346 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



nature, and their constant use in religious services and in the diversions 

 of social life.* 



With the papyrus columns the case is much clearer, for but one 

 theory is possible for their origin. f They are undoubtedly derived 

 from the bundles of canes which were used instead of wooden beams 

 in all Egyptian buildings of the earliest times and in all domestic 

 architecture throughout the duration of the Egyptian empire.^ Con- 

 firmation of this theory of early construction, if confirmation be needed, 

 may be sought in the a priori naturalness in such a country as Egypt, 

 almost devoid of trees, but abounding in reedy growths, of such a 

 method of building; in the existence of the same custom at the 

 present day, not only in Egypt, but in Mesopotamia and India ; in the 

 references in ancient writers to the practice ; and in the overwhelming 

 testimony of the monuments. If this hypothesis of origin be accepted, 

 it were easy to compare type and antitype, Nature and Art, and dis- 

 cover the particulars in which the latter modified the products of the 

 former to adapt them' to her purposes. But the differences are 

 perfectly obvious. 



In view of the fact that the two varieties of columns just described 

 seem to have had quite distinct origins, it may be a matter of surprise 

 that they are grouped together here. The reasons for the collocation 

 are two, namely, that they much resemble each other in composition of 

 shaft and in outline of capital, and that they seem to have acted and 

 reacted on each other to such an extent that the second variety of 

 papyrus columns is in a measure the derivative of both lotus and 

 papyrus forms. If the type assumed as the basis for division be simply 

 a stalk-bundle, the present classification is correct. If it be preferred 

 to mark two distinct types — a bouquet of lotus-buds and a building- 

 sheaf of reeds — this order separates into two. Which classification is 

 chosen is largely a matter of taste ; the present one is the more con- 

 cise and convenient,§ the other perhaps more thoroughly philosophical. 



I have allowed this description of Order I. to become quite minute, 



* The abundance and importance of the lotus in ancient times are proved by its 

 incessant recurrence on the monuments. 



t Even Wilkinson employs this explanation a few pages before the classifica- 

 tion quoted in the second section of this essay. Eg. in Time of Phars., p. 148. 

 Compare Wilkins, Athens, p. 9. 



t See Viollet-le-Duc, Habitations of Man in all Ages, (tr. by Benj. Bucknall, 

 Boston, 187G,) p. 76 ; T. B. Saint-Hilaire, Egypt and the Great Suez Caual, 

 (London, 1857,) p. 256. 



§ The lotus columns are almost too few to form an order by themselves. 



