Answer ALL parts of BOTH questions. You have TWO HOURS for this test. We recommend that you spend about a third of that time on reading, thinking and planning, and the rest of the time writing. Question One should take about twice as much time as Question Two.

If you find the texts difficult and unfamiliar, don't worry: the exercise is intended to be challenging, but we hope you will also find it thought-provoking. There is no ‘right’ answer to many of the questions: you will be judged on the intelligence of your case, how clearly you make it and how effectively you support it.

Please do not turn over until you are asked to.

---

QUESTION ONE (70 marks)

This is an adapted extract from a lecture about politics given by an early twentieth-century historian. The context is unimportant, and you will not be asked about it. Please read through the extract carefully and think about what it’s trying to say.

Like the political institutions historically preceding it, the state is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e. considered to be legitimate) violence. If the state is to exist, the dominated must obey the authority claimed by the powers that be. When and why do men obey? Upon what inner justifications and upon what external means does this domination rest?

To begin with, in principle, there are three inner justifications, hence basic legitimations of domination.

First, the authority of the ‘eternal yesterday’, i.e. of values and practices sanctified through ancient recognition and people’s habitual desire to conform. This is ‘traditional’ domination, as exercised by the patriarch [1] or the prince of former times.

There is the authority of extraordinary and personal charisma, absolutely personal devotion and personal confidence in revelation, heroism, or other qualities of individual leadership. This is ‘charismatic’ domination, as exercised by the prophet or – in the field of politics – by the elected warlord, the plebiscitarian ruler [2], the great demagogue [3], or the political party leader.

Finally, there is domination by virtue of ‘legality’, by virtue of the belief in the validity of legal statute and ‘competences’ based on rationally created rules. In this case, obedience is expected in the discharging of statutory obligations. This is domination as exercised by the modern ‘servant of the state’ and by all those bearers of power who in this respect resemble him.

It is understood that, in reality, obedience is determined by highly robust motives of fear and hope – fear of the vengeance of magical powers or of the power-holder, hope for reward in this world or in the beyond - and besides that by interests of the most varied sort. However, if we want to know the ‘legitimations’ of this obedience, we will meet with these three ‘pure’ types: ‘traditional’, ‘charismatic’, and ‘legal’.

These conceptions of legitimacy and their inner justifications are of very great significance for the structure of domination. To be sure, the pure types are rarely found in reality. But today we cannot deal with the highly complex variants, transitions, and combinations of these pure types.

Notes

[1] i.e. head of a family, tribe or church.
[2] i.e. having the support of the mass of the population.
[3] i.e. populistic leader.

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

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

(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)

(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)

QUESTION TWO (30 marks)

This is an adapted extract from a tenth-century memoir, written by a man from Northern Italy. You are not expected to know anything about its context, and external information will not help you in this exercise. Everything you need to answer the question is in the passage, but there is no single answer: different people will see different things.

After the death of King Hugh in Provence, the fame of Berengar spread abroad in many lands, and especially among the Greek peoples. By virtue of his abilities he was the chief man in Italy, while Lothair was king only in name. So Constantine, who had become emperor at Constantinople, hearing that in actual power Berengar was superior to Lothair, sent him a letter by the hand of a certain Andreas, who had the title of ‘prefect of the guard’. In this letter, he said that he would very much like a visit from an envoy of Berengar’s, so that on his messenger’s return Berengar might know how affectionately he was regarded. He also wrote him another letter on Lothair’s behalf, commending Lothair to his care and begging him to be faithful in administering the realm. Constantine indeed had no small regard for Lothair’s welfare, owing to the affection he felt for his son’s wife who was Lothair’s sister.

Berengar, who was a man stuffed full of cunning, began to consider whom he could best send without contributing anything himself to the expense of a long journey. He, therefore, sent for my stepfather and addressed him thus: ‘What a boon it would be to me if your stepson knew Greek!’. My stepfather replied, ‘I would spend half my estate to give him that knowledge.’ ‘No’, said Berengar, ‘you need not spend one hundredth of it. The emperor of Constantinople begs me in this letter to send an envoy to his court. As far as courage goes no-one could be better than your stepson, and on the score of eloquence no-one could be more satisfactory than he will be. And I need not tell you how easily there he will imbibe the learning of Greek, he who in his youth has drunk so deep of Latin knowledge.’ At this my stepfather was fired by hope, contributed all the expenses of my journey, and sent me off, the bearer of handsome gifts, to Constantinople.

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

End of Paper.

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