Since I knew that would make that very difficult for me to transfer to another college, I started trying to study to take the SAT, hoping that if I could get a good score, I might be able to start over somewhere else.
I wrote this essay at a Starbucks, while I was homeless, from prompts which I have included:
My essay:
Hitchens starts with a lofty claim made by someone else, the
“great classicist A. W. Lawrence,” that the Parthenon is “the one building in
the world which may be assessed as absolutely right.” That a claim is lofty doesn’t automatically
disqualify it from being true, and the quote with which Hitchens introduces his
lament about the Parthenon’s deterioration gives urgency to the argument which
follows. If something is “absolutely
right,” than all deviations from it must be wrong, and not to correct an
acknowledged or obvious wrong is a wrong in itself; this is a standard of
fairness which extends to every human culture and across the centuries, along
with disagreements about the definitions of right and wrong.
In the context of Hitchens’ discussion, the word “right” can
be taken to mean “harmonious,” so it makes sense that the first examples that
Hitchens gives of wrongs done to the Parthenon range from neglect, or the
absence of harmony, to damage incurred during war, the extreme opposite of
harmony. He then states unequivocally
that “the damage done by the ages to the building, and
by past empires and occupations, cannot all be put right,” underscoring the
idea that much of what has befallen the Parthenon is a true tragedy, damage
which can’t be reversed.
He then begins the second phase of his argument, a call to
action, to restore sections of the Parthenon which were stolen and sold, rather
than destroyed. Hitchens’ previous examples
of willful misuse, by the Turks and then by the Nazis, illustrate the abuse of
beauty by those who don’t recognize its value and by those whose response is to
dominate it for their own glorification, respectively. His final and most detailed description of
the Parthenon’s exploitation, by “Britain's
ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Lord Elgin,” condemns a motivation
that precedes the Parthenon and all of antiquity: simple greed.
He ends his defense of the Parthenon’s integrity by saying
that the building’s “frieze was quite clearly
carved as a continuous narrative,” and that “half the cast of the tale is still
in Bloomsbury, in London, having been sold well below cost by Elgin to the
British government in 1816 for $2.2 million in today's currency to pay off his
many debts....” If the Parthenon was
built to provide a sculptural narrative for human events, Hitchens in turn
provides a written narrative for the Parthenon, with his impassioned argument
that what can be restored to it ought to be.
Webpage:
As you read the passage
below, consider how Christopher Hitchens uses
- evidence, such as
facts or examples, to support claims.
- reasoning to develop
ideas and to connect claims and evidence.
- stylistic or
persuasive elements, such as word choice or appeals to emotion, to add power to
the ideas expressed.
Adapted from Christopher
Hitchens, "The Lovely Stones." ©2009 by Condé Nast Digital.
Originally published July 2009.
1 The great classicist
A. W. Lawrence...once remarked of the Parthenon1 that it is
"the one building in the world which may be assessed as absolutely right."...
2 Not that the beauty
and symmetry of the Parthenon have not been abused and perverted and mutilated.
Five centuries after the birth of Christianity the Parthenon was closed and
desolated....Turkish forces also used it for centuries as a garrison2 and
an arsenal, with the tragic result that in 1687...apowder magazine was detonated
and huge damage inflicted on the structure. Most horrible of all, perhaps, the
Acropolis was made to fly a Nazi flag during the German occupation of
Athens....
3 The damage done by the
ages to the building, and by past empires and occupations, cannot all be put
right. But there is one desecration and dilapidation that can at least be
partially undone. Early in the 19th century, Britain's ambassador to the
Ottoman Empire, Lord Elgin, sent a wrecking crew to the Turkish-occupied
territory of Greece, where it sawed off approximately half of the adornment of
the Parthenon and carried it away. As with all things Greek, there were three
elements to this, the most lavish and beautiful sculptural treasury in human
history. Under the direction of the artistic genius Phidias, the temple had two
massive pediments decorated with the figures of Pallas Athena, Poseidon, and
the gods of the sun and the moon. It then had a series of 92 high-relief
panels, or metopes, depicting a succession of mythical and historical battles.
The most intricate element was the frieze, carved in bas-relief,3 which
showed the gods, humans, and animals that made up the annual Pan-Athens
procession: there were 192 equestrian warriors and auxiliaries featured, which
happens to be the exact number of the city's heroes who fell at the Battle of
Marathon. Experts differ on precisely what story is being told here, but the
frieze was quite clearly carved as a continuous narrative. Except that
half the cast of the tale is still in Bloomsbury, in London, having been sold
well below cost by Elgin to the British government in 1816 for $2.2 million in
today's currency to pay off his many debts....
1 An ancient Greek temple located on the
grounds of the ancient citadel, the Acropolis of Athens
2 A military fort or base
3 Raised carvings made of stone
4 . . . [T]here has been
a bitter argument about the legitimacy of the British Museum's deal. I've
written a whole book about this controversy and won't oppress you with all the
details, but would just make this one point. If theMona Lisahad been sawed in
two during the Napoleonic Wars and the separated halves had been acquired by
different museums in, say, St. Petersburg and Lisbon, would there not be a
general wish to see what they might look like if re-united? If you think my
analogy is overdrawn, consider this: the body of the goddess Iris is at present
in London, while her head is in Athens. The front part of the torso of Poseidon
is in London, and the rear part is in Athens. And so on. This is grotesque....
5 It is unfortunately
true that [Athens] allowed itself to become very dirty and polluted in the 20th
century, and as a result the remaining sculptures and statues on the Parthenon
were nastily eroded by "acid rain."...Butgradually and now impressively,
the Greeks have been living up to their responsibilities. Beginning in 1992,
the endangered marbles were removed from the temple, given careful cleaning
with ultraviolet and infra-red lasers, and placed in a climate-controlled
interior....
6 About a thousand feet
southeast of the temple [is] the astonishing new Acropolis Museum....With 10
times the space of the old repository, it display[s] all the marvels that go
with the temples on top of the hill. Most important, it show[s], for the first
time in centuries, how the Parthenon sculptures looked to the citizens of
old....
7 The British may
continue in their constipated fashion to cling to what they have so crudely
amputated, but...theAcropolis Museum has hit on the happy idea of
exhibiting...itsownoriginal sculptures with the London-held pieces represented
by beautifully copied casts. This creates a natural thirst to see the actual
re-assembly completed. So, far from emptying or weakening a museum, this
controversy has created another [museum], which is destined to be among
Europe's finest galleries. And one day, surely, there will be an agreement to
do the right thing by the world's most "right" structure.
Write an essay in which you explain how Christopher
Hitchens builds an argument to persuade his audience that the original
Parthenon sculptures should be returned to Greece. In your essay, analyze how
Hitchens uses one or more of the features listed in the box above (or features
of your own choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of his argument.
Be sure that your analysis focuses on the most relevant features of the
passage.
Your essay should not
explain whether you agree with Hitchens's claims, but rather explain how
Hitchens builds an argument to persuade his audience.
http://www.cracksat.net/sat/essay/681.html
