Professor INGRAM's first point has been sufficiently elucidated in the historical sketch of the progress of Anglo-Saxon learning which we have already given. He illustrates his second point in considering that “the great mass of the people of England continue at this day to be of Saxon origin, and that the present language of Englishmen is completely AngloSaxon in its whole idiom and construction." He further considers "how far the study of Anglo-Saxon literature is connected with the original establishment of our laws, our liberty, and our religion." As Americans are the heirs of Englishmen in all these respects, the argument is equally applicable to ourselves, and we regret that we have not the space to follow the learned professor in it, but he satisfactorily shows, to use his own words, that a strong and steady light may be reflected from this quarter [i. e., from a knowledge of Anglo-Saxon literature] on many points of the municipal and common law, the theory of our politcal constitution, and the internal history of our religion." Professor INGRAM discusses his third point very briefly. With respect to its being made a subject of general interest in the pursuit of knowledge, he well says: "No person can doubt of the indispensable utility of Saxon literature in elucidating the topography and antiquities of our island, in explaining our proper names and the origin of families, in illustrating our provincial dialects and local customs; all which are the memorials of the ancient manners and character of our ancestors and without a knowledge of which every Englishman must be imperfectly acquainted with the history of his own country; a fortiori, every American too, for we must learn not only the history of this country, but that of England also, if we would possess an adequate knowledge of our historical progress. But with respect to his last statement, Professor INGRAM excuses himself from a full discussion of it, "as the philosophy of language is a science yet in its infancy, and it may be long before we can expect that great desideratum in literature to be produced a synoptical view of universal Grammar." Although this so-called "desideratum" is still to be produced, the science of language has made gigantic strides within the last seventy years; in fact, we may say that it has constituted itself a science within that period, and consequently we occupy a very different stand-point from that occupied by scholars of the beginning of the present century. Thanks to the great German masters in comparative grammar, and especially to JACOB GRIMM, we can now locate the Anglo-Saxon language, if I may use the term, and establish its relations to the cognate Teutonic dialects, and consequently to the other members of the Indo-European family of languages. For the present, students must restrict their view to the important family of languages, as increase of knowledge has shown that Professor INGRAM'S "desideratum" is at present, a Utopian dream, and may, for aught we now know, forever remain so, but even within these limits, what a wide field is open to the student of language! But if we come nearer home and limit our view to the Teutonic branch alone of this family, we have work to occupy the longest lifetime, and who can solve all the problems that naturally present themselves? And for the study of this branch of languages we have a key ready made to our hands in the Anglo-Saxon language. The same linguistic framework is seen in all these dialects, its fullest and most prim

itive form in the eldest sister, the Gothic of Ulfilas, but variously modified in the Old Norse, the old High German, the Old Frisian, the Old Saxon, and finally, the Anglo-Saxon. It would seem as if the original Teutonic present speech had been cast in a single mould, but, not being allowed to harden, remained ever susceptible to the varying influences of race, climate, soil, contact, which have differently modified it in the history of its long career. For English-speaking people the Anglo-Saxon may be taken as the norm of Teutonic inflection, and by means of it comparison be made with its cognate dialects. The wealth of vowel change and the laws which govern it, as exhibited in the Anglo-Saxon language, enable us readily to comprehend Teutonic vocalization. In respect to consonantal permutation we here occupy the mean between the classical forms and those assumed by the more recently developed parent of modern German. The same vowel and consonant declensions of nouns, the same radical forms and inflections of pronouns, the same definite and indefinite declensions of adjectives, the same remnants of an older reduplication and active working of that vocalic change in verbal forms denominated by GRIMM Ablaut, which is peculiar to the Teutonic languages,- —are seen here in full force, so that he who knows Anglo-Saxon will learn the older and the later forms of any other Teutonic idiom with comparative ease. But not only for its aid in the comparative study of languages is a knowledge of Anglo-Saxon valuable to us. Forms of everyday use in the modern language, the origin of which has been lost sight of in the course of time, are only explicable when traced back to their Anglo-Saxon source. Constructions which defy the Procrustean tortures of classical phraseology, are only intelligible when it is seen how they have originated in the older speech; for from it alone we derive many an expression, of which the only explanation vouchsafed by our grammarmongers is that "it is an English idiom." It is not worth while to dwell upon the kinds of words of pure English origin remaining to us, and the force of expression derived from the cultivation of a Teutonic style; for these matters are at last beginning to form a part of elementary instruction in English composition and rhetoric. It is more to our purpose to urge still further the study of the Anglo-Saxon language on the ground that it makes our older writers so much more intelligible and enjoyable. We shall not undertake to say that the student of the modern tongue alone is shut out from the enjoyment of CHAUCER, but we do say that, if he possesses a knowledge of Anglo-Saxon, he will understand CHAUCER much better, and will even see more clearly the meaning of some words and phrases of SHAKSPERE, which he may now find hard to comprehend. And if he carries his reading beyond CHAUCER, he will be at a complete stand-still without a knowledge of Anglo-Saxon. In fact, the period of transition from the breaking up of the Anglo-Saxon inflections, followed by the introduction of Norman-French words and phrases, to the beginning of system and permanency of form in the language of the fourteenth century, the language of Chaucer, Gower, Wycliffe, Langland, and other contemporaries,—is the most difficult period of English. We need all the light that can be thrown on it from every source, and without a knowledge of the older language, it does not seem to me comprehensible, Even

with that, much will remain unexplained without the light thrown on it from a knowledge of Old French, but that knowledge alone will not suffice.—Let Anglo-Saxon be studied, then, in all our Colleges and Universities for many reasons: for the information which its own literature supplies to the history and antiquities of the race, the laws and customs, the religious and social condition of the people; for the advantages which it gives us in the comparative study of languages; for the light which it throws upon the structure of the modern language; and for the aid which it affords in understanding the earlier English literature.

I regret much that the lack of time in the preparation, and the disproportionate length of the earlier part of this paper, have prevented me from enlarging upon the points which have been briefly and hurriedly presented at the close. But I trust that some students of English may be induced to investigate the subject for themselves, to appreciate the advantages to be derived from a study of the Anglo-Saxon language and literature, and to urge its introduction into the curricula of all our Colleges and Universities.

President D. C. GILMAN, LL. D., Johns-Hopkins University, was elected President of the Department for the ensuing year; E. T. TAPPAN, LL. D., of Ohio, Vice-President, and Prof. E. S. JOYNES, LL. D., Vanderbilt University, Secretary. The Department adjourned at 1 P. M., in order to participate in the excursion down the Chesapeake Bay, to Fair Haven.

NORMAL DEPARTMENT.

First Day's Proceedings.

MONDAY, JULY 10, 1876.

The Normal Department was called to order by EDWARD BROOKS, Principal of State Normal School, Millersville, Pa. The Secretary being absent, C. C. ROUNDS was appointed Secretary.

The following opening address was then read by Pres. BROOKS:

CENTENNIAL THOUGHTS ON NORMAL SCHOOLS.

Assembled at a time when the events of a vanished century are passing in array before us, the very air we breathe seems filled with the spirit of retrospection. The eye of the nation is turned backward, the onward reach of its mind is checked by the spirit of contemplation, while the national heart is throbbing with gratitude for the patriotic deeds which resulted in the establishment of a nation grander than was ever enshrined in the dream of poet or philosopher. Standing in the proud position of a hundred years since the fathers spoke the words and dared the deeds which made us a nation, and realizing the influence of educated mind and heart in the establishment and development of the republic, it is natural for us, catching the general spirit of retrospection, to turn our eyes toward the educational part of the century. As President of the Normal-School Department of this Association, I seem to be called upon to refer to a single point of this past, that which pertains to Normal Schools.

It will not, I believe, be claiming too much to affirm that one of the most striking and important educational achievements of the past century is the establishment of a system of Normal Schools. One hundred years ago, when the fathers uttered with trembling lips the words that made us a nation, there was not a single Normal School in this country,—indeed, so far as we know, it had not entered the American mind even as a thought or a dream. The idea was just beginning to be developed in the consciousness of the Old World, though it was far from a generally-established institution there, and many years of incompetent teachers and poorly-taught schools were to pass before the system was transplanted and took root in the New World.

The idea seems to have had its origin as early as the year 1681, although it did not develop into national significance and recognition until 1735,

and was not generally recognized as a necessity of a system of public education until many years subsequent even to that date. Permit me to occupy a few moments of your time in speaking of their origin and growth, the work they have accomplished, and their prospects in the future.

I. The earliest school for the training of teachers is believed to have been established in the year 1681 by the good Abbé de la Salle, a philanthropist and religous devotee, who devoting himself to the education of the young in his native city of Rheims, in which he was canon of the Cathedral, and finding the teachers incompetent for their duties, conceived the idea of bringing those of a particular class from the neighboring parishes into a community for their professional training, for which purpose he first had them meet and lodge at his own house, and afterward in a house that he purchased for the purpose, where out of school hours and during holidays they would spend their time in the practice of religious duties and in mutual conferences on the work in which they were engaged. Subsequently, upon the establishment of a large number of free schools,, to meet the applications which were constantly made to him for teachers, he resigned his benefice, distributed his property among the poor in order to place himself on a social equality with the schoolmasters of the poor, founded a society called the "Brothers of the Christian Doctrine," and inaugurated a system of schools that gave to the world some of the most devoted teachers it has known.

A few years subsequent to this, in 1697, the first teachers' class in Prus-. sia was founded at Halle, by AUGUSTUS HERMANN FRANKE, who "providing a table or free board for such poor students as stood in need of assistance, selected a few years later, out of the whole number, twelve who exhibited the right basis of piety, knowledge, skill, and desire for teaching, and constituted them his "Seminarium Preceptorium," or Teachers' Seminary. These pupil teachers received separate instruction for two years, obtaining a practical knowledge of methods in the classes of the several schools, and, ` for the assistance thus rendered, bound themselves to teach for three years in the institution after the close of their course." So successful was the work of this institution, that hundreds of teachers were attracted to Halle from all parts of Europe to observe and study the organization, methods, and spirit of the various schools. This was, beyond question, the germ of the Normal-School system of Prussia, and through the influence of Prussian systems of education, of the world. Though preceded in the work by the good Abbé de la Salle, the actual father of the system of teachers' seminaries, it seems to be admitted, was AUGUSTUS HERMANN FRANKE.

About the same period, a class for teachers was opened in the Abbey of Klosterberge, near Madgeburg; and as early as 1730 courses of lectures on the best methods of teaching German and the ancient languages were common in the principal universities and higher schools of Germany; and in 1738 a regularly-organized seminary for this purpose was established at öttingen, the success of which led to the establishment of similar institutions in the principal educational centres of the country.

The first institution which is said to be justly entitled to the name of a Normal School was that established at Stettin, Prussia, in 1735; the object