NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 Assessment Schedule€¦ · Web view2013. 3. 26. · The selection of the sacrifice had to be appropriate to the god or goddess whose

NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 — page 1 of 26

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:

Typical features of an essay at Achievement are as

follows:

The essay answers the question.

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.

Essay writing:

Typical features of an essay at Merit are as follows:

The essay answers the question.

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.

Supporting evidence is directly relevant to the

topic.

The writing style is clear.

Essay writing:

Typical features of an essay at Excellence are as

follows:

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.

The argument or explanation is convincingly

maintained throughout the essay.

A range of supporting evidence is provided that is

directly relevant to the topic.

The writing style is effective and fluent.

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

Content:

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.

Content:

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.


familiarity with primary source material, although

references may not be explicitly acknowledged.

Primary source material is used, although references

may not be well integrated into the argument.


Evidence Statement

Candidates choose ONE question from ONE topic.

Topic A – Alexander the Great

Question One


Examples of supporting evidence that lack

specific detail 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.

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 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

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


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.

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.

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.


Question Two


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.


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 time-

consuming 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

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


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.

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.

Question Three


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




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


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


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.

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.

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.


Topic B – Augustus

Question One



detail 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.

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 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.



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).


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.

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.

Question Two



detail might be:

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,



detailed might be:


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




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.

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.


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.

(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.

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.


Question Three



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.


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



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


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.

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.


argument is more important than the number of

reasons listed.

Topic C – Socrates

Question One


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




be:

The series of questions that Socrates puts to

Euthyphro, in Plato’s Euthyphro, and their

purpose.

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

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?”.

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


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.

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.

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.


Question Two




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,




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


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”.


which took great pride in its democratic

government, he says true champions of

justice cannot survive.

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.

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.


more important than the number of reasons listed.

Question Three


Examples of supporting evidence

that lack specific detail might be:

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




be:

The ideas about death, and life after death,

expressed by Socrates in the works of Plato

that you have studied.

In the Apology, Socrates tells the court that

he will not compromise his principles to win a


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 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”


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.

not-guilty 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

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.


more than one dialogue.

Topic D – Greek Science

Question One




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.




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

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 natural force of atoms. Since atoms move of

their own accord, there is no reason for man to

fear them.

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.


argument is more important than the number of points listed.


Question Two




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.




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.


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.

Celsus, writing in the 1st 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.

Question Three




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




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.


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.


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.

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.

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.



more important than the number of points listed.

Topic E – Roman Religion

Question One



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.

Although all points might not be this well developed, an

example of supporting evidence that is specific and

detailed might be:



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





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.


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.

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.

Question Two



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



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



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.


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.

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.

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.


Question Three




How the Roman state reacted to Christianity

and to Judaism under the Empire.

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.

Although all points might not be this well developed, an

example of supporting evidence that is specific and detailed

might be:

How the Roman state reacted to Christianity and to Judaism

under the Empire.

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.

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



How the Roman state reacted to Christianity and

to Judaism under the Empire.

Eg, Judaism

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


Judaism, provided the Jews did not cause civil unrest. Judaea,

their homeland, was made a protectorate by Pompey the Great

in the 1st 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.

empire.

Other points may be made. The analytical quality

of the argument is more important than the

number of reasons listed.

Judgement Statement


A M E

Documents

NCEA Level 3 Classical Studies (90513) 2012 Assessment Schedule€¦ · Web view2013. 3. 26. · The selection of the sacrifice had to be appropriate to the god or goddess whose