The Project Gutenberg EBook of Aesop Dress'd, by Bernard Mandeville

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: Aesop Dress'd

Or a collection of Fables

Author: Bernard Mandeville

Commentator: John S. Shea

Release Date: October 29, 2010 [EBook #33888]

Language: English

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AESOP DRESS'D ***

Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

The Augustan Reprint Society

BERNARD MANDEVILLE

Æsop Dress'd

OR A

COLLECTION

OF

Fables

WRIT IN FAMILIAR VERSE

(1704)

INTRODUCTION

BY

JOHN S. SHEA

PUBLICATION NUMBER 120

WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY

University of California, Los Angeles

1966

GENERAL EDITORS

Earl Miner, University of California, Los Angeles

Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles

Lawrence Clark Powell, Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library

ADVISORY EDITORS

Richard C. Boys, University of Michigan

John Butt, University of Edinburgh

James L. Clifford, Columbia University

Ralph Cohen, University of California, Los Angeles

Vinton A. Dearing, University of California, Los Angeles

Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago

Louis A. Landa, Princeton University

Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota

Everett T. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles

James Sutherland, University College, London

H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles

CORRESPONDING SECRETARY

Edna C. Davis, Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library

INTRODUCTION

Bernard Mandeville's first extant book in English, Some Fables after the Easie and Familiar Method of Monsieur de la Fontaine, was published in 1703; it reappeared with additional fables in 1704 as Aesop Dress'd.[1] Neither title reveals that, except for two original fables by Mandeville, the book consists entirely of verse translations from the twelve books of La Fontaine's Fables (1668-1694). It is the first book-length translation from these poems into English.

The only previous translations from Fables into English verse appear to have been those made ten years earlier by John Dennis. Miscellanies in Verse and Prose (1693) was a curious volume of Pindaric odes, imitations of Horace, Juvenal, and Boileau, and letters that the young Dennis had written during his travels in France and Italy, including the well-known account of the delightful horrour and terrible Joy that he had experienced while crossing the Alps; there were, finally, ten fables in octosyllabic couplets—all of them translations from La Fontaine. A word about Dennis's fables may help to put Mandeville's into perspective.

Their resemblance to the French originals is slight. Not La Fontaine, but Samuel Butler, presides over Dennis's fables; indeed, when Dennis discusses them in the Preface to Miscellanies, he fails to mention La Fontaine, although he devotes a large proportion of his remarks to a defense of Butler's burlesque verse, which he acknowledges as his model.[2] Many people were writing Hudibrastics in the 1680's and 1690's: the propensity of Butler's couplet for arousing laughter had made it a fad.[3] With its jog-trot meter, insinuating swiftness, and jarring double and triple rhymes, the Hudibrastic couplet was ideally suited to the mockery performed by low burlesque. All burlesque works by an incongruity between subject and style; the particular function of low burlesque is to debase an elevated subject by treating it in an undignified manner.[4] So it was that Butler, with the assistance of a crazy style, had exploited the gap between the high pretensions and the ridiculous performances of a Puritan knight and his squire.

But of the hordes of scribblers that followed in the wake of Hudibras, scarcely any possessed Butler's sense of satiric propriety. Where his success had been founded on the discrepancy between subject and style that is essential to burlesque, they employed his style with no regard for its suitability to their subjects. Ordinary narrative poems with no satiric intent were decked in Hudibrastic couplets for the sake of a superficial cleverness.[5] Dennis followed the fashion. His ten verse-fables are filled with outrageous Butlerisms:

Isgrim had all the Winter far'd

So very ill, his looks Men scar'd.

He had (poor Dog!) got an evil habit,

Of going to Bed with the Devil a bit,

So that he had contracted a meen,

Which truly represented Famine.

At sight of Steed that's one huge bit of Fat,

Hight Isgrim's heart for joy went pit a pat.

Had I not known thy Self and Kindred,

Ev'n I my self should have been in dread.

The Crane's arrival was opportune,

Order'd for Isgrim's good by fortune.[6]

Whatever the intentions of the poet, it seems to be the property of the Hudibrastic couplet inevitably to denigrate its subject. While it is probable that Dennis intended his fables to be clever and modish, and nothing more, they turn out to be travesties of La Fontaine.

Dennis was attempting to impose on the animal fable an alien style. From Aesop to Thurber, the chief strength of the fabulist has been his humility: by selecting animal stories as the guise for his moral lessons, he has hoped to disarm his readers into accepting the truth. This strategy would seem to rule out the style of low burlesque, for the impulse to this style—a dignified subject to be mocked out of its dignity—does not exist in the animal fable. In particular the Fables of La Fontaine, perhaps the most graceful, concise, and witty ever written, do not respond well to the ferocious manner of Dennis. Dennis translating La Fontaine resembles a bull in a china shop.

While Mandeville is no gazelle either, he has better manners than Dennis. The Butlerisms are still present, but they are not everywhere and they are not so grotesque. The difference between Dennis and Mandeville may be merely the interval of ten years, during which the influence of Butler had faded; but this seems unlikely, since Bond cites many examples of the continuing vogue of Hudibras, even well into the 1730's.[7] A more probable explanation for the difference is that, whereas Dennis was an avowed imitator of Butler who happened to be translating the Fables of La Fontaine, Mandeville seems to have been in this work chiefly a translator of La Fontaine who was, incidentally, writing at a time when the impulse to copy Butler's superficial qualities was almost irresistible. The total number of Hudibrastic couplets in Aesop Dress'd comes to only a handful:

They'll give you a hundred Niceties,

As Chicken Bones, boyl'd Loins of Mutton,

As good as ever Tooth was put in....

And therefore let my