Après avoir publié un compte rendu détaillé de L'Homme des champs, le British Critic se penche en 1801 sur sa traduction anglaise par John Maunde1. L'avis est positif.
Aux yeux du critique anonyme, cette traduction, destinée aux lecteurs ne pouvant lire le français, est bienvenue : “That [L'Homme des champs] deserves to be translated is certain ; the present question only is, how far it has been rendered with success2”.
Pour le journaliste, Maunde a raison de signaler que les emprunts que Delille a fait à des poètes anglais rendaient sa tâche particulièrement ardue ; en revanche, il refuse de suivre le traducteur lorsqu'il affirme que la poésie didactique est terne :
One difficulty, peculiar to this undertaking, the translator has mentioned in a short Preface ; and it will be framed, on the smallest consideration, that it is a real difficulty. The French author, an admirer of English poetry, and deeply versed in the study of it, has drawn copiously, on many occasions, from our most familiar poets ; to restore these passages to the English language, without falling into the very strains of the original authors, was certainly a task that required both still and judgment. For these parts the translator solicits an indulgence, which cannot justly be withheld ; but at the intimation, that “didactic poems are of all others the dullest,” we can only smile, and ask our classical readers, in what part of the admirable Georgics of Virgil they can trace the finger of dulness3 ?
Pour le critique, Maunde s'est convenablement tiré d'affaire. Sa versification est fluide et son texte “will give to those who cannot read the original, no inadequate taste of its style and merits4”. Les passages les plus marquants ont été, dans l'ensemble, respectés : “we search the original for striking passages, and then enquire how far the translator has succeeded in transfusing their force and spirit into English. The enquiry has seldom failed to be favourable to his efforts5”. Il en donne des exemples tirés des chants 1 et 4.