where willows are known to have stood ages since—is it not natural to suppose that both belonged to the same species? Such is the view Sir R. Porter has taken, whatever variety the trees may belong to. He supposes them to be the same which shaded the captives of Israel. Altogether, after reading the passage of this distinguished traveller, one feels some misgivings lest the claim of the weeping willow, in connection with the 137th Psalm, prove unfounded. One would like to see the proofs clearly made out in behalf of the weeping willow. The assertion, that it is the tree of the Psalmist is universally made, but we have never yet seen a full and complete account of the grounds for this opinion; and, so far as we can discover, no such statement has yet been published. Probably, however, the question may be very easily settled by those who have learning and books at command.
Oziers are incidentally made mention of by very ancient authors in connection with Babylon. The framework of the rude boats, described by Herodotus, was of ozier. This at least is the word given in the translation, and many modern travellers assure us that oziers are now applied to the same purpose by the boatmen of Mesopotamia. Another evidence that this kind of willow was formerly common on that ground, is found in the ruins themselves. M. Beauchamp, in the account of his investigations of the remains of Babylon, during the last century, says: “ The bricks are cemented with bitumen. Occasionally layers of oziers in bitumen are found.” Other travellers speak of reeds also in the bitumen; so that the plant, and the tree, named by Sir R. Porter, as now found on the banks of the Euphrates—the ozier and the reed—are thus proved, by the most clear and positive evidence, to have also existed there in ancient times.
