Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:41:51.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soma and Amanita muscaria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

John Brough
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The importance of the Soma-plant in Vedic religion has never been underestimated. Among the rituals of the Yajurvedic texts, the soma-sacrifices are among the most elaborate and important, and are described in minute detail in the Brāhmaṇas and Śrauta-sūtras. These later texts nevertheless continue a direct tradition from the Ṛgveda, which can be seen to reflect an earlier stage in the development of the ritual, doubtless of a less rigidly formalized and probably less elaborate nature. Even so, the Ṛgveda is, so to speak, permeated by Soma. Understandably, therefore, from the early days of Vedic studies in the West, many scholars have speculated on the botanical identity of the plant in question. Numerous candidates have been nominated, the most frequently favoured being species of the genera Ephedra, Sarcostemma, Periploca, and latterly Cannabis, and even Rheum. Not a single one of these conjectures has gained general assent, and the opinion is widely held that the problem is insoluble.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1971 , pp. 331 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wasson, R.Gordon, Soma, divine mushroom of immortality. (Ethno-mycological Studies, No. 1.) xiii, 381 pp., 24 plates, 3 maps. The Hague: Mouton; New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., [c 1968] (publ. 1969), $200 (£86.50)Google Scholar. The book is sumptuously produced, printed on handmade paper specially water-marked, with 24 colour plates. Edition limited to 680 numbered copies. Mr. Wasson's primary study is mycology, and he was for 10 years a Research Fellow of the Botanical Museum of Harvard University, now Honorary Research Fellow; also Honorary Research Associate and former member of the Board of Managers of the New York Botanical Garden. In my discussion of the theory here, I am much indebted to Professor Mary Boyce and Dr. I. Gershevitch for information and advice on some of the relevant Iranian materials. These colleagues are of course not necessarily committed to any of the views which I have expressed; and any inadvertent errors are my own.

2 Throughout the present article, such references, unless otherwise indicated, are to pages or plates of Wasson's book.

3 The Sanskrit dictionaries are notoriously unreliable on botanical nomenclature. Among the most frequently mentioned figs in Sanskrit, only Ficus religiosa = aśvattha still stands as a valid name, while others continue to be miscalled by names now discarded by botanists under the priority rule. The opportunity is taken here to correct some of these: for further details, see Corner, E. J. H., ‘Check-list of Ficus in Asia and Australasia’ The Gardens' Bulletin (Singapore), XXI, 1965–1966 (publ. 1967)Google Scholar.

udumbara: F. racemosa L. [wrongly F. glomerata Roxb.]

uḍumbarī, añjīra (Pers): F. hispida Linn. f. [wrongly F. oppositifolia Roxb.]

parkaṭī: either F. virens Ait. [wrongly F. infectoria Miq.]

or F. tsjahela Burm. f. [wrongly F. infectoria Willd.]

or F. caulocarpa Miq. [wrongly F. infectoria Willd. var. caulocarpa (Miq.) King].

This last is a good example of the confusion which can arise when, as is usual in Sanksrit dictionaries, the naming authority is omitted: s.v. parkaṭī we find only F. infectoria, and are thus left with three possible interpretations.

4 Wasson, R. G. and Wasson, V. P., Mushrooms, Russia and history, New York, 1957Google Scholar.

5 Geldner, Karl Friedrich, Der Rig-veda cms dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche übersetzt (Harvard Oriental Series, XXXIII–XXXV), Cambridge, Mass., 1951Google Scholar; Renou, Louis, Études védiques et pāṇinéennes [EVP], especially Tomes VIII and IX, Paris, 1961Google Scholar (translation with notes of the ninth mandala, to Soma Pavamana); Bhawe, S. S., The Soma-hymns of the Ṛgveda, Baroda, 1957, 1960, 1962 (containing 9.1–70)Google Scholar.

6 For nṛcakṣāḥ, Renou, ‘(le soma) au regard de maître’; Geldner, ‘Der männlich Blickende’.

7 This was a surprise, at least to me: having taken ‘stalk’ for granted, I had not previously thought to consult Grassmann for this word.

8 i.e., leaving out of account 8.5.26, where Amsu is a man's name, and 1.100.16, where sumádaṃśu is unexplained, but appears to be part of a horse's harness.

9 Roth, R., ‘Ueber den Soma’, ZDMG, XXXV, 1881, 684Google Scholar; Renou, L., ‘Les éléments védiques dans le Sanskrit classique’, JA, CCXXXI, juillet–sept. 1939, 341Google Scholar.

10 AIr. W, s.v., analysing the compound as nąmi-ągu-. Some doubt may still be felt about the sense of *nāmi-.

11 See R. L. Turner, Comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages, s.v. aṃśu-.

12 See Benveniste, E. and Renou, L., Vtra et Vθragna (Cahiers de la Société Asiatique, III), Paris, 1934Google Scholar; Gershevitch, I., The Avestan hymn to Mithra, Cambridge, 1959, p. 158Google Scholar.

13 Ancient tradition is unreliable on the myth or ritual for which this hymn was composed, although some connexion with Indra is recognized: for details, see Geldner's introductory note to his translation of the hymn. Modern scholars have tended to identify the speaker as Indra. R. Hauschild argued in favour of Agni: ‘Das Selbstlob (ātmastuti) des Somaberauschten Gottes Agni (Ṛgveda X, 119)’, in Schubert, J. and Schneider, U. (ed.), Asiatica: Festschrift Friedrich Weller, Leipzig, 1954, 247–88Google Scholar, a view which Renou considered probable (EVP, XIV, 39).

14 Here and in subsequent paragraphs, such italicized headings are those of chapters or sections of Wasson's book. It has not seemed necessary to deal with every point which he raises, and only the arguments which he considers most vital for his case are discussed in detail. I trust, however, that I have passed over nothing of importance.

15 In case it might be thought that this last expression is a periphrasis for ‘ocean’, it should be noted that the present verse (ajāyata) concerns Soma's birthplace, whereas the ocean (samudra) in connexion with Soma is his ultimate destination, the filtered juice in the sacrificial bowls in the earthly sense, and the ‘heavenly ocean’ in the implied hieratic sense: cf. for example RV 1.110.1; 9.2.5; 9.29.3; 9.73.3. On the general question of Soma and the Waters, see Lüders, , Varuṇa, I, Göttingen, 1951, 225 ff., 272Google Scholar, and Gonda, J., The meaning of the Sanskrit term dhāman-, Amsterdam, 1967, 50Google Scholar. The stanza 8.6.28 was thought by Sāyana to refer to Indra; but the view of the commentary on the same verse in VS 26.15, referring it to Soma, is certainly right: cf. índubhiḥ at the end of 8.6.27, and Geldner's note on 8.6.28.

16 Gonda, J., The meaning of the Sanskrit term dhāman-: see especially pp. 44, 47 ff. for the various dhāmans of SomaGoogle Scholar.

17 op. cit., 19.

18 Here he appears to mean some modern Vedic scholars, since he refers only to Macdonell, A. A., Vedic mythology, Strassburg, 1897, 82, 106Google Scholar; and see also Renou's translation quoted above, where ‘la pure et la mélangée’ seems to be wrong. Sayana knows nothing of any such interpretation.

19 For bibliographical details of earlier discussions of this rare word, see M. Mayrhofer, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen, s.v.

20 Gershevitch, I., Grammar of Manichean Sogdian, § 408Google Scholar; Bailey, H. W., Khotanese texts VI, 284Google Scholar.

21 For other cognates, Pokorny, J., Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 707Google Scholar.

22 Gershevitch, , op. cit., § 1113Google Scholar.

23 Bailey, H. W., Khotanese texts, VI, 289Google Scholar, q.v. for more detailed information.

24 Pokorny, , op. cit., 429 ffGoogle Scholar.

25 Dict, historique de la langue française (Académie Française), ‘De couleur fauve, tirant sur le roux. Il ne se dit qu'en parlant de chevaux’; Littré, ‘le corps est reconvert de poils rouges ou bruns plus ou moins foncés’. Professor W. Simon has kindly confirmed for me the yellowishness of Falbe, quoting also Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, and the reddishness of alezan: Meyer-Lübke, Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, which gives ‘braunrotes Pferd’. The French word is borrowed from Spanish (ultimately of Arabic origin), and the Spanish Larousse defines alazán as a horse with hair more or less rojo canela ‘cinnamon red’.

26 Hatzfeld and Darmesteter: ‘(En parlant d'un cheval.) Qui a la robe d'un jaune pins ou moins clair’.

27 On this, see Gershevitch's note on the verse in question in The Avestan hymn to Mithra.

28 Pokorny, , op. cit., 761Google Scholar.

29 BSOAS, XXIII, 1, 1960, 23–4Google Scholar.

30 See Mayrhofer, op. cit., s.v.

31 Bowden, K., Drysdale, A. C., and Mogey, G. A., ‘Constituents of Amanita muscaria’, Nature, CCVI, 4991, 1965, 1359–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Named from Jap. ibo-tengu-take (presumably ‘verrucose Amanita’) = A. strobiliformis. A. muscaria is beni-tengu-take ‘red Amanita’. The use of tengu-take ‘goblin-mushroom’ for Amanita may be of interest for vernacular fungal terminology. [The discussion of ‘muscarine-effects’ here and on p. 361 may now require modification: see Addendum to footnote on p. 362.]

33 Journal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan, LXXXIV, 1964, 1232Google Scholar.

34 Boyce, Mary, ‘Haoma, priest of the sacrifice’, in Boyce, M. and Gershevitch, I. (ed.), W. B. Henniny memorial volume, London, 1970, 62Google Scholar. The evidence quoted (ibid., p. 64, n. 26) from Stein, , BSOS, VI, 2, 1931, 502 ff.Google Scholar, suggests, though it does not prove, that an Ephedra was already in use among the Central Asian Iranians in the fourth century A.D.—and not necessarily as Haoma.

35 Pearson, H. H. W., Gnetales, Cambridge, 1929 (but written before 1916)Google Scholar, lists nine or ten species whose geographical distribution might make them possible candidates; but his information is very imprecise. Hooker, J. D., Flora of British India, 1875–1897 (information long out of date), V, 641, 863Google Scholar, found it extremely difficult to differentiate many of the species.

36 Goodman, Louis S. and Gilman, Alfred, The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, second ed., New York, 1956Google Scholar.

37 See now also the review by Kuiper, F. B. J., Indo-Iranian Journal, XII, 4, 1970, 279–85Google Scholar, with further comments by B. G. Wasson, ibid., 286–98, published after the present article had been sent for printing.

[Addendum. Mr. Wasson has very kindly sent me a copy of ah article by Catalfomo, P. and Eugster, C. H., ‘Amanita muscaria: present understanding of its chemistry’, Bulletin on Narcotics, XXII, 4, 1970, 34–41Google Scholar. The authors show that ‘the total muscarine content of A. muscaria is extremely low (0·0002 per cent on a fresh wieght basis)’. Thus, some of my remarks on pp. 360–1, in so far as they concern muscarine, are probably not relevant for the fly-agaric problem. Unfortunately, this information reached me only after the present article had been set in pages. The paragraphs in question could not be rewritten without undue expense and delay in printing; and I am grateful to the Editorial Board for permitting me this additional note. It should be clear, however, that the chief point of my argument still stands, namely, the nausea, vomiting, and coma caused by the fly-agaric, even if the chemical agents responsible for these effects are not yet definitely decided by pharmacologists.]