What Wordsworth did was to deal with themes that had been partially handled by precursors and contemporaries, in a larger and more devoted spirit, with wider amplitude of illustration, and with the steadfastness and persistency of a religious teacher.  “Every great poet is a teacher,” he said; “I wish to be considered as a teacher or as nothing.”  It may be doubted whether his general proposition is at all true, and whether it is any more the essential business of a poet to be a teacher than it was the business of Handel, Beethoven, or Mozart.  They attune the soul to high states of feeling; the direct lesson is often as nought.  But of himself no view could be more sound.  He is a teacher, or he is nothing.  “To console the afflicted; to add sunshine to daylight by making the happy happier; to teach the young and the gracious of every age to see, to think, and feel, and therefore to become more actively and sincerely virtuous”—­that was his vocation; to show that the mutual adaptation of the external world and the inner mind is able to shape a paradise from the “simple produce of the common day”—­that was his high argument.

Simplification was, as I have said elsewhere, the keynote of the revolutionary time.  Wordsworth was its purest exponent, but he had one remarkable peculiarity, which made him, in England at least, not only its purest but its greatest.  While leading men to pierce below the artificial and conventional to the natural man and natural life, as Rousseau did, Wordsworth still cherished the symbols, the traditions, and the great institutes of social order.  Simplification of life and thought and feeling was to be accomplished without summoning up the dangerous spirit of destruction and revolt.  Wordsworth lived with nature, yet waged no angry railing war against society.  The chief opposing force to Wordsworth in literature was Byron.  Whatever he was in his heart, Byron in his work was drawn by all the forces of his character, genius, and circumstances to the side of violent social change, and hence the extraordinary popularity of Byron in the continental camp of emancipation.  Communion with nature is in Wordsworth’s doctrine the school of duty.  With Byron nature is the mighty consoler and the vindicator of the rebel.

A curious thing, which we may note in passing, is that Wordsworth, who clung fervently to the historic foundations of society as it stands, was wholly indifferent to history; while Byron, on the contrary, as the fourth canto of Childe Harold is enough to show, had at least the sentiment of history in as great a degree as any poet that ever lived, and has given to it by far the most magnificent expression.  No doubt, it was history on its romantic, rather than its philosophic or its political side.