Philosophy of inaction in “The Lotos-Eaters”

“The Lotos-Eaters” draws inspiration from Homer’s “Odyssey.” Odysseus, one of the great warriors of the Trojan War, was returning home but had to overcome numerous obstacles. During his journey, he encountered an island where the inhabitants fed on lotus. The poem begins when Odysseus first sees the island. He tells his men to have courage and points toward the land, assuring them that the rolling waves will guide the ships to the shore.

Upon arriving at the island, the mariners were warmly greeted by the inhabitants, who graciously offered them the enticing flower and fruit of the lotos. Consuming these delicacies, the mariners found themselves in a peculiar state, hovering between consciousness and unconsciousness. Suddenly, they lost all their spirit and became inactive. They were overcome by a strong feeling of inactivity and felt like doing nothing. They could hear nothing but the music of their heartbeats around them.

Even though dreaming of their homes in Ithaca was sweet, the lotos makes them tired of wandering and chose to stay here. A mariner who tasted the lotos fruit declares that he will “return no more,” and all the mariners join in singing about their decision to remain in the land of the lotos-eaters.

Tennyson weaves an enticing and captivating tapestry, portraying a life liberated from work. In each stanza of the choric song, he articulates compelling arguments justifying the mariners’ choice to linger on the island. For instance, in the second stanza, the mariners emotionally express the irony that, despite being the best of creation, mankind alone is burdened with ceaseless toil and labor throughout life. This stanza can also be perceived as a deliberate inversion and overturning of Coleridge’s “Work without Hope,” where the speaker laments that “all nature seems at work” while he remains idle and unoccupied.

In the poem “The Lotos-Eaters,” Tennyson presents a kind of utopian idea. He portrays a world of great comfort free from worldly suffering, yet living in such a world does not bring happiness. Instead, it makes human beings inactive and hopeless. In the early stages of human civilization, people were helpless and relied on the mercy of nature. Gradually, they became the most powerful creatures, thanks to their hard work and toil. This ascent was possible due to their diligence. Hence, the saying goes, “There is no shortcut road to success.” To achieve one’s goals, one must work hard.

How did Achitophel provoke Absalom to go against the King?

“Absalom and Achitophel” is a masterpiece written by John Dryden, and it stands as one of the best political satires in English literature. It is a long poem in which Dryden has beautifully depicted the contemporary history of England, especially the conflict between King Charles II and his illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth. In the poem, Dryden takes the side of the king, naturally opposing the Duke of Monmouth. He allegorically portrayed the state of England at that time using characters from the Bible. Absalom represents the illegitimate son of King Charles II, known as the Duke of Monmouth. Achitophel, on the other hand, is portrayed as Absalom’s friend and adviser, and he is none other than the Earl of Shaftesbury. The intention of Achitophel was to incite rebellion against the king through Absalom, and in this context, the king is referred to as King David, representing King Charles II in “Absalom and Achitophel.” The king, Charles II, did not have any legitimate children with his queen, and he had some illicit relationships with several women. Among the illegitimate offspring, Absalom, or the Duke of Monmouth, was his most favorite.

Achitophel tried to provoke Absalom so that he would go against the king. However, Absalom gave a long speech, stating that he had no inclination to go against the king. According to him, King David, or Charles II, was a generous ruler who sought the well-being of his subjects and never oppressed them. Absalom pointed out that King David had always treated him as a cherished son, standing by him in times of danger and adversity. Not only that, King Charles II, or David, had also fulfilled every desire of Absalom, leaving him with no intention to rebel against him.

Upon hearing this, Achitophel tried to convince Absalom in various ways that he should rebel against the king. Initially, Achitophel used flattery or praise to influence Absalom. He lauded various qualities of Absalom and asserted that he was suitable and competent to be a king. At first, he sought to win Absalom’s favor through compliments.

Furthermore, Achitophel expressed some thoughts against the king. According to him, King David or Charles II might be generous but not necessarily intelligent. Moreover, the king gives a lot to the people without them asking for it, and this, according to Achitophel, is not a positive trait. Overall, Achitophel believes that the king lacks genuine leadership qualities and is not truly fit to be a ruler.

In this manner, Achitophel tried to establish in Absalom’s mind that, when considering the future of England, Absalom, or the Duke of Monmouth, is the most suitable candidate. The Duke of Monmouth possesses all the requisite qualities, while the king possesses none. The king is not a bad man, but not as virtuous as the Duke of Monmouth, and he does not understand the sentiments of the people. Therefore, the king makes mistakes in every step, and as a result, the country has fallen into debt, and the future of the nation is not bright.

Not only that, but the king’s worst act is appointing his brother James to the position that rightfully belongs to Absalom. James’ most significant offense is that he adheres to the Catholic faith, and if James ascends to the throne, it will lead to the triumph of Catholics and the destruction of Protestants. Not just that, James harbors resentment towards Absalom and will strive to annihilate him.

Achitophel is very intelligent, and he directly tells Absalom that now is the best time to take up arms against the king. If Absalom, or the Duke of Monmouth, does not act at this moment, his future will be extremely unfortunate. If James comes to power, he will immediately remove Absalom as a potential threat. Furthermore, the king may love Absalom today, but he might not continue to favor him tomorrow. The king is more dependent on his mistresses, and his attitude towards Absalom may not always remain consistent.

Achitophel also mentioned that many people have lost faith in the king, and through them, a formidable military force can be assembled. Different individuals have various reasons for their distrust towards the king, and the Duke of Monmouth is the only one who can bring them together. The Duke of Monmouth is a popular figure, and if he issues a call, people will rally behind him. Moreover, Achitophel himself is an influential person and will strive to manipulate many individuals to join the cause. Achitophel also noted that many influential figures harbor distrust towards the king and have more mistrust in his appointed heir, James, than in the king himself.

In this subtle manner, Achitophel skillfully tried to incite the Duke of Monmouth against King David or Charles II. History reveals that the Duke of Monmouth indeed led a rebellion but faced subsequent failure. 

How did Absalom react to the provocation?

Absalom and Achitophel is considered one of the best political satires written by John Dryden. This poem was written against the backdrop of England’s unstable political situation. It is assumed that the contemporary king, Charles II, personally requested Dryden to write this poem because, at that time, the trial of Achitophel (symbolizing the Earl of Shaftesbury) was going on. However, during this period, many leaders of the weak political party and Protestant leaders in England were seeking to remove King Charles II from the throne and place the Duke of Monmouth on it. The main reason behind this was the fear that after King Charles II, his brother James (Duke of York) would ascend to the throne, and James was a staunch follower of the Catholic faith. On the other hand, the Duke of Monmouth (representing Absalom in the poem), the illegitimate son of King Charles II, was a supporter of the Protestant religion.

Achitophel, with the support of his allies, was planning to rebel against the king, and they needed a leader. However, the dilemma was that the leader must not be someone who aspires to be king because becoming a king requires carrying royal blood in his veins. Therefore, despite Absalom, or Duke of Monmouth, being the illegitimate son of the king, he still carries the royal blood of King Charles II in his veins. So, their intention was to save the Duke of Monmouth, and for this reason, Achitophel tried various ways to make Absalom understand. One remarkable aspect of Dryden’s portrayal is that although Achitophel was the king’s greatest enemy, Dryden acknowledged his brilliance. According to Dryden, Achitophel embodies both greatness and madness. Achitophel initially tried to convince Absalom through flattery. He told him that England’s fortune is such that a person like Absalom is born, and Absalom’s destiny is to accomplish great things, blessed by God. Simultaneously, Achitophel also attempted to make Absalom understand that the reign of King David or King Charles II is coming to an end, and now, like his predecessor, King Charles II is ruling the country with wisdom and skill.

As a result, Absalom became somewhat conflicted in his thoughts. However, Absalom was the most beloved son of King David or King Charles II. David had forgiven him for many things and bestowed him with much honor. Therefore, a sense of uncertainty arose in Absalom’s mind, and he tells Achitophel that David is not a bad king now but a very good king. It is God’s command that since David does not have any legitimate heir after him, his brother, the Duke of York, will be the king, and this is natural.

However, Achitophel immediately understood that a kind of doubt had arisen in Absalom’s mind and attempted to convey that King David, despite his gentle nature and mild temperament, was not suitable to rule, being too soft-hearted for the governance. When Achitophel realized that a conspiracy was underway, he also realized that, after the conspiracy, Absalom would need to instill fear. Therefore, he told Absalom that King David might not be a bad person, but when his brother would ascend the throne, Absalom would not hold such a significant position in the new reign, and the new king’s main concern would be to eliminate Absalom.

Essentially, much work has been done to instill this fear. At that time, Absalom felt that it would be appropriate for him to take leadership in a rebellion for England. Subsequently, Absalom renounced the royal court and went to various places to convince people that he was on their side. He asserted that his father David’s power was gradually diminishing, and David was becoming more dependent on his friends and foreign kings. Therefore, Absalom actively incited people to rebel against him.

In this manner, we see that Achitophel’s provocation worked, and Absalom’s mind turned away from his father. He was so influenced by Achitophel’s words that he became eager to rebel against his own father and actively endeavored to take leadership in the rebellion. However, what the Duke of Monmouth failed to comprehend was that the real leadership was in the hands of the Earl of Shaftesbury, or Achitophel. Achitophel cleverly manipulated people to foster unity, and the Duke of Monmouth was merely a front. Failing to understand this, the Duke of Monmouth took up arms against his father, unaware that the true orchestrator behind the rebellion was Achitophel.

A brief history of the creation of the Dhakaiya Kutti language and community

Dhaka has been developed on the bank of the Buriganga River. Since Dhaka was the capital, people would inevitably come here. Whenever someone came here, he expressed his own aspirations and spoke in his own language. People from many regions, coming together, have developed a new language surrounded by Dhaka’s ancient town, as they communicate in their own language. This newly created language with unique characteristics is called the ‘Kutti’ language.

The original inhabitants of ancient Dhaka still speak in that ‘Kutti’ language. Although many people may consider the ‘Kutti’ language as the original language of ancient Dhaka, it is not the ancestral language of the indigenous people of Dhaka. The creation of the ‘Kutti’ language took place as a continuous process of artistic expression by a group of people who came from outside Dhaka. Who are the creators of this new language? Where did the people who contributed to the creation of this new language come from? What historic information do we have about their thoughts and intellect?

A significant and intriguing amount of information has been discovered through historical exploration about the ‘Kutti’. Several other books including ‘Dhaka Panchas Baras Pahle’ (Dhaka 50 years ago) written by Hakim Habibur Rahman, ‘Glimpses of old Dhaka’ written by Syed Muhammed Taifoor, ‘Kingbadantir Dhaka’ written by Nazir Hossain, ‘Dhakaiyas on the Move’ written by Dr Hafiza Khatun, ‘Dhakai Upobhasa Probad-Probochon Koutuk Chara’ published by Bangladesh Asiatic Society and edited by Feroza Yesmin, ‘Rajdhani Dhakar 400 Bochor o Uttorkal’ (400 Years of Capital Dhaka and beyond) edited by Abdul Momin Chowdhury and Sharif Uddin Ahmed, the first volume of ‘Dhaka Kosh’ edited by Sharif Uddin Ahmed, ‘Dhakaiya Asil’ published by Bangla Academy and written by Anis Ahmed, ‘Andha Miyar Dhakaiya Bulir Bazar’ written by Malik Khasru PPM etc. have discussed various communities of ancient Dhaka, especially Kutti, Sukhbas, or subbasi, and delve into the origin, development and evolution of their language.

After thoroughly studying the topics mentioned in these books, we have come to know that the Mughal era is mainly the time of origin of the Kutti community and the Kutti language. From the mid-18th century onward, particularly in East Bengal, rice became a significant export commodity, and the capital of Bengal Subah, Dhaka, became a major center of trade and commerce. Rice exporters were the Marwaris and the people of central India. They used to collect paddy from different areas of East Bengal. The huge amount of paddy collected had to be threshed, winnowed, or processed. A considerable number of laborers were employed for the tasks of threshing and winnowing the rice. Laborers engaged in these rice-related tasks would come to Dhaka from the surrounding areas. The work of threshing and winnowing was labor-incentive. Therefore, the laborers did not leave Dhaka after the work was done. They began settling in the vicinity of Dhaka and started living nearby. Since those hard-working people were working together, sharing stories, and exchanging joys and sorrows, a language naturally developed among them. Due to their engagement in threshing and winnowing rice, Marwaris started calling them 'Kutti' briefly by dropping their original names. In the course of time, they became recognized as ‘Kutti’. In other words, the term ‘Kutti’ and the community’s identity originated from the work of threshing and winnowing rice.

We can learn from another piece of information that the emergence of the Kutti community as an ancient social class in the urban community of the capital city of Dhaka was due to the continuous natural disasters in 1700 AD. In April 1762 AD, due to a severe famine that occurred in Dhaka, a group of laborers from the central region of Dhaka came to settle in the Dholaikhal area of Dhaka. The main task of these laborers was threshing and winnowing rice from paddy. Laborers had to break bricks to construct buildings for the landlords who came to live in Dhaka. Those laborers were also involved in the task of breaking the brick for the construction. From their occupation of threshing and winnowing or breaking paddy or brick, the term ‘Kutti’ emerged as a new name for the community and remains in the society. Those remaining people are considered the original inhabitants of old Dhaka. They created their own language for their way of life and practical use. They might not have been aware that they were silently giving birth to a language or had already given birth to one. With the changes over time in Dhaka city, old Dhaka means the area inhabiting Kutti people. The Kutti language has adopted a new form and has found its place in today’s context. 

Universal appeal of Absalom and Achitophel

Absalom and Achitophel, written by John Dryden, is another masterpiece. It is essentially a political satire, and in it, the poet took the side of the contemporary king, Charles II. The poem depicts Charles II’s illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, as Absalom. He rebelled against his father, and he was aided and guided in this endeavor by Achitophel, or the Earl of Shaftesbury. The poem beautifully describes the political instability of England during that time, and although Dryden was biased towards the king, there are some universal elements present despite the somewhat one-sided narrative.

It has already been mentioned that this was a political pamphlet in which Dryden explicitly sided with the king, and he was against the Duke of Monmouth. Rebellion could happen at any time because Achitophel has convincingly persuaded Absalom and has manipulated his mind, making him believe that it is the right time to wage war against the king. On the other hand, supporters of the king are also prepared for any rebellion, and if rebellion occurs, they will join forces with the Duke of Monmouth and defeat him. In such a volatile situation, Dryden attempted to strengthen the morale of the king’s supporters and show readers a perspective favorable to the king.

The first universal characteristic that needs to be mentioned is greed for power. At that time, England was in a state of instability, and in the history of England, the 17th century was actually a period of political instability. The father of King Charles II, King Charles I, was executed by the Puritans, and under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell, they seized power. King Charles II could regain power in 1660, and that event is referred to as the restoration. Throughout the reign of King Charles II, it was evident that there was conflict within the political parties. This phenomenon is often observed throughout the history of the world where there is a monarchy—some people support the king while some oppose the king, and everyone has a lust for power.

Religious division, or the disparity based on religion, had been a significant theme in England’s history for many years, reaching its most critical state in the 17th century, notably after the ascent to power of King Charles II. During this time, England was divided between Catholics on one side and Protestants on the other. Before this period, although the Puritans managed to seize power for a while, their influence did not persist for long. The Anglicans, or Protestants, constituted a majority, while the Catholics were in the minority. On the other hand, King Charles secretly sympathized with the Catholics, and later he bequeathed the throne to his younger brother, James, who was a professed Catholic. While this may be seen as a religious division, it is also an example of greed for power. Since the king did not have any legitimate heirs, his decision to pass the throne to his younger brother, James, led to the Duke of Monmouth, his illegitimate son, instigating a rebellion.

In this poem, Dryden repeatedly emphasized the need for unity in a nation. During that time, England was embroiled in hostilities with France on one side and disputes with Holland on the other. However, as there was a lack of unity among the people of England, the country was in a dire state, and there was a constant fear of external aggression. Therefore, what Dryden is trying to convey is that if there is no unity among the people themselves, it will lead to instability. At that time, England not only faced political instability but also social and economic instability.

The biggest example of universal characteristics in Absalom and Achitophel's poem is perhaps its characters. The characters in this poem are drawn from the Bible and represent significant contemporary personalities in England. However, we observe such characters across ages. Throughout the ages, we see rulers like David or Charles II who were attracted to the affairs of the prostitutes. Through the ages, we also encounter foolish people like Absalom who engage in conflict against their own fathers at the behest of others. Through the ages, we have encountered individuals like Achitophel who aspire to bring about societal upheavals through their intellect. Dryden has depicted these characters beautifully in his work.

If we think about one of the universal appeals of Dryden’s Absalom and Achitophel, then we can see a reflection of present-day Bangladesh. For nearly 20 years, there has been political turbulence, and the country is divided into two factions: on one side, there is the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and on the other, there is the Bangladesh Awami League. Due to the ongoing conflicts between these two political parties, the people of Bangladesh are currently facing uncertainty, and the nation not only experiences political instability but also witnesses various forms of unrest. The lives of people are not safe today due to unrest on the streets, and the prices of commodities skyrocket due to frequent strikes. The root cause of all these issues is the division or disunity in the country. Therefore, the people of Bangladesh must learn from Absalom and Achitophel and strive for unity. Without this effort, the future of Bangladesh may plunge into extreme darkness.

Absalom and Achitophel is a poem of very high quality and is acclaimed as one of the best satires in English literature. Dryden has shown as nuanced a view of reality as possible, though he was on the king’s side. Despite being on the king’s side, he often depicted the faults of the king and, at times, praised the virtues of the Duke of Monmouth. Therefore, it is essential for all of us to read this poem and derive lessons from it.