# Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society/Volume 1/Account of the Banyan Tree

Read March 6, 1824.
Among the objects of Natural History, which attracted the attention, and excited the wonder of the followers of Alexander the Great, when that illustrious conqueror carried his victorious arms across the Indus, was the Banyan, or Indian Fig-tree. It is well known that that extraordinary man, whose talents, as well as achievements, have certainly no parallel in history, was generally imbued with a love of science, and, as Pliny expresses it, inflamed with a passion for Natural History. To his great preceptor, Aristotle, he had delegated the care of digesting, and elucidating, the vast materials that were collected, in the king’s progress through a quarter of the globe, which, to the inhabitants of Europe, was absolutely a new world. It is to be presumed that, by the orders of Alexander, not only specimens of natural productions were looked for, but that observations were also made, on the spot, by competent persons, on such objects as could not be removed. Both the one and the other were placed at the disposal of Aristotle, who by dint of his powerful mind, and with the assistance of an immense fund of knowledge, brought the rude materials, furnished to him, into a system of scientific arrangement. According to Pliny, as ​quoted below,* he wrote about fifty volumes on the History of Animals, or, as we should say, on Zoology alone: and we know from other sources, that he also composed a work on Plants,t or on Botany. . In the latter, the mention of such a production as the Banyan-tree, could not have been omitted. It is our misfortune to lament, that of these interesting writings comparatively very little has been preserved to us. Of the work on Animals, a certain portion remains; and there, indeed, also exists a book on Plants, attributed to Aristotle, but unquestionably spurious. His re- searches, however, may be traced in authors that wrote after him, and who enjoyed the advantage of the information which he had gathered. Thus Plinyt declares, that the greatest part of what he himself has written on zoology, is taken from the works of Aristotle ; and we may justly con- clude, that Theophrastus, an author to whom our attention will be presently directed, has built on the same foundation.
Whatever passed through the hands of Aristotle, on subjects of Natural History, must be allowed to have had a value beyond that which any other writer could have given it, both on account of his acuteness and intellectual superiority, and of the channels, through which his information was de- rived. It is not possible to conceive, as has before been intimated, that among the natural curiosities of India, of which, through the interposition of Alexander, he obtained a knowledge, such a phenomenon in the vege- table world, as the Banyan-tree, should have escaped him; more especially, when it is considered, that even writers, as will be shown afterwards, who merely employed themselves in recording the military and political achieve- ments of Alexander, could not forbear noticing that remarkable object. _
Hence it appears probable, that Theophrastus, who was the favourite and most distinguished pupil of Aristotle, and who succeeded him in the Lyceum, as head of the Peripatetic school, gained, in substance, what he has left recorded of the Banyan, from the literary stores of his master, to
+ [epi puta a B', de plantis libri duo, two books on plants. See the Life of Aristotle, by Diogenes Laertius, in the Ist volume of Buhle’s edition of Aristotle’s works, p. 22. Also his life by an anonymous author ; ib. p. 64. + Nat. Hist. VIII. 17. Vol. II. p.79. ed. Bip.—quinguaginta ferme volumina illa preclara de animalibus condidit ; que ame collecta in arctum, cum iis que ignoraverat, queso ut legentes boni consulant, in universis rerum nature operibus, medioque clarissimi regum omnium desiderio, cura nostra breviter peregrinantes. ​which, undoubtedly, he had access: and this circumstance will recommend the passages, which I am about to introduce, to our particular regard.
We are in possession of two botanical works of Theophrastus, one in- scribed the History of Plants,* and the other rather unintelligibly entitled On the Causes of Plants.t In this last work, he treats of the peculiarities of different plants, of which peculiarities he endeavours to assign the reasons, or causes; hence that laconic and awkward denomination. It is a sort of Botanical Physiology. In both works, the Banyan-tree is mentioned, and altogether very fully, and accurately described. Theophrastus calls it the Indian Fig, an appellation which was given to it, by the followers of Alex- ander, on account of the resemblance, as he states, which the form of the fruit has to the common fig. It is singular to observe, that the name, which this plant bears in modern botany, Ficus Indica, should have been bestowed upon it, more than three hundred years before our era, perhaps at the very first moment that it was seen by the eye of an European. But modern science classes it with Ficus, not merely for the reason which Theophrastus alleges, but because it is marked with all the characters which belong to that genus.
I now shall cite the passages themselves, from Theophrastus. ‘The first occurs in the first book, the twelfth chapter, of the History of Plants. He there speaks of the curious mode of its rooting, and says thus:t “ The “ nature and property of the Indian Fig, with regard to its rooting, are “ peculiar; for it sends forth roots from the young branches, which roots « are lengthened, till they come in contact with the ground, and strike into «it. There is thus formed a continuation of roots, in a circle, round the
The next, and principal passage, is in the fifth chapter of the fourth book, in the same work, and to this effect:§ “ The country of India produces
t Historia Plantarum, lib. I. c.12. p. 13. (ed. Heinsii, Lugd. Bat. 1693.) “[dia 32 piens pias nal Divays i ving "Ivdining cunts * amd yap tiv Paasiv apinar mexpls ou dv cuvadn TH yn Kad pigaby* nah yiveTar Tepl To DevOpov HUKAW TUVERXES TO THY PIGGY, Guy, AAToLEVEY TOD SEAEY,IUS, HAAR aPESNKOS «  § Historia Plantarum, lib. IV. ¢. 5. p. 77. “H de ‘Ivdinn xopa thy te naroupévny Exel cui, ii xaSinow Ex Thy uraduv Tas pigas av’ EKasov ETO, womep ElpnTor mpoTEpov’ aPinor OF dum Ex THY véwv, GPX tx Thy Evy, Kal ETL maraiorepwy* GuTat de cwdmrovoa TH YH, MowovoW womEp dpuppaxtov xUKry mei to Devdzov, dire yivecSan naSamep cunvnv, UP’ als nal ESac diarpicew . fioi DE cu pian Puopevon Now I. R diadnro ​ “« what is called the Indian Fig, which-every year sends out’ roots from its “ branches, as before has been mentioned; it emits them not from the “« young shoots, but from those of the year before, or even older ones. “ These, coming in contact with the ground, form a sort of inclosure, in a circle round the tree, so as to have almost the appearance of a tent (or ‘“« arbour) under which the people are also in the habit of dwelling. The ‘* roots, when produced, may be distinguished from the shoots, or young “« branches, by being whiter: they are thick and twisted, and furnished “« with two leaves. The tree has a great deal of foliage above, assumes’
‘“« said, that it throws its shade over a circumference of two stadia (or more “ than twelve hundred feet). The thickness of the stem is in some more “ than sixty paces, and in the generality forty paces. It has a leaf not “ less than a pelta, or Thracian shield, and fruit very diminutive, about “« the size of a large pea, or small bean, and resembling a fig, for which “« reason the Greeks have called it a Fig-tree ; the fruit is extremely small,
« This tree grows near the river Acesines.”
The third passage, in which Theophrastus speaks of this tree, is in the work, On the Peculiarities of Plants, and their Causes, in the second book, the fourteenth chapter.* “ Those plants,” he says, ‘‘ which tend to a great! “« size, are apt to have small fruit, as, for instance, the tree called the’ “ Indian Fig. . For being of wonderful magnitude, it has, by nature, its “« fruit extremely small and insignificant, as spending all its nourishment’
“* same cause of superabundant nourishment seems to be attributable the
diaduAror mpos Tos Brasous* AEuKdTEpat yup, Kal Daceion, nal oxorrcu, Dipuaror * Eyer 0 Thy aw xduny TrONANV * Kok TO OAov DevOpov EuxuKAOV* nal TH mEyEIEL mEYA CPOdpa * xal yap Emi Bo sada moeiv Pact THY THIAY* Hal TO TaXOG TOD sEreXous Ena maciovay H E-nnovTa Anuatwv, TH dE MOAAR TETTApaxoVTa . 7d déye QUAAOV Gum EraT Tov Exe: mEATNS* Kapmov BS oOod—Aa puIKpoV, HAindv EpeBW90, omoiov DE cua . . ~ ~ A > a . as, 10 mack Eucerov cevtd o1 “Eaanves cuniv’ daryov 08 Sauuasws Tov mapmov, dux OT maT TO TOU Devdpou wsyedoc, GARR maxi TO OAOV" QuEeTa DE TO Dévdoov megh tov Axeoivny moTapcy .
Scemep xa 4 "Ivdinh cunt xarounévn * Savuasn yap oboa Ta meyéSer, punpov Exar QUEL cMAIpa TOV KapmoV nal datyov, ws Ets Thy Brasnow ekavaricxousa mMacav Thy TpopHy" Kal yap TQOIpa peyarcQuAros* ao’ ~ # aot Seas ’ Ne 6% «on L x 2 7) nie Aull, ” Nes ~ dy dome Dick tTHy euCociay nal h TOY piCdv xadieucvav Evan yéveois * igws D” dvamanw, Ott Kal bg TadTa 1 ~ 7 4 hie Wise Sa . , MarTajepiCeT ects ne TOUTO OUV aaSevésepos ETt KAI EANTTOY O HAPS « ​"production of the roots, which are emitted from the branches; or, per-
* «< haps, the nourishment being divided between the roots and the branches,
* the fruit is, for this reason, weaker and smaller.’’
Such is the description which Theophastrus gives of the Banyan. It is full and detailed, clear and accurate. In commenting upon it, I shall advert to such parts as differ from modern accounts, or otherwise require explanation. The author uses a cautious mode of expression, when speaking of particulars, which might easily be liable to exaggeration. Thus, where the extent is mentioned, to which the shadow of the tree reaches, he employs the phrase, they say, or, it is said: “ It is said that the tree throws its shade over a circumference of two stadia.’ A stadium may be reckoned at six hundred English feet ; the shade of the tree, therefore, is said to cover about twelve hundred feet, in circumference. If we compare this statement with modern accounts, for instance, that given by Mr. Marsden, in his History of Su- matra,* we shall hardly think it magnified. That gentleman, in speaking of the Banyan-tree at Mangee, in Bengal, computes the circumference of its shadow, at noon, at eleven hundred and sixteen feet, between which, and the measure of two stadia, rated by us at twelve hundred feet, there is no great difference. Mr. Marsden gives the diameter of the stem of the tree at Mangee, three hundred and sixty-three to three hundred and seventy-five feet: Theophrastus estimates the thickness t+ of the stem, by which likewise the diameter must be understood, at sixty paces, or scarcely one hundred and eighty feet, in some trees, and at forty paces, or under one hundred and twenty, in the generality. If there is an exaggeration as to this point, I should suspect it to be in the modern account. Theophrastus probably
+ To maxos tod seréxous . { There may perhaps have been some inaccuracy in the calculations with which Mr. Marsden was furnished :' for it does not appear that he measured the tree alluded'to himself. I find it difficult to reconcile some of the dimensions, as they are given. In the text, Mr. Marsden ex- presses himself thus: ‘‘ It (the Banyan-tree) possesses the uncommon property of dropping “ roots or fibres from certain parts of its boughs, which, when they touch the earth, become “© new stems, and go on increasing to such an extent, that some have measured, in circum- « ference of the branches, upwards of a thousand feet, and have been said to afford shelter to a “ troop of horse.” To that passage a note is subjoined to this effect: « The following is an “* account of the dimensions of a remarkable banian or bur-tree, near Mangee, twenty miles west of Patna, in Bengal: Diameter, three hundred and sixty-three to three hundred and seventy- R 2 « five = “e ​came nearer to the truth. The roots, that shoot out from the branches, are no where so accurately described. They are thick * and twisted, he says, and distinguishable from the branches, from which they proceed, by a lighter colour. And he adds a particular circumstance, namely, that they are dipvaac, two-leaved, that is, furnished with two leaves, or stipule, as modern botanists would call them, probably at the spot where the roots issue from the branches. I have not seen this noticed in any modern description, either botanical or other. The size of the leaf is perhaps the only thing that is overrated: it equals, he says, a pelta, that is to say, a small Thracian, or, as it is alsc called, Amazonian t shield. Modern bota- nical accounts represent the leaf as of about a span, that is to say, nine or ten inches in length, whereas the peléa must have been more than double that measure. ‘The fruit is by modern botanists said to be of the size of a hazel-nut ; and Theophrastus compares it to an <¢:Gwe, which seems to have been a large pea, ora sort of kidney-bean. The river Acesines, near which, he says, the tree grows, is supposed to be the Ravi, one of the four or five streams that, flowing from the eastward, unite their waters with the Indus.
The account of Theophrastus is the foundation of Pliny’s description, which shall now follow. In speaking generally of India, this author re- marks that that country produces the largest animals; and then he goes on to say,t * There also grow, according to report, trees of such extraordinary
« five feet. Circumference of shadow at noon eleven hundred and sixteen feet. Circumference « of the several stems, in number fifty or sixty, nine hundred and twenty-one.” Now if some trees, as is said in one place, have measured in circumference of the branches, upwards of a thousand feet; or if, as is stated in the note, the circumference of the shadow at noon is eleven hundred and sixteen feet, it is not to be conceived how the diameter of the stem alone can be from three hundred and sixty-three te three hundred and seventy-five feet, or its circumference nine hundred and twenty-one. The whole computation, I confess, is not clear to my view; and perhaps some error in the numbers may have taken place.
“« tree possesses the uncommon property of dropping roots or fibres from certain parts of its ‘« boughs, which, when they touch the earth, become new stems. These fibres look like ropes « attached to the branches.” + Pliny (Nat. Hist. XII. 11. p. 326. Vol. II. ed. Bip.) says: * Foliorum latitudo pelte effigiem « Amazonice habet.” Milton, in a passage to be quoted afterwards, calls this shield, Amazonian targe. t Pliny, Nat. Hist. VII. 2. Vol. II. p.9. ed. Bip. Maxima in India gignuntur animalia. Ar- bores ​"height, that you cannot shoot an arrow over them. It is owing to the
“ of water, that (if we may believe it) there is a species of fig-tree, under “ whose branches whole troops of horsemen may be concealed.” The very high tree, to which Pliny first alludes, may perhaps have been the great Fan-Palm (Corypha umbraculifera): but he has no name for it. The report of it, as of most of the productions of India, came from the Mace- donians that composed the expedition of Alexander the Great; and these, though they gave an account of many trees, left most of them without names, as Pliny in another * place has observed: which circumstance ren- dered them indistinct and doubtful objects. The Banyan-tree was exempt from this defect, having, as before noticed, been called Zndian Fig-tree, from the first moment that the Macedonians saw it. From its being desig- nated as a Fig-tree, in the passage of Pliny, above recited, we know that it is the Banyan, of which the author is speaking.
This tree was among the objects, which were brought to the knowledge of the western world, by the expedition of Alexander. As such it is men- tioned by Pliny,t who describes it in the following manner :t “ It has very
the ground, that every year a portion of them strike into it, and produce “« a new offspring around the parent-tree, forming themselves into a circle, “as if it were done by the hand of art. Within this enclosure the shep-
bores quidem tante proceritatis traduntur. ut sagittis superjact nequeant. Hec facit ubertas soli, temperies coeli, aquarum abundantia (si libeat credere) ut sub una ficu turme condantur equitum.
ex parte sine nominibus. + Nat. Hist. XII. 10. p. 326. Nune eas (arbores) exponam, quas mirata est Alexandri Magni victoria, orbe co patefacto. $ Nat. Hist. XII. 11. p.326. Ficus ibi exilia poma habet. Ipsa se semper serens, vastis diffun- ditur ramis ; quorum imi adeo in terram curvantur, ut annuo spatio infigantur, novamque sibi propaginem faciant circa parentem in orbem, quodam opere topiario. Intra sepem eam estivant pastores, opacam pariter et munitam vallo arboris, decord specie subter intuenti, proculve, fornicato ambitu. Superiores ejusdem rami in excelsum emicant, silvosd multitudine, vasto matris corpore, ut LX. passus plerique orbe colligant, umbrd vero bina stadia operiant. Foliorum latitudo pelte effi- giem Amazonice habet: hac causd, fructum integens, crescere prohibet. Rarusque est, nec fabe magnitudinem excedens: sed per folia solibus coctus, predulci sapore, dignus miraculo arboris, Gignitur circa Acesinem maxime amnem, ​"herds shelter themselves, in,summer, as it.affords them both shade, and a kind of fenced protection, which, presents an elegant appearance, when you look under it, or view it at a distance, the whole resembling a vaulted, or arched edifice. The upper branches spring, like a forest, from the vast body of the mother-tree : most of them measure sixty paces (nearly one hundred and eighty feet) in circumference ; and they cover a space of two stadia (or upwards of twelve hundred feet) with their shadow. The broad leaves of the tree have the shape of an Amazonian shield: covering the fruit, they prevent it, by this means, from growing ; the fruit is thinly scattered, and does not exceed the size of a (kidney) bean: it becomes matured by the heat of the sun, penetrating through the leaves, is of a very sweet taste, and by its peculiarity adds to the wonders of the tree. The tree grows particularly near the river Acesines.”” ‘
Before I proceed to make any observations on this passage, I will, while the impression of it is fresh in the recollection, subjoin the well-known lines of Milton * relating to the Banyan-tree, which will be found to be copied from Pliny’s description. The poet, speaking of our first parents, after the fall, when they felt shame, and sought for means to cover their bodies, continues thus :
“So counselled he (Adam), and both together went “¢ Into the thickest wood: there soon they chose «° The fig-tree, not that kind for fruit renown’d, « But such as, at this day, to Indians known “ In Malabar or Decan, spreads her arms,t “ Branching so broad and Jong, that in the ground “ The bended twigs take root,{ and daughters § grow «© About the mother-tree, a pillar’d shade || “ High overarch’d, and echoing walks between. “* There oft the Indian herdsman, shunning heat,
+ Plin. Vastis diffunditur ramis. £ Adeo in terram curvantur, ut annuo spatio infigantur. § Novamque sibi propaginem faciant circa parentem in orbem ; and afterwards, superioris ejus- dem rami in excelsam emicant-vasto matris corpore. || Decord specie, subter intuenti, proculve, fornicato ambitu. ​“Shelters* in cool, and tends his pasturing herds,
“* They gather’d, broad as Amazonian + targe.”
Pliny was familiar with the writings of Theophrastus, for he repeatedly refers to him in his work, and it is evident that he almost transcribed the passage, concerning the Banyan-tree, from that author. But he has not done it with that accuracy, which ought to be expected, on such a subject. He omits, or alters, some essential points. In speaking of the lower branches striking into the ground, he does not notice the roots that issue from those branches, which are the means of bringing the latter in contact with the earth; yet this is a peculiarity most remarkable. From Pliny’s account it would appear, as if the branches merely had a tendency to be bent downwards, and thus reached the ground, where they afterwards took root: but this is quite a false representation. He is equally incorrect, when he assigns the measure of sixty paces to the circumference of the upper branches, which Theophrastus gives as the dimension of the stems of the different young trees, produced round the parent stock. He ex- presses himself indistinctly respecting the shade, which proceeds from the tree. Like Theophrastus, he says, that it extends over two stadia, or about twelve hundred feet; but he so places this in the context, that it seems to be the shade of the upper branches of which he is speaking, in- stead of that of the whole tree, which Theophrastus clearly designs. The leaves Pliny characterizes by their breadth, which, he says, gives the idea of an Amazonian shield, or pelta: the comparison should be as to the size of the leaf generally, in which acceptation Theophrastus likens it to the same shield. The reason which Pliny alleges for the smallness of the fruit, is not such as an intelligent naturalist ought to have given: he says, it is owing to the large leaf, by which the fruit is covered, and its growth im- peded. This must mean, that the fruit, being excluded from the influence of the sun, by the intervention of the leaf, is stunted: yet he presently talks of the effect of the sun upon that very fruit, in maturing and sweetening it.
+ Foliorum latitudo pelte effiziem Amazonice habet. ​ Pliny appears to great disadvantage, by the side of such an author as Theophrastus. The information which he collected, upon almost every subject, though vast in quantity, loses much of its value, from the precipi- tation with which it was taken up. His inordinate desire of reading every thing that could be read, which is admirably described by his nephew,* and the ambition of making extracts from a multitude of authors, left him no time for digesting what he had thus heaped together, much less for exer- cising any judgment, or discrimination. His extreme parsimony of time would naturally induce hurry, in making his extracts, which proved another source of inaccuracy. It is, for these reasons, not to be wondered at, that the correctness of Pliny’s statements should, on many occasions, be subject to doubt, and that his authority should be brought into question. It is probable, also, that he may have mixed with the account of Theo- phrastus some other narration, less accurate ; such, for instance, as might be found in those historical writers, who had described Alexander’s expedition. It has been observed, that Theophrastus likens the size of the fruit of the Banyan to a sort of legume, which he calls é¢@w9cc, and it has been said that this was either a kind of large pea, or some variety of bean. Pliny uses the expression faba, bean, as synonymous with the term 2¢:@w9e¢: and we shall perhaps be near the truth, if we suppose, that what both authors had in view, was some kind of kidney-bean, approaching the size of a hazel-nut, stated by modern botanists to be about the dimension of the fruit of the Banyan. aba, in classical Latin, does not signify the common garden-bean, but seems to be a general term for both the phaselus and the phaseolus ; which latter is the kidney-bean, the former the garden bean.
Theophrastus and Pliny are the two authors who have spoken of the tree, as naturalists. Those which are now to be quoted, merely give the popular accounts, such as were to be met with in the histories, and memoirs of Alexander’s exploits. Of this character is a passage in Quintus Curtius, which undoubtedly refers to the Ficus Indica :t “* There were woods,” (in
+ Lib. 1X. c.1, p.193. Vol. II. ed. Bip. Hinc Poro amneque superato, ad interiora Indie processit. Silve erant prope in immensum spatium diffuse, procerisque et in eximiam altitudinem editis arboribus umbrose : plerique rami instar ingentium stipitum flexi in humum, rursus, qua se curvaverant, erigebantur adeo, ut species esset non rami resurgentis, sed arboris ex sud radice generate. ​India) says this author, “ spread to an immense extent, shaded with lofty “‘ and gigantic trees. Most of the branches being, like great stems, bent “ into the ground, again rose upwards, at the place of curvature, so as to “ afford the appearance, not of a branch that had sent forth fresh shoots, “ but of a tree produced from its own root.” This description, though far from accurate, cannot be applied to any other tree, than the Banyan. It was evidently derived from a superficial observer. Nor does the account given by Strabo, to which we now proceed, although more in detail, differ much in character. Strabo was a writer of great learning, and diligent research; but he has drawn his information, in this instance, not from the best source. We can hardly suppose him to have been unacquainted with the writings of Theophrastus, and it may be wondered that, upon such a subject, he should not have had recourse to this authority. The passage alluded to is in the fifteenth book of his Geography, and to this purpose :* * Among other things, India produces also many extraordinary trees, of “ which there is one species that has branches bending downwards, and leaves not less than a shield. Onesicritus, in detailing the natural pro-
* ductions of Musicania, which, he says, is the most southern part of
* « India, relates, that there are certain large trees of India, the branches of which grow to the length of twelve cubits, then take the remainder of
“ their growth downwards, as if they were bent, till they reach the ground ; *« and having penetrated into the earth, they strike root, like layers. After
‘Ivdinn tpépel, dv Est nal To natw vevovras Exov Tovs wAcdous, Ta OS pirra aaomidos obm trattu . ‘Ommatuprros BE xxi mepiepyorepov ta ev t™m Movomavod dickidy, & Qnor voribtara Eien THs Tydiniic, Omyeira weycrn Bevdpa twat tive, av Tov; urnadous auEnSevras emt mnyers dbdina, emeta chy Anmny auenow xatapeph AauBavE, 05 cy Karaxcumrouevous, Ews av crLwvron Ths yns* oreita matic vis CradoSévrce pigove Sat, Guotws rails naripubiv, evr avaddbevras serexovobas* ef bu mam Guolos TH dvénre. norancupSevras danny natinguye Tow, elt arrny* atl ovtws Ep-bnc, Bs’ kD Evdg depo omadiov yevéc9ar maMpov, moAUSUAn ounin quo. Neyer O: nak usyétn devpov, ase mévre davpsoroig Ouomepianmra tion ree sertyn . Kara de roy “Axecivny nai thy cuorny thy mpds “Yaparw, uai “ApisoCovros EipnKe qepl tay HAT OMA TOLEVOUS Exov Twv TOUS uAaDOUG, Kat mrepl TOD psyEbous, dob O’evi Devious meoneBpiCew oxiaCoucvous taroréas meveinovtee * GuT0s Be TeTpanoolous — Amavras de umepRERanyroxt, mepl Tou meyebous ray devzav, of Onoavees Eupeeoda mépay Tov Tapiridos devdpov moi cxcay Tals weonuBeloas mevtasadiov: So this passage ought to be connected : but in the text of the editions (which, generally speaking, is very corrupt) the follow- ing sentence is interposed, between the words rerpaxosisus and*Amavras, being evidently out of its place: Aéye dz "Ag:sdGouass xal caro deveev—narprrabg Exov a5 0 mvoquos Oénce Sauriaous td nnos, mrngEls UENTOS* Tobs BE Ooryovras du pads owCecban . Vor I. S ​“this, rising upwards, they are metamorphosed into stems, from which, «in the progress of growing, branches issue again in like manner. «“ These, similar to those before, bend downwards, and form other layers, “ and again others: so that from one tree, there arises a large bower, re-
“* speaks of the magnitude of the trees, which, he says, is so immense, that «« five men can hardly fathom the stems. Aristobulus, when speaking of “ the Acesines, and its junction with the Hyarotis, also makes mention of “ the trees with down-bent branches, and of their great size, which, he “ asserts, will afford shelter to fifty horsemen; the other writer (Onesicri- © tus) even says, to four hundred. But those go beyond all the rest, who “‘ report, that on the farther side of the river Hyarotis, a tree was seen, ‘¢ which, at noon, made a shade of five stadia.”
This account of Strabo, as I have before stated, rests upon the autho- rity of writers, whose business it was not to be very exact in matters of this nature: it incidentally formed a topic in their narration ; and even if they wrote to the best of their knowledge, without a wilful design of misrepre- senting the truth, yet, as it was not incumbent on them to investigate, with great nicety, the reports which they had heard, erroneous details were unavoidable. Among other misnomers, they seem to me to have con- founded different trees. Perhaps some particulars, which we do not find applicable to the Banyan, may have belonged to the Great Fan Palm (Co- rypha umbraculifera) : hence many points of difference, between this passage of Strabo, and the accurate description of Theophrastus, may be explained. The size of the leaf is, in the former, magnified to a large shield (dea): scutum),* while the latter limits it to a small pelta. On the other hand, the circumference of the stem, or trunk of the tree, said to be scarce fathom- ablet by five men, is much below the estimate which we have before noticed. In other instances, the spirit of exaggeration must be supposed to have operated, as in this, when it is related that the shade of the tree, at noon, covered five stadia, which is a space of more than three thousand feet. The emission of the roots from the branches,t which is a very important
+ “Ore wévre avbpdarois Surmepianmra Elvat Te srExN . £ It is peculiar to several species of the genus Ficus, among others to the Ficus virens, a large tree, which is a native of South America. ​fact, in the natural history of the tree, and most carefully set forth by Theophrastus, is not adverted to by Strabo.
I have hinted that, in some particulars, the Corypha umbraculifera, or Great Fan Palm, may have been confounded with the Ficus Indica, or Banyan. In a passage of Diodorus Siculus, where a large kind of Indian tree is spoken of, the Fan Palm seems to have been intended by the author. It is in the seventeenth book of his History, where the exploits of Alex- ander are related :* “ The king,” he says, “ having with his army passed “ the river, proceeded through a country extremely fertile. For it pro- «« duced different species of trees, of uncommon size, some having a height «« of seventy cubits, and such thickness in the stem, that four men could
(about one hundred and twenty feet), nor the circumference of the stem (about twenty-four feet), nor the extent of shadow (about three hundred feet), can be reconciled with particulars, which have before been adduced as characteristic of the Banyan-tree.
The Banyan-tree, however, is undoubtedly alluded to in the following passage of Arrian. It is in that portion of his works, which is entitled Indian History. He is speaking of the Indian sophists, the wise men, or Fakirs, of ancient India, and continues thus:t ‘ These sophists go naked,
“ summer, when the sun is overpowering, they retire to meadows, and ‘«« marshy places, under large trees, whose shade, Nearchus says, extends to
“ tree; of such astonishing dimensions are those trees.” From the words of the original it would seem, that the five acres (or five hundred feet) mentioned, are to be taken for the radius of the circle, which would for the circumference give nearly the same measure, that, according to Strabo,
Tepasas Toy moTapAV, Meonye die ywpas apeTH DiaPepovons * DevBewv yap elxe yévn DiarrarrovTa, nai TO uv vilos Exovta mnxaiv EBdounnovta, To OF maxos moyis Lao TeTTagay cvopaV TepInaubavouEver, ToIiV oe mrESewv THI ToLOLVTE . + Historia Indica, p. 324 and 325, ed. Gronov. Lugd. Bat. 1704. ‘Ouro: yupvol Siatdvras o: Topical, TOU pay yeIudvos vmrcubpia ev TH HNw, Tou de BEgous, Emnv 6 HAlos maxTEyn, Ev TOITL AEluioL nal Tow Enegiy, bro Devdgeot meyarow’ dv THY ciIny Necepyos abyet &s mrevre mreboa ev xinrw tEinverrbou nai ay pugious Umo Evi evdper oniageabas* THAmatre Elion Talra ta devdpec . S 2 ​some writers alleged, namely, five stadia, or upwards of three thousand feet. With such an exaggeration, the report of Nearchus, quoted by Arrian, might coincide. But though we cannot precisely ascertain, in what sense the measurement, spoken of, is to be taken, yet there can hardly be any doubt that the tree, which Arrian had in his mind, was the Banyan. In reading what Arrian relates of the naked philosophers of ancient India, one is re- minded of the Fakir, mentioned by Mr. Marsden, as sitting under the Banyan-tree, at Mangee, who, it would seem, continued a practice that was known to his wise predecessors, many centuries before.
Thus I have collected all that may be supposed to have a reference to the Banyan-tree, in the remaining works of the classic authors. I do not believe, that any passage, or even any allusion, has escaped me. Perhaps the length, to which these observations have been extended, may require an apology. I was tempted to attribute some slight degree of interest to the subject, as the Banyan-tree has, in a manner, been marked by this Society as its own. It has been chosen for the emblem of the Society, and as the type for its seal. The extraordinary nature of this production, and its locality, being peculiar to the remote East, recommended it as an object that might characterize the Astatic Society or Great Britain and Ireland. Whether any allegorical sense, in relation to the arts and sciences, their various ramification and extension, their connexion and mutual support, should be combined with it, I leave for others to determine. ‘The motto, joined to our emblem, is “ Quot rami, tot arbores,” or, “Every branch yields a tree:” and whether we adopt the allegory, or not, it is to be wished, that the efforts of this Society may contribute to extend human knowledge, and promote that intellectual improvement, which is calculated to constitute the happiness of our species.
* ↑ Pliny speaks, in particular, of one branch of natural history, namely, zoology, in the cultivation of which, he says, Alexander had taken a warm interest: but no remarkable object could be indifferent to such a mind. Nat. Hist. VIII. 17. Vol. II. p. 79. ed. Bip. Alexandro Magno rege inflammato cupidine animalium naturas noscendi, delegatdque hac commentatione Aristoteli, summo in omni doctrind viro, aliquot millia hominum in totius Asie Graecieque tractu parere jussa, omnium quos venatus, ancupia, piscatusque alebant: quibusque vivaria, armenta, piscine, aviaria, in curé erant: ne quid usquam gentium ignoraretur ab eo: quos percontando quinquaginta ferme volumina illa preclara de animalibus condidit. The immense sums of money, which the king, besides, bestowed upon Aristotle, for the prosecution of his researches, are mentioned by Athenzus IX. p. 398, &c. Casaub. (IX. c. 13. T. III. p.447. ed. Schweigh.) This grant of money /Elian (Var. Hist. IV. 19.) by a mistake, attributes to Philip, the father of Alexander. See Buhle in Aristotelis Vita (Vol. I. Oper. Aristotel.), p. 96; and Schlegel’s Indische Bibliothek. Vol. I. p. 160.
* ↑ History of Sumatra, 3d ed. p. 163, note: “Under this tree sat a naked Fakir, who had occupied that situation for twenty-five years; but he did not continue there the whole year through, for his yow obliged him to be, during the four cold months, up to his neck in the waters of the Ganges,”