the reed from which was prepared the famous paper of Egypt.

Before entering on a description of the papyrus, it may be right to say a word or two as to the opinion generally received in Europe concerning the disappearance of this plant. Supposing the circumstance possible, the date of it must be fixed at no distant period; for it is not more than two centuries since Guilandin and Prosper Alpin observed the papyrus on the banks of the Nile. Guilandin observed the inhabitants of the country eating the inferior and succulent part of the stem, in the manner of the ancients; a fact which shows that it must have been the papyrus. This, and the practices related by Prosper Alpin, are suf- sufficient to convince us that the plant is not wholly useless, although it is not now employed in the fabrication of paper. The alteration in the soil of Egypt, and the methods of agriculture, have in all probability rendered the plant less common; but causes altogether local could not occasion the destruction of the papyrus, especially as its residence in the marshes would prevent their operation. It is needless, however, to reason from probabilities or analogy.

Mr Bruce not only saw the papyrus growing both in Egypt and Abyssinia, but actually made paper of it in the same manner as that in which it was made by the ancients. He tells us, likewise, that, so far from any part of it being useless, the whole plant is at this day used in Abyssinia for making boats, a piece of the acacia tree being put into the bottom to serve as a keel. That such were the boats of ancient Egypt, we know from the testimony of Pliny, who informs us that the plants were first sewed together, and then gathered up at stem and stern, and tied fast to the keel: *Consuritur bibula Memphis cymbo papyro*.

The papyrus, says Pliny, grows in the marshes of Egypt, or in the stagnant places of the Nile, formed by the overflowing of that river, provided they are not beyond the depth of two cubits. Its roots are tortuous, and in thickness about four or five inches; and its stem is triangular, rising to the height of ten cubits. Prosper Alpin states it as growing about six or seven cubits above the water; the stem tapering from the bottom, and terminating in a point. Theophrastus adds, that the papyrus carries a top or plume of small hairs, which is the thyrsus of Pliny. Guilandin informs us, that its roots throw to the right and left a great number of small fibres, which support the plant against the violence of the wind, and against the waters of the Nile. According to him, the leaves of the plant are obtuse, and resemble the *typha* of the marshes. Mr Bruce, on the other hand, assures us that it never could have existed in the Nile. Its head, says he, is far too heavy; and in a plain country the wind must have had too violent a hold of it. The stalk is small and feeble, and withal too tall; the root is also too short and slender to stay it against the violent pressure of the wind and current; and therefore it could never have been a plant growing in the river Nile itself, or in any very deep or rapid river, but only in the calashes or places where the Nile had overflowed and was stagnant.

The Egyptians made of this plant paper fit for writing (see PAPER), which they called *sari*, or *philuria*, and also *xapros*, whence the Latin *charta*; for in general the word *charta* is used to signify the paper of Egypt.

The papyrus was produced in so great quantities on the banks of the Nile, that Cassiodorus compares it to a forest. There, says he, rises to the view, this forest without branches, this thicket without leaves, this harvest of the waters, this ornament of the marshes. Prosper Alpin is the first who gives us a plate of the papyrus, which corresponds in some degree with the description of the plant mentioned by Theophrastus; but by far the best drawing of it is that given by Bruce.

The ancient botanists placed the papyrus amongst the graminous plants or dog-grass; ignorant of the particular kind to which it belonged, they were contented to specify it under the name of *papyrus*, of which there were two kinds, namely, that of Egypt, and that of Sicily. The moderns have endeavoured to show that these two plants are one and the same species of cyperus; and it is under this genus that they are found in the catalogues and descriptions of plants published since the edition of Morrison's work, where the papyrus is called *Cyperus Niloticus Syriacus maximus papyraceus*.

It is impossible to determine whether the papyrus of Sicily was used in any way by the Romans. In Italy it is called *papiro*, and, according to Cesalpin, *pipero*. This papyrus of Sicily was cultivated in a garden at Pisa; and if we can depend on the authority of Cesalpin, who himself examined the plant, it is different from the papyrus of Egypt. The papyrus, says he, which is commonly called *pipero* in Sicily, has a longer and thicker stem than the plant cyperus. It rises sometimes to the height of four cubits; the angles are obtuse, and the stem at the base is surrounded with leaves growing from the root; and there are no leaves on the stem even when the plant is at the greatest perfection; but it carries at the top a large plume, which resembles a great tuft of dishevelled hairs. This is composed of a great number of triangular pedicles, in the form of reeds, at the extremity of which are placed the flowers, between two small leaves of a reddish colour like the cyperus. The roots are woody, about the thickness of reeds, jointed, and throw out a great number of branches, which extend themselves in an oblique direction. These are scented somewhat like the cyperus, but their colour is a lighter brown: from the lower part issue many small fibres, and from the higher a number of stems shoot up, which, in proportion as they are tender, contain a sweet juice.

The plume of the papyrus of Sicily is a tuft or assemblage of a great number of long slender pedicles, which grow from the same point of division, are disposed in the manner of a parasol, and carry at the top three long and narrow leaves, from which issue other pedicles, shorter than the former, and terminating in several knots of flowers. Micheli (*Nora Plantarum Genera*, Florence, 1728) has given an engraving of one of the long pedicles in its natural length. It is surrounded at the base with a case of about one inch and a half in height; and towards the extremity it carries three long and narrow leaves, and four pedicles, to which are fixed the knots of flowers. Every pedicle has also a small case surrounding its base. In short, the papyrus of Sicily is well known to botanists. It were to be wished that we had as particular a description of the papyrus of Egypt. It may be observed, however, that these two plants have a near affinity to one another; that they are confounded together by many authors; and that, according to Theophrastus, the *sari* and the *papyrus niloticus* have a decided character of resemblance, differing only in this, that the papyrus sends forth thick and tall stems, which being divided into slender plates, are fit for the fabrication of paper, whilst the *sari* has small stems, considerably shorter, and altogether useless for any kind of paper.

The papyrus, which anciently served to make paper, must not be confounded with the papyrus of Sicily, which is also found in Calabria. According to Strabo, the papyrus was not to be found anywhere except in Egypt and in India. The greater part of botanists have believed that the Sicilian plant is the same with the *sari* of Theophrastus; but others have alleged that the papyrus of Egypt and the *sari* were the same plant in two different stages of its existence, or considered with respect to the greater or less height; which, according to them, might depend upon the qualities of the soil, the difference of the climate, or other accidental causes. In proof of this, it is maintained, that there is an essential difference between the papyrus growing in the waters and the same plant growing on the banks of rivers and in marshes. The first of these has thick and tall stems, and a plume in the form of a tuft of hair very long and slender, and without any seed. The second differs from the first in all these particulars; it has a shorter and more slender stem, its plume is loaded with flowers, and consequently it produces seed. In whatever way we consider these facts, it is sufficient for us to know, that the difference between the papyrus and the *sari* neither depends on climate, nor soil, nor situation. The plants whose difference depended on these circumstances both grew in Egypt, and were both employed in the manufacture of... paper. But it is an established fact, that the sari cannot be employed for this purpose.

Finally, the papyrus of Sicily began to be known by botanists in the years 1570, 1572, and 1583, at which periods the works of Lobel, of Guilandain, and of Cesalpino, first appeared. The ancients had no manner of knowledge of this plant, and Pliny makes no mention of it in his Natural History; from which it is evident that it was used neither in Rome nor in Sicily. If he had seen this plant, he must have been struck with its resemblance to the papyrus and the sari, as these were described by Theophrastus; and since he gives a particular description of the latter, he would most naturally have hinted at their conformity to the Sicilian papyrus, had such actually been the case.