ROASTING JAN IRVIN CRITICAL HISTORICAL INQUIRY VS. PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALISM

“People don’t have a systematic method of figuring shit out anymore … if

you have a systematic method offiltering it, than you know how to spot bullshit right away.”1

- Jan Irvin

“Check your sources.”

A maxim of all true investigation, this adage seems

arbitrary to the proponents of the Holy Mushroom theory.

Ironically, one of its loudest advocates, Jan Irvin, tells us to

“get out [our] library cards because [we] have homework to

do,”2 2 while not doing the homework himself (as will be

demonstrated). To be fair contextually, Irvin was not addressing

the Holy Mushroom theory when he offered this advice, but rather

the provocative (though loopy) work of Acharya S., one of the

last writers still clinging to so-called Astrotheology. Jan’s

words were apparently intended as a bluff because Acharya’s ideas

have been denounced by many top scholars of early religion and

1 “With Jan Irvin,” The Joe Rogan Experience, Podcast # 119.2 2 “Interview with Acharya S.,” Gnostic Media, Podcast 21.

astronomy3; it is supposed that these scholars used their library

cards. Irvin’s defense of Acharya S. perfectly exemplifies Point

Two of Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit.4 Irvin believes

the whole gamut; if it’s religious and conspiratorial, it must be

true.

Such is the case with Irvin’s “Holy Mushroom Cult” idea. As

I finished reading his The Holy Mushroom (THM), I came upon a

rather infamous picture of mushroom cult lore in the back of the

book. The image shows a man eating what supposedly looks like an

Amanita muscaria mushroom.5 Irvin cites Oxford University’s

Bodleian Library as his source for the picture. Beneath the

image, Irvin writes that the man is “dancing under the influence

of the mushroom.”6 Since the image really does look like an

Amanita muscaria mushroom, I wanted more information on it.

Thankfully, another Christian mushroom theorist, Carl Ruck,

33 Dr. Noel M. Swerdlow, professor of astronomy and astrophysics, University of Chicago; John Banes, professor of Egyptology, University of Oxford; Victor Blunden, editor at Ancient Egypt Magazine, University of Manchester; Bill Gordon, Department of Near Eastern Language and Cultures, University of California (the list continues). 44 (I.e., Does the source often make similar claims?) See Michael Shermer, The Borderlands of Science :Where Science Meets Nonsense (Oxford University Press, 2002), pgs, 18-19.55 I only have the black and white edition of THM. 66 Jan Irvin, The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity (Gnostic Media,2008) pg. 115.

addressed this image more fully in his addendum to Gnostic

Media’s release of John Allegro’s The Scared Mushroom and the Cross.

Ruck, a Classics professor at Boston University, was invited by

Irvin to append his unpublished article, Fungus Redivivus, to the

back of the larger text. Ruck describes this picture in more

detail:

One example alone should suffice to silence the art historians: a painting from a 14th century alchemical manuscript, now in the Bodleian library [sic] in Oxford. It is a treatise discussing the “salamander.” A drawing in themanuscript 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 white, and similar mushrooms branch from its stipe-like trunk …7

Irvin’s shorter description in THM is similar, but includes

the bold idea that “the salamander is as [sic] a symbol of the

Amanita muscaria.” While he confidently relates that the man is

77 Carl A. P. Ruck, “Fungus Redivivus: New Light on the Mushroom Controversy” in John Marco Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, 40th Anniversary Edition (Gnostic Media, 2009), pg. 376. Also, before I am accused of only looking at one picture: I have addressed several other supposed “mushroom images” in my “Some Problems with John Rush …” available on arspsychedelia.com. Second, as Rush’s above quote indicates, this image is supposed to “silence the art critics.”

“dancing,” Ruck cautiously writes that the man is “dancing or

perhaps staggering.”

As will be shown, both Ruck and Irvin are wrong.

THE SALAMANDER IN MEDIEVAL ART

Let’s begin with some of the more easily dismissible

material presented by Ruck and Irvin. In one paragraph (the

block text above), Ruck tells us that the manuscript is two

different things: an alchemist’s tract and a “treatise discussing

the ‘salamander.’” Here he had two chances to get it right and

fell short both times: the manuscript is not an alchemist’s

tract; nor is it a medieval salamander dissertation.8 It is a

Latin bestiary (MS. Bodl. 602), a catalogue of the known (and

fantastical9) animals believed to roam the forests during the

Middle Ages.1010 Salamanders are certainly discussed, but so are

a host of other animals, both real and imagined. Also, MS.

Bodl. 602 is not from the 14th century as both authors claim. The

manuscript dates to the mid-13th century—perhaps a minor detail,

88 The salamander only appears on one page, fol. 027v. Hardly the length of a“treatise.” 99 Sirens, centaurs, and unicorns are also discussed. 1010 From here on, this manuscript will be referred to as its catalogued name: MS. Bodl. 602.

but it does speak to an overriding theme of careless research

among Mushroom theorists.1111

It is evident that beneath the image as presented in THM,

the scribe left a description, which Irvin curiously cut from his

reproduction. Here we had a real treat: text accompanying a

picture of what looks like an Amanita muscaria mushroom! Surely

this script would confirm the holy mushroom theory and—to borrow

from Ruck—“suffice to silence the art historians.” I wondered

why Irvin cropped the text out of the picture in MS. Bodl. 602

from his reproduction in THM. Since Irvin withheld the text, I

decided to do what he recommends: I got out my library card and

did some homework, flying to Oxford to check out the elusive

manuscript for myself. Upon careful inspection of the

manuscript, I realized there could be as many as three reasons

Three possible reasons for Irvin to withhold the text:

1. He didn’t go to Bodleian, but obtained the picture elsewhere,

inserting the renowned library as his source perhaps to add 1111 This is not the only questionable dating courtesy of Irvin. In THM he reproduces the Epistle to the Renegade Bishops, calling the text “ancient” during an interview with Joe Rogan (The Joe Rogan Experience, Podcast # 119). The epistle dates to the 16th century—perhaps ten centuries after any time that can be called “ancient.” Though, I should mention that some can argue that the epistle originated in the 13th century, this is still a far cry from antiquity.

credibility to his somewhat ridiculous interpretation.

2. He went to Bodleian, couldn’t read the text, and so he just

ignored it (like the “scholar” he claims to be would do).

3. He went to Bodleian, translated the text, and decided to

suppress the information.

I leave the question open to Mr. Irvin to answer for us.

Above is the image in question (fol. 027v). As should be

demonstrably clear, the supposed “red cap spotted white” mushroom

that Ruck describes isn’t that at all. The cap is unmistakably

blue; the trunk inarguably green (Amanita stems are white). As for

the inscription,1212 the man in the image is hardly “dancing” or

experiencing “intense revelations.” He has, in fact, been

poisoned and is dying. Irvin contends: “[t]he salamander is as

[sic] a symbol of the Amanita muscaria,”1313 but that is emphatically

not what the artist meant to represent. The author of MS. Bodl.

602 wrote rather clearly that the poison from salamanders was so

strong that if it crept into a fruit-bearing tree the once

palatable fruit turned poisonous. Since mushrooms were known

poisons in antiquity, requiring no infiltration by salamander

venom, the tree in fol. 027v most emphatically cannot be a

mushroom; the text even calls the plant a “tree” (arbor).

Why wouldn’t the author just call the admittedly mushroom-

looking tree a mushroom? Ask a holy mushroom theory advocate and

she or he will tell you that the author wrote “tree,” or

“salamander” to mask the secret use of the mushroom.1414 Despite

the nature of such a conspiracy-laden “rebuttal,” I’ll address

it. Irvin assumes that the salamander and tree represent “the

1212 See Appendix 1 for picture of text, and full English translation. 1313 Irvin (2008), pg. 115. 1414 See Rush (2011). This is referred to as “non-evidence”; saying something was “covered up” does not count as confirmation of one’s theory when standard rules of historical criteria are applied. Also see Appendix 2 of this study.

caduceus” (secretly, of course).1515 He wants the salamander to

represent the caduceus because he believes that the caduceus

represents medicine, and by extension, drugs. But alas, it isn’t

so. People often mistake Hermes’ staff (featuring two snaked

entwined) as symbolic of medicine; yet, it was a symbol of

commerce in antiquity—not medicine. What Irvin really wanted the

salamander to represent was not Hermes’ staff, but the Rod of

Asclepius—the actual depiction of medicine in the ancient

world.1616 Furthermore, both Hermes’ staff and the Rod of

Asclepius incorporate snakes, not salamanders. Thus, even if

Hermes’ staff is the caduceus (snake), Irvin is still wrong.

WHAT MS. BODL. 602 ACTUALLY SAYS

I cannot be sure, but it seems that Irvin’s popular notions

were influenced by another writer, Chris Bennett, whose Green Gold

the Tree of Life: Marijuana in Magic and Religion (1995) is the second

earliest reprinting of the MS. Bodl. 602 image I could find,

coming just a few years after Fred Gettings’ Visions of the Occult

(1987).1717 With two sources for this picture available, Irvin 1515 Irvin (2008), pg. 115. 1616 Socrates 182; hence Socrates’ final ironic comment to Crito as the hemlockpoison slowly killed him.1717 Fred Gettings, Visions of the Occult (London: Guild Publishing, 1987), pg. 14.

seems to want us to believe that he visited the Bodleian Library,

as he doesn’t cite Bennett or Gettings as a source (though Ruck

does). It also probably explains why neither Ruck nor Irvin has

the correct century; Bennett’s date is erroneous, as is

Gettings’, the latter of which seems to be the origin of the

misdating. Did Irvin and Ruck simply not check?

There is no “alchemy symbolism” going on here; the author of

the bestiary explicitly wrote what the salamander signifies,

namely its two best known qualities in history: its poisonous

nature and its fire-resistant body. On this first

characteristic, the text couldn’t be clearer: “if [the

salamander] creeps into a tree, its poisons are absorbed into the

fruit, and those who eat the fruit are killed by the poison.”1818

The man in the image has eaten this poisoned fruit and is now

dying; not dancing, not experiencing visions—dying. The same as

if he had drunk water infected by a salamander (or salamander-

tainted fruit) that had fallen into a well.1919 This caution 1818 MS. Bodl. 602, Fol. 027v, “Nam si arbori irrepserit, omnia poma inficit veneno, et eos qui ex eis pomis ederint occidit.” Incidentally, “poma” can mean either “fruit,” or “apple,” making it more likely that this is not only a tree instead of a mushroom, but specifically an apple tree. Deciding what kind of tree (apple or otherwise) it is depends largely on one’s translation of “poma”; either way, it is certainly not an Amanita muscaria mushroom. 1919 Ibid., “Qui eciam, si in puteum ceciderit, vis veneni eius potantes interficit.”

that the author of MS. Bodl. 602 would copy in the 13th century

had already been outlined as early as the 1st century CE by Pliny

the Elder: “The salamander, too, will poison either water or

wine, in which it happens to be drowned; and what is more, if it

has only drunk thereof, the liquid becomes poisonous.”2020 Thus,

even if the image were depicting an Amanita muscaria mushroom, the

message would still be “do not eat; mushrooms are deathly

poisonous.” Irvin is therefore wrong twice a second time.

As for the roasting salamander in the image, Irvin is

founding his notions in popular myths—the opposite of historical

methodology. Because I believe it more likely that Irvin adopted

these popular myths from Green Gold, and not Visions of the Occult, I

will only discuss the former here.2121 In Green Gold, Bennett

suggests that “perhaps” medieval folks called a “psychedelic trip

‘roasting a salamander.’”2222 Here, he playfully imagines that

the dying man on fol. 027v has inhaled the salamander fumes and

is tripping. However, the accompanying text merely relates 2020 John Bostock and Riley, H.T. (eds.), The Natural History of Pliny the Elder: Translated with Copious Notes and Illustrations, Vol III (London: George Bell and Sons, 1892) pg. 98. Compare this with ft. 20, above.2121 Though the latter is equally erroneous in its theories, and might have been a source for Irvin too. 2222 Chris Bennett et al., Green Gold the Tree of Life: Marijuana in Magic and Religion (AccessUnlimited, 1995), pgs. 240-41.

ancient Jewish folklore regarding the salamander’s resistance to

fire. The author of MS. Bodl. 602 draws a parallel from a well-

known biblical passage to make his point—how Hananiah, Azariah,

Mishael,2323 the pious travel companions of the biblical Daniel,

almost met a fiery end. These men were taken to Babylon, and

after refusing to worship a golden statute commissioned by

Nebuchadnezzar, they were ordered burned. Alas, the men were so

holy that the fires could not burn them, after which King

Nebuchadnezzar proclaimed Yahweh a true God.2424 Another Jewish

folktale recounts how Hezekiah was saved from an incendiary death

by his mother, who rubbed him with the blood of a salamander,

thus making him fireproof.2525

The legendary attributes of the salamander also appear in

non-Jewish sources. The myth of the salamander’s fire-resistant

scales had reached Christendom by at least the 4th century CE.

Indeed, Augustine uses the salamander fire-myth as evidence that

“everything which burns is not consumed, as the souls in hell are

not.”2626 Several centuries later, Isidore of Seville, in his

2323 Chaldaeanized as Shadrach, Abednego, and Meshach. See Appendix 1. 2424 Book of Daniel 3: 24-30. 2525 Accessed via: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj410.htm2626 New Advent (trans.) Saint Augustine’s City of God, Book 21, Chapter 4.

attempt to preserve the knowledge of antiquity after the fall of

Rome, recorded both mystical properties of the salamander: “The

salamander alone of animals puts out fires; it can live in fire

without pain and without being burned. Of all the venomous

animals its strength is the greatest because it kills many at

once. If it crawls into a tree it poisons all of the fruit, and

anyone who eats the fruit will die; if it falls in a well it

poisons the water so that anyone who drinks it dies.”2727

Mushroom Cult theorists’ popular view of medieval manuscripts has

them believing that any old manuscript is veiled in secret

symbolism. Yet, as rich in esoteric mushroom mysteries as the

image on fol. 027v appears, it is actually rather ordinary for

the time it was composed.

As should be obvious by now, MS. Bodl. 602 simply depicts

long-held traditions about salamanders. And it isn’t alone.

2727 Stephen Barney et al., (trans.) The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville: Translated, with Introduction and Notes (Cambridge University Press, 2006) Book 12, 4:36, pg. 257. Incidentally, Seville writes about mushrooms too: “Mushrooms (fungi) are so named because when dried they catch fire. … mushrooms are also called esca (literally “food”) because they are both a food for a fire and a nutriment. Others say mushrooms were so called because certain kinds of them are killers,” pg. 356. The mushroom is also mentioned as a poison while Seville expounds on the virtues of the sycamore fig, pg. 344. Thus, even if Holy Mushroom theorists did present us with legitimate shroom art, the morsels mightdenote nourishment, fire kindle, or poison, and not necessarily a psychedelic trip.

Other manuscripts, like the c. 1300 Brussels Manuscript, and the

c. Douai Manuscript (c. late 13th century), also show this widely

held belief: each document depicts a man eating a fruit (usually

an apple) that a salamander has corrupted with poison. The theme

is common.3131 There is also this curious depiction of the same

image from the Bestiary of Ann Walsh, produced in the 15th century

(below). This man is neither dancing nor experiencing divine

revelations. He is dead from eating the poisoned fruit of the

fire-resistant salamander, just as the legends of yore foretold.

I understand how it may look like a man eating the fruit is

having intense visions of a fire-born serpent. A cursory

interpretation holds the “snake” as representing Satan from the

(Christianized) serpent in the Garden of Eden. Satan is tempting

the man to eat the “fruit” from the Tree of Knowledge (which is 3131 Medieval Book of Beasts: The Second Family Bestiary Willenne B. Clark, pgs. 66-7. The fire resistant theme is also found in a French bestiary dating to 1350 on hold at Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Roll Title KB, KA 16, Folio 126r.

just masked “Amanita muscaria”). But that would be to see the

picture in reverse: the fruit isn’t causing the man to have

visions of the salamander; the salamander is causing the usually

comestible fruit to be poisoned. The salamander “symbolism”

couldn’t be more obvious (fireproof and poisonous), provided one

understands what these well-known bestiary symbols represent.

Irvin’s assumptions about fol. 027v are no different; he has

certainly read his own hopes and interests into the image. That

is not sound history—evidence shapes theories; theories do not

shape evidence. Jan Irvin simply has it all backward.

Also, take a look at the trees. Here we see a (possibly)

traceable evolution in how bestiary artists portrayed trees in

their works from the 13th century into the 15th.

The supposed “white spots” (present

on Amanita muscarias) are nothing

more than outlines surrounding some

ambiguous fruit. In fact, when the

image is enlarged the whiteness

clearly serves only as a border

around spots that appear to be a

color-fusion of gray and light

purple:

And take a look at these other trees from MS. Bodl. 602

(below).

These are folios 064v and 059r respectivly. Notice the

green “cap” in 064v (like 027v), and the red Amanita-style “cap”

on the tree in 059r. If Jan Irvin is going to say these are just

more pictures of mushrooms, I return several questions to him:

where is the “caduceus” representing “drugs” in these pictures?

Where is the person “dancing under the influence” of these

supposed “mushroom trees?” Where are the “intense revelations?”

Is the tracker in fol. 064v on a “spiritual” hunt? Or perhaps

such questions are irrelevant. Maybe we need only compare MS.

Bodl. 602 fol. 014r (below, right) to 027v (below, left). One

cannot miss the blue “caps,” green “stems,” in these pictures.

The artist even dots the apex of his leaves with a little red

ball in both. If one of these is a “mushroom tree,” the other

one must be accepted as a “mushroom tree” as well. There is no

salamander to roast and inhale in fol. 014r, and yet the tree

looks every bit like the one on 027v. Given these similar

characteristics of foliage in the folios, it seems more likey

that this was simply how the artists at a particular art school

drew trees.

And what are we to make of these weasels (mustela) found in

MS. Bodl. 602 fol. 024r (below)? The trees look every bit like

the kinds of trees that, using the Jan Irvin standards of

criteria, would count as mushrooms. Will he claim that these

weasels are inducting themselves into the secret Christian

Mushroom Cult too?

If this red-topped plant from this stained-glass panel from

Charters Cathedral in France is an amanita muscaria, as

Irvin claims it is2828, than the plants the weasels are eating in

Fol. 024r are amanitas too. Why then, does the accomp-

anying text describing the weasel, say nothing about that

critters’ penchant for enlightenment achieved through

ingesting psychedelic drugs?

TO PUT A CAP ON IT

Like other texts of the time, MS. Bodl. 602 merely recounts

salamander lore: its toxic quality—so strong that it can

impregnate a fruit-bearing tree or a well with poison simply by

coming into contact with it—and its mythicized resistance to

fire. There is no hidden alchemical symbolism; the manuscript

illuminations are beautiful to those of us who appreciate the

nostalgia of such images, but they are also rather ordinary for

the time.

2828 Irvin (2008), pg. 123.

Moreover, I fully admit that at first glance, despite the

blue coloring, the tree on fol. 027v really does look like an

Amanita muscaria. But if even the plants in medieval treatises

that do look like mushrooms aren’t actually mushrooms when carefully

investigated, what are we to think when we encounter images like

this one (below)? It is a picture from a prayer book

known as the Arundel Psalter (England, 1099) presented in THM as

Christian mushroom art.

In the book Irvin asserts that beside Jesus, “instead of two

thieves, we see two mushroom trees.” Again, one will notice that

the “caps” are blue (instead of red). Irvin submits further

evidence that these are Amanita trees: “[t]he tree on the right

is complete with spots.”2929

Assuming these are “mushroom trees” is

short-sighted. The trees in the image

look more like these Yemenese Dragon

Blood Trees (below, right) than

anything like a mushroom.

Moreover, we

2929 Irvin (2008), pg. 133. If they are blue because they are psilocybin mushrooms, why the need for Amanita spots?

see how the

flowering of the Dragon Blood Tree can account for the

“spots” that Irvin is too eager to label as representing

a mushroom (below). This is not to say that the tree

is a Dragon Blood Tree (I don’t know what it is).3030 But

not knowing what something is does not automatically make it

something else. I am merely

showing that this picture has other

possibilities

other than portraying a mushroom.

We have

already seen how ready authors like Irvin

are to label something a mushroom.

If inquiries into

psychedelic history are to be taken seriously, one must check

before making such emphatic statements. Mushroom Cult theorists

can be quick to accuse someone of making an “argument from

3030 Though, it can be noted that the Dragon Blood Tree, while native to Yemen,has been known in the West since as early as the 1st century CE. See Lionel Casson, The Periplus Maris Erythraei. (Princeton University Press, 1989), pgs. 69, and 169-170.

ignorance.”3131 Yet, like the tree that appears on fol.027v,

their arguments bear no fruit worth swallowing. In only five

sentences describing one image in THM, one of the theory’s most

prominent researchers, Jan Irvin, made enough mistakes to warrant

a dozen or so pages addressing them.

Let’s quickly review these five sentences and mark them

against what we now know about the tantalizing tree presented in

MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 027v:

1. “Alchemy, 14th century.” (Commenting on the genera and date of

the treatise.)

- FALSE. The text is not an alchemy treatise, but rather a common

Latin bestiary. It dates to the 13th century, not the 14.th His

misdating is analogous to claiming that Neil Armstrong walked on

the moon in 2069, rather than 1969.

2. “The salamander is the symbol of the Amanita muscaria.”

- FALSE. The salamander signifies a salamander unequivocally,

and the supposed Amanita muscaria in the background is identified

as a tree (arbor), in the accompanying text.

3131 The Joe Rogan Experience, Podcast #119; see also, http://www.gnosticmedia.com/red-ice-radio-jan-irvin-hour-1-2-gordon-wasson-the-secret-history-of-magic-mushrooms.

3. “… [I]t is the same symbol as the entwined serpent wrapped

around the tree, the caduceus.”

- FALSE. There is no “serpent,” but instead a salamander. While

there are two ideas that can be called “symbolic” (poisoning

fruit and fire-resistant body) they have nothing to do with

secret alchemical psychedelic experiences. Finally, the

salamander isn’t “wrapped” around the tree.

4. “A hybridized mushroom tree is depicted similar to that of the

Plaincourault fresco.”

- FALSE. It is not a mushroom tree, as all the above evidence

has verified. The Plaincourault fresco, another supposed

“mushroom tree” picture, representing the Tree of Knowledge with

Eve and Adam standing beside it, is painted in a small chapel in

southern France.3232 But if the fruit tree on 027v looks similar

to the Plaincourault fresco, that immediately calls into question

the possibility of the Plaincourault fresco also illustrating a

mushroom. For the sake of the larger holy mushroom theory, it’s

in the theorists’ best interest that the tree on fol. 027v looks

nothing like the supposed “mushroom” in the infamous Plaincourault

3232 See Allegro (2009).

fresco.

5. “A man is shown holding a mushroom … dancing under the

influence of the mushroom.”3333

- FALSE. The man is holding a fruit (pomis). And he is only

dancing with death.

AND THUS, THE SALAMANDER WAS ROA STED

It would seem that the image intended to “silence the art

critics” is yet to present itself. While the fruit tree on fol.

027v was certainly a contender, after doing a little homework, a

different history of both the tree and the salamander emerge.

One of the problems with the holy mushroom theory is that many of

the supposed “shrooms” in Christian art look less like an Amanita

than the tree on fol. 027v. What are we to think when we

encounter these lesser-looking mushrooms? I would have liked for

MS. Bodl 602 to have been alchemical in nature—with a scandalous

caption that revealed the deepest secrets of the holy mushroom!

But interests are not arguments. And based on the evidence

presented by authors like Irvin, Rush, and others, if there is a

Christian mushroom cult to be found, “mystical” and “religious” 3333 All quotes from Irvin (2008), pg. 115.

art might not be the place to find it, as misidentification

problems like the one prompted by fol. 027v are sure to

reoccur3434; and it certainly won’t be found without critical

historical inquiry.

I therefore leave Jan Irvin with a question:

Got any more homework you want me to do for you?

~APPENDIX 1~

FULL LATIN TEXT FROM MS. BODL. 602, FOL. 027V

Est reptile quoddam quod grece

dicitur salamandra, latine vero

stilio. Hoc simile est lacertule

pusille, colore vario. De quo

3434 See my “The Secret Cult of the Radish” on academia.edu or arspsychedelia.com.

Salomon dicit “Sicut stilio habitant

in domibus regum.” Phisiologus dicit

de eo quoniam, si casu inciderit

undecumque in caminum ignis vel in

fornace ardentis ignis, aut in

quocumque incendio, statim

extinguitur ignis. Isti sunt iusti

et mirabiles homines Dei. Sic

fuerunt in camino ignis ardentis

Ananias, Azarias, Misael, et non

tetigit eos ignis omnino quod

intactos atque incontaminatos exisse

de camino ignis propheta Daniel

declarat. Paulus apostolus testatur

dicens: “Fide omnes sancti extingunt

virtutes ignis, obstruxerunt ora

leonum.” Ita et omnis quicumque ex

fide sua crediderit in Deo et in

operibus bonis perseveraverit, trans gehennam ignis et operibus

bonis perseveraverit, trans gehennam ignis et non tangit eos

flamma. Dc quo scriptum est in Isaia propheta “Si transieris per

ignem, flamma non te comburet.”

Etimologia. Salamandra dicta, quod contra incendia valeat. Cuius

inter omnia venenata vis maxima est. Cetera enim singulos

feriunt, hec plurimos pariter interimit. Nam si arbori

irrepserit, omnia poma inficit veneno, et eos qui ex eis pomis

ederint occidit. Qui eciam, si in puteum ceciderit, vis veneni

eius potantes interficit. Ista contra incendia repugnans, sola

animalium ignes extinguit. Vivit enim in mediis flammis sine

dolore, et consummatione, et non solum non uritur, sed eciam

extinguit incendium.

FULL

ENGLISH TRANSLA TION:

There is a reptile that the Greeks call salamander, but in Latin

it is called Stilio. This animal is like a small lizard that can

change its color. Solomon asks of the salamander: “How do

salamanders live in kings’ houses?” Since the natural

philosophers say of it that, if unfortunately, [the salamander]

falls into a chimney fire, or a burning fiery furnace, or in any

fire, the fire will be extinguished immediately. This is simply

miraculous, and so were men of God in the burning fire Hananiah,

Azariah, Mishael, and the fire did not touch them at all, as the

prophet Daniel proclaimed that these came out intact and without

injury from the chimney on fire. The apostle Paul testifies,

saying: “All the saints with faith counter the forces of fire,

[and] stop the mouths of lions.” So, too, from his own faith,

that whosoever shall believe in God and persevere in good works,

into the fire and the flame does not touch them, even on the

other side, in hell. This was written by the prophet Isaiah: “If

you went through the fire, the flame will not burn you.”

Etymology. The salamander is known to counteract fire. Of all

venomous animals, the salamander is the strongest. Another fact

affecting people, this [the poison] kills a lot of the same way.

In fact, if you strip a tree, whose fruits are impregnated with

poison, the fruits kills all who eat them. If [the salamander]

falls into a pit, the strength of its venom kills those who drink

[from that well]. Its opposing fire, alone among the animals,

douses fire. The salamander lives in fact, in the midst of the

flames without pain and destruction, not only does not burn, but

also extinguishes the fire.

~APPENDIX 2~

THE FOLLOWING ARE VALID AND DIRECT QUESTIONS I HAVE FOR JAN IRVIN BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED ABOVE:

Jan Irvin – from where did you obtain the image presented in THM

?1 If not the Bodleian, why do you cite that library as your

source? What evidence can you present that validates that MS.

Bodl. 602 is an alchemy treatise? Furthermore, if you did get it

from Bodleian, how did you miss that it is not an alchemy

treatise? The tome is not only catalogued as a 13th century

bestiary, but also is noticeably of that genus based on its

resemblance to countless other bestiaries found in university

archives throughout the world. Wouldn’t the logical choice be to

write down or at least address in THM that the text is

catalogued as a bestiary, and explain why you believe it to be an

alchemy treatise instead? Also, why are you so vague with the

citation—do you know how hard it was to find a manuscript with 11 Irvin (2008), pg. 115.

nothing more to go on than “Bodleian Library?” Do you still

believe that the man is eating mushrooms and dancing? Finally,

how exactly do all of these lapses in logic figure in with your

understanding of the Trivium?

ANSWERS I WILL NOT ACCEPT:

I do not accept non-answers such as I’m supposedly making an

“argument from ignorance.” Mine are arguments from evidence. If

my arguments have still eluded the holy mushroom theorists, here

they are flatly:

1. I contend that Jan Irvin committed zero investigation into the

strange-looking tree found in MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 027v, and

concluded it was a mushroom without a shred of supporting

evidence—the very definition of an argument from ignorance. I

further contend that he cited Oxford University instead of Chris

Bennett as his source as a cheap way to give “scholarship” to his

silly theories.

2. I contend that the tree on fol. 027v is not a mushroom.

3. Finally, I say that MS. Bodl. 602 is a typical bestiary, not

an esoteric alchemy manuscript.

I also do not accept that I am “attacking the man, and not

the argument.” I have very diligently composed my argument based

on accepted historical methodology,2 archival research, and a

working knowledge of Latin and medieval manuscripts. I am

addressing whatever historical approaches Jan Irvin is using to

draw his conclusions.

Also, I do not accept the MS. Bodl. 602, fol. 027v is “only

one image” argument. My argument is specifically about how fol. 027v

serves as a microcosmic example of the broader problems borne in

Mr. Irvin’s standards of historical criteria. He doesn’t get one

thing wrong about the image; he got everything wrong. And lo! All

his historical errors point to his theory being correct. So who

is really hiding something? Certainly not the illuminators of

medieval bestiaries.

Finally, MS. Bodl 602, fol. 027v was supposed to be the

much-vaunted savior prophesied by true-believers to “silence”

skeptics by unequivocally depicting not only a mushroom and the

“caduceus” as a “symbol for drugs,”3 but also a man in the throes22 I.e., not making up my own interpretations of images when textual descriptions of such images are available; arguing evidence against interest, and following the data-trail even if it leads to unwelcome conclusions—all things Irvin claims to do, but clearly does not. 33 Irvin (2008), pg. 114.

of a medieval entheogenic experience, thus leading holy mushroom

theorists to the Promised Land.

The exodus has been delayed ….