something is known of these.

The streets of Egyptian cities were usually laid out regularly, but they were so narrow that, except in the principal ones, two chariots could scarcely pass. This narrowness of the streets, which is frequently observed in the ancient Arab cities, and which has been so long maintained in all hot countries, had the advantage of securing shade at all times on one side of the street. The buildings along the street were ordinarily separated from each other by alleys; they were rarely more than two stories high, except in such large cities as Thebes, where they sometimes reached four and even five stories. The houses were so arranged as to meet the demands of the climate. A court often preceded the apartments which were disposed along both sides of a long corridor. In other cases the rooms occupied three sides of the court; or oftener still the court was surrounded on all sides by the different structures. The ground-floor was reserved for the stables; it was used also for storing the corn, and it contained the kitchen and the cellar. The family occupied the upper stories. Above the whole was a terrace where they could enjoy the cool air and even pass the night, when the heat was excessive. Sometimes the terrace was protected by a light roof supported by slender wooden columns. There were but few windows, so as to keep the sun out as far as possible, and such as there were were placed nearly at the top of the rooms.

The houses were built of unburned brick, made from a heavy clay, mixed with a little sand and chopped straw; this was shaped into oblong slabs which were dried in the sun. Bricks of ordinary size measured 8-2/3 in. x 4-1/3 in. x 5-1/2 in., the large ones were 15 in. x 7 in. x 5-1/2 in. There were special marks to indicate where they were manufactured; some came from the royal works, some from private shops. The foundations of the buildings were not deep; the walls were whitewashed, or painted in bright colors; the floors were of brick or flagging, or simply of hardened earth; the roof was flat, with a framework of palm branches covered with a coating of earth sufficiently thick to prevent the infiltration of the rain. The dwellings of the wealthy lords were usually erected in the centre of a garden, or of a cultivated court, and occupied a considerable space. The entrance was announced by a colonaded porch or a pylon, and the interior was like a small city,—the dwelling in the background, with the granaries, stables, servants' quarters and out-buildings disposed here and there about the enclosure.

In the more important palaces, the dwelling of the master stood in the centre of a rectangular court, the sides of which, on the right and left, were occupied by the storehouses.

Like all other peoples of antiquity, the Egyptians were obliged to protect their towns from the incursions of enemies. The greater part of their cities, and even the principal villages, were therefore walled. Man will never cease to fortify his cities until these fortifications have been proved unavailing before the power of new engines of destruction.

In this rapid review of the civil architecture of the ancient peoples of Asia and Egypt, we have discovered no traces of structures whose destination indicated any care for the development of the lower classes of society, no remains which implied their participation in any municipal life whatever, no edifice erected for the purpose of national education. Such institutions had no place under a theocractic government which absorbed into itself the entire nation. When it had made provision for the defence of its cities, erected temples to its gods, reared palaces for the earthly abode of its monarchs and tombs for their future life, when it had satisfied the simple material needs of the people, what more could be asked?

[To be continued.]

THE PAVILIONS OF THE CITY OF PARIS.—DOMESTIC AND URBAN SANITATION.—VIEWS OF OLD PARIS.—PALACES OF THE LIBERAL ARTS AND THE FINE ARTS.—RETROSPECTIVE EXHIBITION OF LABOR.

The City of Paris desired to have in the Champ de Mars a serious and useful exhibition, so it began by paying no sort of attention to the decorative and architectural side of its two pavilions, placed in the centre of the upper garden between the monumental fountain and the central dome. It was not afraid, in spite of its surroundings, to shelter itself within the simplest of buildings in plaster, with a decoration meagre and accentuated by the needs of construction. In fact, the large entrance doors, all of wood, were made afterwards and applied to the plaster, and the same may be said of all the visible woodwork; but this lack of ingenuousness in the construction is not to be too severely blamed, since it is a question of pavilions which are to disappear after an existence of six months. Economical reasons are always worthy of respect, and the modesty of the Municipal Council on this occasion ought to be praised. But what one has a right to criticise is the unhappy idea which placed these pavilions in such a manner as to completely obstruct the view of the exterior porticos of the palaces and industrial sections when one stands before the central dome in the centre of the garden. This criticism once made, there only remains to give expression to praise of the exhibit made by the city of Paris. Very well arranged inside, very well considered, it possesses enormous interest principally from the point-of-view of hygiene and the sanitation of the city. This is a question much studied for a long time back, and is one which marches towards a solution which promises to be perfectly satisfactory in view of the progress already made. Wide streets have replaced narrow alleys, air circulates freely everywhere, trees and enormous gardens have been planted on every side, and the salubrity of the house is assured by a severe inspection, one which will become yet more severe, it is to be hoped, in the case of those owners who are inclined to despise regulations. It would be so simple in place of continuing the ancient ways, whose inconveniences are so well demonstrated in the large model of an unhealthy house exhibited in the pavilion of the city of Paris, to adopt all the new systems of sanitation which, on their part, are shown in application in the model of a sanitarily perfect house which has been placed opposite to it. To establish this comparison two very simple models of construction have been selected, proving that healthfulness is not merely an attribute of luxury, but that the most modest houses can present all possible guaranties from this point of view. The healthfulness of houses, and consequently of cities, depends amongst other multiple but relatively simple causes on two preeminent conditions,—that of the removal of excrement, and the purity of the water-supply. In a large degree the first condition is subordinated to the second. "Everything to the sewer" is recognized by the most competent hygienists as the best system, but only on the condition that water shall be abundant and that no stagnation of the material shall be allowed. These problems, which were for a long time studied