36 
CEDRUS LIBANI 
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 ioo 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 500 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 3! 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 
