Sample Answers to Specimen paper

We ran a trial of the specimen paper with the help of a group of students at two comprehensive schools and an independent school. On the whole, the candidates enjoyed the test, though they did find it challenging.

The students kindly agreed that their answers could be reproduced for the benefit of other candidates. Some of these answers are presented below, together with the marks they were awarded and some comments from the Oxford tutors who did the marking. Remember that these are real answers, not model ones, and no changes have been made to the original spelling or grammar. Candidates should not feel that they have to answer the test in this way: after all, the students in our trial tackled the questions in very different ways. Rather, our aim in displaying these answers is to demonstrate how a well-qualified group of students got on with the HAT and to give an example of our marking.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact the Admissions Co-ordinator, Faculty of History, Broad St., Oxford OX1 3BD, or email schools.liaison@history.ox.ac.uk.

Question 1(a)
(a) What do you think the author means by ‘inner justifications, hence basic legitimations of domination’?
(5 marks)

Answer 1
By ‘inner justifications, hence basic legitimations of domination’ the author is commenting on the reasons people give themselves so that they can accept, and therefore believe in, the propriety and legality, of the way that they are ruled.
Score: 5
Comment: This short answer neatly and clearly explains the meaning of the phrase in the student’s own words.

Answer 2
‘Inner justifications’ are what the dominated feel that leads to their acceptance of their domination by others. Be they the power of precedent, personal loyalty or legality, these ‘inner justifications’ legitimise the domination of the state in the eyes of the people it dominate.
Score: 4
Comment: This candidate explains what legitimations do very effectively, and captures ‘inner justifications’, but does not quite tackle the meaning of ‘legitimation’.

Answer 3
I think the author, when he talks of ‘inner justifications’ is referring to the fears and motives of the people that make them obey authority. This is not only a reference to modern days, but also of times when there were rulers who ruled through their own power, not the support of the people. These ‘inner justifications’, the author refers to, are the church, the personal devotion to the leader and the laws that govern the country.
Score: 1
Comment: The candidate does not address the questions of legitimacy or justification. The second and third sentences contain interesting reflections, but they do not help to answer the question.

Question 1(b)
(b) Choose ANY ONE of the author's three types of ‘legitimation’ and explain its meaning in a few lines.
(10 marks)

Answer 1
The author outlines the authority of the 'eternal yesterday'. By this, he means the way in which the people of a society are often desirous of maintaining those customs and institutions practised and inaugurated by their forefathers. People, the author argues, have an 'habitual desire to conform', that is to say, they would feel more secure in obeying institutions laid down in previous generations, which have been proven by past experience and been shown to be valid by the length of time they have survived, rather than move against these practises and institutions, either by removing or reforming them, or by simply ignoring them. The author gives two examples of rulers who govern upon such legitimacy of tradition. The patriarch and the prince are both potentates who govern through ancient institutions, the church and the monarchy respectively, and hold offices which have been venerated and obeyed for generations.
Score: 8
Comment: This is a thoughtful and clear answer which explains ‘traditional’ legitimation well. It could be a little more economical: the last two sentences, for example, do not really add anything to the explanation.

Answer 2
The ‘authority of extraordinary and personal charisma’ is a form of 'legitimation' that relies entirely on the individual's ability to command the obedience of the remainder of an organisation with no other support from legislation or sense of history embedded in society. It is these people who have the power and belief in themselves to ‘climb the ranks’ in order to be in popular power. This form of legitimation has been shown in history through cases such as Hitler, who had such great charisma, although little organisational power or abilities, that people felt inspired by his speeches and support their ideals through no external power, but through their own sense of ‘personal devotion’ and ‘personal confidence’ in one person with great charismatic power.
Score: 6
Comment: This gets the essentials of ‘charismatic’ legitimation quite well, but shows a tendency to quote from, or paraphrase, the original text instead of explaining or analysing it. Answers to this question do not necessarily need to include an example, and, while the example given here is well chosen, it draws the candidate into illustrating the issues instead of explaining what the author means - saying how personal devotion enables charismatic leaders to break free from the restraints of custom, for instance.

Answer 3
The first type of legitimation that the author mentions is the ‘authority of the eternal yesterday’, or ‘traditional domination’. The implication is that ‘ancient recognition and people’s habitual conform’ creates a culture that allows for domination to occur, as the evolution of society has created a void, once filled by the ‘prince of former times’ and given legitimacy by the close association it has with religion. Although patriarchs still hold power in Orthodox countries, the suggestion is that the Patriarch or ‘prince of former times’ have left a void, which is filled by the domination of men, which occurs through the state.
Score: 1
Comment: This candidate uses up a lot of time and space on quoting from the text and doesn't really get round to explaining its meaning. S/he ties traditional legitimation too exclusively to religion (perhaps because of the ‘patriarch’ example?), and it is hard to see a basis in the text for the argument about the evolution of society creating a void which permits domination.

Question 1(c)
(c) Write an essay of one and a half to three sides, applying the author’s ideas about ‘legitimation’ to ANY ONE ruler, or regime, which you are familiar with. In the course of your essay, you should comment on the extent to which these ideas help to explain the power of your chosen ruler or regime.
(35 marks)

Answer 1
The power of an American president is based upon the legality of the constitution drawn up by the founding fathers. As the president is elected by a popular vote he must exhibit abilities and policies which are popular with the citizens of the United States.
Franklin Roosevelt was elected by popular appeal through charisma and popular policy. This gave him power as the president. The power of the President was created rationally through the constitution, a set of rules drawn up by men. However, these rules, in general, are based upon traditional values which had evolved from religious beliefs dating back to the early days of Christianity, or possibly even further back in time. Therefore it is difficult to determine exactly which of the three legitimations apply to the power of an American president, it is perhaps easier to apply them to individual areas of power.
Firstly it is important to note that it was always intended to create a separation of power within the government of the US. This is to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of a single individual. It was this potential tyranny which the American constitution was intended to end. Therefore the President was never able to dictate policy without verification from Congress, whilst the Supreme Court was able to assess the legitimacy of all legislation.
The power exhibited by Roosevelt during his terms in office vary. When he was first elected he used the crisis of the Great Depression to force through measures which under ‘normal’ conditions would have been considered unjust and illegal. Roosevelt was able to push legislation through Congress. This legalised his decisions in the eyes of the people. However, this did not prevent his opponents from attacking some policies through which they felt he had gained to much power. To do this they used the Supreme Court to declare certain policies of Roosevelt unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Roosevelt hoped to maintain his popularity with the public by justifying his policies through his fireside chats. This established a rapport with the electorate and this use of charisma undoubtedly helped to legitimise the power Roosevelt wielded.
Despite his popularity Roosevelt was still not able to hold total power and was kept in check firstly by the legislative process and secondly by public opinion. Frustrated by the Republican Supreme Court's blocking of certain New Deal programmes Roosevelt tried to increase the number of judges so as to create a more favourable situation. This caused great controversy among many Americans who felt that Roosevelt was exercising too much power. Roosevelt was forced to back down, this shows that if the legitimations of power, personal charisma and legal, are removed then the President cannot achieve their goals.
Roosevelt was again granted extended powers during WWII. This followed from the historical precedent of the Great War, when the federal government's, and therefore the President's, powers had been extended. This was based upon the trust of the public and legalisation through Congress. In later years, policy made during this period might have been viewed as being less legitimate as the law making body, Congress was less involved in certain decisions.
The legitimation of the power of the President of the United States is based upon two key pillars. Firstly that he has the popular support of the electorate and has been duly elected. Secondly that his policies are ratified in Congress and that this legalises the power he exerts. In the case of Roosevelt this can clearly be seen. His early policies were drastic but he was granted this power through popular and Congressional support. He was held in check by the Supreme Court which ensured that legality was retained in his policies, when he threatened this public outcry reined him in and he was able to maintain legitimate government.
Score: 25
Comment: From the start, it is clear that the candidate is engaging with the ideas in the text and not just writing an essay about Roosevelt (though there are a few places where material on Roosevelt needs to be related more closely to the issue of legitimation). S/he explores legitimation sensitively and thoughtfully, noting the two different kinds of legitimation that most of all explain Roosevelt's power, but also noting that, while both were important, each was more important at particular times. The candidate hints at the tensions between the two sources of legitimacy - a charismatic action might contravene people's sense of legal/rational legitimacy, for instance - and that impressed us. At the same time, the candidate does not have many focused things to say about the second part of the question (how much do these ideas help...?). The essay is quite well structured, with a good introduction and conclusion, though the material in between could have been organised more effectively into a developing exposition or argument (eg [1] the role of charisma + [2] the role of legality + [3] tensions between them, OR [1] ways in which the ideas of legitimation help to explain R's power + [2] ways in which they don't)

Answer 2
Hitler’s meteoric rise from leader of a weak and small party in the 1920s, to absolute ruler of Germany from 1933–1945, demonstrates several of the author’s ideas about ‘legitimation’ of authority. This essay will examine these demonstrations and will make a conclusion as to how successful they are in explaining the very substantial power of Hitler and the Nazi Party during the period.
There can be little doubt that Hitler, in his swift removal of the Weimar system of government shows how a man with the 'extraordinary and personal charisma' highlighted by the author can remove an institution with little of the tradition and respect that the author argues can legitimise a ruler and its institutions. It is first necessary to examine both Hitler’s abundance of charisma and the Weimar republic’s lack of traditional recognition when drawing practical parallels with the author's hypothetical examples.
Hitler certainly did demonstrate that 'absolutely personal devotion and personal confidence in revelation and heroism', that the author outlines. To a nation in the grips of severe economic downturn, with the humiliation of military defeat still on many parts of the national phyce, Hitler offered an almost messianic vision of a Germany restored to its former prestige. Evidence of Hitler's ability to portray this potent image of a heroic leader who would restor a war-torn and economically shattered country's pride is clear in descriptions of his manner and rhetoric and the effects this had on crowds of people. Its importance in Hitler’s maintaining power is also clear, with Hitler able to use his personal skills and image to draw support from discredited, conventional politicians. When in office, Hitler was able to use his propaganda machine to further his image as führer - the prophetic leader who would lead Germany to victory over other nations through war and domination. Through this charisma and personal claim to authority, Hitler was able to remove, through violence, opposition, both from within and outside the Nazi party.
Another aspect of the author's legitimation argument is shown in the example of the Weimar political institution's lack of that very tradition that can be used to justify a state's existence. It is arguable that, had this institution been more founded in the culture and history of the German nation, it would have been better placed to withstand the economic and political problems of the time, and to have withstood the threat of Hitler, or at least contained his personality within its structure. Yet the Weimar system lacked that very tradition. It had been founded by a constitution, and despite all its democratic validity, it had little connection with the past political institutions of Germany. It was seen as an institution set up in the time of defeat; imposed on Germany by those who had betrayed it in the First World War. Some parts of the German people did not see the 'validity of legal statutes', and the republic found itself, throughout its short history, endangered by insurrection, often armed, from extremist factions.
The rise of Hitler, therefore, shows there to be a great degree of relevance in the author's argument that tradition and charisma can be crucial factors in explaining why Hitler was able to hold power. There are, however, areas where the legitimation factors are limited, and these are mainly in highlighting the way in which factors affecting socio-economic life within a country are often sufficient to justify, or nullify a particular state or leader, in this case Hitler.
It can be argued that were it not for the real suffering of the German people due to economic depression, neither Hitler's charisma, nor Weimar's lack of traditional legitimation, would have been sufficient to justify Hitler's government. This is supported by the fact that Nazi support rose and fell depending on the conomic state of the country. In economically proserous times, the comparitively uncharismatic leaders of the non-traditional Weimar Republic were able to govern well with comparitive security.
In conclusion, Hitler's government shows links to the areas of legitimation shown in the author’s argument. Hitlers had charisma, of a powerful sort and was able to infiltrate and vanquish an institution which lacked all of the legitimation factors, notably a traditional justification. The extract, however, fails to outline the factors which help to affirm power amongst all sections of society. The German example shows how, in troubled economic situations, the people of a nation can often reject legal processes, and only force can be used to govern. In a democratic system, where force is limited in the degree to which it can be used to maintain order, it is perhaps these socio-economic factors that need to be taken into account, rather than just the abstract, political justifications of a simpler, more credulous society.
Score: 32
Comment: This was probably the best of the essays in our trial. The candidate takes a firmly analytical approach and everything s/he says about Hitler is presented within an interpretative and argumentative framework. S/he explores how well the author's ideas work in relation to this example and comes up with an original and imaginative challenge to them. The candidate judges the use of evidence very well; while s/he provide necessary supporting comment and examples, this is done in a manner which enables him/her to concentrate on applying and evaluating the ideas in the text. Above all, it was the powerful thinking, and effective organisation and expression, in this essay that earned it such a strong score, together with the fact that it addressed both sides of the question.

Overall comment on 1(c). This question was generally fairly well done in our trial, with candidates answering on Mao, Castro, Churchill, Lenin and Stalin, as well as the examples above (the students in our trial mainly studied twentieth-century history at A level). Where candidates were less successful than those above, that was often for one or more of the following reasons: they had not understood the legitimations sufficiently; they did not apply them with enough discrimination; they did not evaluate the legitimation model as an explanation of the power of their chosen example; they included information without explaining its relevance; their exposition was muddled in either organisation or expression.

Question 1(d)
(d) ‘To be sure, the pure types are rarely found in reality’. Do you think historians should make use of ‘types’ and theories in discussing the past? Write a paragraph setting out your answer and the reasons for it.
(20 marks)

Answer 1
The ever-present danger for historians who try to make general statements about, for example, the foundations of government legitimacy is that few generalisations prove universally applicable in practice. There is always, as the proverb has it, an exception that proves the rule. As the author acknowledges, ‘the pure types’, of any theory, ‘are rarely found in reality’. Sometimes the rule or theory is so unwieldy that one has to search for an example to match it, which is rather ironic; if it is so difficult to find a specific instance to fit a general statement then something is awry. The theory at issue here, concerning government authority, is better shown by some situations than others, and even then there are complicating factors which the author touches on. The lesson is that care and caution are needed in making generalisations; yet those theories must still be formulated. Otherwise those who study history would become master of individual periods and events but would never dare extrapolate; just as a scientist who never makes a hypothesis is of little use. If, ultimately, the theory is disproved, it matters little; a superior, amended version may replace it. But to have no theories at all would degrade our subject and debase its disciplines, not to mention the grave threat to the future of mankind if he cannot draw even a few general lessons from his past.
Score: 15
Comment: The candidate tackled the question thoughtfully and in a broad way (rather than simply commenting on the specific case set out in the text). S/he gave reasons for his/her position and expressed his/her view clearly and effectively. At the same time, the candidate did not quite tackle the conceptual problems raised by a theory that can't be precisely validated by any particular example (but nor did any other candidate in our trial).

Answer 2
I do believe historians should make use of ‘types’ and theories when discussing the past because they govern the way countries and people have been ruled, throughout the history of the world. I disagree partly with the author when he says ‘the pure types are rarely found in reality’. This is because in modern history, I agree, many ways of governing were, and are, a mixture of these types but in older history they were an integral part of people obeying their masters. Therefore these ‘types’ and theories should be used when discussing the past because they explain how and why our world is governed as it is today, through the mixture and evoloution of these types.
Score: 7
Comment: This was a less successful answer, we thought, for various reasons. The candidate treats the question as if it relates specifically to the types/theories in the text, whereas it is about types and theories in general. S/he is mistaken about the relationship between a type/theory - as something abstract - and the world of ‘reality’. His/her thought-provoking view that earlier societies might have involved more unmixed power-forms does not really address the question (and seems to overlook the author's sense that his types can help us to understand societies in any period).

Overall comment on 1(d). This question was not generally very well done. Most candidates explored only one theme and few wrote a fully reasoned argument. Almost all the candidates evaded the implicit (and difficult!) question of what theories are based on, if they are not found 'in reality'. In retrospect, we felt that our instructions to candidates could have been clearer - that ‘a paragraph’ was too vague, and that there wasn't enough emphasis in the question on supporting the position taken with reasoning.

Question 2
What does this extract say to you about the world of the tenth century? (Write up to about two sides.)
(30 marks)

Answer 1
The extract suggests strong links between the countries of Mediterranean Europe. The reference to King Hugh’s death in Provence suggests either that the death of a king in Provence had political ramifications in Italy, or that Italian kings may have had sufficiently strong links with Provence to travel there. The fame of a man in Italy can spread as far as Constantinople, while it seems that political ties across the Mediterranean are strengthened by marriage, Constantine’s son marrying Lothair’s sister. Constantine’s and Lothair's regimes communicate with each other, by letter and by envoy.
The reference to the ‘Greek peoples’ suggests racial divides between them, and that they might not be politically united, or might be geographically spread out. By contrast, Italy is sufficiently politically united for Berengar to be ‘chief man’ there. In Italy, Lothair rules a kingdom, though Berengar wields real power, by virtue of his abilities. In Constantinople, Constantine is an emperor, and this, along with Berengar's readiness to agree to Constantine’s desire to receive an envoy from him, suggests that Constantinople is a greater power than Lothair's kingdom. The reference to ‘a certain Andreas’ having the title ‘prefect of the guard’ hints at a more developed system of government than that which exists in Italy, where Berengar wields great power apparently outside any kind of established system, and is referred to simply as ‘chief man’.
Politics appear to be conducted on a personal level, Constantine’s care for Lothair's welfare being partly motivated by personal ties, while Berengar appears well acquainted with the envoy he sends to Constantinople.
In terms of the technological advancement of the time, the two rulers communicate by messenger-carried letter, and the journey from Italy to Constantinople is expensive and considered a long one.
The reference to the stepfather's estate also hints at the connection between wealth, property and politics.
The extract suggests that in Italy education is based on ‘Latin knowledge’, while in Constantinople Greek is prevalent, perhaps spoken. The language obviously brings benefits to those who can speak it - the stepfather believing it to be worth half his estate, Berengar saying that the writer’s knowledge of Greek would be a ‘boon’ to him. This again hints at the possible political importance of Constantinople.
Berengar’s reference to courage and eloquence suggest that these two qualities were greatly admired at the time, or might perhaps have been necessary for the journey to Constantinople, hinting at potential danger along the way. The stepson does not appear to be consulted as to whether he wants to go to Constantinople - his stepfather’s will is all-important, and the writer is ‘sent off’.
Score: 23
Comment: This answer ranges very widely and thoughtfully, making a series of imaginative, but also cautious and open-minded, deductions from the text. Some of these insights might have been taken further: is there, for example, a relationship between the difficulties of travel and the reliance on more-or-less independent individuals (and on interpersonal links such as marriage) for the expression of power? Why might eloquence and courage be especially praised in such a world? Could there be a connection between Constantinople, empire and the high cultural status of Greek?

Answer 2
The first striking factor about the world of the tenth century is the paradox of what makes man good. This is first apparent in the portrayal of Berengar. Berengar was the chief man in Italy ‘by virtue of his abilities’, implying that he has risen through the ranks, rather than been born into an important job as the actual king Lothair was. Yet he is described as a man ‘stuffed full of cunning’ and proves to be quite selfish and tight-fisted. Though he is famous and admired for his ability, he displays negative character traits.
This implies that in the tenth century, the personality of politicians was not as important as it is today. In the twenty first century famous people are at the mercy of the media and if they are not likeable people, will often see their power diminish. By contrast, in the tenth century, there seems to be no cult of the personality' and no propaganda machine. People became powerful because of their ability, no because they are charismatic human beings.
Additionally, the extract shows a world of inter-marriage within the ruling elite. Though he doesn’t have the power, Lothair is king and his sister marries the son of the emperor of Constaninople. This implies that the tenth century isn't about romantism and marriage based upon love, but rather marriages of convenience and increased power.
The extract also highlights the importance of education in the tenth century. The author is most likely a nobleman as his stepfather owns an estate and Berengar will happily send him to an emperor, so the education is probably not widespread. Even so, the desire for knowledge is greater than the desire for economic gain; his stepfather said ‘I would spend half my estate to give him that knowledge’. This shows that the world of the tenth century was one of education not material gain.
The tenth century seems to be a time of the most profound respect. Constantine went to the trouble of sending a letter and preparing to greet an envoy just so ‘Berengar might know how affectionately he was regarded’. In addition, Berengar makes a big show of praising the author’s ‘courage and eloquence’. As the most powerful man in Italy, Berengar could have ordered the author to go to Constantinople, but instead chose to flatter him. This shows that people in the tenth century are more refined than is commonly thought.
The extract, therefore, says a lot about the higher ranks of tenth century Italy. However it does not give much of a clue about the world of lower class Italy or of what was happening in the rest of the world in the tenth century. As a single extract from the perspective of one person, it gives the point of view of one person on one event. Constantine, Berengar or even the author’s stepfather may have viewed the event and indeed the world very differently. Thus the extract gives a flavour of upper class Italy from the perspective of one man, but very little about the world of the tenth century in other countries, classes or view-points.
Score: 19
Comment: This candidate covers fewer topics, but covers each one in more depth, which works just as well. The comparisons with the modern world seem worthwhile, in that they help to point up what is distinctive about the tenth century, though the content of the text is the important thing, and it may be that some of the tenth-century traits the candidate has picked out could be pushed further, or examined more sceptically (Is the 'respect' shown by Berengar and Constantine really 'profound', for example? What else might have lain behind it? The candidate talks about 'flattery' him/herself... and why was that necessary, if Berengar was so powerful?).

Answer 3
Insofar as this snapshot of tenth century Italy and Constantinople can provide any kind of generalities, they are, in the first place, that power was exercised with no checks by monarchs, regents, emperors or by others ruling in their name. There was no way of holding those in power to account.
There is evidence that those with 'abilities' found their way into positions of influence; what these abilities might have been is unclear; we do not know, for example, whether the author regards Berengar's 'cunning' as a virtue or a vice - or perhaps a distasteful but necessary quality: that is somewhere between the two. Constantine's correspondence indicates a desire for intimacy with those in positions of power, because personal relations, if strong, can lead to knowledge and influence. Thus Constantine targets Berengar not Lothair. Another pointer as to the importance of personal ties is given by Constantine's show of affection for Lothair on account of family bonds.
The next observation is that the author pays more attention to Constantine’s first letter, the one to do with the envoy, than to his second, concerning Lothair's welfare; indeed, he does not mention the letter again. It could of course follow on in a subsequent passage which we are not shown, but still it seems significant that this first letter is dealt with first: it is to do with power.
Berengar appears unmoved by Constantine’s flattery; perhaps he sees straight through it; nor does he appear to concern himself with the implications of his sending an envoy: he does not, it seems, have any qualms about upstaging or sidelining the king. His self-interest comes to the fore; he wishes to please Constantine while incurring minimum expense; this confirms that it is a personal envoy he is sending rather than an official herald, for the latter, one assumes, would be funded by the Exchequer. His actions reveal what have earlier been referred to as his 'abilities': he is a master of spin, adept at telling others what they would like to hear, thus getting them to do his bidding in the belief that he is in fact doing them a favour.
The world of the tenth century, as illuminated by this account, was one where, at least in the highest circles, and as today, the prime concern and motivation was the effective practice of 'realpolitik'.
Score: 24
Comment: We liked the very close and subtle reading of the source here, including the candidate's recognition of the ambivalent position of the author and his/her shrewd analysis of personal relationships as presented in the extract.

Overall comment on 2. This question was generally tackled well, with lots of imaginative and perceptive deductions (some of them, inevitably, off-beam in terms of historical reality, but that is not what the exercise was about). Candidates lost marks for wandering away from the passage, into what they knew, or thought they knew, about the tenth century, or for spending too much time exploring modern parallels and not enough on reading the text closely and thinking about it. Generally speaking, candidates could have taken their insights a stage further: they noticed interesting things, but did not always allow themselves enough space to analyse, reflect upon, or explain each observation before moving on to the next one. We wondered if some candidates had not left themselves enough time for this exercise, which is worth 30% of the marks, and needs some thinking time as well as some writing time.

	back to the top
	back to the History Aptitude Test: Introduction
	back to Applying to Oxford
	back to Prospective Undergraduates home page