These specimens are based on notes taken by me in August and September, 1877, in Waterville, Maine. I used selections from them at the first meeting of the Romance Philology Conference, at Harvard University, in the year 1886-87, to illustrate the use of phonetic spelling for philological purposes and to illustrate also the regular character of sound changes in popular dialects.—There is in Waterville, as in many other places in New England, a colony of French Canadians, who live by themselves in a part of the village known as the Plains. My specimens were taken down in phonetic spelling from the mouth of a single person of this colony, who was employed as a servant girl at my father's house. It is a disadvantage that only one person's speech was thus observed, but she being uneducated—I do not think she could write and am not even sure that she knew how to read at all—her dialect was little if at all influenced by written French. She understood English well enough for most purposes, and all my questions were put in English, and she gave English translations when desired. I think there was hardly any possibility of her using a word not natural to her in consequence of any suggestion from me. I am not sure that her dialect was that of the whole French colony in Waterville; indeed it seems to me that some double forms she used with the same meaning may have been due to her knowing words belonging to originally different dialects. I have some reason to believe that at least one other French dialect than hers is or was not long ago spoken in New England.—My observations are very incomplete, as I expected and intended to continue them later and did not use all the opportunities I had, but scanty as they are, they suffice to give some idea of the peculiarities of the dialect.

The scientfic confession of faith of the Neo-Grammarians, already upon various occasions fragmentarily announced, has found its first systematic presentation in Paul's ‘Principien der Sprachgeschichte,’ which has just appeared in a second revised and enlarged edition. Inasmuch as this book reflects the views of a number of distinguished scholars who claim to have revolutionized linguistic science, it demands our attention a priori and necessitates an exposé of its fundamental views and presumptions : for this much commended New Method of the school of neo-grammarians must finally take its stand upon linguistic principles entirely different from those of earlier enquirers. It is these principles which determine the method even should they be as yet but half realized. A non-partisan critic will be little disturbed if the members of the new school boast of feeling greater earnestness on behalf of science than others, or if in any other way they recommend their new tendenz. He will endeavor, before all things, to follow out the historical development of the new principles, he will test their worth and authority, from which the propriety of their application would readily appear.

Nearly thirty years have elapsed since the death of Lord Macaulay (December, 1859), a period sufficient to have witnessed the rise, the decline, and the decay of many reputations less brilliant than his own. (The year 1859 was fruitful in the death of eminent men of letters : Hallam, DeQuincey, Irving, Prescott, Macaulay.) It is the fate even of the finest genius to incur detraction, and in our era, Macaulay has been the special victim of critics. He has provoked the polished cynicism of Mr. Matthew Arnold, the cautious censure of Bishop Stubbs, and received only the qualified approbation of one of his most discriminating biographers, the late Rector of Lincoln College. Save his nephew, Mr. Trevelyan, and Mr. Edward A. Freeman, few writers of our time are just in their appreciation of his genius, or in their estimate of his impress upon the character of our language. Yet his influence upon the fortunes of English speech was never more potent than at present, and may be discovered by the critical student in many phases of our literature where its agency was not suspected.—Let us endeavor to trace in detail some of the sources of Lord Macaulay's diction, some of the secret springs that impelled into activity the most perspicuous and fascinating prose style which has appeared in modern English literature.

The increased attention to the study of American Literature in our higher institutions, and the want of any good text-book to assist the teacher, seem to warrant the discussion here of the subject which I have ventured to bring before you, and which, I am well assured, holds a considerable place in the thought of many teachers of English. If there seem to be but little that is original in the following brief outline, and indeed much that is not new, it has nevertheless seemed to me worth while to emphasize the educational capabilities of our own literature and perhaps to suggest method in the study of it. It is certainly discreditable to us that we have done so little toward a faithful and affectionate study of what is purely native and national in our American writings. The text-books intended for use in our schools are, for the most part, sadly incapable. They are without critical ability, and are constructed usually upon the same pattern : —a number of names of greater or less eminence in several departments of intellectual activity are set down in chronological order, with a few lines of biography concerning each. There is rarely any sense of proportion, the same space is given to a wretched poetaster like James Gates Percival as to Ralph Waldo Emerson. Tvlor's ‘History of American Literature is a permanent honor to American scholarship, a skilful and laborious examination of all the literary remains before 1765. Professor Richardson's unfinished ‘American Literature’ contains much that is interesting, but we still need for class use, a book from which teachers can teach, and from which students cannot ‘cram.’