Here at VCSU, a colleague and I are at odds over how to teach a 200 level Humanities course. He thinks that the course ought to be based on a book that provides an overview of events, so that it can quickly pass through literary and philosophical events from the Mesopotamians to present day. I say that it is impossible to teach everything, and that such an approach leaves students with very little access to the past. For my part, I further suggest that they are better off reading key bits of primary-if-translated texts that are conceptually rather than chronologically dependent. My feeling is that if you take these primary texts and treat them according to overarching themes--ones that are vital in all cultures in time and space--themes such as the gods, love, leadership, and philosophy--then the students get both a sense of the past that delivers not only the Humanities, but does so in a way that gives them individual access to ancient and classical Greece, imperial Rome, the anglo-saxon and then the norman influenced middle ages, and then the renaissance.  My colleague argues that I omit too much important cultural information, and I argue that his approach does not admit enough students to the Humanities--that it just gives them a sense of what somebody else says about a lot of events. Under my thematic approach, we read bits from the following, and ask what it says about the four themes:
Homeric Hymns, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Sappho, Pindar, The Pre-Socratics, The Republic, Parmenides, Thucydide's Melian Dialogue, and all of Antigone, to get a sense of the Greeks. I also lecture on Greek architecture and politics. For the Romans, we read from the Aeneid, the Roman Elegists--Catullus, Propertius, Sulpicia, Caesar's Gallic Wars, and Tacitus' Germania. For the anglo-saxons, we read Widsith, Deor, Seafarer, Battle of Maldon, the Dream of the Cross, and all of Beowulf. We read and translate a dozen Middle English lyrics, and read Chaucer's Prologue, and his Miller's Tale in Middle English. We read a Shakespeare play, and we read bits from Machiavelli.
   My colleague uses a book by a man named Bishop, which has lots of illustrations and gives very small snippets from many great works--but mostly, it is a telling of the tale of Western Civilization (the bent of the course) by one expert to the uninitiated. The other expert--my collegue, fills in the gaps. Between the two of them, they cover a lot of territory, and bring students up to the present. Yet for all of that, as my step-father says--neither my colleague's course or my own introduce the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics--essential, in his opinion.  
   I might also mention that there is a required second Humanities course that emphasizes music and art. These courses are taught by faculty who kind of begin their approach to music and art in the 17 and 18th centuries--and one of them veers off into North American Indian culture--the sort of veering that a thematic approach, I think, would allow.
    This is a 200 level course, has 40 students in a section, and very few of them English or History majors. If you had to choose between my approach and my colleagues, which would you choose and why? Further, what is your own general sense about how such a course ought to be taught, to such a population?