Dryden is also very popular for his heroic tragedies –The Conquest of Granada and All for Love. Dryden always made it a point to be individualistic in his approach. He sacrificed the usual ingredients of a proper drama to evoke surprise and achieve splendour on the stage.
Dryden’s clear prose style is evident in his An Essay of Dramatic Poesy and in various prefaces to his plays and translations. I personally admire his Preface to the fables for its direct and vivid style. In this work of art the thoughts have been clearly conveyed, unhampered and well organized. Dryden has employed two kinds of criticism- Comparative and Descriptive criticism in this single piece of work which adds to its merits.
PREFACE TO THE FABLES
SUMMARY OF THE ESSAY
SECTION I
Dryden begins his essay with a striking introductory note. He envisages a builder whose completed work excels his original design. Dryden explains how his Fables Ancient and Modern has grown into its present size and how the ideas infused into it are quite different from his preconceived ones.
Dryden commenced translating the first book of Homer’s Illiad, such that it serves to be an introductory essay to the entire work.Then he proceeded translating the twelfth book of Ovid’s Metamorphoses because it contained “ the causes , beginning and ending of the Trojan war “. He was then diverted by the speeches of Ajax and Ulysses and he made a verse rendering of the speeches.The fifteenth book of Metamorphoses appealed Dryden so much that he translated it into English. Thus his work “began to swell into a little volume.He then took up some marvellous works like The Hunting of the Boar , Cinyras and Myrrha and Baucius and Philemon. Dryden feels proud to note that his translated versions of the works match the original ones in their beauty. He also says that translating with precision “is not the talent of every poet”. Dryden recognizes George Sandys as the best translator of the Elizabethan Age.
While translating the tales of Ovid, Dryden was suddenly reminded of Chaucer who resembled the Roman poet in many ways. Dryden with the intention of honouring his native country decided to give his readers a modern version of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. When the works of both Ovid and Chaucer are presented to the reader in their modern outlook the reader will be able to carry out the right assessment. Boccacio came to his mind when Dryden was translating Chaucer. Dryden says Boccacio and Chaucer also resembled each other. Boccaio like Chaucer wrote novels in prose and works in verse .He invented the Octave Rhyme just like Chaucer who invented the Rhyme Royal. Both of them refined their mother tongues. All these things led him to include Chaucer and Boccacio in his major work.
Dryden has also included some of his original composition and he requests the reader to make the correct judgement of his work whether equal or inferior to the rest. Dryden proclaims that his creative mind is alert despite his declining health conditions. He further says that regular practice has made him adept in prose and verse media. Thus he presents his translations to the reading public without apologizing for his old age. With this Dryden completes his first part of the discourse.
SECTION II
Dryden denies translating anything “ which savours of immorality or profaneness”. If the reader gets to read something which is immoral in his work, the original writer is to be blamed. He says translations are like “ imported merchandise and not my own manufacture”. Dryden chose the fables, both ancient and modern primarily to make it a platform for moral instruction. Hence Dryden brushes aside all charges levelled against him.
SECTION III
Dryden wishes to translate the whole of Homer’s Illiad if he is blessed with longevity of life and continued public encouragement. Dryden takes pleasure in translating the works of Homer and finds it ‘ a more pleasing task than Virgil’. He further says translating Homer is very tedious. Both Homer and Virgil contradicted each other in their ‘manners and natural inclinations’. In Dryden’s words ‘Homer was violent, impetuous and full of fire and Virgil was of quiet sedate temper’. While talking about invention and imitation, Dryden points out that it was ‘Homer who taught Virgil to design’. The first six books of Virgil'’ Aeniad is a reduplication of Homer’s Odysseis. Then Dryden passes on to show us how varied the two poets were in their temperament. Dryden calls Homer choleric and sanguine and Virgil phlegmatic and melancholic. Even the characters of Homer and Virgil represent their tempers. Achilles is violent, whereas Aeneas is patient and considerate. Dryden confesses that he chose to translate Homer because the Roman writer best suited to his temper.
Dryden then brings out a comparison between Chaucer and Ovid. Chaucer lived at the time when English language was at its infancy. While Ovid lived towards the close of the Golden age of Roman tongue. Ovid resembled Chaucer in his interest in philosophy, humanities, astronomy and astrology. Neither Chaucer nor Ovid was original in their writings. They borrowed materials form their predecessors. However Dryden says Chaucer was not without originality. His characters Baucius and Philemon and pilgrims of the Canterbury Tales are above ground and truly Chaucer’s own invention.
Dryden calls Chaucer the father of English poetry out of veneration. As to the crude and primitive language of Chaucer is concerned, Dryden asserts that perfection can not be expected from a pioneer. The greatest merit of Chaucer’s art is restrain .Dryden also presents some of the basic facts about Chaucer’s life in this essay.
Chaucer has clearly picturized the fourteenth century England in his Canterbury Tales. Realism is the essence of his work.Chaucer gives prime importance to the nature and external features of his characters.Chaucer’s characters are varied in their manners and humours.They belong to different strata. Even the low characters like the Reeve , the Miller are appealing in their own way. Dryden finally proclaims “here is God’s plenty’apropos Chaucerian works.
Dryden then says there has been considerable opposition against him for translating Chaucer.Dryden classifies his opposers into two groups. The first group look upon Chaucer as a “ dry old fashioned wit” unworthy of translation. Dryden asserts that the brilliance of Chaucer has diminished due to the passage of time and requires polishing. The second group are those who object translation out of veneration for the classic. Dryden stresses the necessity of translation lest ancient writers should be totally neglected due to the unintelligibility of their language.
