Feedback on the HAT (History Admissions Test) for this year
Hi I'm sitting the HAT in 9 days and I don't know how well I'm doing with the past papers. Here is one I sat a few days ago based on the 2021 past paper. Any help would be so useful and I would appreciate a lot. Here is the past paper:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/media_wysiwyg/HAT%202021_v0.3_PV4.pdf
Here's my response
The oral record on PEQUELETOU folklore can tell us much about the life of Madeleine Delicamp and her view of the world; namely, the familial relationships particularly between children and parents, the nature of criminality and the daily lifestyle of women in the region. The fact it was transcribed by Andrews, a wealthy American, equally limits the extent to which Madeleine’s lifestyle is accurately portrayed as it overlooks cosmopolitan interactions she could have had and solely focuses on her peasant lifestyle. Nevertheless this focus on the region’s folklore reveals much about the type of life Madeleine led and what she viewed as morally, culturally and socially acceptable and therefore much can be learnt from the oral story.
The story reveals the relationship between parents and children, in particular the fact that children in Madeleine’s time are viewed in terms of utility and this seems to heavily influence decisions to raise children. The excessive quantity of children, as many as the beans, appears to leave the woman ‘crying out’ implying the anxieties that arise with children perhaps due to the modest lifestyle of the woman who cooks only ‘boiled beans’ and a ‘tart’. When murdering the children, her focus on ‘her husband’’s reaction suggests the secondary importance of children within the family to one’s spouse. Whilst she is equally willing to murder her children which she views as a liability (she needs to ‘rid’ them evoking their nuisance), she also wishes she had ‘kept one’ to ‘help’, insinuating how children are both viewed as a liability if too numerous and a commodity, whilst any personal affection seems a remote need in parent-child relations. This is reinforced by the mother’s exclamatory ‘Come!’ highlighting the stern and disciplined relation within family. Nevertheless, one could argue that this is undermined by the folklore medium of the play which is widely circulated across ‘Asia, Africa … Europe’ thus this could present a more generic relationship between parents and children than specifically to the customs of the region. Ultimately, the story is highly useful in understanding parent-child relationships, the amount of desirable children (one), their function as a form of help and evokes the fear of having too many of them in the region.
Equally, the story allows us to understand how Delicamp views criminality and its nature near the French-Italian border; it is common and seems to be a morally acceptable form of income. Little is needed to convince Pequeletou to join the ‘three brigands’, only the promise of becoming ‘rich’ rapidly thus implying that economic motives took precedence over potentially religious or legal terms. Moreover, it could imply a desperate need for money and the general poverty of the region. In fact, the absence of the state or any form of authority in the entire extract whilst Pequeletou guards against thieves (from a ‘hole in the wall’) suggests that individuals have to defend against criminality alone whilst the fact they are in ‘three’ perhaps hints to the confidence of the brigands who seem unafraid of getting caught. Since a child resorts to criminality as a means to provide for his family, it can be implied that criminality in children was acceptable (since it was in his father’s presence ‘the father replied…’) and even advantageous (‘you are so small, you must manage it’) and providing for the family is more important than respect of private property. Nevertheless, the fact that Andrews is motivated to transcribe the folklore of the region rather than ask on Delicamp’s opinion on criminality or the folklore itself could overlook Delicamps view on criminality. However, this story tells us much about the prominence of criminality in the society Delicamp inhabited which was acceptable if under the guise of providing for the family.
Most importantly, the folktale tells us much about the daily life of Madeleine Delicamp; she inhabits an agrarian society, rife with poverty, focused on subsistence and assigns highly different roles for men and women in the division of labor. The woman is shown as ‘boiling beans’ and preparing ‘two bottles of wine’ for her ‘husband’ thus perhaps suggesting that women are expected to contribute largely to housework and seems more involved with the children (‘If I had kept one…’). Marriage is nevertheless displayed in a positive light as widowhood results in poverty and the request for ‘alms’ thus highlighting the economic insecurity of widows; thus, marriage consolidates economic security. The display of poverty is all the more apparent in the brigands' desperation to ‘steal a cow’ and earlier the dinner ‘basket’, showing that criminals are merely stealing rudimentary goods of little luxury. Moreover, Delicamp’s retelling of ‘the voice comes from this cow’s stomach’ suggests that the supernatural interacts much with Delicamp’s mundane life as also demonstrated by the folktale itself. Moreover, supernatural assumptions perhaps evokes the lack of education of Delicamp who is previously thought of as ‘illiterate’. Nevertheless, it is ambiguous over whether this is her own personal outlook on the supernatural or whether it is part of the artistic license of the folktale. Ultimately, the folktale itself tells us much about the daily need to turn to fantastical stories in her simple agrarian lifestyle. Therefore, much can be learnt about the circumstances of Madeleine Delicamp’s life, and her view of the world she inhabited from the folktale.
In conclusion, the folktale tells us much about her view of the world she inhabited although we should be cautious about what it can tell us about the circumstances of Madeleine Delicamp’s life itself as the folktale medium it uses means it is inflexible in displaying local life (it is a widespread international folklore). Nevertheless, we understand from it that Delicamp’s world was largely agrarian revolving around farming for men and for women, assisting those men in the household. Children are equally expected to work and are viewed as a commodity and even a unit of work more than a source of affection. Additionally, we can infer Madeleine’s view of criminality was one where it was acceptable as long as it was in order to assist family or for economic reasons (charity is also highly important). Thus, the folktale is very useful in learning about the circumstances of Madeleine Delicamp’s life, and her view of the world she inhabited.
Thank you and good luck to anyone else sitting
https://www.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxford/media_wysiwyg/HAT%202021_v0.3_PV4.pdf
Here's my response
The oral record on PEQUELETOU folklore can tell us much about the life of Madeleine Delicamp and her view of the world; namely, the familial relationships particularly between children and parents, the nature of criminality and the daily lifestyle of women in the region. The fact it was transcribed by Andrews, a wealthy American, equally limits the extent to which Madeleine’s lifestyle is accurately portrayed as it overlooks cosmopolitan interactions she could have had and solely focuses on her peasant lifestyle. Nevertheless this focus on the region’s folklore reveals much about the type of life Madeleine led and what she viewed as morally, culturally and socially acceptable and therefore much can be learnt from the oral story.
The story reveals the relationship between parents and children, in particular the fact that children in Madeleine’s time are viewed in terms of utility and this seems to heavily influence decisions to raise children. The excessive quantity of children, as many as the beans, appears to leave the woman ‘crying out’ implying the anxieties that arise with children perhaps due to the modest lifestyle of the woman who cooks only ‘boiled beans’ and a ‘tart’. When murdering the children, her focus on ‘her husband’’s reaction suggests the secondary importance of children within the family to one’s spouse. Whilst she is equally willing to murder her children which she views as a liability (she needs to ‘rid’ them evoking their nuisance), she also wishes she had ‘kept one’ to ‘help’, insinuating how children are both viewed as a liability if too numerous and a commodity, whilst any personal affection seems a remote need in parent-child relations. This is reinforced by the mother’s exclamatory ‘Come!’ highlighting the stern and disciplined relation within family. Nevertheless, one could argue that this is undermined by the folklore medium of the play which is widely circulated across ‘Asia, Africa … Europe’ thus this could present a more generic relationship between parents and children than specifically to the customs of the region. Ultimately, the story is highly useful in understanding parent-child relationships, the amount of desirable children (one), their function as a form of help and evokes the fear of having too many of them in the region.
Equally, the story allows us to understand how Delicamp views criminality and its nature near the French-Italian border; it is common and seems to be a morally acceptable form of income. Little is needed to convince Pequeletou to join the ‘three brigands’, only the promise of becoming ‘rich’ rapidly thus implying that economic motives took precedence over potentially religious or legal terms. Moreover, it could imply a desperate need for money and the general poverty of the region. In fact, the absence of the state or any form of authority in the entire extract whilst Pequeletou guards against thieves (from a ‘hole in the wall’) suggests that individuals have to defend against criminality alone whilst the fact they are in ‘three’ perhaps hints to the confidence of the brigands who seem unafraid of getting caught. Since a child resorts to criminality as a means to provide for his family, it can be implied that criminality in children was acceptable (since it was in his father’s presence ‘the father replied…’) and even advantageous (‘you are so small, you must manage it’) and providing for the family is more important than respect of private property. Nevertheless, the fact that Andrews is motivated to transcribe the folklore of the region rather than ask on Delicamp’s opinion on criminality or the folklore itself could overlook Delicamps view on criminality. However, this story tells us much about the prominence of criminality in the society Delicamp inhabited which was acceptable if under the guise of providing for the family.
Most importantly, the folktale tells us much about the daily life of Madeleine Delicamp; she inhabits an agrarian society, rife with poverty, focused on subsistence and assigns highly different roles for men and women in the division of labor. The woman is shown as ‘boiling beans’ and preparing ‘two bottles of wine’ for her ‘husband’ thus perhaps suggesting that women are expected to contribute largely to housework and seems more involved with the children (‘If I had kept one…’). Marriage is nevertheless displayed in a positive light as widowhood results in poverty and the request for ‘alms’ thus highlighting the economic insecurity of widows; thus, marriage consolidates economic security. The display of poverty is all the more apparent in the brigands' desperation to ‘steal a cow’ and earlier the dinner ‘basket’, showing that criminals are merely stealing rudimentary goods of little luxury. Moreover, Delicamp’s retelling of ‘the voice comes from this cow’s stomach’ suggests that the supernatural interacts much with Delicamp’s mundane life as also demonstrated by the folktale itself. Moreover, supernatural assumptions perhaps evokes the lack of education of Delicamp who is previously thought of as ‘illiterate’. Nevertheless, it is ambiguous over whether this is her own personal outlook on the supernatural or whether it is part of the artistic license of the folktale. Ultimately, the folktale itself tells us much about the daily need to turn to fantastical stories in her simple agrarian lifestyle. Therefore, much can be learnt about the circumstances of Madeleine Delicamp’s life, and her view of the world she inhabited from the folktale.
In conclusion, the folktale tells us much about her view of the world she inhabited although we should be cautious about what it can tell us about the circumstances of Madeleine Delicamp’s life itself as the folktale medium it uses means it is inflexible in displaying local life (it is a widespread international folklore). Nevertheless, we understand from it that Delicamp’s world was largely agrarian revolving around farming for men and for women, assisting those men in the household. Children are equally expected to work and are viewed as a commodity and even a unit of work more than a source of affection. Additionally, we can infer Madeleine’s view of criminality was one where it was acceptable as long as it was in order to assist family or for economic reasons (charity is also highly important). Thus, the folktale is very useful in learning about the circumstances of Madeleine Delicamp’s life, and her view of the world she inhabited.
Thank you and good luck to anyone else sitting
(edited 6 months ago)
Hey there! I'm also taking the HAT in a few days and I'm struggling on it as well... But I'd say you did really well! I'm trying to assess your essay through the marking scheme for this paper in 2021 (I find it really useful, here's the link: https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/files/cdadmissionshatmarkingscheme2021pdf ... you can also find more papers and marking schemes on https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/history-admissions-test-hat )
"The fact it was transcribed by Andrews, a wealthy American, equally limits the extent to which Madeleine’s lifestyle is accurately portrayed as it overlooks cosmopolitan interactions she could have had and solely focuses on her peasant lifestyle." I think that it's great that you've pointed out the discrepancy between Andrews' translation of Madeleine's account and the actual folklore itself - maybe you could have also touched on how he might not have been able to translate the message of the story by being fully faithful to Madeleine's own interpretation due to his status as a wealthy American as well as other factors? I agree with most of your other points and it's great that you've mentioned food, eating, parent-child relationships, gender roles and etc.
Also I was just really curious about this point you've made: "Moreover, Delicamp’s retelling of ‘the voice comes from this cow’s stomach’ suggests that the supernatural interacts much with Delicamp’s mundane life as also demonstrated by the folktale itself. Moreover, supernatural assumptions perhaps evokes the lack of education of Delicamp who is previously thought of as ‘illiterate’." This is actually so cool because I did not think about it all. But I'm not sure how it reflects her everyday life? I'd say perhaps this has more to do with her view of the world (let me know your thoughts on this!!)
I'm an international student and the way we write essays here is really different from how you guys do it over in the UK (I'm assuming you're from the UK, haha!) I was wondering if you could also have a look at this essay I've written (on the same question) and see if you have any thoughts on it? (It's really poorly written because I didn't have time to write and I think I might have been a bit too rigid with my points...)
Through Madeleine Delicamp’s version of this story, we can learn about the harsh social conditions Madeleine Delicamp was met with as a poor Italian migrant, as well as a more realistic view that the her world may have condoned neglect and exploitation. Here, I define “circumstances” as the social conditions she had been living in, such as everyday life. I define “view of the world she inhabited” as the way Madeleine Delicamp had chosen to interpret the story as a lens of expressing her opinion towards her experience in the world she inhabited.
To begin with, the story may possibly reflect the rather harsh conditions of Madeleine Delicamp’s everyday life through serving as an analogy for the conditions of her life. For instance, the beginning of the story mentions the woman “boiling beans in a large cauldron”, with a widowed beggar asking for the beans. Perhaps in a more literal sense, the beans the woman had been cooking might have been derived from the food Madeleine Delicamp had cooked in real life. The woman also says, “If I give you a plateful there will be so much the less for me”: this may show that commodities such as beans may have been scarce among the poor or those who had farmed. This might be a reflection of what Madeleine Delicamp, who was part of the impoverished, might have experienced in terms of food and drink. Another reflection of Madeleine Delicamp’s everyday life would be in the part where the thieves had tried to steal a cow from the stable that belonged to a farmer. In “While this happened the master came in, went round the stable and found nobody”, it can be inferred that, in reality, the cows that were raised among the farmers might have been subject to much thefts, regardless of whether these attempts were successful. All in all, this would reflect that Madeleine Delicamp led an impoverished, hunger-stricken and harsh life in farming.
However, such a conclusion must be drawn with caution: as we cannot be sure of the extent of the deviation of Delicamp’s interpretation of the story from the original or the more mainstream versions, and hence, whether these small details were truly or fully reflective of Madeleine Delicamp’s social circumstances. Moreover, referring to my latter example in the above, we are unsure of whether Madeleine Delicamp’s identity as an illiterate Italian migrant would make it possible for her to assume the role of the master of a farm; hence, if the analogy of the cow theft was an addition to the story by Delicamp, it might not have happened to herself per se, but rather, part of the common experience of the farmers she had known.
I interpret Madeleine’s view of the world as a more realistic perspective that the world had condoned exploitation towards perhaps the impoverished or the vulnerable, which would constitute a major theme of the story. This could be exemplified through the detailing of the exploitation of children. For instance, upon seeing children coming out of her cauldron, the woman in the story says, “my husband will kill me if he sees this swarm; but I will get rid of them”, and proceeds to have all of the children’s heads cut off, before lamenting that “if I had kept one he would have helped me now”. Madeleine Delicamp very pessimistically delivers the analogy that poor families at the time were unable to support their children, which might result in the neglect that would equate to, perhaps, spiritually killing the children. Moreover, Madeleine Delicamp’s variation of the story compares the size of a child to that of a bean: this might also add onto Pequeletou’s triviality, and perhaps the neglect Madeleine might have been believed the world had condoned on children. Moreover, Pequeletou was later “obliged” to go with the thieves that his father had sold him off to in order to become rich: this may carry the implication that children at the time were expected to help with the household or even alleviating the harsh conditions of their family, which would cause families to “abandon” or “lend… to anyone” their children, resulting in exploitation. Therefore, Madeleine Delicamp might have seen through the neglect and exploitation in the world and incorporated it into her own variation of the story, although, we must take this with great caution as, again, we cannot be sure of how much her interpretation deviated from the original, and hence, whether her interpretations had truly been reflective of her world.
"The fact it was transcribed by Andrews, a wealthy American, equally limits the extent to which Madeleine’s lifestyle is accurately portrayed as it overlooks cosmopolitan interactions she could have had and solely focuses on her peasant lifestyle." I think that it's great that you've pointed out the discrepancy between Andrews' translation of Madeleine's account and the actual folklore itself - maybe you could have also touched on how he might not have been able to translate the message of the story by being fully faithful to Madeleine's own interpretation due to his status as a wealthy American as well as other factors? I agree with most of your other points and it's great that you've mentioned food, eating, parent-child relationships, gender roles and etc.
Also I was just really curious about this point you've made: "Moreover, Delicamp’s retelling of ‘the voice comes from this cow’s stomach’ suggests that the supernatural interacts much with Delicamp’s mundane life as also demonstrated by the folktale itself. Moreover, supernatural assumptions perhaps evokes the lack of education of Delicamp who is previously thought of as ‘illiterate’." This is actually so cool because I did not think about it all. But I'm not sure how it reflects her everyday life? I'd say perhaps this has more to do with her view of the world (let me know your thoughts on this!!)
I'm an international student and the way we write essays here is really different from how you guys do it over in the UK (I'm assuming you're from the UK, haha!) I was wondering if you could also have a look at this essay I've written (on the same question) and see if you have any thoughts on it? (It's really poorly written because I didn't have time to write and I think I might have been a bit too rigid with my points...)
Through Madeleine Delicamp’s version of this story, we can learn about the harsh social conditions Madeleine Delicamp was met with as a poor Italian migrant, as well as a more realistic view that the her world may have condoned neglect and exploitation. Here, I define “circumstances” as the social conditions she had been living in, such as everyday life. I define “view of the world she inhabited” as the way Madeleine Delicamp had chosen to interpret the story as a lens of expressing her opinion towards her experience in the world she inhabited.
To begin with, the story may possibly reflect the rather harsh conditions of Madeleine Delicamp’s everyday life through serving as an analogy for the conditions of her life. For instance, the beginning of the story mentions the woman “boiling beans in a large cauldron”, with a widowed beggar asking for the beans. Perhaps in a more literal sense, the beans the woman had been cooking might have been derived from the food Madeleine Delicamp had cooked in real life. The woman also says, “If I give you a plateful there will be so much the less for me”: this may show that commodities such as beans may have been scarce among the poor or those who had farmed. This might be a reflection of what Madeleine Delicamp, who was part of the impoverished, might have experienced in terms of food and drink. Another reflection of Madeleine Delicamp’s everyday life would be in the part where the thieves had tried to steal a cow from the stable that belonged to a farmer. In “While this happened the master came in, went round the stable and found nobody”, it can be inferred that, in reality, the cows that were raised among the farmers might have been subject to much thefts, regardless of whether these attempts were successful. All in all, this would reflect that Madeleine Delicamp led an impoverished, hunger-stricken and harsh life in farming.
However, such a conclusion must be drawn with caution: as we cannot be sure of the extent of the deviation of Delicamp’s interpretation of the story from the original or the more mainstream versions, and hence, whether these small details were truly or fully reflective of Madeleine Delicamp’s social circumstances. Moreover, referring to my latter example in the above, we are unsure of whether Madeleine Delicamp’s identity as an illiterate Italian migrant would make it possible for her to assume the role of the master of a farm; hence, if the analogy of the cow theft was an addition to the story by Delicamp, it might not have happened to herself per se, but rather, part of the common experience of the farmers she had known.
I interpret Madeleine’s view of the world as a more realistic perspective that the world had condoned exploitation towards perhaps the impoverished or the vulnerable, which would constitute a major theme of the story. This could be exemplified through the detailing of the exploitation of children. For instance, upon seeing children coming out of her cauldron, the woman in the story says, “my husband will kill me if he sees this swarm; but I will get rid of them”, and proceeds to have all of the children’s heads cut off, before lamenting that “if I had kept one he would have helped me now”. Madeleine Delicamp very pessimistically delivers the analogy that poor families at the time were unable to support their children, which might result in the neglect that would equate to, perhaps, spiritually killing the children. Moreover, Madeleine Delicamp’s variation of the story compares the size of a child to that of a bean: this might also add onto Pequeletou’s triviality, and perhaps the neglect Madeleine might have been believed the world had condoned on children. Moreover, Pequeletou was later “obliged” to go with the thieves that his father had sold him off to in order to become rich: this may carry the implication that children at the time were expected to help with the household or even alleviating the harsh conditions of their family, which would cause families to “abandon” or “lend… to anyone” their children, resulting in exploitation. Therefore, Madeleine Delicamp might have seen through the neglect and exploitation in the world and incorporated it into her own variation of the story, although, we must take this with great caution as, again, we cannot be sure of how much her interpretation deviated from the original, and hence, whether her interpretations had truly been reflective of her world.
Original post by hattietofu
Hey there! I'm also taking the HAT in a few days and I'm struggling on it as well... But I'd say you did really well! I'm trying to assess your essay through the marking scheme for this paper in 2021 (I find it really useful, here's the link: https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/files/cdadmissionshatmarkingscheme2021pdf ... you can also find more papers and marking schemes on https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/history-admissions-test-hat )
"The fact it was transcribed by Andrews, a wealthy American, equally limits the extent to which Madeleine’s lifestyle is accurately portrayed as it overlooks cosmopolitan interactions she could have had and solely focuses on her peasant lifestyle." I think that it's great that you've pointed out the discrepancy between Andrews' translation of Madeleine's account and the actual folklore itself - maybe you could have also touched on how he might not have been able to translate the message of the story by being fully faithful to Madeleine's own interpretation due to his status as a wealthy American as well as other factors? I agree with most of your other points and it's great that you've mentioned food, eating, parent-child relationships, gender roles and etc.
Also I was just really curious about this point you've made: "Moreover, Delicamp’s retelling of ‘the voice comes from this cow’s stomach’ suggests that the supernatural interacts much with Delicamp’s mundane life as also demonstrated by the folktale itself. Moreover, supernatural assumptions perhaps evokes the lack of education of Delicamp who is previously thought of as ‘illiterate’." This is actually so cool because I did not think about it all. But I'm not sure how it reflects her everyday life? I'd say perhaps this has more to do with her view of the world (let me know your thoughts on this!!)
I'm an international student and the way we write essays here is really different from how you guys do it over in the UK (I'm assuming you're from the UK, haha!) I was wondering if you could also have a look at this essay I've written (on the same question) and see if you have any thoughts on it? (It's really poorly written because I didn't have time to write and I think I might have been a bit too rigid with my points...)
Through Madeleine Delicamp’s version of this story, we can learn about the harsh social conditions Madeleine Delicamp was met with as a poor Italian migrant, as well as a more realistic view that the her world may have condoned neglect and exploitation. Here, I define “circumstances” as the social conditions she had been living in, such as everyday life. I define “view of the world she inhabited” as the way Madeleine Delicamp had chosen to interpret the story as a lens of expressing her opinion towards her experience in the world she inhabited.
To begin with, the story may possibly reflect the rather harsh conditions of Madeleine Delicamp’s everyday life through serving as an analogy for the conditions of her life. For instance, the beginning of the story mentions the woman “boiling beans in a large cauldron”, with a widowed beggar asking for the beans. Perhaps in a more literal sense, the beans the woman had been cooking might have been derived from the food Madeleine Delicamp had cooked in real life. The woman also says, “If I give you a plateful there will be so much the less for me”: this may show that commodities such as beans may have been scarce among the poor or those who had farmed. This might be a reflection of what Madeleine Delicamp, who was part of the impoverished, might have experienced in terms of food and drink. Another reflection of Madeleine Delicamp’s everyday life would be in the part where the thieves had tried to steal a cow from the stable that belonged to a farmer. In “While this happened the master came in, went round the stable and found nobody”, it can be inferred that, in reality, the cows that were raised among the farmers might have been subject to much thefts, regardless of whether these attempts were successful. All in all, this would reflect that Madeleine Delicamp led an impoverished, hunger-stricken and harsh life in farming.
However, such a conclusion must be drawn with caution: as we cannot be sure of the extent of the deviation of Delicamp’s interpretation of the story from the original or the more mainstream versions, and hence, whether these small details were truly or fully reflective of Madeleine Delicamp’s social circumstances. Moreover, referring to my latter example in the above, we are unsure of whether Madeleine Delicamp’s identity as an illiterate Italian migrant would make it possible for her to assume the role of the master of a farm; hence, if the analogy of the cow theft was an addition to the story by Delicamp, it might not have happened to herself per se, but rather, part of the common experience of the farmers she had known.
I interpret Madeleine’s view of the world as a more realistic perspective that the world had condoned exploitation towards perhaps the impoverished or the vulnerable, which would constitute a major theme of the story. This could be exemplified through the detailing of the exploitation of children. For instance, upon seeing children coming out of her cauldron, the woman in the story says, “my husband will kill me if he sees this swarm; but I will get rid of them”, and proceeds to have all of the children’s heads cut off, before lamenting that “if I had kept one he would have helped me now”. Madeleine Delicamp very pessimistically delivers the analogy that poor families at the time were unable to support their children, which might result in the neglect that would equate to, perhaps, spiritually killing the children. Moreover, Madeleine Delicamp’s variation of the story compares the size of a child to that of a bean: this might also add onto Pequeletou’s triviality, and perhaps the neglect Madeleine might have been believed the world had condoned on children. Moreover, Pequeletou was later “obliged” to go with the thieves that his father had sold him off to in order to become rich: this may carry the implication that children at the time were expected to help with the household or even alleviating the harsh conditions of their family, which would cause families to “abandon” or “lend… to anyone” their children, resulting in exploitation. Therefore, Madeleine Delicamp might have seen through the neglect and exploitation in the world and incorporated it into her own variation of the story, although, we must take this with great caution as, again, we cannot be sure of how much her interpretation deviated from the original, and hence, whether her interpretations had truly been reflective of her world.
"The fact it was transcribed by Andrews, a wealthy American, equally limits the extent to which Madeleine’s lifestyle is accurately portrayed as it overlooks cosmopolitan interactions she could have had and solely focuses on her peasant lifestyle." I think that it's great that you've pointed out the discrepancy between Andrews' translation of Madeleine's account and the actual folklore itself - maybe you could have also touched on how he might not have been able to translate the message of the story by being fully faithful to Madeleine's own interpretation due to his status as a wealthy American as well as other factors? I agree with most of your other points and it's great that you've mentioned food, eating, parent-child relationships, gender roles and etc.
Also I was just really curious about this point you've made: "Moreover, Delicamp’s retelling of ‘the voice comes from this cow’s stomach’ suggests that the supernatural interacts much with Delicamp’s mundane life as also demonstrated by the folktale itself. Moreover, supernatural assumptions perhaps evokes the lack of education of Delicamp who is previously thought of as ‘illiterate’." This is actually so cool because I did not think about it all. But I'm not sure how it reflects her everyday life? I'd say perhaps this has more to do with her view of the world (let me know your thoughts on this!!)
I'm an international student and the way we write essays here is really different from how you guys do it over in the UK (I'm assuming you're from the UK, haha!) I was wondering if you could also have a look at this essay I've written (on the same question) and see if you have any thoughts on it? (It's really poorly written because I didn't have time to write and I think I might have been a bit too rigid with my points...)
Through Madeleine Delicamp’s version of this story, we can learn about the harsh social conditions Madeleine Delicamp was met with as a poor Italian migrant, as well as a more realistic view that the her world may have condoned neglect and exploitation. Here, I define “circumstances” as the social conditions she had been living in, such as everyday life. I define “view of the world she inhabited” as the way Madeleine Delicamp had chosen to interpret the story as a lens of expressing her opinion towards her experience in the world she inhabited.
To begin with, the story may possibly reflect the rather harsh conditions of Madeleine Delicamp’s everyday life through serving as an analogy for the conditions of her life. For instance, the beginning of the story mentions the woman “boiling beans in a large cauldron”, with a widowed beggar asking for the beans. Perhaps in a more literal sense, the beans the woman had been cooking might have been derived from the food Madeleine Delicamp had cooked in real life. The woman also says, “If I give you a plateful there will be so much the less for me”: this may show that commodities such as beans may have been scarce among the poor or those who had farmed. This might be a reflection of what Madeleine Delicamp, who was part of the impoverished, might have experienced in terms of food and drink. Another reflection of Madeleine Delicamp’s everyday life would be in the part where the thieves had tried to steal a cow from the stable that belonged to a farmer. In “While this happened the master came in, went round the stable and found nobody”, it can be inferred that, in reality, the cows that were raised among the farmers might have been subject to much thefts, regardless of whether these attempts were successful. All in all, this would reflect that Madeleine Delicamp led an impoverished, hunger-stricken and harsh life in farming.
However, such a conclusion must be drawn with caution: as we cannot be sure of the extent of the deviation of Delicamp’s interpretation of the story from the original or the more mainstream versions, and hence, whether these small details were truly or fully reflective of Madeleine Delicamp’s social circumstances. Moreover, referring to my latter example in the above, we are unsure of whether Madeleine Delicamp’s identity as an illiterate Italian migrant would make it possible for her to assume the role of the master of a farm; hence, if the analogy of the cow theft was an addition to the story by Delicamp, it might not have happened to herself per se, but rather, part of the common experience of the farmers she had known.
I interpret Madeleine’s view of the world as a more realistic perspective that the world had condoned exploitation towards perhaps the impoverished or the vulnerable, which would constitute a major theme of the story. This could be exemplified through the detailing of the exploitation of children. For instance, upon seeing children coming out of her cauldron, the woman in the story says, “my husband will kill me if he sees this swarm; but I will get rid of them”, and proceeds to have all of the children’s heads cut off, before lamenting that “if I had kept one he would have helped me now”. Madeleine Delicamp very pessimistically delivers the analogy that poor families at the time were unable to support their children, which might result in the neglect that would equate to, perhaps, spiritually killing the children. Moreover, Madeleine Delicamp’s variation of the story compares the size of a child to that of a bean: this might also add onto Pequeletou’s triviality, and perhaps the neglect Madeleine might have been believed the world had condoned on children. Moreover, Pequeletou was later “obliged” to go with the thieves that his father had sold him off to in order to become rich: this may carry the implication that children at the time were expected to help with the household or even alleviating the harsh conditions of their family, which would cause families to “abandon” or “lend… to anyone” their children, resulting in exploitation. Therefore, Madeleine Delicamp might have seen through the neglect and exploitation in the world and incorporated it into her own variation of the story, although, we must take this with great caution as, again, we cannot be sure of how much her interpretation deviated from the original, and hence, whether her interpretations had truly been reflective of her world.
Thank you so much for answering.🙏 sadly I’ve only realized someone responded to my long winded question now
. I’m so sorry I didn’t review your essay; hopefully we both did well. Where are you applying from? How did you find the HAT? What did you speak about? I thought it was meh but now I realized I overlooked quite a bit of the context. If you want any help on the written work and the UK style of writing feel free to ask.(edited 6 months ago)
Thanks for your reply!!!! I found the HAT alright but I didn't talk much about the context of the text so I'm a bit worried... but hopefully we both did well 
I'm actually from Hong Kong! It'd definitely be great if you could tell me a bit more about how you guys typically write your essays because I think we do things differently here in Hong Kong.
All the best and I hope we both get in
I'm actually from Hong Kong! It'd definitely be great if you could tell me a bit more about how you guys typically write your essays because I think we do things differently here in Hong Kong. All the best and I hope we both get in
Original post by hattietofu
Thanks for your reply!!!! I found the HAT alright but I didn't talk much about the context of the text so I'm a bit worried... but hopefully we both did well I'm actually from Hong Kong! It'd definitely be great if you could tell me a bit more about how you guys typically write your essays because I think we do things differently here in Hong Kong.
All the best and I hope we both get in
I'm actually from Hong Kong! It'd definitely be great if you could tell me a bit more about how you guys typically write your essays because I think we do things differently here in Hong Kong. All the best and I hope we both get in
Umm what do you want me to tell you exactly? Give me a list of more precise questions and I'll answer them.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Oxford HAT Test 2023
- HAT exam
- Should I re apply?
- Wondering between Oxford and Cambridge for History and Politics
- 80/100 on HAT and still rejected from Oxford
- How important is the Oxford HAT for the application process?
- Oxbridge hopeful
- Why did I get Rejected From Oxford?
- History and Economics 2024 Entry (Oxford)
- Oxbridge reapplication/Durham
- reapplying to oxford
- Cambridge interview offers and HAT
- 80/100 on HAT, 12A*’s at GCSE, 4A*’s predicted and still rejected
- HAT test
- Hat 2023
- How do you start preparing for the Oxford PPE admissions test?
- History Oxford Admissions Test
- GCSE’s for top russel group unis
- Applying via UCAS as a USA homeschooler with piecemeal classes
- History Admissions Assessment (Cambridge HAA)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 41 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 hour ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 41 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 1 hour ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
