The Night at the Hotel – Siegfried Lenz

Siegfried Lenz, the author of “The Night at the Hotel” is a noted writer in German. He has to his credit
twelve novels, several collections of stories, essays and plays for theatre and radio.

Summary :
Schwamm had a small son who was very sensitive. He reacted to the slightest irritation. Every morning
on his way to school, he had to wait at the railway crossing for the early morning train to go by. The boy
waved at the passengers, perhaps to wish them a pleasant journey.
Unfortunately none of the passengers waved him back. The boy felt hurt. When he returned home, he
was often confused and sad. He could not do his work. He even refused to play or talk to others. He would
also easily break into tears.
Schwamm and his wife were very much worried about him. Unable to put up with the condition of their
child anymore, Schwamm decided to do something. So one day he left for the town to take the early train
the next day just to wave back at his son.
He went to a hotel and asked for a single room. Since there was no single room available, the
receptionist offered him a free bed in a double room, with the other bed already being occupied. When told,
it was not easy to get a room elsewhere at that odd hour, Schwamm decided to accept the offer.
Schwamm completed all the formalities and thought that his partner might have already been asleep in
the room. Schwamm went into the room. The room was dark. He started to look for the light switch. He
nearly froze when the stranger in the room requested him not to turn on the light. To avoid Schwamm
falling over his crutches or running into his suitcase, he directed Schwamm to his bed.
As he was not getting sleep, Schwamm introduced himself to the other person. He asked Schwamm
whether he had come to attend any meeting there. Schwamm told him about his son. He said that he had
come to take the early train the next morning to wave back at his son. He hoped that would make his son
happy and normal.
The stranger told him about his wife who died while giving birth to their first son. He said he hated and
avoided children because he thought the child was responsible for his wife’s death. However, the stranger
was moved by the sad condition of Schwamm’s son. He asked Schwamm if he was going to take the
Kurzbach train the next morning.
When Schwamm woke up, he was all alone. He was shocked to see there was only five minutes for the
train to leave the station. He had no chance to catch the train. Since he could not stay back for one more
day, he decided to return home.
When Schwamm returned home disappointed, he was surprised to see his son beaming with joy. The
boy said that a man waved him back with his handkerchief tied to a cane and holding it out of the window.
Schwamm understood it was the stranger who shared the room with him.

1. “The night receptionist regretfully shrugged his shoulders.” What did he regret? What did the
shrugging of shoulder show? Was he being helpful or unhelpful? Why do you think so?
The night receptionist regretted for not arranging a single room for Schwamm. He shrugged his
shoulders to express his helplessness. He was helpful because he offered Schwamm a free bed in a
double room. He also warned him of the possibility of losing even the free bed, if he were to come
back for it later at that late hour.
2. What time did Schwamm check into the hotel? What kind of room did he want? What did the
receptionist offer him? Did Schwamm take it?
Schwamm checked into the hotel late in the night. He wanted a single room. As there was no single
room available, the receptionist offered him a free bed in a double room. Schwamm hesitated for
some time, as he wanted only a single room. Finally he took the free bed.
3. Do you think Schwamm did a good thing in deciding to share a room with someone? Why do you
think so?
Schwamm did a good thing is deciding to share a room with someone he did not know. The stranger
was kind enough to take the early morning train and waved back at Schwamm’s son to make him
happy. Schwamm could not do it himself, as he was late to catch the train. If he had taken a single
room, probably his purpose would not have been served.
4. Why do you think Schwamm wanted to get to know his partner? Was he afraid? Did he have
anything to hide? Imagine you were Schwamm. Would you want to get acquainted with the person
who you were going to share the room with?
Schwamm wanted to know with whom he was going to share the room because the partner, already
in the room, should be a person with whom he could spend the night without any problem. He was
certainly not afraid. He also had nothing to hide. If I were Schwamm, I would like to get acquainted
with the person with whom I was going to share the room.
5. What did Schwamm do before he entered the room? Would you call him a suspicious person? Why?
Before entering the room, Schwamm walked slowly towards the door. He held his breath to hear any
noise the stranger might make. He bent low and peeped through the keyhole. His actions did not
show him to be suspicious. He was just cautious because the partner in the room was a stranger with
whom he was to spend the night.
6. “Suddenly he froze.” Do you think Schwamm was frightened? What did the stranger ask Schwamm
not to do? Why do you think he wanted the room to be dark?
Schwamm was not frightened but he was startled to hear his partner’s sudden voice in the dark. The
stranger requested Schwamm not to switch on the light. He wanted the room to be dark because he
thought that the lights would probably disturb his sleep.
7. “Were you waiting for me?” Schwamm asked. Do you think the stranger was waiting for
Schwamm? Why do you think so? What did the stranger say?
The stranger was not waiting for Schwamm. But he definitely expected someone to occupy the other
bed in the double room. That was why Schwamm entered the room, the stranger asked him not to
switch on the light. He also asked him not to fall on his crutches or run into his suitcase, which were
kept somewhere in the middle of the dark room.
8. Why was Schwamm hesitant when he introduced himself to the stranger?
Finding his partner still awake, Schwamm thought he would not fall asleep soon. So he decided to
make acquaintance with him. However it was with a bit of hesitation he introduced himself
voluntarily. He was hesitant because he did not know how the stranger would treat him.
9. “…. I probably have the strangest reason imaginable for coming into town,” Schwamm said. What
was his reason? Can you state it briefly? Do you think it was a strange reason?
Schwamm came to the town to take the early morning train to Kurzbach to wave back at his son.
Schwamm said his son, who had to wait at the railway crossing on his way to school, used to wave at
the passengers travelling by the train. But none of them waved him back. This made his son sick. It
was a strange reason, as no one visits the town only to wave back.
10. When Schwamm was about to give his reason for coming into town, the noise of a train interrupted
him. Do you think trains had something to do with his reason?
The train had nothing to do with his reason. It was only a coincidence that a train passed by, as he
was about to speak his plan to take the early morning train.
11. Schwamm explained the reason for his coming into town in a tone of “apprehensive cheerfulness.”
Why do you think Schwamm was apprehensive and cheerful at the same time? What was he
apprehensive about? What was he cheerful about?
Schwamm was apprehensive because the stranger would consider the purpose of his coming to the
town was foolish. At the same time he was cheerful because he was going to wave back at his son
from the train the next morning, to make him happy.
12. Schwamm called his son “a little scamp.” He used a similar expression a little later. Can you spot
it? Do you think Schwamm was irritated about his son’s behaviour? Do the words ‘scamp’ and
‘rascal’ mean what they usually mean?
A similar word used for scamp is rascal. Although Schwamm was worried about his son’s strange
behaviour, he was not irritated. The words are not used in the real sense. On the other hand, they
express Schwamm’s love and concern for his son.
13. What does Schwamm compare his son to? Do you think the comparison is apt? In what way? Later,
Schwamm says, “He has a soul of glass.” Can you explain the phrase “soul of glass”?
Schwamm compares his son to a mimosa, which is a very sensitive plant, reacting even to a gentle
touch. His son is worried very much because none of the passengers travelling by train waved back
at him. He is sensitive like mimosa plant. Soul of glass means a very delicate and sensitive heart.
 Glass breaks easily, so it needs to be handled carefully. A person with a soul of glass also needs to
be given soft and gentle care.
14. What did Schwamm’s son do in the morning? How did he behave in the evening? What was the
reason for his behaviour?
Every morning on his way to school, Schwamm’s son had to wait at the railway crossing for the
morning train to pass by. He used to wave at the passengers travelling by the train but none of them
waved backed him. When he returned home in the evening, he could not do his homework and did
not even want to play or talk to anyone. He broke into tears easily. The reason for his strange
behaviour was that none of the passengers in the train waved back at him.
15. What did the stranger guess Schwamm was doing? Did he guess correctly? From the way he said it;
do you think the stranger approved of what Schwamm was doing?
The stranger guessed that Schwamm was planning to take the early train the next morning to wave at
his son. He guessed correctly. The words the stranger used indicated that he did not approve of
Schwamm’s action. He meant that it was a foolish thing to do.
16. “I hate them and avoid them.” Why did the stranger hate childre? Do you think he really hated
children?
The stranger hated and avoided children because his wife died while giving birth to their first child.
He thought that the child was responsible for his wife’s death. So he hated children and avoided
them. He might have had that feeling for sometime but not forever. If he had really hated children,
he would not have gone to catch the early morning train to wave back at Schwamm’s son.
17. “I am very sorry,” said Schwamm. How did the stranger respond? Did he want people to pity him?
The stranger received the reaction of Schwamm calmly. At the same time, he did not want other
people to pity him. This was evident from the way he reacted by immediately diverting the
discussion to something else.
18. “You are taking the Kurzbach train, are you?” Why did the stranger want to know? Was he planning
to do something? Or was it just a casual question?
The stranger wanted to know if Schwamm was taking the Kurzbach train the next morning, because
he was moved by the condition of the boy. The question indicated that the stranger was thinking to
do something to make the boy happy. It was not a casual question.
19. Why was Schwamm unable to catch the train? Was he able to do what he came into town for? Was
his trip to town a success? How?
Schwamm was not able to catch the early morning train because when he woke up, the train was
about to leave the station in five minutes. He came to the town only to catch the train to wave back
at his son. But he was not able to do so, as he woke up late. However, his trip to the town was a
success, as the stranger who pitied the boy took the early train the next morning and waved back at
the boy.
20. Why didn’t Schwamm catch the morning train the next day and do what he had planned to do?
There was only five minutes for the train to start, when he woke up the next day. So he did not catch
the morning train. He could not afford to stay for another day in the town. Hence he didn’t do what
he had planned to do.
21. How did Schwamm feel when he returned home in the afternoon? How do you think he felt when he
met his son?
When Schwamm returned home, he was very much disappointed. But his son looked extremely
happy. He told Schwamm all that had happened that morning. Schwamm understood that the person
who had waved at his son was the stranger in the hotel room. This might have made him happy and
thankful.
22. What do you think had happened in the morning in the hotel room? What did the stranger do?
The next morning when the stranger woke up, he might have found Schwamm still asleep. Knowing
that Schwamm was bound to miss the train, he himself took the train and waved back at the boy who
stood at the railway crossing waving at the passengers. The stranger tied a handkerchief to one of his
crutches and held it out of the window to make the boy happy.

In Celebration of Being Alive – Dr. Chirstiaan Barnard

Dr. Christiaan Barnard, the author of “In Celebration of Being Alive”, is a renowned surgeon. He is credited
with performing the first human heart transplant operation on a businessman in South Africa in 1967.

Summary :
Towards the end of his career as a heart surgeon, Dr. Christiaan Barnard began to think over the reasons
for the sufferings of people. He was particularly concerned about the suffering of children.
His concern arose from an accident he had a few years ago. That incident made him to think about
suffering seriously. He found no meaning in the suffering of patients. He disagreed with his father’s view
that suffering ennobled a person and made him better.
Dr. Barnard knew about the suffering of children for the first time when he was a little boy. His father
showed him the last biscuit given to his brother. It was half-eaten and mouldy with two tiny tooth marks of
his brother, who was born with an abnormal heart. He thought if his brother had been born around the time
when he was giving this talk; a sophisticated heart surgery could have saved him.
One morning several years ago, Dr. Barnard witnessed an unusual event at Cape Town’s Red Cross
Children’s Hospital. It made him realise that he was missing something in all his thinking about sufferings.
He compared the event with Grand Prix.
A nurse had left a breakfast trolley unattended in the ward. Two children, one blind and the other
crippled, took charge of the trolley. While the blind child played the role of the mechanic by pushing the
trolley and the crippled child acted as the driver. They put on quite a show that day. The rest of the patients
laughed and encouraged them to go on. The entire ward was charged with pleasure and joy. The nurse and
the ward sister finally took control of the situation.
When Dr. Barnard met them after the race, he found them very lively and jovial. They proudly informed
him that the race was success. It was them Dr. Barnard realised that he was looking at sufferings from the
wrong end.
He now understood that the business of living was joy in the real sense of the word. It was not
something for pleasure, amusement and recreation. In fact, the business of living was the celebration of
being alive.

1. After reading para 1, can you guess what the main theme of the speech is going to be? Quote a word
or phrase to support your guess.
The para 1, makes us guess that the main theme of the speech is going to be on sufferings of people.
“Why people should suffer,” “suffering seems so cruelly prevalent” and so on, are the phrases which
support the guess.
2. In para 1, Dr. Barnard states that suffering seems so common. What figures does the quote to
support his statement? Do they relate to adults or children? Why do you think Dr. Barnard has
chosen the figures about children?
Dr. Barnard quotes that out of 125 million children born that year, 12 million are unlikely to reach
the age of one and another six million will die before the age of five. Among the rest, many will end
up being disabled, physically or mentally. Dr. Barnard has chosen the figures of children because it
is children who grow into adults in future. By quoting the figures, he tries to describe the condition
of human beings as a whole.
3. What was the accident that Dr. Barnard met with? What happened to him? What happened to his
wife?
One day while crossing a street with his wife, a car hit Dr. Barnard and knocked him into his wife.
She was thrown into the other line. Hit by another car coming from the opposite direction, his eleven
ribs were broken and his lung was damaged. His wife’s shoulder was badly fractured. He
experienced not only agony and fear, but also anger. He could not understand the reason for such a
thing happening to him.
4. Why do you think Dr. Barnard talks about the accident? Is it to discuss the magnitude of the fear of
death in people? Or to prove the uncertainty of living in our world?
Dr. Barnard talks about the accident because his gloomy thoughts have probably originated from his
own experience. He makes a reference to prove the uncertainty of living in this world. His attempt
is not to magnify the fear of death but to bring out the suffering experienced by people.
5. How did Dr. Barnard react to the accident? Why was he angry? Was he thinking of his own comfort
or something else? What does this tell us about him?
The accident turned him more serious and earnest in his study of human suffering. He could not
understand why he and his wife had to suffer. This thought made him angry. He was not thinking
about himself. On the other hand he was more worried about the patients waiting for him to operate
upon. This tells us about his dedication to his profession.
6. What were the views of Dr. Barnard’s father on suffering? Does Dr. Barnard agree with this view?
Does this mean Dr. Barnard has no faith in God? Are you sure?
Dr. Barnard’s father believed that suffering was God’s will. This was God’s way of testing man.
According to him, suffering ennobled a person and made him stronger. As a doctor, Dr. Barnard
does not agree with his father’s view. This does not mean Dr. Barnard has no faith in God. He does
believe in God but he is against blind faith.
7. What had made Dr. Barnard sensitive to the suffering of children? Why do you think his father kept
the half-eaten biscuit? Who do you think Dr. Barnard got his compassion from?
The death of his brother made Dr. Barnard sensitive to the suffering of children. His father had kept
the half-eaten biscuit of his brother as an object of his remembrance. Dr. Barnard got his
compassion for children due to his brother, who died on account of lack of proper medical facilities.
8. Why does Dr. Barnard find the suffering of children particularly heartbreaking? Children believe that
doctors are going to help them. As a doctor himself, does Dr. Barnard believe this to be true?
Children totally believe in doctors and nurses that they are going to cure them. They accept their fate
if not cured. They go thorough mutilating surgery and afterwards they don’t complain.
9. “They go through mutilating surgery and afterwards they don’t complain.” Is there anything later on
in his speech, which proves Dr. Barnard’s observation about children?
Dr. Barnard says apart from his own experience in life, the two children have given him a profound
lesion, where he has learnt the business of living. The two children, despite their suffering, have
shown him that, what is left in life is important and not what is lost.
10. Did the Grand Prix of Cape Town’s Red Cross Children’s Hospital take place before or after the
accident or Dr. Barnard narrated? How can you tell?
The Grand Prix of Cape Town’s Red Cross Children’s Hospital occurred after the car accident.
When the car accident happened, Dr. Barnard was very bitter about suffering. But the Grand Prix at
the hospital, changed him completely. For the first time, he how, found meaning in suffering.
11. Who were the driver and the mechanic of the Grand Prix? In what way was the choice of their roles
suitable?
The driver was a crippled boy and the mechanic was a blind boy. Both were patients in the hospital.
The blind boy provided motor power by pushing the trolley from behind. The crippled boy steered
the trolley by scrapping his foot on the floor, as he could see. In this way their choice of roles was
suitable.
12. How had the mechanic of the Grand Prix lost his eyes? Do you think the phrase walking in horror’
suits him? ‘And was laughing.’ What does this tell us about the seven year old?
One night in a drunken state, the mechanic’s mother threw a lantern at his father. It missed him and
broken over the child’s head. The boy had serious burns on the upper part of his body and lost his
sight. The phrase ‘a walking horror’ suits him well, because while walking he looked like a picture
of horror himself. Here ‘laughing’ is a positive expression of victory and success. This tells us that
the seven-year old boy was self-confident that he could win anything in spite of his disability.
13. How had the ‘driver’ lost his shoulder and arm? Was he likely to live long? What does the last
sentence of para 12 tell us about the boy?
The driver had a harmful tumour and his shoulder and arm were cut off. He was not likely to live
long. The last sentence of para 12 says the boy had full confidence in himself and also in his blind
mechanic friend. He was also a happy boy.
14. What lesson did the two children teach Dr. Barnard?
The two children taught Dr. Barnard that the business of living was in the celebration of being alive
and it was not for just pleasure, amusement and recreation. They made him understand that he had a
distorted view of suffering till then and made clear to him that being alive was more important than
suffering. They also showed him that what was left in life was important and not what was lost.
 15. Do you find any difference in Dr. Barnard’s views on suffering between para 1 and para 14?
In the beginning Dr. Barnard said he could not understand why people should suffer. Sufferings,
gave them only agony and fear. He was angry and viewed suffering negatively. In the end in para
14, he was convinced that experience of suffering would make one a better person.
16. “You don’t become a better person because you are suffering, but you become a better person
because you have experienced suffering.” How does Dr. Barnard support this observation?
A person can enjoy happiness only when he has experienced suffering. Dr. Barnard supports this
statement by giving the following examples : we cannot appreciate light if we have not known
darkness; and we cannot appreciate warmth if we have never suffered cold.
17. “Its not what you have lost that’s important. What is important is what you have left.” Do you
agree? Do you think the title of this talk is meaningful?
We should not give importance to what we have lost. All that is important is what we have left.
Yes, the title of the talk is meaningful. We should learn to celebrate the very fact of being alive.
18. “Suffering ennobles you – makes you a better person.” Whose words are these? Did Dr. Barnard
agree with that person at that time? Did he agree with that view at the end of the speech?
These words were of Dr. Barnard’s father. Dr. Barnard did not agree with his father at that time. At
the end of the speech, Dr. Barnard agreed with his father that suffering was required for one to
celebrate being alive and to become a better person.

Circus Cat, Alley Cat – Anitha Desai

Anitha Desai, the author of ‘Circus Cat, Alley Cat’ is a noted Indian write in English. She won the Sahitya
Academy Award in 1978.

Summary :
The author saw Anna for the first time late one evening. She was playing hide and seek with the
children who lived next door. Anna was large and heavily built, with very black bright eyes and a lot of
wiry black hair. When she called them in a loud, sharp voice, the author felt frightened. She could hardly
breathe and preferred to creep over the manure pit and get back into her home.
It was difficult for the author to understand how the family of Bates could choose a circus girl to be a
nanny for their children. The author came to know that the real name of Anna was Shakti. She was a
Malabar girl born into the circus. She trained tigers in the circus since she was thirteen.
Anna’a most death-defying performance was to drape a tiger over her shoulders and stand on the backs
of two lions. She would then order the lions to roar. When the lions roared, it made her large body tremble
all over.
Anna eventually married the boy who was assigned to lead the tigers. In no time the boy took over her
circus duties and entrusted her with the household duties. Angry with the treatment, she left him taking her
baby with her.
When Mrs. Bates found her, Anna and her child were almost starving. She took pity, brought Anna and
her child home and made her a Nanny of her children.
However, the children could not feel comfortable with her. When she ordered them to play, they just
obeyed her. In spite of all her efforts, she remained to the children as the breath taking, death-defying,
terror-striking Anna of the circus.
One day Anna’s baby disappeared. She told the author that the child was taken away and she would
never see her again. The author thought that the child was dead. She ran to her mother to find out how the
whole thing happened when the child was healthy till the previous day. Even her mother was shocked.
When they went to Mrs. Bates, she told them that the child was alive and that it was taken away by her
husband. Since the circus had moved to Bombay, Mrs. Bates said she was sending Anna to get her child
back.
After several years when the author and her neighbours went to see a circus, they met Anna there. They
saw a little girl somersaulting in the sawdust and tumbling around and thought she was Anna’s child. They
could not find Anna’s husband. But they found Anna, the circus cat, doing the same breath-taking, death-
defying, terror-striking feats.
1. “I first saw Anna”. How old do you think the writer was when she met Anna for the first
time?
When the writer met Anna for the first time, she was a child of about five years. Since the
author her self is the narrator and she being a woman, ‘I’ is naturally a girl.
2. What was the writer’s first encounter with Anna? Was it a pleasant one? What were the
children doing? What did Anna do? The writer had two choices. What did the writer
choose? Why?
Anna came to the children to hound them out of the shrubbery. It was the writer’s first
encounter with Anna. It was not a pleasant one. The children were playing hide and seek.
Anna picked up a neem switch, slapped it against her thigh and called the children in a loud
voice. The writer had two choices – to go away quietly to her home or to face Anna boldly.
The writer chose to go home quietly because she could not come face to face with Anna.
3. “And through the cage of bamboos”. Where was the writer hiding? Was it a real cage? How
did the surroundings suddenly change? Who had brought about the change?
The writer was hiding behind a screen of bamboos. It was not a real cage. The lawn
suddenly turned into a sawdust – covered stage floor. Nanny’s white uniform turned into
pink tights. The switch in her hand looked like a whip. The talking of mynah birds and the
barks of pet dogs sounded like the roar of tigers and meaningless sound of apes. The
writer’s fear about Nanny brought about this change.
4. What did the writer hear about Nanny? What confirmed this?
The writer heard that Nanny had come from a circus, where she worked as a cat (tiger)
trainer. The cracking of the switch in her hand, her hefty shoulders, and authoritative voice
confirmed this piece of information.
5. What was Nanny’s real name? What did the Bates call her? Why did they choose that
name? Do you think Nanny was a Christian? Why they do you think the Bates called her
Anna? Would you like to suggest a few names you think are suited to her physical
appearance and behaviour?
Nanny’s real name was not known. Shakti was her stage name. The bates called her Anna.
They chose that name because Anna was a more domestic name. There was no reference in
the story regarding Nanny’s religion. The names like Rudra, Durga and so on may suit her
physical appearance and behaviour.
6. How did Anna happen to work for Mrs. Bates
Mrs. Bates found Anna and her baby near starvation begging on a Dhariya Gunj street? She
brought Anna and her baby home and employed her as the children Nanny.
7. Which part of the country did Nanny belong to? Who do you think her parents were? What
was her special act? What phrases were used to describe the act?
Nanny belonged to Malabar in Kerala. Her parents were also circus artistes. She was born
into the circus her special act was to drape a tiger over her shoulders and stand on the back
of two lions she would then make them roar, resulting in her body trembling all over. The
phrases used to describe the act were “breath – talking” and terror – striking”.
8. Who did Anna marry? What kind of a man was he? In what way did he show his ambition?
How did Anna react? What happened to her?
Anna married the boy, who led the cats in the circus. He was an ambition person. He taught
her that a woman’s place was her home. Anna did not react favourably to his behaviour. In
a spurt of cat – like temper, she left him and went away with her baby.
9. In what state was Anna, when Mrs. Bates found her? Mrs. Bates did two things. What were
they? What was the colour of the uniform Anna was given? Do you notice the difference
between this uniform used and what Anna had to wear in the circus?
 The Gallows
Edward Thomas a British poet was known for his naturalistic feelings. In the poem ‘Gallows’, the poet’s
sympathy is seen for those birds and animals, who have suffered injustice at the hands of man.
1. What did the keeper do to the weasel? Why do you think he did so? Where does the dead
weasel hang? Does the animal have any feelings now?
The keeper shot the weasel dead with his gun he did so to protect other small animals from the weasel.
The weasel hangs on the branch of a dead oak tree. The animal does not have any feelings now, as it is
dead.
2. What had the crow done? What does “made him one of the things that were” mean? Can the
crow commit any more sins on the branch of the oak tree?
The crow was a thief and a murderer, stealing things and killings worms and insects, the keeper shot him
and made him hanging along with other kinds. No, the crow cannot commit any more skins, as it is dead.
3. What kind of a bird was magpie? Did his ability to talk and his beauty save him?
Magpie was a noisy bird with white and black feathers, along tongue and a long tail. His ability to talk
and his beauty did not save him.
4. Did the beats and birds have enough leisure in their lives? Do they have enough on the
branch of the tree? Would you say the keeper had done them a great favour by hanging them there? Or is
the poet being sarcastic?
The beats and birds did not have enough leisure in their lives. They have enough on the branch of the tree
as they are dead. To say that the keeper has done them a great favour is sarcastic, as there is no way of
availing themselves of leisure of after their death.
5. Of all the birds and beats the keeper had shot, only three are specially mentioned. What
does each of them represent?
Weasel represents fierceness and cruelty, crow represents cunningness, stealing and killing; magpie
represents noisiness and stealing.
6. The weasel, the crow and the magpie were wicked certainly. But could they help being what
they were? Do you think they deserved the punishment they got?
No, they could not help being what they were. It was their nature. They did not deserve the punishment
they got.
7. It is the keeper’s duty to protect the birds and beasts under his care. Why then did he have to
shoot some of them? Should he be blamed for what he did?
He had to shoot some of them to protect others. He should be blamed for not taking care of them as a
keeper.
8. Who do you think was more cruel – the weasel that killed the smaller animals or the keeper
who killed the weasel? Why do you think so?
The keeper had to shoot some of them to protect the rest the keeper deserved blame for killing them
under the pretext of protecting other animals and birds.
9. Who do you think is the poet’s sympathy with – the birds and animals or the keeper?
The poet’s sympathy is with the birds and animals. This can be understood by the sarcastic note ‘no more
sins to be sinned’ and ‘to swing and have endless leisure.’
10. If the weasel, crow and magpie stand for criminals – big and small, who does the keeper
represent?
The keeper represents the executioner.
11. Who was the sinner? What were his sins? What happened to him?
The crow was the sinner. It had killed many creatures. The keeper had killed the crow and hung it on the
dead oak tree branch.
12. “There was a magpie too, had a long tongue and a long tail”. What does a long tongue do?
What does a long tail show?
The magpie is a noisy bird with black and white feathers. It makes noise continuously with its long
tongue. Its long tail makes it look beautiful. However neither his ability to talk nor his beauty could save
him from death. The keeper shot him dead.
13. And many other beasts
And birds, skin, bone, and feather,
Have been taken from their feasts
And hung up these together,
To swing and have endless leisure
In the sun and in the snow,
Without pain, without pleasure,
On the dead oak tree bough.”
Why are the birds said to have endless leisure? Is the poet being ironical? Why?
The birds are said to have endless leisure because they are no more alive. So there is no need for them to
work at all. The poet is ironical because the keeper has denied their right to enjoy a life of pleasure by
killing them. In life, one has both pains and pleasure, but death denies everything including leisure.
14. “There was a weasel lived in the sun with all his family, till a keeper shot him with his gun
and hung him up on a tree.” Why did the keeper shoot the weasel? Why did he hang him up?
The weasel kills other small animals for its food. To save the small animals, the keeper shot the weasel
dead and hung it up on the branch of a dead oak tree.
15. “There are no more sins to be sinned on the dead oak tree bought.”
The crow was a sinner, stealing small things. He also killed insects, worms and other small animals. The
keeper killed him and they hung him on the branch of a dead oak tree. Now that he was dead, the poet
believes that he could not commit any more sins.
16. What did the keeper do to the weasel, the crow and the Magpie?
The keeper shot the weasel, the crow, and the magpie and hung them up on a dead oak tree bough.
 SNAKE
D.H. Lawrence, a poet, novelist and essayist, brings out his sensitivity to the suffering around through his
writings
1. What kind of a day was it on which the snake came to the water trough? What effect does
the repetition of the word hot have?
It was a very hot day on which the snake came to the water trough. The repetitions of the word hot
specify that it was a very hot day.
2. Why did the poet decide that he had to stand and wait?
The poet decided to stand and wait, as the snake came to the water trough prior to his arrival. He could
not drive it away, as he thought the snake was thirsty. He treated the snake like a guest who should have
the priority over the host.
3. Where did the snake come from? His body was described as slackness. In what sense was it
slack?
The snake came from a deep crack in the earthen wall. His body was described as slack, as it was lazy,
slow and relaxed.
4. What did the snake do at the trough? The way the snake drank is described as softly and
silently. What do you think the words suggest?
The snake sipped water with his straight mouth. The words softly and silently suggest that the snake was
not in a hurry. It was also no afraid of any harm from anyone around.
5. What does someone suggest? Just anyone who happened to be ahead of the poet? Some one
important, whose rights have to be respected?
The snake first, reached the water trough. The poet had to respect the right of the snake. Some one
suggests the poet had regard and respect for the snake.
6. What are the three things mentioned to reinforce the idea of heat?
The tree things mentioned to reinforce the idea of heat are – burning bowels, Sicilian July and
Etna smoking. It is very hot on a day of July in Sicily. Etna is a volcano which gives out very hot lava.
7. What did the voice of education ask the poet to do? What is the argument for killing a
golden snake? Do you think the distinction is rational?
The voice of education asked the poet to kill the snake. A golden snake in Sicily is poisonous, while
black snakes are not. His inner self prompted him to kill the snake with a stick like a man. But he liked
the snake, as it came like a guest to drink water. It did not do him any harm either. The distinction is
rational. It is right to kill the snake if it is poisonous.
8. Why was the poet glad? Did the snake want to harm anybody?
The poet was glad, as the snake came quietly like a guest to drink water at his water trough. The snake
did not want to harm anybody.
9. What are the four different feelings that the poet had towards the snake?
The four different feelings the poet had towards the snake are a) cowardice, b) perversity, honored
because the snake came to his water trough to drink water and not to harm him in any way. In spite of
being a poisonous snake, it drank water quietly and went back to its hole.
10. There are several expressions in section 6 which tell us that the snake had his fill of water.
Can you spot them? How many times the word slow is repeated in this section? What does it tell about
the mood of the snake?
The expressions that tell us the snake had his fill of water are ‘drank enough’, ‘flickered his tongue’ and
‘licked his lips’. The word low is repeated four times. It tells us about the relaxed mood of the snake.
11. How did the poet feel when the snake went back into the hole? Why?
The poet felt a sort of horror and protest when the snake went back into the hole, because the voice of
education said it must be killed.
12. What did the poet do as the snake was going into the hole?
Why do you think he did so? Did he want to kill the snake because it was a dangerous? Was he angry
because the snake did not stay? Was he disgusted because the snake was going back into its horrid black
hole?
As the snake was going into the hole, the poet picked up a log and threw it at the snake. He was neither
angry nor eager to kill it. He was rather disgusted, as the snake was going back into its horrid black hole.
13. How did the poet feel as soon as he threw the log at the snake? He uses three words to
describe his act. What are they? The poet despised two things. What are they?
As soon as he threw the log at the snake, the poet regretted it because he thought he had done a mean act.
He described his act with three words Paltry, vulgar and mean. The two things the poet despises are his
education and himself.
14. Why did the poet think of the albatross? What is the allusion in this line?
Orthodox people hesitate to kill snakes. This thought made the poet think of albatross. Albatross is a
large web – footed sea bird. In the poem titled Ancient Mariner a sailor kills an albatross which brings
him ill – luck. The poet was afraid that such a thing might also happen to him.
15. The poet thinks of the snake in two images. What are they? Why do you think the snake is
described in these terms?
The two images of the snake are albatross and a king. The snake is compared to an albatross which had
been killed, though it caused no harm to the sailor. The snake seemed like a king to the poet, because
having come first, he had a right to take water from the trough before him.
16. Who is one of the lords of life? What is the pettiness the poet has shown?
One of the lords of life is the snake, who seemed to be a king to the poet. When it was going into the
hole, he threw a log to kill it that was the pettiness.
17. Was it cowardice, I dared not kill him?
Was it perversity that I longed to talk to him?
Was it humility, to feel so honoured?
Who is the poet talking about here? Why does he ask himself these questions? What does he feel so
honoured?
The poet is talking about the snake that has come to his water trough to drink. It occasionally lifts its
head to look at him. Suddenly the poet thinks that he should kill it, as it is poisonous. But his heart rebels
at the idea. His intellect attributes this action to fear, but he feels honoured after showing hospitality to
the snake.
18. Although the poet attempted to kill the snake, he later regretted it. Why?
The poet deeply regretted the act of throwing a log at the snake which was going into the hole. The
meanness was in trying to kill the snake when it did not do any harm to him. It was going back to its hole
peacefully without expecting any kind of violence. He now despised the voice of his accursed education,
which told him that the snake must be killed.
19. And truly I was afraid. But even so, honoured still more. Why did the poet feel honoured in
spite of being afraid?
The poet felt honoured in spite of being afraid because the snake came there on a very hot day to drink
water and not to harm the poet. Even though it was a poisonous snake, it drank water and went back into
the deep crack on the wall very peacefully, he felt it was his guest.
20. And immediately I regretted it.
I thought how paltry, how vulgar, what a mean act!
What did the poet do? Why did he regret it?
The poet threw a log at the snake and later regretted it. He thought that his action was paltry, vulgar and
mean. Since he was prompted to kill the snake by the voice of his education he despised it.
21. And immediately I regretted it.
I thought how paltry, how vulgar, what a mean act!
What does ‘it’ refer to? Why does the poet regret the act? Which are the three words he uses to describe
his act?
The poet threw a log at the snake and later regretted it. ‘It’ refers to the poet’s hasty action of throwing a
log at the retreating snake. He thought that his action was paltry, vulgar and mean since he was prompted
to kill the snake by the voice of his accursed education.
22. For he seemed to me again like a king,
Now due to be crowned again,
And so, I missed my chance with one of the lords of life,
And I have something to expiate:
A pettiness.
What is the feeling that the poet is left with at the end of the experience?
The poet feels sorry for having missed a chance to show respect to one of the lords of life. He also feels
he is mean in hitting the snake with a log when it is going back into the hole with out doing him any
harm. He feels he has shown pettiness in trying to his the snake which came gently as a guest to be
honoured.
 Fire in the forest
Norah Burke, the author of “Five in the forest”, is a well – known writer about animals. Her writings
highlight the instinct of survival among animals in the forest.
1. How did the fire in the forest start? What time of the day was it? What time of the year was
it? Do you think the man started the fire deliberately? Why do you think so?
The fire in the forest started when a man took a last draw of his cigarette and dropped it on the path
without putting it off. It was midday in summer. No, the man did not start the fire deliberately. The man
just careless. One should learn to put off the fire before throwing down a cigarette but to avoid any
possible fire.
2. The stub of the cigarette still held in it one little ruby. Throughout the story the fire is
described as thought it is a living thing – may be another animal of the forest. What other words in the
same paragraph suggest the idea? Note several more words of the same kind.
The words ‘pushed’, ‘transferred’, ‘snapped’, ‘clung’, and ‘survived’, suggest that fire is described as a
living thing. The words ‘licked’, ‘jumped’, grew up’, ‘float off’ are some of the words of the same kind.
3. Why were the animals not aware of what was to come? Why did the bird know about the
fire before the animals did?
The animals were not aware of what was to come, because they could not notice the smoke. The bird was
sitting on a tree at a higher place than the animals. So when smoke floated off, it knew about the fire
before the animals did.
4. How did the forest department officials get ready to halt the fire? Do you thin they were
prepared to meet the situation? How do you know?
The forest department officials started a counter fire along the edge of the fire line. Any tiny flame that
tried to encroach was beaten back with tree branches. They also forced the counter fire to travel against
the wind to meet the advancing fire. When the two fires met, there would be nothing left for them to burn
and finally the fires would go out. It is an age – old technique used by the forest department to put off
any big forest fire.
5. From paras 5 and 6 do you get an idea of the method used by the forest department for
fighting forest fires. Does it strike you as stranger that they start a fire to stop a fire?
The forest department lit a counter fire and forced it to travel against in the opposite direction so that
nothing was left to burn. It is strange to us, as we are not used to such incidents. But it is a technique used
by the forest department. The principle is that when two fires meet in the opposite direction, there would
be nothing left to burn. This way the fire is put off.
6. Why was the spotted deer lying away from the herd? Why do you think she had chosen that
spot?
The spotted deer was lying away from the herd because she had given birth to a fawn recently. She
wanted a place to hide herself with her fawn. She selected that spot because she could easily hide in the
tall grass. The speckled shadows got mixed with the spots on her body and she could not be noticed and
the grass was cool.
7. How did the deer feel while she lay invisible in the glade? Why was she at peace with the
world? What gave her a feeling of achievement? “No danger threatened her baby.” Was this true, judging
from what you know? Was it true from the deer’s point of view?
As the deer lay in the glade, she was happy and successful. It was spotted deer and the place where she
was lying helped her to remain hidden. She and her fawn were free from any danger. The grass was cool
but she was not aware of the advancing fire. She felt secure. It was true from the deer’s point of view.
But it was not true from what we know.
8. How does the deer spot danger? Why was she on the alert at that time?
The deer in normally alert to the danger from a tiger or a panther. She is on the alert all the time flicking
her ears in different directions. Her eyes will be starting into the shadows and her nostrils will be
trembling for the smell of wild animals. It was this alertness that helped her spot the danger in advance.
9. What were the thoughts and feelings of the mother deer she became aware of the danger?
The deer began to think about the future of her fawn. He was then too small to move. In a short time, he
would grow and move out to join others and lead his life. He would grow bigger and challenge other
stags to fight. These were the thoughts of the deer before she became aware of the danger.
10. Imagine for a moment that it is a scene describing a human mother and her body. Would
you find the description appropriate?
Even in the case of a human mother and her baby, the description of the mother deer dreaming about her
fawn getting stronger and moving with others is appropriate.
11. “He was too small to move yet and accompany the herd.” Do you think the fawn joined the
herd sooner than his mother had expected?
The fawn joined the herd sooner than his mother had expected. This came about as a result of the sudden
forest fire they had to face, forcing them to move away from the comfort of thief place in the grass.
12. “Then they would go together.” From this point to the end of the paragraph is a long dream
about the future. Whose thought are they? Do you think these thoughts are relevant at this point of the
story? Would it have been better if they were left out and the story went straight on to para 12?
The thoughts quoted in the given paragraph are the thoughts of the mother deer. These are relevant at this
point of the story to impress on us the fact that she was not aware of the danger before other animals did.
Mother always thinks about the future of the child.
13. How was it possible for the monkeys to go faster than other animals? Why do you think
they began coming back after a bit?
Monkey went faster than other animals because they traveled by the treetop high roads. They began
coming back because they were probably forced by another fire in the opposite direction.
14. The chital hind became cruel. What made her cruel? What was the fawn afraid of? What
was he not afraid of? Why?
The chital hind became cruel because of the fear that her fawn would die. She began to push the fawn.
The fawn was afraid of his mother. He was no afraid of the fire because he did not know it.
15. “Just the way you could be caught between two hunting panthers.” Do you think the
comparison is an apt one? In what way?
The deer was going away from the fire but after a while she saw smoke ahead of her. She found herself
between flames. This is compared to having been caught between two panthers. In the same way the two
fires move towards each other. The comparison is apt.
16. “He gave a little frisky jump and fell over.” What happened to him as the minutes passed?
As the time passed by minutes, the fawn became slow, weak and disobedient. He made painful and
fearful cries when his mother turned on him. As the flames encircled him, he staggered and fell. He could
not get up but lay trembling.
17. When did the deer first meet the tiger? Why did the tiger not attack her? What did the tiger
prepare to do later? How did the deer face him? What saved her and her baby?
The deer first met the tiger near the pool. The tiger did not attack her because he himself was frightened
by the fire. Later when the tiger saw that the danger had passed away, he snarled at the deer and her
baby. The deer stood between the tiger and her baby. A man’s voice shouting out instructions scared the
tiger and this saved the deer and her baby.
18. “The river bed was full of creatures.” Is it natural for the animals of the jungle to come
together? Why then were they there? What differences do you see in their behavior when the fire began
to die down?
Under normal conditions, it is not natural for the animals of the jungle to come together. As all of them
faced a common danger of the forest fire, they were there all together. Their thoughts were concentrated
on the danger to find a way to escape from it. As the fire began to die down, they behaved in their natural
ways. The tiger snarled at the deer and her baby.
19. Why did the deer stay back even when the other animals had gone away? What did she do
later?
The deer and fawn were not strong enough to move out. So they stayed back cooling their burns in the
pool and drinking the water. When the fawn recovered, she and her child moved into the unburnt part of
the forest and joined the herd.
20. Did you enjoy reading this account of a fire in the forest? Which part of the description
appealed to your most – of the animals, of the fire or of the people?
The animals in the forest were caught between the two raging fires. Left with no other option, they look
shelter on riverbed which was dry to a large extent. Here they forgot all their enimity with one another.
The wild beasts did not try to kill even the animals of their prey. Since they were facing a common
danger of fire, they were worried about their safety only. When the fires calmed down and the danger
disappeared, their natural instincts began to show again. This description of the behaviour of animals has
appealed to me most.
21. Give two reasons why the tiger did not eat the fawn.
The tiger did not eat the fawn because the tiger himself was frightened of the danger from the fire like
other animals and it was then a man’s voice was heard shouting out instructions. Terribly scared, the
tiger went away without attacking them.
22. How did the deer react when she first got the smell of danger?
When the deer first got the smell of danger, her eyes began to feel pain and she sneezed. She bent down
to look at her fawn and then raised her head to see and listen. Then she saw smoke floating in the sky.
The dear immediately nudged the fawn to his feet. He got up only to fall down at once.
23. “She saw at peace with the world, happy and successful,” says the author about the deer.
Why was the deer at peace with the world? What shattered the peace?
The spotted deer, with her newborn fawn, lay hidden in the grass. As they were invisible she was sure
that no danger would threaten her baby. The light was warm. The grass was fresh and cool. So she felt at
peace with the world. But when she became aware of the advancing danger of fire, the peace was
shattered.
24. “The smoke was seen by the forest department people who immediately went into action.”
What did the forest department people do to halt the fire?
As soon as the forest department official saw the smoke, they started a counter fire along the edge of the
fire line. They beat back any tiny flame that tried to encroach with tree branches. They also forced the
counter fire to travel against the wind to meet the advancing fire. When the two fires met, there would be
nothing left for them to burn and finally the fires would go out.
25. Which part of the description do you like most – of the animals, of the fire or of the people?
Why?
The animals in the forest were caught between the two raging fires. Left with no other option, they took
shelter on a riverbed which was dry to a large extent. Here they forgot all their hatred for one another.
The wild beasts did not try to kill even the animals of their prey. Since they were facing a common
danger of wild fire, they were worried about their safety only. When the fires calmed down and the
danger disappeared, their natural instincts began to show again. This description of the behaviour of
animals has appealed to me most.
26. What do you observe in the behaviour of animals from the lesson ‘Fire in the forest’?
When they are faced with a common danger, they tend to forget all their natural enmity and hatred. They
are worried more about the ways and means of escaping from the danger than thinking about getting their
food. Once, the danger threatening them disappears, they fall back to their natural behaviour.
27. Describe the effort of the deer to get to a place of safely with the fawn. How did he
respond?
When the deer sensed the danger, she pushed the fawn to his feet. The fawn got up, gave a little jump and
fell down. The deer felt they must hurry but the fawn was very weak and slow. The deer forced the fawn
to move on with her bites. The fawn could feel the heat but he could not get up. Only when a spark fell
on the fawn, he sprang to his feet. As soon as they were near a river bed, the deer pushed the fawn down
the slope, with herself following him.
Vinoba – A Portrait Sketch
Hallam Tennyson, the author of “Vinoba – A Portrait Sketch”, was greatly inspired by Vinoba. He lived
with Vinoba for many years to understand this great personality and his work.
1. What was the target of Vinoba’s mission? How much had it collected at the time this
talk was given?
Vinoba started the ‘Land Gifts Mission’ in 1951 to collect land for the landless peasants all over the
country. Its target was to collect 50 million acres of land. But at the time of this talk he had collected not
less than one million acres of land in two years.
2. When did the land Gifts Mission start? Where? What was special about that place?
Vinoba understood why landlords were being murdered. What was the reason, according to him?
The land Gifts Mission started in a village near Hyderabad in 1951. The communist agitators were
murdering landlords in that area. Vinoba saw the misery of the landless peasants and believed that their
misery was responsible for the violence.
3. How did Vinoba appeal to the landlords? Did he appeal for charity or for a rightful
share? Who was Vinoba representing?
Vinoba first appealed to the landlords to treat him as one of their sons. Then he would ask them for his
rightful share. He did so as a representative of the countless landless peasants all over the country. His
appeal touched their conscience and they donated land generously.
4. How did Vinoba go from his village to Hyderabad? What did he learn on the way?
How did he travel from Hyderabad to the meeting with the planning commission in Delhi? What did he
gain on the way? Do you think Vinoba would have achieved either of them if he had used a car or an
aeroplane for his journey?
Vinoba went to Hyderabad from his village on foot. He learnt about the misery of the landless peasants
on the way. He walked all the way from Hyderabad to Delhi to meet the planning Commission. On the
way he received 18,000 acres of land as gift. As a result the rest of India began to complete for his
services. Vinoba would not have achieved these, if he had used a car or an aeroplane for his journey.
5. Why was the author awestruck? What puzzled him? The author thought that
Vinoba’s high principles would never influence the common man. Was he right?
When the author was told Vinoba was scholar who had given up everything to lead a life of an unknown
peasant, he was awestruck. His reserved, recluse and austere life puzzled the author. The author was not
right in thinking that Vinoba’s principles would never influence the common man.
6. “Vinoba has reversed this process”. What is the process the author is talking about?
How did Vinoba reverse it?
India honours renunciation of worldly possessions. This ideal found in every Hindu’s heart. Even very
rich people give up a life of pleasure in their old age. They prefer to die in a mud hut by the River
Ganges. Vinoba has reversed the process. Instead of leading a retired life, he has taken up social service.
7. Why did Vinoba refuse the offer of motor cars? Do you think he was right in doing
so? Could he have done more work, if he had used modern facilities like a car? If he had used modern
facilities like a car? If he had done what would he have lost?
Vinoba refused the offer of motor cars because the peasant could not afford them. He also felt that the
magic bond of sympathy that bound him to the peasants would be broken if he went by a car. He was
right in doing so. If he had used modern facilities, he could have done more work but he would lost the
bond of sympathy that bound him to the peasants.
8. How did Vinoba win over the landlords? In what sense are the landlords lucky in
Vinoba’s opinion?
Vinoba won over the landlords by touching their conscience. He approached them in a spirit of loving
conciliation. In his opinion the landlords are lucky. It is more blessed to give than to receive. The
landlords are ennobled, while the landless are merely the passive recipients of their rights. His appeal
went home straight and the landlords donated land to him generously.
9. What are the two reasons for a landlord to give away a part of his land? Which of
them is acceptable to Vinoba?
A landlord might give a way a part of his land as a result of change of heart and consideration for the
landless poor. He might also give it merely as a sop to get a good public opinion. The first reason is
acceptable to Vinoba.
10. “His approach is the same to all men whatever their creed or condition.” Could you
summaries his approach in a few simple words?
Vinoba believes that all men have a divine spark in them and an effort must be made to kindle it. His
approach aims at making the needs of their fellow men real to the landlords in a language which they can
understand easily. He urged the communist to give up class hatred and work for the common good. He
tried to kindle the divine spark in all men without any difference.
11. What are some of the things renounced by Vinoba? Which one do you think was his
greatest sacrifice? Why?
At the age of ten Vinoba took a vow of chastity, which he kept throughout. At the age of twenty, when he
joined Gandhiji’s rural centre, he burnt all his certificates and diplomas. Burning of his certificates and
diplomas was his greatest sacrifice. He was a brilliant scholar and mathematician.
12. Why did Vinoba refuse to attend his mother’s funeral? Do you think he was right in
doing so? Why?
Vinoba refused to attend his mother’s funeral because the pyre was going to be lit by a Brahmin. He was
right in his own way, against the background of the prevailing caste system in India. Vinoba strongly
disapproved of the evil of caste system.
13. The author terms “the pride of poverty” the subtlest temptation of the saints. Do you
think anyone can be proud of the fact that he is poor? What will such a person urge others to do? Has
Vinoba done this?
No one can be proud of the fact that he is poor. Such a person will urge others to follow his way. Instead
of leading a comfortable life, Vinoba took the path of renunciation. Yet he did not ask others to follow
him. Nor he ever tried to be proud of the fact that he became poor for the sake of others.
14. Was Vinoba confident that his work would succeed? Did he worry about the result
of his work? What was his attitude to his work?
Vinoba was confident that his work would succeed. He did not worry about the result of his work. His
attitude to his work was that one should work without worrying about the result like fire which merely
burns and it does not care whether anyone puts a pot on it, fills it with water and puts rice in it to make a
meal, as to burn is the limit of its duty.
15. How did Vinoba deal with apathetic landlords? What did Vinoba do if the donations
were not enough?
Vinoba explained to the landlords the problems they had to face, if they denied the peasants their rights.
If the donations were not enough, Vinoba asked the landless to choose the most deserving and tried his
best to convince the landlords of the need to donate as much land as possible.
16. Why did the untouchable gift his land to Vinoba? What did Vinoba do with the
land? Do you think he was right in doing so? What else could he have done? How would that have
affected the donor?
The untouchable gifted his land to Vinoba, as he got a job in a factory. Vinoba took the gift deed from
him and endorsed it to the effect that the plot should be returned to him. He was right, as the purpose of
his mission was to see that the landlords gave a part of the land to the poor peasants and not to take away
what little the poor had.
17. What had made Vinoba come out of his retirement? Did Vinoba claim he was the
spiritual heir to Gandhiji? “Like a candle, lit at a neighboring flame.” Who is the fire? Who is the candle?
Do you think the comparison is appropriate? In what ways?
The assassination of Gandhiji made Vinoba come out of his retirement. He rarely spoke of Gandhiji in
public. He never claimed that he was the heir of Gandhiji. Gandhiji is the fire and Vinoba is the candle.
The comparison is appropriate, as it explains the value and the extent of inspiration.
18. “Vinoba’s message was not limited to the country in which it was uttered.” In what
way does the author think Vinoba’s message is relevant to the rest of the modern world?
Vinoba’s message is that progress is nothing if it leads to no corresponding inner change. This is a
message applicable to any country. So it is universal in nature.
19. Who was Vinoba representing when he asked people for land? How did he appeal to
the landlords? Did he ask for charity or for a rightful share?
Vinoba was representing the countless landless peasants all over the country. He first appealed to the
landlords to treat his as one of their sons. Then he would ask them for his rightful share.
20. “I was awe – struck, but a little perplexed” why was the author awe – struck? What
puzzled him?
When the author was told that Vinoba was a scholar who had given up everything to lead a life of an
unknown peasant, he was awestruck. His reserved, recluse and austere life puzzled the author.
21. There are two reasons why a landlord would give away a part of his land. What are
the reasons?
A landlord might give a way a part of his land as a result of change of heart and consideration for the
landless poor or he might also give it merely as a sop to get a good public opinion. The first reason is
acceptable to Vinoba.
22. “…. And give me my share.” Who was Vinoba appealing to? How did he reason it
was his share he was asking for? Who was he representing?
Vinoba first appealed to the landlords to treat his as one of their sons. Then he would ask them for his
rightful share. He was representing the countless landless peasants all over the country.
23. The author says India honours one thing above all. What is it? What example of this
does the author give? Why does the author say “Vinoba” has reversed this process?
India honours renunciation of worldly possessions. This ideal is found in every Hindu’s heart. Even very
rich people give up a life of pleasure in their old age. They prefer to die in a mud hut by the River
Ganges. Vinoba has reversed the process. Instead of leading retired life, he has taken up social service in
his old age.
24. Why was Vinoba not worried about the result of his work?
Vinoba did not worry about the result of his work he said that one should work without worrying about
the result like fire which burns without waiting for anyone to put a pot on it, fill it with water and put rice
in it to make a meal, for to burn is the limit of its duty.
25. “Like a candle, lit at a neighboring flame he now burns with a separate and steady
light.” What is the flame? Who is the candle? Do you think the comparison is appropriate?
The flame is Gandhiji and Vinoba is the candle and the comparison is appropriate.
26. What examples can you give to show that Vinoba loved to live like a poor peasant
and not cared for his health in the service of people?
Many rich people came forward to offer him their cars. But the politely refused to accept them, saying he
was a poor person and a poor person could never afford to buy a car. Vinoba had a chronic duodenal
ulcer and was subject to dysentery. But all these did not stop him from being at the service of the poor.
When he was afflicted by malaria, he refused to take quinine because poor peasants could not afford such
a treatment.
27. “His approach is the same to all men whatever their creed or condition.” What did
he say to communists? How did they react? What is Vinoba’s belief regarding his attitude to others?
Vinoba told the communists that he would be the first to join them if they gave up violence and started to
work for the common good. As a result some of the party leaders contributed their land to poor peasants.
Vinoba strongly believed that every person had a divine spark in him and one had only to kindle it.
Moreover he spoke to them in a language they could easily understand.
28. What kind of life did Vinoba lead? How was he different from other ascetics? How
can you say that?
Vinoba lived the life of an ascetic. But he was different from other ascetics because he successfully
resisted the temptation of pride of poverty, which was the subtlest temptation of the saints. Not even once
he urged others to follow him. He had his own chosen path to follow – to be at the service of the poor,
landless peasants in India.
29. What, according to Vinoba, should be one’s attitude to work? What examples does
he give?
According to Vinoba, one’s attitude to work should be that one should just do one’s work without
thinking about the result. For example, fire burns and it does not care if one puts a pot on it to prepare a
meal. To burn is the limit of its duty so it burns and does nothing more.
Upagupta
Rabindranath Tagore, a great poet and mystic, won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1913. One night
Upagupta, a disciple of Buddha, lay asleep by the city wall of Mathura. A beautiful young dancing girl,
who was returning home after her performance, happened to step on him, woke him up. Seeing the young
beautiful face up Upagupta with his forgiving looks, she invited him to her house to have a comfortable
sleep.
1. There are two main characters in the story. Who are they? Describe them briefly.
The two main characters in the story are Upagupta and the dancing girl. Upagupta was a disciple of
Buddha. He was young and handsome. He was an ascetic, who had no interest in the worldly pleasures.
The dancing girl was wearing a blue mantle. The anklets were twinkling as she was walking. She was
very proud of her beauty and wealth. And her interest lay in the worldly pleasures.
2. In what seasons of the year does the first part of the poem take place? Why do
you think the night is described as “murky”?
The first part of the poem takes place in the rainy season (the words August and murky suggest this) the
night is described as murky because the stars are hidden by clouds and it is dark and unpleasant.
3. What do you think the dancing girl was up and about at that time of the night?
The girl touched Upagupta with her feel. Was that deliberate? What do you think had happened?
The dancing girl was retuning home, probably after her performance. She did not deliberately touch
Upagupta with her feet. She could not to see him, as he lay in the dark by the city wall.
4. “He woke up startled and the light from the woman’s lamp struck his forgiving
eyes.” What woke up Upagupta? Why was he startled? Would anyone have liked it? Why are his eyes
described as “forgiving”?
The touch of the feet of the dancing girl on his breast woke up Upagupta. He was startled because
someone stepped on him and when he looked up, he saw a beautiful woman standing before him. No one
would like a strong light striking the eyes when they open. His eyes are described as ‘forgiving’ because
there were no signs of anger in his looks.
5. Why are the expressions “starred with jewels” and “clouded with a pale blue
mantle” used instead of “wore”?
The dancing girl is compared to the sky with some bright stars and some covered with clouds at some
places. Hence the author used “started with jewels” and “clouded with a pale mantle” instead of “wore”
to make the comparison complete.
6. What do people usually get drunk with? What wine has the girl drunk? How do
people behave when they are drunk? How did this girl feel?
People usually get drunk with wine. The girl has drunk the wine of her youth. When they are drunk, they
lose the control of limbs, speech of thought. The girl was proud of her beauty and did not know what she
was doing.
7. Why did she ask the ascetic for his forgiveness? What had she done?
One night the young ascetic lay asleep by the city wall of Mathura. The dancing girl, who was returning
home, happened to step on him, waking up the young man. The girl immediately asked him to forgive
her.
8. Why do you think the ascetic declined her invitation? What did he promise her?
Did he keep up his promise? Do you think “your way” has special meaning? What was ‘her way’? What
was his way?
The ascetic declined her invitation because he had already given up the worldly pleasures. He promised
to visit her when the time was ripe. He certainly kept up his promise. ‘Your way’ has a special meaning.
It means the way she is leading her life – enjoying worldly pleasures. ‘Her way’ is the way of the world,
the way of enjoying worldly pleasures. ‘His way’ means the way of renunciation and meditation.
9. What are the sights of the seasons described in the poem? What are the sounds?
Why was the street lonely and the town silent?
The storm growled, the branches of the wayside trees were aching with blossom and gay notes of the
flute came floating in the warm spring air. The sounds were gay notes of the flute. Since it was midnight,
the street was empty and the town was silent.
10. What was happening to the woman while the world was rejoining? What had the
people done to her? Why do you think she was driven away hurriedly?
While the whole world was rejoining, the woman was suffering from a dreadful disease. The people
drove her away hurriedly from the town. The people were afraid that her disease would spread fast in the
town.
11. “Who are you”..? Do you think the woman recognized Upagupta?
After several years, when Upagupta was passing by Mathura, he came across the dancing girl lying in the
shadow of the city wall. He placed her head on his knees moistened her lips with water and applied balm
on her body. She wondered at his healing treatment, when every one has rejected and thrown her out of
the city and asked him who such a merciful one he was. She did not recognise him, as she was too weak
to do so.
12. What did the dancing girl ask the ascetic to do? Why did he decline her
invitation?
The dancing girl asked the ascetic to come to her house, sleep in a nice bed and enjoy. The ascetic
politely declined her invitation because he did not want to have the worldly pleasures of life. But he
promised her that he would visit her when the time was ripe.
13. What happened as soon as the young ascetic had spoken his words?
When the young ascetic had spoken his words, the black night showed its teeth in a flash of lightning and
storm growled from the corner of the sky. The dancing girl trembled in fear. These signs indicated the
hard times lying in wait for her wayward life.
14. “The time, at last, has come to visit you………” What time had come? Who was
the visitor?
After several years, when Upagupta was passing by Mathura, he came across the dancing girl lying in the
shadow of the city wall. He placed her head on his knees moistened her lips with water and applied balm
on her body. It was then she asked him who he was. The ascetic said the time had at last come to visit her
and he was the same person whom, she had once invited.
15. The ascetic sat by her side, taking her head on his knees and moistened her lips
with water and smeared her body with balm.
“ Who are you, merciful one?” asked the woman.
“ The time, at last, has come to visit you, and I am here,” replied the young ascetic.” Who was the young
ascetic? Who was the woman he was treating? Why did the woman call him the ‘merciful one’? Why did
the ascetic tell the woman that the time to visit her had come at last?
The young ascetic was Upagupta, a disciple of Buddha. The woman he was, treating was the dancing girl
who had met him by the side of the city wall and invited him to her house for enjoyment. The woman
called him the merciful one because he took care of her when she was stricken with a dreadful disease,
driven out of the town, end none to care her. Ascetic serves a person who is in need. She was in need of a
person to comfort her, so the time for him to visit her had come at last.
16. What did Upagupta mean when he said to the young woman that he would come
to her when the time was ripe?
When the young woman saw him first he was young and handsome and he was ascetic. He has no
interest in worldly pleasures, So he refused her invitation. He said that he would come to her when she
required his service. It means when she became old and neglected by people which was the ripe time.
I’LL GET ONE TOMORROW
Ogden Nash is an American poet noted especially for his humorous users. The poet describes numerous
discomforts if one allows one’s hair to grow. He compares a barber’s shop to a den and humorously
explains the reason for avoiding a haircut for a long time. He ends the poem with a note that he would be
the happiest man if he never visits the barber again.
1. Why has the poet finally decided to visit the barber?
The poet has not visited the barber for along time. His hair has grown so long that it has now begun to
irritate him. It curls around his ears, leaps across his collar and moves down his neck. It has in fact,
become unmanageable. As it falls irregularly, it causes a tickling sensation. In this way he is tormented
and irked by the heavy growth of his hair. So the poet has finally decided to visit the barber.
2. What are the different ways in which the poet is troubled by his hair?
The poet’s long hair irritates him. It climbs his ears like a creeper. It jumps across his shoulder. It moves
leisurely down his neck. When it falls lightly and quickly, it also tickles him. All this causes him a lot of
discomfort.
3. “Hair across my collar gambols.” What is the prose order of this line? As you know,
inversion of this kind is a technique used with great effect in many poems. What is the effect produced in
this poem? Can you spot more examples later in the poem?
The prose order of this line is “Hair gambols across my collar.” This expression produces picturesque
effect in the poem. Some other examples are “Down my neck it wayward ambles,” “Even down in trips
and tickles.”
4. What are barber’s tools called in line18? What does the poet say one needs to “comfort”
the barber?
The barber’s tools are called an armory by the poet in line 18. He says one needs determination to
confront the barber. When so many weapons are in use, it really requires exceptional courage and
determination to confront the barber.
5. The poet says he is a coward. What does he compare himself to? Do you think custards
are practically cowardly? Why then does the poet use the word?
The poet compares himself to a cowardly custard. It is not a custard that is cowardly. It is the poet who is
cowardly because he is unable to face the armoury of the barber’s weapons. The word custard is used to
rhyme with the word ‘flustered’.
6. The bell has rung, the hour has struch.
Sloth is strong, but hair is stronger;
In what kind of poems would you expect to find such lines? What effect do the lines produce in a poem
about barbers and haircuts? What does he mean by “sloth is strong but hair is stronger”?
We expect such lines in religious poems. These lines produce humour in a poem about barber and hair
cut. The poet says he was lazy enough not to go to the barber for a cut. One has to set aside laziness. He
says the need of hair cut is stronger than sloth (laziness). The trouble of long hair over powered his
laziness and forced him to go to barber.
7. What are the barber’s tools described in line33? Are they right names for his tools?
What are these tools normally used for?
The barber’s tools used in line33 are shears, scythes and snippers. They are not right names for the tools.
The poet wants to convey that his hair has so overgrown that ordinary scissors would not help. His hair is
like a crop grown in the fields. These tools are normally used in agriculture.
8. How does he rule out the causes one by one? What is the real reason?
It is not that he is very busy because men busier than her hurry to the barber. It is not because he is not
brave enough to face the ordeal of a haircut. It is not poverty. He admits that it is not any one of these
reasons but laziness that has prevented him from visiting the barber’s shop.
9. What kind of haircut does the poet want? What will he look like after the haircut?
The poet wants a close haircut. After the haircut, he will look like a lizard. The comparison is certainly
amusing.
10. Employ a dozen extra sweepers;
Bring giant harvesters and reapers…..
Why does the poet ask the barber to make these preparations?
The poet asks the barber to employ a dozen because he has not got his hair cut for a long time. He thinks
that the barber may not be able to remove so much hair by himself. The poet just wants to suggest that
since much hair has grown on his head and cheeks, he may find it difficult to use ordinary cutting
instruments. That is why he uses humorous exaggeration to suggest this point.
11. Men no braver than myself
conform the armory on your shelf;
Who is the poet thinking about? What does his armory consist of?
The poet is thinking about the barber and his tools. He calls the barber’s tools an armoury of weapons.
To him, it is no pleasant experience to face such a situation. One need tremendous courage and
determination to confront the weapons of the barbers.
12. I alone am shy and flustered,
A solitary, cowardly custard,
Shaggy as a prize Angora,
Overrun with creeping flora.
Why does the poet say he is “shy and flustered”? Why does the poet describe himself as “solitary and
cowardly”? Why does he compare himself to an Angora?
The poet says he is shy and flustered because the hair has been troubling him and climbing over like ivy
round his ears. He calls himself cowardly and solitary because he is the only one who is afraid to face the
barber, while men no braver than he could do so. He compares himself to an Angora because with his
long grown hair, he looks like an Angora, an animal famous for its long and silky hair.
13. Bring on your shears, your scythes, your snippers,
… Bring giant harvesters and reapers
Notice the names of the tools the barber is asked to use. Is the poet really asking the barber to use these
instruments? What does he want to suggest?
The names of the tools are those used for reaping crops in the fields. The poet does not really ask the
barber to use them. He just wants to suggest to the barber that thick and long hair has grown on his head
and cheeks and so it might be difficult for him to use ordinary cutting instruments.
14. The bell has rung, the hour has struck,
Sloth is strong, but hair is stronger;
I cannot stand it any longer:
What do the lines mean? What effect do they produce?
The poet says he has been very lazy not to go to the barber and have a shave. Laziness is so strong in him
that his hair has grown thicker and stronger. But now he has reache a point where he can no more bear
the trouble given by his overgrown hair. So finally he decides to go to the barber for a shave. He says the
hair is stronger than laziness.
The Beautiful white house
William Saroyan, the author of ‘The Beautiful white house’, is a well – known American writer. His
stories, numbering more than three hundred, are a reflection of his own experience in his community.
1. “I could not believe what I saw.” What did Aram see? Why could he not believe it?
Why did he think he was dreaming? Why was he sure he was not?
Aram saw his cousin sitting on a beautiful horse. He could not believe it because they were very poor and
buying a horse was beyond their capacity. He thought he was dreaming because he was sleeping when
his cousin called him. He was sure he was not dreaming, as it was summer and there was enough light to
see things clearly.
2. What was the family famous for? What are the three qualities of the family
mentioned in this section? Do you find anything strange about the order in which the qualities are given?
The family was famous for honesty. The three qualities mentioned are pride, honesty and then belief in
right and wrong. The qualities are given in the reverse order.
3. Aram could do three things about the horse. What were they? The words “even
thought” were repeated several times. What is the effect of this repetition?
The three things Aram could do about the horse were that he could see the horse, smell it and also hear it
breathe. The word “even though” repeated several times stresses the impossibility of buying a horse.
4. Why couldn’t have Mourad bought the horse? Why couldn’t Aram believe Mourad
could have stolen it?
Mourad could not have bought the horse, as the family had not enough money even to feed the children.
Aram could not believe that Mourad could have stolen it, because no member of their family was a thief.
5. How did Aram justify his cousin’s way of getting hold of a horse? Why did he think
it was not stealing at all? Do you agree with Aram’s views?
Aram justified his cousin’s way of getting hold of a horse. He said stealing a horse for ride was not the
same as stealing money. It would not become stealing until they offered to sell the horse. We cannot
agree with Aram’s view. Taking somebody’s property without his knowledge is a crime whatever may be
the purpose.
6. What did Aram want to do? Who did Mourad leave the decision to? “For the sake of
your safety, let us hope so”. What was Mourad hoping? Was this suspicion justified later?
Aram wanted to ride alone. Mourad left the decision to the horse. Mourad hoped that Aram should not be
troubled by the horse. This suspicion was justified later, when Aram fell down from the horse.
7. “Kick into his muscle,” my cousin Mourad said. “What are you waiting for?” Why
was Mourad in a hurry?
Mourad was in a hurry because they had to take the horse back before the whole world was awake. Other
wise they would be found stealing a horse.
8. “How long ago did you steal this horse?” How did Aram realize that Mourad had
stolen the horse some time ago?
When the horse was found after Aram’s fall, Mourad said they should hide the horse until the next
morning and he knew a place to hide it. It was then Aram realized that Mourad had stolen the horse some
time ago. So he asked Mourad how long ago he had stolen the horse.
9. Who were the two visitors that Aram’s mother had that afternoon? In what ways
were they different from each other? What was John Byro unhappy about? What did Khosrove think
about it?
Khosrove and John Byro were the two visitors that Aram’s mother had that afternoon. Khosrove sat
sipping and smoking and John Byro also did the same but was crying over the loss of his horse.
Khosrove thought that it was not worth worrying about it.
10. “My mother explained.” What do you think Aram’s mother explained to the farmer?
Aram’s mother explained to the farmer about his uncle’s behaviour as strange and it was due to the worry
he had in the past. She told him that he was crazy, furious and impatient and stopped anyone from talking
by roaring: “It’s no harm.” “Pay no attention to it.”
11. What did Aram want Mourad to do after he knew that the horse belonged to John
Byro? How did Mourad react to this suggestion?
Having come to know that the horse belonged to John Byro, Aram asked Mourad to keep the horse till he
learned to ride. Mourad answered that he would take one year to learn and said the horse should go back
to its owner in six months at the latest.
12. How differently did the horse treat Aram and Mourad? Did you think Mourad really
had a way with horse?
When Aram tried, the horse leaped over, threw him down and ran away. Mourad had no difficulty with
the horse. Yes, he had a way with the horse. The farmer, John Byro himself complimented him on his
handling the horse.
13. Do you think John Byro recognized his horse? What makes you think so? Why
didn’t he accuse the boys of stealing?
John Byro immediately recognized his horse. To make doubly sure that it was his horse, he looked into
its mouth. Now he had no doubt that it was his horse. Since the family of the boys was known for their
honesty, he did not accuse them of stealing saying it must be the twin of his horse, he did goodbye and
went away.
14. What dud Mourad finally do with the horse? What were his feelings at the time of
parting?
Finally Mourad took the horse to John Byro’s vineyard and left it there. At the time of parting, Mourad
put his arm around the horse and pressed his nose into its nose and patted the animal affectionately.
15. Why do you think the cousin returned the horse to the farmer? Do you think they
were ashamed of what had done? Why do you think so?
Mourad and Aram returned the horse John Byro, though they had planned to keep it at least for six
months. They did so, as they were touched by John Byro’s belief in the honesty of their family. They
were now ashamed of what they had done. It that was not so, they would not have returned the horse the
next morning.
16. What picture of uncle Khosrove do you get from the story?
Uncle Khosrove was an enormous man with a powerful head of black hair and a large moustache. He
was so furious and impatient that he stopped anyone by roaring. He was indifferent to money. The
remarks like “I spit on money.” “Pay no attention to it,” often repeated, clearly indicate the crazy streak
of the family in him.
17. What sort of a man was John Byro?
John Byro was a farmer. He had a horse carriage. He felt hurt, when his horse was stolen. Even though
he had knowledge of his horse being with the cousins, he never accused them, as he respected their
family for their honesty. He remarked that suspicious man would believe his eyes instead of his heart and
the horse must be the twin of his horse. When the horse was returned, he indirectly thanked the cousins
for the way in which they took care of the animal.
18. Did Mourad love animals? What was he doing when Aram met him under the peach
tree?
Yes, Mourad loved animals. When Aram met him under the peach tree, he was trying to repair the hurt
wing of a young bird which could not fly. He was talking to the bird.
19. “That afternoon my uncle Khosrove came to our house…” What picture of uncle
Khosrove do you get from the story?
Uncle Khosrove was an enormous man with a powerful head of black hair and a large moustache. He
was so furious and impatient that he stopped anyone by roaring. He was indifferent to money. The
remarks like “I spit on money.” Pay no attention to it,” often repeated, clearly indicate the crazy streak of
the family in him.
20. “A suspicious man would believe his eyes instead of his heart.” What did the farmer
John Byro’s eyes tell him? Why did he not suspect the boys?
Mourad really wanted to keep the horse till Aram learned to ride. But one day John Byro, the owner of
the horse, saw them riding the horse. He immediately recognized his horse. He examined the horse and
his eyes told him that it was his horse. He said he would have sworn that it was his horse, if he had not
known their family for their honesty. He simply said that the horse was twin of his horse.
21. Do you think they were ashamed of what they had done? Why do you think so?
The cousins returned the horse to its owner because they were touched by John Byro’s belief in the
honesty of their family. They were now ashamed of what they had done. If that was not so, they would
not have returned the horse the next morning.
Knowledge and wisdom
Bertrand Russell, the author of ‘knowledge and wisdom’, was a noted logician and philosopher. He was
one of the leading personalities of the 20th century British philosophy especially important for his work in
mathematical logic.-
1. What are the two questions that the author clearly states he is going raise and answer in
this essay?
The two questions that the author clearly states he is going to raise and answer are:
(a) what is wisdom (b) What can be done to teach it?
2. What does the author state as the first factor that contributes to wisdom?
The author states that the first factor that contributes to wisdom is “sense of proportion.” It means the
capacity to take into account all the important factors involved in a problem and to attach to each of them
its due weight. In other words one must have a comprehensive idea of the problem on hand.
3. What has scientific medicine succeeded in doing? What has been its other effect? Did
the medical scientist want this result? The scientist has the knowledge to make more people live. But he
has not the wisdom to see something else. What is it?
Scientific medicine has succeeded in lowering the infant death rate. Its other effect has been that of
making the food supply inadequate and lowering the standard of life in the most populous parts of the
world. The medical scientist has never wanted this result. He has not got the wisdom to see that as a
result of his invention, there would be shortage of food and supply of low standard of living.
4. “Many eminent historians have done more harm than good.” How did this happen?
Where did Hegel’s philosophy of history go wrong?
Many eminent historians have done more harm than good, as they have viewed facts through the
distorting medium of their own passions. Hegel’s philosophy went wrong when it tried to inculcate that
Germany had been the most important nation and standard bearer o f progress in the world from 400 AD
down to his time. That was a narrow outlook, lacking comprehensiveness.
5. What are the two qualities that should be considered in the choice of ends to be
pursued? The aim of the ancient chemist had one of those qualities. Which one? Which quality did it
lack?
Nobility and attainability are the two qualities that should be considered in the choice of ends to be
pursued. The aim of the ancient chemist had nobility but no attainability.
6. What argument of the author does the example of Mr A and B prove?
The example of Mr A and Mr B proves the argument that emancipation from personal prejudice is a
factor that constitutes wisdom. If someone wants to bring an understanding between Mr A and Mr B, he
should try to convince both that enmity is harmful to both and this way he would have instilled in them
some fragments of wisdom.
7. What is the fifth factor that contributes to wisdom? He reiterates the same idea in
different words at the end of the para. Can you spot it?
Emancipation is the fifth factor that contributes to wisdom. He reiterates the same idea at the end of the
para that approach to impartiality contributes to the growth of wisdom.
8. “We cannot help the egoism of our sense.” In what way are the senses egoistic? What
else is egoistic?
Every man is egoistic, since our senses are bound up with our body, we cannot be impersonal. It is
impossible to completely isolate our thoughts from our physical conditions. When a person becomes old,
his thought becomes less personal. He then achieves growing wisdom. The mind is also egoistic.
9. The author has by now stated five factors that contribute to wisdom. Can you list them?
The five factors that contribute to wisdom are: (1) sense of proportion, (2) awareness of ends, (3) choice
of ends, (4) emancipation from personal prejudice and (5) emancipation from the tyranny of the “here
and now”.
10. What is the message in the parable of the Good Samaritan? Why does the author say we
are likely to miss the point of the parable? Who should we put in place of ‘Samaritan’ to make the
parable meaningful in our age?
The message is that one should love one’s neighbor as oneself. The author says we are likely to miss the
point, as we have no longer any wish to have Samaritans. To make the parable meaningful our age, we
should substitute communist or anti – communist for a Samaritan.
11. Is it right to hate those who do harm? What do you think? What does the author think?
There are two things that are wrong with hate. What are they?
It is not right to hate those who do harm. If we hate those who do harm, we ourselves become equally
harmful. Hatred of evil is itself a kind of bondage to evil. It would not allow us to persuade others to give
up hatred.
12. In what form should resistance be used in order to prevent the spread of evil?
Resistance should be used as a combination of the greatest degree of understanding in order to prevent
the spread of evil and the smallest degree to force that is compatible with the survival of good things that
we wish to preserve.
13. Some people say understanding in resistance and vigour in action cannot exist together.
Does the author agree? He uses two examples to support his view. What are they? What do you think the
three people mentioned in the para had in common?
The author does not agree that understanding in resistance and vigour in action cannot exist together.
Queen Elizabeth I in England and Henry IV in France remained free from the errors of their time.
Lincoln also waged a war for the abolition of slavery. The three people had wisdom in common.
14. In what way did the war conducted by Lincoln differ from other wars? Do you think a
war can be fought without departing from wisdom?
When Lincoln waged a war, many Americans were against the abolition of slavery. While other wars
were aimed at destroying enemies, this was a different one. This aimed at attaining freedom. A war can
be fought without parting from wisdom as Lincoln did.
15. What is Russell’s concept of “citizen”? What is the difference between a citizen of the
world and a citizen of a nation?
When the author “citizens” he means the citizens of the world and not citizens of a particular nation. A
citizen of the world has a broader outlook of life than a citizen of a nation. However, we can be citizens
of the world and citizens of a particular nation at the same time.
16. What does increase in knowledge result in? What does increase in wisdom become
necessary when knowledge increases?
Increase in knowledge results in development of various skills. When knowledge increases, many
scientific advancement take place. We need knowledge which gives us wisdom too.
Today the world needs wisdom more than ever before. If knowledge continues to increase, the world will
need wisdom more than it does now.
17. “In such a way the pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined
with wisdom.” What are the two examples the author gives in order to establish this point?
The two examples the author gives are :( 1) the scientist succeeds in inventing a medicine that can lower
the infant death rate in the world. But he does not have wisdom to see that it creates shortage of food,
leading to lowering of the standard of life in the most populous parts of the world. (2) Take the case of
atom bomb. If it is placed in the hands of powerful lunatics, they may destroy the whole human race. In
this way, the pursuit of knowledge can become harmful if it is not combined with wisdom.
18. “Such men lack what I am calling wisdom.” What kind of men is Russell referring to?
Many eminent historians did more harm than good. They began to view facts through the distorting
medium of their own passions. Hegel was a German philosopher. He gave immense importance to
Germany, describing the country as the torch – bearer of all nations. His thought was due to his narrow
outlook. According to Russell, such men had no wisdom.
19. What does the author say is wrong with the customary moral instruction? What should
moral education aim at?
In the customary moral instructions, there is no correlation between knowledge and morals. There should
be a larger intellectual element than has been usual in what has been taught in the name of moral
instruction. Moral instructions should aim at pointing out in the course of giving knowledge about the
disastrous results of hatred and narrow mindedness.