by Jan Irvin
“It plays a major hidden role […] in the best-known episode of the Old Testament, tale of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.”
~ Gordon Wasson
We also see from Persephone’s Quest, quoted by Forte (above), that Wasson also appears to attempt to steal credit from Allegro by stating “hidden from us until now”. As will be discussed more in a moment, if Wasson really wrote this in the 1980s then he was oblivious to Allegro’s research published in 1970, as well as his own change of position toward Allegro claimed by Ruck and Mark Hoffman.
We cannot assume for any reason that Wasson had intended to use Toporov’s paper in support of Allegro, though this is one of the strongest pieces in support of Allegro.
Any allegation that Wasson changed his stance beyond the Genesis story is completely unsupported. The 1000BCE theory is, in fact, the only position Wasson ever held.
In Persephone’s Quest, Wasson finally identified the Fruit of the Tree in Eden as Amanita muscaria
~Carl Ruck
Wasson had long ago indirectly identified the Fruit of the Tree in Eden as Amanita, all the while vehemently denying a direct representation (above). But Ruck’s statement goes against everything Wasson said and did and gives him unjustified and undue credit. This is something that Allegro and Ramsbottom specifically challenged Wasson on, and were attacked for, and therefore they deserve the credit.
The only way Wasson could have changed his mind based on what is written in Persephone’s Quest would mean that Michael Hoffman’s analysis is correct: that Wasson actually wrote this circa 1969, not in the 1980s (Hoffman et al, 2006). However, Wasson’s admissions to Herer, Hamilton, and Forte (above) further reveal that Wasson did not, in fact, change his position toward Allegro or Christianity before his death.
Some months ago I read the Garden of Eden tale once more, after not having thought of it since childhood. I read it as one who now knew the entheogens. Right away it came over me that the Tree of Knowledge was the tree that has been revered by many tribes of Early Man in Eurasia precisely because there grows under it the mushroom, splendid to look upon, that supplies the entheogenic food to which Early Man attributed miraculous powers. He who composed the tale for us in Genesis was clearly steeped in the lore of this entheogen: he refrained from identifying the ‘fruit’: he was writing for the initiates who would recognize what he was speaking about. I was an initiate. Strangers and also the unworthy would remain in the dark. Adam and Eve had eaten the ‘fruit, being led to do so by the serpent, the faithful attendant on the ‘fruit’, what the mycologists call Amanita muscaria…
~ Gordon Wasson (Persephone’s Quest, pg 76)
There is no maneuvering away from Wasson’s 1000BCE Genesis theory. He states “I read the Garden of Eden tale once more, after not having thought of it since childhood”. As Michael Hoffman and I pointed out, how could this be true unless written circa 1969? (Hoffman et al, 2006) How could Wasson have spent years attacking other researchers for a book he claims he didn’t think about since his childhood? This is an absurd level of sloppiness and inconsistency and is clearly problematic for all of Wasson’s arguments against Allegro and the use of mushrooms beyond 1000BCE in Judeo-Christianity. If Wasson’s statement was in fact written in the 1980s and not circa 1969, then it places Wasson’s reputation on extremely shaky ground. It would reveal Wasson as having attacked Allegro for more than fifteen years over a book he’d not read since childhood—while Allegro was a biblical scholar. Remember too that Wasson admitted to Herer that he relied on the opinions of a Rabbi and a Monsignor for his critique of SMC, rather than studying it himself (above, and Appendix).
Another article in which Ruck et al, similarly attempts to bestow undue credit on Wasson is in the article Daturas for the Virgin (Entheos Vol. 1, No. 2):
Wasson’s opinion has been substantiated by considerable further investigation […] Well known now are the many documented depictions of the Paradise Trees as mushrooms: mushrooms and nothing else. They look like mushrooms and that is quite frankly what they are, not stylized trees, for the mushroom played a role in Christian mysticism and so-called heretical sects.
~ Carl Ruck and José González‑Celdrán
This statement by Ruck and González is clearly misleading. It gives the impression that Wasson himself wasn’t one of the largest barriers to further investigation of entheogens in Judeo-Christianity, forgetting that he attacked anyone for going beyond his indirect hypothesis of Paradise Trees and 1000BCE. Wasson is being given undue credit for the very contentions others held against his stated position while he maintained the safety of his 1000BCE argument. But not only that: Ruck and González have mistakenly conflated the Wasson-Panofsky argument in the same paragraph, as if Wasson’s own opinion itself was not that of the stylized trees—the Wasson-Panofsky argument! This is in fact the antithesis of Wasson’s position. Make no mistake. This was Allegro’s position.
Unfortunately, Ruck and González also refuse to state emphatically that Christianity has a direct basis in entheogens. Instead, they attempt to recreate Wasson’s feeble argument: “the mushroom played a role in Christian mysticism and so-called heretical sects.” Now, however, instead of limiting entheogen usage to 1000BCE, Ruck and González attempt to limit entheogen usage to “Christian mysticism and so-called heretical sects”. As was shown in Astrotheology & Shamanism (Irvin et al, 2006), and will further be revealed below, this is completely unfounded, as there is enough compelling evidence to show Christianity itself is based on entheogens. It should also be pointed out that the Chapel at Plaincourault was built by the Knights of Malta, a sanctioned Catholic order headquartered in Vatican City to the present day. They are certainly not a “so-called heretical sect”.
…when it was not possible to collect mushrooms for the Eucharist, the same communion with divinity quite obviously could be accessed through the medium of a surrogate entheogen. The continued reluctance of many scholars either to accept or refute Wasson’s conclusion amounts to biased obstructionism; the preferred response is either to reject it, often unread, out of hand, or even better, benign disregard, as a subject beneath contempt, requiring neither examination nor rebuttal, even as the evidence continues to mount up that all of the ancient religions of the Old World, not just the Eleusinian Mystery, had entheogenic Mystery sacraments […] The original identity of the Tree and its fruit was always restricted knowledge, concealed by metaphors and symbols that only a few could know.
~ Carl Ruck and José González‑Celdrán
Ruck and González incorrectly give Wasson credit for recognizing mushroom trees in Christian art, when in fact Wasson is to blame for asserting that mushroom trees in Christian art are not depictions of mushrooms. They further state: “The continued reluctance of many scholars either to accept or refute Wasson’s conclusion amounts to biased obstructionism.” As I have shown, Wasson’s confounded conclusion kept entheogens limited to 1000BCE. His own position has been nothing but “biased obstructionism” toward other scholars, like Allegro, who challenged him.
Based on the evidence presented, we can logically conclude that Wasson is the source of many present-day scholars’ obstructive bias against Allegro and the idea of entheogens in Judaeo-Christianity (see Price and Ott, above; and also Letcher (2007), as examples).
[Wasson] was desperate to prove his thesis but even so he rejected certain pieces of ‘evidence’ out of hand. He could find no evidence that European ‘witches’ had used mushrooms. Likewise he rejected the Plaincourault fresco. So if Wasson, a man hungry for evidence, rejected them then I think we can too.
~ Andy Letcher, April 2, 2007
Wasson never admitted anywhere, in all of his published works, that mushroom trees were understood and recognized through the time that Revelation was written.
I suppose that few at first, or perhaps none, will agree with me. To propose a novel reading of this celebrated story is a daring thing: it is exhilarating and intimidating. I am confident, ready for the storm.
<
br /> ~ Gordon Wasson
There was no storm, and Wasson got off scot-free.
~ Carl Ruck
In regards to Wasson’s statement: “I am confident, ready for the storm,” we remarked in Astrotheology & Shamanism: “Fortunately, for Wasson, Allegro had already weathered the storm.” (Irvin et al, 2006, pg. 57)
Additional evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity
Up to this point I have reviewed each of Wasson’s contentions against Allegro’s scholarship. Upon critical review, in every instance, the evidence has weighed heavily in Allegro’s favor, and to Wasson’s own detriment.
But now that the subject of the Plaincourault fresco has been properly substantiated as a mushroom (Hoffman et al, 2006; Ruck et al, 2007/2005/2001/unpublished; Samorini, 1998), should we take this iconographic evidence as enough to convince the reader, nay the biblical scholar, of the mushroom’s use in Christianity?
Here I submit that in fact we should not—at least not yet.
In reviewing all of the entheogenic citations used by Allegro, we still have yet to prove the existence of the sacred mushroom in Christianity. We still cannot state definitively that Allegro was correct about the mushroom in Christianity.
In this section I shall provide some of the latest evidence that has surfaced since the publication of Allegro’s SMC and Wasson’s Soma. It is the purpose of this section to tip the scales of hypothetical evidence into solid proof, or show either side as unprovable.
First we’ll look at the stages of fruit body development for the main types of mushrooms in discussion: Amanita muscaria (Table 1) and two species of Psilocybe: Stropharia cubensis (Table 2) and Psilocybe semilanceata (Table 3).
After this I’ll provide some of the strongest iconographic evidence available, as well as the date and location (where known) that each piece of evidence was manufactured (plates 1–43). Since the most well-known and hotly debated piece of evidence happens to be the Plaincourault fresco, and since we must now include it as evidence, we’ll begin the iconography section with it.
Table 1. The developmental stages of the Amanita muscaria (fly-agaric) mushroom – from vulva to chalice.
Table 2. Stropharia cubensis in various stages of development. The bottom right image shows bluing.
Table 3. Psilocybe semilanceata, otherwise known as the Liberty Cap.
Plate 1. The Plaincourault Fresco, circa 1291. Plaincourault chapel at Mérigny, Indre Dist., France.
Adam and Eve are depicted on either side of the mushroom tree. Eve appears to be suffering from colic, a symptom of queasiness after consuming the Amanita muscaria mushrooms. The Tree of Knowledge is most often depicted entwined with a serpent. The serpent-entwined staff or tree is a symbol of medicine and drugs, known as the caduceus.
Plate 2. Adam and Eve, etymology of death (above). Of fire-bearing stones (below). Aberdeen Bestiary, f.93v., 12th century, Scotland.
Plate 3. Adam and Eve, The Fortunate Sin. Exultet Roll, circa 1072, Abbey of Montecassino, Italy.
Here a Psilocybe mushroom is shown as the tree of knowledge, with the serpent forming the caduceus symbol of drugs. Two smaller mushrooms are shown in the foreground.
Plate 4. Roasting a salamander. Alchemy, 14th century, Bodleian Library, Oxford, England.
The salamander is as a symbol of the Amanita muscaria. Depicted this way, it is the same symbol as the entwined serpent wrapped around the tree, the caduceus. A hybridized mushroom tree is depicted similar to that of the Plaincourault fresco (Plate 1). A man is shown holding a mushroom and holding his head, dancing under the influence of the mushroom.
Plate 5. Story of Creation – Canterbury (Anglo-Catalan) Psalter, 1147CE, Canterbury, England.
Each segment is a representation from different parts of the creation of the world epic as described in the book of Genesis. In the top left panel, we see the Great Architect as the “Cosmic Christ” with his compass. In the top right panel we see Jesus, creator and lord of magical plants. Some of the other panels depict God (or Jesus) with the book of the law, as the lord over the sacred plants, and as the creator of day and night. One panel depicts a scene in the Garden of Eden with the serpent. Notice that the serpent has entwined the staff (which is actually the stem of a mushroom). It looks a bit like the Amanita muscaria, al- though it does appear to depict an artistic combination of Psilocybe and other types of mushrooms as well.
Plate 6. Detail of Panel #3, Canterbury (Anglo-Catalan) Psalter, 1147CE, Canterbury, England.
The red mushroom on the right is the Amanita muscaria. The next mushroom is blue, indicating Psilocybe mushrooms. Next may be a depiction of a Syrian Rue plant pod, which is similar in color as well as structure. On the left is a depiction of an Opium Poppy shown in the shape of a mushroom.
Plate 7. Detail of panel #9, Canterbury (Anglo-Catalan) Psalter, 1147CE, Canterbury, England.
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden; notice the serpent wrapped around the tree making it the caduceus, the tree here is actually shown as a mushroom. The serpent, or, the caduceus, the sym- bol of drugs, is giving Adam and Eve something to eat that will open their eyes and make them as gods, knowing good and evil. Inside the very top of the center “tree” forming the serpent- entwined mushroom-caduceus may be seen little mushrooms.
Plate 8. Adam and Eve. Bible of Charles the Bald, San Paolo Fuori le Mura, 9th century. Rome.
Adam and Eve are both seen lying asleep directly under the mushroom trees in Eden.
Plate 9. Apocalypse-Incarnation. Bernward Gospel, 1015CE. Dom treasury, Hildesheim, Germany.
The detail of this image reveals a Psilocybe-type mushroom tree, with both open and unopened caps. The entwined serpent is present, representing the caduceus—drugs.
Plate 10. Eve given to Adam. St. Michael’s Church, Bernward Doors, 1015CE. Hildesheim, Germany.
Two mushroom trees are depicted.
Plate 11. Adam and Eve reproached by the Lord. St. Michael’s Church, Bernward Doors, 1015CE. Hildesheim, Germany.
Adam and Eve are seen covering themselves on either side of a mushroom tree.
Plate 12. Adam and Eve. Ceiling of St. Michael’s church, circa 12th century. Hildesheim, Germany.
Adam and Eve are seen eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The background is the top of a red Amanita muscaria mushroom cap, complete with spots. The fruit being eaten by Eve is one of the spots of the mushroom cap.
Plate 13. The Parable of the Sower: stained glass pane from The Poor Man’s Bible Window, North Choir Aisle, Canterbury Cathedral, 12th century. England.
Six distinct clusters of mushrooms, and four, larger, individual mushrooms are depicted.
Plate 14. Martin resus-citates a child. Chartres Cathedral, Martin Window, pane 18, 12th century. France.
Martin is pointing upward at the red-topped mushroom tree.
Plate 15. Martin is consecrated as Bishop. Chartres Cathedral, Martin Window, pane 13, 12th century. France.
Martin is pictured glaring at an Amanita muscaria complete with spots.
Plate 16. Carmina Burana – Front piece of a German edition. 13th century.
The image depicts five or more distinct mushroom tree designs.
Plate 17. Meditation with blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10, 46–52), Egberti Codex, Fol. 31, 980CE. Germany.
The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight (Mark 10:51). Bartimaeus sits under the mushroom tree complete with striations, which provides the vision, or “sight”.
Plate 18. The Sermon on the Mount. Gospel Book of Otto III, Reichenau, 1010CE. Folio 34, Verso, CLM. 4453, Staatsbibliothek, Munich, Germany.
The men are depicted worshipping a mushroom-capped tree on the mount.
Plate 19. Adoration of shepherds. Thought to be from the Wurzburg manuscript, 9th century. Ireland and Italy.
The center of the tree has a mushroom-shaped top, while the other branches do not. Both men have a red mushroom or ‘T’ on top of their heads.
Plate 20. Annuncia
tion to the Shepherds, 11th century. Bavaria, Germany.
Two men are seen praying under a mushroom-capped tree.
Plate 21. Profane music. Nave Capital 6. 12th century. Vezelay Cathedral, France.
A spotted mushroom is portrayed under the flute playing the ‘profane’ music. To the right is some sort of demon, possibly dancing to the music.
Plate 22. St Martin of Tours and the Pagans’ sacred tree. Nave Capital 24. 12th century. Vezelay Cathedral, France.
A mushroom is depicted at the top of the pagan’s tree.
Plate 23. Death of Absalom. Nave Capital 53. 12th century. Vezelay Cathedral, France.
Two mushrooms are portrayed at the top, inside the tree.
Plate 24. Infant Moses afloat in a basket. Munich Psalter, 1200-1210CE, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Germany.
Plate 25. Jacob’s vision. Munich Psalter, 1200–1210CE, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Germany.
Jacob lies on the ground beneath three mushroom trees which provide his vision—climbing the ladder to heaven.
