But the same context fortunately supplies the antidote to the erroneous view here suggested. It is true that "tongue and ear are most efficient aids to memory," and that it is false "to depend on the eye alone." But it is equally false to exclude or to depreciate the value of the eye, which under our conditions has largely-perhaps too largely become our chief medium of contact with language and literature. It is precisely here that we find the strongest argument in favor of dictation as a philosophical process. In dictation we have the most perfect combination of faculties and functions. There is the accurate tongue, speaking to the listering and discriminating ear; there is the reproductive hand, bringing back to the intelligent and critical eye that which the mind has heard by the ear:-all the faculties of perception, conception, and expression are alert and in harmonious coöperation. I can imagine no method that could appeal more strongly to the attention or to the intelligence: I think I can say from experience that none more powerfully arouses the interest, the zeal or the pride of the student. (I may add that, even in teaching English, I think no method is more stimulating or helpful to young pupils.) Its value includes not spelling only tho' this is no small matter-nor word form only, whether orthographical or grammatical; but all that belongs to grammar, phrase, or sentence, from the closest transliteration for beginners, through progressively freer paraphrase to original expression. All that is possible in composition or retranslation-whether in grammatical sentences or by paraphrase—is equally possible in dictation;-to which must be added that as an aid to accurate pronunciation, as a stimulus to alert attention, and as conducive to that sprachgefühl which rests so largely upon the quick apprehension of the significance of the spoken language, it presents distinct advantages which no form of written composition can possibly secure. It is my earnest hope that this statement, which rests upon very large experience, may induce some of my colleagues to test the question for themselves-not only in French but in German-at least through the earlier stages of work.

This brings me to the second point of my thesis:-that dictation should be substituted for composition, largely if not wholly, during the earlier stages of instruction.

This proposition rests not only upon the alleged advantages of dictation as above indicated, but also, distinctly, upon the disadvantages and difficulties of composition, for beginners. Whatever form of composition may be adopted, whether by grammar sentences illustrating form or idiom, or by text paraphrases (and it seems to be conceded that, while either method may be abused, both are useful), its progress must needs be slow. The work of seeking for forms of expression in an unfamiliar language is essentially difficult; for it is a reversal of the natural order of thought, which is to express the unknown in terms of the known:-even the brightest students find this work difficult and burdensome at first. Now the slow and laborious progress thus enforced comes to the beginner at the very time when sound teaching requires that his progress should be most rapid. Whatever

For

general method may be preferred, it seems to me that all teachers would agree that the student should be brought, as quickly as possible, to feel the foreign language as language—to feel, as a pupil of mine once said, "that it means something." For this purpose the essential elements of grammatical form should be learned at first-not thoroughly indeed-but as rapidly as possible. To a great extent this should be done not even by systematic and progressive lessons, but by anticipation of most essential topics, in a cursory view. As little time as possible should be given, at first, to the recitation or classification of paradigms. All that is now necessary is that the pupil shall recognize the forms when he sees them. Just as soon as possible, he should be brought into contact with the language en masse, in the form of actual, significant, interesting discourse, whether in a graduated Reader or in other easy text. Till this is done all is dreary work of memory which no skill can illuminate :-the only remedy is to shorten it. Now it is right here that the requirement of composition in any form from the beginner becomes, in my opinion, a positive disadvantage, from its necessarily slow and laborious progress. It has been, I believe, the traditional custom,— derived perhaps from traditional methods in Latin and Greek, which I think as bad there as in the modern languages,-to require a composition exercise, from the first, pari passu with each lesson of translation into English. Such method seems to be indicated in most of our grammars. myself I confess that, following what seemed to be the prescribed authority, I followed it for many years, yet under gradually stronger protest. Now, for many years, I have discarded composition entirely from early study; and I find from experience that the preliminary work, introductory to connected reading, can thereby be greatly accelerated and shortened. Such a preliminary view of grammatical form may be accomplishod, for French or German, in from twelve to twenty lessons, according to the grade of the class;-but not so if the successive steps in the early study of the grammar must be accompanied by composition exercises. In this view I should have the sympathy of my friends, the natural methodists. "Nature" does not require that any process shall be learned exhaustively before another step is taken. I certainly have the authority of our great and immortal master, Prof. W. D. Whitney, whose preface to his German Grammar (1869) is a document not less epochal and monumental than the report of the Committee of Twelve. He says: "After enough reading to give some familiarity with forms and constructions, I would have the writing of exercises begun." Now it is during this early period of rapid grammar study and of easy reading that I find dictation so helpful, in lieu of composition. This period will be longer or shorter for different classes. At least, however, it should be prolonged until the first view of grammatical forms and facts is completed, and the student is prepared to begin a systematic and formal review of the grammar; and still further, in my opinion, until by actual reading and by writing from dictation he has gained some familiarity with the form and meaning of words and of sentences in the foreign language. Then,

when composition is begun, it will be an intelligent handling of living forms, not the laborious piecing together of dead fragments of speech. During all this period the work of writing from dictation is full of interest and of instruction. Employing both the ear and the eye in harmonious coöperation, and exhibiting grammatical forms in connected sentences instead of mere paradigms, it both quickens the power of comprehension and is also an effective aid to the memory.

Perhaps I may be pardoned for a word as to my own practice in dictation. I begin it with the very earliest reading in the grammar. At first from each lesson I select a few sentences for exact transliteration. A section of the class goes to the blackboard-the others write at their seats. I then correct, and grade, the exercises on the blackboard, while the others correct their own exercises from these models. Next time another section goes to the blackboard, and so on. Ten minutes at the close of each lesson suffices for this work; and there are no papers to be corrected. Soon I introduce slight paraphrase: a sentence in the singular will be dictated in the plural; or past will be changed to present tenses, and vice versa; or direct to indirect speech, etc.; and so on progressively, until finally very free paraphrase, or original matter, can be introduced. My testimony is that no exercise that I have ever tried—and I have tried almost everything—has been found to be so stimulating and so helpful for the beginner;-and further, that the postponement of the work of composition until the beginner's course of grammar, reading and dictation has been accomplished, is not a loss, but a gain rather, to the composition itself. This does not imply that dictation should be discontinued after the early stages. Rather I think it should still be continued, along with composition, throughout.

I trust that the Modern Language Association, and the still wider circle of my colleagues who may read this paper, will pardon this effort to contribute of my own experience to the success of our common work. Some, I hope, may be induced to try for themselves the experiment that is here suggested. These views are offered not in derogation of the Report of the Committee, nor in opposition to any method, but only as an additional contribution to our helps in teaching. It is truly said by the Committee that our department awaits only better teaching, and better teachers, for its fullest recognition as the peer-not the rival-of classical study in liberal education. To contribute anything to this result would be felt by me as a great privilege and a great reward at the close of a long life of teaching under many discouragements. In conclusion, I again congratulate my younger colleagues upon the more hopeful conditions which surround their work, and I wish for the Modern Language Association increased zeal, influence, and usefulness.

The remaining hour of the session had been reserved for the final discussion of the Report of the Committee of Twelve (see Proceedings for 1898, p. xxiii); but it was found that the

Association was prepared to adopt the Report without further discussion, and without changes in the printed text. It was briefly argued by Professors Calvin Thomas, W. T. Hewitt, and H. C. G. von Jagemann, that the Report in its present form was admirably adapted to suggest experimentation, and that its revision into more definite expression on several subjects should await the experience of the next five or more years. The motion, therefore, offered by Professor Calvin Thomas, to accept the Report as printed (see Proceedings for 1898, p. xxiv), and to discharge the Committee was passed by a unanimous vote of the Association.

The Secretary presented the following letter, from the Secretary of the Irish Historical Society of Maryland. Time could not be allowed for the reading of the entire letter; it was therefore decided to defer the consideration of the letter.

THE REVIVAL OF THE GAELIC LANGUAGE.

The President and Members of the Modern Language Association of America, Gentlemen:-Through the kindness of your courteous Secretary, Professor James W. Bright, I am permitted to call your attention to the efforts being made for the preservation of the Gaelic language (the native language of the Irish Celts) as a spoken language.

Owing to circumstances which I will not enlarge upon, the language has been slowly dying since the 16th century, being gradually superseded by English as the spoken language of the Irish race.

Notwithstanding the fact that the most rigorous laws were enforced against the use of the Irish language, and that it was forbidden to be taught, the Irish race clung to their language with wonderful tenacity (when circumstances are considered), and it was not until this century that the Irish became, as it were, alienated from their language.

Slowly but surely the dominant influence of the English people over Ireland, resulted in the discontinuance of Irish as a spoken tongue; English became the language of everyday life, was taught to Irish children in the so-called National Schools (corresponding to our Public Schools), was the medium of printed matter, and finally the Irish language became a curiosity in many parts of Ireland. The class which held to it most tenaciously was the agricultural population of the west of Ireland which had least come in contact with English-speaking people.

There were always in the dark days of the last three centuries, scholars who loved the old language and studied it reverently; and there was never

a time, even in the most cruel times of persecution, that there was not a certain amount of native literature in the Gaelic, produced and circulated among the people.

About 50 years ago some of the great Irish scholars of the period called attention to the necessity of some vigorous action being taken to preserve the language from extinction; and Thomas Davis (who more truly deserves to be called the national poet of Ireland than Thomas Moore) showed the necessity of the Irish keeping alive their language, if they wished to be regarded as a race separate and distinct from the people who are generally but erroneously called Anglo-Saxons.

However, little was done. It is true there were scholarly Irishmen who clung to the old tongue, and took pleasure in perusing the old manuscripts, but their interest was largely of the antiquarian or pedantic nature, and was content to find an outlet in clearing up some obscure passage, or searching for some rare form of idiomatic expression.

The popular indifference went on until 1877, when the first really important step was taken to place the Irish language in the position it should hold,- -as the vernacular of the Irish race.

The Society for the Preservation of the Irish Language was founded in Dublin in the year 1877. This society issued three little books for the teaching of the Irish language, viz.: the First, Second, and Third Irish Books, specimens of which I have the pleasure to present to your society. Of these text-books, up to 1897, 128,521 copies had been sold. This was exclusive of the copies which had been sold in America by publishers who issued reprints of the text-books here.

Associated with this society, and interested in the furtherance of its object, were the following named learned gentlemen, who were not Irishmen:

Professor Roehrig, Cornell University; John Rhys, M. A., Professor of Celtic Languages, University of Oxford; de Jubanville D'Arbois, Collège de France, Paris; Mons. Emile Ernault, Paris; Mir Aulad Ali, Professor of Oriental Languages; Professor Hugo Schuchardt, University of Gratz; Dr. Max Nettlau, Vienna; Professor H. Pederson, University of Copenhagen; Dr. Heinrich Zimmer, Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, University of Greifswald, Prussia.

Although these elementary books were comparatively simple, they did not give a very definite idea of the pronunciation of Irish words; for it must be confessed that Irish orthography is not nearly phonetic, and offers a wide field for the labors of the gentlemen who are interested in the Phonetic Section of your Association.

The difficulties a person had in learning to speak Irish from these books

were:

(1) Irish orthography was largely unphonetic.

(2) The sounds of a number of the consonants, and of consonantal combinations, could not be acquired from these books, and had to be acquired from a Gaelic speaker.