Southey cannot but reverence: he has
told us that he does: and, if he had not, his own originality and
splendour of genius would be sufficient pledges that he did. That which
is peculiar to Mr. Wordsworth's theory, Mr. Southey may disapprove: he
may think that it narrows the province of the poet too much in one
part--that, in another part, it impairs the instrument with which he is
to work. Thus far he may disapprove; and, after all, deduct no more from
the merits of Mr. Wordsworth, than he will perhaps deduct from those of
Milton, for having too often allowed a Latin or Hebraic structure of
language to injure the purity of his diction. To whatsoever extent,
however, the disapprobation of Mr. Southey goes, certain it is (for his
own practice shows it) that he does disapprove the _innovations_ of Mr.
Wordsworth's theory--very laughably illustrates the sagacity of modern
English critics: they were told that Mr. Southey held and practised a
certain system of innovations: so far their error was an error of
misinformation: but next they turn to Mr. Southey's works, and there
they fancy that they find in every line an illustration of the erroneous
tenets which their misinformation had led them to expect that they
should find. A more unfortunate blunder, one more confounding to the
most adventurous presumption, can hardly be imagined. A system, which no
man could act upon unless deliberately and with great effort and labour
of composition, is supposed to be exemplified in the works of a poet who
uniformly rejects it: and this ludicrous blunder arises not from any
over-refinements in criticism (such, for instance, as led Warburton to
find in Shakspeare what the poet himself never dreamt of), but from no
more creditable cause than a misreport of some blue-stocking miss either
maliciously or ignorantly palmed upon a critic whose understanding
passively surrendered itself to anything however gross.

Such are the two modes in which the names of these two eminent men have
been coupled. As true patriots they are deservedly coupled: as poets
their names cannot be justly connected by any stricter bond than that
which connects all men of high creative genius. This distinction, as to
the main grounds of affinity and difference between the two writers, was
open and clear to any unprejudiced mind prepared for such
investigations, and we should at any rate have pointed it out at one
time or other for the sake of exposing the hollowness of th