2 THE PEACHES OF NEW YORK 



historians we should never know even the place of origin of the peach; 

 for it is upon data from botany that we must depend most in determining 

 the habitat of our fruit. This subject we now come to discuss in detail. 



THE ORIGIN OF THE PEACH 



Names frequently breed misunderstandings and in the case of the 

 peach a fine brood of mistakes as to the origin of the fruit has come from 

 the name. As all know, " peach " and most of its equivalents in the 

 countries of Europe are derived from " Persia " and this has given rise to 

 the supposition that the original habitat of the fruit is Persia. The ancient 

 authors who mention the peach, as Theophrastus, Columella and Pliny, 

 agree that the home of the peach was Persia and, even until our own time, 

 to be written in any of these worthies is proof conclusive. While negative 

 evidence counts for but little, the notion is so firmly fixed that some, at 

 least, of the races of peaches are Persian products that it seems best to 

 clear the way for positive evidence by first proving that the first home 

 of the peach was not Persia. 



Persia is pictured as a land of fruits before agriculture had begun in 

 Greece and Rome. The quince and the pomegranate probably originated 

 here and, with the olive, grape, almond, and, to the north at least, the 

 cherry and plum, have been cultivated from three to four thousand years. 



At ver>f early times the quince, pomegranate, olive and grape were 

 introduced from Persia, according to De Candolle, still our best authority, 

 into Greece and Rome and even the cherry and plum, from countries to 

 the north if not from Persia, reached southern Europe long before the 

 peach. It seems certain, as De Candolle suggests,' that if the peach had 

 been a native of Persia, had it existed there during all time, so beautiful 

 and so delectable a fruit would have been taken earlier into Asia Minor 

 and Greece. As gratifying to all the senses by which we judge fruits as 

 any other product of the orchard, as easily transported and propagated 

 as any — more .so than most — it cannot be believed that the other fruits 

 named would have been given preference over the peach by conquerors or 

 travelers carrying Persian luxuries to westward countries. 



Moreover, as De Candolle further points out, the several Hebrew and 

 Sanskrit peoples did not speak in sacred or wdgar writings of the peach 

 as they did many times of the olive, quince, grape and pomegranate. Yet 

 these peoples radiated from the valleys of the Euphrates and were at all 



' De Candolle, Alphonse Or. Cult. Plants 222. 1885. 



