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. BatesMrs. 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 GallowsEdward 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.

SNAKED.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 forestNorah 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 SketchHallam 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 houseWilliam 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 wisdomBertrand 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.