Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Roman agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Travel in Classical antiquity wikipedia , lookup
Alpine regiments of the Roman army wikipedia , lookup
Culture of ancient Rome wikipedia , lookup
Roman funerary practices wikipedia , lookup
Glossary of ancient Roman religion wikipedia , lookup
Constitutional reforms of Augustus wikipedia , lookup
History of the Roman Constitution wikipedia , lookup
History of the Constitution of the Roman Empire wikipedia , lookup
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