culture, and one that our cramped curriculum cannot yet receive, while the pressing duties of life that seize us when we take our collegiate degrees preclude us from following up the classics to their point of junction. We must be content to take the authority of our texts for Latin Orthography-and here we can take the German's researches, unrevised and unadapted. Fortunately, the disciplinary study of syntactical philosophy, which I take to be the main element of classical study for Americans, is not much affected by this matter. Something of Orthography must belong to the beginner's course, but the separate investigation of its details must be reserved for a period when the general basis is laid and when opportunity is offered for more special training.

On the matter of Pronunciation I have expressed myself elsewhere. I have no objection to something of the theory: the practice speaks for itself.

Again, Comparative Philology cannot enter directly into the courses of our Universities, though something of its results must be used as a basis for any scientific discussion of the Accidence. No considerations can outweigh the argument of time; and it would seem that I cannot be the only one who holds these sentiments, since I have for four years seen announced as forthcoming a Comparative Grammar which has not come forth yet. By all means, if authors can be found to afford it, let these books be rendered accessible: let the student who can, buy them; let the teacher, the master, the scholar, be held responsible for full knowledge in all these departments; but do not attempt to force them on the ordinary course of the ordinary College. It is impossible for the student to profit by them, in view of the unlimited demands upon his limited time: it is impossible also for him to profit much by the instruction of an instructor, who, as is too often the case, is uninstructed in the subjects of his instruction. If advancement is to begin at the top, it must begin with the teacher; and I maintain that no more can be expected from American education without a wider interval between the attainments of the teacher and those of the pupil. It is folly to superadd subjects to which the teacher has not yet grown: let him be first required to march to them, and then look to the pupil.

(2.) Again, in the case of subjects which are proper to our system, not unfrequently objectionable forms of presentation are used for adaptation and revision.

Not a few editions, which have no treatment of a philosophical or syntactical character, nor anything which our education seems to demand, have been put out in American shape: and there are some grammatical works whose meagreness can never serve for the strong diet that our systems must crave in this direction.

My idea is that the edition of an author, for American use, must furnish a pro rata for all classical in all departments. Our systems do not yet allow the extensive purchase of books of reference, and we must make our text-books as far as possible compromise between knowledge and ignorance. This these editions do not perform: biography, history, antiquities, to some extent, they elucidate; the literary features they hardly touch; and grammatical references are poor methods of teaching Syntax.

And, further, treatises on Etymology should give more than a few paradigms, with fewer general observations. There should be lists of words for practice; and where these are exhaustive, it should be explicitly stated: the agreements and disagreements of individual details should be specified; exceptions should be full and complete; laws of doubtful validity should be set forth doubtfully: everything that is necessary to a thorough comprehension of all the forms of the language should be expressly declared and nothing essential left to inference.

B. I now come to consider such details of adaptation and revision as concern the work itself. What is undertaken may be quoted from a recent prospectus: "This edition is based on the third edition of:

the principal changes consist of the addition of frequent references to Grammars are, the omission of some references to parallel passages, and the correction of a few errors."

These are the principal changes: the other changes are left to the taste and fancy of the imagination!

(1.) Here it will be seen that the adaptation consists of addition and omission.

(a) The addition appears in frequent references to Grammars; on which I have to remark, first, that such additions are of little practical value, because they are either not used or not understood; and, secondly, that, in this special edition, the explanation of the note and the explanation of the Grammar are sometimes inconsistent, and yet no comment is made. (b) The omission consists of some references to parallel passages: it is perhaps necessary to be sparing of such illustration, but it is unfortunate: in my judgment it would be better to translate the quoted passages than omit them, or at least effect a compromise.

I have not

(2.) The revision consists of the correction of a few errors. the original foreign author by me, but I can see that there are errors left which the American editor should have corrected for the foreigner, if he undertakes to revise him, or ought never to have altered for himself, if he is responsible for them. This edition is said to be prepared with great care, and yet it shows obvious marks of blind carelessness: the text may, as is claimed, be worthy of acceptance, but the notes are full of false doctrine, ignorant criticism, and unappreciative dullness.

And so we may take them up, one after another, and in almost all the same faults are conspicuous. I had almost said that I would undertake to illustrate every possible blunder in Latin and Greek from American adapted and revised editions: perhaps this is too sweeping: I am certain, however, that it is easy to establish the absence, in these ventures, of all the higher qualities that pertain to scholarly editorship.

There is a pernicious contagion in this system of adaptation and revision: it encourages the worst sort of hack work, which is in itself enough to smother anything like scholarly life struggling out amongst us. There seems to be an irresistible temptation for anybody, everybody, without regard to anything but the opportunity and the suggestion, to undertake the reproduction of a foreign edition, the whole responsibility being thrown upon the original, the whole merit of success being retained as a lien by the adapter, through those mysterious, non-committal allusions to

changes, which leave so much room to the public for admiring conjecture and to the American editor for unscathed retreat.

In conclusion, I repeat my conviction that a full recognition of the conditions of American education would discountenance the attempt at direct adaptation of foreign books: our eyes would be fixed upon ourselves and our minds upon what is good for ourselves: self-reliance would be engendered, without, at the same time, a lack of familiarity with or a proper regard for the general results of foreign systems, or a disregard for their advantages. Ignorance and contempt of our own necessary peculiarities will ever retard our progress, and indiscriminate acceptance of foreign ways and means cannot produce for us even the effects for which they are valuable elsewhere.

The President, E. T. TAPPAN, next read Pres. NOAH PORTER's paper, printed with the first day's proceedings.

The following report was presented but not read:

EXPLANATION.-A part of the German words in this paper were written by Prof. RADDATZ in German characters. For want of German type the printer has been compelled to use the Latin, or English type. The German letters are derivatives of the old Latin letters, their complicated forms being due to "the ingenuity of monkish scribes of the Middle Ages." Although these letters were in general use in Europe at the time of the invention of printing they have been discarded by one nation after another for the simpler and more readily distinguished characters which we call Roman but which the Germans call Latin (lateinisch). Many German books are now printed in Latin characters, among which may be mentioned the great German Dictionary of JACOB and WILHELM GRIMM, the first volume of which was printed in 1854. The six volumes which at this date are nearly completed extend only through words beginning with K. Since the death of JACOB GRIMM, in September, 1863, WILHELM having died in 1859, the work has been continued by Dr. RUDOLF HILDEBRAND, Dr. KARL WEIGAND, and Dr. MORIZ HEYNE. Although the Latin letters are preferable to the German yet some of the peculiarities of the German letters are not represented by the Latin letters, as the long 8 which differs slightly from an f. In German type ch, ck, sz (long s), tz, are each cast on a single type. There is but one character for the German capital S. For want of the long s (for f) the printer has used for it in German words printed in Italics the Roman short s, and in German words printed in Roman letters Italic short 8 has been used. In a few places where it seems absolutely necessary the printer has attempted to indicate the German longs by cutting off the cross mark from both sides of the Italic ƒ and from the right side of the Roman f, thus restoring the discarded long s of the English alphabet, which was merely a modified form of ƒ and f. For want of sorts the printer has been compelled, on account of the number of dotted a's, o's, and u's, to use in part the full original form ae, oe, ue, forms which the Conference condemned, preference being given to the dotted ä, ö, and ü. In order to avoid printing ae, oe, and ue for dotted ä, ö, and the press was stopped and an order sent to the type foundry for the umlaut or dotted letters, but the charaters not being in stock word came back that it would take a week to make them. The determination to get the volume out earlier than usual has induced me to proceed with the printing and not wait for the type. It is hoped that these explanations will make the paper plain to the reader.-W. D. Henkle.

The motion made by Mr. RADDATZ, of Baltimore City College, at the last meeting of the National Educational Association, in 1876, in Baltimore, that in view of the recommendations of the Berlin Conference regarding German orthography adopted to a great extent in Germany, twelve instructors in German, including Professors WHITNEY and JOYNES, be appointed to draw up a report for the information and guidance of American publishing firms in their future editions of German text-books, was amended by Prof. JOYNES, so as to make the number of instructors three instead of twelve which would make a result in the premises, owing to quicker communication with each other, more easily attainable. The Association appointed Professors WHITNEY, JOYNES, and RADDATZ, as a committee. The committee having communicated with each other, Mr. RADDATZ was requested by the other two gentlemen to draw up a report, embodying the views concurred in.

Experience has shown how reluctant people are to drop time-honored usages, it might therefore be of interest to know who the gentlemen in Germany are that range themselves on the side of this spelling reform. The conference, composed of the following eminent Germanists, was called together by the Secretary for education in the German Empire, Dr. FALK, and met in Berlin, on the 4th of January, 1876, to the 15th inclusive: * Dr. VON RAUMER,-Erlangen,

† Mr. BERTRAM,-Halle, (delegate from the

German Printers' Association.)

Dr. HILDEBRAND, of Leipzig, was invited, but by reason of sickness could not be at the meetings. Besides these gentlemen Drs. GREIFF, Waetzoldt, SCHNEIDER, GÖPPERT, BONITZ, STAUDER, and General VON RHEINBABEN, Inspector of military schools, were present. The two papers on "Rules for German orthography of Dr. voN RAUMER formed the basis for discus

sion.

The first point for debate by the conference was the indication of long and short vowels in German words. The works of GOTTSCHED, ADelung, BECKER, and later that excellent grammarian, KARL HEYSE, have been the guide in this matter in Europe as well as in America, since their grammars and dictionaries have had the most extensive use in Germany

*Died last year. † Died last year. The cause of orthographic reform in Germany has suffered a severe loss in the death of these two gentlemen,

(cf. JOLLY, Schulgr. u. Sprachw.) With their rules as regards the indication of short vowels (cf. BECKER, Schulgram., pp. 43, 60, 632, HEYSE, Lehrb. vol. I., 175, 218) the conference on the whole agreed, with the exception of the syllable Wall in Wallfisch, Wallrat, Wallross, Wallnuss, of the words Zimmt, Sammt, the preposition sammt and its derivatives sämmtlich, insgesammt and of the suffixes inn and niss. They recommended to spell them with a single consonant, thus Walfisch, Walrat, Walross, Walnuss, Zimt, Samt, sämtlich, insgesamt, in, nis. The Rule which explains this action of the conference says: The short vowel in stems ending in a single consonant followed by a less accented syllable that commences with a vowel, is indicated by geminating the consonant and the stems retain this geminated consonant always, e. g., Kammes, Kamm, fallen, fällt, Falltür, etc. However the syllable Wal in Walnuss, etc., like the Him, Brom, Dam, in Himbeere, Brombeere, Damwild, which words, by the way, nobody pretends to spell with a double consonant, represents an obscure stem that does not occur before suffixes that commence with a vowel, hence does.not come under the rule. This syllable Wal should not be mistaken for the Wall in Wallfart or the Wal in Walkyre, Walhalla. Why these two last words with certainly the same etymology should be spelt differently from each other as some of our American school dictionaries have it is hard to tell. The words Zimt and Samt follow the syllable Wal We have no stems Zimm and Samm that by inflection could form other words. The stem in the preposition samt may occur as followed by a less, accented syllable that commences with a vowel, e. g., beisammen, sammeln but goes with the rule "A vowel is generally short when followed by two or more different consonants" (HEYSE, Lehrbuch, vol. I., p. 176) besides we have such analogies as Gestalt (stellen), Geschäft (schaffen), Gespinst (spinnen), etc. The spelling in and nis with one consonant is according to rule. They are suffixes, not stems, and furthermore agree with the rule that in suffixes the short vowel is generally not indicated unless followed by another less accented inflexion beginning with a vowel. Thus Königin but Königinnen, Ereignis but Ereignisse, Iltis but Iltisse which is the spelling adopted by the principal lexicographers of Germany (cf. GRIMM, WEIGAND, SANDERS).

In the indication of long vowels the conference recommended considerable change. According to general rule (cf. HEYSE, Schulgram., p. 8, BECKER, Schulgram., p. 43) all diphthongs and most stem vowels either final or before a single consonant are long. But besides these indications the German language employs three other methods.

1. By geminating the vowel.

2. By a mute e after the vowel (only with the vowel i).

3. By a mute h before or after the vowel,

and this last is by far the most customary indication. All three are often used very arbitrarily (cf. HEYSE, Lehrbuch, vol. I., p. 219) and are no sure guide to a proper pronunciation and spelling for an American student. In some cases he finds the long vowel indicated, in others not, and German orthography becomes a troublesome memorizing of exceptions destitute of all sound reasons for them (cf. SCHLEICHER, Deutsche Sprache). Let us take for instance the first and general rule which says, all diphthongs and