Articles From The Classical Teacher

Which Pronunciation Should You Use?
by Charles Bennett.
The pronunciation problem vexes many classical educators.  Professor Bennett speaks with the voice of experience and authority.

The Teaching of Latin and  Greek,  by Charles Bennett and George Bristol was originally published in 1900 as part of the American Teacher Series.  In this 350 page (out of print) book, Professors Bennett and Bristol, teachers at Cornell University, demonstrate their vast knowledge and experience concerning the practical details of a successful classics program. 

Professor Bennett recommends that classical pronunciation be abandoned and considers its introduction to have been a fundamental blunder; the following is a section from Chapter II on pronunciation:

     It is now something like twenty years since the so-called Roman or quantitative pronunciation of Latin was first generally introduced into the schools and colleges of this country.  Prior to that, most schools and colleges had used the English pronunciation; some few employed a pronunciation called the "continental."  This last, however, was not one pronunciation but several; in the sounds of the vowels, it adhered to their prevailing pronunciation in the languages of continental Europe, but the sounds of certain consonants were rendered with much variety.
     By the Roman pronunciation is, of course, meant the pronunciation employed by the ancient Romans themselves.  This pronunciation naturally varied much at different periods; hence, it has been necessary to take the pronunciation of some well-defined epoch as a standard.  The epoch conventionally adopted for this purpose is the golden age of Rome's literary greatness--roughly the period from 50 B.C. to 50 A.D.
     ...Anyone who will patiently review the evidence may easily assure himself that the Roman pronunciation rests upon a solid historical foundation and is not a flimsy product of the imagination.  As to certain points, the evidence is, of course, conflicting, and as a result, the opinions of scholars diverge.  Doubtless, too, there existed certain refinements of pronunciation which remain unknown to us.  But it cannot be denied that we can today restore in its essential features the pronunciation of Latin substantially as the Romans spoke it... (Here Prof. Bennett gives the evidence for the accuracy of the Roman (classical) pronunciation.  Since this is not disputed and does not bear on the question of its suitability for educational purposes, we have omitted this section.)

 "The Roman pronunciation is extremely difficult."
    ...Here I wish at the outset to declare frankly my conviction that the introduction of the Roman pronunciation was a fundamental blunder, and that its retention is likewise a serious mistake. My reasons follow:

      A. Roman pronunciation is extremely difficult.  This is sometimes denied, but only by superficial observers.  Such persons call attention to the fact that, under the Roman pronunciation, c, g, t, and s are always uniform in pronunciation, whereas by the English method, the sounds of these letters vary and depend upon rules.  This, however, is a very slight consideration for c, g, t, and s, under the English pronunciation, vary in accordance with the normal mode of pronouncing the same letters in English words.  Thus, we instinctively pronounce genus as jee-nus, propitius as propishus, after familiar English analogy.  What makes the Roman pronunciation of Latin really difficult is the quantity of the vowels.  So far as these belong to inflectional endings, e.g. -i, -orum, -os, -arum, -ibus, -abam, -ebam, -ero, -eram, etc., they can be learned as easily by one pronunciation as the other.
     But  even when the pupil has acquired a knowledge of these, there remains the multitude of vowels in the interior of words--in root syllables, in stems, and in suffixes.  Here, nothing but sheer force of memory can enable anyone to become the master of the vast number of vowels to be pronounced.  Even the same root often varies, e.g. fido, but fides; fidelis, but fidus.  Some few general principles can, of course, be given, but there remain literally thousands of vowels that must be learned outright and retained by memory alone.
     Even the consonants create difficulty, particularly the doubled consonants.  In English, we pronounce these singly.  But in Latin, we know that these doubled consonants were regularly pronounced double, just as they are in modern Italian.  A distinct effort is necessary to achieve this pronunciation.
     Another point of difficulty is the proper division of words into syllables.  Recent researches have shown that our traditional rules for syllable division, though they rest upon the express testimony of the Latin grammarians, were purely mechanical directions and did not indicate the actual pronunciation.  The actual division, moreover, must have been quite different from that which prevails in English under corresponding conditions.
     Lastly, we have the difficulty of the Latin accent.  It is beyond question that Latin was less heavily stressed than are the accented syllables in our English speech.

Few teachers and practically no pupils learn the Roman pronunciation with any accuracy. 
   All these difficulties are really so great that anything like an accurate pronunciation of Latin under the Roman system is practically impossible except by the sacrifice of an amount of time out of all proportion to the importance of the end to be attained.  As a matter of fact, few teachers and practically no pupils ever do acquire a pronunciation of any exactness.
     Out of some twelve hundred freshmen, whom I have tested on this point in the last dozen years at two leading American universities, I have never found one who could mark ten lines of Caesar's Gallic Wars with substantial quantitative accuracy.  Nor is this all.
     For eight years I have conducted summer courses for teachers at Cornell University.  This work has been attended by some two hundred teachers and college professors, nearly all of them college graduates, and many of them persons who had had graduate work at our best universities.  Yet, few of these have ever shown any thorough grasp of the Roman pronunciation, and most of them have exhibited deplorable ignorance of the first principles of its accurate application.
     Even college professors of eminence often frankly admit their own ignorance of vowel quantity and proclaim their despair of ever acquiring a knowledge of it.  It is not long since I listened to a professor of high position who gave at an educational meeting an illustration of his method of reading Latin poetry.  The reading was prefaced with the candid declaration that the reader had never pretended to acquire an accurate knowledge of Latin vowel quantities and despaired of ever succeeding in doing so.
     It is safe to say that only those who have devoted long and patient attention to the subject, and who practice frequent oral reading, can pronounce Latin with accuracy according to the Roman method.  My observation teaches me that those who ever attain this accomplishment are so few in number as to constitute practically a negligible quantity.
    The foregoing practical considerations, based upon the inherent difficulties of the Roman pronunciation, coupled with the practically universal failure to adhere to its principles, have long seemed to my mind valid grounds for its abandonment.  Those who urge its retention on the ground of its ease certainly are inexcusably blind to the facts.
     Those who advocate it on the ground that it is a moral duty to pronounce Latin as the Romans did may theoretically have a good case.  But certainly it can no longer be held to be a moral duty to maintain a system of pronunciation which the experience of twenty years has shown to result in miserable failure, and the intrinsic difficulties of whose accurate application are so evident.  We cannot hope, I believe, to secure appreciably better results than have thus far been achieved, certainly not without the expenditure of a vast amount of time and energy, which can ill be spared.

Additional reasons for abandoning the Roman pronunciation.

     B. It brings no compensating advantages.  This statement will doubtless provoke dissent, and some may wish to urge that the acquisition of the vocalic sounds of the Roman pronunciation of Latin is of assistance in the study of the modern European languages.  But this can hardly be deemed a serious argument.  Some of the Latin vowels and diphthongs designate identical sounds in French and German, but quite as often they are different.  Moreover, the apprehension of these constitutes an exceedingly slight difficulty.
     Others urge the importance of the quantitative pronunciation of Latin for the reading of Latin poetry; and here, if anywhere, we might recognize a valid reason for the retention of the Roman pronunciation, if only our pupils acquired, or could reasonably be expected to acquire, an accurate quantitative pronunciation of the Latin language, and if they combined with this any just conception of the truly quantitative nature of Latin poetry.  But so long as the prevailing pronunciation is practically oblivious of the difference between long and short vowels, and so long as we follow the traditional practice of making Latin poetry accentual, it is idle to support the retention of the Roman pronunciation on the grounds that it contributes to a capacity to appreciate Latin poetry in its true organic and artistic structure.  A rigidly accurate quantitative pronunciation will do this, provided we eliminate the unjustifiable artificial stress, but our present proficiency in the Roman pronunciation, or any proficiency we are ever likely to achieve, will hardly enable any considerable fraction of our students ever to appreciate Latin poetry as a quantitative rhythm.

     C. It does bring certain distinct disadvantages.  Chief among these is the difficulty it adds to the beginning work in Latin,  I am forced to believe that the acquisition of the forms is very much easier under the English pronunciation, where the entire energy of the pupil can be devoted to the forms themselves without the embarrassment which the difficulties of a strange pronunciation inevitably impose.
     Another serious disadvantage is the chaos it has wrought in our current pronunciation of classical proper names, Latin quotations, proverbs technical terms, legal phrases, titles of classical works, etc.  It is extremely difficult to reach any satisfactory basis for pronouncing these.  The Roman pronunciation seems awkward and affected and is unintelligible to many, while to those who have been taught the Roman pronunciation, any other is difficult. The result is a condition of affairs that is keenly felt by many classes of society, perhaps by none more than the teachers of Latin, who, while protesting against the present anarchy, find themselves at a loss to affect any radical improvement.
     The foregoing are the considerations which have for years weighed upon me and which have finally compelled me to believe that the retention of our present unmethodical "method" of pronouncing Latin has proved itself a serious mistake.  Fifteen years ago my zeal for the Roman pronunciation was unbounded.  For years I have been a conscientious student of the historical and linguistic evidence bearing upon this subject.

The hypocrisy of our present practice.
    For years I cherished the hope that with time and better teaching a decided improvement in the results yielded by the Roman pronunciation would manifest itself.  But I am now convinced that no such advance has been apparent, and that it will not, cannot, ought not to be.  So long as we retain the Roman pronunciation while nominally making that our standard, we shall, in reality, be far from exemplifying that method in our practice. We shall be guilty of pretending to do one thing, while we really are doing something else.  I hesitate to believe that such disingenuousness can permanently commend itself to thoughtful teachers.  I have above mentioned the fact that certain educators advocate the employment of the Roman pronunciation on moral grounds, urging that it is our bounden duty to apply what we know to be true.  It is equally on moral grounds (among others) that I would urge the immediate abandonment of the Roman pronunciation.
     We are not just to ourselves, we are not just to our students, so long as we encourage the present hypocritical practice. The English pronunciation is at least honest.  It confessedly violates vowel quantity, though I doubt whether it actually does so any more than the Roman method as actually employed. But it is simple, easily applied, and relieves the beginner especially of one important element of difficulty and discouragement.
     The educators of other countries have shown much greater wisdom in this matter of Latin pronunciation than have we.  England and Germany have witnessed efforts to introduce the Roman pronunciation, but the sober conservative sense of German and English educators has thus far resisted and probably will continue successfully to resist this unwise spirit of innovation.
     In America, we are unfortunately too prone to view with favour any new idea, educational or other, and to embark precipitately in experiments which involve serious consequences.  Undue pressure, I think, is often exerted upon the schools by college teachers.  Many of these, in their enthusiasm for the scientific aspects of their own professional work, exhibit a tendency to demand that the teaching of their subject in the secondary schools shall be conducted with express reference to the ultimate needs of the higher scholarship.
     This attitude manifests itself in many matters of educational policy connected with Latin, and, in my judgment, involves great danger to the best interests of the school.  The prime question in the teaching of every subject in our schools should be the present educational needs of the pupils.  Pedagogical procedure should be governed by these considerations.
     In other words, pupils do not exist for Latin, but Latin exists for the pupils. The needs, real or fancied, of the higher scholarship have no claim to consideration as compared with the rational satisfaction of the pupils' present interests.