John Ramsbottom

Wasson writes to Prof. John Ramsbottom and tells him to tote the line, “rightly or wrongly”. Dec. 21, 1953. Ramsbottom backstabs him, “double crosses” him, by printing the letter. Wasson doesn’t figure it out for 16 years – thinks he’s covered his bases.

Ramsbottom pg. 48:

Not in 1st (1953) edition.

The 2nd (1954) edition states on pg. 48:

Addendum: “Rightly or wrongly, we are going to reject the Plaincourault fresco as representing a mushroom. This fresco gives us a stylized motif in Byzantine and Romanesque art of which hundreds of examples are well known to art historians, and on which the German art historians bestow, for convenience in discussion, the name Pilzbaum. It is an iconograph representing the Palestinian tree that was supposed to bear the fruit that tempted Eve, whose hands are held in the posture of modesty traditional for the occasion. For almost a half century mycologists have been under a misapprehension on this matter. We studied the fresco in situ in 1952.” – Wasson, private letter of December 21, 1953

Who is this “we” to which Wasson refers? He states:

“Rightly or wrongly, we are going to reject the Plaincourault fresco as representing a mushroom.”

Does he mean to say “we” as in Wasson and his other associates or academics? And if so, who are they? Does he mean “we” as in Ramsbottom and himself? And if so, this could be construed as an order! He states that hundreds of examples are known, then goes on to state that “we studied the fresco,” meaning the Plaincourault fresco. Did he study any of the other “hundreds of examples”? It appears not, even though he knows they exist. Would it not be a priority to study as many as he could to verify Panofsky? And again, who is this “we” that Wasson studied with “in situ”.