« PreviousContinue »
A. HART, Late CAREY & HART.
MOW ONE OF THE JUDGES OP THE CODET OF SESSION IN SCOTLAND
COMPLETS IN ONE.
CORNER OF FOURTH AND CHESNUT STIIKKI'S.
FROM THE NEW TOHK EVENIKO MIRROR.
•• Tie true Jeffrey whom we meet with In these volume*, presents a character lomewbat of this sort :— "He wat formed undoubtedly to be the fir-' criilc of the age: and of poetry, he wag probably the belt Judge that ever lived. An intellect of the highest capacity and of a very rare order of completeness,—educated by a perfect acquaintance with the belt systems of metaphysical philoiophy,—to, In blm, pervaded and informed by those moral perceptions which indeed form во invariable an adjunct of the highest kind of great understandings, that they ought perhaps to be treated as merely the loftiest sort of mental qualities. His perception of truth it almost an instinct, and bis love of It truly conscientious. His objects, in taking up any work or subject, are to appreciate and to judge; his searching and sensitive Intelligence makes him sure of the former, and the soundness of his views fits him for the other. His temper is admirable. He seems to have no prepossessions—to be free from all vanity and jealousy—to possess a tone of impartiality and generous candour, almost cavalier in iu loftiness. He has not a particle of cant, none of the formality or pretension of professional style ; but on the contrary, writes thoroughly like a gentleman, and with the air of perfect breeding. He Inspires yon with entire confidence and a cordial liking. All his own displays are in the truest good taste—simple, easy, natural, without ambition or effort. He has the powers, the morals, and the mannen of the best style of writing. There are, however, hut two persons who stand so prominently before the world, that they deserve to be set for comparison with Jeffrey: they, of course are Carlyle and Macauley. We should distinguish them by saying that Macaulcy u a good reviewer, but a sorry critic; Carlyle an admirable critic, but a miserable reviewer ; while we look on Jeffrey as being at once the best critic and the best reviewer of the age.
"We mint content ourselves with this brief note tending to propitiate the regard of the reader, in advance, for the Lord Jeffrey; for our limits forbid extracts. Else, we could show a specimen of the most exquisite beauty In composition, and of the noblest eloquence, that the literature of any age can furnish. But the strength of Jeffrey does not lie in a paragraph, and sentences; but in the vigour, soundness and candour of the whole criticism.**