates on the Hermetic tradition in the Renaissance. (See his enthusiastic review of her 1964 book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition in The American Historical Review, Volume 70, Number 2, January, 1965, Pages 455-457. (This was an influential book that helped to catapult her to academic stardom.)) In 1966 de Santillana (through the Department of Humanities and its Course XXI Club) arranged a lecture by Frances Yates on "Renaissance Science and Hermetic Tradition" at the Hayden Library Lounge (Room 14E-310). However, see the extended, devastating analysis of Frances Yates as a historian and scholar by the academic Christopher Lehrich in his book The Occult Mind (2007). It is clear her historical reconstructions were wildly speculative and lack any real evidence. Her ideas now how no solid academic support and historical explanations of the Renaissance proceed without them.
Part 2: The Basic Argument
"The main thesis of the book is that at a remote period a few men discovered the precession of the equinoxes (usually attributed to Hipparchus, ca. 120 B.C.). the obliquity of the ecliptic, and the shifting of the Celestial Pole. Four points of reference (equinoxes and solstices) form the frame or true ground of all myth. In particular, all Flood, world destruction, and succession type myths are seen as due to the shifting of this frame (as the vernal equinox enters a new zodiac sign precessing along the ecliptic). The authors further contend that this essentially scientific information was put into the preliterate code language (p. 344) of myth which then made its way about the earth apparently from "that 'Proto-Pythagorean' mint somewhere in the Fertile Crescent." (p. 311), completely unaffected by local beliefs and customs (p.345)." (Gerald Gresseth in Journal of American Folklore, Volume 84, Number 332, April/June, 1971, Pages 246-247.)
"[I]t is claimed that the widespread symbol of the World Tree must be based on the 'world axis', while the two great circles of the equinoxes and the solstices are represented by the image of the World Mill. Yggdrasil, Samson's pillar, the tree up which Mani climbs to heaven in the Polynesian story - all are reflections of man's early knowledge of the starry sky, based on a close and systematic observation of the movements of the heavens. The idea of a succession of worlds, of the destruction of the earth by Flood or fire, and many stories of the fall of great kings and heroes, are based on the disappearance of Pole Star and its replacement by another, due to the phenomenon known as the Precession of the Equinoxes (described pp. 59 ff.).(Hilda Davidson in Folklore, Volume CXXXV, 1974, Pages 282-283.)
Part 3: The Basic Problem
Hamlet's Mill is an extension of earlier attempts to establish an astronomical interpretation of mythology. Astronomical interpretations of mythology (often incorporating precession as the "key") have been extensively promoted in numerous books published between circa 1880 and 1930. Historically, proponents of a scheme of astronomical mythology (nearly always based on an equally divided 12-constellation zodiac) have ceaselessly demonstrated that it is possible to incorporate a diverse and differing range of astronomical data into their interpretations. Almost all the authors interpret the same mythology or epics with different astronomical data i.e., identify different astronomical phenomenon. Simply, an "astro-mythic" scheme can bear several several interpretations. (It is also interesting to see the apparently Jungian "astro-mythic" slant given to Hebrew mythology by Tom Chetwynd in his The Age of Myth (1991).) Such multitude of divergence indicates that the methodology is flawed or that the interpretations are forced. In a nutshell: The problem is no "astronomical key" has been identified - as is evidenced by the diverse astronomical methods of interpretation. This facilitates the criticism that often the method(s) of "astro- mythic" interpretation is perhaps not a method after all. A reasonable analogy would perhaps be the elaborate "Bacon is Shakespeare" ciphers that have been "discovered". What stands out is the fact that the coding systems and underlying identification messages are never the same. The 2 volumes by Ignatius Donnelly titled The Great Cryptogram (1888) are a prime example. John Nicolson's book No Ciphers in Shakespeare (1888) showed that the cipher scheme "discovered" by Ignatius Donnelly can be used to produce any required result. Likewise, elements within a single scheme of astronomical mythology can produce several variant interpretations.
The problem is illustrated by two "recent" publications using the same tale in the context of Hamlet's Mill (1969). They are Heavens Unearthed in Nursery Rhymes and Fairy Tales by Matt Kane (1999) and Imaginery Landscapes: Making Worlds of Myth and Science by William Thompson (1989). Both authors refer to Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the Frame of Time. In "Chapter 5: Rumpelstiltskin" of Kane's book he interprets the tale as a lunar myth. In "Chapter 1: Rapunzel: Cosmology Lost" of Thompson's book he interprets the tale as involving the sun and moon and the planetary motion of Mercury, Venus and Mars. A successful theory is such because it can best fit all the known facts. Also, within each of the sciences a single controlling theory tends to dominate. Two opposing theories which can use similar starting points but arrive at different explanative outcomes to fit the facts need to be given further investigation before one is accepted (with or without modification) or neither is accepted. It is also really up to the proponents of an idea to reasonably establish their case - including answering all reasonable criticisms raised.
The content of the speculations of the above-mentioned authors, however, apart from the premises which enable them, are essentially in conflict. Relative harmony would be a better indicator of the reliability of the "astro-mythic" method. What perhaps would also be more credible is an astronomical interpretation that did not incorporate a scheme of ancient zodiacal constellations to prop the "precession in mythology" approach. The nature of the claims for precessional mythology (invariably based on a conjectured ancient 12-constellation zodiac of 12 equal divisions) require that any difficult facts arising from such need to be critically discussed and myopic approaches avoided. We need to separate conviction from science and to ensure we satisfactorily do such we should not disable our skepticism.
Part 4: The Two Key Claims
The Claim for Precession in the Erra-Epic
The authors of Hamlet's Mill hold that the clearest statement of precession exists in the Erra-Epic (also known as the Erra and Ishum Epic). (See: Hamlet's Mill by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend (1969) Pages 325.) The authors write: "... it is necesary to leave Era's somber prophecy unfulfilled, relating as it does to a coming world age: "Open the way, I will take the road, The days are ended, the fixed time is past." But with it comes the clearest statement ever uttered by men or gods concerning the Precession. Says Marduk: When I stood up from my seat and let the flood break in, then the judgement of Earth and Heaven went out of joint ... The gods, which trembled, the stars of heaven - their position changed, and I did not bring them back." The authors fail to to engage in any developed discussion, scholarly or otherwise, of this section of the text. The source of the "Marduk quote" in Hamlet's Mill is the late version of the Erra-Epic, generally believed by scholars to have been written circa the eighth-century BCE, and is likely derived from (the German-language) book Das Era-Epos by Felix Gössmann (1956). (The author of the Erra-Epic, Kabti-ilani-Marduk of the Dabibi-family, claimed that the work was revealed to him in a dream.) Which author of Hamlet's Mill made the English-language translation is not known. Unfortunately Gössmann's edition of the Erra-epic has problems due to the fact he did not have access to all suitable material.
In the Erra-Epic there is a scenario involving disorder affecting the earth and heavens when Marduk temporarily leaves his throne. The context is an apocalyptic type scenario similar to the Biblical book Apocalypse of John (i.e., Book of Revelation). (See the discussion in Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come by Norman Cohn (1993). Erra is an Akkadian warrior god. The result of Erra's assault is that the world is plunged into darkness and as a result Marduk is displaced from his throne and forced to descend to the underworld. Erra temporarily seizes control of Babylon from Marduk during the latter's temporary absence. As the phenomena of precession is completely unconnected with any occurrence of celestial darkness this type of imagery can hardly be descriptive of precession. The theme of the chosen imagery of the Erra-Epic is believed to refer to a disastrous military event that occurred to the city of Babylon in the "dark age" at the beginning of the first millennium BCE. The central theme of the poem is concerned with the assault by Erra on the kingdom of Marduk. Babylon was the residence of the god Marduk and the centre of the universe. The disaster was interpreted in religious terms as the temporary replacement of Marduk by Erra. It is possible the poem is descriptive of a raid by the semi-nomadic Sutian people on the city of Babylon. The Sutians (who lived along the Euphrates River) periodically raided Mesopotamian cities. It has also been proposed that the epic was composed following the recovery of the statue of Marduk from Susa by Nebuchadnezzar 1 after its removal by the Elamite king Kutir-Nahhunte. This event is dated to the 12th-century BCE. Circa 1160 BCE King Kutir-Nahhunte invaded Mesopotamia and took the city of Babylon. Included amongst the items he brought back from Babylon was the Code of Hammurapi. Circa 1120 BCE King Nebuchadnezzar 1 conquered Elam.
The Claim for a Neolithic Zodiac
The myth of a prehistoric 12-constellation zodiac (of equal divisions) is not yet extinguished. The suggestion that the zodiac was originally established as an intended scheme of 12 constellations and 12 equal divisions some 6000 years ago (or even earlier) is untenable. The tide of claims up to the early 20th-century for the great antiquity of the zodiac (made by many historians, astronomers and Assyriologists) have been definitively discredited by an understanding of relevant Mesopotamian cuneiform sources. Nineteenth-century arguments made frequent (misplaced) use of mythology and symbolism i.e., Recherches sur le culte public et les mystères de Mithra en Orient et en Occident by (the French archaeologist) Félix Lajard (1867). The idea that a 12-constellation equally divided Babylonian zodiac originated circa 6000 BCE (enthusiastically promoted by the Panbabylonists Fritz Hommel (Semiticist) and Alfred Jeremias (Archaeologist)) did not begin to be entirely discarded until the pioneering work of Franz Kugler on Babylonian astronomy began appearing. There is no evidence that the Greek scheme of 12 zodiacal constellations existed anywhere prior to its evolvement in Greece circa 500 BCE. The Assyriologist Peter Jensen was the first to show, in his book Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (1890), that the Greek zodiac (and zodiacal constellation names) was adapted (with few changes) from the (newly developed) zodiacal scheme of the Babylonians.
The pioneering work on Babylonian astronomy was the monumental Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel (1907-1935, 2 volumes and 3 supplements in 7 parts) by the Jesuit mathematician and Assyriologist Franz Kugler. He clearly demonstrated the late origin of Babylonian scientific astronomy and convincingly demonstrated that the Babylonians had a late and sidereal zodiac and a late mathematical astronomy. This meant that precession could not have been marked at an early date through either the constellations or signs of the zodiac. Also, from his study of cuneiform texts Kugler pointed out that the concept of precessional movement of the tropical points through ecliptic constellations was not contained in early Babylonian astronomical texts. There is nothing in the Babylonian texts to prove a Twins-, Bull-, and Ram-period of precession. The later studies of the mathematicians Otto Neugebauer and Bartel van der Waerden on cuneiform astronomy have clearly shown that the zodiac originated in Mesopotamia and not earlier than the 1st millennium BCE. It was not handed down to the Babylonians from an earlier culture.
Part 5: Some Critics and Criticisms
(1) Some summary points in the book review by Edmund Leach [Anthropologist] in The New York Review (of Books), February 12, 1970, Page 36:
"[T]he murky confusion generated by reading any random twenty pages of Hamlet's Mill is strongly reminiscent of Frobenius. Indeed, the whole operation is not much more than a gloss on two early works of the extraordinary author, Die Mathematik der Oceaner (1900) and Das Zeitalter des Sonnengottes (1904)."
"Whether any such cosmic legend ever existed anywhere at all, all in one piece, seems, on the evidence of this book, to be extremely doubtful, but those who want to believe in such improbabilities as flying saucers are never likely to be put off by mere lack of evidence."
"The whole enterprise is rather like a demonstration that Francis Bacon wrote the plays of William Shakespeare. Provided you are certain of your answers before you start, the clues and acrostics can be found almost anywhere."
"Something like 60 percent of the text is made up of complex arguments about Indo-European etymologies which would have seemed old-fashioned as early as 1870."
"It was proposed by Kuhn in 1852 that the name Prometheus is a corruption of Sanskrit Pra-mantha, a fire stick. Although this etymology has long ago been completely rejected as linguistically quite impossible ... Hamlet's Mill not only resurrects the equation but gives it enormous elaboration so that Prometheus's fall from celestial grace is made to provide evidence that our ancestors of 6000 years ago could recognize a shifting in the position of the Pole Star!"
"But the skeptic need never feel browbeaten by the battery of foot-notes and appendices. Half the time the authors get their references wrong anyway. For example, at p. 142 they blandly assert that "during the last hundred years it has been taken for granted that no one could have detected the Precession (of the Equinoxes) prior to Hipparchus's alleged discovery of the phenomenon in 127 B.C.," and they then go on to argue that evidence of a much earlier understanding of the phenomenon is to be found in ancient mythology. But this is just false. The issue has been discussed repeatedly ...."
(2) Some summary points in the book review by Jaan Puhvel [Philologist/Historian] in The American Historical Review, Volume LXXV, Number 6, October, 1970, Pages 2009-2010:
"[The authors set out to prove that] ... myth is a repository of arcane astronomical (and astrological) knowledge .... This the authors do by a combination of heavy scholarship, withering hubristic polemicism, and portentous oracular style."
"The long-forgotten period-piece etymologies of Max Müller and Adalbert Kuhn ("surely a great scholar," p. 381) are blithely resurrected (for example, Sanskrit Pramantha matching Greek Prometheus, p. 139), while more up-to-date authorities are caricatured as "severe philologists, slaves to exact 'truth' (p. 294)."
"In brief this is not a serious scholarly work on the problem of myth in the closing decades of the twentieth century."
(3) Some summary points in the book review by Lynn White Junior [Historian] in Isis, Volume 61, 1970, Pages 540-541:
:"In his preface (p. x) de Santillana expresses admiration for von Dechend's virtue of "scornful indignation." "Arrogant oversimplification" might be an equivalent phrase."
"Von Dechend assumes a single astronomical origin in the Near East for the entire global corpus of mythologies. Her only proofs are analogy, often strained. On a single page (425) she connects myths of Greece, Japan, Egypt, Iceland, the Marquesas, and the Cherokee Indians. On page 309, a rabbinical and a Pawnee tradition show "unmistakeable" identity. On page 320 we read "here Greek myth suddenly emerges in full light among Indian tribes in America, miraculously preserved." One might quote such passages indefinitely."
"The Norse hero Amlodhi had a great quern in the sea where Nine Maids ground out his meal. In his classic Hamlet in Iceland Sir Israel Gollanz concluded that "Hamlet's Mill" may mean anything."
"But admitting that drills and churns offer a possible symbolism of the retrograde parts of the observed paths of the planets, anyone who has operated a fire drill or churn knows that the alterations in directions of rotation are necessarily so swift that to turn them into symbols of the solemn wheeling of the heavenly bodies is a psychological absurdity."
(4) Some summary points in the book review by Gerald Gresseth [Philologist/Classicist] in Journal of American Folklore, Volume 84, Number 332, April/June, 1971, Pages 246-247:
"[I]t does not appear (the authors never say) why this information had to be encoded in myth - and not in simple asterisms, at that, but in complex myths that on the surface at least would seem to have no reference to even the stars, let alone the precession."
"[T]his theory precludes, in accordance with its own criteria, any way of accounting for the variants and combinations of motifs in any one myth type (Flood myth for example). One feature of Flood myths is the suddenness of the flood - hardly in keeping with the precessional motion of the earth."
"Even granting that this ancient "brains trust" did encode such knowledge in myth, how does it happen that the code was so completely lost that even the learned do not know it, though these same societies managed to hand down other types of information well enough?"
"[T]here seems to be no other record other than the code of the myth for this important astronomical knowledge."
"[T]here is no attempt in the book to demonstrate how this astronomical information was diffused in myth from the ancient Near East to North America, Polynesia, and other parts of the world."
"There is much else that folklorists would like to have the authors explain. For instance, did these ancient thinkers use already existing myths to encode their discoveries in? If so, what was the origin of these myths?"
(5) Some summary points in the book review by Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin [Astronomer] in Journal for the History of Astronomy, Volume 3, 1972, Pages 206-211:
"[T]he threads of the argument are not closely knit. Rather they are loosely braided, and the final pattern does not leap to the eye. I tried without success to reproduce the development of the theme by writing a brief paragraph to summarize each chapter."
"Much of the book will be unfamiliar to anyone save an extremely well-read specialist. The flamboyant and allusive style serves only to deepen the obscurity. Why should the reader be expected to recognise allusions to The possessed, or Mabinogion, or Flaubert's unfinished satirical novel? Why should he be bewildered by a punning reference to quasars? What is he to make of the author's comment on Nonnos: "It takes some nerve to say of the Galaxy that it meanders - actually the Greek text has it that it moves in a helix"; for that is exactly what it does, and perhaps Nonnos was announcing a proleptic discovery of galactic rotation."
"The minor evidences of carelessness [on the part of the authors] suggest a certain insouciance in composition, and impose ... the problem of examining the book's fidelity to its sources."
"The treatment of classical mythology and its derivatives seems to be needlessly obscure, and (as the authors remark of Eisler) "provides more information than guidance.""
"The "good reason to assume" an earlier discovery [of precession to Hipparchus] must rest on the idea that it was likely. It is argued that "our ancestors ... were endowed with minds wholly comparable to ours", therefore they were capable, "always given the means at hand", of perceiving Precession. They may have done so; it is notoriously difficult to prove a negative. But to use the myths as evidence that they did, and then to use this conclusion to interpret the myths, smacks of a circular argument."
"The Zodiac forms a sort of backdrop to the drama, but it falls somewhat out of focus. Yet the origin of the zodiacal constellations seems to lie at the heart of the mystery. We could wish that the book included a documentation of this fascinating subject. The authors glance at a few details .... But they claim that they "must not be drowned in the abyss of details of comparative constellation lore." In other words they do not consider the history of the constellations as important a subject as others to which they devote massive documentation. It is in fact a question of which abyss you choose."
(6) Some summary points in the book review by Albert Friedman [Folklorist/Historian] in Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume X, 1972, Page 479:
"The authors, both seasoned historians of science, have concocted a book that reads like Velikovsky bouncing along the Road to Xanadu."
"This archaic astronomical monomyth, diffused from China to Peru, no longer exists in its pristine integrity but has to be painfully teased out of the flotsam and jetsam that surfaces sporadically in chronicles, epics and latter-day literary myths, and it is to this task that the authors address themselves. The result is unconvincing."
"Erudite references are heaped together with too little attention to designing a credible argument; tenuous associations are passed off as sensational and indubitable proofs; their is much sleight-of-hand with entymologies; passages in epics are eccentrically explicated to yield the desired interpretation."
"But what is most exasperating about the book is the author's coy way of paying out their findings. Just as a train of argument is about to come to the point, a digression is maddeningly introduced to heighten the suspense; the startling promises of topic sentences and paragraphs somehow never get realized in the tangle of forced facts and dubious speculations that follow."
"[N]ow and then an arresting idea emerges, but these tidbits hardly compensate for the frailty of the thesis and the overly calculated exposition."
(7) Some summary points in the book review by Geoffrey Kirk [Classicist] in The Spectator, Number 7434, 19 December, 1970, Page 220:
"This imaginative and perverse volume represents a further installment of a vision developed over the past twenty years within the improbable portals of of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
"The ... theory is that world mythology contains relics of a lost archaic belief that world-ages succeed one another in accord with the precession of the equinoxes, an idea [held] familiar several millennia before Hipparchus. This remarkable and improbable conclusion is presented in language that is mystical and apocalyptic as much as vague and dogmatic: 'mathematics was moving up to me from the depth of centuries'."
"The basic intuition about a vast but fugue-like corpus of ancient astronomical knowledge is very loosely supported by reference to the Pythagoreans and Plato, to number-imagery in the Vedas, to the Avesta, to Gilgamesh and other Mesopotamian figures, and to the northern tales of Hamlet that give the book its title. Amlodhi in Norse legend owned a mill that ground out peace and prosperity; later it degenerated to producing salt; ultimately, at the bottom of the sea, it produces mere rock and sand and is the source of the Maelstrom, one of the entrances of the underworld: 'This imagery stands, as the evidence develops, for an astronomical process, the secular shifting of the sun through the signs of the zodiac which determines world-ages ...'."
The chaotic presentation of the argument is defended by reference to the 'non-"catenary' nature of the archaic structure of ideas it seeks to disclose."
"The style in which these ideas are presented varies from the imprecise and pretentious (Socrates's 'inimitable' habit of using myth for the discussion of serious matters) to the absurd ('The epics of Gilgamesh and Era offer too many trees for our modest demands.')."
"More serious, there is virtually nothing in the way of cogent argument. Even in the appendices, where the texture of thought appears least diffuse, it is rare to find two propositions of which it may be said that the one follows necessarily or even probably from the other."
"Yet at the points where I was qualified to test it the information the information was either inaccurate or wilfully interpreted: something that the authors, who defy 'experts' and the like, would obviously not accept."
(8) Some summary points in the book review by Hilda Davidson [Folklorist/Historian] in Folklore, Volume CXXXV, 1974, Pages 282-283:
"It is assumed, although the evidence of the Dogon in Africa (quoted in Appendix L) would seem to contradict it. that the general system of astronomy must always follow the same fundamental lines among early and preliterate people."
"[The book] ... is amateurish in the worst sense, jumping to wild conclusions without any knowledge of the historical value of the sources or of previous work done."
"On the Scandanavian side there is heavy dependence on the fantasies of Rydberg, writing in the last century, and apparent ignorance of progress made since his time."
"No one can take seriously an elaborate theory based on an extremely obscure and imperfectly preserved passage of skaldic verse, relying on one translation, that of Gollanz."
"It is nonsense to state (p. 26) that the culture of the Finno-Ugric peoples was utterly cut off from the Scandinavians until recently: and one might continue on these lines indefinitely."
"[The book] ... attempts to dogmatize in fields in which the authors are not sufficiently at home."
(9) Some summary points in the book review by David Leeming [Folklorist] in Parabola, Volume III, Issue 1, 1978, Pages 113-115:
"The book seems to ... be an attempt to prove a pet theory, to the exclusion of others equally valid."
"[T]he authors appear to be blinded by their own voluminous scholarship; their extensive footnotes, appendices, and tangential meanderings most of the time bury whatever it is they are trying to say. In fact, Hamlet's Mill reads like a parody of nineteenth century scholarship of the German variety. For all its pretentions to freshness and originality, it is ... one of the most muddled books yet written on the subject of myth."
"Hamlet's Mill is, finally, fantasy, but it is too top-heavy to enjoy. ... The problem is, Santillana and von Dechend try to prove a nearly exclusive connection by means of a parade of loosely related information. This is the rationalist fallacy. Give me a theory - especially one as wild as this - and with enough mythic material I can "prove" it, simply because there are so many mythic "facts" to draw from."
Part 6: Some Corrections
Some corrections and additions to the original English-language edition of Hamlet's Mill:
Page xvii: The Royal Art of Astronomy = The Royal Art of Astrology.
Page xi: Quote is incorrectly attributed to Troilus instead of Pandarus.
Page 7: 9 X 13 = 9 X 12.
Page 34: Shakespeare's Hamlet is misquoted.
Page 69: raciation = ratiocination.
Page 137: Shakespeare's Hamlet is misquoted.
Page 139: appendix #15 = appendix #14.
Page 142: The reference to Hipparchus' discovery that the north pole turns about the ecliptic pole should be reworded to avoid creating the impression that the discovery of the latter was a consequence of the discovery of the phenomenon of precession. It is the obliquity of the ecliptic itself, i.e., the solar year, which implies an ecliptic pole distinct from the north pole.
Illustrations between pages 142-143: The figure legends on each page have been interchanged.
Page 163: alternative = alternating.
Page 197: Heliand = Heiland. (But Rodger Cunningham kindly brought to my attention that Heliand is the correct Old Saxon form as the authors seem to be referring obliquely to the medieval poem of that title.)
Page 197: Pier della Vigna = Pier delle Vigne or Petro della Vigna. (Kindly brought to my attention by Roger Cunningham.)
Page 211: Red Sea = Persian Gulf.
Page 242: Johannes = Johannis.
Page 338: Tennyson's verse is misquoted.
Page 349: St. Cecelia's Day = St. Cecilia's Day.
Page 367: Appendix 9 has no page (text) reference but page 93, line 3 is most likely intended.
Page 377: Paradise Lost, 10 = Paradise Lost, 9.
Page 380: alternative = alternating.
Page 389: oscillating = alternating.
Page 409: mission = mansions.
Page 427: Appendix 37 has no page (text) reference but page 319 or 320 is most likely intended.
Page ?: Lysis (by Plato circa 380 BCE) instead of Lysias (Greek speech writer and story teller (life dates: circa 445-380 BCE)).
Note: The brief errata list that was enclosed with the 1993 German-language edition (by Hertha von Dechend) was left out of the 1994 reprint of such.
This web page was last updated on: Thursday, February 7, 2008, 10.30 pm.
This web page was created using Arachnophilia 4.0 and FrontPage 2003.
You can reach me here by email: 