Historic/Founding Documents Passages (verbal reasoning)
Introduction
The last passage in the CLT Verbal Reasoning section is always a set of two shorter passages paired because of some similarity in their topic or focus. The first passage is typically from an ancient source; the second passage comes from either a document connected to a founding moment (such as the Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution) or a historically significant writing (such as the passage seen below). Although the total number of words is about the same as in other passages, the pairing of two different passages together presents a different sort of challenge compared to the rest of the section.
The Journey Method and the Historical/Founding Documents Passage
The major difference in the use of the Journey Method with the paired passage is that, because each passage is shorter, there is less of an opportunity to move to the faster “gear” of the journey. There may be some opportunities to skim in the middle paragraph(s) of these passages, but the length of the passage (typically three paragraphs) means that, almost as soon as there is an opportunity to “zoom out” and read mostly for big ideas, the last paragraph arrives, calling on the reader to zoom back in and consider how the end of the passage bring its ideas into clearer focus.
The other difference is this: while reading the second passage, you should repeatedly be asking yourself, How does this passage relate to the first one I read? What similar themes do I notice? Do the different circumstances of the more modern passage lead to a difference in focus? There will always be some similarity between the two passages, but the careful reader will be rewarded by noticing differences as well.
Practice Passage
The first passage below is taken from the “The City of God” by Saint Augustine, translated by Marcus Dods and published by Hendrickson Publishers in 2013. Augustine wrote this book in part to defend Christianity from the charge that it had caused the fall of Rome to invading tribes. The second passage is taken from Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, reprinted at the archive of the University of Pennsylvania. These passages have been adapted and excerpted from the originals; these modifications have not substantially changed the content or intent.
PASSAGE 1
Marcus Attilius Regulus, a Roman general, was a prisoner in the hands of the Carthaginians. But they, being more anxious to exchange their prisoners with the Romans than to keep them, sent Regulus as a special envoy with their ambassadors to negotiate this exchange, but bound him first with an oath, that if he failed to accomplish their wish, he would return to Carthage. He went and persuaded the senate to the opposite course, because he believed it was not for the advantage of the Roman republic to make an exchange of prisoners. After he had thus exerted his influence, the Romans did not compel him to return to the enemy; but what he had sworn he voluntarily performed. But the Carthaginians put him to death …
As we read the first paragraph slowly, following the Journey Method, we realize that this is a different sort of opening paragraph. Augustine’s commentary on this event, we can assume, will come in the following paragraphs; for now, we need to understand the account of the general Regulus in order to understand from subsequent paragraphs why Augustine is telling his story.
Note that Regulus shows loyalty to his Roman countrymen (by persuading the senate to do what was best for the republic), but also to his enemies who had taken him prisoner (by keeping his oath to them by returning to Carthage even though the Romans did not require him to do so). This choice ended sadly for him, but we can be sure Augustine will have more to say about his life than simply that he was betrayed at its end. For now, it will be enough to note his loyalty and honor and read on with an expectation of the lessons Augustine will draw from Regulus’ life in order to advance a broader argument.
By his own example … he taught that the gods do not secure the temporal happiness of their worshipers, since he himself, who was devoted to their worship … was tortured and put to death … And on the supposition that the worshipers of the gods are rewarded by felicity in the life to come, why, then, do they calumniate the influence of Christianity? Why do they assert that this disaster has overtaken the city because it has ceased to worship its gods, since, worship them as assiduously as it may, it may yet be as unfortunate as Regulus was?
Here Augustine’s argument truly begins, and because of that, we should modify the usual Journey Method practice and continue to read slowly at this juncture; we need to make sure we understand the argument well, and the first paragraph was a kind of prologue. Since the readings in the paired passage portion of the CLT are shorter, there is usually not much opportunity to shift one’s reading to a faster pace.
The author’s first sentence makes his argument clear: Regulus worshiped the (Roman) gods and look how he turned out! Obviously being religious does not protect a person from tragedy. As we continue reading, we learn that Augustine has brought up the story of this pagan worshiper to defend Christianity (as noted in the prefatory information introducing this passage, above). If the gods don’t protect their worshipers and ensure that their lives are peaceful and easy, why is Christianity asked to offer to Christians a life of ease and safety? Why would anyone say that failing to worship the gods is what has caused the fall of Rome? Augustine’s rhetorical questions have answers that the reader is meant to supply: it is not religion of any sort that is to blame for Rome’s tragedy.
But if they say that M. Regulus, even while a prisoner and enduring these bodily torments, might yet enjoy the blessedness of a virtuous soul, then let them recognize that true virtue by which a city also may be blessed. For the blessedness of a community and of an individual flow from the same source; for a community is nothing else than a harmonious collection of individuals. So that I am not concerned meantime to discuss what kind of virtue Regulus possessed; enough, that by his very noble example, they are forced to own that the gods are to be worshiped not for the sake of bodily comforts or external advantages; for he preferred to lose all such things rather than offend the gods by whom he had sworn.
Augustine builds his argument to the next step: the virtue of being faithfully religious is not to escape suffering in the earthly life. And if that’s true for an individual, it must also be true of a community of individuals. Knowing that Augustine is talking more broadly about the fall of Rome, we can infer two larger points: first, that religion is not to blame for the fall of Rome, and second, that there is a blessedness still awaiting a city like Rome if it will be true to its God (although that blessedness is more to come in the next life than in this one).
As we prepare to read the next passage, we should make sure we grasp the main idea of what we just read. Paired passages on the CLT are always related, so we can expect that the next passage also will somehow discuss a relationship between religion and the worldly affairs of the state.
PASSAGE 2
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
As we jump forward many centuries in time, we encounter another historic figure, Dr. King, discussing injustice. The injustice of his imprisonment, he suggests, is not because of the permitting ordinance itself but rather because of why it was established: to maintain an unjust separation (to the disadvantage of Black Americans) and to deny First Amendment rights (to free speech and assembly). The meaning of this paragraph is clear enough; the additional thread in our thoughts should always be the question, How does what I am reading here relate to Passage 1? The answer here seems to be the injustice perpetuated on an individual (and, by implication, a community); what lesson King will draw from this event is yet to be discovered. We read on with expectation of that lesson.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
This paragraph exposes both similarities and differences between this passage and that of the first passage. We can see something of Augustine’s Regulus in King’s description of the person who breaks an unjust law. Regulus felt bound by justice to the oath he took, even though it meant returning to enemy country. Similarly, the American who submits himself or herself to injustice, says King, is doing so in pursuit of justice, as long as he or she is willing to accept the consequences. Just as Regulus did not seek to avoid the consequences that justice required to his conscience, the justice-loving American that King has in view will be serving justice as long as he or she accepts punishment, even unjust punishment, rather than resisting state authority while trying to avoid any negative consequences.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
To this point in Passage 2, religion has not entered the picture, but now we see how King will weave Christianity into the picture of a just passive resistance. Both the Hebrews under Nebuchadnezzar and the Christians under Rome submitted to suffering and punishment because the higher moral law of justice required it. Like Regulus, they were more loyal to the dictates of their religion than even to the preservation of their own bodies. Similarly, although Socrates and the participants in the Boston Tea Party were not necessarily motivated by religion, they also obeyed a higher law and accepted the consequences of their actions.
What differences do we see between the passages, with all their similarities? The chief difference is that Augustine had a different rhetorical goal in mind than King; Augustine wanted to defend his religion from the slander that it bore responsibility for a political disaster. There is no evidence of that same goal in Passage 2 (though religion is certainly lifted up as noble and admirable). Rather, King seems to point more to the power of passive resistance in preserving justice in the long term even as it faces injustice in the short term.
Sample Questions
The questions below seem straightforward to you, and this is no accident; our commentary above has unpacked the passage in such a way that the questions should not be too difficult. The more you can unpack the passage in the same way on test day, the better you should do on the questions!
Passage 1 suggests that its author views the worship of Roman gods as
A. blatant idolatry.
B. unlikely to protect the worshipper from suffering.
C. a practice the Romans should return to in hopes of rescuing the republic.
D. praiseworthy in the case of Regulus.
The answer is B. Since this question is part of a pairing with a subsequent evidence question, we should read the choices to see if anything stands out, then read the sentences quoted for evidence. Since this is a tone/attitude question, we should be especially cautious about answers that are very strongly worded. Choice A falls into this category but presents an additional challenge: students who have read Saint Augustine will know that he did consider pagan worship to be blatant idolatry. The question is, can we find evidence for that attitude in this passage? We can use the answers in #2 to explore that question.
Of the other choices, we should be very suspicious of answer C; Augustine makes clear that worshiping the gods does not help protect either an individual or a society from disaster. Choices B and D are helpfully modest and limited in scope; we might consider them both candidates as we move to reading the evidence.
Which lines in Passage 1 provide the best evidence in support of the answer to the previous question?
A. Paragraph 1, Sentence 4 (“After … performed”)
B. Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 (“By … death”)
C. Paragraph 3, Sentence 1 (“But if … blessed”)
D. Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 (“For … individuals”)
The answer is B. The sentence quoted in choice A reports how Regulus honored the vow he had sworn by returning to Carthage. There is nothing about worship of the gods in this sentence, so it is unlikely to be our answer. Choice B reminds us how things turned out for Regulus despite how true he was to the gods he worshiped. This choice looks promising. Choice C mentions “blessedness,” which tends to be a religious word; if there was an answer choice in #1 that suggested worshiping the Roman gods might bring blessing to the soul, this could be a good answer, but there does not appear to be such a choice in Question 1. Finally, we can eliminate choice D; the sentence quoted there is about the relationship between the individual and the community and has nothing to do with religious worship.
So if we take choice B as our most likely piece of relevant evidence, which choice in #1 does it support? Augustine does not, either in this particular sentence or anywhere in the excerpted passage, condemn pagan worship as idolatry. As for answer D, “praiseworthy in the case of Regulus,” we might find that choice attractive because Augustine does appear to view Regulus as virtuous. But it’s a bit too much of a stretch to say that Augustine admired Regulus’ worship of the Roman gods; if anything, the author honors him only for keeping his vow and obeying his conscience. That leaves us with choice B for Question 1; this makes sense because the entire thrust of this passage from Augustine is that pagan worship does not protect either an individual or a community from catastrophe.
The attitude of Passage 2’s author toward someone who breaks the law and tries to avoid the consequences is best described as
A. dismissive.
B. gently scolding.
C. ambivalent.
D. permissive.
The answer is A. We have another tone/attitude question here, asking us to put ourselves in the author’s shoes and view a certain idea or action. Let’s first determine whether Dr. King views the action described positively or negatively. In paragraph 2, sentences 2-3, King decisively rejects this kind of action (disobeying but trying to avoid punishment), saying that it would lead to anarchy (meaning chaos or lawlessness). So we already know that we can reject answers that suggest approval, even modest approval. Choice D is decisively wrong because King condemns this action, and choice C is out as well because ambivalent means being “of two minds” about something, feeling both in favor of it and against it at the same time. The question now is a matter of degree; is King “gently scolding” people who engage in this sort of action? Given that he attributes such actions to a segregationist, someone we know King viewed as evil and oppressive, “gently” doesn’t make sense. So although we need to be cautious about the more strongly worded answers, dismissive is definitely best. King dismisses the idea in question emphatically and then moves on to the action he truly aims to praise.
Based on passage 2, the law that put the author in prison was
A. obviously unconstitutional.
B. technically justifiable but put in place for an unjust reason.
C. possibly unconstitutional but justifiable in this situation.
D. worth preserving for future generations.
The answer is B. We look to Paragraph 1 of Passage 2 to answer this question. The latter half of that paragraph admits that an ordinance (law) like the one that put the author in prison could be justified in certain circumstances. So we can eliminate answer choice A. But such a law is clearly unjust, says King, when it is used for unjust purposes. So in this case, the author is emphatically critical of such an ordinance. He certainly wouldn’t say it’s “worth preserving” (choice D), nor would he assess it as “justifiable in this situation” (choice C), since it is precisely in this situation that the law is not justifiable. Choice B captures not only what the author allows about hypothetical legality but also the injustice of this particular law.
The following analogy is based on passage 2.
short-term fruit of righteous resistance : long-term fruit of righteous resistance
A. escape from suffering : exposure to suffering
B. good : evil
C. punishment by authorities : reward from authorities
D. legal penalty : societal freedom
The answer is D. The last paragraph of Passage 2 helps us the most in this case. There, the author mentions four different groups of people and the resistance they exercised toward authority. In only one of these cases does King mention the short-term consequences for those exercising civil disobedience; the early Christians faced “hungry lions” and “the excruciating pain of chopping blocks.” This evidence is enough for us to look for something negative or difficult in the first part of the right answer. We can rule out choice A, “escape from suffering,” and choice B, “good”. But what were the long-term consequences? To answer this question we note the references to Socrates and the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party; King mentions long-term societal benefits that have issued forth from such acts of civil disobedience. Clearly, he views the long-term fruit as good fruit.
Both choices C and D mention good things, but “reward from authorities” is never in view in King’s letter (if anything, the opposite is true, since authorities are viewed as those who persecute the righteous who are passively resisting). If Socrates’ action led to academic freedom and the early colonists’ actions led to democracy, then “societal freedom” is a good description of the long-term fruit.