The terms Saxon and Anglo occur frequently in the vernacular language of the people, and the combination Anglo-Saxon, first used by PAUL the Deacon, expresses precisely the relation that the different communities and tribes sustained to one another. They did not constitute a nation in the strict sense of the word, they had no well-defined consciousness of unity; and even the Heptarchy in its best estate, was merely a federation, an expedient resorted to for protection, or political aggrandizement. The consolidating power of the Norman Conquest, blended the discordant elements, introduced political and national unity. As there was not an English nation before the Conquest, so there was not an English language, previous to that epoch. The study of English constitutional history can not fail to confirm this view.-In addition, the literary form of the English language was not evolved from the classical Anglo-Saxon of Wessex, but principally from the East Midland dialect, which is Anglian and Mercian in origin and character, and is distinguished from the Winchester or court speech, by strongly-marked differences. It is also urged, that as the Anglo-Saxon writers commonly employed the term English or Englisc, we are bound to retain the designation. There is neither logical nor historical propriety in its retention upon this ground, at least. The English and the French designate the Germans by terms never recognized or employed by them, yet their national pride is not offended, or their national unity disturbed, by being called Germans in England, and les Allemandes in France. With much more consistency might Italian be denominated Latin. The English is essentially a "new creation," as has been well said, not a development out of Anglo-Saxon. More than one-half its vocabulary is derived from other sources, its grammar, its rhythmical and metrical characteristics, have diverged more and more from Anglo-Saxon, and its peerless literature has little in common with the Saxon literature. The speaker dissented from the views of Freeman, Morris, Sweet, etc., and insisted that the proposed abandonment of the term Anglo-Saxon, is contrary to sound philology, sound logic, and to the teachings of constitu- ́ tional history.

Prof. SHEPHERD's address was discussed with marked learning and ability by Prof. JAMES GARNETT, LL. D., St. Johns College, Prof. E. S. JOYNES, LL. D., Vanderbilt University, Prof. W. D. HENKLE, Ohio, and Prof. W. C. SAWYER, Lawrence University, Appleton, Wisconsin. The speakers seemed for the most part to concur in the views advocated by Prof. SHEP

HERD.

The paper of Prof. JOYNES, "The Position of the Modern Languages in Higher Education," read the day previous, was then taken up and discussed by Prof. SAWYER of Lawrence University, Prof. RADDATZ of Baltimore, and Prof. SPALDING of N. J.

Prof. SAWYER said, I fully believe that thoroughly-prepared teachers of the same nationality as the student, are more successful than teachers native to the language, and foreign to the class. Only the teacher of the same nationality as the student, appreciates all the difficulties, only such

ат

alone occupies such a stand-point that his instruction can be easily understood. As for the pronunciation, a matter of the greatest importance and difficulty, if the teacher has not mastered it, do not employ him, but if he has, you may be sure he knows both what the difficulties are, and how to master them. The native to the language pursued does not know that it contains any difficulties of pronunciation. He is even liable to have great dialectical faults in his own utterance, and if he has enough phonetic sense to detect all errors, he rarely can do more than set the correct example of pronunciation, and this is never sufficient to secure a perfect pronunciation of sounds new and difficult.

Prof. SAWYER then raised the query whether the plan of the essay gave the student enough training in the utterance of connected sentences, so as to bring out the spirit of the language, in its tones, inflections, and colloquial phraseology.

The discussion of Prof. JOYNES's paper was continued by Prof. RANDALL SPALDING of N. J., who said:

Mr. President:-My interest in this subject prompts me to add a few words to what has been said.

It is an important question to decide whether or not American scholars 'can, without residence abroad, acquire a correct pronunciation of foreign languages. It is, in my opinion, possible for such scholars to acquire a pronunciation sufficiently correct for all practical purposes, yet to this rule there are many exceptions, and only those native American scholars should be selected to teach foreign languages in whom a certain natural aptitude compensates for the supposed lack of opportunity. Men differ widely in respect to their ability to make or imitate sounds. This difficulty may perhaps be overcome by careful training at an early age, but is not so easily overcome when the pupil has reached the higher grades to which time the study of foreign languages is so commonly deferred.

This difference in ability to pronounce, every teacher of French or German has been obliged to recognize among his pupils. It was especially forced upon my own attention while at the University of Göttingen, where it was my good fortune to spend some time in study.

A young man, boarding in the same family with myself, had in a short time so perfectly mastered the pronunciation of the language as to be commonly mistaken for a native German. Yet he had begun the study of the language comparatively late in life. I should add that he pronounced English equally well.

I became acquainted with another American studying at the same place, and a much younger man. He had already spent nearly two years in Germany, had associated almost exclusively with German students and German families, and could converse in a style remarkably free and idiomatic; yet his pronunciation was simply abominable, and in this he was making apparently not the least improvement. He was engaged in the study of German, including the older dialects and literature, with the intention of becoming an instructor in the language in his native country; and in spite of the glaring defect that I have mentioned he will doubtless obtain a good position. I mention this in order to suggest that in the selection of teachers of foreign languages greater care be taken and that

only those be selected who from thorough training or natural apti both, are in all respects competent.

The question, How to acquire a correct pronunciation is an im one to discuss, for failure in this respect generally constitutes the jection to the employment of native Americans. When correctnes pronunciation has been attained, the American scholar is by all preferable to the native German or Frenchman in the teaching languages. In this I heartily concur in the opinion expressed gentleman before me. In the learning of German for instance a difficulties arise out of differences in idiom. The new ways of exp thought are at first strange and bewildering; the simplest senter its peculiar and invariable laws of arrangement; the parts of spe fer more or less widely in their functions from the same parts in E a multitude of nice distinctions between words must be observe to use words merely in accordance with the meaning assigned to the lexicon would often make one ridiculous; and again the pupi prised to find so large a part of his own language figurative and is con puzzled to know whether in the foreign tongue the same figure used.

Now all these difficulties the native American teacher has met a quered. He appreciates therefore the obstacles that lie in the pup and even anticipates them. He conducts his class swiftly and succe past all hindrances, since he is himself thoroughly familiar with t

So the truth is apparent that an American can better instruct Ar pupils in German than a native German; and it is also true and same reasons that a German is a better instructor of German pupil English language than an American would be.

A simple incident will illustrate this. A short time ago in L number of students sat around the dinner table. Among them we eral American students. In course of the conversation a German s who was trying to learn English, called upon an American to exp him the difference between the words "any" and "some." The can was a graduate of one of our best colleges, and was generally nized as an accomplished scholar, yet was he unable at the time an intelligible answer. He had been taught from childhood how these words, but had never found occasion to make for others an distinction between them. Now these distinctions the German le make in all his study of English and thus prepares himself, as no can would be prepared, to teach the language in the schools of his country.

We desire to know what is the best method in teaching begin French or German, and we welcome any suggestion that throws ligh this question. Some advocate what they are pleased to call the " tific Method," and others the "Practical Method." It seems to n the advantages of both these methods may be combined. Allow state briefly the course that I pursue with a class in German.

The class spends at first about five or six months in studying grammar. I have chosen OTTO's, because it is somewhat shorte many others. During this time the pupils translate the German ex

and translate an equal amount of English into German. After this work in which they become thoroughly grounded in the forms of inflection, I give them WHITNEY'S Grammar and Reader. In this they read for a time, longer or shorter according to the capacity of the class, and until they are able readily to analyze the sentence and to describe the properties and relations of the separate words. They then procure a good German novel of which there exists an English translation. I have used EICHENDORFF's "Aus dem Leben eines Taugenichts." Both the novel and the translation the pupils are required to purchase. Five or six pages are assigned as a lesson. The pupils are required to read aloud at home for a certain specified length of time each day, the time being generally not less than one hour. They are to spend a fair proportion of their time on the lesson in German and be prepared to read the entire lesson in the class. If they are unable in the allotted time to master thoroughly certain difficult phrases and sentences, which usually consume so large a share of the pupil's time, they are excused from these until they have been explained in the recitation. This book the pupils are required to read in the class, as I have said; but they are not, as a rule, required to translate. A good teacher quickly discovers by the reading whether the pupil understands the passage in hand. Questions are asked and instruction given according to the time. The pupils must be prepared to explain any sentence when called upon, but an elegant translation is not to be expected, since this has not been aimed at in the preparation of the lesson. During all this time the pupils are required to prepare written translations of German into English.

In this way to be sure there is lost a certain discipline in the use of language, but should not modern languages be taught rather for use than for discipline? Should not pupils be taught to think in French and German and become able to read without the constant mental process of translation? It seems to me that in our teaching, reading and translation are too often confounded.

This method of teaching has grown out of my own experience in learning the language, and with it I have had quite as high a degree of success as I had dared to anticipate. I am by no means certain however that this method is the best one, and I am here to receive suggestions from any who have had experience in this work.

Prof. RADDATZ of Baltimore City College, then said:

"On the whole I certainly agree with the views of Prof JoYNES, set forth in his most ably written essay, yet there is one point particularly in which my experience as a teacher of German has taught me differently. I should have said a few words yesterday but all further discussion of the subject was suddenly cut short by some one pronouncing the study of modern languages the veriest nonsense. Prof. JOYNES in speaking of the elementary work in teaching modern languages at our higher institutions of learning seems to me to lay too little value upon the writing of exercises in the beginning. I hold that the mastery of a vocabulary is a factor in elementary instruction fully the equal of any other part and

nothing according to my idea is so powerful in promoting this a ting of translations, particularly from English into the langua learned. I found that very soon and with little effort my pupils read intelligently easy extracts from literature and this led to a of phrases which applied in an attempt to ask questions in the language very soon established some confidence in their powers ing it. This with a little application resulted later in a tolerab use of the language for communication. It certainly verified my that no matter where a modern language is taught-unless inter means of philological comparison only-the methods of bringing as early as possible to the practical part, i. e., to speak and most important and to these I maintain the writing of exercises I think a neglect of this part of elementary training shows itself fr in the inability of young men, otherwise proficient in a foreign 1 to write even the smallest composition without a strong adm Anglicisms."

At the close of the session Prof. RADDATZ made the following which was adopted:

"In view of the simplification and greater unity in Germa raphy recommended by the conference of German philologist sentatives of publishing firms and the book trade, called togethe lin in last January by the Minister for Education in Prussia, and of the fact that these recommended improvements are at this m a great extent adopted by the schools of that monarchy and will mately by the whole German empire, I would ask this depar the National Educational Association, through its presiding office expression to its willingness to corroborate this desirable reform pointing a committee of eleven (11) professors and teachers of Ge cluding Prof. W. D. WHITNEY of Yale, and Prof. EDWARD S. J Vanderbilt University, to suggest to the leading publishing firm man school books in America such changes in spelling, type, etc., future editions, as the committee may deem necessary in order American school books for the study of German conform in orth to those of Germany."

Prof. JOYNES replied to the objections presented to his paper, in but effective speech.

The Department then adjourned.

Third Day's Proceedings.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1876.

The Department met at 11:30 a. м., Col. WM. ALLEN, Principa McDonogh Institute, was requested to act as presiding officer.