Byrom and Law like Johnson and Boswell. 63

have been proud of My time, O ye Muses, &c.,' and to have considered it as his chef-d'œuvre.

We have already seen that Byrom, like Law, was attached to the exiled Stuarts; but he had not, like Law, the courage of his opinions. Still, their political sympathies were, no doubt, a bond of union between them. But there were other bonds stronger than this. Byrom resided for a time in France, and there met with Malebranche's 'Search after Truth,' and some of the works of Madame Antonia Bourignon. Both these authors fascinated him extremely, and of course prepared the way for those mystic views which, under the direction of Law, he afterwards ardently embraced.

It is from Byrom's private journal that we derive our best information about Law at Putney. His accounts of his continual meetings with Law, and the reports of the conversations between them are most interesting and amusing, perhaps none the less so for being mixed up in a rather bewildering way with the minutest details about the writer's own habits and tastes. In fact, they are so good that it is provoking that they were not made still better by being worked up into a regular life of his friend, instead of appearing as mere disjointed fragments. Byrom might perhaps have done for Law what Boswell did for Johnson. There is a very curious resemblance between the relations of the two men to their respective heroes. Both not only received with perfect complacency the snubs which their patrons were continually administering to them, but also chronicled those snubs with the utmost simplicity. Both were rewarded by the great men with compliments and expressions of love and esteem. Both fought their principals' battles with more than their principals' ardour. But, as Law was a more strictly religious man than Johnson,' so

'Dr. Johnson's attitude towards Christianity is very happily hit off by Mr. Leslie Stephen. Johnson, as we know him, was a man of the world, though

Byrom was a more reputable man than Boswell. We hear of no such escapades on the part of Byrom as those which Boswell naively reports about himself. Still, Byrom was as much more lax than Law as Boswell was than Johnson. His journal indicates a curious conflict between the Church and the world on the part of the writer. One finds such odd medleys as these: April 4, 1735. Captain Mainwaring, from Chester, called, and we drank a bottle of old hock, 30 years old, and talked about religion and Mr. Law. 'Jan. 31st, 1730. Supper at Mitre with Chilton, Hough, &c.; talked about Hebrew points, happiness, Mr. Law, stage plays; we paid 2s.; I had two bottles-too much for a defender of Law to drink.' 'Rose at 10 o'clock, rose at 9.30, rose at II,' are entries of constant occurrence, in utter defiance of Law's rule that early rising was almost essential to the Christian character.

This, however, is anticipating. The first entry in the journal which indicates any intimacy between Byrom and his mentor is dated March 1729. On February 15 of the same year he records 'Bought Law's "Serious Call" of Rivington.' Three days later he writes to Phoebe Byrom, 'I have bought Mr. Law's book since I came to town, but have had no time to read him yet. I find the young folks of my acquaintance think Mr. Law an impracticable, strange, whimsical writer, but I am not convinced by their reasons. Yesterday, Mr. Mildmay bought it because I said so much. of it; he is a very pretty young gentleman. But, for Mr. Law and Christian religion, and such things, they are mightily out of fashion at present.' About a fortnight afterwards we find that Byrom had made time not only to read Mr. Law's book, but also, after his wont, to turn a

a religious man of the world. He represents the secular rather than the ecclesiastical type.'-Johnson ('English Men of Letters '), p. 10. Law most decidedly represents the ecclesiastical.

Byrom visits Law at Putney.

65

passage of it into rhyme. On March 4, 1729, is the first recorded interview between Law and his future disciple, which is well worth quoting in full. Byrom writes: 'We,' (i.e. himself and the pretty young gentleman' mentioned in the last entry) 'went to the Bull Inn, Putney, and sent to Mr. Law that we should wait on him in the afternoon; it was then near two o'clock; while we were eating a mutton chop Mr. Law came to us, and we went with him to Mr. Gibbon's, where we walked in the gardens and upstairs into some rooms, the library, and then we sat in a parlour below with Mr. Law and young G., who left us after a little while over a bottle of French wine. We talked about F. Malebranche much; Mr. Law said he owed it to him that he kept his act at Cambridge upon "Omnia videmus in Deo;" that meeting with the book without any recommendation of it, he found all other books were trifling to this! Nay, so far does he admire the author, that if he knew anybody who had conversed with him much he would go to Paris on purpose to talk with him. I told him I would go with him. We talked about his book, and I made some of the common objections. I repeated the verses about

the Pond to him' and Mildmay, and they laughed, and Mr. Law said he must have a copy of them, and desired I would not put the whole book into verse, for then it would not sell in prose-so the good man can joke!' After a few more observations not worth repeating, Byrom concludes, 'He lent me the Eloge upon Father Malebranche, and said he would find me out at London; we left directions where we both lived. He brought us to the water-side, &c.'

1 The verses about the 'Pond' were a poetical version of the capital story in the Serious Call' of the man who spent his life in getting from all sources water to fill his pond, and, when it was filled, drowned himself in it. Wrenched from its context, as it appears in Byrom's poem, the story seems absurdly extravagant; introduced as it is by Law in the Serious Call,' it is an admirable one; to say nothing of the superiority of Law's prose over Byrom's verse.

F

66

Byrom visits Law at Cambridge.

This interview between Law and Byrom evidently ended to the satisfaction of both, and from that time sprang up an odd intimacy between these two good men who were in most respects singularly unlike one another. We next find them both at Cambridge-Law in his capacity of tutor or governor to young Mr. Gibbon, Byrom apparently on an expedition after pupils for a new system of shorthand which he had invented, and by teaching which he at this time mainly supported himself and his family. He was particularly anxious to secure Gibbon on account of his connexion with Law, but found him a difficult pupil to catch, and not a very satisfactory one when caught. Thus, we find him writing to Mrs. Byrom: Jan. 30, 1730. Going to Emmanuel; . . . . I had a mind not to miss a gentleman or two whom I like, and especially had a desire to enter Mr. Law's pupil, but question now whether I shall, because he is always saying he will learn, but not to me, or else I would fain have him for his tutor's sake.' The shy bird, however, was caught, for within a few days we have the entry: 'Mr. Gibbon had appointed to come and begin shorthand, which he did. Mr. Gibbon, of Emmanuel (Mr. Law's pupil), began Candlemas Day, 1730.' The pupil was not an apt one, but Byrom was more than repaid by the approbation of his tutor. At the second lesson, he finds that Gibbon, who had been "playing," he said, at quadrille [what did Mr. Law say to that?] had writ a little, but very ill, for he makes his letters wretchedly, but reads pretty well. Mr. Law came in while we were at it, and sat with us, and I ran over the theory of it with him, and he took it immediately and seemed much pleased with it; said he had never so good a notion of it before, that it was of great use and well contrived, that he was much tempted to learn it; I exhorted him to try; he said the theory of it he saw plainly, and I could say nothing of it, but he would

Byrom teaches Law's Pupil Shorthand.

.

67

allow all the fine things that could be said; I was much pleased that it pleased a man for whom I have a great veneration; he said I should have more pains with Mr. G., because he wrote a very bad hand; he asked me if I smoked, but I said "No, not alone;" we had a bottle of wine; he drank none, I think, I two or three glasses; . . appointed to call to-morrow. Mr. Law made Mr. Gibbon go to the porter's with me to let me out.' On the morrow, Byrom found 'Mr. Gibbon had done nothing.' 'What a pity,' he adds, 'he should be so slow, for Law's sake.' There was a reward, however, in store for him. The next day, 'going to Emmanuel, I met Mr. Gibbon and Bridgman, so appointed to-morrow. N.B.- Bridgman said that he had been with Law, who had commended our shorthand much, was glad that Gibbon had learned it, and said that it was THE SHORTHAND.' Gibbon, however, would not learn it; it was impossible to fix the volatile pupil. One day, Byrom 'went to Gibbon, but Law said he was gone to the Westminster Club;' on another, went to Gibbon's, but he was gone to Huntingdon, Law said;' on another, 'went to Emmanuel, Gibbon was in the Combination, Law sent for him,' and so forth. Trifling as these details are in themselves, they are well worth noting as illustrative not only of the character of Law's pupil, but also to a certain extent of Law's own capacity for the office of tutor. He and Gibbon were evidently in no way congenial spirits, and Law appears to have had little or no influence over his pupil. One can well understand, therefore, why, when the Cambridge career was over, the pupil should have gone forth on his travels alone, and the tutor have been left behind at Putney, where there were others who appreciated him better, and where he found more congenial and useful occupation than managing a dull, vacillating young man. The only other allusion in Byrom's journal to Law's unsatis