12. Greek political failure.
Here is a good month’s work; and one which will test the teacher. Remark has already been made in this series of articles on the surpassing debt of modern civilization to Greek thought. The present is the opportunity for the pupil to grasp the extent of this debt. The value of such grasp will depend on the teacher. It is easy to imagine the dullness of mere text-book work here. The student may be led through such a period, and have no more impression left on him than he would by learning the boundaries of our forty-six States. On the other hand, he may be so impressed by the marvellous activities of the Greek mind as to be able always hereafter to understand why literature makes so multitudinous references to this petty people.
Minimize the Study of War.
The better text-books are admirable in their restraint in dealing with such topics as the Peloponnesian War. One fine book gives only six pages to it, and omits all trivial details. Another good book gives only about eight pages. This is as it should be. That war, and the later attempts at control by Thebes are to be taken, not as studies of heroic endeavor, but as melancholy examples of human foolishness. The bitter costs and heavy losses of war can find no more striking illustration than in the period of the great struggle for control in Greece. These were essentially civil wars from our point of view. It is true there was no political unity in Greece, save of the fleeting federations; but for all that the wars of the fifth century and the first half of the fourth were wars among peoples who should have been brothers. Historians tell us that there are no “lessons” to be drawn from past occurrences. But, spite of that dictum, the political fate of Greece points plainly to the evils of unnecessary war. Some wars are unavoidable race conflicts; others center about the struggle for freedom from tyranny; others come from the clash of older and newer ideas. But fratricidal war, such as the internal conflicts of Greece, is only horrible. The recent ebullition of temper between England and Germany, peoples of the same stock, is an illustration of the sort of thing that the Greek example may well warn against.
The Periclean Democracy.
It is a relief to turn away from war and its evils to the living interests of peaceful life. The young student will come across many references in his later reading to Athenian democracy. That democracy reached its flowering under Pericles. In the outline of topics given at the beginning of this article, number 7 calls for a period devoted to the study of this democracy. How shall such a lesson be taught?
In a preceding article it was suggested that the pupils make an outline of the older Athenian constitutions. This outline may well be supplemented first of all by one of the various assemblies, courts and offices of the Periclean time. But that is only the bones of the study. The lesson might proceed by a series of comparisons with modern conditions. First of all, What did an Athenian mean by “democracy,” and what do we mean? The answer to this question will show the mighty advance of the modern idea over the best of the older world. The growth of the power of the popular assembly as over against that of the senate and Areopagus should be pointed out. And its modern counterpart in the growing distrust of legislatures and the demand for the referendum may be used to illustrate the same tendency among us.
The degree of intelligence among the Athenians who constituted the assembly must be noted. Probably so able a body of citizens would be hard to match in a modern state of a thousand times the size of Athens. But was this excellence, founded on slave labor, and the idea that the worth of the true citizen is measured by his political activity too dearly bought?
The long control of Pericles, “the leader of the people,” illustrates finely the fact that the great man is sure to assert himself and to be used by his fellow citizens under whatever system of government, and whether he holds office or not. On the other hand, the theoretic division of executive responsibility, rising from distrust of one-man power, was a weakness. States must use and trust their great men, putting heavy responsibilities on them.
Contrast may well be drawn between a court at Athens and one in any part of the United States. Here will be opportunity for finding out how little the average youth really knows about our jury system.