Q18

[cyruswhittaker]

I had trouble with this passage as a whole, and question 18 confused me.

Here's my understanding for D: The author mentions the tradition of "law-giver," in relation to the critical factor in "breaking the power monopoloy" and then continues with "But...the mere existence of written laws changes little." So I can understand how D would make sense, but I still feel uneasy about it, perhaps partially because it's a confusing passage to me in general.

Could you shed some light on this question and help me to understand it better?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

Seems like you got it. Nice emphasis of that critical pivot word "but." I hope you also emphasized the critical word "unless," as in "unless the right of interpretation is democratized..." This is where the author begins the bulk of her argument regarding elites in Greece, via their access to books and documents.

You can even dip into the first part of the next paragraph to help aid your understanding of the second paragraph. The first sentence says "In fact...only elites consulted documents." Ah. So why is the "law-giver" some kind of myth? Because common people didn't actually read important stuff. Thus, literacy isn't what brought down the aristocracy.

[evelina.chang]

I chose (C) because I interpreted it to mean that the high regard confused modern scholars, thus resulting in the misunderstanding of ancient politics.

I had a problem with (D) because I took the passage to mean that the power of the Athenian aristocracy was never diminished in the first place, so I eliminated it early on. I also couldn't find any references to diminishing the power of the Athenian aristocracy in the text.

Was I missing something in my reading?

[nflamel69]

Well, by definition of a democratic institution it implies that the power hold by several elites have been weakened. So I would say that's an reasonable jump in logic.

[bbirdwell]

When I read the second paragraph, it says "An examination of Athens shows how this kind of confusion is detrimental to understanding politics."

And I think "what confusion?" And I have to look to the first paragraph to find lines 7-13: people confuse the ability to read with access to important books.

Ok, so how exactly is this kind of confusion detrimental to our understanding? Well, the development of written law was "mythologized" as the critical factor in breaking the power monopoly of the aristocracy. (here's the weakening of the aristocracy you were looking for)

[Perhaps you misread the author here -- the author agrees that the aristocracy lost power, but not because of written law.]

Thus: law giver.

BUT, the "mere existence" of written laws changes little, unless interpretation is also democratized.

So why does the author mention law-giver? To help explain that written law didn't change much.

Hope that helps.