Ok this is a major topic, or fault line, if you like, which I intend to lever open. Nearly all of us English speakers have used either UK or US text books. Which are better? I’m going to kick off by saying I think UK text books. By these I mean Kennedy and, colebourne, basically. Kennedy is the reason why we Brits conjugate nom, voc, acc, gen, dat, abl. That’s why when we look at your declension tables we freak out. I used to think Kennedy was God, but now I think colebourne is. I have a strong dislike of Wheelock, and appreciate the depth of greenough. Is Bradley’s British? I’m not s fan either way.
And as for primers, I love Sanford and Scott. He was a yank, so I’m not totally biased.
Love to hear your opinions.
Maybe a poll?
Having started with LLPSI I only knew the Nom, Ac, Gen, Dat, Abl sequence. More recently I looked at American grammars and decided straight away that Nom, Gen, etc. sequence was not for me. Since then I have changed my mind. I can rattle off Nom, Ac, declensions without much thought, but when looking at the American way I find I actually have to think about the declensions which can’t be a bad thing. Tbh I never bother with the Vocative which is easy, bar the exceptions.
Mary Beard, who else, broadcast last year about Kennedy’s Latin primer in a programme called " Amo Amas Amusical". (perhaps that should be “Kennedy’s” Latin primer). Alas it is not currently available but it was very funny and informative. You should catch it if it airs again.
This description from the web site gives the flavour of it:
"Accompanied by a Women’s Duet and a Chorus of Trolls, Mary Beard uncovers the deliberately concealed story of two Victorian sisters who wrote an iconic Latin text-book, setting it against the ugly 19th and early 20th century opposition to women’s Higher Education and the abuse of clever women today
Strikingly original high-fibre fun, with Victorian verses - Latin and English - set to specially commissioned music by composer Emily Levy, and performed in the Radio Theatre
Kennedy’s Revised Latin Primer was the iconic text-book when learning Latin was essential to becoming a gentleman. Its author was always assumed to be Cambridge professor, Benjamin Hall Kennedy
Mary Beard uncovers the truth: that Kennedy’s unmarried daughters, Marion and Julia, largely wrote it. She draws on archives confirming their role in writing the “memory verses” used for learning grammar and often sung to hymn-tunes. These are sung by a Women’s Duet
Against their story, Mary sets the long history of the opposition to women acquiring degrees – riots and banners but also toxic “light verse” published in student magazines. These are sung by a Chorus of Trolls
Did this intimidating atmosphere cause Marion and Julia to work anonymously? Mary draws parallels with contemporary trolling of clever women. Its language is unbroadcastable, so Mary has had it translated into Latin, which the Trolls sing
In a harmonious finale, the men and women sing about Latin nouns common both to male and female - hoping for a time when the “gender wars” are no more
Featuring Professor Chris Stray, Jane Robinson, Damaris Kennedy Hayman, pianist Jeremy Limb and singers Clemmie Franks, Gwendolen Martin, Daniel Thomson, Michael Solomon Williams and Richard Moore. "
Mary Beard may be the main radio presenter, but it’s Christopher Stray (part of the broadcast as well) who deserves credit for unearthing the story in 1996:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24304887
So another gender twist! Stray’s research is always marvelous if you are at all interested in the study of Greek and Latin in the UK in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Thanks for the reference to Stray who as you say initially mentioned the role of Kennedy’s daughters in the production of the revised Primer.
The focus of the article (for those who don’t have access to it) is the textbook market in Great Britain in, mostly, the 19th century. His main interest is the intersection of concerns about class and commercial gain in the market for textbooks in the public (ie private) schools. He makes one oblique reference to the position of women in 19th century with academic interests: “to add other names to The Revised Latin Primer would have compromised the book’s authority; to announce that it was written by two women would have been a total disaster. So the hard working daughters kept loyally silent”.
Beard’s programme, in her typical polemical style, unpacks this, explaining more about the suppression of women’s academic possibilities in the 19th century and indeed later.
I discovered one further interesting thing from the article relevant to this thread. The order of the cases in declensions does indeed come from “Kennedy” but the so called “American order” was in fact the normal order before"Kennedy"'s primer gained its central position. Stray says
“Kennedy produced an elementary version of the Primer, supplementary exercise books, an advanced grammar to follow it — in fact a whole flotilla of school books. From its first publication, other writers began to revise their books to accommodate his doctrines and to refer to the sections of his grammar. One rival stood against him for a long time. This was William Smith, prolific author of course books, dictionaries, and grammars and editor of the Quarterly Review. He had his own series of textbooks, headed by Principia Latina, Principia Graeca and so on — all with a distinctive dress of black binding and red-edged pages. Smith’s major problem was that Kennedy had departed from the traditional order in which the cases of the noun were listed, while his own books adhered to it. At first he gave ground by adding an extra page sequence, with the page numbers in square brackets, to his Latin and Greek books. One sequence used the traditional order, the extra pages used Kennedy’s new order (see Illus.3a b).38 In the 1880s, however, Smith was forced to cave in, and the old order disappeared from his books.”
Seeing the Greek example quoted I can see exactly why putting the genitive second makes a great deal of sense as it is the key to how the rest of the declension works.
Practicing declensions is rather like practicing scales the violin. It’s good to change the fingering in the latter rather than repeating the same pattern as this encourages one to listen to what one is doing rather than going the through the motions like an automaton. Perhaps the same could be said for declensions. In any event it was good to discover that the so called “American” order isn’t “American” at all.
The focus of the article (for those who don’t have access to it) is the textbook market in Great Britain in, mostly, the 19th century.
JSTOR gives anyone who registers and logs in access to the the article (which is how I saw it).
Also, this summary is factually incorrect. Two flags: 1) the article title making it clear that this is about Kennedy’s textbooks, and 2) the subheading of the initial section on the textbook market, which is marked “context”, and is not the content proper, as it seems to be taken for above. The article actually concerns the interesting, and, as it says, “political”, history of Kennedy’s primers.
It’s a detailed story, and one that doesn’t quite so neatly fit into (boring and 1960s stale) sexual politics narratives that TV-minded folk try to shoehorn everything into. For one thing, there were competing revisions to Primer being debated, and Stray implies that it was an open secret where Kennedy’s came from (he was too old to do it himself, in his 80s and living with his daughters). The actual reason that his daughters’ names would have sunk the revision, at first, was that initial vote, where it was formally pretended to be Kennedy’s revision of his own work up against the revision by his colleagues. (His daughters did produce the better revision by all accounts, and as proved by its enduring success, I would think.) Later on, I’m certain that there were marketing considerations, perhaps sex-related, but perhaps also related to lack of academic standing, that made the daughters refrain from making a stink about proper credit until copyright law was about to cut off their income stream.
The sexual politics in Latin teaching during this era (and the one immediately following, during WWI and after), is very interesting and fascinating, with all the drama of the (somewhat culty) female ARLT takeover during the war, etc. It’s well worth reading about. BBC specials, though, can be enjoyed for their musicality.
True, anyone can register and access the free content such as this article , but there are articles that require membership in a partner institution or a JPASS account (for 19.50 US monthly) to download. I believe there is also a limit to the number of articles that can be viewed for free.
I think the article is about more than just the publishing history of Kennedy’s textbooks. It is indeed a fascinating story, but it’s more than that: Stray uses this particular story because it’s a very well documented case of how economic, political and educational pressures all play a role in the longevity and success of a given textbook; hence, the first half of the title: “Primers, Politics and Publishing:” Although early on he states his “discussion will focus on the drafting and the reception of this book and its successor”, he continues on to ask larger questions, “How is knowledge to be reformulated in book form as teachable knowledge? Who is to do this? Who is to decide which book is used in teaching?” The discussion of Kennedy’s books will lead him to conclude: “This case is one of several which could be used to explore the interaction of education and publishing.” So yes, we can say it’s about Kennedy’s Primers, but the purpose of the article is to demonstrate just how good an example their story is of the forces at work in the educational publishing market of 19th century England.
It’s a good thing we know this was said in jest. Some folks might take offense to one of their national institutions being disparaged, albeit with faint praise.
This reply contains:
- A link to another Christopher Stray article.
- A link to my YouTube clip of the text and me reciting the Kennedy memorial lines for Latin noun gender rules and exceptions. https://youtu.be/k9hrQ_EQVk0
- My take on the original posters question: Brit. vs. American text books.
\ - Christopher Stray has another interesting article about Kennedy, “THE SMELL OF LATIN GRAMMAR: CONTRARY
IMAGININGS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOMS” available here:
"The best known example is provided by the memorial rhymes of Kennedy’s Public school Latin primer of 1866 and its successor, the Revised Latin primer of 1888. Thomas Thornely, writing in the 1930s, remembered them from his Uppingham schooldays and compared them favourably with modern poetry:…
'We used to commit these to memory . . . while queuing to go to the . . . lav. after breakfast . . . We chanted them to the tune of Hymn No. 520, ‘Love Divine All Loves Excelling’."
2. I’ve created a YouTube video with the text and my voice reciting the memorial lines here:
https://youtu.be/k9hrQ_EQVk0
3. I think the best of British textbooks (Kennedy, Ruddiman) are equal to the best of American textbooks (D’Ooge, Allen & Greenbough).
One thing I do like about the British textbooks is that some have versions suited to younger students (e.g. Kennedy’s Shorter Latin Primer). I don’t know of any American textbooks geared towards late elementary school students.
The best of the 19th century textbooks are MUCH better than contemporary textbooks.
Interesting post but we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
I know this is an old post, but you’re still active, so here goes.
Does anyone actually use Kennedy anymore? Can it be considered a textbook that is used?
I have not heard of Colebourn but his book looks very good and is now on its way to me. If anyone is God in the UK, however, I think it’s got to be Woodcock (A New Latin Syntax).
I am not a great fan of Kennedy’s and don’t really see what all the fuss is about. I don’t see it as comparable to the American grammars like Allen and Greenough, Gildersleeve, and Bennett. I am a big fan, however, of the revised order of the cases which he utilized (actually created by a Danish scholar and borrowed by Kennedy). Why on earth do we bury the accusative (a noun directly involved in the action of the verb, as is the nominative) between two adverbial cases? Well, because the Romans did, but their order was random and has no pedagogical value (the British scholars Allen and Brink have an informative article on this).
I’m not a great fan of Wheelock’s, but would prefer it over the ‘reading courses’ that have emanated from the UK over the past six decades (Cambridge Latin Course, Oxford Latin Course, Ecce Romani, Suburani), to great (imo) detrimental affect in American schools. The only book I can think of in the UK that is comparable to Wheelock is John Taylor, though I cannot get my head around how so many British textbooks think that omitting macrons is a good idea (yes, I know they aren’t on the GCSE, but they aren’t on the AP either but that doesn’t stop us using macrons: how on earth are students supposed to get used to marking vowel quantity?).