Download NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012

NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 1 of 16
Assessment Schedule – 2012
Classical Studies: Explain in essay format an aspect of the classical world (90513)
Assessment Criteria
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Achievement with Excellence
Essay writing:
Essay writing:
Essay writing:
Typical features of an essay at Achievement are as
follows:
Typical features of an essay at Merit are as follows:
• The essay answers the question.
• The essay answers the question.
Typical features of an essay at Excellence are as
follows:
• It has a clearly defined structure: the introduction
presents the central argument or outlines the issues
to be discussed; the main body of information is
well-organised; the conclusion is a summation of
key ideas.
• The essay answers the question fully, giving
appropriate emphasis to each part or element.
• It has a clearly defined structure as for Merit, plus
each paragraph contributes to the development of a
coherent, well-balanced argument or explanation.
• Supporting evidence is directly relevant to the topic.
• The argument or explanation is convincingly
maintained throughout the essay.
• It is structured, with an introduction, main body of
information, and a conclusion.
• Supporting evidence is generally relevant to the
topic.
• The writing style is clear.
• The writing style is clear.
• A range of supporting evidence is provided that is
directly relevant to the topic.
• The writing style is effective and fluent.
Content:
Content:
Content:
The candidate provides a general explanation of the
aspect. There is some supporting evidence, but
specific detail is lacking. One part of the question may
be undeveloped or omitted. There is evidence of
familiarity with primary source material, although
references may not be explicitly acknowledged.
The candidate incorporates an analytical element in
the essay. All parts of the question are covered, but
treatment may be unbalanced. Supporting evidence is
specific and detailed, but not consistently provided.
Primary source material is used, although references
may not be well integrated into the argument.
The candidate discusses all parts of the question fully
and in depth. Supporting evidence is specific, detailed
and consistently provided. Appropriate reference is
made to primary source material.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 2 of 16
Evidence Statement
Candidates choose ONE question from ONE topic.
Topic A – Alexander the Great
Question One
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Examples of supporting evidence that lack
specific detail might be:
Although all points might not be this well
developed, an example of supporting evidence
that is specific and detailed might be:
Alexander’s exceptional personal courage
at the battle at the river Granicus.
Alexander showed no fear when he found
the Persians in a strongly defensive
position at Granicus, protected by the river
and steep muddy banks. He decided to
attack immediately rather than surprise the
enemy at dawn. It was standard military
practice to target the commander of an
opposing army, but Alexander made no
attempt to draw attention away from
himself – he wore magnificent armour and
a helmet with white plumes. When the
fighting started, he led the Companion
cavalry across the river and fought in the
thick of the battle, almost losing his life.
Ancient historians tell how Cleitus the Black
saved him by cutting off the arm of one of
the enemy commanders as he attempted to
kill Alexander.
Alexander’s exceptional personal courage at
the battle at the river Granicus.
Alexander was determined to confront the
armies of Darius’ western satraps in pitched
battle. Far from being deterred by the
defensive position the Persians adopted at the
river Granicus, he urged an immediate attack,
rejecting the advice of his second-in command,
Parmenio – “a trickle of water” [Arrian] would
not stop him, even if there were steep banks to
mount on the other side, defended by the
enemy cavalry. Although he knew he would be
targeted, he drew attention to his own person
by wearing magnificent armour and led the
Companion cavalry across the river. Once in
combat with the Persians, he fought in the
thick of the battle, at great risk to his life. In
fact, if Cleitus the Black had not intervened to
cut off the arm of one of the Persian
commanders, he would most probably have
been killed. Alexander had linked himself to
Achilles by visiting Troy shortly before the
battle and he fought in this first engagement
like a Homeric hero. He did not surround
himself with elite troops like a Persian king.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might
include:
Alexander’s exceptional personal courage at the battle at the river
Granicus.
• Although risky to engage the Persians in a pitched battle, given their
cavalry superiority, Alexander did not hesitate.
• The Persians had chosen a defensive position at the river Granicus,
Alexander remained undeterred.
• With heroic self-confidence, he rejected Parmenio’s advice to delay
an attack until dawn: “I should be ashamed if a little trickle of water
like this were too much to cross ... “ [Arrian].
• Before the battle, he paraded in front of his troops, deliberately
drawing attention to himself. According to Plutarch his white-plumed
helmet made him “unmistakeable”.
• Alexander led the Companion cavalry, following up Amyntas’ first
charge, “in the thick of it” [Arrian].
• Once across, he plunged into hand-to-hand combat. When his spear
was broken, he called for another; his helmet was shattered and he
almost suffered a fatal blow, but was saved by the intervention of
Cleitus the Black, who cut off Spithridates raised sword arm.
• Alexander fought like a Homeric warrior, intent on glory, although (at
least in modern eyes) his personal courage on the day is tarnished by
the ruthless butchering of the Greek mercenaries.
• Granicus was, according to Bosworth, the start of “a continuing saga
of heroic self-exposure”.
The analytical quality of the argument is more important than the
number of actions listed. Other points may be made, for example,
acknowledgement of the bias of ancient sources, glorifying Alexander’s
heroism in battle.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 3 of 16
Question Two
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific
detail might be:
The purpose and outcome of the journey to the oasis
at Siwah.
In Egypt, Alexander is said to have been “seized by
a passionate desire” to consult the oracle of Zeus
Ammon. The journey across the desert to the oasis
of Siwah was a difficult one, but the oracle was very
famous and Alexander is supposed to have been
keen to learn more about his family background. His
mother Olympias is thought to have encouraged him
to believe that he was the son of Zeus, not Philip. It
is also possible that Alexander realised that a
favourable oracle, would have considerable
propaganda potential, especially as he was about to
set out to meet Darius in battle. He would be able to
lead his men as the son of the king of the gods.
Plus, similar response on the outcome of the visit.
Achievement with Merit
Although all points might not be this well
developed, an example of supporting evidence
that is specific and detailed might be:
The purpose and outcome of the journey to the
oasis at Siwah.
Once he had occupied Egypt, Arrian says that
Alexander was “seized by a passionate desire” to
consult the oracle of Zeus Ammon in the middle of
the Libyan desert. It was a difficult and timeconsuming journey (delaying pursuit of Darius) but
Alexander is thought to have been eager to take
advantage of one of the most highly reputed
oracles in the ancient world, said to be “infallible”.
He had a number of questions to ask, but was
especially keen to learn more about his family
background. His mother, Olympias, is supposed
to have encouraged him to believe that his father
was not Philip, but Zeus Ammon, who possessed
her in the form of a snake. Alexander was also
always motivated by any opportunity to emulate
his heroic ancestors, and Perseus and Heracles
had consulted the oracle. Finally, it is distinctly
possible that Alexander realised that a favourable
oracle, particularly one that confirmed him as no
ordinary mortal, would have considerable
propaganda potential. He would lead his army
against Darius not just a king of Macedon, nor
even the descendant of distant heroes, but as the
actual son of the king of the gods.
Plus, similar response on the outcome of the visit.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question
might include:
The purpose and outcome of the journey to the oasis at
Siwah.
• According to Arrian, Alexander had a “pothos” to visit the
temple of Ammon at Siwah.
• He was eager to find out more about his family
background – Olympias is said to have encouraged him
to believe that he was son of Zeus Ammon.
• The oracle at Siwah was highly regarded, with an
“infallible” reputation [Arrian], and Alexander was by all
accounts a religious man.
• The difficult journey across the Libyan Desert to Siwah
offered an opportunity to emulate his heroic ancestors –
Perseus and Heracles.
• If the oracle did confirm that Alexander was the son of
Zeus Ammon, there were obvious propaganda
advantages for the future.
• Mysterious episodes en route were subsequently
interpreted as divine favour, building up Alexander’s
superhuman status.
• At the Oracle, Alexander was greeted as son of the god
by the High Priest and, according to Plutarch, told that
“no mortal was his father” and that he should “rule over
all men”.
• After the visit, Alexander increasingly identified himself
as son of Zeus, and this relationship may have
encouraged him to request divine honours shortly before
he died.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality of the
argument is more important than the number of reasons
listed.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 4 of 16
Question Three
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence that
lack specific detail might be:
The ways in which Philip prepared
Alexander for succession as king.
Alexander was the son of Philip and
his favoured wife (for much of their
marriage), Olympias. As the king’s
eldest son, he was marked out as his
successor. There is little ancient
source evidence about Alexander’s
early years, but it appears that he was
given an education appropriate for an
heir. The famous philosopher Aristotle
was especially chosen by Philip to
teach his son about kingship.
Alexander must also have been taught
how to ride and fight, and the famous
story about the taming of Bucephalus
is evidence that his talent and
ambition made his father proud. At
only 16, Alexander was made regent
of Macedonia and soon after he
commanded the cavalry at
Chaeronea. When Philip was
assassinated, Alexander was only 20,
but he had not only been given military
and political experience, but also the
plan for an invasion of Persia.
Achievement with Merit
Although all points might not be this well
developed, an example of supporting evidence
that is specific and detailed might be:
The ways in which Philip prepared Alexander for
succession as king.
Alexander was Philip’s eldest son and from birth
marked out as the future king of Macedonia.
There is little ancient source evidence about his
early years, but it appears that he was tutored as
the royal prince firstly by Leonidas, a
disciplinarian, then Lysimachus, who encouraged
him to emulate Homer’s heroes, then by Aristotle,
who had been especially selected by Philip to
instruct Alexander on kingship. As the king’s son
and all noble Macedonian young men, he must
have received instruction in horse-riding and the
physical activities associated with war, a favoured
pastime at the time. Plutarch’s anecdote about the
taming of Bucephalus provides a glimpse of
equestrian training and also Philip’s pride in his
son’s potential. When Alexander succeeded in
mounting the horse, he proudly encouraged his
son: “ ... find a kingdom big enough for your
ambitions, Macedonia is too small for you.” At only
16, Alexander was entrusted by Philip, who was
campaigning in Thrace, to act as regent of his
kingdom. And following further military experience
in the north of Greece, was at 18 given command
of the Companion Cavalry at the battle against
Thebes at Chaeronea. Two years later, when
Alexander was only 20, Philip was assassinated.
In spite of the stormy relationship he and his
father had in 337, Alexander was certainly his
favoured successor, with significant military and
political experience and a planned invasion of
Persia as his inheritance.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
The ways in which Philip prepared Alexander for succession as king.
• Alexander was from the beginning identified as Philip’s successor: he
was probably Philip’s eldest son and his only attested half-brother,
Arrhidaeus, suffered from an unknown mental affliction.
• He was educated as Philip’s son. Leonidas, his first tutor, is said to
have been a disciplinarian, who hardened him for campaigning. His
next tutor, Lysimachus, is said to have encouraged him to identify with
Achilles.
• Plutarch tells the story of the taming of Bucephalus, drawing attention
to the training Alexander must have received in horse riding and no
doubt weaponry, but also revealing Philip’s pride in his son’s spirit.
• When Alexander was 13, he was dispatched by his father to Mieza and
Aristotle appointed as his teacher to provide literary, ethical and political
instruction appropriate for a future king.
• At 16, Alexander was appointed regent of Macedonia when his father
was campaigning in Thrace; as regent he had the opportunity of leading
Macedonian forces in battle against the Maedi.
• Alexander then campaigned with his father in the north of Greece and,
most importantly was given command of the Macedonian left wing at
the battle of Chaeronea, where he broke the Theban line.
• Although Philip remarried and Olympias, Alexander’s mother, fell from
favour, there is no suggestion that Alexander himself was ever
supplanted as successor before his father’s assassination, despite the
brawl at the wedding to Cleopatra.
• Philip had even prepared for the invasion of Persia, bequeathing his
son the mission of his life.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality of the argument is more
important than the number of tactics provided.
Candidates are not required to respond to each bullet discreetly. They
may, for example, combine aspects of bullets 2 and 3 in their discussion
of the relationship between Alexander and Olympias.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 5 of 16
Topic B – Augustus
Question One
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific
detail might be:
Although all points might not be this well developed, an
example of supporting evidence that is specific and
detailed might be:
The importance of the revolt at Perusia and the
Treaty of Brundisium on the development of the
relationship between members of the triumvirate.
Eg, the revolt at Perusia.
After the battle of Philippi and the defeat of
Caesar’s assassins, Octavian returned to Rome
with the task of settling veteran soldiers. Antony’s
brother, Lucius Antonius, took the side of farmers
who lost their land in these settlements and
encouraged resistance. Levels of violence
increased until open warfare broke out. Lucius
raised legions but they were untrained and so he
withdrew north to Perusia. Octavian blockaded the
town and Perusia was starved into submission. In
the end, Octavian benefited from the revolt as
Antony’s legates in Gaul abandoned their
provinces, which Octavian acquired.
The importance of the revolt at Perusia and the Treaty
of Brundisium on the development of the relationship
between members of the triumvirate.
Eg, the revolt at Perusia.
After the battle of Philippi and the defeat of Caesar’s
assassins, Octavian returned to Rome with the task of
settling some 100 000 veteran soldiers. Brutal
evictions followed, which harmed Octavian’s
reputation. Antony’s brother, Lucius Antonius,
supported by Antony’s ambitious wife, Fulvia, took the
side of the dispossessed farmers who lost their land in
these settlements and encouraged armed resistance.
The level of violence increased until open warfare
broke out. Lucius, who was consul in 42, raised eight
legions but they were untrained and so he withdrew
north to Perusia. Octavian recalled legions from Spain
and blockaded the town, which was at last starved into
submission. Suetonius records that Octavian spared
Lucius, but ruthlessly executed his enemies.
Ultimately, Octavian benefited from the revolt as
Antony’s legates in Gaul abandoned their provinces,
which Octavian acquired soon after. This, coupled with
the death of another legate in Gallia Comata and the
exchange of Spain for Africa with Lepidus, meant that
Octavian was effectively in control of the west (apart
from Sicily, which was under the control of Sextus
Pompeius). However, the whole episode strained
relations with Mark Antony, who returned to Italy in 40
BCE etc.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the
question might include:
The importance of the revolt at Perusia and the Treaty
of Brundisium on the development of the relationship
between members of the triumvirate.
• Octavian attempts to gain clients and increase his
prestige by settling veterans, but arouses widespread
discontent among dispossessed farmers.
• L. Antonius, supported by Fulvia (Antony’s wife),
raises legions to support opposition to Octavian’s
arrangements.
• Octavian successfully besieges Perusia and executes
opponents, gaining a reputation for ruthlessness.
• Antony’s legates in Gaul go over to Octavian.
• Antony decides to return to the west but is blocked at
Brundisium; tension between the two most powerful
triumvirs increases.
• Maecenas and Pollio negotiate a ‘truce’: Octavian and
Mark Antony are reconciled (the Treaty of
Brundisium).
• Lepidus becomes a minor player; Octavian ends up in
control of the west and Antony, the east.
• Antony marries Octavia, Octavian’s sister, to bond the
relationship.
Other aspects may also be covered. The analytical
quality of the argument is more important than the
number of points made.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 6 of 16
Question Two
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific
detail might be:
Although all points might not be this well developed, an
example of supporting evidence that is specific and
detailed might be:
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the
question might include:
The career of Tiberius under the rule of Augustus.
• Tiberius’ civil career is launched when he is honoured
(at 17) by Augustus with the right of standing for
public office five years before the official age.
The career of Tiberius under the rule of Augustus.
Tiberius was Augustus’ stepson, the son of his
wife, Livia. This status made him an important
player in dynastic alliances. Tiberius was initially
married to the daughter of Agrippa, who was
Augustus’ leading general in the first years of the
Principate, and he commanded with some success
in Germany. The death of Agrippa in 12 BCE
changed his circumstances. He was forced to
marry Julia, Augustus’ daughter (and previously
Agrippa’s wife), to act as a guardian to her sons,
Gaius and Lucius. It was not a happy marriage and
because of family tensions, Tiberius left public life
and ‘retired’ to Rhodes. After the death of Gaius
and Lucius, Tiberius came back to Rome and was
adopted by Augustus as his son.
Tiberius was Augustus’ stepson, the son of his wife,
Livia. This status made him an important player in
dynastic alliances. He was initially married to Marcus
Agrippa’s daughter, Vipsania, in order to cement the
relationship between the princeps and his leading
general. When Marcus Agrippa died in 12BCE Tiberius
became Augustus’ son-in-law (as well as his stepson)
as a result of being forced to divorce Vipsania and
marry Augustus’ only daughter, Julia (now a widow).
However, far from increasing Tiberius’ influence, this
new marriage led to family tensions. Tiberius felt
overshadowed as guardian of Gaius and Lucius
(promoted by Augustus as successors) and his new
wife’s attentions turned to other men (according to
Suetonius she “indulged in every vice”). In the end,
Tiberius opted out, retiring to the island of Rhodes. His
circumstances again changed, when Julia was
banished for her immorality and Lucius and Gaius died
prematurely. Etc.
Tiberius also had a successful civil and military career.
He was permitted to stand for public office in advance
of the age required by law and ‘worked’ for the regime
as a young man. In the 20s BCE, he was involved in
the diplomatic manoeuvrings that saw the recovery of
the legionary standards lost by Crassus and Antony
from the Parthians and he also spent a considerable
time first in Gaul and then in Germany commanding
legions in support of Augustus’ northern frontier policy.
Achievement with Excellence
The career of Tiberius under the rule of Augustus.
• His military career begins successfully as he marches
into Armenia in 21 BCE and installs Tigranes as king
in support of Augustus’ Parthian ‘solution’.
• Tiberius marries Vipsania, daughter of Agrippa,
Augustus’ most powerful supporter and old friend.
• He campaigns in Gaul and Germany (with his brother,
Drusus) in support of the regime’s northern frontier
policy.
• Marriage to Julia results in personal crisis and political
marginalisation: poor relations with his step-sons and
his unhappiness with the promiscuity of Julia lead to
retirement to Rhodes.
• Tiberius returns to Rome and is adopted as Augustus’
son.
• He suppresses the Pannonian revolt and responds to
the Varian disaster.
• Shortly before Augustus’ death Tiberius is recognised
as successor and granted extended tribunician power.
Other points may be made. Candidates may choose to
focus on either dynastic issues or Tiberius’ public
career, but both aspects should receive some coverage.
They may be discussed chronologically or thematically.
The analytical quality of the argument is more important
than the amount of factual detail provided.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 7 of 16
Question Three
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific
detail might be:
The significance of the re-establishment of traditional
religious offices and practices in creating a new
‘golden age’.
The long period of civil wars at the end of the
Republic had produced a feeling that the gods were
angry with the Roman people for abandoning
traditional religious practices. Augustus used this
general feeling to promote his own reforms. He
repaired a large number of temples, revived priestly
colleges and celebrated old forgotten festivals.
Moreover, Augustus linked himself to traditional
religion by holding priesthoods and eventually
becoming pontifex maximus. As a result, religion and
political power became intimately related. Rome won
back pax deorum, and a new golden age under
Augustus came about.
Achievement with Merit
Although all points might not be this well developed,
an example of supporting evidence that is specific
and detailed might be:
The significance of the re-establishment of
traditional religious offices and practices in creating
a new ‘golden age’.
The long period of civil wars at the end of the
Republic had produced a feeling that the gods were
angry with the Roman people for abandoning
traditional religious practices. Temples had fallen
into disrepair, and some priesthoods remained
vacant. Augustus used this general feeling of
religious disquiet to promote his own Augustan
peace, founded on the pax deorum. In his Res
Gestae he boasts of repairing 82 temples and
reviving obsolescent cult fraternities such as the
Arval Brotherhood. He even managed to find a
patrician willing to fill the role of flamen dialis, a post
that had been vacant for half a century. Moreover,
Augustus linked himself to traditional religion by
holding every major priesthood and eventually
becoming pontifex maximus. As a result, religion
and political power became intimately related. Rome
won back pax deorum (reformulated as pax Augusta
when necessary) and a golden age under Augustus
came about. This new age of peace and prosperity
was celebrated by the staging of a special
thanksgiving ceremony in 17 BCE, the Ludi
Saeculares.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the
question might include:
The significance of the re-establishment of traditional
religious offices and practices in creating a new ‘golden
age’
• Civil war is linked in the popular imagination to
neglect of traditional worship: Horace’s “tumbling
shrines and stained images”.
• For political reasons, and possibly with religious
conviction, Augustus links pax deorum and Rome’s
prosperity to his regime’s religious reforms.
• Augustus restores temples, revives priesthoods, and
celebrates ancient ceremonies, such as the Augury of
Safety.
• He suppresses alien cults such as Druidism and
places restrictions on eastern cult practices (banning
worship of Isis and Serapis within the sacred
boundary of Rome).
• He revives the cult of the Lares, links it to worship of
the Genius of Augustus and involves freedmen as
priests.
• Augustus’ holds every major priesthood, including
pontifex maximus, enhancing his own political power.
• The Ludi Saeculares are celebrated in 17BCE to
recognise the new golden age, made possible by the
princeps.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality of the
argument is more important than the number of reasons
listed.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 8 of 16
Topic C – Socrates
Question One
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence
that lack specific detail might be:
The series of questions that
Socrates puts to Euthyphro, in
Plato’s Euthyphro, and their
purpose.
Socrates asks Euthyphro, who has
the reputation of being an expert on
religion, a number of questions
about the nature of holiness. His first
question – “what is holiness?” – is
answered by an example. Euthyphro
says his prosecution of his own
father is a holy act. Socrates tells
Euthyphro this is not helpful and that
he needs to provide a general
definition. The rest of the dialogue is
devoted to a series of questions
about this general definition. They all
involve making the gods the
deciding factor in holiness. Socrates
always finds flaws in Euthyphro’s
answers and follows up with another
question. For example, “what if the
gods are not in agreement?”.
Socrates asks these questions
because he wants to know what
holiness is. Since the visit of his
friend to the Delphic Oracle, he has
spent his life asking questions, trying
to find out why the god said he was
the wisest of men. Now that he is
about to go to trial on a charge for
being impious, these questions are
very important for him.
Achievement with Merit
Achievement with Excellence
Although all points might not be this well
developed, an example of supporting evidence
that is specific and detailed might be:
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
The series of questions that Socrates puts to
Euthyphro, in Plato’s Euthyphro, and their
purpose.
• Socrates’ first question is very open: “what do you say piety and impiety are?”.
Socrates’ questions to Euthyphro are all
directed at finding a valid definition of holiness.
Socrates at first offers little specific direction to
his interlocutor, asking simply “what do you say
piety and impiety are?”. However, he at once
finds that Euthyphro is a conventional thinker,
who instinctively exemplifies, rather than
abstracts. He therefore refines his question to
ask not for one or two examples of holiness,
but for “that special feature through which all
holy things are holy”. Although Euthyphro does
manage to come up with a universal definition
– “what is agreeable to the gods is holy, and
what is not agreeable is unholy” – disputes
among the gods make it flawed. Socrates
starts to lead the discussion and asks
Euthyphro whether or not a “correction” should
be made to the definition to the effect that
“what all the gods disapprove of is unholy,
what all approve of is holy.” Et cetera.
Socrates asks Euthyphro these questions
because he is about to be tried on a charge of
impiety and seeks – though with heavy
Socratic eironeia – enlightenment from “an
authority in such matters”. In a philosophical
context, the questions illustrate Socratic
method. Socrates seeks to understand the
nature of moral qualities by asking an
interlocutor for definitions. Et cetera.
The series of questions that Socrates puts to Euthyphro, in Plato’s Euthyphro,
and their purpose.
• Finding Euthyphro’s examples of holy things unhelpful, he then refines his
question to ask what “single standard” defines a holy thing (“that special
feature”).
• When Euthyphro’s first non-specific definition (approval of the gods) proves
problematic, Socrates asks whether or not the definition should be amended to
one involving divine consensus: “what about this correction?”
• A complicated series of questions follows, designed to prove that the holy gets
divine approval because it is holy, not that the gods’ approval makes it holy.
• Socrates’ next question is based on the premise that all that is holy is just. He
asks Euthyphro to tell him “the precise kind of division of the just that is holy”.
• Questions then focus on clarifying the meaning of Euthyphro’s suggestion that
holiness involves “looking after the gods”.
• The discussion comes to a halt when Socrates asks Euthyphro one last
question: “ ... don’t you realise our account ... has arrived back at the same
place”. ie the disproved definition of divine approval.
• The purpose of these questions is to lead an interlocutor, through eironeia and
inductive reasoning, to see the flaws in his thinking.
• At a more profound level, Socrates wishes to encourage his fellow citizens to
lead an “examined life” and to make sure they “set their thoughts on
goodness”, rather than “trivialities”.
• This questioning springs from Socrates’ divine mission: his determination to
understand the words of the Delphic Oracle, his commitment to seeking the
truth and his rejection of uncritical acceptance of conventional values / ideas.
• In a non-philosophical context, the questions are also linked to Socrates’
upcoming trial on a charge of impiety.
Other points may be made and examples given. The analytical quality of the
argument is more important than the amount of quotation.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 9 of 16
Question Two
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence that lack
specific detail might be:
The ways in which Socrates’ defence
(against the two charges he faces) might
be considered annoying and / or
confrontational.
Socrates makes little effort to win the
favour of the court. He makes negative
comments about how trials are conducted
– at one point saying the jurors’ behaviour
is often no better than that of women, who
are moved by weeping and children. When
he answers the charges, he spends much
of his time attacking Meletus, accusing him
of being insolent and twisting what he says.
He comes across as arrogant, describing
himself as the best thing that had ever
happened to the city. He is on trial for
having a destructive influence on society by
introducing new gods and corrupting the
young, but he proudly tells the jurors that
they need him, as a ‘lazy horse’ needs a
stinging fly. And in a city, which took great
pride in its democratic government, he says
true champions of justice cannot survive.
Achievement with Merit
Although all points might not be this well
developed, an example of supporting evidence
that is specific and detailed might be:
The ways in which Socrates’ defence (against the
two charges he faces) might be considered
annoying and / or confrontational.
Socrates is openly critical of the way in which the
courts of Athens operate. On several occasions
he makes reference to the limited time he has
available to make his defence, although he is
facing the death penalty. He refuses to defend
himself ‘as expected’: he will not use “flowery
language”; he will not make “pitiful appeals ... with
floods of tears”; he will not bring his children into
court to arouse sympathy, even though he
acknowledges this may irritate some jurors and
harden them against him. When he responds to
the charges, he makes no attempt to be humble:
gods were not called to give testimony in support
of the accused, but Socrates makes great play of
having the endorsement of his god Apollo, at a
time when the Delphic Oracle – for political
reasons linked to the Peloponnesian War – was
out of favour. He knows very well that his divine
quest has aroused “a great deal of hostility” in the
city and that his exposure of prominent Athenians
is seen as corrupting of the young, but he makes
his very ‘crime’ heroic: he compares his revelation
of the ignorance of the so-called wise to Heracles’
“cycle of labours” fought against legendary
monsters.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might
include:
The ways in which Socrates’ defence (against the two charges he
faces) might be considered annoying and / or confrontational.
• Socrates is disparaging about the way in which the Athenian
courts operate: he says he will not use “flowery language” or make
“pitiful appeals” or bring his children into court.
• He calls as a witness to his wisdom “the god at Delphi”: Apollo was
out of favour in 399 BCE and as Socrates himself admits, calling
on a god as a witness was “an extravagant claim”.
• He asks the court to see his revelation of the ignorance of
prominent Athenians as “a cycle of labours”, giving what many saw
as the behaviour of “a pestilential busybody” Herculean status.
• He defends himself against the charge of corrupting the young and
inventing gods by belittling Meletus, ridiculing the man and his
motivation, rather than addressing the charges. His clever rebuttal
of the charge of religious heterodoxy is especially manipulative.
• He admits that, if acquitted with the proviso that he abandon his
philosophic quest, he would disobey the court, “owing a greater
obedience to God”.
• He tells the court that “no greater good has ever befallen Athens”
than his divine quest: he is the “stinging fly” the “lazy” city needs,
“a gift from God”.
• He claims that the jurors will harm themselves more than him by
putting him to death unjustly.
• He justifies his avoidance of public service by claiming to have his
own personal divine voice. It tells him that champions of justice
cannot survive in politics in a city that prided itself on the active
participation of all male citizens.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality of the argument is
more important than the number of reasons listed.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 10 of 16
Question Three
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Examples of supporting evidence
that lack specific detail might be:
Although all points might not be this well
developed, an example of supporting evidence
that is specific and detailed might be:
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
The ideas about death, and life after death,
expressed by Socrates in the works of Plato
that you have studied.
In the Apology, Socrates says that:
The ideas about death, and life
after death, expressed by
Socrates in the works of Plato
that you have studied.
Socrates never expresses any
fear about death, and will not
abandon the beliefs that he has
held true all his life, just to avoid
drinking hemlock. At his trial he
says that death is an unknown
and it is not wise to fear
something that is unknown.
Death may in fact be a positive.
His soul may head to another
world where he will meet good
people. Once he is dead, he will
also be free of his body and no
longer led astray by bodily
pleasures such as food and sex.
True philosophers are always
preparing for death and Socrates
considers himself a true
philosopher. After escaping the
body, in a new pure state, he will
be able to find the true knowledge
that he has sought all his life.
In the Apology, Socrates tells the court that he
will not compromise his principles to win a notguilty verdict: leading a just life is what
matters, not just living. Achilles gave no
thought to death as he set out to kill Hector
and Socrates will remain at his philosophic
“post”, in obedience to his god, even if it costs
him his life. In addition, he believes that
fearing death is “another form of thinking that
one is wise when one is not”: no one knows
what death is – it may be “the greatest
blessing that can happen to a man”. In
Phaedo, Socrates is confident that he will be
rewarded in the next life by entering into a
better world, but at his trial he raises two
possibilities: the first involves “a dreamless
sleep” whereby the soul is effectively
annihilated; the second and more attractive
prospect involves removal of the soul “to some
other place”. In this next world, Socrates would
be beyond the reach of the Athenian court and
enjoy “a wonderful personal experience” in the
presence of great heroes and poets of the past
– an “unimaginable happiness”.
Etc, on Crito and / or Phaedo. Comprehensive
discussion of all three dialogues should not be
expected, but reference should be made to
more than one dialogue.
Achievement with Excellence
The ideas about death, and life after death, expressed by Socrates in the works of
Plato that you have studied.
• the prospect of death is a less important consideration than acting “justly”
• fearing death is “another form of thinking that one is wise when one is not” – no
one know what death is, it may be “the greatest blessing that can happen to a
man”
• death involves either total “annihilation” of the individual soul / “a dreamless
sleep” or “migration of the soul from this place to another”
• if there is another world, his soul will find other great souls to commune with
• nothing can harm a good man, whether he is alive or dead.
In Crito, Socrates says that:
• what really matters is not avoiding death but living “honourably and justly”; this
protects the soul which is our most precious part
• there are no circumstances, even the prospect of death, in which one must
“return injustice when one is wronged”
• obedience is due to the Laws, who are more sacred than parents, even if they
believe it is just to execute him, unless he persuades them otherwise
• the laws of Hades will not receive him “with a kindly welcome”, if he becomes a
law-breaker and acts dishonourably.
In Phaedo, Socrates says that:
• men are “possessions” of the gods and must avoid suicide even when death is
preferable to life
• he is not distressed by his imminent death because he expects to enter the
company of “other wise and good gods ... and men ... better than those ... in this
world”
• the true philosopher “makes dying his profession” because death frees the soul
from the body and its demands, allowing it to attain true wisdom.
Comprehensive discussion of all three dialogues should not be expected, but two
should be covered in some depth. Other points may be made. The analytical
quality of the argument is more important than the number of reasons listed.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 11 of 16
Topic D – Greek Science
Question One
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence that lack
specific detail might be:
How the atomic theory supported Epicurus’
philosophical aim of ataraxia.
Epicurus’ philosophical aim was ataraxia –
freedom from fear. The Atomic theory basically
gives natural explanations for natural
occurrences. These explanations are based on
regular movements of atoms; when atoms do
deviate, the movement is random and is not
controlled by the gods. When Epicurus applied
this theory to his philosophy it meant that since
the gods are not controlling the movement of
atoms, humans have nothing to fear from any
divine interference in their lives.
Achievement with Merit
Although all points might not be this well
developed, an example of supporting evidence
that is specific and detailed might be:
How the atomic theory supported Epicurus’
philosophical aim of ataraxia.
The Atomic theory provides an explanation of
the universe which removes the power that the
gods have over humans by claiming that the
universe was created from atoms that move
through the cosmos in parallel lines at a
constant speed and that, at random times, an
atom swerves randomly and ‘the atoms rebound
in different directions’ (Lucretius). From this
chain reaction, objects are created and
destroyed. This physical theory was adopted by
Epicurus because he wanted to remove the fear
of the gods from the lives of humans. The
atomic theory did exactly that, by removing the
gods from the creative and motive power of the
cosmos, and giving that power to the natural
force of atoms. Since atoms move of their own
accord, there is no reason for man to fear them.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might
include:
How the atomic theory supported Epicurus’ philosophical aim of
ataraxia.
• The age of Epicurus was one of disillusionment and fear. The
old Greek world of independent city-states had gone, and with it
the old religion that had assigned a divine protector to each city.
• Individuals lost their sense of security on both counts, and new
philosophies were emerging to give the people back what they
had lost.
• For Epicurus, the ideal to be striven for was ataraxia, a state of
total freedom from anxiety. He was particularly concerned to
release man from the fear of the gods and of punishment after
death, and it was to this end that he adopted the atomic theory.
• He sought to free man from the fear of the gods, by proposing
natural explanations for natural phenomena, so denying that
the gods have any interest in, or influence upon the affairs of
men.
• The atomic theory does this because it ascribes the motive and
creative power of the cosmos to atoms which move according
to their nature (downward, at a constant speed and in parallel
lines) and from time to time by random ‘swerve’. Because the
atoms do not act out of a sense of retribution, there is nothing
for humans to fear.
• He sought to free men from fear of punishment after death by
teaching that the soul being made up of atoms (just as the body
was) died when the body died; the ‘soul atoms’ simply
dissipated and re-joined other soul atoms. An individual’s soul
therefore had no permanent existence after death, and hence
could not be punished.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality of the argument
is more important than the number of points listed.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 12 of 16
Question Two
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence that
lack specific detail might be:
The skills and personal qualities that were
required by surgeons in the ancient world.
Just like today surgeons in the ancient
world had to be highly educated. They
had to know about the anatomy of the
people that they were operating on and
they had to know how to do things like
sew up wounds and set broken limbs.
One specific skill that surgeons in the
ancient world were required to have,
according to Celsus, was the ability to
use their left hand as well as their right,
because sometimes it was difficult to get
to different internal organs. Also
according to Celsus, they had to feel pity
for their patients.
Achievement with Merit
Although all points might not be this well
developed, an example of supporting
evidence that is specific and detailed might
be:
The skills and personal qualities that were
required by ancient surgeon.
Celsus sets out a number of qualities for a
surgeon: they should be young, have a
nimble but firm hand that does not shake and
be able to use their left and right hands
equally well. This is so that they can get to
different internal parts of the body while they
operate. They must also have good eyesight,
because they are often required to look at
very small veins, arteries and nerves. Celsus
tells us that they must have certain personal
qualities too, including courage because they
must be prepared to cut at the right speed
and to the right extent, even if the patient is
screaming.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might include:
The skills and personal qualities that were required by ancient surgeon.
• No particular education or training was specifically required for a
surgeon. Indeed, there was no board or group, which regulated medical
practice in any way; a surgeon gained and maintained his reputation by
word of mouth.
• Knowledge of anatomy is clearly critical for surgeons who operate
internally or act to set broken bones. The best training for this was study
at Alexandria, where the resources of the library and practical
experimentation gave surgeons both knowledge and training in specific
skills.
st
• Celsus, writing in the 1 century CE, outlines the specific skills and
qualities needed by a surgeon. It should be noted that this branch of
medicine was seen as a specialist branch. Evidence for this comes from
part of the Hippocratic Oath (voluntarily taken by general physicians),
which specifically entreats the oath taker ‘not to cut’ and to stand aside in
favour of men ‘who specialise in this craft’.
• Youth and agility are the first two requirements that Celsus sets out, to
which he adds, perhaps not surprisingly, a hand that does not tremble.
• Celsus also recognises that the conditions under which surgeons often
operate means that they should have keen and clear eyesight, given the
relatively poor light and small detailed work on internal organs required.
• Above all else, as a personal quality, dauntless courage is a requirement
for surgeons, but courage matched with a degree of sympathy for human
suffering.
• Celsus explains that a surgeon must feel pity ‘to the extent of wanting to
cure’ the patient, but not to be induced to work faster or cut less than is
necessary.
• This also tells us that surgeons typically worked without anaesthetic.
Opiates were known in antiquity, but an inability to regulate their precise
impact meant that surgeons often preferred to use neither anaesthetic
nor analgesic until after the operation.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality of the argument is more
important than the number of points listed.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 13 of 16
Question Three
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence that
lack specific detail might be:
How Socrates used his own teaching
methods and geometry to explain the
relationship between length and area.
Socrates asks a slave to work out the
area of a square, the sides of which are
2 units. He draws in the squares along
this line and the slave correctly replies
that the area is 4 square units. Socrates
then asks the slave what the length of
side of a square that has an area
double the area of the original figure (ie,
an area of 8 square units) will be. The
slave incorrectly guesses a line 4 units
long. Socrates proves that this is wrong.
The slave then guesses 3 units, which
is also wrong. Then, Socrates divides
the square diagonally and shows the
slave the correct answer, which is the
square on the diagonal.
Achievement with Merit
Although all points might not be this well
developed, an example of supporting evidence
that is specific and detailed might be:
How Socrates used his own teaching methods
and geometry to explain the relationship between
length and area.
Socrates shows a slave how the length of a line
and the square, which can be drawn on that line
are related, but not in the way expected. Socrates
begins by drawing a line, which is 2 units long and
then drawing a square on that line, proving that it
has an area of 4 square units. He then asks the
slave how long a line that is the base of a square
will be, when the area of the square is double the
original, ie 8 square units. The slave immediately
answers a length of 4 units. Socrates proves that
this is wrong by drawing the figure and indicating
that 16 square units is the area measurement.
The slave then guesses 3 units (mid way between
2 and 4), but is again shown to be wrong.
Socrates then draws diagonal lines from corner to
corner in the original square of 4 square units and
asks the slave for the area, which he declares to
be 2 square units. Socrates then repeats this
process three further times with adjacent squares
in order to show that the square on the diagonal of
the original lines provides a square, the area of
which is double the original figure.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the question might
include:
How Socrates used his own teaching methods and geometry to explain
the relationship between length and area.
• Socrates is seeking to prove that mathematical and geometric
knowledge is something innate for humans and that it can be
extracted from even the dimmest human – a slave – by means of
careful questioning. In short, this is an illustration of the Socratic
method.
• Having established that doubling the length of a line increases its area
exponentially – ie the length of the base of a square with area 4
square units is 2 units; by doubling the length of the base to 4 units,
the area of the square does not double, but is quadrupled.
• Socrates gives the slave a chance to guess two wrong answers (4
and 3) for the length of a side, at which point the slave admits defeat.
• Socrates then takes the slave through a series of questions which
draw out the answer from him.
• Socrates sets next to each other four squares each with an area of 4
square units. He then divides the original square in half by dividing it
from corner to corner with a diagonal line and repeats this in the three
remaining squares. He then asks the slave whether he has a figure
with 4 equal sides; the slave agrees and announces that it is a
square.
• Socrates then has the slave count the area on the inside of the
diagonal of each of the four squares. And the slave declares each to
be 2 and that there are 4 of them, making a total area of 8 square
units, the desired answer.
• Socrates then draws out from the slave the general principle that the
square on the diagonal is twice the area of the original. Socrates calls
the diagonal the ‘diameter’, a term used by the sophists.
• Socrates concludes by pointing out to the slave’s owner that what the
slave did was ‘inside him’, and that Socrates had not told him
anything, merely drawn out the answers by intelligent questioning.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality of the argument is
more important than the number of points listed.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 14 of 16
Topic E – Roman Religion
Question One
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific
detail might be:
The ways an animal sacrifice might go wrong and
precautions taken not to offend the gods.
The selection of the sacrifice had to be appropriate
to the god or goddess whose favour was sought.
Male animals were sacrificed to male deities and
female to female; pure white animals were selected
for gods of the upper air and pure black to those of
the underworld. After the appropriate sacrifice had
been determined, an animal was purchased. The
animal, once decorated with garlands, was led
through the streets to the temple. It was regarded
as a good sign if it went willingly. If it struggled, or
worse still broke free, the procedure would have to
be repeated. The time of the kill was a tense
moment as a half-killed beast or one that ran away
could ruin the sacrifice.
Achievement with Merit
Although all points might not be this well developed, an
example of supporting evidence that is specific and
detailed might be:
The ways an animal sacrifice might go wrong and
precautions taken not to offend the gods.
A sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow followed strict rules. The
selection of the sacrifice had to be appropriate to the god
or goddess whose favour was sought. Male animals were
sacrificed to male deities and female to female; pure white
animals were selected for gods of the upper air and pure
black to those of the Underworld. In Virgil’s Aeneid,
Aeneas sacrifices black victims before descending into
Hades. After the appropriate sacrifice had been
determined, an animal was purchased. To ensure the
vitality of the gods was increased, the animal had to be
healthy and vigorous. Deformity was seen as an insult to
the gods. The animal, once decorated with garlands, was
led through the streets to the temple. It was regarded as a
good sign if it went willingly. If it struggled, or worse still
broke free, then the animal was not auspicious and the
procedure would have to be repeated. Precautions would
also have to be taken to exclude foreigners and women.
Cleanliness was essential; Livy tells the story of the
Sabine who was cheated out of sacrificing a wonderful
cow to Diana by a temple attendant who had told him to
ritually cleanse himself first. The time of the kill was a
tense moment as a half-killed beast, or one that ran away,
could ruin the sacrifice. Any slip in procedure meant the
entire ritual had to be repeated. In Virgil’s Aeneid, a
sacrifice made by Dido where the holy water turned black
and wine turned into blood gives an appreciation of how
badly things could go wrong.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the
question might include:
The ways an animal sacrifice might go wrong and
precautions taken not to offend the gods.
• The sacrificial beast had to be appropriate for the
deity in gender and colour.
• The victim needed to be healthy to revitalise the
deity and attractively presented.
• Unsuitable spectators, who contaminated the
ceremony, needed to be excluded.
• The animal had to go willingly to death.
• Extraneous noise had to be drowned out by music.
• Incompetence on the part of the priest (eg, in
reciting the prayer) and / or sacrificial attendants
(eg, the cultrarius in killing the victim) might
invalidate the sacrifice.
• The entrails of the sacrificial beast might be
defective and portend divine anger.
• Expiation ceremonies might be required to correct
an identified procedural error.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality of
the argument is more important than the number of
reasons listed.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 15 of 16
Question Two
Achievement
Examples of supporting evidence that lack specific
detail might be:
The role played by women in Roman religion – Vestal
Virgins.
The goddess of the hearth Vesta was represented by
an eternal flame, which in the home was traditionally
tended by a daughter of the household. The Temple
of Vesta in the Forum and its flame represented the
continuity of the community. The sacred flame was
traditionally tended by women of the community as
priestesses of Vesta. Six girls between the ages of 6
and 10 were chosen from leading families to serve as
Vestal Virgins for a period of 30 years. They had to
maintain a vow of chastity. While the lives of Vestals
were severely regulated they were in fact some of the
most liberated women in Rome, with many special
privileges.
Achievement with Merit
Although all points might not be this well developed, an
example of supporting evidence that is specific and
detailed might be:
The role played by women in Roman religion – Vestal
Virgins.
The goddess of the hearth Vesta was represented by
an eternal flame, which in the home was traditionally
tended by a daughter of the household. It represented
continuity of the family and its extinction was a serious
matter. The Temple of Vesta in the Forum and its
external flame represented the continuity of the
community. The sacred flame was traditionally tended
by women of the community as priestesses of Vesta.
Six girls between the ages of 6 and 10 were chosen
from leading families to serve as Vestal Virgins for a
period of 30 years. They had to maintain a vow of
chastity, for virginity did not necessarily mean sterility to
the Romans; it seems to have been viewed instead as
stored up fertility. The primary importance of
maintaining the hearth and its fire was demonstrated
after the Battle of Cannae when Hannibal inflicted one
of the worst defeats on ancient Rome in its history. As
Livy reported, the Vestals came under suspicion of
misconduct contributing to the disaster. While the lives
of Vestals were severely regulated they were in fact
some of the most emancipated women in Rome. They
were free of the power of their paterfamilias and while
they could not inherit from their family (technically no
longer one of them), a Vestal had the right to make a
will. Vestals were also the only women who were
allowed the right to drive a two-wheeled carriage
through the streets and were proceeded by a lictor to
clear the way before them. They were also provided
with reserved seats on the Imperial podium at games,
close to the action, while other Roman women were
restricted to the top tiers.
Achievement with Excellence
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the
question might include:
The role played by women in Roman religion –
Vestal Virgins.
• Vesta was worshipped in the home and in the
Forum, linking in a unique way public and private
religion: her sacred flame represented the
continuity of both community and family.
• The ritual programme of Vesta’s priestesses is
better known than other priesthoods – reflecting
the cult’s importance and very early origin.
• Six Vestal Virgins had the critical role of serving
the goddess over 30 years. They began service at
10, were of aristocratic birth and lived in the House
of the Vestals.
• Severe punishments were imposed for letting the
flame out (whipping) and loss of virginity (buried
alive).
• Vestals prepared mola salsa, collected holy water
and took part in the goddess’ ceremonies /
festivals.
• Although an honour, at various times there were
difficulties in attracting candidates as Vestals.
• Despite strict regulations associated with service,
a number of privileges were also granted, not
shared by other Roman women.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality of
the argument is more important than the number of
reasons listed.
NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 16 of 16
Question Three
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Achievement with Excellence
Examples of supporting evidence that lack
specific detail might be:
Although all points might not be this well developed, an example
of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed might be:
An example of in-depth discussion of a part of the
question might include:
How the Roman state reacted to Christianity
and to Judaism under the Empire.
How the Roman state reacted to Christianity and to Judaism
under the Empire.
How the Roman state reacted to Christianity and to
Judaism under the Empire.
Eg, Judaism
Eg, Judaism
Eg, Judaism
The Romans were generally tolerant of foreign
religions and tended to accept the gods of the
peoples they ruled over. However, a
monotheistic religion like Judaism could not
accommodate Roman religious practice
because it allowed the worship of only one
god and it had a very strict moral code.
Followers of the traditional gods thought that
refusing to honour Jupiter or the Emperor
threatened peace with the gods and that
dreadful punishments might result. They also
found the code of behaviour required by
Judaism, for example the Sabbath,
troublesome. However, the Roman
government was generally prepared to leave
the Jews alone unless they caused trouble,
like the great revolts that ended in the
destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The Romans were generally tolerant of foreign religions and
tended to accept the gods of the peoples they ruled over.
However, a monotheistic religion like Judaism could not
accommodate Roman religious practice because it allowed the
worship of only one god and it had a very strict moral code.
Tacitus in his Histories provides a Roman perspective on
Judaism, recording that the Jews allowed no images or statues
to be set up in their temples or cities. For a Roman who
honoured the traditional gods, such conduct jeopardised pax
deorum and threatened the well-being of the community as a
whole. The Jewish Sabbath, religious festivals and dietary laws
were also incompatible with Roman civic life. Jews had to be
given special permission to assemble for worship and pay tax to
the Temple in Jerusalem, and unlike other conquered peoples
they could not serve in the military, as this would be against their
religious laws. Despite these difficulties, the Roman government
was generally prepared to tolerate Judaism, provided the Jews
did not cause civil unrest. Judaea, their homeland, was made a
st
protectorate by Pompey the Great in the 1 century BCE and
became a useful buffer against Parthian influence in the East.
However, in 66 BCE, when the Jews rose up against their rulers,
Roman legions, under the future Emperor, Titus, sacked
Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple and stamped out all
resistance.
• As a monotheistic religion, Judaism was
essentially incompatible with traditional Roman
religion, despite the syncretic character of the
latter.
• Refusal to acknowledge Roman gods and, in
particular deified emperors, threatened pax
deorum for followers of traditional religion.
• Judaism was generally tolerated, out of respect
for its antiquity and sometimes for political
reasons.
• Suppression occurred when civil order was at
risk (eg expulsion from Rome by the emperor
Claudius) or rebellion flared (eg in the 60s CE in
Judaea).
• The Romans did not always discriminate
between Christianity and Judaism, both
monotheistic cults practised in the east of their
empire.
Other points may be made. The analytical quality
of the argument is more important than the number
of reasons listed.
Judgement Statement
Achievement
Achievement with Merit
Achievement with Excellence
A
M
E