Hi, I'm Laura Swift. I'm a Classics tutor at Magdalen College in the University of Oxford. And this is my colleague Al Moreno, and he teaches Ancient history here as well. We're going to do a demonstration interview with Lilly in a minute. Who is applying for a degree in Classics, and we get to talk a bit first about, what we're looking for in a Classics interview and what form it normally takes. So Classics is an interdisciplinary degree, and that means there are quite a range of possible skills that a classicist might have. It's a degree that involves aptitude for languages, analysing literature, being a historian, handling material culture and also some philosophy. Not all of those are going to be tested in every interview. But probably a range of them will be across the interviews that you have. We know that it's a subject that people have different levels of exposure to from school. Some people may have done classical civilisation or Latin or Greek at school and others won't. And we're absolutely not expecting certain types of knowledge or facts. We're not interested in how much you know or have memorised about the ancient world. And we're very happy for people to apply who are just really passionate about classics, whether or not they studied it formally in the school curriculum. What we're trying to do is assess your aptitude for the skills that a good classicist needs. And so not what you know, but what you do with the knowledge that you do have and how you react to a piece of information that we might give you that you might not have come across before. And there aren't right or wrong answers to the questions. We want you to think of it as a discussion. If there's anything you need clarified, if there's anything that you don't understand, then we want you to ask so that we can explain it to you, just like you was in any normal discussion. In terms of the structure then, you'd usually get two interviews at your first preference college, and there would always be at least two tutors present in the interview. The interviews might be quite varied in form. So we can't really say exactly what will happen to you as an applicant. You might be sent something to read in advance to talk about in the interview. You might be shown something on the screen during the interview. You might be asked questions about your personal statements, what you've said that you have read or enjoyed about the classical world at school. You might be asked questions based on your written work. And so there's quite a, a wide range of options for what a Classics interview could look like. And what we're going to do today is just one possible. It's not the only way that Classics interview can be done. The interview more or less proceeds as a mini tutorial would. And that's, another of the things that we look for in an interview is how teachable the candidate might be in a tutorial format. I will be asking some things about ancient history, showing the candidates images and text on the screen. And just as Laura said, we're not expecting pre-existing knowledge of any kind. And we encourage all candidates if they ever, ever feel lost or, don't understand what it is that we want to ask for clarification or for more information if they need it. Welcome, Lilly. Lilly is actually a current student so she obviously has already been through this process, and she's now studying here, so she may have a bit more knowledge than somebody who is still in the final year of school, but she's very kindly agreed to help us out. So, Lilly, I'm going to talk to you for the first part of the interview. And then a little bit later, I am going to pass you over to Al, who is going to ask you some more history focused questions. If there's any problem with the technology or if you need to ask us to repeat anything, please don't feel worried about that. Just let us know and we will make sure things gets back on track. Okay. So I, I saw on your personal statement that you said that you have been reading The Odyssey at the moment and so I wondered if we could, if you'd feel willing to talk a little bit about that text now. Yes. So I guess the first question I wanted to ask was, I think in children's books versions of The Odyssey, then the narrative proceeds chronologically. Odysseus leaves Troy. He has all these adventures. Then he gets back home. In the original poem, then Odysseus tells all the adventures of the exciting things he's done, and the encounters he's had with monsters in a flashback in the first person. Why do you think the poet does it that way? I think it kind of helps us to really conjure up a reality and, like, we get to know how Odysseus himself felt during the things he experienced. And we also get a lot of, like, different comments on, the things he sees, for example, like the comments on how he perceives a Cyclops to be or also how he thinks, how, for example, Laestrygonians, he like, describes them a lot. And on this side, we get a lot of, like, emotions, like, we get a lot of emotions that Odysseus himself felt during the, during his adventures. On the other side I think it also kind of emphasises the intelligence and unreliability of Odysseus, because we often get told that he is, like an Odysseus of many wiles. So he is cunning, he's clever. And so it might also show us how he's trying to manipulate his internal audience, which are the Phaeacians by, like framing his narrative. So it then emphasises that he has an agenda at the point when he's telling his stories. And so we, like, see another one of Odysseus’ stories, like one of his lying stories. which he also tells later on in Ithaca. And that might also emphasise his intelligence and his metis, which, yeah, is demonstrated throughout the poem. So you said a minute ago Odysseus has an agenda. What do you think his agenda is? So we know that, well we don't know, but we get to know in the poem that he has been suffering all of those years for and has been traveling along and trying to get home. And he's now found by the Phaeacians. And before he is told by the princess Nausicaa and also by Athena that he needs to persuade the Phaeacians especially Areta, the Queen of Phaeacia to escort him home. So, for example, like by telling these stories, he kind of tries to persuade, the king and the queen to help him home. And then he tries to evoke pity on the one hand, for example, when he talks about how he loses all his men during, during his travels and there emphasises his grief about all the different events that he is facing or that he was facing, and that this other time he also shows himself as very clever, very intelligent, and also worthy of being helped, for example, with the Cyclops episode. There he repeatedly emphasises his cunning with the Noman trick and so he, like, by using both of these aspects like by invoking pity and also, like, showing off his intelligence he might just try to persuade the Phaeacians to help him home. And you mentioned the Cyclops episode. I mean, he, he makes a pretty bad mistake, doesn't he? Because he takes his men into this cave where they get trapped, and then a bunch of them get eaten. Might the Phaeacians not think, you know, this guy's a bit of a fool. He's a terrible leader. Why should we help him? I think he explains, like, in the narrative itself. He explains it with his hope of receiving guest presents. So, I think you could explain his like naivety to expect presents with, like, the, like with the, like common practice of hospitality in ancient Greece. So maybe the Phaeacians would kind of understand that. However, at the same time, you could also argue that they know, of this, like because they were the Cyclops' former neighbours so they maybe would also not understand that. But I think it could also show like it's desperate like, his despair in the situation. So maybe they understand that he's just, like, so desperate to, like, get gifts or like to have someone to help him, even here the Cyclops because Odysseus doesn't know beforehand what the Cyclops is or who he is, or if he's good or evil. The Phaeacians might know that, but Odysseus at that point does not. So, it shows us despair that he is willing to, like, appeal to anyone to have him help get home. So maybe that also, like, helps with evoking pity. And I mean, you mentioned that, he's quite devious. Do you think that means we can trust this narrative? Can we just take it as true that these things happened in the way that he says? I don't think we can say that it is true exactly in the way he tells it. I mean, at some point, like, what is, like some aspect of his tale are repeated in other of his lying tales. So maybe like the basic the, the, the basic structure might be correct, but obviously because he's so devious and so clever, he might just like, edit certain details or like, leave some things out or add some other things to, like, just appeal to it, like to, like to fit it with his, like, fit in with his audience. So for example, with Eumaeus the swineherd later he also tells a similar story that he was sold to slavery, like Eumaeus himself also was. So he he also tries to like, evoke pity with Eumaeus because he knows he has suffered the same thing, and maybe he also does the same here with the Phaeacians. Obviously we cannot know because we don't have the like, we don't know from the, from the narrator himself, the true story. But I feel because many of his many details of his tale repeat in other of his tales, so maybe like the basic structure should be correct, but he obviously edits it, like, according to which audience he has. So how do you think that makes us feel about him as a character? I mean, he tells lies to get on the right side of whoever he's talking to, and he tricks this poor old swineherd who's just trying to do the right thing. I think it depends on, like, I think we need to differentiate between us, between us as a modern audience and like the ancient Greece/Greek audience. Because obviously in our society, lying is framed as, is considered bad and evil and wicked. However, what we've learned in school is that, like lying, people have different attitudes towards lying in the past. So I think it is also emphasised by Okeanos himself. Who, like, no, not Okeanos. It was Eumaeus who, even though I think he says that he does not really trust his story completely, but he thinks it's like, very entertaining. So, I think, that might show us that in ancient Greece, maybe, like, the fact that entertainment is sometimes more important than, like stating the correct truth, like the complete truth. As long as, like, the basic structure might be correct. It's kind of ironic that you Eumaeus doesn't really believe, especially he doesn't really believe that the fact that Odysseus is coming home. But, but he, like, accepts every other lie that Odysseus tells at that point, which is a bit ironic, because the only true part of his, like the complete truth that he tells is Odysseus coming home because he is coming home. So that's a bit ironic. But, I think that in ancient Greece, like the attitude towards lying was a bit different. So maybe that's why the internal, like the ancient Greek audience might just, see that as like a, as an evidence for his cunning and for his metis. While we might see that a bit more, like, see that in a more problematic light than the people in the past did. And that's really interesting. In the passage you just mentioned, when Eumaeus gets quite cross with Odysseus for saying that Odysseus is coming home. Does that suggest that that particular lie is somehow morally wrong in a way that the stories about where he comes from, he doesn’t really believe them, but they're okay? I think, it just shows that lying about very important stuff might not be accepted. So, for example, for Eumaeus, it is very, it will be very, like a life changing event if Odysseus would really come home because it would change the whole situation with the suitors and, with just the chaos, which is like happening in Ithaca right now. So that if, like, if the the stranger told a lie about that, that may also affect Eumaeus more and, like, would get his hopes up. And then obviously it would be very, like, it would be very awful for him if this lie turned out to be a lie. And also I think that will, like Eumaeus also mentions that there were like other people who tried to convince him of Odysseus’ return. So, I think with like, the importance, of, like, it doesn't really matter to Eumaeus if Odysseus was sold to slavery or if it just had like a bad, bad, like, journey, it doesn't really matter to Eumaeus himself. But because Odysseus’ return doesn't matter to himself because it would be a life changing event for him. It may, he may be like reacting more, would react definitely a lot more like emotionally on that, to that. This final question is, is there any way you think if it's true that the ancients didn't care as much about lying as we do, is there any way we can explain that in terms of ancient world view, ancient attitudes? I think it's, I think it is related to like the fact that in ancient Greece, the world was just, like, viewed as hostile in general. So I think everybody except the, like, own household and one's family and his friends, it's just like, viewed as like a competitor and like, life in general and survival. And so, maybe lying was then considered just as a way to, like, get through to survive. Especially like as a traveler, if you want to get home and you are like a distant in a foreign country, and you just need to have somebody who helps you, then lying is just like more of a, like a means to achieve one's goals rather than just like having an evil intention. Thank you very much. And that's my section finished so I'm going to pass you over to Al now for a slight change of tack. Hi, Lilly. Hi. As I said, any time you feel that you need more information from me, do please just ask. I'm going to share my screen and, start you off with a short text. Just take your time reading it through and and when you're ready to start discussing it, just let me know. Okay. Can you see it? Yes. Okay, great. Just go ahead and start reading and let me know when you're done. Okay, I'm done reading. Okay. Just, tell me your thoughts on this passage. What's going on? What is it? What's its purpose? Whatever comes to your mind. So, like, we have, like, as mentioned in, like, in the, sub. In like the explanation below its like an inscription from a sanctuary. So I think the, I just, the notes, the it's the sanctuary. So the sanctuary in itself is like talking, in this inscription. So and it's dedicated to Apollo. Because we, like, know Phoibos, son of Leto. Then we also get to know who the person was who dedicated - it was Almaionides. So, Alkmaion’s son. And he, he probably is like an average aristocratic because, he, like, has someone, Knopiadas, to drive his horses in the festival. So, like, in the races in the festival. So he did not do himself, so. But, his probably his servant or, like, just. Yeah. servant, probably. That they’re his charioteer. And like, the context was, like a festival in Athens for Pallas Athena. So. Yeah. Okay, great. Lots of good thoughts there. Can I press you on the first thing you said? You, you said the sanctuary is the, speaker, is the I, the first word on the first line? Yeah. What makes you think that? Because later it's also stated that Alkmaionides dedicated this first-person. So, now, maybe not. Maybe not. Maybe not the sanctuary itself. Or maybe, like an object in the sanctuary, like, rather than the sanctuary itself. So maybe, like. Yeah, maybe like the, maybe like his chariot or something, which he used in the, in the race. Yeah. Yeah. So the the dedication is speaking. You're right. It's, it's, this is what's happening. And, is there any way of knowing what the object, that is dedicated might have been? Well, it is a delight for Apollo, so maybe, like, maybe an object associated with Apollo. Maybe, like, I don't know if that is. I don't know whether the object also needs to be, like, in relation to the, the context of the dedication. So, like, I don't know if you understand, but, so I am not sure whether the object itself needs to be like associated with the, with the reason for this dedication, but like it could, it needs to be something that is aligned to Apollo. So, I would think of like either the lyre or like a bow or something, but I'm really not sure. To be honest. It's like, not really. It's not. We don't we don't know because we don't have, we could just have the I and the me. So, we don't really know what the object could be. As you pointed out, this is an inscription, presumably, an inscription on a block of stone that survived in, in the sanctuary. Might we learn from the stone what the object that was dedicated, might have been? From the physical object. The stone containing the inscription. What else might that physical object tell us? I'm not sure I should be honest. I'm not sure. Let me guide you a bit more, then. Thank you. The the inscription could be, inscribed on, the base of, of of a monument or the pedestal. And so we might have the stone, the place where the object dedicated was actually placed. Would that help us guess what the object could have been? Let me just think for a moment, please. I don't know, maybe it's like the the chariot itself, like, propped up on the stone itself. Like as a kind of pedestal, but. Yeah. Could be. Yeah. Well, one thing we might be, interested in knowing is how big this stone is. Because if, as you say, we have a kind of mini. Well, we have. Were you thinking the actual chariot could have been dedicated? Yes. It could. Could theoretically be. I'm not sure, really. Yeah. Well, for that, then we we would want quite a big stone. Yes. Yeah. Then the size of the stone, obviously matters because it's a if it's a small stone, it could be like a small object. It's a big stone. Then it could be something bigger. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Great. And sometimes the stone will have, holes where the object was clamped or where the object stood. So quite often we might see, literally the, the footprints of a statue, for example, if, if the object was a statue. Might nearby dedications from this sanctuary help us guess what might have been dedicated here? Okay. So if we, if we looked at other, other dedications made in this sanctuary, how would you how do you think they would, help us understand what is being dedicated here? Maybe we can, like, learn about, like, maybe, like, for different centuries there's, like, a different group of objects that is being dedicated in the particular centuries. So, like, maybe if we, like, get to know something about, what is dedicated at, like, another, of the monuments, then maybe we can, like, derive from that a similar object, which could be the one that is dedicated here. Yeah. So if we happened to find, a surviving dedication and it turned out to be, as you said, a lyre, then, yeah, you would, I think you would be more inclined to think your your initial guess was right. But if we didn't find any lyres, but we found, you know, statues, then what would you then suppose that this dedication also was a statue? I probably would like, in the sense of that. Like that. This is like a sanctuary for, like some fact that this dedications in the sanctuary itself are like similar just in general, that they're just like grouped according to type or anything. Yeah. Good. Could could a statue be, as you said, a delight for Phoibos? I mean, it depends if they're like, if, for example, like, I don't know, it's like hard to tell because, like, we would assume that we would have to, like, assume like real personality to the gods themselves. So, I, I'm not sure, to be honest. Maybe, like, depends on the, like, craftsmen of the of the statue I'm not sure of, for example, if like, a very famous craftsman made it. Maybe then you could, but then you would, like, have to assume that the God really has, like, you would have to, like, impose emotions and feelings and thoughts to a God which we don't, which we cannot like theoretically, because we don't know. Yeah. I’m a bit thrown off the the question, to be honest. I'm sorry. Let's move on to Knopiadas. You brought him up as, as, as a way of characterising the dedicator as an aristocrat. You you said an aristocrat would have a driver. And I wonder if, what's going on here is Knopiadas Is, is a professional, charioteer. Could that be a possible interpretation of his role here? I think, I think it could be, But like Alkmaionides, just like, for example, bet on him. And then one, similar like to the chariot races in Rome where, like, people bet on the different teams and he maybe also, Alkmaionides just bet on Knopiadas and, like, used the horses of Alkmaionides, like, well, like drove that, drove a chariot with those horses and so like, thus secured the victory for him. I think that was quite common in ancient Greece that, the victory was still attributed to the aristocrats, even though, like the charioteer, like actually won. Yeah. So but it's his swift horses. So, do you, are you, are we still assuming the horses belong to Alkmaionides? I will assume that because the, his, if you like think in, because we need like a, need like a person to whom the history relates, so, and Knopiadas is only mentioned afterward. So I'm not sure whether that is like, grammatically possible if we like think about it in Greek too, like in language terms kind of thing. I would assume that those are the ones of Alkmaionides but I'm really not sure to be honest. And let's move on yet again to the final line. So as you said, the the victory of the horses took place in a festival, in Athens. But as you said at the beginning, the dedication stands at a sanctuary of Apollo in Boeotia. And I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on that. So, the victory happens in a festival in a different city from the sanctuary in which this offering is dedicated to Apollo. I think that that probably just relates to the, maybe, like Alkmaionides himself is just like, he's probably not an Athenian or I think he probably is no Athenian, but like, like, maybe came just, like, travelled to Athens for this festival. And then he probably, like, dedicated, like made this offering rather than nearer than, near to his own home rather than near Athens. Let me give you a piece of background info. Alkmaionides is in fact, Athenian. Okay. So how does that change things? Well, then maybe it's rather, maybe that maybe Knopiadas himself is rather the, like, foreigner or, like, non Athenian. Probably. Maybe that is the reason for that. Could be. So you, you are thinking of, of, of the sanctuary of Apollo in Boeotia being somehow related to Knopiadas' origins? Yes. Or rather, or rather, it shows like the influence of Alkmaionides like also in foreign or like in like, like foreign, like foreign territory. So like in other, like other regions of Greece. So like, maybe just to show off his wealth and his prestige, somewhere else to gain fame. That's great. Yeah, I like that a lot. Can I move on quickly? Just to sum, to the second thing I wanted to show you. So have a look at that and let me know when you want to start discussing it. Okay. Done. And do you see a relation between this object and, the inscription we were just looking at. So we also have, a chariot race. With the charioteer on the, like, middle right and the horses in the middle. So, like, the horses are definitely, like the main point of this coin, I think, because it looked so prominent. And then we also have, like another figure, like over the horses. That could resemble some, some god, maybe because like, the person is, the person is flying, I think. So maybe that could resemble some kind of god. And we also have like, like at the bottom, like a helmet. However, not really sure how that is related to, the, the inscription, but I think we like, see a similar scene for this festival that was mentioned in the other inscription. Good. That's, that's a very good, description of what you see. The the the flying figure is, Nike. Okay. So then. Yes. And then it's definitely related in the sense that Nike is the goddess of victory. So, then this relates like to the victory of Alkmaionides and the other inscription. Good. And does this, does this tell you, a bit more about charioteers in the Greek world? I think it might rather maybe like they, like the favour of the gods might be more attributed to them rather than them having any personal skills. I think that, that could maybe be because we see, like with Nike being present, that she, like, favours this charioteer and helps them win. So, maybe it's like more about, like, having the favour of the gods than being the best charioteer oneself. And, you very nicely brought up the, the items at the bottom of the image. Do you think those have to be related to what lies above them? I don't think so. At the, at that point, as I, I don't really see how they could be related. Maybe it was just like another, maybe. I'm not sure why they, maybe it's like showing like another scene already. Like maybe it's like just showing another scene. At that point, maybe it's referring to something else maybe as well. What makes you think that in particular? It's just like, I don't, really I don't really know how to connect the helmet to the chariot race, if I'm honest. And I cannot really, make out what the thing in the, like, bottom middle is, actually. I'm not really sure what that could be like. Maybe armou r, but I'm not sure. Yeah, it is armour. It is armour. And then there are two things that are about the same size on either side of the armour. Yeah, maybe. But I'm not really sure what. I don't know, but like, probably not. Not swords, but like because they are, like too thick for swords. But no, I really don't have an idea what what those, like, maybe, like, it looks like they look like pillars, but I don't know how that could fit in like that. Doesn't make, doesn't make any sense. They're shin guards or greaves. Shin guards. Okay. Yeah. Some armour for the legs. But, what about the line between the those bits of armour and and the chariot? There's a line. Yeah. A big line. Yes. Yeah. So, I mean, couldn't we just say the line divides the the scene in half and shows us two different things that, you know, in a way, two different, two different scenes or two different views. The line, in other words, is, is an important separator. Yes. Okay, good. Well we've run out of time. Yeah. But, do you have any questions Lilly, or, about the interview? No, I don't, but thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Lilly. Thank you. Bye. Yeah. I thought one of the things that Lilly did really well was the way she talks through her thinking a lot. That, she didn't. If she wasn't sure of something, she didn't just go silent or panic. She talks about what she was thinking and why. Something she said, she needed to take a minute, which is absolutely fine. And then she made a conjecture and I thought was quite responsive when the, when in the latter part of the interview, when you needed to give her guidance. And she took that on board and was able to adapt what she'd said or offer a different view. And she was able to make intelligent inferences that, it wasn't about what she already knew about that coin or that text, but rather what you could reasonably extrapolate. And, if something wasn't quite right, how she might change her thinking if she was offered or asked to take a different route. Yeah, that flexibility was very nice I thought as well. When presented with new information she took it on. She, I don't think she, just accepted it. She, took it on board and tried to say something new, tried to move the discussion forward using that, that bit of input. That was very nice. And as you said, taking some time is not a bad thing. That's something that occasionally, a few candidates are given bad advice by schools. We won't, we won't think you're slow if you just take a minute to think if you really need to. I thought that she was very good on the coin in really describing what she saw. With, with the exception of the line which I brought in, at the end, sometimes, you know, there are obvious things that, are quite important, and, it's easy to miss them in a way, even if they're really, really obvious. But when, when looking at, something like, a work of art it's always, I think, a good idea just to explain what you see. Show that you have a good eye, and that you, you know, you are looking closely. Even if there are, some guesses that, turn out to be wrong, that's fine. There are no points taken away for saying that a piece of armour is a sword. But there are lots of points as it were. Figurative points for just showing that you can look at something and describe it. So yeah, I thought, I thought it went well, even though both of the things I showed her were, were quite unfamiliar to her. Yeah. And I thought it was a good example of how not knowing something and having to guess and perhaps making mistakes doesn't mean the interviews gone badly. But actually, what we're interested in is how you handle that new information and how you respond to potentially being told you’ve gone down the wrong track. And I thought, a moment that I thought was really impressive was when Lilly said, I thought, made the very sensible suggestion that Alkmaionides must be, not an Athenian because that would explain why he's dedicating a victory not in Athens, which is an absolutely logical thing to suggest and that when you said, well, actually, what if I tell you he is an Athenian? Then she came up with a really great suggestion that integrated that and she didn't get rattled or say, oh, well, I must just be wrong then that she instead said, oh, well, if he's an Athenian, maybe this is how we could explain it and came up with another really intelligent idea. 00:41:32:00 - 00:41:42:19 Unknown And again, we don't care whether she knows whether he's Athenian or not Athenian, but it is impressive when somebody can 00:41:42:21 - 00:42:21:22 Unknown take a starting point and then do something with it and then be flexible if it turns out that for reasons they couldn't possibly have known, actually, they were on slightly the wrong track. Yeah. And in your, set of questions, I was, I was impressed by what she, how far she took this idea that lying is, is just, culturally relative, and and gave some reasons why, you know, Odysseus might be, Odysseus’ lying 00:42:22:03 - 00:42:55:10 Unknown could, you know, could be explained, in, you know, in a context, in a very different cultural context when she, you know, she, she began to, to detail for us. So I thought, she would be a candidate, that, I would come away thinking had, you know, a good sense of contextualizing things historically. 00:42:55:12 - 00:43:20:10 Unknown Yes. And I, I thought she was also very well able to use the text as evidence that she would make a point about Odysseus but she wouldn't just let it rest on her opinion. She'd say, for example, and then she'd give, a good example of a point in the text that had led her to that, 00:43:20:12 - 00:43:44:07 Unknown that statement. And that if I further pressed her on it, she was able to talk more about the reasons that she'd said that and relate them to something else that she thought about in the text and that, she came across as somebody who, has read the text carefully and sensitively and is able to talk about it insightfully. 00:43:44:09 - 00:44:04:21 Unknown And so I would infer from that that she's somebody who, has an aptitude for studying literature and for being able to, as you say, for being able to separate our assumptions as modern readers, from how an ancient audience might have thought of a text that was produced for a different cultural context.