that in the near future such training will be brought within the reach of all by means of courses conducted, in our universities and in our summer schools, by men who unite with the necessary scientific attainments a practical knowledge of the requirements of American pedagogy. Phonetic texts, too, though not absolutely indispensable, are of the greatest assistance.'

This method, while it lacks the logical discipline of the old grammatical instruction, is more successful than any other in forming a good pronunciation and in giving pupils a ready and accurate control of the spoken language. The training it affords can hardly fail, moreover, to improve the quality of the student's voice and his enunciation of his mother tongue. From the standpoint of mnemonic education, too, it ranks high. In stimulating interest it is nearly equal to the "natural" and "psychological" courses, and it is second only to the latter in holding the attention. The training of the attention should, by the way, be regarded as an important part of any pedagogical scheme; for the habit of inattention the utter inability of pupils to fix their minds on anything for more than a few minutes at a time-is the most serious obstacle that confronts our secondary teachers. The attempt to give scholars, by ear and eye, by description and by the use of objects and pictures, a correct and vivid idea of foreign life has been carried further by the phoneticians than by any other school; but there is no reason, save the lack of rightly prepared instructors, why this feature should not be introduced into every method; the neglect of it defeats one of the principal objects of modernlanguage study. Another means to the same end is the system of international correspondence between school children of different countries.?

What are the disadvantages of the "phonetic" plan, when we consider it from the point of view of our American high schools? In the first place, it seems, like other "oral" methods, to overlook the importance of literary education, for it postpones the reading of real books to a stage that is beyond our secondary period. In Europe, where intercourse between foreign countries is easy and frequent, and a command of several languages has a recognized commercial value, it is natural that a practical mastery of the strange tongue should seem highly desirable. With us, isolated as we are, a speaking knowledge of French and German has,

1 Some good ones are already available: For French, F. Beyer and P. Passy; Rambeau and J. Passy have provided us with suitable chrestomathies; in German, we have a little book by Vietor; the Maître phonétique furthermore, is constantly furnishing material in various languages.

2 Mentioned by Vietor in Die neueren Sprachen, V, 3, 165, and described by Professor Magill in Modern Language Notes, XIII, 3. The plan was first suggested in the Revue universitaire for June, 1896, by Prof. P. Mieille, who gave an account of his efforts to bring about an interchange of letters between French children studying English and English children studying French. His idea attracted immediate attention in France and England, ere long also in Germany, Italy, and the United States, and it was soon perceived that it could be turned to profit, not only for school children, but also for adults, especially for teachers. Having already been tried on a large scale, the plan has passed the experimental stage and may be confidently recommended as a valuable aid in the learning of a living language. At first, correspondents could be secured only through certain journals, which published lists of names in consideration of a subscription. Later, on the initiative of the Manuel général de l'instruction primaire, a large committee was appointed, which now undertakes gratuitously to bring correspondents together. The vicepresident of the English section for women is Miss E. Williams, professeur aux Écoles de Sèvres et de Fontinay, whose address is No. 6 rue de la Sorbonne, Paris. Miss Williams's secretary, who conducts her correspondence, is Mme. Rossignol. 117 rue Nôtre Dame de Champs, Paris. The vice-president of the English section for men is Prof. A. Mouchet, 16 rue de St. Guillaume, Asnières (près Paris). Any one of these three can be addressed by American teachers desiring French correspondents for themselves or for their pupils. In Germany the plan has been taken up prominently by Dr. K. A. Martin Hartmann, of Leipsic, who has reported upon a trial of it in the Saxon schools and published a body of Vorschläge relating to it. The advantages of the system are well set forth by Petri in Die neueren Sprachen VI, 511, and objections to it are answered by Hartmann in the same journal, VI, 324. A second and more extended article by Prof. Edw. H. Magill, of Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania, may be found in Modern Language Notes for February, 1899.

except for teachers, but little pecuniary worth; and even in the case of a student who has acquired it for pleasure alone, the opportunities for practice are so few that his hardly won accomplishment will soon slip from him. Familiarity with pronunciation and a certain ability to handle foreign constructions are, indeed, essential to a proper appreciation of the literature; but if literary study is not reached, of what avail is the preparatory training? For we must bear in mind that the vast majority of our pupils-those for whom the course should be planned-will not continue their education beyond the high school. It has been pointed out that oral work, besides exercising the organs of speech, arouses interest and fosters a certain alertness of mind, and is therefore valuable for its own sake. We may question, however, whether these benefits make up for the sacrifice of all the æsthetic culture and the intellectual broadening that come only from the reading of good books.

To this criticism the European advocates of the method would surely reply that they believe in abundant reading, after the student has mastered the spoken idiom. It appears, then, that the real fault of their programme, as applied to our conditions, is not so much that its underlying principle is entirely incompatible with our creed as that it calls for much more time than we allot to foreign language. In fact, we may well doubt whether with our three or four hours a week for three or four years our scholars would ever reach the end even of the elementary stage; they certainly would not go beyond it; their acquisition would be only a fragment. If we should wish to introduce this or any other thoroughgoing method, we should be obliged to increase the importance of French and German in the school curriculum; and such increase is desirable from every point of view. Not only should the pupils who are intending to continue these studies in college receive the best possible preliminary training, but all children who begin the subjects at all should give them time enough to admit of an extended course, conducted according to the most enlightened principles. In order to gain the necessary hours, the foreign language must be taken up earlier, or some other high-school topic must be sacrificed. A few things thoroughly and intelligently done make the best secondary discipline. As long, however, as our present conditions last it is clear that we must give up something. Until we are all willing greatly to lengthen the time given to the linguistic part of our children's education, we shall have to renounce the idea of a full, well-rounded knowedge of French and German, and, selecting the portion of the subject that appears most important for the greatest number, devote ourselves to the cultivation of that restricted field. Considerations of this nature have led many thoughtful teachers to adopt a mode of instruction that we may call the "reading method."

THE READING METHOD.

The title explains itself. The study of texts from the very beginning of the course, abundant practice in translation at sight, leading ultimately to the ability to read the foreign language with ease and without the interposition of English, are the principal features of this programme. Grammar and composition are regarded merely as a help to reading, and are reduced to the essentials; sometimes accidence and syntax are first learned inductively, but oftener a small text-book is used concurrently with translation. Great importance is attached to the use of good English in the renderings. Pronunciation receives scant attention; there is little or no oral exercise.

This method has been much used of late in our schools and colleges, especially in those that have large classes, a short course, and an American teacher. The great advantage of the process is that it quickly enables the student to read French and German literature-not with the complete appreciation that only an all-around command of the language can give, but with the same kind of intelli

gence and enjoyment with which good classical scholars read Latin. Indirectly, it helps the pupil to form a good style, and to increase the volume and precision of his English vocabulary; it cultivates the taste by dwelling upon delicacies of expression; it exercises the memory through the enforced retention of words and idioms; it trains the linguistic sense by calling attention to the points of resemblance and difference in various tongues; and the exact fitting of phrase to thought forms an excellent discipline for the judgment.

On the other hand, in addition to the fact that it deals with only one aspect of language, the reading method is lacking in vivacity and in stimulus to the attention; it interests only the more serious pupils. Moreover, the continued use, year after year, of an easy way of teaching-for it is comparatively easy, and requires but little special training—may prove demoralizing to the instructor, dull his appetite for self-improvement, and make him indolent and easily satisfied with his qualifications.

SECTION IV.-METHOD AS RELATED TO THE PREPARATION OF TEACHERS.

If all our classes were in the hands of born teachers, ideally prepared for their work, advice with respect to method would be quite superfluous. Every teacher would create for himself the method best suited to his class and to his own peculiar gifts. His personality would infuse life and efficacy into any process he would be likely to adopt. But in a profession so widely pursued we can not expect the majority of its followers to show genuine vocation. The most of our teachers are made, and we must see to it that they be as well made as possible. It can not be too strongly urged upon school authorities that if modern-language instruction is to do the good work which it is capable of doing it must be given by thoroughly competent teachers. The committee's investigations show, and it is a pleasure to testify to the fact, that we already have a goodly number of secondary teachers who answer to that description. Nevertheless, our general standard is still far too low. For some time to come the majority of our teachers will necessarily be guided to a large extent, in their choice of methods, by the consideration of their own competence.

But while it is easy to insist, broadly, upon the importance of adequate preparation for teachers, it is not so easy to define, in exact terms, the minimum of attainment which can be regarded as sufficient. Much will always depend upon personality, upon general alertness of mind and aptitude for teaching. The best of teachers learn with their pupils, and it will sometimes happen that one who knows too little of his subject will teach it better than another who knows more. Nevertheless, it remains broadly true, and should never be forgotten for a moment, that what the teacher most needs is to be a master of his subject. With the sense of all-around mastery come independence of judgment and the right kind of selfassurance. Without this sense the attempt to follow someone else's method, however good the method may be in the hands of its inventor, can never produce the best results.

To be ideally prepared for giving instruction in a modern language, even in a secondary school, one should have, aside from the ability to teach and the general personal culture necessary to secure the respect and attachment of pupils, a thorough practical command of the language to be taught, a solid knowledge of its literature, and a first-hand acquaintance with the foreign life of which the literature is the reflection. To be decently prepared, he should, at least, have read so much in the recent literature of the language that he can read about as easily as he would read matter of the same kind in English. He should have studied the principal works of the great writers, and should have taken a course in the general history of the literature. He should know thoroughly the grammar of the language in its present form. If he has some knowledge of the historical development of

forms, such knowledge will help him in his teaching, especially in the teaching of French to pupils who have studied Latin. He should be able to pronounce the language intelligently and with reasonable accuracy, though he may not have the perfect "accent" of one who is to the manner born. He should be able to write a letter or a short essay in the language without making gross mistakes in grammar or idiom, and to carry on an ordinary conversation in the language without a sense of painful embarrassment. Even this degree of attainment will usually require residence abroad of those for whom English is the mother tongue, unless they have enjoyed exceptional opportunities in this country. In any case, the residence abroad is greatly to be desired..

In insisting that secondary teachers of a modern language should be able to speak the language with at least moderate facility and correctness, the members of the committee are well aware that they set up a standard higher than that which has very generally been deemed sufficient. But it is a standard to which we must come. Many of the best schools have already come to it. Nor need we fear that such a standard will result permanently to the advantage of the foreignborn teacher in the competition for positions. If we leave out of account cases of exceptional individual talent for teaching, the general principle holds good that the best teacher of a foreign language is a person of the same nationality as his pupils who is thoroughly at home in the language to be taught. The Americanborn teacher will thus have a substantial advantage over his foreign-born competitor, but he can not afford to be vulnerable in so vital a point as the practical command of the language in which he undertakes to give instruction.

To many of our teachers residence in Europe will probably seem out of the question. Those who, by dint of thrift and sacrifice, contrive to cross the ocean can now enjoy fine opportunities in the way of summer courses at Paris, Geneva, Jena. Marburg, Greifswald, and elsewhere. The others must content themselves for the time being with a somewhat inadequate equipment, the defects of which, however, can be to a great extent remedied by the reading of well-chosen books, by work in American summer schools, and by association with foreigners in this country. It is to be hoped that our colleges and universities will recognize, more largely than they have heretofore recognized, the need of practical courses for teachers of the modern languages.

With respect, now, to the main subject of this section, it is hardly necessary to observe that the teacher who can not himself speak his modern language should not attempt seriously to teach his pupils to speak it. He should not try to work the "natural method," or any private variation thereof; if he does, he will be almost certain to do more harm than good. He may and should provide memory exercises that exhibit natural colloquial forms, but in so doing he should be guided by some good manual, and make that the basis of the class-room work. The native German or Frenchman will naturally think that success will be easy for him in a "conversation" course, but it is for him to re:nember that he can accomplish nothing worth while without system; that he must have the proper books; that he can not comprehend his pupils' difficulties unless he knows English well, and that he can never govern his class unless he has a sympathetic understanding of American character. For the "psychological,” and still more for the "phonetic" programme, special study is necessary, and no one, foreigner or native, should imagine that he can cope with such a method offhand.

But if the availability and the goodness of the several methods described in the preceding section depend mainly upon the fitness of the teacher, they also depend upon the age of pupils, the probable length of the course, and the size of classes. If the study begins in childhood and the beginner is looking forward to a long and thorough course of the best possible kind, it is obviously the right thing that he devote a large amount of time at first to the acquisition of a faultless pronunciation and an easy command of the colloquial language. He will then have the best

possible foundation for literary study. But if he begins later in life and the problem is to realize the maximum of benefit from a limited course, he should devote less time to the colloquial language and proceed more quickly to the study of literature. It is also evident that in classes of considerable size the most efficient colloquial practice can not be given; the pupils may learn to understand the language (and this is of course well worth while) but they will not learn to speak with much facility. If this report were intended to meet ideal conditions, that is, if it were addressed to teachers whose training would permit them to choose freely from the methods that have been described and to combine them with wise discretion, the committee might be disposed (although in that case, as we have already remarked, advice with regard to method would hardly be needed) to make some such recommendations as the following: For very young children, say up to the age of 10, the "natural" or imitative method of the nurse or the gov erness, with some help perhaps from the "psychological" method. For a course of six years, beginning, say, at the age of 12, a combination during the first three years of the "psychological" and "phonetic" methods, accompanied by some study of grammar; after that a more thorough study of grammar, together with the reading and translation of good literature, supplemented by oral practice in the language and written composition. For a four years' course, beginning in the high school, we should recommend a similar procedure, the division between the "psychological-phonetic" and the "reading" method coming, however, somewhat earlier, say, after the first year. In combining the "psychological” and “phonetic methods the general plan of the former would be followed, while the latter would be imitated in its treatment of pronunciation and, so far at least as French is concerned, in its use of phonetically transcribed texts. For any shorter course we should advise the "reading" method, accompanied, however, by scientific training in pronunciation, drill in the rudiments of grammar, and a moderate amount of oral practice.

Recognizing the somewhat idealistic character of these recommendations, the committee will present further on a scheme of secondary courses, with suggestions relating thereto, which are meant to be adapted to existing conditions. First, however, it is necessary to deal briefly with another subject, or rather with two closely related subjects, which are more or less involved in any consideration of the modern languages in secondary education.

SECTION V.-MODERN LANGUAGES IN THE PRIMARY GRADES; THE EXTENSION OF THE HIGH-SCHOOL COURSE.

In a number of American cities modern-language instruction, mainly German, has already been introduced in the primary1 grades of the public schools, and the propriety and value of such instruction have been warmly debated in the newspapers and in local educational circles. On the one hand, it is urged that in any community where Germans preponderate or constitute even a large minority of the taxpayers they have a right to demand that the German language be taught in the public schools. The reply is made that the primary schools of the United States have an important function to perform in preparing children for life and citizenship in an English-speaking country, and that this mission will best be performed if the English language and no other is made the subject and the medium of instruction. To this it is rejoined that the learning of a foreign language in childhood need not prejudice the learning of English or of any other important subject, that the rudiments are quickly and easily acquired, and that the early beginning is in accordance with sound pedagogical principles. This line of assertion, in turn, is met with the reply that the primary schools have all they can do in teaching the subjects that are of obvious and undeniable use to everybody, and

We use the word "primary" to denote in a general way all grades below the high school.