however, says, that these being the characters of an old lower branch of a very old tree, are no guide
to the general character of the wood on the Lebanon, and still less to that of English-grown specimens,
which are always very inferior in colour, odour, grain, and texture. So far as regards the English-grown
specimens, this is unquestionably true; but why it should be so as regards the general character of the
wood in Lebanon, we cannot see. No doubt the older the tree, the closer the rings and grain, and the
harder the texture; but allowances must be made for that in all timber. We must begin by taking the
actual facts, and make the allowances afterwards. Sir Joseph Hooker says that, calculating only from the
rings in this old branch, the youngest trees would average 100 years old; the oldest, 2500—ages which,
he thinks, are, no doubt, widely far from the mark. We are not sure that they are so, at any rate on the
score of too great age. Estimated by the rate of growth of English rapidly-grown specimens, their ages
might be reckoned as low, respectively, as 300 and 200 years. But the mere fact that, according to that
test, the old trees at Lebanon, which we read of as being of as great size upwards of 300 years ago as
they are now, might be only 200 years old, disposes of the reference to English ordinary growth by a
reductio ad absurdum.
The truth is, that we can learn little or nothing from the growth of the Cedar in this country, for
both the rate of its growth and the qualities of its timber have departed most materially from their natural
character in Syria. We must trust to nothing but Lebanon evidence for Lebanon growth ; and looking
to that, we see that the sections of the two younger trees give between them an average of 53 years per
foot in girth, while that indicated by the old branch is 70.
At this rate, a tree 40 feet in circumference would be 2000 years old; but as in all trees, after a certain
age, the breadth of the annual rings diminishes as the tree increases in age and size, it must be still older.
The above branches are the only actual timber that we have to judge from ; but we must not leave
out of view the information that may be gathered from the incidental statements as to the growth of
the younger tree in the above data
We shall not shrink, therefore, from acknowledging our belief that the oldest trees are much older
than the days of Solomon. It is no doubt possible that Sir Joseph Hooker's suggestion that a change
may have taken place in the climate may be true—although the supposed fact on which he rested it, the
occurrence of no Cedars but the Grove, is found to be erroneous. A change has certainly taken place
in the cultivation of the country and the fertility of the soil. Where formerly the earth produced
abundantly, now she is barren; and we may be all wrong in ascribing that to the maladministration of
governments, the wastefulness of man, and the desolation of wars. It may be a climatal change; and
when the largest Cedars have fallen, and we can look into their heart, we may find that the growth
for the first few hundred years has been rapid, and that it is only in the outer circles that the extraordinary
slowness of growth (which we now find to be the character of the young trees) has begun to shew
itself. This is possible, but it is without proof, and we rather think the facts point the other way. Until
we have some such proof, we think 4000 or 5000 years a very moderate estimate of their age; and we are
the more disposed to believe this slow growth that we can cite the progress of young trees under our
own observation growing under unfavourable circumstances in our own country, as perfectly in keeping
with such a rate of growth.
At Duncrivie, in Kinross-shire, two young Cedars, which were planted about forty years ago, have
grown, the one no more than three feet high, and 34 inches in girth at the ground, and the other only
a trifle more. This is a growth of not quite an inch in height, and rather more than a fifth of a line
in growth in a year, or about the same rate of growth as that of the exterior rings of the smaller
Lebanon specimen, or double that of the last 68 rings of the larger specimen. A small branch cut
off near the base of one of these shews 16 annual rings, of which all but three (which correspond to the
years 1856, 1857, and 1858) are most minute. It has no top, but is assuming the flat tabulated form
of
of an old tree. There is no appearance of its ever having lost its top. We observe incidentally that the
inaptitude of the climate for the Cedar at Duncrivie does not apply to the Deodar, which grows as rapidly
there as anywhere else.
The supposed slow growth of the Cedar on Lebanon was threatened with a contradiction by some
beams of wood found by Layard in the ruins of Nineveh, one of which he sent home to the British
Museum, where it is now deposited. He says:
" Standing one day on a distant part of the mound, I smelt the sweet smell of burning Cedar. The Arab workmen excavating in the small
temple had dug out a beam, and the weather being cold, had at once made a fire to warm themselves. The wood was Cedar; probably one of
the very beams mentioned in the inscription as brought from the forests of Lebanon by the king who built the edifice. After a lapse of 3000
years it had retained its original fragrance. Many other such beams were discovered, and the greater part of the rubbish in which the ruin was
buried consisted of charcoal of the same wood. It is likely that the whole superstructure, as well as the roof and the floor of the building, like
those of the temple and palace of Solomon, were of this precious material" (" Discoveries in the Ruins of N ineveh and Babylon," 1853, p. 357).
Now, the specimen in the British Museum has the annual rings by no means close, but at regular
and tolerably wide distances; the rate of growth being nearly a line each year—the breadth of 10 spaces
each containing 10 rings selected as a fair average, being successively 13 lines, 11, 8, 9, 9i, 8, 9J, 7, 6, 7i.
If this were Lebanon timber, we should, therefore, be compelled to admit that the growth had not always
been slow in Lebanon, or at least not so in other forests from which the beam in question might have
been taken. There are, however, objections to receiving the beams in question as timbers from Lebanon.
One is, that the late Robert Brown, by a microscopical examination of the intimate structure of the
timber, pronounced it to be the wood of the Yew, not of the Cedar; and on the strength of his determination
it has been so received by botanists. This we do not think a good objection, for we have
doubts of the soundness of Mr. Brown's determination. The block of timber has every resemblance to
that of the Cedar, and little or none to that of the Yew. It is nearly of the colour of the Cedar, and not
so dark or so rich a brown as the heart-wood of the Yew. The texture is open and soft like that of the
Deodar or English grown Cedar, and not so close and firm as that of the Yew. Its annual rings are
scarcely more consistent with the usual growth of the Yew (which are very close, one we have just counted
giving 90 rings in 26 lines) than they are with those of the Cedars growing on Mount Lebanon ; and, on
examining a radial section of the timber under the microscope, we have found our suspicions confirmed,
and it almost certainly proved to be, at any rate, not a Yew. There is a simple and marked distinction
between the structure and timber of the true Conifers and of the Yews. A cross section shews no
difference; but a longitudinal section made in the radial direction shews an additional, or apparently
additional, structure in the Yews beyond what appears in the Conifers. The Yew, in addition to the
discs, has a half uncoiled spiral vessel, like an elastic spring, between the walls of each tube. No such
spiral vessels are to be seen in a section of the Nineveh Cedar. When placed in Canada balsam,
examined without this precautionary preparation, there is to be seen a slight cross line or scratch here
and there, simulating the crossing of two spiral vessels; and this, we imagine, is what has deceived Robert
Brown. No doubt if the spiral vessels or traces of them could be seen at all in any part, that must settle
the question, as they are never seen in coniferous wood; but the cross lines in question occur very rarely,
and only here and there, instead of being everywhere present as in the Yew, and may probably be due to
the disintegration of the timber from the long keeping. At any rate, under the best methods of examination,
no spiral vessels are to be seen. Another objection to its being Yew is the fragrance spoken of
by Mr. Layard, which he smelt when the beam was burning, which is not a property of the Yew, while it
is of the Cedar.
We are driven, therefore, to admit that the timber is not the Yew; and next, that there are strong
grounds for believing it to be Cedar. But it does not follow that it is Lebanon Cedar. It may be
Deodar, which, it is not disputed, has a more rapid growth than the Lebanon tree. Indeed, it seems
almost impossible that it could be anything but the Deodar. Lebanon is 300 or 400 miles from Nineveh
as the crow flies, and the route by land is impassable to carriages or any means by which heavy logs of
timber