numbers of the professional journals also contain several noteworthy contributions to the discussion. Mr. Barr Ferree's criticism in The Architectural Review, of the methods of training pursued in the School of Fine Arts in Paris, have led to several papers by adherents of the French system and to a well-considered editorial in the same paper. But the most important contribution to the question is that of Mr. Henry Rutgers Marshall in the last number of The Architectural Record, which also contains a descriptive article upon the Royal Polytechnicum at Berlin and its course of study.

There is very little in any of these articles which adds to the existing knowledge on this largely discussed subject; it is what might be considered a rethreshing of old straw, and the main value of all of the articles is in the presentation, which may appeal to readers who have not before thought of the matter in all of its bearings. The papers read before the convention begin with the report of the committee on education, by Mr. Henry Van Brunt. In this Mr. Van Brunt advocates the careful and systematic study of architectural history; and it was the purpose of the report to bring out discussion which might lead to valuable suggestions to the architectural schools upon the study of this subject. Mr. Geo. B. Post, of New York, Professor Ware, of Columbia College, and several others took part in the discussion which resulted in merely recommitting the question to the committee on education, as it was not considered advisable to take any definite action which would bind the Institute to a settled policy on this question. Mr. Louis H. Sullivan, of Chicago, in a thoughtful paper complained that education stifles and kills the spirit of modern architectural work, and that the natural and spontaneous love for beauty found in all human beings gives place, under our modern systems of instruction, to the dry formalities of reproducing old and dead styles.

Mr. Frank Miles Day and Mr. R.W. Gibson, each in his own way, described the advantages of foreign travel and the best methods to pursue, as well as the most important ends to be attained.

Mr. Russell Sturgis, in a scholarly paper upon the subject of Greek architecture applied to modern buildings, gave a number of precepts for the proper use of Greek forms and methods of building as applied to our modern conditions. He closed his article with a lot of receipts much in the style of an architectural cook book, for the application of his theories concerning Greek architecture.

These articles, as will be seen from the above indications, dealt in most cases with one phase only of architectural education. They are all of course important in their way, as contributing to the general discussion of the subject, but each in turn gives only a partial view.

Mr. Marshall, however, starts with the intention of making a full and fair statement of existing conditions and logically draws his inferences as to the best methods of meeting them. He has the valuable qualification of being able to consider his subject judicially and of writing excellent and readable English, as has already been pointed out in these columns, in the review of his recently published book, "Æsthetic Principles."

He divides the subject for convenience into three main headings: first, the use of tools, including in his classification the executive function of handling men as well as tools in the narrower and legitimate sense; second, the nature of materials employed; and third, the general principles of beauty. Under the first heading Mr. Marshall makes one important suggestion, which is at variance with common practice among architects. After pointing out the importance of studying design in the solid, that is, constantly keeping in mind that the forms which are to be designed have three dimensions, and that a geometrical projection, such as a plan or elevation, only partially represents its appearance, he advocates the more general use of perspective