Summary on Tolerance-E.M. Forster-Questions-Answers

 Summary on Tolerance-E.M. Forster

& short answer questions (40–45 words each), and long answer questions (180 words each) for the essay “Tolerance” by E. M. Forster.

SUMMARY (Approx. 1000 Words)

In his essay “Tolerance,” E. M. Forster discusses the essential mental attitude required to reconstruct a war-torn civilisation. He begins by referring to the widespread talk of rebuilding—whether it is rebuilding London, England, or Western civilisation. People enthusiastically (eagerly) prepare blueprints (copies/plans), estimates, and political plans. However, Forster is reminded of the biblical line: “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.”

Explanation: “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it.”

This line is from the Bible (Psalm 127:1). It means that human efforts alone cannot succeed unless they are based on the right spirit, values, and inner guidance. Even if people work very hard—making plans, building cities, or arranging systems—everything will fail if their minds and intentions are not pure, balanced, and moral.

Beneath its poetic surface lies an important truth: a healthy attitude of mind is essential for any lasting reconstruction. Without the right psychology or moral foundation, no plan—political, architectural, or economic—can succeed.

Forster argues that the foundation of civilisation must be a sound state of mind. No combination of architects, contractors, diplomats, or institutions can build a new world unless the people themselves develop the right spirit.

For example, London cannot be rebuilt beautifully unless people first develop a taste for beauty and reject ugly surroundings. As long as people remain indifferent, no reconstruction scheme will succeed.

 

 

The important question is: What is the proper state of mind necessary for rebuilding civilisation? Many would immediately say love. People often preach that humans and nations must love one another to stop the cycle of destruction. Respectfully, Forster disagrees. Love is the greatest force in private life, but it does not work in public affairs. History shows repeated failures of attempts to base politics on love—the Christian civilisations of the Middle Ages tried it, and the French Revolution proclaimed Brotherhood, yet both ultimately failed.

Extra Explanation:

How Christian Civilisation and the French Revolution Failed in Basing Politics on Love

History gives several examples where societies attempted to organise political life around ideals of love, brotherhood, and harmony, but these attempts eventually collapsed because human behaviour and political realities did not support such ideals. Two major examples are:

1. Christian Civilisations of the Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, Europe claimed to be built on the Christian principle of “Love thy neighbour.” The Church emphasised charity, kindness, forgiveness, and brotherhood. However, in practice this ideal could not sustain political order. Why?

a. Church corruption

Many church leaders became wealthy, powerful, and politically ambitious. Their lifestyles often contradicted the very ideals of love and humility they preached.

b. Religious wars and persecution

Instead of love, the period witnessed:

The Crusades, where Christians fought bloody wars in the name of religion.

The Inquisition, where people were tortured for different beliefs.

Constant feudal conflicts among Christian rulers.

 

 

These violent practices showed that politics was driven not by love but by power, fear, and greed.

c. Social inequality

Though Christianity taught equality, medieval society was sharply divided:

Kings and nobles enjoyed privileges.

Serfs (lower class of peasants) and peasants lived in misery.

Feudalism kept society unequal and harsh.

Thus, the principle of love failed to guide political action.

2. French Revolution – “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”

The French Revolution (1789) famously proclaimed “Fraternity”—brotherhood—as one of its ideals. Revolutionaries believed that love among citizens would create a new, harmonious society. But the opposite happened.

a. The Reign of Terror

Instead of brotherhood, revolutionaries turned violent:

Thousands were executed by the guillotine.

Neighbours reported against neighbours.

Fear became more powerful than love.

b. Power struggles

Revolutionary leaders fought among themselves for control. Rival groups—Girondins, Jacobins, and others—destroyed each other. Political ambition replaced ideals.

c. Rise of dictatorship

Ultimately, the ideal of fraternity collapsed so badly that France ended up under the military dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, only a few years after preaching love and equality.

Conclusion: Why These Attempts Failed

Both in the Middle Ages and in the French Revolution, love failed as the foundation of politics because:

Human passions like greed, fear, jealousy, and ambition are stronger than ideals.

Power struggles dominate political life.

Social and economic inequalities cannot be erased by idealistic slogans.

 

 

Love is an individual moral value, not a practical political force.

Thus, history repeatedly shows that politics requires justice, law, and discipline—not simply love or goodwill.

Love becomes vague, sentimental, and unrealistic when applied to nations and unknown strangers. People can only love what they personally know, and the circle of our personal knowledge is small.

In large communities and international relations, tolerance—not love—is required. Though a dull, negative, and often underrated virtue, it is essential. Tolerance simply means putting up with people, accepting differences, and learning to live together peacefully. It is not heroic or dramatic, yet it is the only basis on which different races, classes, and interests can coexist after the war.

The world is overcrowded, and people constantly come into contact with those they may dislike because of appearance, habits, culture, or behaviour.

There are two solutions to this problem. One is the Nazi solution: eliminate, banish, or segregate people who are disliked. This violent approach is destructive and immoral. The other is the democratic method: learn to tolerate those we dislike. Tolerance may be dull, but it is practical and humane, and it alone can help build a peaceful future.

Forster emphasises the importance of negative virtues—not being irritable, revengeful, or touchy. He has lost faith in militant positive ideals because they often result in violence. Phrases like “I will purge this nation” horrify him, especially in a modern world where nations and communities are interdependent and cannot be separated cleanly.

Explanation (in brief)

The writer says that he no longer trusts aggressive political ideals—those that claim they will “clean,” “purify,” or “reform” a nation with force. History shows that such strong, militant promises usually lead to violence, hatred, and destruction rather than real improvement.

When leaders use phrases like “I will purge this nation,” it frightens him because it suggests removing or attacking groups of people. In today’s world, where nations, religions, and communities are deeply interconnected and dependent on each other, it is impossible—and dangerous—to separate people in such a harsh way.

Therefore, he rejects militant ideals because they ignore the complex unity of the modern world and tend to create more suffering than progress.

 

Reconstruction will not be quick, he warns, because society is not psychologically ready for it. Civilisation sometimes enters phases of regression, and the present era seems to be one of them.

He gives a personal example: after the war, if he meets Germans, he will not try to love them, because he cannot forget their actions, such as breaking his window. But he will try to tolerate them, because practical living demands it. Germans cannot be exterminated, nor can any nation exterminate another. People must live together simply because there is no other workable alternative.

Forster does not claim that tolerance is a divine principle, though he humorously refers to the biblical line: “In My Father’s house are many mansions.”

Explanation (Brief)

The line “In My Father’s house are many mansions” means that God’s world is big enough to include many different kinds of people, beliefs, and ways of life. It suggests that there is room for everyone and that no single group has a monopoly on truth. It is a message of tolerance, acceptance, and broad-mindedness.

Instead, he calls tolerance a practical makeshift solution—useful for an overcrowded and overheated planet. Love often fails when one is surrounded by strangers, but tolerance helps maintain peace in everyday situations—standing in queues, travelling in buses or trains, using the telephone, working in offices and factories.

Tolerance also requires imagination, because one constantly needs to put oneself in the position of others. This makes tolerance a subtle, though underrated, spiritual discipline.

Explanation (Brief)

The statement means that tolerance is not just a social virtue but a quiet spiritual practice. It requires inner strength, patience, humility, and self-control. Although people do not praise it as much as dramatic or heroic actions, tolerance helps us rise above anger, prejudice, and narrow-mindedness, making it a deep and important form of spiritual discipline.

Few great thinkers praised tolerance openly—St. Paul and Dante did not—but Forster mentions some who upheld this virtue: the Indian emperor Ashoka, the Dutch scholar Erasmus, the French essayist Montaigne, the English philosophers Locke and Dickinson, and the German poet Goethe. These figures embody and support the creed of tolerance, which Forster feels is essential for modern civilisation.

Forster further warns that it is easy to detect fanaticism in others but hard to recognise it in oneself. For example, the British easily criticise Nazi racism, but must examine their own racial prejudices within the British Empire. True tolerance requires self-examination.

Finally, Forster clarifies that tolerance is not weakness. Putting up with others does not mean surrendering one’s principles. It simply means maintaining harmony without violence. He ends by expressing hope that once the “house” of civilisation is rebuilt through tolerance, love—our greatest private virtue—may eventually enter and govern public life too. But until then, tolerance is the only realistic foundation for rebuilding the modern world.

SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS (40–45 words each)

1. Why does Forster believe reconstruction cannot succeed without a sound state of mind?

Forster argues that true reconstruction requires the right psychological attitude. Architectural plans, political schemes, or economic systems cannot succeed unless people develop a sound state of mind. Without this mental foundation, no rebuilding—physical or social—can endure or produce meaningful results.

 

2. Why does Forster reject “love” as the basis for public life?

 

Forster believes love works only in private relationships, not in public affairs. People can love only those whom they know personally. Applying love to nations or strangers becomes unrealistic and sentimental, leading to disappointment and failure in large-scale social or political matters.

 

3. Why does Forster consider tolerance more practical than love in rebuilding civilisation?

 

Tolerance, though dull, helps people live with differences. In a crowded world, it is impossible to love everyone, but tolerating others prevents conflict. Tolerance provides a practical foundation for cooperation among races, classes, and nations, making it essential for reconstruction.

 

4. What are the two possible solutions to disliking others, according to Forster?

 

Forster says one solution is the Nazi way—killing, banishing, or segregating people we dislike. He rejects this violent method. The other solution is democratic: tolerating people as best as we can. Though less dramatic, it is humane, practical, and essential for peace.

 

5. Why does Forster call tolerance a “negative virtue”?

 

Forster calls tolerance negative because it involves restraining oneself rather than performing heroic actions. It requires patience, self-control, and acceptance, not dramatic emotion. Although it lacks grandeur, it is necessary for maintaining harmony in an overcrowded, diverse modern world.

 

LONG ANSWER QUESTIONS (180 words each)

1. Why does E. M. Forster consider tolerance more important than love for rebuilding civilisation?

Forster argues that while love is the greatest force in private life, it is impractical in public affairs. Love requires personal knowledge and emotional closeness, but in the modern world, individuals and nations deal largely with strangers. Attempting to base political or international relations on love leads to vague sentimentalism and unrealistic expectations. History has shown that movements which preached universal love, such as medieval Christianity or the French Revolution, ultimately failed to create lasting harmony.

In contrast, tolerance is a practical and workable virtue. It does not demand emotional involvement or deep affection. Instead, it requires self-control, patience, and the ability to accept differences. In a crowded world filled with diverse races, cultures, and beliefs, tolerance becomes essential for peaceful coexistence. Forster believes that the post-war world can be rebuilt only if people learn to “put up with” those they dislike, rather than trying to love them. Tolerance may be dull and undramatic, but it prevents conflict and allows cooperative living. Thus, for the reconstruction of civilisation, tolerance—not love—is the necessary spiritual foundation.

2. How does Forster justify tolerance as the foundation for the post-war world?

Forster believes the world has become overcrowded and interconnected, making conflict inevitable unless people learn to tolerate one another. Differences in culture, habits, appearance, and beliefs are unavoidable, and one cannot expect universal harmony based on love. He rejects the Nazi solution of eliminating those who are disliked, describing it as brutal and dangerous. Instead, he supports the democratic method—peacefully accepting the presence of others.

Tolerance, according to Forster, is a “negative virtue,” requiring restraint rather than emotional heroism. Yet it is this very restraint that allows diverse groups to live together without violence. Tolerance also demands imagination, because people must constantly put themselves in the place of others. It is needed in everyday social interactions—queues, buses, offices—as well as at national and international levels. Forster cites examples of great thinkers like Ashoka, Erasmus, Montaigne, and Locke, who upheld tolerance as a civilising force. He concludes that while tolerance may not be glorious, it is the only practical basis for rebuilding civilisation. Once the world is reconstructed through tolerance, love may eventually enter public life.

Dream Children-Charles Lamb-Questions-Answers

 

SHORT ANSWER TYPE QUESTIONS (40–45 WORDS EACH)

1. Why is Dream Children: A Reverie called an autobiographical essay?

The essay is autobiographical because Lamb narrates real events, emotions, and people from his own life—his grandmother Mrs. Field, his brother John, his sister Mary, and his lost love Ann Simmons. Through a daydream, he reveals his deepest regrets, desires, and personal memories.

2. What picture of Mrs. Field does Lamb present before the dream-children?

Lamb describes Mrs. Field as a kind, pious, hardworking woman who managed a large Norfolk mansion with dignity. She was loved by everyone for her religious nature, cheerful spirit, and noble character. Even in old age and suffering, she remained strong and graceful.

3. Why did the old house at Norfolk decline after Mrs. Field’s death?

After Mrs. Field died, the wealthy owner removed all the old ornaments and decorations to furnish his new fashionable home. Without her careful management and devotion, the huge house soon fell into neglect and decay, losing its former charm and glory.

4. What memories does Lamb share about his elder brother John?

Lamb recalls that John was handsome, brave, and the favourite of Mrs. Field. He once carried Lamb on his shoulders when Lamb hurt his foot. Later, after becoming lame himself, John suffered greatly and eventually died, leaving Lamb with deep regret.

5. Who was Alice Winterton, and why does she play a central role in the essay?

Alice Winterton, originally Ann Simmons, was the woman Lamb loved but could not marry. He courted her for seven years, but she married another man. The dream-children symbolize the life and family he wished to have with her but never could.

6. How does Lamb describe his childhood in the Norfolk mansion?

Lamb spent his holidays exploring the huge empty rooms, long corridors, and vast gardens of the Norfolk house. Although the trees were full of ripe fruits, he never plucked them. Instead, he enjoyed wandering and imagining freely, revealing his thoughtful, reflective nature.

7. Why do the dream-children disappear at the end of the essay?

The children fade away because they never truly existed. They represent Lamb’s unfulfilled dreams of marriage and parenthood. When they whisper, “We are only what might have been,” the reverie breaks, and Lamb realises he was daydreaming alone with his sister Bridget.

8. What does the ending of the essay reveal about Lamb’s emotional life?

The ending shows Lamb’s deep loneliness, lifelong disappointments, and emotional dependence on his sister Mary. His dream of children and family was never fulfilled. The fading figures reflect his suppressed sorrow and the painful acceptance of reality after a tender illusion.

LONG ANSWER TYPE QUESTIONS (170–180 words each)

1. Discuss the blend of humour and pathos in Dream Children: A Reverie.

 

Dream Children: A Reverie beautifully combines humour and pathos, a hallmark of Charles Lamb’s style. The essay begins with gentle humour as Lamb imagines two lively children, Alice and John, listening with deep interest to stories about their ancestors. Their innocent reactions—like disapproving the owner who removed the old house’s ornaments—add a soft comic charm. Humour is also present when Lamb recalls wandering through the old mansion, enjoying idleness more than the ripe fruits.

However, beneath this light tone runs a powerful current of sorrow. Mrs. Field’s painful old age, John’s suffering and death, and Lamb’s regret at not caring enough for his brother fill the narrative with deep pathos. The greatest emotional blow comes when the dream-children reveal they are not real and disappear slowly, symbolizing Lamb’s lost love and unfulfilled dream of fatherhood. The essay ends with Lamb finding only his sister Mary beside him, intensifying the mood of loneliness. Thus, humour sweetens the narrative while pathos gives it depth, making this essay one of Lamb’s most touching works.

 

2. Describe the character of Mrs. Field and her importance in Lamb’s childhood memories.

Mrs. Field, Lamb’s maternal grandmother, plays a central and highly cherished role in Dream Children: A Reverie. Lamb remembers her as a noble, religious, warm-hearted woman who served as the housekeeper of a large Norfolk mansion. Although she did not own the house, she managed it with such grace, efficiency, and pride that people respected her like a true mistress. Her deep knowledge of the Bible, her kindness toward children, and her cheerful spirit even during sickness made her widely admired.

In her youth, she was tall, beautiful, and an excellent dancer. Even when cancer bent her body with pain in old age, her courage and dignity remained intact. For young Lamb, staying with her during holidays was a source of immense joy. He spent his days wandering through the big house and garden, always feeling loved and safe under her care. Mrs. Field thus becomes a symbol of moral strength, affection, and childhood innocence. Her memory becomes the emotional anchor of Lamb’s dream narrative, reflecting the lasting impact she had on his life.

3. How does Lamb use the dream-children to express his inner regrets and unfulfilled desires?

Lamb uses the dream-children as symbolic figures to express the deepest regrets of his life—lost love, lost opportunities, and the absence of a family of his own. Throughout the essay, he lovingly narrates stories about his grandmother, brother, and childhood, addressing Alice and John as if they were real children born to him and Ann Simmons (Alice Winterton). Their innocent presence allows him to relive happy memories and share painful truths gently.

The children’s tears at John’s death reflect Lamb’s own hidden sorrow. Their curiosity about their mother leads him to recall his long, unsuccessful courtship of Ann Simmons. As he gazes at little Alice, the girl’s resemblance to her mother intensifies his emotional longing for the life he wished he had lived.

The climax comes when the children begin to fade and whisper that they are “only what might have been,” revealing Lamb’s deepest pain: he never married and never had children. Their disappearance breaks the dream, exposing his loneliness. Thus, the dream-children serve as delicate embodiments of Lamb’s emotional wounds and unfulfilled desires.

 

DREAM CHILDREN: A REVERIE – Detailed Summary By Charles Lamb

 

DREAM CHILDREN: A REVERIE – Detailed Summary By Charles Lamb

“Dream Children: A Reverie” is one of Charles Lamb’s most moving and autobiographical essays. Like most of his Essays of Elia, it blends gentle humour with deep sadness, presenting the author’s emotions in a very personal way. Lamb often wrote about his own life—his joys, disappointments, family bonds, and emotional struggles—and this essay is a touching example of his inner world. It is written in the form of a reverie, or daydream, and through this dream he expresses his love for his family, his unfulfilled hopes, and the pain of memories.

The essay mainly talks about six important people connected to Lamb’s life: his beloved grandmother Mrs. Mary Field, his devoted sister Mary Lamb, whom he affectionately calls Bridget, his elder brother John Lamb, the girl he loved but could not marry, Ann Simmons (called Alice Winterton in the essay), Mr. Bartrum, the man Ann eventually married, and the two children Lamb wished he had—Alice and John, who appear only in his dream.

The Setting of the Reverie

One quiet evening, Lamb is sitting alone in an armchair. Slowly, his mind drifts away into imagination. He pictures two beautiful little children—a boy named John and a girl named Alice—creeping close to him. In the dream he believes they are his own children, born to him and Alice Winterton. The children listen with great interest and affection as Lamb begins telling them stories about their ancestors. Through these conversations, Lamb revisits the deepest corners of his heart.

Story of Mrs. Field

The children first ask him about their great-grandmother, Mrs. Mary Field, who lived in a large, old mansion in Norfolk. Lamb describes her with great admiration. She was not the owner of the house but only the housekeeper. Yet she lived there with such dignity, devotion, and honesty that neighbours respected her as if she were the real mistress of the house.

The house was huge, filled with old ornaments, carvings, and long corridors that seemed haunted with past memories. This house was very dear to Lamb in his childhood. He spent his vacations there, exploring its quiet rooms and wandering through its gardens.

Mrs. Field was loved by everyone because she was deeply religious, warm-hearted, and noble in character. She knew long passages of the Bible by heart and lived a pious life. In her youth, she had been a tall and beautiful woman, famous for her graceful dancing. But in her old age, she suffered from cancer, which bent her back and caused constant pain. Yet, she never allowed the disease to break her spirit. Her cheerful nature and strong faith kept her steady and peaceful until the end of her life.

After her death, however, the grand old house began to decline. The owner removed its ornaments and used them in his new fashionable residence. The dream-children feel indignant and consider it unfair, showing their innocent sense of justice.

The Writer’s Childhood in the Old House

Lamb recalls how he spent his holidays at Norfolk with his siblings. He happily roamed through the enormous empty rooms of the mansion. The gardens were wide and filled with delicious fruits hanging temptingly from the branches. Yet Lamb never plucked them, not even once. He found more pleasure in simply wandering and daydreaming than in eating the fruits. This reveals his reflective, sensitive nature even as a child.

Reminiscence of John Lamb, the Elder Brother

Lamb then speaks about his elder brother, John, who had been Mrs. Field’s favourite grandchild. John was handsome, brave, and had a commanding personality. The younger children treated him like a king. He loved horse riding and often rode far into the countryside.

Lamb remembers a tender childhood moment—when his own foot was injured and he could not walk, John carried him on his back for miles. Many years later, fate reversed their roles. John himself became lame, and doctors had to amputate his leg. But Lamb painfully admits that he could not give his brother the same attention and affection that John had once given him. This regret haunted him.

John passed away in 1822, and his recent death was one of the reasons that inspired Lamb to write this essay. While narrating this memory, Lamb notices tears in the eyes of the dream-children, which shows their innocence and compassion.

Alice Winterton – The Woman Lamb Could Not Marry

The children now ask him to tell them about their “pretty dead mother.” This leads Lamb to his most sensitive memory—the story of Ann Simmons, whom he calls Alice Winterton. Lamb had loved her sincerely and courted her for seven long years. His love story was filled with both hope and disappointment, but he never lost faith.

However, destiny was not kind to him. Ann Simmons married another man, Mr. Bartrum. Lamb remained unmarried throughout his life. Looking at little Alice, the dream-daughter, he sees the same beautiful eyes as her mother’s. He feels overwhelmed with emotion. For a moment he cannot distinguish whether he is seeing the child or the woman he once loved.

In this moment of emotional intensity, the two dream-children begin to fade away slowly. They move farther and farther, their outlines growing dim. Before disappearing completely, they seem to speak in soft sorrow:

“We are not your children. The children of Alice call Bartrum their father. We are only what might have been.”

This heartbreaking line expresses the essence of Lamb’s lifelong regret—his unrealised dreams of marriage and fatherhood.

The Reverie Ends

Suddenly Lamb’s daydream breaks. He finds himself still sitting in the same armchair. There are no children—only his sister Mary (Bridget) sits beside him. She is his lifelong companion, bound to him by deep affection and shared suffering. Lamb realises that the beautiful children of his imagination existed only in the quiet chambers of his heart.

Significance of the Essay

“Dream Children: A Reverie” is a delicate mixture of tenderness, nostalgia, and melancholy. Through this dream, Lamb expresses: his love for his grandmother, his affection for his siblings, his regret for not treating his late brother better,

his lifelong sorrow over a lost love, and his deepest unfulfilled desire—to have children of his own.

The essay shows Lamb’s unique ability to blend humour and pathos, reality and dream, and memory and imagination. It stands as one of the finest examples of autobiographical writing in English literature.