scription of Hindustani anjir," as affirmed by Hirth, but of New Persian
anjlr or enjlr, the Hindustani (as well as Sanskrit anjira) being simply
borrowed from the Persian; Bukhara injir, Afghan intsir; Russian
indzarn.
(3) Fu-lin Jt IB ti-ni or ti-cen 3^ or *B (*ti-tsen, *ti-ten) ; the latter
variant is not necessarily to be rejected, as is done by Hirth. Cf.
Assyrian tittu (from *tintu); Phoenician tin; Hebrew ti'nu, te'enah; 1
Arabic tin, tine, tima; Aramaic ts'mta, tenta, tena; Pahlavi tin (Semitic
loan-word). The Semitic name is said to have taken its starting-point
from south-eastern Arabia, where also, in the view of the botanists, the
origin of fig-culture should be sought; but in view of the Assyrian
word and the antiquity of the fig in Assyria, 2 this theory is not probable.
There is no doubt that the Chinese transcription answers to a Semitic
name; but that this is the Aramaic name, as insisted on by Hirth in
favor of his theory that the language of Fu-lin should have been Aramaic,
is not cogent. The transcription ti-ni, on the contrary, is much nearer
to the Arabic, Phoenician, and Hebrew forms. 3
(4) ft 5 $ (or better &) yu-Van-po, *u-dan-pat(par), *u-dan-
bar = Sanskrit udambara (Ficus glomerata)* According to Li Si-6en,
this name is current in Kwan-tun.
(5) M 36 ^ wu hwa kwo ("flowerless fruit"), 5 Japanese icijiku.
The erroneous notion that the fig-tree does not bloom is not peculiar
to Albertus Magnus, as Hirth is inclined to think, but goes back to
times of antiquity, and occurs in Aristotle and Pliny. 6 This wrong
observation arose from the fact that the flowers, unlike those of most
fruit-trees, make no outward appearance, but are concealed within the
1 In the so-called histories of the fig concocted by botanists for popular consump-
tion, one can still read the absurdity that Latin ficus is to be derived from Hebrew
feg. Such a Hebrew word does not exist. What does exist in Hebrew, is the word pag,
occurring only in Canticle (n, 13), which, however, is not a general term for the fig,
but denotes only a green fig that did not mature and that remained on the tree during
the winter. Phonetically it is impossible to connect this Hebrew word with the Latin
one. In regard to the fig among the Semites, see, above all, the excellent article of
E. LEVESQUE in the Dictionnaire de la Bible (Vol. II, col. 2237).
2 E. BONAVIA, Flora of the Assyrian Monuments, p. 14.
3 It is surprising to read Hirth's conclusion that "ti-ni is certainly much nearer
the Aramean word than the Greek
from Semitic; their origin is still doubtful (see SCHRADER in Hehn, Kulturpflanzen,
p. 100).
4 Fan yi min yi tsi, Ch. 8, p. 5.
5 Also other fruits are described under this name (see Ci wu min Si t'u k'ao,
Ch. 1 6, pp. 58-60). The terms under 4 and 5 are identified by Kao Si-ki ^ T -^
in his Tien lu Siyii^J^^ f| (Ch. A, p. 60, published in 1690, ed. of Swo lin).
6 xvi, 39.
412 SlNO-lRANICA
fruit on its internal surface. On cutting open a fig when it has attained
little more than one-third its size, the flowers will be seen in full develop-
ment. 1
The common fig-tree (Ficus caricd) is no less diffused over the Iran-
ian plateau than the pomegranate. The variety rupestris is found in
the mountains Kuh-Kiluyeh; and another species, Ficus johannis,
occurs in Afghanistan between Tebbes and Herat, as well as in Baluchis-
tan. 2 In the mountain districts of the Taurus, Armenia, and in the
Iranian table-lands, fig-culture long ago reached a high development.
Toward the east it has spread to Khorasan, Herat, Afghanistan, as well
as to Merw and Khiwa. 3 There can be no doubt, either, that the fig was
cultivated in Sasanian Persia; for it is mentioned in Pahlavi literature
(above, p. 192), and we have a formal testimony to this effect in the
Annals of the Liang dynasty, which ascribe udambara to Po-se (Persia)
and describe the blossoms as charming. 4 In India, as stated, this term
refers to Ficus glomerata; in China, however, it appears to be also used
for Ficus carica. Huan Tsafi 5 enumerates udambara among the fruits
of India.
Strabo 6 states that in Hyrcania (in Bactria) each fig-tree annually
produced sixty medimni (one bushel and a half) of fruit. According to
Herodotus, 7 Croesus was dissuaded from his expedition against Cyrus
on the plea that the Persians did not even drink wine, but merely water,
nor did they have figs for sustenance. This, of course, is an anecdote
without historical value, for we know surely enough that the ancient
Persians possessed both grapes and wine. Another political anecdote
of the Greeks is that of Xerxes, who, by having Attic figs served at his
meals, was daily reminded of the fact that the land where they grow was
not yet his own. The new discovery of the presence of figs in ancient
Babylonia warrants the conclusion that they were likewise known and
consumed in ancient Persia.
We have no means of ascertaining as to when and how the fig
spread from Iran to China. The Yu yan tsa tsu is reticent as to the
transmission, and merely describes the tree as existing in Fu-lin and
1 LINDLEY and MOORE, Treasury of Botany, pt. I, p. 492.
2 C. JORET, Plantes dans I'antiquite", Vol. II, p. 45.
3 G. EISEN, The Fig: Its History, Culture, and Curing, p. 20 (U. S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, 1901).
4 Lian $u, Ch. 54, p. 14 b. Read yu-t'an-po instead of yu-po-t'an, as there printed
through an oversight.
6 Ta ran si yu ki, Ch. 2, p. 8.
II. I, 14.
7 1, 7L
THE FIG 413
Persia. 1 We have, however, the testimony of the Arabic merchant Solei-
man, who wrote in A.D. 851, to the effect that the fig then belonged to
the fruits of China. 2
Bret Schneider has never written on the subject, but did communicate
some notes to the botanist Solms-Laubach, from whom they were taken
over by G. EiSEN. 3 Here we are treated to the monstrous statement,
"The fig is supposed to have reached China during the reign of the
Emperor Tschang-Kien [sic!], who fitted out an expedition to Turan
in the year 127 A.D." [sic!]. It is safe to say that Bretschneider could
not have perpetrated all this nonsense; but, discounting the obvious
errors, there remains the sad fact that again he credited Can K'ien with
an introduction which is not even ascribed to him by any Chinese text.
It is not necessary to be more Chinese than the Chinese, and this
Changkienomania is surely disconcerting. What a Hercules this Can
K'ien must have been ! It has never happened in the history of the world
that any individual ever introduced into any country such a stupendous
number of plants as is palmed off on him by his epigone admirers.
Li Si-cen, in his notice of the "flowerless fruit," does not fall back
on any previous Pen ts*ao; of older works he invokes only the Yu yan
tsa tsu and the Fan yu li 3f ]U J, which mention the udambara of
Kwan-si.
The fig of Yun-nan deserves special mention. Wu K'i-tsun,
author of the excellent botanical work Ci wu min $i t'u k'ao, has de-
voted a special chapter (Ch. 36) to the plants of Yun-nan, the first of
these being the yu-t'an (udambara) flower, accompanied by two illus-
trations. From the texts assembled by him it becomes clear that this
tree was introduced into Yiin-nan from India by Buddhist monks.
Among other stories, he repeats that regarding the monk P'u-t'i(Bodhi)-
pa-po, which has been translated by C. SAiNSON; 4 but whereas Yan Sen,
in his Nan'Zao ye &', written in 1550, said that one of these trees planted
by the monk was still preserved in the Temple of the Guardian Spirit
rh 3k US of Yiin-nan fu, Wu K'i-tsun states after the Yun-nan t'un ci
that for a long time none remained in existence, owing to the ravages
and burnings of troops. Judging from the illustration, the fig-tree of
Yun-nan is a species different from Ficus carica. The genus Ficus
1 Contrary to what is stated by A. DE CANDOLLE (Origin of Cultivated Plants,
p. 296) after Bretschneider. But the description of the fig in that Chinese work
leaves no doubt that the author speaks from observation, and that the fig,
accordingly, was cultivated in the China of his time.
2 M. REINAUD, Relation des voyages, Vol. I, p. 22.
3 Op. cit., p. 20.
4 Histoire du Nan-Tchao, p. 196.
414 SlNO-lRANICA
comprises nearly a hundred and sixty species, and of the cultivated fig
there is a vast number of varieties.
According to the Yamato-honzo 1 of 1709, figs (icijiku) were first
introduced into Nagasaki in the period Kwan-ei Hi 7K (1624-44) from
the islands in the South-Western Ocean. This agrees with E. KAEM-
pFER's 2 statement that figs were brought into Japan and planted by
Portuguese.
1 Ch. 10, p. 26 b.
2 History of Japan, Vol. I, p. 180 (ed. reprinted Glasgow, 1906).
