TEAFFRESON'S NOVELS AND NOVELISTS. * CENSURE has been thrown upon this

book of Mr. Jeaffreson on ac- count of the novelists whose lives he has omitted. To this charge he has replied in effect, that to include every English writer of prose fiction formed no part of his plan. Biography was not the sole, scarcely indeed the primary object of his work. Novels quite as much as their writers were his subject, his purpose being to present a history or review of our distinctive English novels, in connexion with the biographies of their authors. And had Mr. Jeaffreson but adhered to his plan, this reply was generally suffi- cient as to the mere fact of leaving out, whatever may be thought of some of the novelists he has put in.

A thorough book upon the plan which Mr. Jeaffreson seems originally to have designed would be of interest and value. In addition to the lives of some remarkable men, and the particular criticism on many remarkable books, it would furnish a tolerably complete picture of manners, morals, and social opinion, in the times it undertook to display. The story and incidents of a novel —that is, according to Mr. Jeaffreson's idea a picture of actual life in opposition to supernatural or historical romance, must not indeed be taken as a literal representation of the age in which it is produced, even if seemingly verified by contemporary praise and popularity. The typical character and breadth necessary to art, with the general tendency in writers to exaggerate for effect, prevent us from receiving a novel as a common representation of the lives of its contemporaries. Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle may not truly depict the profligacy and adventures of young professional men and young gentlemen of a century ago ; but they probably come nearer to it—give a more average notion of it than any other representation we can get. Manners and customs are beyond all question more truly pourtrayed in a first- class contemporary novel than in any other form because we have the living persons and not the mere elements Of which they are made up. Above ail, they present to us the practical moral tone of the age, if not its actual morality. Englishmen in general might not be so loose as the novels of Smollett painted them ; but actual morals and moral opinion were both bad enough, when such works were not only popular, but looked upon as standard if not as classics.

The treatment to which novels should be subjected in the kind of work we speak of, is something quite distinct from mere literary " notice " or particular criticism. That may be rightly included in an estimate of the novelist; but when novels are con- sidered as a representation of the time they must be subjected to a different process. You must analyze the work and reproduce its elements in the form of general conclusions. Into what kind of world does this writer introduce us, so far as it may be de- corous to show it ? what are the character and conduct of his ac- tors ? what are the topics and style of the conversation ? what are the fashions of the day as indicated in behaviour, dress, and domestic economy ? These are the questions the critic must reply to, and then comes the larger question of to what extent and how truly the novelist correctly represents the age. This kind of treatment Mr. Jeaffreson hasnot attempted, if he even thought of it ; nor is the execution of a very striking kind upon the -whole, even if judged by the common mode of exhibiting a view . of poetical or other literature by means of "biographical and cri- cal notices with specimens." Mr. Jeaffreson inserts the once .celebrated Duchess of Newcastle, though amid her multifarious ,productions she never wrote even a tale ; he omits Horace

-Walpole whose "Castle of Otranto" originated the modern ro- mance ; and the inferior character of the story cannot have been the cause of the omission, for he gives a notice of Clara Reeve, the authoress of "The Old English Baron," which is at all events no better than "The Castle of Otranto," and is besides an imita- .tion of Walpole. Objection might probably be offered to other -• Novels god Yorelists from .Flizabeth to Victoria. By J. Cordy Jeaffreson. Atuthor Crewe Rise," &c. 8m. In two volumes. Published by Hurst and Bladirta, names of the last century- but they are nothing compared with th writers that may be called contemporary. Upwards of eightve novelists of this class, some dead, as Scott, Ome, others livisz" as Bulwer Lytton, Disraeli, Dickens, Thackeray, are all paeht7,1 into a single volume. How very closely some of them ore squeezed may be instanced in the case of Mr. St. John, who with his family is tucked up in less than a page.

"This excellent writer and persevering scholar has rendered good sem.- to literature, not only in his works, but also in begetting three sons elegant and accomplished authors as himself. Mr. James Augustus St John's best known works of fiction are ' Tales of the Ramadhan,' Ravenscroft,' and Sir Cosmo Digby.' The author of these works was bor, in Carrnarthenshire ; and in 1819, while still a boy, married, and daringly flung himself on authorship for support. This courageous, in the opinion-.

some, perhaps, reckless step, has 'been followed by a life of stem literary °

exertion, diversified by bursts of foreign travel and adventure, the fruits a

which will assist to render the present generation bright in the eyes of posterity.

"Mr. St. John has six sons, of whom three are authors of considerable name and great promise. Mr. Bill° St. John has produced, besides nu- merous powerful sketches of foreign life and manners, The Louvre' Purple Tints of Paris,' andMaretima, a Story of Adventure.' Mr. Pere'y St. John is the author of The King's Musketeer, an Historical Romance'. Paul Peabody,' and numerous other works of fiction' and Mr. Horace St". John is honourably known by his Indian Archipelago; and' History of the British Conquests in India.' " The performance does not redeem the defects in the plan of the book, as regards minute accuracy or very often literary criti- cism. Perhaps the former could hardly be looked for from the habits of a novelist, but in the life of Greene (as often in other places,) Mr. Jeaffreson pays small regard to ii.ronology ; though in Greene's case, the latest life by Mr. Bell, was before him. Our author says that Greene "was educated at St. John's College, Cambridge, in which University he took the degree of LA, 1583." He took the degree of B.A. at St. John's College in 1578, and of M.A. at Clare Hall in 1583. The whole career of this re- markable man is jumbled ; the account of his novels is slight and imperfect, extending little beyond a list of titles; and the literary criticism is not very penetrating, although the specimens quoted from the "Palmer's Tale," alone furnish characteristic materials. Throughout the book there are contradictory opinions in this way. When Mr. Jeaffreson generalizes upon any thing, he does it with a sort of mixture of Macaulay and Dickens, where truth is sacri- ficed to sounding sentences ; when he looks at particulars, whe- ther of conduct or criticism, his judgment is truer. For instance, he says, "the author's by profession of the Elizabethan age were the veriest wretches that a love of letters ever pulled down with starvation and pricked up with contumely "the fortune which Shakspere made and the profligate lives led by the men he is speaking of being overlooked. When he comes to the life of Goldsmith, he says the same thing of "the middle of the last century," though in less grandiose terms. As the author of "Robinson Crusoe," as a "liberal," and a Dissenter, Be Foe comes in for the usual share of general praise. When Mr. Jeaffre- son comes to deal with particulars, we find that De Foe's mis- fortunes were in his critic's opinion mainly traceable to himself —that he was an extravagant man, who sought to make good his lavish expenditure by reckless speculations, or, what is worse, pandering to the popillar taste.

"Why did not De Foe, with such an unexampled capability as a writer of fiction occupy himself earnestly in his art? Why did he not expend thought, and long years, in elaborating two such works as Robinsoa Crusoe ' or the commencement of Colonel Jack,' instead of scribbling page after page, without consideration enough to avoid dullness, stories replete with obscenities he must have disapproved, and nonsense that lie must have grinned at with contempt even while the pen was in his hand? Foster, in his graphic and fascinating sketch of De Foe and his times, bids us remember, when judging of Moll Flanders' and 'Rexene,' the tone of society at the time of their appearance. Without a doubt, measured by the standard of the vicious literature of the Restoration and the two suc- ceeding ages, they do not especially sin against purity of morals. But in this we cannot find a valid apology for Be Foe' who in composing them, put his hand to works that all serious men of his own religious views must have regarded with warm disapproval. De Foe was not by profes- sion amongst the frivolous or godless of his generation ; he was loud in his condemation of the stage, of gambling, and of debauchery; he not only knew that voluptuous excess was criminal, but he raised his voice to shame it out of society,—and yet he exercised his talents in depicting scenes of sensual enjoyment, which no virtuous nature can dwell on without pain— no vicious one without pleasure. What was his motive ? Money.

• • *

"And here [the ghost story of Mrs. Veal] we find the secret of this great man's shame. He was a man of somewhat expensive habits, continually entering into rash monetary speculations, and burdened with debts, which in honour he felt himself bound to discharge. Of tall men he was just the one to be called upon for large sums of wealth, and to have little in hand to meet such demands. His pen was a ready one at earning money; he could turn off any composition with facility; and as' just then, tales (highly seasoned) met with the best prices in the market, he wrote them as fast as his pen could run over the paper, and spited them up to the palates of his employers. And what trash (dishonest quack gibberish to get pen- nies from the crowd,) poured in unceasing flow from him, it grieves one to reflect."

This will not be popular with many readers. The hard, not to say harsh interpretation of Goldsmith's career and character will be even less so, for affection for Goldy is almost a national trait. This sternness of moral disquisition applied to particular men or particular actions, is however the most striking feature of the book; and though we may think the author not sufficiently toler- ant, or disposed to make sufficient allowance, we conceive him tc be often more right in conclusion than the popular cants i he s opposing. His life of Hook, his character of Mr. Macleane, L. E. L's husband, are pieces of uncompromising commentary. Here is a bit from his notice of Scott's affairs.

/6 when the creditors were most indignant, and were proclaiming the settlement of Abbotsford a fraudulent one, Scott met them boldly, and in a resolute manner made them an offer which was in substance just this. rrooa gentlemen deal hardly by me and you shall be dealt hardly by ; go law, and wrench Abbotsford from me and my son, if you like' should you ec in your attempt, when you've sold me up, what with delay and ruinouslaw expenses, a miserable dividend you'll get ; so much the law will anaw you, and no more shall you have ; but wait with patience, spare Abottsford—the child of my vanity—spare my.pride—and in return I'll fork for you, work for you till every penny is paid. There has been much talk about Scott's honourable conduct to his creditors ; the epithet is most

out of place ;

honour, and consideration to them, never entered into Sir Walter's calculations ; his object was to have Abbotsford to himself and his family, and to achieve that he offered the only terms that were likely to be accepted. Had Scott been the chivalrously honourable man in this matter, that some would wish to represent him, he would have done his best to let his creditors have Abbotsford., and every chattel it contained, for the imme- diate payment of a large portion of his debt, and would then have worked hard to pay the remainder." We have spoken of the criticism on Greene as poor ; a similar remark may be made on Mrs. Behu, and the once notorious Mrs. Manley. It should therefore be said that many of the criticisms exhibit acumen though we may not agree with the conclusion of the writer. Amid the various blemishes and defects of the book there is a good deal of vigorous writing, and very free comments on some contemporary celebrities who could be drawn into the list of novel writers.