As a remedy for the evil the author of the paper proposed not a new terminology, but a different conception of grammar. He would establish a more intimate connection between grammar and living speech. Language should be regarded as a vital bond between man and his fellow-men. Grammar should be a study of the structure and function of this bond. It is not difficult for the teacher to connect the terminology of grammar, thus conceived, with the concrete interests of the pupils, and to guide the figurative suggestions of the terms into the proper channels.

This paper was discussed by Professors F. H. Stoddard, H. E. Greene, J. W. Bright, A. Gudeman, H. A. Todd, and Charles Harris.

23. "Vita Meriadoci: an Arthurian romance now first edited from the Cottonian мs. Faustina B. VI. of the British Museum." By Professor J. Douglas Bruce, of Bryn Mawr College. [Read by title.] [Printed in Publications, XV, 326 f.]

[The American Dialect Society held its Annual Meeting at 12 o'clock.]

FIFTH SESSION, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29.

The fifth and closing session of the meeting was called to order at 2.30 p. m., Friday, December 29.

24. "The influence of Court Masques on the drama, 160515." By Dr. Ashley H. Thorndike, of Western Reserve University. [Printed in Publications, XV, 114 f.]

After accepting the report of the Nominating Committee, the following officers were elected for the year 1900:

President: Thomas R. Price, Columbia University. Secretary James W. Bright, Johns Hopkins University. Treasurer: Herbert E. Greene, Johns Hopkins University.

Executive Council.

Hugo A. Rennert, University of Pennsylvania.
Gustav Gruener, Yale University.
Pelham Edgar, Victoria University.
R. E. Blackwell, Randolph Macon College.
E. S. Joynes, South Carolina College.

T. Atkinson Jenkins, Vanderbilt University.
Ewald Fluegel, Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Starr W. Cutting, University of Chicago.
Benj. P. Bourland, University of Michigan.

Phonetic Section.

President: A. Melville Bell, Washington, D. C.
Secretary George Hempl, University of Michigan.

Pedagogical Section.

President: F. N. Scott, University of Michigan.
Secretary W. E. Mead, Wesleyan University.

Editorial Committee.

C. H. Grandgent, Harvard University.

H. Schmidt-Wartenberg, University of Chicago.

25. "On the date of the Rimed Chronicle of the Cid." By Dr. B. P. Bourland, of the University of Michigan.

The so-called Rimed Chronicle of the Cid is written on leaves 188-204 of manuscript Espagnol 12 in the National Library of Paris. The manuscript also contains the fourth part of the Estoria General de España. The Rimed Chronicle was first described by Octor, in his catalogue of the Spanish manuscripts of the National Library, and was first printed, from a copy by Francisque Michel, by Ferdinand Wolf, in the Wiener Jahrbuch für Literatur, for 1846. This copy was reprinted by Duran, in his Romancero General, and various portions have appeared elsewhere. The manuscript, which is of the beginning of the fifteenth century, is in good preservation, and offers few palæographical difficulties.

The Rimed Chronicle of the Cid is a fragment, consisting in prose and verse, of about 1200 lines. Its contents include a condensed chronicle of the affairs of Castile from Pelayo to Ferdinand I, with accounts of the genealogy of the Kings of Castile-and of Rodrigo of Bivar, the Cid, and a more detailed account of deeds and adventures done by Rodrigo in the service of the King Ferdinand. The relation is most fanciful-and the story ends abruptly in the midst of the account of Rodrigo's fabled war upon the Pope and the King of France.

The determination of the date of the fragment rests on various internal considerations, which are, in general, of a text-critical and exegetical nature. (1.) The text is very corrupt. It abounds in glosses and lacunae and offers every sign of an extensive remanipulation. (2.) Though the language is in the main that of the end of the XIV century, it presents very numerous traces of a much earlier Spanish. (3.) The metre is extremely rough and irregular, and is occasionally entirely lost. (4.) In design it was a fourteen syllabled verse, with long, irregular divisions of á-o, é-o and ó assonances.

The foregoing considerations lead to the conclusion that the monument itself is much older than the manuscript; the various historical or quasihistorical references of the text all point to the first half of the thirteenth century as the probable date.

26. "Dictation and Composition in Modern Language teaching." By Professor Edward S. Joynes, of South Carolina College.

[For want of time read by title.]

The Report of the Committee of Twelve of the Modern Language Association on the subject of Preparatory Requirements in French and German marks a new epoch in modern language study in this country-or perhaps I may say, the close or consummation of an epoch dating from the organization of the Modern Language Association itself in December 1883. The latter event signalized the formal admission, into the broadening circle of liberal education, of a new discipline which till then, with increasing but unorganized force, had been struggling for recognition. It was the first organized expression in this country of professional consciousness and cooperation—the first corporate self-assertion on the part of modern language teachers as co-laborers and colleagues in a common work. As such its influence has been wide and profound. The Modern Language Association has given direction, inspiration, purpose, and expression to the wonderful progress which has since ensued; and, for its actual results as well as for the profound foresight of its conception and its admirable management, it will stand-long after his own noble work shall have ceased- -as a monument of honor to its father and founder, Professor A. Marshall Elliott. It

is the Modern Language Association that not only created, but made possible, the Committee of Twelve, whose Report, as I have said, marks a new and higher stage of professional progress, and of promise for the future. As I read that document, with its wealth of learning and professional skill, as I note the names of the able men,-many of them young men, representing the foremost institutions of the country,-who constitute the Committee, as I see the wealth of the material on which they have been able to draw, in their recommendations and suggestions, as I mark the confident yet modest tone in which they set forth the now-assured claims of our department in education, and as I contrast all this with the conditions of my own earlier professional life, I feel that I may be pardoned for expressing the personal sentiment of thankfulness that I have lived to see this day. As I recall the beginning of my own work, in 1866, when I was one of the very few titular professors of modern language in the country whose work was yet recognized in any degree of liberal arts; as I remember my own timid pleas,-first in the Educational Journal of Virginia, in 1869, and later in 1876 before the National Educational Association, for the recognition of Modern Languages in the scheme of higher education; as I think of the meagre and inadequate materials on which we could draw for our teaching at that day, and especially of my own imperfect efforts to enlarge these, I feel that the key note of this paper should be that of gratitude and congratulation,— and such, indeed, it is intended to be. I think no one could rejoice more heartily than I do-for few can so keenly realize the facts-in all the progress and promise to which this Report bears testimony; and most heartily do i congratulate my younger colleagues upon the improved conditions and opportunities under which it is now their privilege to work. What has been done is only the prophecy of what they shall do.

It would be superfluous—even impertinent-for me to say that the Report of such a Committee is admirable and most valuable. As an embodiment, and even an anticipation, of the best thought and practice in modern language teaching, it will long stand as an epoch-making document, for guidance and for inspiration. Especially it seems to me to be masterly in its exposition of method, both in its analysis of the several methods and in its estimate of the nature and value of method itself. It conveys, without offense, a warning against that domination of mere method, or of contending methods, with which we have been threatened. It recognizes that method is, after all, only a means-a medium or instrument for the expres sion of personality;—that no single method can be essentially or altogether the best, nor any method equally good for all teaching; and that the best method, indeed, is made of all that is best in each and best adapted to the actual character and condition of each teacher or class. Yet not the less is the analysis of the various methods, as presented in the Report, most instructive and helpful. There are also other passages which might be selected for special commendation. But this is needless. The Keport, as a whole, will speak for itself to all thoughtful teachers.

If on a single point I venture upon criticism, it is only because I feel that I have something to say on a topic of importance which I think has not been duly considered by the Committee. In criticising the work of a Committee composed of gentlemen so far superior to myself in the opportunities and advantages of scholarship, I can appeal only to personal experience; for this is the sole ground on which I could possibly add anything to their store. In the 40 years-since 1858-that I have been teaching modern language, there is hardly anything in the way of method that I have not tried, in the constant effort to do better. At any rate, this personal experience is all I have to offer. Tested as it has been by long and constant effort, it is possibly worthy of consideration. At least this must be my apology for the personal tone of the following remarks. By compensation I promise they shall be brief, and though other topics, closely connected with my main thought, tempt to occasional criticism, I shall confine myself strictly to the subject indicated in the title of this paper.

My thesis is: 1. That writing by dictation should have a much larger place in modern language teaching than is accorded to it by the Committee of Twelve.

2. That this larger place should be found, in part, by substituting such writing by dictation, largely if not wholly, for composition, or written translation into the foreign language, during the earlier stages of instruction.

Only small importance is accorded to dictation in the Report of the Committee. Under German it is merely mentioned as "helpful in learning to spell" (p. 1413), and discontinued after the first year. Under French it is mentioned as the last item of "the work to be done" in the elementary and the intermediate courses; but in no case are its results included in "the aim of the instruction." Nowhere is its importance stressed, or the value of its discipline expounded, or even suggested. Indeed, by implication, it is even discredited. On p. 1422, in what seems to me a rather extreme concession to "the demand for more spoken French in the class-room" the Report says: "In reproducing French sentences, several can be spoken in the time needed to write one." This truism, if taken seriously, discredits of course all written exercises; but it is hardly meant to be taken seriously. Indeed it is stated by the Committee only as a part of the claims of the special advocates of colloquial work in the class-room-whom I take to be mainly the natural methodists and their disciples. Such colloquial exercises, as it seems to me, unless under exceptionally favorable conditions, must be either very meagre or very superficial, and hence have but little educating value. So far at least as I have had opportunity to observe results, they do not correspond to the claims here made; still less is it clear that "the rapidity of speech" is favorable, as is claimed, to either the "exact perception" or the "vivid conception" of literary form. The case in favor of such oral exercises, however strong in itself, cannot be made out by contrast with the worst features of slovenly and inexact translation, as here seems to be attempted.