The Difference between Ancient and Modern Systems of Education. — Plato Blinded by Half-truths. — No place in the present order of things for Dogmatisms. — Education commences at Birth. — The Influence of Woman extends from the Cradle to the Grave. — The Crime of Crimes. — Neglect to educate Woman. — The Superiority of Women over Men as Teachers. — Froebel discovered it. — Nature designed Woman to Teach; hence the Importance of Fitting her for her Highest Destiny.
This, from the lips of Plato, was the theory of the ancients: “The earth is the common mother of the human race, but it has pleased the gods to mix gold in the composition of some, silver in that of others, iron and copper in that of others.”[5] On this divinely established principle of caste all the ancient educational systems were founded. They were limited to the development of the few in whose composition gold was supposed to be mixed.
[5] “The Republic of Plato,” p. 114. London: Macmillan & Co., 1881.
The idea of a universal education is modern, and all other differences between the ancients and moderns combined are as nothing to this one fundamental difference between the two civilizations. Plato’s ideal republic was based upon the assumption that the “guardians” might be made just and wise by educating them; but that the other classes might also be made just and wise by education, and the State be so rendered absolutely secure, did not occur to the great philosopher.
Plato was blinded by half-truths, as Rousseau was two thousand years later, when he said, “The poor stand in no need of education; that of their station is confined, and they cannot obtain any other.”[6] That men are created unequal intellectually is only a half-truth in an educational view; the whole truth is that every child is susceptible of the developing influence of education, and hence the obligation of the State to educate relates to all children. Plato’s simile of the gold, the silver, and the iron shows how autocratically even the greatest mind is controlled by its environment, and limited by the facts which constitute the basis of its generalizations. Were Plato teaching here, now, he would transpose the order of statement in his simile, since iron, not gold, is the king of metals. Each generation increases the world’s stock of facts; hence there is no place in the modern order of things for the dogmatist—the dogmatisms of yesterday become apt themes for the satires of to-day, subjecting their authors to ridicule. This fact should impress upon professional teachers, and upon all persons engaged in seeking to promote the cause of education, the importance of a reverently studious habit of mind touching the progress of events. The tyranny of tradition is an ever-present, potent influence, and only the growing mind can resist it.
[6] “Emilius and Sophia,” Vol. I, p. 40. London: 1767.
But there are certain principles upon which not only ancient and modern educators agree, but about which there is no dispute between existing rival schools, as, for example, this proposition of Plato—
“The beginning is the most important part, especially in dealing with anything young and tender, for that is the time when any impression which one may desire to communicate is most readily stamped and taken.”[7]
[7] “The Republic of Plato,” p. 65. London: Macmillan & Co., 1881.
And this proposition of Rousseau—