The Student Room Logo
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>
Applying to Uni for 2024? Find your Uni here and chat with others! >>

Hat 2023

Scroll to see replies

Original post by do de die egg
Same I don’t think it’s very important but was still worth noting. I spoke more about their reciprocal relationship. I made one small analysis strand on gender and on how it was largely men who were valued and expected to be rulers- only old men were to be honoured and also the text spoke about people in relation to being the ‘sons’ of others. I still thought social differences were relevant in that they showed the role the king played within these social differences.

My opinion that I got from this text (based on other sources), was that all the hierarchy was contract based, and that it was the sense of a contract, a duty, or an obligation that was fundamental,y most important. Those could be familial, financial, guest/host based, governments, power based, etc. but it is the keeping of an oath or contract that is so firmly emphasised as a given throughout the whole message.
Original post by Anonymous
Do you remember what the question was?

What the text said about the role of and ideal qualities in a king in early medieval Ireland, essentially. I don’t recall the exact wording, though.
So what were you supposed to write?
Original post by Anonymous
So what were you supposed to write?

What do you mean?
What were the themes that you think will be on the mark scheme?
Original post by Anonymous
What were the themes that you think will be on the mark scheme?

That seems to be a matter of speculation at this point, as you can see in the thread.
Yeah I mentioned similar, that the purpose of the text was contractual and enforced a relationship of mutual respect between ruler and ruled, and also diminished the absolute aspect of monarchy through adding accountability to both God and the legal institutions of Ireland.
Original post by TanzofAlaveria
My opinion that I got from this text (based on other sources), was that all the hierarchy was contract based, and that it was the sense of a contract, a duty, or an obligation that was fundamental,y most important. Those could be familial, financial, guest/host based, governments, power based, etc. but it is the keeping of an oath or contract that is so firmly emphasised as a given throughout the whole message.
What qualities were demonstrated as being fit for the King?
- judgment
- proportionality
- reason
- piety
It was an agro-society; a religious society, social contract.
Original post by Anonymous
What qualities were demonstrated as being fit for the King?
- judgment
- proportionality
- reason
- piety

What I find interesting is the number of people mentioning piety and religion when neither are actually mentioned at all in the body of the text as extracted on the exam (iirc there is a mention somewhere in the bits elipsised out, but that’s not especially relevant here.)
Since you knew the source, do you know if religion was mentioned in the other parts?
Original post by Anonymous
Since you knew the source, do you know if religion was mentioned in the other parts?

See my last message.
As far as I recall, actually, I think the notes that were provided at the top of the paper, before the source, mentioned that Ireland was a Christian society. So, although the text didn't mention it, I believe the provisional notes did; I think people disregarded that opening explanation, from what I've broadly seen around. Maybe, because it was the first thing people's nervous.....
Original post by TanzofAlaveria
What I find interesting is the number of people mentioning piety and religion when neither are actually mentioned at all in the body of the text as extracted on the exam (iirc there is a mention somewhere in the bits elipsised out, but that’s not especially relevant here.)

Couldn’t agree more. I also spoke about the reciprocal relationship between king and subjects but I feel like the term social contract summarises it better.
Original post by Anonymous
As far as I recall, actually, I think the notes that were provided at the top of the paper, before the source, mentioned that Ireland was a Christian society. So, although the text didn't mention it, I believe the provisional notes did; I think people disregarded that opening explanation, from what I've broadly seen around. Maybe, because it was the first thing people's nervous.....

It did say in the outset Ireland was a Christian society so I think it was possible to talk about how that affected the way it was transcripted in the 12th century. Apart from that there was nothing else in the content I think that seemed religiously relevant. The question was approximately ‘What can we learn from the text about priorities in early Irish society and the expectations for rulers at the time?’. Did anyone else define society?
Social contract is not really used in connection with these early settlements, such as Ireland in the 12th century. It's more of an enlightenment idea, used in more complex societies. And the Hobsean version of SC sounds like the King would be a despot, but the source didn't make it sound as though he were a despot. I think it's one observation, a valid interpretation and interesting, but...
Original post by Anonymous
Social contract is not really used in connection with these early settlements, such as Ireland in the 12th century. It's more of an enlightenment idea, used in more complex societies. And the Hobsean version of SC sounds like the King would be a despot, but the source didn't make it sound as though he were a despot. I think it's one observation, a valid interpretation and interesting, but...


Fine maybe not using the term ‘social contract ’- that’s anachronistic but talking about the way the king still had to deliver fairness if he was to retain his role was a major theme I think.
The source was also a myth and social contract makes me think that it would have related to law. Also, it's not a formal agreement; it's much more you will be truthful and they will reward you in turn; a sort of 'you love your people; they will love you back'. It's got these local, romantic elements to it.
I think it's a good term and it suggests a degree of sophistication, but I think it only starts the discussion.
Original post by do de die egg
Fine maybe not using the term ‘social contract ’- that’s anachronistic but talking about the way the king still had to deliver fairness if he was to retain his role was a major theme I think.
Original post by do de die egg
Fine maybe not using the term ‘social contract ’- that’s anachronistic but talking about the way the king still had to deliver fairness if he was to retain his role was a major theme I think.

Also, considering how contract heavy he entire social structures was— this is outside knowledge but it’s notable that almost every source we have on marriage from the place and period is far more focused on the exact kind of legal relationship and contract law than on the religious portions (except to point out how the contract parts and religious portions were mutually fine with each other). The same goes for lots of other sorts of relationships, including monarchical ones. A king was someone who had contractual agreements with a bunch of lesser leaders, who themselves had contracts with lesser leaders under them, etc. Social contract isn’t a bad term to use, it’s just far far more literal here in many ways. Also: the source is not a myth, and the context didn’t say it was. Only that it was orally transmitted until being written down, and that there were some aspects of its transmission or use that are perhaps mythical. The person sending the message and the person receiving it existed, and there is little reason to think the message itself is far different from one that might have actually been sent.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Trending

Latest