THE Reviews which challenged the satire to which reference is made in the last chapter were, as there mentioned, the Edinburgh,' the British,' and the 'Eclectic.' There were others which spoke of the translation in terms of the most enthusiastic praise, tempered only by fair criticism. The 'Monthly,' while echoing the 'Edinburgh's' censure of the diffuseness of the notes, bore ample testimony to the vigour and the spirit of the translation and to the beauty of its poetry. The Critical' was still more eulogistic, and this Review was distinguished for discriminating taste. In a note in Moore's 'Life of Byron' allusion is made to its critique on the Hours of Idleness,' written in September 1807. This Review, in pronouncing upon the young author's future career, showed itself more prophet-like than the great oracle of the North. In noticing the elegy on Newstead Abbey, the writer says: 'We could not but hail with something of prophetic rapture the hope conveyed in the closing stanza Haply thy sun, emerging, yet may shine, Of Hodgson's Juvenal it writes in a similar strain. It begins by expressing satisfaction at the intellectual vigour of the age which had produced Hodgson's Juvenal before Gifford's was properly digested. By way of combating the assertion that another translation was unnecessary, it mentions the circumstance that Pope's Homer appeared before Creech's was fairly finished. The 'Critical' continues with a comparison of Hodgson and Gifford. The lists have been cleared of all the combatants of inferior note, and are exclusively occupied by two distinguished cavaliers; one founded from experience and reputation in a long established fame; the other rejoicing in great though hitherto untried powers, vigorous in youth, and inflamed with the noble confidence of future glory. What must inspire every generous spectator with some degree of prejudice in favour of the young adven REMARKS BY THE CRITICAL.' 71 turer, and with the hope, at least, that he may not encounter an ignominious defeat, is the courtesy displayed by him towards his veteran adversary, whom he treats with uncommon respect and deference, and whom he loads with the most profuse and liberal praise. After a detailed description of the style and method of the rival translators, the Critical' sums up its comparison by saying: Mr. Gifford has made a very intelligible and entertaining work; Mr. Hodgson has enriched the language of his native country by some of the noblest poetry to be found in it. It then proceeds to particular criticisms. In the terrible Sixth Satire Mr. Hodgson's powers appear both original and splendid, even when contrasted with one or two most signal triumphs. achieved by the genius of Dryden. Even the description of Messalina, the most finished and most spirited morceau that can perhaps be found in the whole translated works of that mighty master, appears to us to be rivalled by the same passage as it is represented in the volume before us. If our classical readers will compare these wonderful bursts of poetic fire, we are persuaded that they will, at least, think it doubtful to which the preference onght to be justly awarded. A quotation from the Sixth Satire follows, and the Review remarks upon it: 'Can anything exceed the boldness, the spirit, the dramatic effect of this domestic scene?' Another quotation from Satire xii. 101. elicits a just tribute to Hodgson's talents for tender and interesting poetry, and picturesque description of natural objects. This beautiful picture reminds one of all that is soft and fresh and brilliant in the loveliest sea-pieces of Claude, whose delicate and alluring style has been less frequently attempted by the strong hand of Juvenal than the coarser taste which suggested a copy of vulgar but striking objects to the faithful pencil of Teniers. The Third Satire proves Mr. Hodgson to possess much of the skill, humour, and correctness that distinguish the Flemish artists.1 The sea-piece, which suggested a comparison with Claude's painting may certainly be considered more picturesque than its original; only those who have witnessed such a scene on the Italian coast can fully appreciate its simple grace and fidelity. 1 Sat. xii. 69-82. BYRON'S OPINION. 73 The Critical' concludes by drawing attention to Hodgson's extraordinary talent for satire, declaring its sense of the duty of giving honour to whom honour is due, not only in justice to the author himself, but to the public, whose judgment was in danger of being misdirected by that class of critics who made it their constant practice to pass indiscriminate censure upon young aspirants to literary fame, thereby too often suppressing further endeavours. Of Mr. Hodgson the Review thought it bare justice to declare that he had displayed all the essential qualities of a poet to be found in a translation, and added a hope that there might soon be an opportunity of appreciating his claims to the higher praise of invention and original composition. Having already stated that it thought him peculiarly gifted with poetical talents, the Review is satisfied that he cannot be at a loss for proper objects on which to employ them while our Tartuffes are daily assuming a thousand disguises, and while cold-blooded metaphysicians pretend to regulate the public taste in regard to Poetry and the Belles Lettres. This complimentary critique was soon afterwards endorsed by Lord Byron. In one of the last stanzas of 'English Bards' he apostrophises his Alma Mater— |