the same comminglings of mirth and melancholy; the same many-sided conception of existence; the same embracing catholicity of tastes and tendencies; the same indifference to sects and factions; the same freedom from jealousies, asperities, and spites; and in the lower scale of his genius, he resembled the mighty dramatist in subtile perception of life and Nature, in his mental and moral independence, and in his intuitive divinations of abstract truth and individual character.

As a poet of the poor, Crabbe is the only poet with whom he can be critically compared.  The comparison would be a contrast; and in order to handle it to any purpose, a long essay would be required.  Hood wrote but a few short lyrics on the poor; Crabbe wrote volumes.  Crabbe was literal:  Hood ideal.  Crabbe was concrete; Hood was abstract.  Crabbe lived among the rural poor; Hood among the city poor.  Crabbe saw the poor constantly, and went minutely and practically into the interior of their life; if Hood ever directly saw them at all, it was merely with casual glimpses, and he must have learned of them only by occasional report.  Crabbe was a man of vigorous constitution, he lived a hardy life, and he lived it long; Hood was a man of feeble health, he lived a life of pain, and he closed it early.  Crabbe had a hard youth, but after that a certain and settled competence; Hood’s was also a youth of struggle, but struggle was his destiny to the end.  These radical and circumstantial differences between the men will account for their different modes in thinking and writing of the poor.  But both were men of genius, of genial humanity, and of singular originality.  No one who reads Crabbe’s writings will deny him genius; no one who reads them with adequate sympathy and attention will deny that his genius is vital with passion and imagination.  Only the latent heat of passion and imagination could save these seemingly bald and monotonous narratives from being as dull as a dictionary.  But they are not so; they have an interest which holds the reader with a fixedness of grasp which he cannot loosen.  Crabbe’s poetry of the poor is slow and epic; Hood’s is rapid and lyrical.  Crabbe’s characters are only actual and intensified individuals; Hood’s characters are idealized and representative persons.  Hood gives you only the pathetic or tragical essentials; but, along with these, Crabbe gives you the complexity and detail of life which surrounded them.  Hood presents you with the picture of a lonely woman at midnight toiling and starving in the slavery of sewing; but Crabbe would trace her from her quiet country-home, through the follies which led her to a London garret.  Hood, in his “Lay of the Laborer,” makes you listen to the wail of a strong man imploring leave to toil; Crabbe would find him drunk in the beer-house or the gin-shop, and then carry you on to the catastrophe in his ruined home or in his penal death.  Hood, in his “Bridge of Sighs,” brings you into the presence of death,