For the Tacitus questions, does anyone know what the balance should be between comments on style and technique (polyptoton, anaphara, alliteration, amplification and all that jazz) and actual discussion of context, eg. the nefarious antics of Nero...

Reply 406

Anademeter

Original post by kate_maria

Anybody at all doing Sallust???

Posted from TSR Mobile

I am. I haven't learnt any of it yet so the next few days will be completely full of him.

Reply 407

Bonusbandit

Original post by Anademeter

I am. I haven't learnt any of it yet so the next few days will be completely full of him.

Me too...any predilections?

Reply 408

buddy_glass

2

Original post by KnittyKitty

For the Tacitus questions, does anyone know what the balance should be between comments on style and technique (polyptoton, anaphara, alliteration, amplification and all that jazz) and actual discussion of context, eg. the nefarious antics of Nero...

Well Part a) is essentially content - what is Tacitus saying that makes, for example, Nero come across as evil and twisted? You aren't listing content here, but analysing the text. So you wouldn't include grammatical terms and analyse the language, but you might say "The contrast between the popular fear at the collapse of the theatre at Naples and Nero's own pleasure and belief it was divine providence demonstrates Nero's self-centred nature and lack of concern for the wellbeing of his people, and further evidence that Nero's desire to perform was inhibiting his ability to rule effectively."

Part b) is mostly literary criticism - use of your grammatical terms and complex language analysis. But importantly you are still saying what the language shows, not just listing grammatical features. The question might be 'How does Tacitus use language to show the debauchery of the boat banquet?' So you might say 'Tacitus uses the superlative "celeberrimae" which is qualified by the negative nouns "luxu" and "fama" to paint a lurid and extreme picture of the banquet's immorality'.

The essential difference between part a) and part b) is 'What?' in a) and 'How?' in b)

Reply 409

KnittyKitty

1

Original post by buddy_glass

Well Part a) is essentially content - what is Tacitus saying that makes, for example, Nero come across as evil and twisted? You aren't listing content here, but analysing the text. So you wouldn't include grammatical terms and analyse the language, but you might say "The contrast between the popular fear at the collapse of the theatre at Naples and Nero's own pleasure and belief it was divine providence demonstrates Nero's self-centred nature and lack of concern for the wellbeing of his people, and further evidence that Nero's desire to perform was inhibiting his ability to rule effectively."

Part b) is mostly literary criticism - use of your grammatical terms and complex language analysis. But importantly you are still saying what the language shows, not just listing grammatical features. The question might be 'How does Tacitus use language to show the debauchery of the boat banquet?' So you might say 'Tacitus uses the superlative "celeberrimae" which is qualified by the negative nouns "luxu" and "fama" to paint a lurid and extreme picture of the banquet's immorality'.

The essential difference between part a) and part b) is 'What?' in a) and 'How?' in b)

Oh wow, thank you so much! That's really helpful :smile:

It's worrying me slightly that I had no idea there was a distinction between the two questions until literally just now. Why was I not told this?! Does this mean we should discuss ONLY the context and its implications in Part A, without analysing at all how Tacitus creates this meaning?

Oh well - onwards and upwards, I guess..!

Reply 410

buddy_glass

2

Original post by KnittyKitty

Oh wow, thank you so much! That's really helpful :smile:

It's worrying me slightly that I had no idea there was a distinction between the two questions until literally just now. Why was I not told this?! Does this mean we should discuss ONLY the context and its implications in Part A, without analysing at all how Tacitus creates this meaning?

Oh well - onwards and upwards, I guess..!

My teacher told me that a) was always the content question and b) was always the 'stylistic' question. There is always this difference between the two I believe, but I don't think it necessarily has to be in that order. Either way, my advice is always to read the question, and notice the words 'How?' and 'What?'

In 2013:
How does this passage present Thrasea Paetus' views forcefully?
What impression of Nero is given in the passage?

According to the mark scheme both require a point (in English) and then use of Latin as evidence. However you can see from the questions the different emphasis that is required. If appropriate you might use reference to grammar and linguistic analysis for both, but you are writing about different things: HOW does Tacitus acheive an effect, and then WHAT effect does Tacitus achieve (but you would still include some stylistic points in the latter - you are just writing towards different conclusions). Hope that's helpful

Reply 411

1732757

16

Original post by KnittyKitty

Oh wow, thank you so much! That's really helpful :smile:

It's worrying me slightly that I had no idea there was a distinction between the two questions until literally just now. Why was I not told this?! Does this mean we should discuss ONLY the context and its implications in Part A, without analysing at all how Tacitus creates this meaning?

Oh well - onwards and upwards, I guess..!

Same here...I had no idea the questions were different

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 412

_Fergo

19

Just to clarify: you would be expected to use stylistic points in BOTH questions - not doing so will cap you at a lower band.

The difference is, however, that the stylistic points must refer directly to the content in question A, while they have to show how the argument evolves in question B. The "what" and "how" rule is on point, but that doesn't mean question A shouldn't have stylistic commentary (because, as the content itself, it shapes the whole narration).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 413

platypus1997

2

Original post by small_circles

Same here...I had no idea the questions were different

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yep we were pretty much told this in our last lesson

Reply 414

kate_maria

3

Original post by Anademeter

I am. I haven't learnt any of it yet so the next few days will be completely full of him.

I'm going through it all again. The passages are short so it's not too bad. What are you doing for the stylistic points?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 415

sootyrabbit123

7

Hey,

What is the likelihood that they would repeat a passage that has already come up?
There are so many that haven't come up yet so I thought they would never repeat one, but then they like to surprise us...

:smile:

Reply 416

buddy_glass

2

Original post by sootyrabbit123

Hey,

What is the likelihood that they would repeat a passage that has already come up?
There are so many that haven't come up yet so I thought they would never repeat one, but then they like to surprise us...

:smile:

My teacher thinks it's unlikely that they will repeat things, especially the Paetus speech. She suggested 22, 23, 37, 38 and 44 as passages they may well choose.

Reply 417

sootyrabbit123

7

Original post by buddy_glass

My teacher thinks it's unlikely that they will repeat things, especially the Paetus speech. She suggested 22, 23, 37, 38 and 44 as passages they may well choose.

Thanks!
It would seem silly to repeat a chapter as most people would have used those chapters for mocks, etc.
Fingers crossed it is one of them then...! :smile:

Reply 418

platypus1997

2

Does anyone on this thread do A2 Classical Greek?