Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing my GCSE Classical Greek Literature papers this year. They are Heredotus - The Battle of Salamis and The Illiad book 6 (parts) But I'm really bad at answering the questions about the texts
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm taking this GCSE too, but am (still) not certain of my texts...what I'd recommend is lots of practise papers, then taking a look at the mark schemes. Also, I find reading up on my Greek Myths is helping a lot
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm taking the GCSE too- got the vocab for the language pretty much down now so just trying to learn the Literature really really well. I'm doing the same texts as you, which questions do you have problems with?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm also doing Classical Greek but different set texts (Lysias and Demosthenes). I've read through the English translation many times, looked at it with the Greek and done an interlinear translation on a copy of the Greek version.

    As I was reading the texts I've been thinking about the style questions, and then the general context questions. For example, our Lysias text is about adultery so I've gone through both mentally and on paper a plan for a question about how Lysias presents women in Athenian society. For style, using the example of Demosthenes, I have planned an answer for how Demosthenes makes this attack scene seem vivid and exciting (:

    So generally I'd look through the whole texts, think of possible themes of questions they might ask and mentally plan answers and the points you'd include, by applying linguistic techniques like dynamic verbs, antithesis etc. to them (:

    On the Lit past papers I've seen, the style questions give a hint about what sort of thing to include which is nice of OCR (:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing the same texts as you, and I'm struggling too. If you have anything to discuss, PM me, it could help both of us

    I think the language papers will be easier than the set books


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnowyGreyWolf)
    I'm also doing Classical Greek but different set texts (Lysias and Demosthenes). I've read through the English translation many times, looked at it with the Greek and done an interlinear translation on a copy of the Greek version.

    As I was reading the texts I've been thinking about the style questions, and then the general context questions. For example, our Lysias text is about adultery so I've gone through both mentally and on paper a plan for a question about how Lysias presents women in Athenian society. For style, using the example of Demosthenes, I have planned an answer for how Demosthenes makes this attack scene seem vivid and exciting (:

    So generally I'd look through the whole texts, think of possible themes of questions they might ask and mentally plan answers and the points you'd include, by applying linguistic techniques like dynamic verbs, antithesis etc. to them (:

    On the Lit past papers I've seen, the style questions give a hint about what sort of thing to include which is nice of OCR (:
    hi, I'm doing lysias and Demosthenes this year, I HAVNT even started learning them yet, but I know what they are about, do yin have any style points or practise papers for them, I can't seem to find anything in the lysias, for example what was your planned answer for how mwoman are presented?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tilly_dichmont)
    hi, I'm doing lysias and Demosthenes this year, I HAVNT even started learning them yet, but I know what they are about, do yin have any style points or practise papers for them, I can't seem to find anything in the lysias, for example what was your planned answer for how mwoman are presented?
    Hello,

    If you're not self-taught, ask your teacher for access to the 2013 paper & a mock that another teacher has composed on the Classics Library (membership of which is confined only to teachers - the paper should be somewhere in the GCSE Classical/Ancient Greek forum/thread).

    Otherwise, I could give you examples of questions that might be asked. I'm taking a group from my school for the literature this year in a sort of revision session, so I can dig out titles I've given them for Lysias and you could have a go. They usually do 1 10 mark answer per fortnight, so here are a few;

    - "How does Lysias portray women in Athenian society?" (10 marks & quotes in English)
    - "How effective is it as a defence case?" (ditto)
    - "Do you like Euphiletos? How convincing is he as a defendant?" (ditto)

    For the first question regarding women, I would have 4 key points of content and back them up with style and context (i.e. civilisation etc.) points, so subservient, inconsequential as individuals, mindless/weak-willed and central to the household (core purpose). I can send you some notes I prepared last year if they'd help - I have some for Demosthenes, too.

    Here are a few questions for Demosthenes if you want to try them (:

    - "How does Demosthenes make the attack scene vivid and exciting?" (10 marks, quotes in Greek)
    - "How effective is it as a prosecution case?" (quotes in English/Greek, 10 marks)
    - "Compare Ariston [prosecuting] and Conon." (6/8 marks, quotes in English/Greek).

    As a general rule, if it is not specified in the question, use Greek quotes for style points but English if you're unsure of the correct Greek.

    Hope it helps & sorry for the very late reply - only just checked! (:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you so much!!!! I've now decided to do just short course (so not the verse ) as we hadn't even began to look at it.. This means I'm now more than ever wanting to do well in prose! I've asked my teacher about a past paper from 2013 but unfortunately she is new to the school this year an hasn't got access to it?

    Thanks for the example questions : unfortunately I'd have nowhere to start! It would be great if yu could send me some notes in them both?!

    Thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi,

    No problem. I'll try to see if I can get one from my old teacher - they're not on general release yet unfortunately (or weren't when we last looked (.

    Sure, no problem. Hope they help! (:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    An Adulterer Apprehended“


    Written by Lysias, a famous speech-writer whose trademark descriptive passages make him an excellent writer for a defence case as precise as Euphiletos needed. This case is a DEFENCE in the Delphinion (homicide court) against the insinuations of Eratosthenes' family, who claim that Euphiletos chronically despised Eratosthenes and pre-planned his murder even before he discovered him committing adultery.


    Characters


    Euphiletos: The defendant. Has business in the country which indicates his profession is some sort of landlord, perhaps presiding over the agriculture on the land he owns, although one cannot be certain – in any case it is something to do with business and finance, which has meant he can afford an Athenian townhouse.Within the last two years or so, he has married, and upon the birth of a son, he has endowed his wife with the responsibility of running the household, with presidency over the servants and expenses. Being depicted by Lysias as an honest, diligent and law-abiding but naive citizen, Euphiletos is initially unwilling to act upon suspicions of his wife's infidelity, but after being accosted by an old woman and verbally torturing his wife's slave-girl, he proceeds to murder Eratosthenes with several witnesses at night-time. He argues that the murder was not pre-meditated since he called on houses where the people turned out to be out, something which, if pre-planned, he would have ascertained beforehand to save time, and he dined at home (rather than out, so as to allow Eratosthenes free entry) with a companion who left for his own house. These are somewhat spurious claims for somebody previously depicted to be so prudent and intelligent, and it is a matter of debate whether his gathering of witnesses was pre-meditation or clear-thinking. In any case, since he caught Eratosthenes in the act, and did not intend to murder him (so Lysias says) before he discovered his outrageous behaviour, it seems legal within Athenian law. His anger towards Eratosthenes exists not only because he watched out for the female household members, corrupted his wife and turned her own mind to corruption, but because he forced her to betray her wifely bond to her husband and responsibility towards caring for his child, and committed this corruption in the home, another insult.


    Euphiletos' wife: After having shown a pure and excellent character by producing a male heir, Euphiletos' wife is given responsibility for the home by her husband. At her mother-in-law's funeral, she was espied by Eratosthenes who then proceeded to seduce her after some persuasion. She allays Euphiletos' suspicions by jovially insinuating his attraction to the slave-girl (which also allows her to bolt the door without being regarded with suspicion) and claiming to be all concern when the light near the baby dies. Her brother had died not long before her mother-in-law, and was thus expected to be in mourning, yet wears white lead (it was considered attractive to be pale) during the night for Eratosthenes. When her husband was engaged commercially in the country on a farm, she visited the temple with Eratosthenes' mother during the Thesmophoria festival – ironically, this festival honoured Demeter and Persephone, both deities connected with the preservation of marriage and fidelity during marriage. This indicates that the two families were socially connected. In order to avoid public embarrassment, the blame is placed by Euphiletos solely on Eratosthenes, and his wife is never given a name, which shows her societal position. Indeed she is not mentioned much at all after the testimony of the slave-girl.


    Eratosthenes: Hailing from the dene (similar to a constituency) of Oea, this man is a notorious adulterer who „has this skill“. He has committed adultery with several other women in Athens, and it is through one of these that his identity becomes known to Euphiletos. In the past there had been some connection between the two, as evidenced by the public showing of Euphiletos' wife and Eratosthenes' mother together which otherwise would have invoked suspicion by the locals, but Euphiletos denies this claim of Eratosthenes' family. He spotted Euphiletos' wife at her husband's mother's funeral, and stalked the slave-girl to accost her and persuade her to facilitate his entries. At the conclusion of this passage, he is discovered with Euphiletos' wife and cowardly begs for financial reparations instead of death, yet he is executed by Euphiletos as the law allows. By mentioning that he had „corrupted...many others“, Lysias clearly portrays this man as an exemplar of the rotting criminal and immoral underworld of Athenian society which the court wished to purge, and by introducing a sense of danger to the remaining married Athenian women who had not then been already corrupted by him, it seems as if Euphiletos has done society a great favour by ridding Athens of this louse.


    Slave-girl: She is an accomplice to the adultery, and seems to be weak-willed. Despite knowing that adultery was illegal in Athens and being bound both socially and financially to Euphiletos (who was still supreme over his wife, despite handing to her control of the house) and religiously to the goddesses of marital fidelity, she bent to the will and persuasion of Eratosthenes and arranged his entries. One night, after Euphiletos had returned fairly late from the farm, she provoked the baby so that it cried, giving Euphiletos' wife an excuse to leave the room and be with Eratosthenes; it was this slave-girl about whom the wife joked. After being accosted by Euphiletos and frightened by his knowledge of the adulterer's identity, she revealed all, preferring to do so and be safe as opposed to protecting her mistress' dark secret and be dispatched to a mill-house and be mentally tortured by her knowledge. Having revealed all she knew, she then proceeds to be a double agent, allowing Eratosthenes entry and then waking Euphiletos up to let him know. Her actions bring about both the crime and the solution.


    Married Athenian woman: Eratosthenes had stopped committing adultery with this woman, and she, perceiving it as an insult, endeavoured to discover why. Her bitterness and desire to exact revenge on Eratosthenes resulted in Euphiletos discovering his identity and presented him with knowledge sufficient to act.


    Old woman: It is through this old woman, sent by Eratosthenes' ex-lover, that Euphiletos became aware of the identity of the man so insulting him and his family. At this moment he also became more convinced of the fact that his wife was committing adultery, with her odd behaviour, painted face and noisy doors filling his mind.


    Sostratus: He is a companion of Euphiletos, who was met by Euphiletos on returning to Athens from the country. Euphiletos somehow knew that there would be no friends or family at Sostratus' house, and so took him home for dinner. After the conclusion of dinner, Sostratus returned home. Lysias presents this as „great proof“ that the murder of Eratosthenes was not pre-meditated, since if it were, Euphiletos should have gone out for dinner so as to allow Eratosthenes unimpeded entry to the house for a trap, or else kept Sostratus behind with him to come and kill Eratosthenes.


    Themes


    Adultery
    Justice
    Justified violence
    Morality vs. immorality
    Trust
    Citizenship


    Style


    Imagery: The torches obtained from the tavern have a significance other than the necessity to be able to find the entrance of Euphiletos' house. They symbolise the antithesis of light vs darkness, which not only sets at contrast Euphiletos (as the ringleader of the torch-bearers and a pillar of morality and good Athenian citizenship) and Eratosthenes (conducting his actions in literal and metaphorical darkness), but symbolises the 'light' of the law invading and consuming the darkness of crime and hope for the moral citizens, and also the burning hate and anger felt by Euphiletos about the man who had so degraded his household.


    The bolted door, laughed away by Euphiletos in keeping with his wife's great jest about his romantic infidelity as regards the slave-girl, allowed his wife to commit outrageous acts with Eratosthenes without the concern that Euphiletos would interrupt. Yet it also shows the lack of proper mutual knowledge of the two, which shows how distant they are, despite being married; it signifies how the wife has mentally barred Euphiletos from her mind, and the secrets about her criminal disloyalty being kept from him.


    Characterisation: To maximise the effect of the speech and to draw sympathy for Euphiletos and hatred for Eratosthenes from the court, Lysias portrays Euphiletos as moral, upright, manly, intelligent, hard-working and crucially naive and slow to anger/suspicion. In contrast, Erastosthenes is shown as a notorious adulterer, a „corrupter of minds“ and a repeat offender. Women are shown as typical of Athenian society, which shall later be discussed.


    Detail: The details of all of Euphiletos' observations about his wife's curious behaviour and his movements and sayings are all intricately woven into the wider story to provide a fabric of fact so that the argument appears more believable, crucial since the speech is a defence. Everything is chronological to be able to be easily followed by the court.


    Repetition: The possessive pronoun „my“ is constantly repeated throughout the text, to demonstrate the personal damage done to him by Eratosthenes to exact sympathy from the court, and affirm that he is in control of his household and property (inclusive of his wife) and is therefore an exemplarary Athenian citizen.


    +


    Points of discussion


    The portrayal of women in Athenian society



    • Subservience: Women are clearly dominated by men. Not only does Euphiletos have ultimate control over the finances, and only delegate those of the household to his wife after she had 'proved' herself, but protects her before motherhood by keeping her upstairs so that it was more difficult for her to be corrupted by some man, which was thought to be more likely before a son was born to prove her loyalty and goodwill towards her husband. The repetition of the possessive pronoun „my“ also demonstrates that Euphiletos owns his wife. The slave-girl is threatened by Euphiletos, clearly wielding his greater power as a man and also her master. Furthermore, the wife is not blamed for the outrageous behaviour she displayed with Eratosthenes, showing his dominance over her.
    • Inconsequential as individuals: None of the women have names, but are only given their connection to Euphiletos or his story. This links to a belief that men are central to society, and women only matter as an entire sex, for the procreation of children and the care of the household. As individuals, they are unimportant and Lysias considers it unimportant to embellish their identities as he did with Eratosthenes and Euphiletos, or to name them as Sostratus and later another neighbour were named. There is no hint that Euphiletos values his wife for anything other than bearing him a son and heir and being „a clever and economical housekeeper“.
    • Mindless and weak-willed: Euphiletos' wife was seemingly quite easily corrupted by Eratosthenes; „by using words“ only, he „corrupted“ her. The fact that he persuaded her to defect from her other loyalties to commit adulterous acts with him is testament to the supposition that she was herself weak-willed and devoid of a proper mind of her own strong enough to deflect his attentions. Having been previously described as „clever and economical“ as regards her wifely responsibilities, Euphiletos, after learning of her outrageous behaviour, „foolishly“ considered her to be the „most prudent“ woman in Athens – this change of events not only shows his naivety but also that women have a sole purpose and can be trusted with little else. The slave-girl is also portrayed as such, as afore-mentioned, transferring her loyalties at ease upon offers of reward or threats of eternal and gruelling industrial slavery.
    • Central to the household (core purpose): The „clever and economical“ approach of Euphiletos' wife towards the household affairs secured his good opinion of her and the maintenance of the house whilst he himself attended to his business operations. The production of a son initiated this greater trust, since this child was an heir to Euphiletos' business interests and could aid Euphiletos in them, and also proved Euphiletos' wife's fidelity to her husband and was confirmation that she intended to stay with him.



    Efficiency as a defence case



    • Detail: See paragraph above. The devotion of Lysias to detail, such as the creaking doors and the layout of the house, help to portray Euphiletos as moral, upright and sensible and back up his case. The detail also builds up a clear description of events in chronological order, and lends weight and conviction to the argument.
    • Repetition: The repetition of certain facts such as the fact that Euphiletos' wife was painted with white lead, and that Eratosthenes had insulted Euphiletos' household, gives conviction, emphasis and importance to such facts, whilst enabling the court to remember such things so as to link their significance to Euphiletos' thoughts and actions.
    • Characterisation: See above notes. The court was expected by Lysias to be able to identify with Euphiletos, as the model Athenian, and despise Eratosthenes, who was defiling Athenian women, insulting their menfolk and corrupting society repeatedly. The portrayal by Lysias of them both as such helps Euphiletos to be more believable.
    • Denial of association: Lysias makes no mention of prior connection between Euphiletos and Eratosthenes, although Eratosthenes' family claimed that. After having heard the old woman identify the adulterer, Euphiletos was, according to Lysias, „put to confusion“, rather than immediate anger or fury at the outrageous behaviour of this acquaintance; being „full of suspicion“, Euphiletos considers the peculiar behaviour of his wife and does not meditate upon the actions of the individual Eratosthenes, but rather the adultery as a whole, implying that he did not know him previous to learning his name and origin from the old woman.
    • Spontaneity of actions: Euphiletos dined at home with a companion who later departed, as previously said. He also called upon many houses, discovering some occupants to be out of home or even Athens, of which he appears to have had no prior knowledge. This indicates that, although with presence of mind he collected witnesses which may be an indication of pre-meditation, he had not ascertained who would be in and who would not be, which would have saved time, thereby ensuring that they did catch Eratosthenes in the act before he left. He also did not take the time to consider the loyalty of the slave-girl, having been so easily turned twice before. She could well have allowed Eratosthenes to escape, thereby avoiding violence and anger, and have claimed that he was too powerful for her or run away.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    An Adulterer Apprehended“


    Written by Lysias, a famous speech-writer whose trademark descriptive passages make him an excellent writer for a defence case as precise as Euphiletos needed. This case is a DEFENCE in the Delphinion (homicide court) against the insinuations of Eratosthenes' family, who claim that Euphiletos chronically despised Eratosthenes and pre-planned his murder even before he discovered him committing adultery.


    Characters


    Euphiletos: The defendant. Has business in the country which indicates his profession is some sort of landlord, perhaps presiding over the agriculture on the land he owns, although one cannot be certain – in any case it is something to do with business and finance, which has meant he can afford an Athenian townhouse.Within the last two years or so, he has married, and upon the birth of a son, he has endowed his wife with the responsibility of running the household, with presidency over the servants and expenses. Being depicted by Lysias as an honest, diligent and law-abiding but naive citizen, Euphiletos is initially unwilling to act upon suspicions of his wife's infidelity, but after being accosted by an old woman and verbally torturing his wife's slave-girl, he proceeds to murder Eratosthenes with several witnesses at night-time. He argues that the murder was not pre-meditated since he called on houses where the people turned out to be out, something which, if pre-planned, he would have ascertained beforehand to save time, and he dined at home (rather than out, so as to allow Eratosthenes free entry) with a companion who left for his own house. These are somewhat spurious claims for somebody previously depicted to be so prudent and intelligent, and it is a matter of debate whether his gathering of witnesses was pre-meditation or clear-thinking. In any case, since he caught Eratosthenes in the act, and did not intend to murder him (so Lysias says) before he discovered his outrageous behaviour, it seems legal within Athenian law. His anger towards Eratosthenes exists not only because he watched out for the female household members, corrupted his wife and turned her own mind to corruption, but because he forced her to betray her wifely bond to her husband and responsibility towards caring for his child, and committed this corruption in the home, another insult.


    Euphiletos' wife: After having shown a pure and excellent character by producing a male heir, Euphiletos' wife is given responsibility for the home by her husband. At her mother-in-law's funeral, she was espied by Eratosthenes who then proceeded to seduce her after some persuasion. She allays Euphiletos' suspicions by jovially insinuating his attraction to the slave-girl (which also allows her to bolt the door without being regarded with suspicion) and claiming to be all concern when the light near the baby dies. Her brother had died not long before her mother-in-law, and was thus expected to be in mourning, yet wears white lead (it was considered attractive to be pale) during the night for Eratosthenes. When her husband was engaged commercially in the country on a farm, she visited the temple with Eratosthenes' mother during the Thesmophoria festival – ironically, this festival honoured Demeter and Persephone, both deities connected with the preservation of marriage and fidelity during marriage. This indicates that the two families were socially connected. In order to avoid public embarrassment, the blame is placed by Euphiletos solely on Eratosthenes, and his wife is never given a name, which shows her societal position. Indeed she is not mentioned much at all after the testimony of the slave-girl.


    Eratosthenes: Hailing from the dene (similar to a constituency) of Oea, this man is a notorious adulterer who „has this skill“. He has committed adultery with several other women in Athens, and it is through one of these that his identity becomes known to Euphiletos. In the past there had been some connection between the two, as evidenced by the public showing of Euphiletos' wife and Eratosthenes' mother together which otherwise would have invoked suspicion by the locals, but Euphiletos denies this claim of Eratosthenes' family. He spotted Euphiletos' wife at her husband's mother's funeral, and stalked the slave-girl to accost her and persuade her to facilitate his entries. At the conclusion of this passage, he is discovered with Euphiletos' wife and cowardly begs for financial reparations instead of death, yet he is executed by Euphiletos as the law allows. By mentioning that he had „corrupted...many others“, Lysias clearly portrays this man as an exemplar of the rotting criminal and immoral underworld of Athenian society which the court wished to purge, and by introducing a sense of danger to the remaining married Athenian women who had not then been already corrupted by him, it seems as if Euphiletos has done society a great favour by ridding Athens of this louse.


    Slave-girl: She is an accomplice to the adultery, and seems to be weak-willed. Despite knowing that adultery was illegal in Athens and being bound both socially and financially to Euphiletos (who was still supreme over his wife, despite handing to her control of the house) and religiously to the goddesses of marital fidelity, she bent to the will and persuasion of Eratosthenes and arranged his entries. One night, after Euphiletos had returned fairly late from the farm, she provoked the baby so that it cried, giving Euphiletos' wife an excuse to leave the room and be with Eratosthenes; it was this slave-girl about whom the wife joked. After being accosted by Euphiletos and frightened by his knowledge of the adulterer's identity, she revealed all, preferring to do so and be safe as opposed to protecting her mistress' dark secret and be dispatched to a mill-house and be mentally tortured by her knowledge. Having revealed all she knew, she then proceeds to be a double agent, allowing Eratosthenes entry and then waking Euphiletos up to let him know. Her actions bring about both the crime and the solution.


    Married Athenian woman: Eratosthenes had stopped committing adultery with this woman, and she, perceiving it as an insult, endeavoured to discover why. Her bitterness and desire to exact revenge on Eratosthenes resulted in Euphiletos discovering his identity and presented him with knowledge sufficient to act.


    Old woman: It is through this old woman, sent by Eratosthenes' ex-lover, that Euphiletos became aware of the identity of the man so insulting him and his family. At this moment he also became more convinced of the fact that his wife was committing adultery, with her odd behaviour, painted face and noisy doors filling his mind.


    Sostratus: He is a companion of Euphiletos, who was met by Euphiletos on returning to Athens from the country. Euphiletos somehow knew that there would be no friends or family at Sostratus' house, and so took him home for dinner. After the conclusion of dinner, Sostratus returned home. Lysias presents this as „great proof“ that the murder of Eratosthenes was not pre-meditated, since if it were, Euphiletos should have gone out for dinner so as to allow Eratosthenes unimpeded entry to the house for a trap, or else kept Sostratus behind with him to come and kill Eratosthenes.


    Themes


    Adultery
    Justice
    Justified violence
    Morality vs. immorality
    Trust
    Citizenship


    Style


    Imagery: The torches obtained from the tavern have a significance other than the necessity to be able to find the entrance of Euphiletos' house. They symbolise the antithesis of light vs darkness, which not only sets at contrast Euphiletos (as the ringleader of the torch-bearers and a pillar of morality and good Athenian citizenship) and Eratosthenes (conducting his actions in literal and metaphorical darkness), but symbolises the 'light' of the law invading and consuming the darkness of crime and hope for the moral citizens, and also the burning hate and anger felt by Euphiletos about the man who had so degraded his household.


    The bolted door, laughed away by Euphiletos in keeping with his wife's great jest about his romantic infidelity as regards the slave-girl, allowed his wife to commit outrageous acts with Eratosthenes without the concern that Euphiletos would interrupt. Yet it also shows the lack of proper mutual knowledge of the two, which shows how distant they are, despite being married; it signifies how the wife has mentally barred Euphiletos from her mind, and the secrets about her criminal disloyalty being kept from him.


    Characterisation: To maximise the effect of the speech and to draw sympathy for Euphiletos and hatred for Eratosthenes from the court, Lysias portrays Euphiletos as moral, upright, manly, intelligent, hard-working and crucially naive and slow to anger/suspicion. In contrast, Erastosthenes is shown as a notorious adulterer, a „corrupter of minds“ and a repeat offender. Women are shown as typical of Athenian society, which shall later be discussed.


    Detail: The details of all of Euphiletos' observations about his wife's curious behaviour and his movements and sayings are all intricately woven into the wider story to provide a fabric of fact so that the argument appears more believable, crucial since the speech is a defence. Everything is chronological to be able to be easily followed by the court.


    Repetition: The possessive pronoun „my“ is constantly repeated throughout the text, to demonstrate the personal damage done to him by Eratosthenes to exact sympathy from the court, and affirm that he is in control of his household and property (inclusive of his wife) and is therefore an exemplarary Athenian citizen.


    +


    Points of discussion


    The portrayal of women in Athenian society



    • Subservience: Women are clearly dominated by men. Not only does Euphiletos have ultimate control over the finances, and only delegate those of the household to his wife after she had 'proved' herself, but protects her before motherhood by keeping her upstairs so that it was more difficult for her to be corrupted by some man, which was thought to be more likely before a son was born to prove her loyalty and goodwill towards her husband. The repetition of the possessive pronoun „my“ also demonstrates that Euphiletos owns his wife. The slave-girl is threatened by Euphiletos, clearly wielding his greater power as a man and also her master. Furthermore, the wife is not blamed for the outrageous behaviour she displayed with Eratosthenes, showing his dominance over her.
    • Inconsequential as individuals: None of the women have names, but are only given their connection to Euphiletos or his story. This links to a belief that men are central to society, and women only matter as an entire sex, for the procreation of children and the care of the household. As individuals, they are unimportant and Lysias considers it unimportant to embellish their identities as he did with Eratosthenes and Euphiletos, or to name them as Sostratus and later another neighbour were named. There is no hint that Euphiletos values his wife for anything other than bearing him a son and heir and being „a clever and economical housekeeper“.
    • Mindless and weak-willed: Euphiletos' wife was seemingly quite easily corrupted by Eratosthenes; „by using words“ only, he „corrupted“ her. The fact that he persuaded her to defect from her other loyalties to commit adulterous acts with him is testament to the supposition that she was herself weak-willed and devoid of a proper mind of her own strong enough to deflect his attentions. Having been previously described as „clever and economical“ as regards her wifely responsibilities, Euphiletos, after learning of her outrageous behaviour, „foolishly“ considered her to be the „most prudent“ woman in Athens – this change of events not only shows his naivety but also that women have a sole purpose and can be trusted with little else. The slave-girl is also portrayed as such, as afore-mentioned, transferring her loyalties at ease upon offers of reward or threats of eternal and gruelling industrial slavery.
    • Central to the household (core purpose): The „clever and economical“ approach of Euphiletos' wife towards the household affairs secured his good opinion of her and the maintenance of the house whilst he himself attended to his business operations. The production of a son initiated this greater trust, since this child was an heir to Euphiletos' business interests and could aid Euphiletos in them, and also proved Euphiletos' wife's fidelity to her husband and was confirmation that she intended to stay with him.



    Efficiency as a defence case



    • Detail: See paragraph above. The devotion of Lysias to detail, such as the creaking doors and the layout of the house, help to portray Euphiletos as moral, upright and sensible and back up his case. The detail also builds up a clear description of events in chronological order, and lends weight and conviction to the argument.
    • Repetition: The repetition of certain facts such as the fact that Euphiletos' wife was painted with white lead, and that Eratosthenes had insulted Euphiletos' household, gives conviction, emphasis and importance to such facts, whilst enabling the court to remember such things so as to link their significance to Euphiletos' thoughts and actions.
    • Characterisation: See above notes. The court was expected by Lysias to be able to identify with Euphiletos, as the model Athenian, and despise Eratosthenes, who was defiling Athenian women, insulting their menfolk and corrupting society repeatedly. The portrayal by Lysias of them both as such helps Euphiletos to be more believable.
    • Denial of association: Lysias makes no mention of prior connection between Euphiletos and Eratosthenes, although Eratosthenes' family claimed that. After having heard the old woman identify the adulterer, Euphiletos was, according to Lysias, „put to confusion“, rather than immediate anger or fury at the outrageous behaviour of this acquaintance; being „full of suspicion“, Euphiletos considers the peculiar behaviour of his wife and does not meditate upon the actions of the individual Eratosthenes, but rather the adultery as a whole, implying that he did not know him previous to learning his name and origin from the old woman.
    • Spontaneity of actions: Euphiletos dined at home with a companion who later departed, as previously said. He also called upon many houses, discovering some occupants to be out of home or even Athens, of which he appears to have had no prior knowledge. This indicates that, although with presence of mind he collected witnesses which may be an indication of pre-meditation, he had not ascertained who would be in and who would not be, which would have saved time, thereby ensuring that they did catch Eratosthenes in the act before he left. He also did not take the time to consider the loyalty of the slave-girl, having been so easily turned twice before. She could well have allowed Eratosthenes to escape, thereby avoiding violence and anger, and have claimed that he was too powerful for her or run away.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Conon and his Gang“


    Demosthenes, another famed speech-writer known especially for depictions of violence, wrote this PROSECUTION speech for Ariston, who had been assaulted on the streets of Athens by a man named Conon and a rudimentary gang composed of his son and other acquaintances.


    Characters


    Ariston: A young, wealthy Athenian who brings the case for the prosecution after being set upon by Conon and his gang. Conveyed as rational, self-controlled, pious, detailed, observant and intelligent, mention of his being a member of the Athenian societal elite is skilfully avoided by Demosthenes in order to allow the court to sympathise with him, without being prejudiced towards such a high-up figure in society. Having decided not to press charges on Ctesias, son of Conon, for outrageous behaviour committed whilst both were at a military camp, Ariston is attacked by Conon and other gang members after being spotted by a drunk Ctesias whilst walking in the agora with his contemporary Phanostratus. Receiving injuries after being leapt upon, tripped up, pushed into the mud and beaten, and having his vestments stolen by the greedy gang, Ariston is carried home by passers-by. His appearance is shocking to his mother and the female servants, showing not only the extent of his injuries, but how unusual it was to see him in such a state (thereby implying Ariston does not get drunk or engage in such violent activities normally). His intelligence is shown when he is shown to the doctors, garnering evidence for a lawsuit from them, since they were both professionally medical (so as to understand the implications of the injuries and reliably and convincingly convey that to the court) and independent, as opposed to his wealthy and biased mother. His piety can be seen by him swearing truth „in the name of the gods“, establishing him as a moral pillar and true to Athenian society. Rational thought and self-control are each demonstrated as he calls upon professional medical opinion, calmly recites his speech, „resolved“ to avoid „such people“ as drunk Ctesias rather than conduct a feud with him, and does not appear to have taken any retaliation measures against his assailants except for the legal and non-violent lawsuit. Such a character was considered by Demosthenes in itself to prove truth in his argument, and be immediately identifiable as an exemplarary citizen, notwithstanding any inclination to be so due to social class.


    Conon: In accordance with the portrayal of Ariston as the model Athenian citizen (yet more intelligent than Euphiletos), Conon is painted as a chronic alcoholic, who has little regard for the laws of Athens or common decency. An indication of poor parenting is also shown through the behaviour of his son; a good Athenian father should have taken control of any wild children and disciplined them thoroughly, as Ariston says just before the beginning of the witness statements. After his son Ctesias espied Ariston, the entire gang decided to accost them with pushing and punches, materialising into violent assault. Not only is Conon violent, a drunkard and a bad Athenian, but a man of inner evil; he swears, blasphemes and shouts abuse as suggested by the things which Ariston could not bring himself to tell the court. He is the ringleader of assault, and this series of immoral characteristics strengthen Ariston's case.


    Ctesias: Ctesias, son of Conon, had conducted outrageous behaviour whilst at a military camp with Ariston, disgracing himself publically whilst drunk for which he received no punishment. Presumably thinking that Ariston would report to the authorities that which he had reported to the general, Ctesias, after spotting Ariston, aroused his father and their drinking companions to commit the assault. It is due to Ctesias that the assault came about, yet, Demosthenes intimates, through the idea of Conon to exact revenge and violence, as the image of the fighting-**** imitation shows. It is perhaps a little strange that Ctesias should have left the house of Pamphilus the fuller, and a supply of alcohol, to wander drunkenly about the streets of Athens by himself, so perhaps he knew that it was Ariston's custom to walk around there in the evenings and wished to find him to attack – this does not explain why he was alone, however. Perhaps it was through a mind disturbed by drink.




    Phanostratus of Cephisia: A contemporary of Ariston, presumably of the same character, who was probably not at the military camp but by association with Ariston was marked out by Conon and his gang as a secondary target; a stranger pinned him down, so that he could not help Ariston, whilst Conon and other main protagonists dealt with Ariston. It is unclear what happened to him, yet he did not accompany Ariston homewards, so he either escaped or was also left on the street in a state unfit to walk.


    Theogenes, son of Andromenes: Another member of the gang who fell upon Ariston. Like all the other attackers, he also was drunk and his association with Conon implies his bad character.


    Theotimus: Made distinct from the other gang members by the prefix „a certain“, implying that Ariston either did not know his origin or father, conveying his shady and untrustworthy nature, or that he was for some reason well-known, for example for having committed some form of violence. Again, he had been drinking with Conon.


    Spintharus, son of Eubulus and Archebiades: Other members of Conon's gang.


    Ariston's consultant doctors: Whilst being summoned to examine the extent of Ariston's injuries for medical reasons, the role of women in Greek medicine (who tended to treat the family sick, even with Ariston's family being wealthy) suggests an alternative consideration: proof. These doctors were both professional and independent, and could therefore provide evidence at the lawsuit Ariston intended to bring as to the extent of bodily damage, to corroborate Ariston's story.


    Themes


    Violence
    Morality vs. immorality
    Justice
    Citizenship


    Style


    Dynamic verbs: The attack is made vivid and exciting by Demosthenes' use of dynamic verbs. Being a master of portraying violence, this part of the tale is fairly likely to appear in the examination. Verbs such as „tripped“ and „pushed“ introduce force, power, violence, fluidity and perhaps an element of uncertainty and surprise to this paragraph.


    Imagery: The fighting-**** imitation is a display of drunken pride, confidence and also a hint of foolishness on the part of Conon. As he initiated this, it shows that he is the leader. His pride at having subdued and temporarily defeated this 'adversary' of his son explodes into confidence such that he mounts a display of it, and the absurdity of this action demonstrates his drunkenness. A cockerel, however, is not a brave or particularly intelligent animal, but one a fairly stupid creature, trained to fight as excessive alcohol consumption had trained Conon; succcessful fighting cockerels are selected by owners for their inner 'evil' and fighting nature, however, which can be said of Conon, although it is he himself and not Demosthenes who deployed such a metaphor.


    Naming: Demosthenes, through Ariston, names the members of the gang as far as possible to incriminate them and to ensure that they themselves would not be left free to assault him as further revenge on behalf of their gang leaders. This detail also lends conviction.


    Preference of conveyed violence over excessive detail: Since this speech was a prosecution speech, violence, power and innocence of Ariston had to be conveyed. Dissimilar to defence speeches, detail on the scale of Lysias was not needed since Ariston had a strong case without needing intricate facts and thoughts to support his argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnowyGreyWolf)
    Hi,

    No problem. I'll try to see if I can get one from my old teacher - they're not on general release yet unfortunately (or weren't when we last looked (.

    Sure, no problem. Hope they help! (:
    Thank you!!!!!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Although the prose is now over, we still have the verse to come so just wanted to point out that for questions where you are not explicitly asked to quote the Greek (the same goes for the Latin exam) you do not have to. This is especially important in terms of time keeping in the 8 mark question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have tricks to help them learn Homer? I have been trying for months and I can't get any of it to stick at all, and I would really rather that I didn't get a U in the exam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How did everyone find the verse lit exam?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest you're best off just knowing the set text word for word. It took me so long to learn and it's very painful to learn but if you know it word for word then you'll manage to think of things to say for the ten and eight markers and won't struggle with the shorter questions. I did Demosthenes and Lysias and then Homer for my verse.

    Does anyone know how 'valuable' or simply how difficult a Classical Greek GCSE is regarded to be?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.