theatre made him the hero of the day.  In the spring of 1843 Southey died, and Sir Robert Peel pressed Wordsworth to succeed him in the office of Poet-Laureate.  “It is a tribute of respect,” said the Minister, “justly due to the first of living poets.”  But almost immediately the light of his common popularity was eclipsed by Tennyson, as it had earlier been eclipsed by Scott, by Byron, and in some degree by Shelley.  Yet his fame among those who know, among competent critics with a right to judge, to-day stands higher than it ever stood.  Only two writers have contributed so many lines of daily popularity and application.  In the handbooks of familiar quotations Wordsworth fills more space than anybody save Shakespeare and Pope.  He exerted commanding influence over great minds that have powerfully affected our generation.  “I never before,” said George Eliot in the days when her character was forming itself (1839), “met with so many of my own feelings expressed just as I should like them,” and her reverence for Wordsworth remained to the end.  J.S.  Mill has described how important an event in his life was his first reading of Wordsworth.  “What made his poems a medicine for my state of mind was that they expressed not mere outward beauty, but states of feeling and of thought coloured by feeling, under the excitement of beauty.  I needed to be made to feel that there was real permanent happiness in tranquil contemplation.  Wordsworth taught me this, not only without turning away from, but with greatly increased interest in the common feelings and common destiny of human beings” (Autobiog., 148).  This effect of Wordsworth on Mill is the very illustration of the phrase of a later poet of our own day, one of the most eminent and by his friends best beloved of all those whom Wordsworth had known, and on whom he poured out a generous portion of his own best spirit:—­

  Time may restore us in his course
  Goethe’s sage mind and Byron’s force. 
  But where will Europe’s latter hour
  Again find Wordsworth’s healing power?

It is the power for which Matthew Arnold found this happy designation that compensates us for that absence of excitement of which the heedless complain in Wordsworth’s verse—­excitement so often meaning mental fever, hysterics, distorted passion, or other fitful agitation of the soul.

Pretensions are sometimes advanced as to Wordsworth’s historic position, which involve a mistaken view of literary history.  Thus, we are gravely told by the too zealous Wordsworthian that the so-called poets of the eighteenth century were simply men of letters; they had various accomplishments and great general ability, but their thoughts were expressed in prose, or in mere metrical diction, which passed current as poetry without being so.  Yet Burns belonged wholly to the eighteenth century (1759-96), and no verse-writer is so little literary as Burns, so little prosaic; no writer more truly poetic in melody, diction,