Skipping line 407, he starts off by translating nec plura his as “no more was needful.” The original sentence literally means “not more things (were said) from these.” Dryden’s translation, however, begs for a clarification: why is it not needful to say anymore? That is when he inserts a “for” in the following sentence and dives into a lengthy explanation. He supplies various details in the explanation to make his narrative more vivid. Translating ille as “the gloomy god,” Dryden supplies an adjective to set up basic elements in his story. This adjective indirectly depicts the setting: Charon is dark because there is no light in the underworld. As “gloomy” captures the frowning appearance of Charon, it reminds readers of the conflict between Charon and his unexpected guests. Yet more importantly, the adjective acts as a reference point with which the change in the character Charon can be …show more content…
While Dryden attains a complete narrative in modern context, he loses the spontaneity originally contained in the texts. Detailing Charon’s observation of the twig in line 551 and 552 lengthens the act even though it might have been short. Although Fitzgerald does not have so smooth a transition from one sentence to another, he manages to maintain the simultaneity between different actions and highlight the destined feature of a particular moment. Of the renditions from Fitzgerald and Dryden, there is not necessarily a better or worse one due to the variety of readers. Translators necessarily imbue their own biases — what they think are important and what not — into the translations, but those biases are something that a reader should not be afraid to embrace. It is through those different perspectives that a reader gets to see the familiar world in different lights and truly experiences