UNIT 2 QUESTION 1 EXEMPLARS

SOURCE A

Next to the theologians in happiness are those who commonly call themselves the religious
and monks. Both are complete misnomers, since most of them stay as far away from
religion as possible…………… They cannot read, and so they consider it the height of piety
to have no contact with literature……..Most of them capitalize on their dirt and poverty by
whining for food from door to door…These smooth fellows simply explain that by their
very filth, ignorance, boorishness, and insolence they enact the lives of the apostles for us. It
is amusing to see how they do everything by rule, almost mathematically. Any slip is
sacrilege…The monks of certain orders recoil in horror from money, as if it were poison, but
not from wine or women.
An extract from The Praise of Folly written in 1509 by Erasmus, a Dutch sixteenth century
humanist thinker and writer
SOURCE B

At the time a Dominican monk named Johann Tetzel was the great mouthpiece,
commissioner and preacher of indulgences in Germany. His preaching raised enormous
sums of money which were sent to Rome. This was particularly the case in the mining town
of Annaberg, where I, Friedrich Myconius, listened to him for over two years. The claims of
this shameful monk were unbelievable. He said that if you put money quickly into the
indulgence coffer all the mountains near Annaberg would turn into silver. To sum up: God
was no longer God, as he had bestowed all divine power on the Pope.
Friedrich Myconius, a colleague and friend of Luther (1518)

SOURCE C

Every prince, noble and city should strictly forbid their subjects to pay taxes to Rome. No
secular matter is to be referred to Rome. The far-reaching and fearful oaths, which bishops
are wrongfully compelled to swear to the pope, should be abolished. The pope should
exercise no authority over the emperor. The pope should withdraw from temporal affairs.
Pilgrimages to Rome should be disallowed. Masses on anniversaries or at celebrations
should be entirely abolished. The saints ought to be allowed to canonise themselves.
Martin Luther, the 16th century reformer writing in one of his critical pamphlets, An appeal
to the ruling elites of Europe (1520)
Exemplar 1
With reference to the sources and your understanding of the historical context, assess the
value of these three sources to a historian studying the causes of the Reformation.

These sources show that the works of Catholicism fail to meet the needs of the laity. The sources cover
illiteracy, lack of true faith, indulgence, the misuse of authority the pope shows over the Holy Roman
Empire and the ineffectiveness of pilgrimage and mass. To a historian studying the causes of the
Reformation, the information these sources provide would be valuable as all the issues raised can be
used as evidence for the failure of the Catholic church- therefore would show a historian why the
church was in need of a reform. However, the sources fail to provide alternative information on the
Catholic Church as they do not mention the corruption in the higher ranks of the church despite the
example the pope should set. The sources also fail to mention abuses such as nepotism, simony,
absenteeism and pluralism. The sources are also merely extracts therefore they don’t provide the true
context and background of the source.
All three sources have the purpose of highlighting the faults in the Catholic Church however, as source
A is by Erasmus, he didn’t want a complete reform instead he wanted an improvement of what was
already there. However, Martin Luther’s aim in 1520 was to change the Catholic Church and the
foundations of the Holy Roman Empire hence why the source C’s context calls for complete change
and has a commanding tone instead of the accusing tone that source A and B have.
Source A was written by Desiderius Erasmus, a humanist theologian. To a historian using the
source to study the causes of The Reformation, this would be valuable as due to the nature of
humanists- lots of research and studies of text will have been made before writing the source, giving
him a wide and varied view. Also, Erasmus influenced Martin Luther in the early Reformation therefore
the source would gain precedence. However, Erasmus wasn’t part of the laity therefore wouldn’t have
their point of view. It was also written in 1509- before the Reformation truly began. To a historian this is
beneficial because it was when the Catholic Church wasn’t under any threat therefore its corruption will
be at its peak.
Source B was written by a friend of Luther. This may be seen as an asset as he would have had
a good personal insight into Luther’s beliefs and would agree with him. As Luther is seen as the figure
head of the reformation Luther’s personal beliefs would be a good indication of the causes of the
reformation. However as he is a Lutheran- he may not give all information about the Catholic Church
therefore would refrain from mentioning the Church’s assets. Also, we do not know the date of the
source. This is a limitation as we do not know the source’s context therefore may not be reliable.
Source C is an extract from Martin Luther himself. This is a strength for the historian studying
the causes of The Reformation as he is seen as the figurehead of the Protestant Reformation therefore
his views would give a good insight to the causes of The Reformation. However, it was written in 1520.
This is around the end of the reformation therefore may not resemble the causes but the impacts or
events of The Reformation.
In conclusion, Sources A, B and C all give a valuable insight the causes of the reformation and are
reliable accounts from intelligent scholars of the time. Although they fail to mention all of the reasons of
the reformation, they highlight some key points. Therefore these sources would be valuable to a
historian studying the reformation.

Exemplar 1 examiner comments

 The answer is a little too negative in its focus on the limitations of the sources
 It could be more positive in its analysis of the content of the sources for their utility
 The answer needs to focus more on answering the specific question set
 There is some awareness of the context, some source evaluation and an attempt at judging
their value to an historian.
 It should just get into Band 4 at 16 marks as it does have some of the characteristics of a
Band 4 answer. The example in the Teacher Guide is an 18 and it is stronger in terms of
answering the exact question set.
Exemplar 2
With reference to the sources and your understanding of the historical context assess the value
of these three sources to an historian studying the causes of the Reformation.
The three sources combined provide a historian with valuable insight into the causes of the
Reformation. The authors - Luther, Erasmus and Myconius - all held slightly different views at the time
of the Reformation, giving a historian a more balanced account of its causes. It could be argued that a
negative of the sources is that there is no point of view from the Catholic Church. Without comparing
the Church’s defence of its alleged abuses for example then a historian might risk assuming abuses
were much more prevalent than they really were. This is a negative in terms of the accuracy of the
sources. 
Less negatively, the sources written by Erasmus, a well-known humanist at the time, and Luther allow a
historian information relating to the causes of the Reformation that was written by people directly
involved with its events. Erasmus initially supported Luther’s ideas, before Luther became more radical,
and wrote his essay The Praise of Folly in 1509, before, some historians might argue, the Reformation
technically began. This means that source A provides insight into causes of the Reformation that
weren’t as immediate as some of the issues Luther wrote about, for example Tetzel’s selling of
indulgences. Source A shows that there were issues with the Catholic Church before Luther and before
the Reformation took off, showing a historian that there was a build up to the Reformation. It confirms
that abuses, such as illiteracy, were present for years before Luther and his Theses. Following the use
of information on long term causes, it could also be argued that because there is no source available
from earlier dates it is hard for a historian to sum up the causes of the Reformation since they can’t
possibly consider the reasons for its occurrence in the long run. For example, many historians argue
that decisions made in the Council of Constance (1414 - 1418) helped cause the Reformation, since
the council did little to attempt to reform the church when they had the opportunity. The dates on the
sources are useful as they cover the early period of the Reformation (1509 - 1520) however because
they do not cover earlier causes of the Reformation, another example being the influences of early
reformers such as Jan Hus and John Wycliff, their usefulness is limited when considering the causes of
the Reformation, since not all of the causes are covered. As well as this, many historians argue that the
Reformation didn't properly take off until after the Diet of Worms, in 1521, and therefore the source is
potentially lacking in information on the Reformation's immediate causes depending on their point of
view as to when the Reformation actually began.
Source C is particularly useful because it is written by Luther who was a key figure throughout the
beginning of the Reformation. This source considers some of his more radical views in the same year
in which he published his three critical tracts and prepared for the Diet at Worms. It is a useful source to
contrast with the source written by Erasmus since Luther’s views at this point in time are much more
radical than the humanist’s. The tone in this source is more urging than that of Erasmus' extract, the
language used to encourage the reader to adopt the author's view and support/take some kind of
action. The tone in Erasmus' extract is mocking however more of an observation. It's not an attempt to
gain support for the cause, as Luther's extract is. This is useful to the historian as it shows how
Lutheranism might have taken off, through Luther's appeals for support, and also the contrasting
attempts of the humanist Erasmus to get people to merely notice the corruption in the church. 
Throughout the source Luther states that taxes to Rome should be forbidden, oaths to the Pope should
be abolished and the Pope should hold no secular authority. A historian can read this source in two
ways, the first extracting some of the Reformation’s causes from Luther’s statements, for example the
heavy taxation of the German lands and people was a catalyst for anti-papal movements and ideas and
this issue can be discovered by Luther’s protest against the existence of such taxes, and secondly the
parts other secular figures might have played in contributing to the formation and growth of the
Reformation. For example, Luther speaks against the secular authority of the Pope, stating that he
should have no influence outside of religion. This would have been appealing to figures such as the
princes of Germany as their main interests would have been (most likely) geared towards power and
wealth. The ideas Luther speaks of in this source, mainly that the Pope should hold no power over
them, provide a historian with an insight into why Luther and his ideas gained support from higher
secular figures. This support greatly influenced the beginning of the Reformation, for example if Luther
had no had support from Frederick the Wise then he would not have had protection from the church
and would not have been able to write and publish his ideas. This could have prevented the
Reformation from taking off and therefore the evidence for Luther’s appeal for support from the princes
- support he did receive - is useful to a historian looking at the causes of the Reformation because it
shows its dependence on higher figures such as Frederick of Saxony and the other elites of Europe. 
It could be argued that since both the extract from Luther’s critical pamphlet and the extract from
Erasmus’ The Praise of Folly were published documents, intended to appeal to an audience and to
spread the authors’ ideas, there could be elements of exaggeration/propaganda in both. The language
used is clever, for example when Erasmus describes priests by calling them smooth and making them
seem more like businessmen. It is easy to see that the authors of the sources picked the language to
convey specific images and meanings and there is no way for a historian to tell how accurate the
impressions given by the extracts are, or even if they’re more personal to the author, rather than
reflective of the wider Catholic community within churches and monasteries at the time. It could be
difficult for a historian to distinguish actual fact from exaggeration. If looking into the causes of the
Reformation the three sources are a good place to start since they look at abuses and issues with the
church - illiteracy, the selling of indulgences, exploitation through taxes etc - however there is no way
for a historian to tell how widespread these issues were or whether they were the norm or not. All three
sources are also extracts and this is a limitation if a historian wants to consider the full intentions of the
authors and the messages they were trying to get across in their writing. Key information surrounding
the causes of the Reformation could easily exist in other parts of the documents that the historian
consequently does not have access to. 
One of Luther’s main issues when writing his famous Ninety-Five Theses was the selling of
indulgences. His Theses, some historians would argue, kick started the Reformation. Source B is
useful as it considers the issues surrounding the selling of indulgences from the point of view of a
Lutheran supporter rather than Luther himself. It shows that the issues with indulgences were not just
personal to Luther and describes the extravagant preachings of John (or Johann) Tetzel who had been
commissioned by the Catholic Church and Albert of Mainz to raise money for Rome through the selling
of his indulgences, which promised the forgiveness of any and all sins. The tone of this source is
incredulous and mocking, the writing portraying the author’s disbelief that he was ever influenced by
Tetzel’s teachings. In the same way, it urges the reader to discard any faith they might in indulgences,
Myconius comparing the teachings to the impossibility of turning mountains into silver. For a historian
looking into the causes of the Reformation this is a useful source as it shows the developing ideas of
one of Luther’s supporters and how the mistakes of preachers such as Tetzel, preaching impossible
ideas and falsities, backfired on the Catholic Church when people began to realise that there was no
truth behind them. This spread of realisation also spread anti-papal ideas and consequently gained
support for the idea of reform amongst the laity. This source falls down on the fact that there is no date,
meaning it cannot be compared to the other two sources, with which a historian can consider the
events going on at the time compared to the points of views of the authors. There is no way to analyse
the progression of anti-Catholic ideas that in effect led to the Reformation from this source since the
historian has no way of contrasting the ideas in ‘year x’ vs ‘year y’. With source A and source C a clear
progression of ideas can be seen, the ideas of the authors becoming more radical in later years. These
more radical ideas led to key ideas that spurred the Reformation forwards. Source B cannot contribute
to this development of causes since it cannot be placed on a timeline, however it does show increased
support for Protestant ideas as Luther is shown to be supported by other writers. Despite this support, it
could be argued that since Myconius was stated to be a colleague and friend of Luther by the source
then he could have easily been influenced by Luther’s friendship before his ideas. It does not reflect the
support for Luther from people who perhaps had not had contact with him. 
In conclusion, the sources are very useful to a historian studying the causes of the Reformation when
combined and contrasted with each other. They show the progression of anti-papal ideas and also the
more radical stances figures such as Luther took in later years. They provide insight into the abuses
and issues that allegedly riddled the Catholic Church at the time and the contrasting tones in each
source provide a balanced account of the short term causes to the Reformation. Negatively, the long
term causes of the Reformation are not covered and therefore a historian cannot gain a full account of
all the reasons for the occurrence of the Reformation. No alternative views, such as defences of the
Catholic Church, are included either and therefore a historian might risk leaning too much towards
solely Protestant accounts of events at the time. All together, the sources, although extracts and
therefore limited, work well together and provide a balanced, conclusive view for a historian, with
information about various causes of the Reformation. 

Exemplar 2 examiner comments

 This answer is clearly at the standard that we would expect to see in Band 6 under exam
conditions. It would get full marks.
 Fully accurate and sustained source evaluation
 Uses the content and attributions to deal with the strengths and limitations of all of the given
sources
 Sets the response in the correct historical context covering all of the period set in the enquiry. 
 A sustained judgement on the utility of all three sources to an historian studying a particular
issue.

EXEMPLAR 3

Study the sources below and answer the questions that follow.

Source A

[A satirical cartoon, from a German nationalist newspaper entitled Clemenceau the Vampire,
published in July 1919.The figure lying on the bed represents Germany. Clemenceau was Prime
Minister of France. He is shown as a vampire sucking the blood out of Germany.]
 Source B

Passive resistance consisted of not collaborating in any way with the French and the Belgians. It
meant refusing all their demands, and not complying with any of their orders. The post, the
telegraph and telephone workers refused to make any communication with the French and
Belgians, to send their letters, to sell them stamps, and so on. Railway workers refused to run the
trains needed for the troops. German officials of all ranks pretended to be unaware of the
presence of the French and Belgians. The order to go on general strike may have appeared to be
patriotic but it has had disastrous consequences for the German economy and the people.

[From an official French army report of the invasion of the Ruhr, entitled: A Year of
Occupation:Franco-Belgian Operations in the Ruhr in 1923, published in 1924]

Source C

At eleven in the morning a siren sounded. Everybody gathered in the factory yard where a five ton
lorry was drawn up, loaded with paper money. The chief cashier and his assistants climbed up on
top. They read out the names of workers and just threw out bundles of notes. As soon as you
caught one you made a dash for the nearest shop and bought anything that was going. You very
often bought things that you did not need. But with those things you could start to barter. You went
around and exchanged a pair of shoes for a shirt, or a pair of socks for a sack of potatoes; some
cutlery or crockery for instance for tea or coffee or butter.

[Willy Derkow, a student in Germany in 1923, recording his experiences of hyperinflation in his
diary in November 1923]

With reference to the sources and your understanding of the historical context, assess the
value of these three sources to an historian studying the economic problems of the Weimar
Republic. [30]

The three sources are valuable to a certain extent in regards to studying the economic problems of the
Weimar Republic. However, each source has their own respective omissions that make them
problematic.
Source A, at face value, is problematic due to its nature as a satirical cartoon created by German
nationalists. This makes the source polemic with a purpose to spread anger towards France, which is
evidenced by the way the French Prime Minister, Clemenceau, is portrayed in an exaggerated manner
as ‘sucking the blood’ out of the defenceless and vulnerable Germany. Since the Treaty of Versailles
was signed in June 1919 and the source was created only a mere month after, this extremely short
proximity to the event shows the emotional attachment towards the source and the widespread anger
many Germans felt following the harsh terms of the Treaty and Clemenceau’s uncompromising position
during the negotiations of such terms. An example of such harsh terms was the £6600 million
reparations that Germany were forced to pay, which contributed to the nation’s subsequent
hyperinflation. This makes the source polemic because the emotional attachment expressed through
the source would make it subjective towards putting the blame on Clemenceau for the Weimar
Republic’s economic problems, when other factors such as the government’s lack of action in
‘balancing the budget’ also contributed to such problems. However, beyond face value the source
proves to be valuable in studying the typicality of such views against Clemenceau due to the Treaty
and the value systems at the time towards putting the blame for the Weimar Republic’s economic
problems. As aforementioned, the context surrounding the source (the harsh terms of the Treaty and
Germany’s loss in World War I) evidences the typicality of the anger felt towards Clemenceau and
would therefore make the source valuable in the aspect of studying the causes and possible triggers
and catalysts of the economic problems of the Weimar Republic.
Source B proves to be valuable as its value as an official French report makes it an objective source
that shows the social and political state of the Weimar Republic during the years of inflation. The
source describes the way German officials ‘pretended to be unaware of the presence of the French and
Belgians’ and how such actions led to ‘disastrous consequences’ both economically and socially for the
Weimar Republic. The occupation of the Ruhr led to this policy of passive resistance where the
government became unable to collect taxes in the Ruhr and were prevented by the French from
delivering coal to the rest of Germany, thus validating the source’s statements of ‘disastrous
consequences’ as outlined in Source C. When used in conjunction with Source C, the source becomes
even more valuable as Source C describes the said ‘disastrous consequences’ as evidenced by the
way people ‘often bought things that you did not need’ after being thrown ‘bundles of notes’. Therefore,
this overall makes the source valuable because it allows an historian to see an objective official report
regarding the Weimar Republic’s economic stance, a possible contributing factor towards the
Republic’s economic problems and, when used as a set with Source C, the consequent effects of the
policy of passive resistance and the occupation of the Ruhr on the Republic and its people.
As a public source, however, its content would include details intended for the French public to see and
omit details that are not intended for the public to see. This is evidenced by the way the source
unwittingly presents Germany’s government during the Weimar Republic as being the ones to cause
the said ‘disastrous consequences’ and as being fully responsible after calling for the policy of passive
resistance. It therefore omits any actions on France’s point, such as the way they prevented the
delivery of coal to the rest of Germany. This makes the source problematic in this aspect as it omits
other causes of the Weimar Republic’s economic problems and unwittingly puts the blame solely on the
Weimar government.
Finally, Source C is valuable to an historian studying the economic problems of the Weimar Republic,
specifically its social effects. The source’s nature as a first-hand account, a diary entry, allows insight
into the effects of hyperinflation to industrial workers. The honest, emotive and confessional tone of the
source allows an historian to see first-hand evidence of the consequences the Weimar Republic’s
economic problems had on the general public, specifically industrial workers. The context surrounding
the source’s date in the year 1923 shows the human consequences of hyperinflation on industrial
workers as being chaotic due to the trade union’s inability to keep up with inflation. Source C is
therefore valuable to an historian studying the economic problems of the Weimar Republic as it enables
first-hand evidence in showing the extremities of hyperinflation, as evidenced in the way ‘bundles of
notes’ were just carelessly thrown out and ‘buying things that you did not need’ was better than saving.
The source, however, is problematic in the aspect that it only offers an industrial worker’s point of view
and not that of other socio-economic groups such as peasants, the middle class, civil servants or the
retired. Since hyperinflation affected different economic groups in different ways, the source omits the
effects of hyperinflation on these other groups. It omits how peasants coped reasonably well during the
years of hyperinflation due to their self-sufficiency as the money they invested became eroded and
increasingly worthless. This subsequently makes the source problematic as it solely focuses on one
socio-economic group and will prove to be a limitation to an historian studying the economic problems
of the Weimar Republic due to the aforementioned omissions.
As a set, the sources become more valuable when used in conjunction with each other as an historian
is able to see possible causes of the Weimar Republic’s economic problems, as well as insight into the
consequences of these problems. When Source A and B are used together, for example, the typicality
of the views expressed in Source A shows how France can be responsible to a certain extent in the
Republic’s economic problems when used with Source B, as well as validating the widespread anger
and blame towards Clemenceau (and subsequently France) as evidenced by Source B’s statement of
the workers’ refusal to ‘make any connection with the French and Belgians’ as ordered by the German
government who felt bitterness following the Treaty of Versailles.
Therefore, in conclusion, Source A proves to be problematic but nevertheless valuable in providing an
historian key information in the typical value systems of the time regarding the cause of Germany’s
economic problems. Sources B and C are useful in studying the economic problems of the Weimar
Republic as well as their human consequences, specifically towards the industrial workers. However,
when used as a set the sources validate each other and allow an historian the ability to compare and
contrast the sources’ respective content.

Exemplar 3 examiner comments

 The answer has potential with a structure that is better than mere strengths and limitations,
basic source evaluation (biased / reliable) and two sides of downloading omissions that we see
now.
 There are clear elements of the skills needed in AO2.  The answer does mention the tone in
regard to Sources A and C with some attempt to link the sources to the set question.  There is
also a clear attempt to judge the value of the sources to the historian and does demonstrate
understanding of the general context such as hyperinflation
 Introduction is quite weak and lacks focus.
 Evaluation of Source B doesn't deal enough with the invasion of the Ruhr or its context.  This
causes some imbalance which we would not expect at Band 6.  
 In attempting to deal with the authorship, the answer doesn't really focus upon why the context
of the time would lead the author/cartoonist to make their observations / comments.
 Although there is context regarding the time that the sources were produced, there needs to be
more on the economic problems of Weimar.
 The response would be placed in Band 5 and probably get the standard middle mark of
23.
9