Is the Boy Dizzy, Dancing or Dying? The Misappropriation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v, as "Evidence" for Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art.
 |
| Beastiary, MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v. PDF of this article |
The image above is from a 13th century bestiary in Oxford's Bodleian Library (MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v). A completely fanciful interpretation of this picture was advanced by Bennett et al. 1995, which was in turn uncritically repeated and expanded upon by subsequent PMTs (Psychedelic Mushroom in Christian Art Theorists), all of whom imagined it came from a 14th alchemical text and none of whom knew it was actually from a 13th century bestiary.
Medieval bestiaries describe what was believed to be the peculiar behaviors and characteristics of different animals along with their typological or symbolic significance. They are rooted in a Greek work known as the Physiologus, which is sometimes attributed to the 4th century Greek father Epiphanius of Salamis, but perhaps dates back as early as the end
of the 2nd century AD.
In the present article we shall first describe what the picture above actually depicts, after which we shall examine the fanciful interpretation imposed upon it by PMTs.
A salamander is named salamandra because it prevails against fires. Among all venomous animals, its power is the greatest. Others make individual strikes; this snake kills many at the same time. If it crawls in a tree, it infects all the fruit with poison which kills those who eat it. If it falls into a well, the power of its poison kills those who drink from it. Alone of all animals, it can combat and put out fires. It lives in the midst of flames with no pain and without being consumed. Not only is it not burned, but it also puts out the fire. (Etymologies 12.4.36; ET: Priscilla Throop).
But to return to the image itself. The description accompanying it on the Bodleian website reads:
More precisely the image is depicting one salamander in the fire, its natural habitat, and the other climbing the tree, thereby poisoning its fruit. The boy, rather than having been stung by a salamander, is instead suffering the effects of having eaten fruit poisoned by the salamander in the tree. This is indicated by the boy's holding a piece of green fruit of the same type we see attached to the tree below the salamander that is climbing it. (Note that the fruit on the other side of the tree is of a different color).
We also know because that is what Isidore's Etymologies and MS. Bodl. 602--which is dependent on Isidore here--says happens when people eat fruit from a tree a salamander has gotten into. But its meaning is further confirmed by the iconography, which is paralleled in similar depictions in other bestiaries, such as that of the following from the British library's Royal MS 12 C XIX (fol. 68v):
 |
| British Library's Royal MS 12 C XIX (fol. 68v) (c. 1200-1210) |
Unlike the image from MS. Bodl. 602, this one also illustrates the belief that, as Isidore put it, "if it [a salamander] falls into a well, the force of its venom kills whoever drinks from it."
Another example comes from the Aberdeen Bestiary fols. 69v-70r, which shows the dead body of someone who has partaken of fruit or water that had been poisoned by salamanders.
 |
| Aberdeen Bestiary MS 24 fol. 70r (c. 1200) |
Further examples could be easily provided.
We now turn to the fanciful views of the PMTs.
The Views of the Psychedelic Mushrooms in Christian Art Theorists
For the most part the PMTs surveyed below who appeal to the image in support of their views do not reflect any knowledge of the information provided above. As already noted, they are not aware of the fact that the image under discussion (MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v) appeared in a 13th century bestiary, but rather imagine that it comes from a 14th century alchemical text. Nor do any of them attempt to identify the particular alchemical text they think they are talking about. None of them gets as specific as identifying the manuscript as MS. Bodl. 602.
Instead, they interpret the image as showing not a dying man but one that is overtaken by the effects of exposure to the psychoactive mushroom Amanita muscaria. He is either staggering from inebriation or engaged in giddy ecstatic dancing. They further claim that the tree in the picture was intended to resemble Amanita muscaria, of a similar type to the one which they claim is depicted in the famous Plaincourault Chapel (see below). This despite the fact that the crown of the tree in the picture under discussion is triangular in shape rather than rounded, blue rather than red, and is held up by a green trunk with two separate branches rather than by a central red trunk (instead of the white stipe or shaft that would be expected for Amanita muscaria). None of this fits Amanita muscaria.4
This provides a conspicuous example of a double tendency observed with troubling frequency in the writing of the PMTs, namely, asserting parallels between images that aren't really alike, and asserting things about pictures that are conspicuously at odd from what we see in the pictures themselves.
So, what happened?
How did it happen that such a complete misunderstanding of our image came about and gained currency within the PMT community? In a way it is quite inexplicable given the scholarly equipment of at least one or two of the authors. Perhaps the best way to describe what happened is that an interpretation hatched by a popular writer given to extravagant and fanciful claims was taken up and gained increased credibility through repetition, partly by actual scholars who uncritically repeated it in their own work because the claims made dealt with subjects that were not part of their particular areas of expertise. It represents, in other words, a serious lapse in the area of cross disciplinary study, exacerbated by writers who were dolefully negligent with regard to cross-checking claims against primary sources before adopting them as their own.
This is best seen by tracing the sources for the interpretation from its apparent beginning in chronological sequence.
Chris Bennett, Lynn Osburn, & Judy Osburn (1995)
The story begins with a book published in 1995 entitled Green Gold the Tree of Life: Marijuana in Magic and Religion by Chris Bennett, Lynn Osburn, and Judy Osburn. In the book the authors make this statement regarding the picture under discussion:
The key that unlocked one
aspect of its esoteric symbolism was found in a fourteenth century painting
from an alchemical text showing a man intoxicated on Amanita muscaria
mushrooms. He clutches one mushroom in his hand as he dances about
holding his other hand to his forehead as if the revelation is too
intense. Behind him a tree grows with a spotted mushroom for a top.
A salamander or lizard floats upward parallel to the Amanita tree. Next
to it another salamander roasts upon the fire in much the same way as the
philosopher in the Book of Lambspring roasts a
salamander on a fork in a fire. Perhaps five hundred years ago
psychonauts called such a psychedelic trip “roasting a salamander.” And
just as today where psychonauts in quest of knowledge often utilize marijuana
and psychedelic mushrooms for similar purposes, so too perhaps our Medieval
ancestors burned incense and roasted salamanders in order to achieve illumination (1995:240-41).5
The above comments evidence no grasp of the actual salamander symbolism in either text alluded to. The authors would like to imagine that the scene depicts a salamander being roasted and the man standing by getting high on the fumes. But there can be no question of the roasting of the salamander in view in either picture. This is because by their very nature salamanders are, as it were, impervious to flames. We have already described the understanding of salamanders in the bestiaries, but our authors are equally wide of the mark in their description of the image they reproduce from the Book of Lambspring, a version of which I insert here:
 |
| Salamander from The Book of Lambspring |
Our authors' claim that the above illustration depicts a salamander being roasted is readily corrected by the heading printed immediately above it, which reads: "A salamander lives in the fire, which imparts to it a most glorious hue" (See fig. 10, p. 295). The salamander is not being roasted in the fire, it lives there. Fire is its natural habitat. Further, the man with the trident is not using it to roast the salamander. He is trying to kill it. This too is evident from the accompanying text, which explains that the salamander is "caught and pierced/So that it dies, and yields up its life with its blood." That this is what is actually being depicted is more clearly indicated in the following images from illuminated manuscripts of The Book of Lambspring in which, curiously, the salamander is represented as a bird. The question of how a salamander came to be depicted as a bird is beyond the scope of the present essay. In any case, all three examples clearly indicate that the creature is in the process of being killed not roasted.
 |
| Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, M I 92, fol. 31r. |
 |
| The Book of Lambspring (1556) ( Zentralbibliothek Zürich Ms P 2177, fol. 12r. |
 |
| The Book of Lambspring (1578-88) Nuremburg, Germanische Nationalmuseum Bibliotheca Hs. 16752, fol. 61v |
In short, Bennett et al. seem to be the source from which the PMTs ultimately derive the other parts of their shared erroneous interpretation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v as well.
Of the three authors of Green Gold the Tree of Life, Chris Bennett is by far the best known, and probably the driving force behind the book. The identity of Lynn and Judy Osburn is more difficult to determine. It is possible (probably?) they are the married couple who are marijuana activists known for their arrest in California in 2002 for growing a considerable number of marijuana plants for which they were initially threatened with 40 years in prison but ended up with Lynn being sentenced to one. So far as I have been able to discover the Osburns haven't written any other books.
Bennett on the other hand is a popular author who has been very prolific down the years in writings and videos that cover a far wider range of historical and religious subjects than he (or really anyone) is adequately equipped to competently handle. And in the process, as is typical of such writers, he sometimes tends to gravitate toward dubious and sensational sources (e.g., Kersey Graves; Holger Kersten; Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln). Simply put the errors reflected in his interpretation of the salamander and tree of MS. Bodl. 602 fol. 27 are of a kind encountered in his work with some frequency. I have not been able to determine what Bennett's educational acquirements might have been at the time he participated in writing the 1995 book. So far as I have been able to discover, academic degrees are never mentioned in descriptions of his accomplishments. Despite this, in the introduction to his contribution to John A. Rush's collection Entheogens and the Development of Culture, Bennett is touted as “widely recognized as one of the foremost authorities on the ancient history of cannabis” (Bennett & McQueen 2013:51). If the statement is true, it goes a long way toward explaining the context in which the kind of inaccurate and fanciful interpretations discussed here is able to flourish within the PMT community.
Giorgio Samorini (1998)
The author who is probably most responsible for contributing seeming credibility to the misinterpretation of MS. Bodl. 602 fol. 27 is Giorgio Samorini. It is difficult to discover the precise nature of his academic credentials—he is invariably described simply as an ethnobotanist and ethnomycologist—but there can be no doubt that he has pursued a more academic approach in his own work. At least in the past he has associated himself with the Museo Civico di Rovereto, the publisher of Eleusis: Journal of Psychoactive Plants & Compounds, to which Samorini regularly contributed and sometimes edited. In at least two place Samorini quotes the passage from Bennett et al. discussed above (1998:100-101 & 2001:272-273). He repeats Bennett's error concerning the source's date (14th rather than 13th century) and his claim that the source of the picture was an "alchemical manuscript." However, Samorini exacerbates the situation by speculating further on the basis of the assumption that Bennett et al.'s basic description of what is going on in the picture was actually accurate:
If we follow this line of interpretation, and accept Bennett's and the Osburns' hypothesis that the object in the man's left hand is also a mushroom, we are justified in thinking that the author of this manuscript intended to draw the tree with the semblance of a mushroom, and not just any mushroom; it is A. muscaria. This very picture, which we might consider an alchemical puzzle, parts of which we are trying to uncover, includes other interesting symbols. Beside the Amanita-tree we see one salamander, and another one above a fire. Here we find the first confirmation of something I personally have suspected for some time now, and that is that the salamander in certain circles engaged in alchemical studies during the Middle Ages may have been a secret symbol for fly-agaric (due perhaps partly to the fact that the cap of the mushroom and the skin of the salamander are both the mushroom and the skin of the salamander are both maculate (1998:101 & 2001:273).
Samorini is aware of the imperviousness of salamanders to fires, but he still manages to find a way to affirm Bennett et al.'s "roasting the salamander" through his interpretation the picture from The Book of Lambspring image:
The man appears to be moving the salamander toward the fire with his trident as though he wished to toast it. This is not the widespread allegory of the salamander which can brave the flames without getting burnt; this is instead an operation of the Opra depicted in the manner of an alchemical allegory (the salamander is immersed in flames due to the action of man; man is cooking it, or drying it, as one does with fly-agaric before consuming it for its inebriating effects). (1998:102)
But as we have shown above, the standard pictorial interpretations of what is happening in the picture as well as the accompanying text makes this interpretation untenable. As the accompanying text says, he is killing it not roasting it. And the reason is to obtain its blood, which was deemed "the most precious Medicine upon earth":
In all fables we are told
That the Salamander is born in the fire;
In the fire it has that food and life
Which Nature herself has assigned to it.
It dwells in a great mountain
Which is encompassed by many flames,
And one of these is ever smaller than another—
Herein the Salamander bathes.
The third is greater, the fourth brighter than the
rest—
In all these the Salamander washes, and is
purified.
Then he hies him to his cave, on the way is
caught and pierced
So that it dies, and yields up its life with its blood.
But this, too, happens for its good:
For from its blood it wins immortal life,
And then death has no more power over it.
Its blood is the most precious Medicine upon earth,
The same has not its like in the world.
For this blood drives away all disease
In the bodies of metals,
Of men, and of beasts.
From it the Sages derive their science,
And through it they attain the Heavenly Gift,
Which is called the Philosopher's Stone,
Possessing the power of the whole world.
This gift the Sages impart to us with loving
hearts,
That we may remember them for ever. (ET: Waite 1893:294)
Jan Irvin (2008)
Irvin is the curator of the official website of the late John Marco Allegro. Again, I have not been able to discover what his academic credentials might be. He includes a plate of our picture from MS. Bodl. MS. 602, fol. 27 in his book Holy Mushroom (2008), which he titles "Roasting the Salamander," thus affirming his acceptance of the fanciful claims of Bennett et al. The content of his caption also reveals his close reliance on the same authors:
The salamander is as [sic] 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. (2008:115).
Irvin's comment about the supposed connection between this image and the Plaincourault tree may also reflect a reliance on Samorini, whose work he refers to in the book on several occasions. Again, Irvin indulges in what we've already referred to in connection with Carl A. P. Ruck, namely making a claim about the picture that is conspicuously contradicted by the picture itself. One glance immediately refutes Irvin's claim that the picture depicts "the same symbol as the entwined serpent wrapped around the tree, the caduceus."
Carl A. P. Ruck (2009)
In contrast to the other PMTs surveyed, Ruck clearly has both a superior education (Harvard Ph.D. in Classical Philology) and a plum academic post (Professor of Classical Studies at Boston University). And yet in discussing Bodl. MS. 602, fol. 27 he does nothing to rectify the errors made by others. Rather he embraces them and, again, pushes them a step or two further in the process. Writes Ruck:
One example alone should suffice to silence the argument of the art historians: a painting from a 14th-century alchemical manuscript, now in the Bodleian library in Oxford. It is a treatise discussing the “salamander.” A drawing in the manuscript depicts a man apparently intoxicated, dancing or perhaps staggering, with one hand to his forehead, suggesting that he is dizzy or that he has just had an intense revelation. In the other hand, he holds a mushroom, which he evidently picked from a typical mushroom-tree beside him. The mushroom has a red cap spotted with white, and similar mushrooms branch from its stipe-like trunk, smaller, the size of the one that the man has apparently eaten (2009:376).
So yet again we are told of the image allegedly coming from a 14th century manuscript and that it comes from alchemical manuscript. But Ruck exacerbates the latter error by expanding the role of the salamander in the work. Whereas the authors discussed above described it simply as an alchemical manuscript, we are now told that it is "a treatise discussing the 'salamander.'" Ruck further raises the stakes for this particular picture by insisting it stands as a kind of silver bullet by which the PMTs can "silence the art historians."
To be sure, such a comment may impress Ruck's fellow PMTs. But, alas, art historians are likely to be less impressed, given Ruck's lack of correct information regarding MS. Bodl. 602. And once they understand that, given what he says, Ruck could not have seen nor even looked into MS. Bodl. 602 itself, but rather simply contented himself to uncritically rely on conspicuously dubious secondary sources as the basis of his strong statements about silencing them, we can only guess what their response might be.
But most astonishing of all is Ruck's acceptance and advocacy of the fanciful "Roasting the salamander" interpretation advanced by Bennett et al. Ruck writes:
,,,another [salamander] roasts upon a fire above a grid upon the ground. “Roasting the salamander” is the alchemical enigma, for the alchemists delighted in hiding whatever they opened revealed. It is a cryptic reference to the Amanita (2009:377).
Notice that, like Samorini, Ruck has been misleading into viewing the picture through the wrong interpretive lens by the mistaken statement about the text's genre handed down to him from Gettings and Bennett et al. (i.e., alchemical text rather than bestiary). Although the conceptual worlds of alchemical texts and bestiaries overlapped, they weren't the same. One, for example, does not turn to the Book of Mormon as a dictionary for understanding the meanings of words as they are defined in mainline orthodox Christianity. The two communities overlap in terms of some shared beliefs and values and they share a larger common culture, but they nevertheless remain two discrete communities, each with its own definitions of shared terms.
Enter Tom Hatsis, the "Psychedelic Historian"
I recently contacted Andy Letcher, author of Shrooms: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushrooms (2008). I had noticed that he—quite properly in my view—took clear exception to the PMTs' standard interpretation of the famous Bernward doors in Hildesheim, Germany, and wanted to ask him about his sources. During our interaction Letcher recommended the work of Tom Hatsis, who calls himself the "Psychedelic Historian." Those who read Hatsis's article on MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v. will not fail to notice the similarlities between his and my own arguments above. They may even suspect that what I have written depends on his article. But that is actually not the case. Everything I've written to this point was done before my having read Hatsis's article.6 This is worth mentioning because it illustrates that anyone who compares the claims of the PMTs against the evidence is going to very quickly come up with the same rather obvious objections to them. The same we must suppose, would have happened to the PMT's themselves had they done their scholarly due diligence.
It is not only been the PMTs' interpretation of MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v that Hatsis has taken to task but their major contention that Christian art is filled with hidden examples of psychedelic mushrooms. And despite the fact that the weight of Hatsis' arguments has not really been appreciated within the PMT community, they have at least been acknowledged by them and to some degree interacted with. We see this, for example, in the recent works of Jerry B. and Julie M. Brown (2016:148, 196, 223-227 2019:159).
As to Hatsis' work on MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v in particular, it has drawn the following partial admission and rather strange restatement of the issue from Carl A.P. Ruck:
MS Bodleian 602, fol. 027v was incorrectly cited as an alchemical text. Christ Bennett, Lynn Osburn, and Judy Osburn, Green Gold and the Tree of Life: Marijuana in Magic and Religion (Frazier Park, CA: Access Unlimited, 1995), and followed by Giorgio Samorini, “‘Mushroom Trees’ in Christian Art”: 87-108, in Eleusis Journal of Psychedelic Plants and Compounds, new series no. 1 (1998), and subsequent commentators. The manuscript is, in fact, a bestiary (Thomas Hatsis, personal communication, ascertained by autopsy). The image as published on the web, moreover, is deceptive in falsifying the colors. The image is, however, intriguing because the man who has eaten the fruit on the tree is holding it upright by its stem, and although the tree and the fruit are blue, he appears to have eaten the likeness of the entire adjacent tree (2018:149, n. 373).7
Ruck now explicitly admits that MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v is a bestiary not an alchemical text. He names two sources where it had been wrongly described before (Bennett et al. and Samorini). Conspicuously absent, however, is any direct admission that he himself had also committed the same errors. Ruck also notes that the colors of the image on the web are wrong. Are we to regard this as an indirect admission by Ruck that he had been wrong in asserting that the tree's crown was red and that the tree itself was Amanita muscaria? We can't be sure. Ultimately, however, whether that was Ruck's intent or not is of little significance, since, even granting that the colors in the standard version of the image passed down through books and on the internet are wrong, they still, as a rule, have a blue crown not a red one, albeit a darker shade of blue tending toward purple (see e.g., Gettings 1987: 14, fig. 11). In some images the blue is dark to the point of approaching purplish black. Ruck explicitly referred in a footnote to a source containing an image of the latter sort in his 2009 article providing the web address for it (Ruck 2009:376, n. 74).8 Jan Irvin's book, which appeared one year before Ruck's 2009 article, and which also thanks Ruck for his help in its acknowledgements section, also show a picture very like Getting's shown below (Irvin 2008:115). So even granting the colors in the pictures available to Ruck did not accurately reflect those of the original, Ruck was still inaccurate in asserting the tree's crown was red. In addition, given Ruck's academic background, he may still be faulted for not having checked to make the sure the readily available pictures reflected the colors of the original accurately. Indeed, simply looking at the pictures below, tinged as they are by too much red, should have suggested to Ruck that the colors were in fact off. After all, parchment is not usually pink nor the ink used for the main text purple.
So why does Ruck, who mentions Hatsis as the source of the corrections, now say that "the tree and the fruit are blue." Again, this is simply not correct. The tree is green and the fruit is both green and red/purple. Ruck's new interpretation of the image is scarcely better than his earlier one: "the man who has eaten the fruit on the tree is holding it upright by its stem...he appears to have eaten the likeness of the entire adjacent tree." But again, this is simply not the case. What the man holds in his hand is the likeness of a piece of fruit from the tree, not a likeness of the tree itself!
What goes around comes around
Summing Up
The thing to stress about the sequence of authors misrepresenting MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 27v is that none of those following Bennett et al. made any attempt to check whether their impressions of the picture was accurate. None consulted the original manuscript to see whether the text accompanying the picture confirmed or denied their impressions. None trouble themselves to discover the manuscript's actual date or name. None tried to verify whether the manuscript containing the image actually represented an alchemical manuscript, and if it did, which specific alchemical work it represented. What is perhaps most puzzling of all is that Carl A.P. Ruck, whose area of specialization would have made him particularly well equipped to read the relevant Latin sources, etc., was content instead to uncritically repeat the claims that had been passed along to him by mush less educated writers than himself. He of all people should have been expected to grasp why it was that art historians and others ignore the supposed "findings" of the PMHs.
______
Notes
1. See the second chapter of Javier González San Frutos' Valladdolid University thesis La salamandra en el Fisiólogo Latino y en los bestiarios medievales (2020), 20-30
2. Although I do not have access to the manuscript, Hatsis has quoted the crucial line from it (2018, n. 18).
3. Although they do not indicate it, the translation of Barney, Lewis, Beach, and Berghof seems to assume a text closer to that of MS. Bodl. 602 than the text underlying Throop. Theirs reads, "if it should creep in among the trees, it injects its venom into all the fruit, and so it kills whoever eats the fruit." Throop on the other hand seems to follow the more familiar standard Latin text of Isidore, as represented, for example, by W. M. Lindsay (1911). A similar range of variants can be seen in different bestiary manuscripts (cf. Stowe MS. 1067, fol.12r, Aberdeen Bestiary fol. 69v-70r, and Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 6908, 85r, 85v). See further Stewart 2012:2.96-97.
4. The Plaincourault image with its branches and red stipe share similar problems.
5. Curiously Bennett et al. quote this very passage later in the same extended passage.
6. Although I did come across two points in his article during internet searches. First, I found that he had provided the Latin text of a key phrase from MS. Bodl. 602 (see n. 2 above), and second, I noticed his remark that Gettings was ultimately responsible for the incorrect 14th century date (see Gettings 1987: 14, fig. 11).
7. Thanks to Tom Hatis for calling my attention to Ruck 2018:149, n. 373 and kindly sending me a photograph of the passage.
8. This is not to say the online versions are never so bad that the crown might be confused as a very dark red.
Bibliography
Bennett, Chris. 2021. The Fungi-Pareidolia of the Psychedelic Gospels. Online.
Bennett, Chris & McQueen, Neil. 2013. "Cannabis in the Hebrew Bible." In Entheogens and the Development of Culture: The Anthropology and Neurobiology of Ecstatic Experience. Ed. John A. Rush; Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books: 51-83.
Bennett, Chris, Lynn Osburn & Judy Osburn. 1995. Green Gold the Tree of Life. Marijuana in Magic and Religion. Frazier Park, CA: Access Unlimited.
Brown. Jerry B. & Julie M. Brown. 2016. The Psychedelic
Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity. Rochester VT and
Toronto, CA. Park Street Press, 2016.
______. 2019. "Entheogens in Christian Art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels." Journal of Psychedelic Studies (3) 142-163.
Gettings, Fred. 1987. Secret Symbolism in Occult Art. New York: Harmony Books.
Hatsis, Thomas. 2017. "Roasting Jan Irvin: Critical Historical Inquiry Vs. Pseudo-Intellectualism."
Irvin, J.R. 2008. The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity.
A critical re-evaluation of the schism between John M. Allegro and R. Gordon
Wasson over the theory on the entheogenic origins of Christianity presented in
The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. J.R. Irvin. Grand Terrace, CA: Gnostic Media.
Samorini, Georgio. 1998. “‘Mushroom Trees’ in Christian Art.” Eleusis n.s. 1:87-108.
_______. 2001. “New Data from the Ethnomycology of Psychoactive Mushrooms,” International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms 3.2-3: 257-78.
Stewart, Patricia. 2012. "The Medieval Bestiary and its Textual Traditions." 2 vols. Ph.D. Diss. University of Saint Andrews.
Ruck, Carl A. P. 2009. "Fungus Redivivus: New Light on the Mushroom Controversy," in John Marco Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, 40th Anniversary Edition. Grand Terrace, CA: Gnostic Media.________. 2018. The Son Conceived in Drunkenness: Magical Plants in the World of the Greek Hero. New York: Regent Press.
Waite, Arthur Edward (Tr.). 1893. The Hermetic Museum. 2 vols. London: Elliot.
Comments
Post a Comment