three volumes as bulky as Dr. Randall's. Many of these anecdotes are probably false or exaggerated statements of facts generally credited. It will require, however, more than one short Article, even though endorsed by so respectable a Review as the North American, and founded on a granddaughter's recollections of her "dear grandfather," wholly to relieve the public mind of its settled convictions.

Jefferson has now been dead about six and thirty years, and before the prescribed time, before his half century of posthumous fame has run out, his canonization is called for. "In the course of human events it becomes necessary," if not to install him outright in saintship, to take the steps of initiation, to begin the ceremony by examining his credentials, extolling his virtues, concealing his faults, exposing his remains and by pointing his adorers to the beatified object of their worship. Before, however, he is admitted to full celestial honors, we have something to say in disparagement of his claims to such exaltation.

"The characters of her great men," says the Review, by way of introduction, "are a part of the Nation's wealth. For a time, while party conflict rages, the people may seem indifferent to this portion of their possessions; nay, one half of them may appear to take pride in destroying it. But the lapse of a generation or two removes much that is extraneous and accidental from the history of the conspicuous agents in public events; charges that were based not on facts but on inferences pass into oblivion; and acts that were viewed with abhorrence when recent are seen in retrospect to have been excusable, innocent, and even praiseworthy. Such has been the case with regard to Mr. Jefferson." This paragraph, with the exception of the last sentence, is certainly true, and we have to add only, what is equally clear, that in estimating the nation's wealth in great men much will depend upon the genuineness of the article. Spurious greatness, or greatness reckoned by figures of speech without exact calculations, or at its apprisement in market, or on a sliding scale to meet the demand of progressive history," will not, materially, add to that species of property of which the Review speaks. "This portion of

66

their possessions," too, to which at times the people may seem indifferent, admits of valuation according to kind as well as quality. Intellectual power, lasting achievements in state policy, diplomacy, or letters, moral excellence in public or private life, are worth more than physical force, transient, political or literary honors, or the most polished deportment without the charm of virtue. If in our haste to multiply our treasures, we mistake, for example, a politician for a statesman, a wordy professor of morality for one of its practical disciples, or infer from the existence of one useful art, trait, or accomplishment, that others must be present, or that distinction in one sphere of action confers fame in another, our real capital in great and good men is essentially reduced. For the benefit of the "detective police," likenesses of the principal rogues in the city of New York are arranged in a gallery. There are to be seen eminent individuals, public men in various departments of human enterprise, "leading pick-pockets," "leading burglars," "general thieves," "notable counterfeiters," robbers, forgers, and assassins. Upon looking at their countenances, feigned names, &c., the thought occurred to us, is the wealth of the nation much enhanced by such possessions as are here represented? Would it be enhanced, if, on account of the superior intelligence of these men, their dexterity in the use of weapons, or handycraft at various trades, insinuating address and confidential manners, great and good qualities should be ascribed to them;-if, after the Carlyle fashion there should be inscribed upon their portraits "hero as king," "hero as priest," "hero as saint," "hero as man of letters." We would not by this general comparison press the portrait of the third president of the United States into such companionship, but would have it remain in the gallery of American Statesmen. Our complaint, however, begins when he is not truly represented; when through the laborious performance of Dr. Randall,-who, in his portraiture, viewed as a work of art, has mixed ample materials without seeming to know exactly how to use his brush,-assisted by the graceful sketching of the Review, the old and familiar character of Thomas Jefferson comes up with a new and radiant face; when qualities are

ascribed to him which he never had; opinions which he never held; sentiments which he never uttered; when on account of his strong intellect, eminent services in behalf of his country, courteous manners and domestic attachments, he is projected in such gigantic proportions of moral excellence that all his imperfections fade away; when having filled one high office as chief of a party or chief of the state, he is exalted to another, and when this hero, as high priest of democracy, becomes ex officio a high priest in holy orders.

Dr. Johnson, in "Lives of the Poets," says in substance that compliance with times, and desire to please friends, constitute the great bane of biography. There never was a fuller confirmation of the truth of this saying than in the new version of Mr. Jefferson's private history. The publication of his correspondence, in 1829, by his grandson, to whom the papers were bequeathed, was not quite satisfactory all round the circle of his admirers and surviving friends. The Review is pleasant and particular over that selection, and discourses upon its merits in this style: "The publication of Mr. Jefferson's writings did much to change the impression of his character in the minds of the younger portion of his countrymen, and they saw with surprise that the man, so held in abhorrence, had been engaged during his whole career in laying open his heart to his numerous correspondents, avowing most freely his opinions on public events and abstract topics, and that no unworthy sentiment, no base motive, no selfish views could be traced in a single line of the voluminous collection." Professor Tucker, however, in his Memoirs, takes an opposite view of the same production. "The maledictions of his enemies," he says, "have of late years been more frequent than the commendations of his friends. From the want of caution in making that publication," (his papers and correspondence), "owing, it is presumed, to a mistaken opinion of the claims of the public, the ill will which had been felt against Mr. Jefferson received a new impulse, and was, in a measure, imparted to a new generation." The North American, too, felt that after all something was wanting, as a means of knowing the true character of the man, before the advent of Dr.

Randall's biography. It speaks of the value of having the testimony of those who saw Mr. Jefferson most closely and for the longest time, and then says, "Mr. Randall has produced this for us by direct questioning of Mr. Jefferson's descendants." Let us see, then, how this gentleman proceeded to obtain the desired information by his "direct questioning?" The manner in which this was done we may infer from the inquiries put to Dr. Dunglison, and from his response which we quote. "You ask," says Dr. Dunglison, "what were his private virtues that appeared conspicuous to all his acquaintances. I would say, in your language, that he was always, in my observation, 'peculiarly decorous, modest, and decent in all things." With such questioning of Mr. Jefferson's descendants, it is not surprising that their replies should cover more than all debatable ground, and that there should be no longer "something wanting," but something to spare.

Daniel Webster, who visited the "sage of Monticello," in 1824, had criticised, in a private correspondence, his person, dress, manners, and opinions; had mentioned, among other peculiarities, his being "addicted to French tastes, French manners, and French principles;" had said that though he was "often unjustly attacked by the Federalists, they did him no injustice in charging upon him a preference for French opinions, whether in politics, morals, or religion." "These descriptions," says Dr. Randall, "appearing to us to lack some necessary gradations and qualifications of expression, we sought an opinion on them from one as familiar with Mr. Jefferson, his views and modes of expression, as one ever was, and received the following reply: "My dear Mr. Randall, Mr. Webster's description of Mr. Jefferson's personal appearance does not please me; though I will not stop to quarrel with any of the details. The general impression it was calculated to produce seemed to me an unfavorable one; that is, a person who had never seen my grandfather, would, from Mr. Webster's description, have thought him rather an ill looking man, which certainly he was not. It would, however, be dif ficult for me to give, an accurate description of one. I so tenderly loved and deeply venerated." Mr. Webster had referred to

Jefferson's expressed alarm at the prospect of seeing Jackson president of the United States and to his strictures on Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry. Dr. Randall offers the following testimony obtained from the source already referred to. "Mr. Webster has too highly colored the Jackson portrait. I do not remember to have heard Mr. Jefferson speak of Jackson except with reference to the general idea that a (military) chieftain was no proper head of a peaceful republic. In like manner I never heard him speak of Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry with the amount of severity recorded by Mr. Webster." As the observations of the latter, however, are specific, relating to what he saw and heard, while the letter writer speaks only of what she presumed to be her grandfather's sentiments, the reader can judge which of the two descriptions lacks the necessary gradations and qualifications of expression, and whether the "Jackson portrait" is "too highly colored."

Thomas Jefferson Randolph, when questioned, stated in a letter to Dr. Randall that he had seen in the countenance of his grandfather expressions of sorrow, but never the slightest expression of anger or unquietness. Some of the elder members of the family had seen such expressions in two instances and had spoken of them as remarkable. This incongruity required explanation and conference. Two anecdotes are furnished which are minutely related, giving the exact time, place, and circumstances in which this phenomenon was visible, and "the noble and serene countenance of Mr. Jefferson" was obscured by a passing cloud. Everything, in short, in these Memoirs seems to be explained in a way most satisfactory to the surviving friends and relations of the great statesman, from grave questions in politics and theology, down to his predilections for "red breeches," for which he was distinguished as our minister near the court of France.

Now if these extracts and our comments upon them seem to any person to be frivolous, we reply that in our opinion they are necessary to a correct understanding of the motives of the committee of conference and adjustment over the dilapidated condition of the character before us, and as preliminary to what we have chiefly in view in writing this