Humanities vs Science by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan : Summary and Question answers

 

Humanities vs Science by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan 

 Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was a great Indian philosopher, teacher, and statesman. He served as the Vice President and later as the President of India. He was deeply interested in philosophy and religion and was respected all over the world for his knowledge. His birthday, September 5, is celebrated as Teachers’ Day in India to honour his contribution to education. He was born in a poor family in South India and studied in different schools and colleges. Though he loved mathematics, he studied philosophy because of financial difficulties. Throughout his life, he worked to defend and explain Indian philosophy and religion to the world. He wrote many important books on religion, philosophy, and culture and received many national and international awards, including the Bharat Ratna.

 

In his essay Humanities vs Science, Dr. Radhakrishnan explains the importance of both science and the humanities in building a strong nation. According to him, science and technology are essential for national development because they help in industrial progress, medical advancement and economic growth. However, he clearly states that science alone is not enough. If science is not guided by moral values, it can become dangerous and harmful. Therefore, scientific education must always be supported by the study of the humanities.

 

Dr. Radhakrishnan identifies poverty, illness and ignorance as the main obstacles to national progress. He believes that these problems can be solved only through proper education. Education helps both the individual and the nation to grow. But he strongly warns that technical education without human values will create an unequal and incomplete society.

He explains that science gives knowledge and power, and it teaches people to think logically, remain open-minded, and accept new ideas without prejudice. At the same time, the humanities teach us about human nature, emotions, ideals and values. Through the humanities, people develop compassion, moral responsibility and a democratic spirit. Without these qualities, scientific progress will lack direction and purpose.

Dr. Radhakrishnan stresses that producing people who are both thinkers and technicians is very difficult but absolutely necessary. People must have imagination as well as scientific skills. He also believes that truth can be reached through both science and religion, because truth is one, even though the paths may be different.

Finally, he concludes that science and the humanities are not enemies or contradictory but partners. They complement each other. A complete education must combine scientific knowledge with human values. The true aim of education, according to Dr. Radhakrishnan, is to create individuals who are intelligent, morally responsible, compassionate, democratic in spirit and dedicated to the progress of society and the nation.

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan explains that the three main obstacles that prevent national development are ignorance, disease, and poverty. Among these, ignorance is the most serious problem. If ignorance is removed through proper education, poverty will reduce and diseases can also be controlled. Therefore, education is the most powerful tool for national progress. The government has tried to achieve economic growth through Five-Year Plans with the aim of spreading education, reducing illiteracy, lowering disease and removing poverty. India has energetic people and plenty of natural resources. Still, the country is unable to achieve great progress because it lacks proper education in both quality and quantity. Only educated people with skill, direction, and social responsibility can transform society. Hence, education must be given the highest priority in national development.

Today, many students are attracted to technological education, and this is natural because it leads to employment and economic growth. Scientists, engineers, and technicians help increase agricultural and industrial production. One important aim of education is to help students earn their livelihood. However, Dr. Radhakrishnan strongly warns that technological education without humanistic studies is incomplete and dangerous. With scientific power, human beings can create a paradise on earth, but the same power can also destroy entire continents. Therefore, science must be guided by moral values. Science and the humanities must work together and should never be separated.

Dr. Radhakrishnan does not reject science. He accepts that science has great value. Science is both knowledge and power. It trains the mind to be disciplined, open-minded, tolerant and free from prejudice. It reveals the wonders and richness of the world. However, science mainly develops the intellectual side of human beings. It does not directly shape emotions, ethics and moral character. A person who only produces and consumes, or who thinks only scientifically, is not a complete human being. The overemphasis on science and technology has created serious danger, and history shows that great crimes against humanity are committed not by the uneducated, but by highly educated people who lack morality.

 

The humanities, on the other hand, teach us about human nature, emotions, ideals, values and aspirations. When students come to universities, the purpose is not only to gain technical skills but also to prepare themselves for nation-building. Universities must give students both scientific knowledge and moral understanding. Science is essential because it provides the necessities of life. But humanities are equally important because they help human beings understand how to live as responsible and compassionate individuals. Neither science nor humanities alone can give complete knowledge of reality. They only touch the outer surface of life. To become truly educated, one must also understand the inner spiritual nature of human beings.

The true duty of universities is not merely to produce skilled professionals but also to develop compassion, democratic values and human fellow-feeling. Indian spiritual traditions teach that every human being is sacred and divine. This belief strengthens respect for human life and equality. National education does not mean changing scientific subjects according to national borders. It means preserving and passing on the nation’s cultural and spiritual values. India is not just a piece of land; it is a living spiritual tradition. Indian culture teaches that there are higher spiritual laws beyond material science. A civilized society is one where the strong help the weak.

Quoting the Bhagavad Gita, Dr. Radhakrishnan says that education must give both knowledge and wisdom. Modern society is too focused on technical success and material achievement. But technology is meant to serve human beings, not to control them. Material progress must be used to enrich the human spirit. It is not enough to feed the body or train the mind; the human soul also needs care and nourishment. People must rediscover spirituality and the sacred values found in all religions.

 

Dr. Radhakrishnan also explains that there is no conflict between science and religion. Both aim at the search for truth, though they follow different paths. God is truth, and the search for truth is the search for God. The human spirit is greater than the machine and greater than matter. Science does not prove the power of matter over humans; it proves the supremacy of the human spirit. However, people must approach truth with humility and tolerance. Religious intolerance has caused immense bloodshed in history. All religions are valuable paths to truth, and no single religion has a monopoly over wisdom. True religion teaches sympathy, understanding, and universal love.

Finally, Dr. Radhakrishnan emphasizes that the real test of any government is how it treats the poor. Poverty, hunger, disease and lack of clean water are national shame. To solve these problems, science and technology are essential, and people must develop a scientific spirit. Superstition and ignorance must be removed. At the same time, people must also develop a strong moral responsibility toward the suffering poor.

 

He strongly rejects the idea that scientific culture and literary culture are separate. According to him, we often produce either thinkers without practical skill or technicians without vision. What the nation truly needs are people who are both seers and technicians—those who have imagination as well as scientific ability. Truth is indivisible. Whether it is scientific truth or artistic truth, the goal is the same. Imagination is vital for both literature and science. Ultimately, human beings must reshape not only the outer world through science but also their inner moral and spiritual world. 

 

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan explains that many people today believe they are scientific simply because they know how to use machines. We press a button and electricity works, we use a phone or a car, but we do not really understand how these things function or what deep scientific knowledge is behind them. We only know how to operate machines, not how they are created. Therefore, we live only on the surface of life, like mechanical robots, without understanding the deeper meaning of science. True scientific study should not remain superficial. We must try to understand how human intelligence discovered these laws of nature and transformed the world. If science is studied deeply, it will never separate us from human values. Instead, it will lead us to question the meaning of life and existence.

Dr. Radhakrishnan points out a serious problem of the modern age: knowledge is increasing, but wisdom is decreasing. Scientific achievements have given humans enormous power, even the power to destroy the world through weapons like nuclear bombs. While human control over machines, radio, television, and technology has increased, the human soul has not grown at the same pace. There is a dangerous imbalance between material power and moral growth. This is why science must be guided by strong values. Science is not separate from the human spirit; it is the expression of the human mind and spirit. Every person has a deep inner self that remains constant even when the outer world changes.

Dr. Radhakrishnan strongly criticizes the spiritual weakness of educated people. Many graduates pass examinations and get degrees but remain ignorant of the basic values of Indian culture and spirituality. They become educated only in a narrow technical sense but lack inner awareness and moral depth. According to him, a nation survives not because of machines, industries, or atomic power, but because of people who live by spiritual values and show ideal conduct through their lives. Such people represent the true culture of India. He reminds us that the highest form of knowledge is self-knowledge—knowing one’s own inner nature and soul.

He also explains that our education system gives too much importance to technical subjects while neglecting the humanities. This imbalance weakens moral character. Society faces great challenges like poverty, disease, and ignorance. Science has given us great power to solve these problems, but without values, this power can be misused. Therefore, science and humanities must work together. Education should aim at building a complete human being, not just a consumer, technician, or machine operator. While science improves living conditions, it is the humanities that give us values, compassion and social responsibility.

Dr. Radhakrishnan emphasizes that young men and women who come out of universities should not only be experts in science and technology but should also feel deep responsibility toward the suffering millions. This sense of service and moral duty mainly comes from the study of humanities. Though science has helped in building civilization, it has its limitations. It cannot explain the deepest mystery of life or the ultimate reality. There is a central truth that cannot be tested in laboratories or completely expressed in words.

He further explains that science and religion are not enemies. Both aim at the same goal—the search for truth, though they follow different paths. Knowledge does not belong to any single nation or religion. Therefore, people must practice religious tolerance and cooperate internationally for the growth of knowledge. The study of humanities helps people understand the true meaning of life and realize that truth is one and indivisible, whatever subject one studies.

Finally, Dr. Radhakrishnan warns that science without humanities and knowledge without wisdom can be dangerous. Mere accumulation of information is not enough. Education must shape both the intellect and the character. We must draw inspiration from Indian cultural values, develop self-awareness, and cultivate wisdom along with scientific knowledge. Only then can education truly benefit both individuals and society.

1. What are the three obstacles in the way of national development according to Radhakrishnan?

According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, the three main obstacles to national development are ignorance, disease, and poverty. Among these, he considers ignorance the most dangerous, because once ignorance is removed through education, poverty and disease can also be gradually eliminated.

2. What are the potential consequences of neglecting Humanities in education?

Neglecting the humanities leads to an imbalanced and incomplete education. It may produce technically skilled individuals who lack compassion, moral values, social responsibility and a democratic spirit, which can result in the misuse of scientific power.

3. Who can guide the world according to Dr. S. Radhakrishnan?

According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, the world can be guided by people who possess both scientific knowledge and spiritual wisdom. These individuals combine technical skill with moral insight and live by higher human and spiritual values.

4. Explain the term “God is Truth”.

By the statement “God is Truth,” Dr. Radhakrishnan means that truth is the highest divine reality. The search for truth through science, philosophy, or religion is therefore the same as the search for God.

5. Why does Dr. Radhakrishnan emphasize the importance of Humanities?

Dr. Radhakrishnan emphasizes the importance of humanities because they help individuals understand human nature, values, ideals and moral responsibilities. Humanities develop compassion, social awareness and a sense of duty, which science alone cannot provide.

6. What is the danger of science without ethics, according to Dr. Radhakrishnan?

Science without ethics can become a destructive force rather than a constructive one. The same scientific power that can create comfort and prosperity can also destroy civilizations if it is not guided by moral values and human concern.

7. What is the function of universities according to Dr. Radhakrishnan?

According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, the function of universities is not merely to produce technically skilled professionals, but also to create individuals with compassion, democratic values, and social responsibility, capable of serving the nation and humanity.

II. Answer the following in a paragraph each

8. Analyse the predicament of science without a moral compass.

Dr. Radhakrishnan strongly warns that science without a moral compass leads to a dangerous imbalance in human life. While science gives enormous power over nature, it does not automatically provide ethical guidance. As a result, humanity may advance materially but decline spiritually. This imbalance is clearly visible in the development of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear arms, which have the capacity to wipe out entire civilizations. The greatest crimes against humanity, he observes, are often committed not by the ignorant, but by highly educated people who lack moral responsibility. Therefore, without ethical values, science becomes a threat rather than a blessing.

9. What is Dr. S. Radhakrishnan's opinion about technological education without humanistic studies?

Dr. Radhakrishnan believes that technological education without the support of humanistic studies is incomplete, one-sided, and dangerous. Though technology helps in economic growth, industrial development, and employment, it does not cultivate moral character. Without humanities, students may become efficient machines but not responsible human beings. He argues that science can either create heaven on earth or destroy continents, depending on how it is used. Hence, technological training must always be balanced with human values taught through the humanities.

10. Analyse the ways in which we can remove the evils of society.

Dr. Radhakrishnan suggests that the evils of society—such as poverty, disease, ignorance, superstition, and inequality—can be removed primarily through proper education and a scientific outlook guided by moral values. Education must spread awareness, promote rational thinking, and remove blind beliefs. Science and technology should be used to improve sanitation, health, food supply, and employment. At the same time, the humanities must cultivate compassion and social responsibility. When both scientific development and moral growth go together, social evils can be effectively reduced.

11. Explain the common goal of religion and science.

According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, both science and religion have the same ultimate goal—the search for truth. Their approaches are different, but their aim is identical. Science seeks truth through observation and experiment, while religion seeks truth through spiritual experience and faith. He states that since God is Truth, the quest for truth in any form is a divine quest. Therefore, science and religion should not be seen as enemies but as complementary paths to the same ultimate reality.

12. How can the integration of Humanities and Science in education promote responsible progress?

The integration of humanities and science ensures that material progress is guided by moral purpose. Science provides knowledge, technical skill, and power to transform the physical world, while the humanities provide values, compassion, and ethical judgment. When these two are combined, students grow into responsible citizens who use scientific power for the welfare of humanity. Such integrated education prevents the misuse of technology and promotes balanced national development based on both efficiency and humanity.

III. Essays

13. Examine the tension between the pursuit of scientific knowledge and the need for moral responsibility, as highlighted by Dr. Radhakrishnan. How can this tension be resolved in practice?

 

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan deeply explores the tension between the rapid pursuit of scientific knowledge and the urgent need for moral responsibility. He acknowledges the extraordinary achievements of science in transforming human life through industry, medicine, communication, and technology. However, he strongly cautions that scientific progress without ethical control can pose severe dangers to civilization. The same scientific power that produces machines, electricity, and medical miracles can also produce nuclear bombs and weapons of mass destruction. This creates a serious moral crisis in modern civilization.

 

According to Dr. Radhakrishnan, the central problem lies in the imbalance between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is increasing at a rapid pace, but wisdom—the capacity to use knowledge morally and responsibly—is not growing at the same rate. Human beings have extended their physical powers through machines, but their inner moral and spiritual development has not kept pace. As a result, science often serves greed, destruction, and domination rather than human welfare.

 

This tension can be resolved only through a restructured educational system that unites science and the humanities. Scientific education must be supplemented by moral training, ethical reflection, and spiritual awareness. Universities must not merely produce engineers and technicians, but also compassionate citizens with a sense of social duty. Students must be taught that technology is meant to serve humanity, not to dominate it. Furthermore, religious tolerance, humanistic values, and a sense of universal brotherhood must be cultivated.

 

In practice, this means applying scientific discoveries only for life-enhancing purposes—such as healthcare, education, environmental protection, and poverty reduction—while rejecting their destructive misuse. When science is guided by ethics and wisdom, the tension between power and responsibility disappears, and true human progress becomes possible.

 

14. Analyze the implications of Dr. Radhakrishnan's argument that science without ethics can lead to misuse and harm. What examples would you provide to support or challenge this view?

Dr. Radhakrishnan’s argument that science without ethics can lead to misuse and harm has deep and lasting implications for modern civilization. He states that scientific power is morally neutral in itself, but its effects depend entirely on the values of those who use it. Without ethical guidance, science can become a tool of destruction instead of a force for good. His warning is particularly relevant in the context of war, environmental destruction, and technological misuse.

 

The most powerful example supporting his view is the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Scientific research enabled the splitting of the atom, but its misuse resulted in enormous human suffering, long-term radiation effects, and the death of thousands of innocent civilians. Similarly, chemical and biological weapons, developed through scientific expertise, pose severe threats to humanity when used without moral restraint.

 

In the modern world, unethical scientific practices can also be seen in environmental pollution, climate change, misuse of artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, and genetic manipulation without ethical safeguards. These examples strongly confirm Dr. Radhakrishnan’s warning that science divorced from ethics is dangerous.

However, science guided by ethics has also produced immense benefits. Medical science has cured deadly diseases, improved life expectancy, and saved millions of lives. Communication technology has connected the world. These positive examples show that science itself is not evil; the danger arises only when it is separated from moral responsibility.

Thus, Dr. Radhakrishnan’s argument remains highly valid today. The true solution is not to reject science, but to anchor it firmly in ethical values, human compassion, and social responsibility. Only then can scientific power become a blessing rather than a curse to humanity.

Dracula (1958) directed by Terence Fisher summary and analysis

Terence Fisher’s Dracula (also known as Horror of Dracula) is a famous British horror film that retells Bram Stoker’s story in a shorter, more direct form. The film is known for its dramatic style, strong performances, and the unforgettable roles of Christopher Lee as Count Dracula and Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing.

The story begins with Jonathan Harker, who arrives at Castle Dracula in Transylvania. He pretends to be a librarian hired to help organize Dracula’s books. Secretly, however, Harker is actually a vampire hunter. He has come to the castle to destroy Dracula and end his threat to nearby villages.

At first, Dracula behaves politely and speaks to Harker with respect. But his strange manner, cold smile, and sudden disappearances create a sense of fear. Soon after, Harker meets a mysterious woman in the castle. She begs him for help, saying she is a prisoner. When Harker tries to help her, she suddenly attacks him and tries to bite his neck. At the same moment, Dracula appears with great anger and pulls her away. Harker finally understands that Dracula is not a normal man but a powerful vampire.

Although Harker is bitten by the woman, he continues with his plan. He kills the vampire woman by driving a wooden stake through her heart while she sleeps. Before he can destroy Dracula in the same way, the Count wakes up and attacks him. Harker is bitten and later turned into a vampire.

Soon after, Dr. Van Helsing, Harker’s friend and fellow vampire hunter, arrives at the castle. He searches for Jonathan and finds his diary, which explains his secret mission. Van Helsing discovers that Jonathan has already become a vampire. With great sadness, he gives him a peaceful death by staking him. This painful experience gives Van Helsing a strong purpose: he must track Dracula and stop him completely.

Dracula leaves his castle and travels to England. He targets Lucy Holmwood, Jonathan Harker’s fiancée. Lucy has already been visited by Dracula and is growing weak. She keeps her bedroom windows open at night and seems to be drawn to the vampire. Van Helsing tries to help by placing garlic in her room and giving instructions to protect her. However, Lucy removes the garlic, and Dracula returns. She dies soon afterward and becomes a vampire.

Van Helsing and Lucy’s brother, Arthur Holmwood, visit her tomb and find that she has risen as one of the undead. With difficulty and sorrow, they destroy the vampire Lucy so that her soul can rest.

After Lucy’s death, Dracula turns his attention to Mina Holmwood, Arthur’s wife. Mina begins to look pale and tired, and she behaves strangely. Dracula visits her secretly at night, and she slowly falls under his control. Van Helsing and Arthur try to protect her, but the vampire is clever and powerful. He eventually manages to take Mina away.

Van Helsing and Arthur search desperately for her. They finally find Dracula’s hiding place and confront him. In the final struggle, Van Helsing chases Dracula into a room with large windows. Using two candlesticks to form a cross, he forces Dracula into the sunlight. Van Helsing tears down the curtains, and sunlight pours into the room. Dracula cannot escape. The bright light destroys him, and his body breaks apart into dust.

As Dracula dies, Mina is freed from his influence. She wakes up as her normal self, no longer under the vampire’s spell. The film ends with Van Helsing standing as the victorious protector of humanity, calm and determined after defeating the ancient evil.

Gothic Elements in Dracula (1958)

Terence Fisher’s Dracula is an epitome of Gothic film because it uses classical Gothic features such as dark settings, supernatural forces, psychological fear and the conflict between good and evil to create a dramatic and unsettling atmosphere.

One of the most important Gothic elements in the film is the setting. Castle Dracula, with its dim corridors, heavy stone walls, and deep shadows, creates a mood of horror and danger. This lonely landscape reflects the traditional Gothic interest in old, mysterious buildings where the past still haunts the present. Fisher uses lighting carefully; the contrast between darkness and sudden brightness makes the environment feel alive and threatening.

The character of Count Dracula embodies the Gothic villain. His elegant appearance hides his predatory nature, and his power to control minds, shift moods, and move silently enhances his supernatural presence. Dracula represents hidden evil beneath a civil surface, an idea central to Gothic fiction. Christopher Lee’s portrayal emphasizes both charm and terror, suggesting that evil can be attractive as well as destructive.

The female characters, especially Lucy and Mina, highlight another Gothic theme: the fear of corrupted innocence. Their transformation from gentle, domestic figures into victims under Dracula’s influence expresses the Gothic concern with inner vulnerability. Their pale appearance, trance-like states will reflect the Gothic emphasis on psychological horror.

The conflict between Van Helsing and Dracula shows the classic Gothic struggle between reason and the supernatural. Van Helsing represents modern knowledge and scientific method, while Dracula embodies ancient, unexplainable forces. The film’s tension arises from the way these two forces collide. Even though Van Helsing uses rational tools such as daylight, crucifixes, and medical observation, he must still confront mysteries that logic alone cannot fully address.

Finally, the film’s atmosphere filled with suspense, fear, and moral uncertainty—strengthens its Gothic character. The climactic destruction of Dracula by sunlight symbolizes the final victory of order over chaos, a common Gothic resolution where evil is defeated but never entirely erased from imagination. 

On the Rule of the Road by A.G. Gardiner detailed summary and question answers

 

The essay begins with a humorously as an old lady in Petrograd (Russia) is walking right in the middle of a busy street, carrying her basket. Her strange behaviour confuses traffic and puts her in danger. When people tell her that the pavement is the proper place for pedestrians, she refuses and says she can walk wherever she likes because there is now “liberty.” Gardiner points out that she fails to understand what liberty really means. If she thinks liberty allows her to walk in the middle of the road, then, by the same logic, a cab-driver could claim liberty to drive on the pavement. Such behaviour would lead to total disorder, everyone blocking each other, and no one being able to reach anywhere. Thus, what she imagines as freedom would actually result in complete social chaos. In fact, unlimited personal liberty results in social anarchy.

Gardiner warns that society is in danger of becoming “liberty-drunk,” just like the old lady misunderstands freedom and misusing it. Therefore, it is necessary to remind ourselves what the “rule of the road” truly means. The rule of the road signifies that to protect everyone’s liberty, the liberty of each individual must be restricted to some extent. He uses the example of a policeman at Piccadilly Circus. When the policeman stops traffic by raising his hand, he is not being tyrannical; instead, he represents liberty because he ensures order. A person in a hurry may feel annoyed and think his freedom has been obstructed. But, if the policeman did not stop anyone, traffic would collapse into total confusion, making it impossible for anyone to cross the road.

Liberty is described as something more than a personal right it is a social contract, meaning it involves mutual agreement and adjustment among people. In areas where an individual’s actions do not affect anyone else, he is completely free. For example, if someone chooses to walk down the Strand wearing a dressing-gown, long hair, and bare feet, no one has the right to stop him. Others may laugh, and he may ignore them. Likewise, he can dye his hair, wax his moustache, wear whatever clothes he likes, sleep late or wake up early and eat mustard with mutton—without asking anyone’s permission. In return, others can make their own personal choices: their religion, whom they marry, what books or poets they prefer, or what drinks they enjoy. These private choices are part of complete personal liberty.

 

Gardiner explains that in all such private matters, people enjoy full independence. Everyone governs their own “private kingdom” where they can act according to their likes or dislikes- being wise, foolish, traditional or unconventional. However, the moment we move out of this private sphere and interact with others, our freedom becomes limited by their rights. He gives a humorous example: he may want to practice the trombone from midnight till three in the morning. If he goes to the top of Helvellyn (a mountain), he can do as he pleases because no one is disturbed. But if he plays in his bedroom, his family will complain; if he plays outside in the street, neighbours will object because his liberty to make noise clashes with their liberty to sleep. Since the world is full of people, everyone must adjust their freedom so that it does not harm others.

People are usually more aware of others violating social rules, but they often fail to notice their own shortcomings. In other words, we criticize others for misusing liberty but ignore our own mistakes in the same matter.

He gives a personal example. One morning, he boarded a train and sat down to read a Blue-book. He intended to spend an hour studying it seriously. He explains that reading a Blue-book is not enjoyable for him; he reads it only because it is part of his work, similar to a barrister reading a legal brief. If he were reading a book for pleasure, outside disturbances would not matter. he could enjoy a delightful book like Tristram Shandy or Treasure Island even during an earthquake.

He explains that when a person is reading for work, not pleasure, he needs silence. But at the next station, two men entered the carriage. One of them talked loudly and pompously throughout the journey. His behaviour reminded Gardiner of a joke about Horne Tooke, who once asked a swaggering man, “Are you someone in particular?” implying that the man behaved as though he were important. This loud stranger behaved exactly like that - he felt he was “someone in particular.” While Gardiner struggled to read the difficult clauses and sections of his Blue-book, the man’s booming voice drowned out everything. He spoke endlessly about his sons’ achievements in the war and gave his opinions on generals and politicians. Gardiner finally gave up reading, looked outside, and listened helplessly as the man continued. The man’s talk reminded him of an old barrel-organ endlessly repeating a dull tune.

Gardiner reflects that if he had asked the man to lower his voice, the man would probably have thought he was being rude. The man did not realise that others might have better things to do than listen to him. Gardiner recognises that the man was not intentionally bad; he was simply lacking the “social sense” - the ability to understand how one’s behaviour affects others. Gardiner says such a man is not “clubbable,” meaning he cannot fit comfortably into social groups because he does not observe the unwritten rules of polite society.

Gardiner argues that protecting the rights of “small people and quiet people” is just as important as protecting the rights of small nations. He then criticises motorists who use loud, aggressive horns. These horns make him feel the same anger he felt when Germany invaded Belgium - because both actions display bullying behaviour. He questions the moral right of someone who goes around blasting such an offensive noise at everyone in his way.

Gardiner next describes a less harmful but still inconsiderate person- someone who buys a loud gramophone and plays music like “Keep the Home Fires Burning” on a Sunday afternoon with windows open, filling the whole street with noise. He asks what the proper social limits are in such matters. He returns to his earlier example of the trombone. Hazlitt once said that a man has the right to practise the trombone in his house even if he annoys neighbours - but he must reduce the nuisance as much as possible. He should practise in the attic and keep windows closed. He must not sit in the front room with windows open, blasting noise into the neighbourhood. The same applies to the gramophone: one has the right to enjoy it, but must prevent disturbing neighbours.

Gardiner admits that sometimes the clash of liberties is impossible to resolve neatly. He gives an example: his friend X., who lives in a West End square, hates street pianos and angrily drives them away. But a nearby lady loves street. Whose liberty should give way? Gardiner honestly admits he cannot decide. Enjoying street pianos is as reasonable as disliking them. Both preferences are natural.

Gardiner concludes by reflecting on the balance between individual freedom and social order. He says we cannot be complete anarchists (who want unlimited liberty) nor complete socialists (who want too much state control). We need a wise mixture of both. We must preserve both individual liberty and social liberty. We must restrain excessive governmental control (the bureaucrat) and at the same time restrain people who behave without regard for society (the anarchist). He gives an example: he will not allow any authority to decide which school his child attends, what subject he studies, or which sport he plays. These are personal matters. But he also accepts that society has the right to prevent him from depriving his child of education entirely or bringing him up as a savage or training him as a thief at Mr. Fagin’s criminal academy.

 

I. Two- or Three-Sentence Answers

 

1. Why does the stout lady refuse to walk on the pavement?

The stout old lady refuses to use the pavement because she believes that “liberty” allows her to walk wherever she likes. She thinks freedom means doing anything according to her personal choice. She does not realise that such behaviour endangers herself and confuses the traffic.

 

2. What is the rule of the road according to A. G. Gardiner?

The rule of the road means that in order to protect the liberties of all, everyone must accept some limits on their personal freedom. It ensures social order by preventing one person’s freedom from interfering with another’s. Thus, the rule of the road promotes cooperation and safety in society.

 

3. Which are the actions for which we ask one's leave?

We ask others’ permission only in matters that affect their rights or their liberty. But in purely personal matters- like what we wear, when we sleep, or what food we choose- we do not have to ask anyone’s leave. Personal habits that do not harm others are completely our own choice.

 

4. What is the foundation of social conduct?

A reasonable consideration for the rights and feelings of others is the foundation of social conduct. It means thinking about how our actions affect the people around us. Without such consideration, social life becomes unpleasant and chaotic.

 

5. How to preserve order in society, according to A. G. Gardiner?

Order in society is preserved when everyone accepts small restrictions on their personal liberty. These restrictions prevent people from disturbing or harming one another. When individuals adjust their behaviour to respect others’ freedom, society functions smoothly and peacefully.

6. What is the central idea of “On the Rule of the Road”?

The central idea is that true liberty is not doing whatever one pleases but balancing personal freedom with social responsibility. Liberty becomes meaningful only when it respects the liberty of others. Without mutual respect and self-control, liberty turns into social anarchy.

 

7. How does Gardiner argue that true liberty requires social responsibility?

Gardiner shows that absolute personal freedom leads to chaos because everyone’s actions would clash. He uses examples like the old lady walking in the road, the loud railway passenger, and noisy motorists to show how one person’s liberty can disturb many others. Therefore, true liberty requires an understanding that freedom must be limited wherever it harms or inconveniences other people.

 

II. Paragraph Answers

 

8. Who is a civilized man according to A. G. Gardiner?

According to Gardiner, a civilised man is someone who understands that personal liberty must be balanced with respect for others’ rights. He does not impose his habits, tastes, or noise on the people around him. He observes the small rules of social life - like waiting his turn, keeping public noise low, and acting with courtesy- because he realises that these actions make society pleasant and orderly. A civilised person possesses the “social sense,” as he recognises how his behaviour affects others and voluntarily adjusts himself to avoid causing inconvenience.

 

9. Liberty is not a personal affair. Elucidate.

Gardiner explains that liberty is not just about individual freedom but is a shared social experience. While a person may be free to do anything that affects only himself, he must restrict his freedom the moment it begins to interfere with another person’s comfort or rights. For example, one may dress oddly or eat what one likes, but one cannot practise loud music at midnight or block the road in the name of liberty. Therefore, liberty becomes meaningful only when it respects the similar liberty of others, showing that it is essentially a social, not purely personal, matter.

 

10. What is his take on complete anarchist or complete socialist?

Gardiner believes that society must avoid the extremes of complete anarchism and complete socialism. A complete anarchist demands unlimited personal freedom, which leads to chaos, while a complete socialist wants excessive state control, which suppresses individual choices. Gardiner suggests a balanced approach: personal matters should remain free from interference, but the state must intervene when individual actions threaten public welfare. Thus, society needs a judicious mixture of both freedom and regulation.

 

11. Liberty is a social contract. Discuss.

Gardiner describes liberty as a social contract because it requires a mutual agreement among individuals to limit certain personal freedoms for the greater good. Each person enjoys a wide area of personal choices, but beyond that circle, everyone must consider others’ rights. Social life becomes possible only when people cooperate, respect rules, and accept necessary restrictions. Liberty therefore functions not as an individual privilege alone but as a shared responsibility upheld by everyone.

 

 

III. Essay Answers

 

12. Comment on the correlation between individual liberty and social anarchy.

The essay highlights that unlimited individual liberty can easily turn into social anarchy. Gardiner shows this through examples such as the old lady walking down the middle of the road or the man practising loud music at night. When one person insists on total freedom without concern for others, everyone else’s freedom is disturbed, and the entire social system breaks down. True liberty depends on recognising where one’s freedom ends and another’s begins. Without this balance, society becomes disordered, unsafe, and unpleasant. Hence, individual liberty must always operate within the limits of social responsibility to prevent anarchy and preserve harmony.

 

13. Critically analyze whether rights of the people or rights of the nation is more important.

Gardiner’s essay suggests that both individual rights and national rights are equally important and deeply interconnected. Nations consist of individuals, and protecting the rights of “small people and quiet people” is just as vital as defending small nations from aggression. However, individual rights cannot override the collective welfare of the nation, just as national authority cannot crush personal freedoms without justification. A healthy society requires balance: individuals must enjoy freedom in personal matters, but they cannot behave in ways that endanger society, such as raising children without education or creating public nuisance. Likewise, the state must protect national interests without becoming oppressive. Therefore, neither is superior; rather, both must coexist in a balanced framework where personal liberty supports national welfare, and national welfare safeguards individual liberty.

 

Active to passive conversion

 🔹 Simple Present Tense

Structure:

Active: Subject + V₁ + Object

Passive: Object + is/am/are + V₃ + by + Subject

Examples:

1. He writes a letter. → A letter is written by him.

2. They make cakes. → Cakes are made by them.

3. I help my friend. → My friend is helped by me.

🔹 Present Continuous Tense

Structure:

Active: Subject + is/am/are + V₁-ing + Object

Passive: Object + is/am/are + being + V₃ + by + Subject

Examples:

1. She is reading a story. → A story is being read by her.

2. They are watching the movie. → The movie is being watched by them.

3. I am cleaning the room. → The room is being cleaned by me.

🔹 Present Perfect Tense

Structure:

Active: Subject + has/have + V₃ + Object

Passive: Object + has/have + been + V₃ + by + Subject

Examples:

1. He has completed the work. → The work has been completed by him.

2. They have finished the project. → The project has been finished by them.

3. I have written a letter. → A letter has been written by me.

🔹 Simple Past Tense

Structure:

Active: Subject + V₂ + Object

Passive: Object + was/were + V₃ + by + Subject

Examples:

1. He wrote a poem. → A poem was written by him.

2. They built a house. → A house was built by them.

3. She cleaned the room. → The room was cleaned by her.

🔹 Past Continuous Tense

Structure:

Active: Subject + was/were + V₁-ing + Object

Passive: Object + was/were + being + V₃ + by + Subject

Examples:

1. He was repairing the car. → The car was being repaired by him.

2. They were watching TV. → TV was being watched by them.

3. She was writing a letter. → A letter was being written by her.

🔹 Past Perfect Tense

Structure:

Active: Subject + had + V₃ + Object

Passive: Object + had + been + V₃ + by + Subject

Examples:

1. He had completed the work. → The work had been completed by him.

2. They had won the match. → The match had been won by them.

3. She had cooked dinner. → Dinner had been cooked by her.

🔹 Simple Future Tense

Structure:

Active: Subject + will/shall + V₁ + Object

Passive: Object + will/shall + be + V₃ + by + Subject

Examples:

1. He will finish the work. → The work will be finished by him.

2. They will build a bridge. → A bridge will be built by them.

3. I shall write a story. → A story shall be written by me.

🔹 Future Perfect Tense

Structure:

Active: Subject + will/shall + have + V₃ + Object

Passive: Object + will/shall + have been + V₃ + by + Subject

Examples:

1. He will have completed the work. → The work will have been completed by him.

2. They will have finished the task. → The task will have been finished by them.

3. I shall have written the letter. → The letter shall have been written by me.

Duchess of Malfi short summary

 Introduction

The Duchess of Malfi is a Jacobean revenge tragedy written by John Webster, first performed around 1613-1614 and published in 1623. Based loosely on historical events from early 16th-century Italy, the play explores themes of corruption, patriarchal oppression, forbidden love, madness, and the consequences of defying social hierarchies. Set in a morally decayed Italian court associated with Roman Catholic intrigue, it follows the widowed Duchess of Amalfi, who secretly marries her lower-class steward Antonio, defying her tyrannical brothers, Ferdinand (Duke of Calabria) and the Cardinal. Their opposition leads to betrayal, torture, and a bloody climax. Critically, the play is praised for its dense imagery, psychological depth, and critique of power structures, often seen as one of the last great tragedies of the Elizabethan-Jacobean era, rivaling Shakespeare in its exploration of human depravity and resilience.

Act 1

The play opens in the Duchess's palace in Amalfi, Italy, during the 16th century. Antonio Bologna, the Duchess's honest steward, returns from the French court and discusses with his friend Delio the virtues of a corruption-free government, contrasting it with the Italian court's moral decay. He describes the Duchess as noble and virtuous, while portraying her brothers—the scheming Cardinal and the volatile Ferdinand—as corrupt and envious. Bosola, a former convict and malcontent who spent seven years in the galleys for a murder likely commissioned by the Cardinal, arrives and bitterly complains about the brothers' ingratitude for his past services. Ferdinand hires Bosola as the Duchess's provisorship of horse (stable manager) but secretly tasks him with spying on her to prevent remarriage, fearing loss of her fortune and family honor. Bosola reluctantly accepts gold for the role, marking his descent into corruption.

The brothers warn the widowed Duchess against remarrying, emphasizing the shame it would bring to their noble bloodline. She outwardly agrees but privately confides in her maid Cariola her intent to defy them. Dismissing her brothers' patriarchal dictates, the Duchess inverts traditional gender roles by wooing and proposing to Antonio with her wedding ring. He accepts, and they exchange vows in a private ceremony witnessed by Cariola, making it legally binding. The act ends with the couple retiring to bed to "lie and talk together," while Cariola questions whether the Duchess's actions stem from greatness or madness.

Act 2

Approximately nine months later, the Duchess is secretly pregnant with Antonio's child. Bosola, spying for Ferdinand, suspects her condition and tests her by offering apricots (believed to induce labor in pregnant women). She eats them eagerly, confirming his suspicions as she soon goes into premature labor. To conceal the birth, Antonio fabricates a story of poisoning and locks the palace gates, claiming a thief is loose. In the chaos, Antonio accidentally drops a horoscope he made for the newborn son, which Bosola discovers and sends to the brothers in Rome as evidence of the Duchess's "loose" behavior.

In Rome, Ferdinand and the Cardinal react with fury to the news of the secret child, viewing it as a stain on their noble bloodline. Ferdinand rages about the Duchess's sexuality, imagining violent retribution but deciding to wait until he identifies the father. The Cardinal, meanwhile, maintains his affair with Julia, the wife of a courtier, highlighting his hypocrisy.

Act 3

Several years pass; the Duchess and Antonio now have three children. Bosola continues spying, informing Ferdinand of the additional births. Ferdinand sneaks into the Duchess's bedchamber at night, confronting her with a poniard (dagger) and urging suicide for her "whoredom." She defends her marriage but refuses to name Antonio. Enraged, Ferdinand vows never to see her again and flees. To escape, the Duchess publicly accuses Antonio of financial misconduct and banishes him, a ruse to allow his flight with their children. She confides the truth in Bosola, who feigns sympathy but reports to Ferdinand.

The family attempts to reunite at Loretto during a supposed pilgrimage, but the Cardinal banishes them. Antonio flees to Milan with their eldest son for safety, while Bosola, disguised as a soldier, arrests the Duchess and her younger children on Ferdinand's orders, escorting them back to Amalfi as prisoners.

Act 4

Imprisoned in her palace, the Duchess endures psychological torture orchestrated by Ferdinand, who avoids seeing her directly. In darkness, he gives her a dead man's hand (disguised as Antonio's) and shows wax figures mimicking the corpses of Antonio and their children, driving her to despair. He then unleashes madmen from a nearby asylum to torment her with nonsensical ravings. Bosola, disguised as a tomb-maker, informs her of her impending death. Executioners strangle the Duchess, her two younger children, and Cariola. Ferdinand, viewing the bodies, is overcome with remorse and madness, accusing Bosola of overzealousness and refusing payment. The Duchess briefly revives, learning from Bosola that Antonio lives, before dying permanently. Bosola, wracked with guilt, vows to seek redemption.

Act 5

In Milan, Antonio, unaware of the murders, seeks reconciliation with the brothers. Ferdinand, afflicted with lycanthropy (believing himself a wolf), raves madly from guilt. The Cardinal, covering his crimes, poisons his mistress Julia after she learns too much from Bosola's interrogation. Bosola, now seeking vengeance for the Duchess,plans to protect Antonio. In a chaotic night scene filled with mistaken identities, Bosola accidentally stabs Antonio in the dark. Dying, Antonio laments his family's fate. Bosola then attacks the Cardinal, stabbing him. Ferdinand enters, stabs both his brother and Bosola in confusion, and is fatally wounded by Bosola. As they die, Bosola reflects on the tragedy's roots in ambition and corruption. Delio arrives with Antonio's surviving son, vowing to establish an honest legacy for him.