From: “Although the resultant split among the faculty” to “Not one of them seemed unable to eat.“ (pp. 178–180) Describe Hundert’s success and ambition as outlined in this section of text. Note when/how Hundert uses first person and possessive pronouns (“we”, “I”, “our”). Who does Hundert refer to as his “all[ies]” (p. 179) and how do these references further develop your understanding of him? “I had not even wanted [the pistol] when the irascible demagogue Bell had foisted it up on me.” (p. 181) Based on context clues, what do we know about these highlighted words and how they function together? How does the substitution of “easily angered” for irascible and “passionate political leader” for demagogue affect your understanding of the meaning of the sentence?
Group C Text-Analysis Tool Passage Questions Response From: “After dinner I returned to the assistant headmaster’s house” to “that month he had asked me to retire.” (pp. “The die is cast” from a Latin phrase meaning that a decision has been made and cannot be changed. Describe Hundert’s mood during his confrontation with Ellerby and, later, as he disposes of the gun. How do these descriptions complicate or refine your understanding of Hundert? Why does Hundert think he “was doomed the moment [he] threw the pistol in the water” (p. 182)? “By four o’clock that afternoon Charles Ellerby, a fellow antiquarian whose job I had once helped secure, had been named headmaster.” (p. 182) Why did Hundert first become friends with Charles Ellerby at St. Benedict’s? How does this help decode the meaning of the word antiquarian? (Hint: How is “fellow” used in the sentence?) (Hint: What other words begin with “antiqu”?) Model Group A Text-Analysis Tool
Model Group B Text-Analysis Tool Passage Questions Response From: “Although the resultant split among the faculty” to “Not one of them seemed unable to eat.” (pp. 178–180) Describe Hundert’s success and ambition as outlined in this section of text. Note when/how Hundert uses first person and possessive pronouns (“we”, “I”, “our”). Who does Hundert refer to as his “all[ies]” (p. 179) and how do these references further develop your understanding of him? Ellerby and Hundert work together to achieve what is made to sound primarily like Hundert’s vision: “we were able to do what I had always dreamed of doing” (p. 178) “We redoubled our commitment to classical education.” (p. 178) “Our fortunes lifted and dipped with the gentle rhythm to which I had long ago grown accustomed.” (p. 178) Although he is largely responsible for the school’s upswing, he is not prepared when Mr. Woodbridge dies, even though he wants this spot. He blames only himself for his lack of planning to take the reins as headmaster: “I myself coveted the job” (p. 178) “I had not yet begun the preparations” (p. 179) “I was, of course, no longer a young man.” (p. 179) “I lost my advantage” (p. 179) The time, he refers to Charles Ellerby as a man he has always assumed was an ally. The second time, he says he will go “to the dining commons in the company of allies” (p. 179), referring to the students dining in the cafeteria. The only allies (he thinks) he has are his students. He has trouble maintaining strong adult relationships. (Ellerby is the only friend Hundert has ever referenced, and Ellerby only used Hundert to pursue his own ambition.)
Passage Questions Response “I had not even wanted [the pistol] when the irascible demagogue Bell had foisted it up on me.” (p. 181) on context clues, what do we know about these highlighted words and how they function together? How does the substitution of “easily angered” for irascible and “passionate political leader” for demagogue affect your understanding of the meaning of the sentence? Irascible is an adjective and demagogue is a noun. The words potentially have a negative connotation because they a) describe Senator Bell, b) describe a firearm that we know Hundert ultimately tosses out and is the source of conflict with Ellerby, and c) relate to the word foist, which we know from our vocabulary sheet means “force upon or impose.” The words reflect a judgment of Senator Bell, not the pistol. Given his current situation, Hundert is not happy that he has the gun and he lashes out against the Senator for contributing somehow to the situation. Hundert didn’t want the gun in the first place, yet he accepted it anyway because he likely felt he had no choice.