108 
THE FLOWERS AND PLANTS 
permitted to gather flowers ? " And so we 
say, when we find people trying to set us to 
rights on any unimportant matters. For our 
own parts, we think it almost presumptuous to 
question whether this or that, or the other lily 
was meant by our Saviour, when common 
sense tells us that the allusion was general. 
Christ did not say, Consider the lily of the 
field, but " the lilies of the field ;" and what 
does this convey but that, if there were a 
thousand species of lilies in flower around 
them, they were all included. On what autho- 
rity — by what perversion of language, any 
one flower should be supposed to be fixed on, 
we know not. " Consider the lilies of the 
field, how they grow : they toil not, neither 
do they spin." The comprehensive language 
of the Saviour was not likely to be limited to 
a single species ; nor does it in the least de- 
tract from the supposition that He comprised 
all the kinds of lily familiar to the people : 
that He says afterwards, " And yet I say unto 
you, that even Solomon, in all his glory, was 
not arrayed like one of these." For, had He 
said, " Consider the thousands of beautiful 
lilies of the field," it would not be so com- 
prehensive as the more simple sentence, which 
comprised all, if there were millions — " Con- 
sider the lilies of the field." However, 
while we make up our mind that the lilies 
spoken of by our Saviour meant every kind of 
flower that was called a lily, we leave others 
the singular task of settling which particular 
flower they Avill fix the plural on. 
Solomon's lily, however, may be, after all, 
a distinct kind, however unimportant it may 
be what kind it was ; for it is called severally, 
the lily of the valley, and the lily that groweth 
by the waters, which may be considered 
synonymous ; and therefore we have a right 
to presume it was one of the many Liliaceous 
flowers which grew on marshy ground. But 
with regard to the lilies of the field, they 
would comprise all the most delicate and most 
gaudy, the most beautiful and fragrant, that 
carpeted the regions known to the multitude. 
Kitto, in his notes to the Pictorial Bible, 
falls into what we consider the same error as 
his predecessors, and has his mind fixed on 
the singular. He says, " The Syriac trans- 
lators seem to have considered, with modern 
versions, that the lily of Solomon and the lily 
of Matthew were identical, for which con- 
clusion, indeed, this authority is scarcely 
needed. What kind of lily is intended no one 
can tell ; but concluding that it was a lily, the 
Amaryllis Lutea offers a fair alternative. We 
know that this flower abounds in Palestine, 
and the gorgeous displays of the green vales, 
embroidered with a profusion of the yellow 
Amaryllis, at a time when most other flowers 
have faded, was well calculated to furnish the 
subject of an allusion to the spontaneous 
bounty of God." 
Now there happens, according to our notions, 
to be no one circumstance to favour the iden- 
tity of the two flowers, — not even the name. 
We give the translators all the benefit of being 
able to render the word Flower instead of 
Lily, for that would help us, were it admitted. 
We have already shown that Solomon alludes 
to the lily of the valley, and the lily that 
groweth by the waters ; while our Saviour, 
whose language throughout the Sermon on the 
Mount is dignified and comprehensive, speaks 
of the lilies of the field, (and if it could be 
rendered flowers it would be hardly more com- 
prehensive, as the lily, in its many forms and 
colours, no doubt composed the greater part 
of the flora of that country,) evidently allu- 
ding to the beauties of a whole tribe. Kitto, 
indeed, in a note to the Song of Solomon, upon 
the subject of the lily noticed there, says, 
" The Hebi'ew word Shoshanna seems to in- 
dicate that the Lily of the Valley was one of 
those plants wherein the number six predo- 
minates in the distribution of their parts ; 
such as the Crocus, Asphodel, Daffodil, Lily, 
&c." Here, then, he has a choice of flowers 
on which to fix the royal preference, and con- 
cludes that the king must mean the Amaryllis 
Lutea. Now, if there be one lily more ugly, 
more common, more scentless than another, 
(blooming, too, only at a period when nobody 
would care even to mention things in the open 
air,) the Amaryllis Lutea is that flower. It 
is only like a large coarse crocus, not so good 
a yellow, and, moreover, does not grow in 
valleys, nor by the waters. But we are apt 
to consider the Scriptural texts in too limited 
a sense ; the lilies of the Old Testament are 
widely different from one another ; because, 
while Solomon speaks of the lily of the 
valley, and which groweth by the waters, 
Esdras, speaking of the restored house of 
Jacob, writes (among things prepared for 
them) of " seven mighty mountains, where- 
upon there grow roses and lilies, whereby I 
will fill my children with joy;" and the wise 
son of Sirach compares the praises of the good 
to " the sweet smell of lilies, to the lilies by 
the waters." In short, the lilies formed a 
very prominent portion of the flora of those 
parts and those days ; and, as the sweet smell 
of lilies is alluded to, we have a right to sup- 
pose that the low, common, scentless Ama- 
ryllis Lutea was as far from the thoughts of 
those who mention the lily at all as it is re- 
moved from the more beautiful and fragrant 
lilies of the field, which bespangled the great 
expanse of vegetation in the Eastern world. 
Besides, if it be true that the six-petalled 
flowers were meant by the original Hebrew, 
and now translated as lily, then the whole 
