Byrom, John

, an ingenious English writer, the younger son of Edward Byrom, a linen-draper of Manchester, was born at Kersall in the neighbourhood of that town, in 1691; and after receiving such education as his native place afforded, was removed to Merchant-Taylors school in London, where he made very extraordinary progress in classical learning, and was soon deemed fit for the university. At the age of sixteen, he was admitted a pensioner of Trinity college, Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Baker. During his residence here the proficiency he had made in classical knowledge, was probably neither remitted, nor overlooked; but he is said to have paid no greater share of attention to logic and philosophy, than was necessary to enable him to pass his examinations with credit. In 1711, he was admitted to his degree of bachelor of arts.

His inclination to poetry appeared very early, but was imparted principally to his friends and fellow-students. The first production which brought him into general notice, was probably written in his twenty-third year. At this time the beautiful pastoral of “Colin and Phebe” appeared in the eighth volume of the Spectator; and was, as it continues to be, universally admired. The Phebe of this pastoral was Joanna, daughter of the celebrated Dr. Bentley, master of Trinity college: this young and very amiable lady was afterwards married to Dr. Dennison Cumberland, bishop of Clonfert and Kilialoe, in Ireland, and was the mother of Richard Cumberland, esq. the well-known dramatic writer. It has been asserted, but without any foundation, that Byrom paid his addresses to Miss Bentley. His object was rather to recommend himself to the attention of her father, who was an admirer of the Spectators, and liLely to notice a poem of so much merit, coming, as he would soon be told, from one of his college. Byrom had before this sent two ingenious papers on the subject of dreaming to the Spectator; and these specimens of promising talent introduced him to the particular notice of Dr. Bentley, by whose interest he was chosen fellow of his college, and soon after admitted to the degree of master of arts. | Amidst this honourable progress, he does not appear to have thought of any profession, and as he declined going into the church, the statutes of the college required that he should vacate his fellowship. Perhaps the state of his health created this irresolution, for we find that in 1716 it became necessary for him to visit Montpelier upon that account; and his fellowship being lost, he returned no more to the university.

During his residence in France, he met with Malebranche’s “Search after Truth,” and some of the works of Mademoiselle Bourignon, the consequence of which, Dr. Nichols informs us, was, that he came home strongly possessed with the visionary philosophy of the former, and the enthusiastic extravagances of the latter. From the order of his poems, however, which was probably that of their respective dates, he appears to have been at first rather a disciple of the celebrated Mr. Law, and a warm opponent of those divines who were termed latitudinarian. His admiration of Malebranche, and of Bourignon, afterwards increased, but he never followed either so far as to despise human learning, in which his acquirements were great; and the delight which he took in various studies, ended only with his life. By what means he was maintained abroad, or after his return, are matters of conjecture. His biographer tells nothing of his father’s inclination or abilities to forward his pursuits. It is said that he studied medicine in London for some time; and thence acquired, among his familiar friends, the title of Doctor Byrom. But this pursuit was interrupted by his falling In love with his cousin, Elizabeth, daughter of Joseph Bylom, a mercer at Manchester, then on a visit in London. To this young lady he disclosed his passion, and followed her to Manchester, where the ardour of his addresses soon procured a favourable return. Her father, however, was extremely averse to the match, and when it took place without his consent, refused the young couple any means of support. Dr. Nichols assigns two reasons for this conduct, which are not very consistent: the one, that the father was in opulent circumstances; the other, that he thought our poet out of his senses, and therefore would not permit him to superintend the education of his children, but took that care upon himself. If so, however wrong his reasons might be, he could not be said to withdraw his support; and he was probably soon convinced that | he had formed an erroneous estimate of Viis son-in-law’s understanding and general character.

In this dilemma, however, Mr. Byrom had recourse to the teaching of short-hand writing, as a means of supporting himself and his wife, who adhered to him with affectionate tenderness in all his vicissitudes. Dr. Nichols informs us, that he had invented his short-hand at Cambridge on the following occasion: Some manuscript sermons being communicated to him, written in short-hand, he easily discovered the true reading, but observing the method to be clumsy and ill-contrived, he set about inventing a better. The account given by the editor of his System, published in 1764, is somewhat different. It is said that the first occasion of his turning his attention that way arose from his acquaintance with Mr. Sharp of Trinity college, son to archbishop Sharp. Mr. Sharp had been advised by his father to study the art, and Mr. Byrom joined him. All the systems then in vogue appearing inadequate to the end, he devised that which now goes by his name. This discovery was made, not without considerable exultation, and provoked Weston, then the chief stenographer, to a trial of skill, or rather a controversy, which terminated in favour of Byrom. Weston published his system in 1725, and the dispute was carried on probably about that time. Into the respective merits of these systems, it is unnecessary to enter. Angel, another professor of the art, who prefixed a short history of Stenographers to his own system (published in 1758) considers Weston' s method as one that few have either capacity, patience, or leisure to learn. He also tells us that Dr. Byrom “so far distinguished himself as a professor or teacher of the art of short-writing, that about the year 1734, he obtained an act of parliament, (perhaps he means a patent) for that purpose, as presuming he had discovered a wonderful secret; and great care has since been taken to preserve it inviolably such, except to his pupils, in hopes that by exciting a greater curiosity, it might increase their number;” and, as Mr. Angel had a new system to propose, it was necessary for him to add, “that he could discover no peculiar excellence in Byrom’s, either in the form of the letters, the rules, or the application of them.” Byrom, however, preserved his system in manuscript as long as he lived. When his friends wished to publish it after his death, they found no part of it finished for the press, although he had made some | progress in drawing it up in form, enoilgh, says his editor, to show the plan upon which he intended to proceed. Among his pupils, of whom an ample list is given, in honour of his system, we find the names of many distinguished scholars, of Isaac Hawkins Browne, Martin Folkes, Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Hartley, lord Camden, &c. Lord Chesterfield, according to Dr. Nichols, was likewise taught by him, which appears to be doubtful. The same biographer informs us, that it was Byrom’s practice to read a lecture to his scholars upon the history and utility of short-hand, interspersed with strokes of wit that rendered it very entertaining. About the same time he became acquainted with that irregular genius Dr. Byfield, with whom he used to have skirmishes of humour and repartee at the Rainbow coffee-house, near Temple Bar. Upon that chemist’s decease, who was the inventor of the Sal volatile oleosum, Byrom wrote the following impromptu:

“Hie jacet Dr. Byfield, diu volatilis, tandem fixus.”

These circumstances are perhaps trifles, but they prove that the study of the mystic writers had not at this time much influence on our author’s temper and habits, and perhaps it was not until much later in life that he became an admirer of Jacob Behmen.

He first taught short-hand at Manchester, but afterwards came to London during the winter months, and not only had great success as a teacher, but became distinguished as a man of general learning. In 1723-4, he was elected a fellow of the royal society, and communicated to that learned body, two letters, one containing some remarks on the elements of short-hand, by Samuel Jeake, esq. which was printed in the Philosophical Transactions, No. 488, and another letter, printed in the same volume, containing remarks on Mr. Lodwick’s alphabet. The summer months he was enabled to pass with his family at Manchester. By the death of his elder brother, Edward Byrom, without issue, the family estate at Kersall devolved to him. At what time this happened, his biographer has not informed us, but in consequence of this independence, he began to relax from teaching, and passed the remainder of his days in the enjoyment of the quiet comforts of domestic life, for which he had the highest relish, and which were heightened by the affectionate temper of his wife. It is said by Dr. Nichols, that he employed the latter part of | his life in writing his poems, but an inspection of their dates and subjects will shew that a very considerable part must have been written much sooner. Some he is said to have committed to the flames a little before his death; these were probably his juvenile effusions. What remain were transcribed from his own copies. He died at Manchester, Sept. 28, 1763, in the 72d year of his age. His character is given briefly in these words: “As the general tenor of his life was innocent and inoffensive, so he bore his last illness with resignation and cheerfulness. The great truths of Christianity had made from his earliest years a deep impression on his mind, and hence it was that he had a peculiar pleasure in employing his pen upon serious subjects.” Of his family we are told only that he had several children, and that his eldest son was taken early into the shop of his grandfather, where he acquired a handsome fortune. His opinions and much of his character are discoverable in his poems. At first he appears to have been a disciple of Mr. Law, zealously attached to the church of England, but with pretty strong prejudices against the Hanoverian succession. He afterwards held some of the opinions which are usually termed methodistical, but he rejected Mr. Hervey’s doctrine of imputed righteousness, and entertained an abhorrence of predestination. His reading on subjects of divinity was extensive, and he watched the opinions that came from the press with the keenness of a polemic: whenever any thing appeared adverse to his peculiar sentiments, he immediately opposed it in a poem, but as scarcely any of his writings were published in his life-time, he appears to have employed his pen chiefly for his own amusement, or that of his friends. At what time he began to lean towards the mysticism of Jacob Behmen is uncertain. An anonymous writer in the Gentleman’s Magazine (vol. LI.) says, that in 1744 he learned High Dutch of a Russian at Manchester, in order to read Jacob’s works in the original; and being asked whether Jacob was more intelligible in that than in the English translation, he affirmed that “he was equally so in both; that he himself perfectly understood him, and that the reason others do not, was the blindness and naughtiness of their hearts.” If this account be true, Byrom was farther gone in Behmenism than we should conjecture from his works. It certainly does not appear by them that he really thought he understood Jacob perfectly, for he adopts, | concerning him, the reply of Socrates concerning Heraclitus’s writings:

"All that I understand is good and true,

And what I don’t, is, I believe, so too."

Among his poems may be found a version of one of Behmen’s epistles, which will at least afford the reader an opportunity of determining whether it be most intelligible in prose or verse.

The character of Byrom, as a poet, has been usually said to rest on his pastoral of Colin and Phebe, which has been universally praised for its natural simplicity; but, if we inquire what it is that pleases in this poem, we shall probably find that it is not 4:he serious and simple expression of a pastoral lover, but the air of delicate humour which runs through the whole, and inclines us to think, contrary to the received opinion, that he had no other object in view. Much, therefore, as this piece has been praised, he appears to have more fully established his character in many of those poems written at a more advanced age, and published for the first time, in two elegant volumes, at Manchester, inl 1773, especially “The Verses spoken extempore at the meeting of a Club”——“The Astrologer” ——“The Pond”——“Contentment, or the Happy Workman”——most of his Tales and Fables, and the paraphrase on the twenty-third psalm, entitled a “Divine Pastoral.” In these there appears so much of the genuine spirit of poetry, and so many approaches to excellence, that it would be difficult even upon the principles of fastidious criticism, and impossible upon those of comparison, to exclude Byrom from a collection of English poets. His muse is said to have been so kind, that he always found it easier to express his thoughts in verse than in prose, and although this preference appears in many cases where the gravity of prose only ought to have been employed, yet merely as literary curiosities, the entire works of Byrom appear to deserve the place allotted to them in the late edition of the English poets, 1810, 21 vols. 8vo.

It is almost superfluous to add, that with such an attachment to rhime, he wrote with ease: it is more to his credit that he wrote in general with correctness, and that his mind was stored with varied imagery and original turns of thought, which he conveys in flowing measure, always delicate and often harmonious, In his “Dialogue on | Contentment,” and his poem “On the Fall of Man, in answer to bishop Sherlock,” he strongly reminds us of Pope in the celebrated essay, although in the occasional adoption of quaint conceits he appears to have followed the example of the earlier poets. Of his long pieces, perhaps the best is “Enthusiasm,” which he published in 175i *, and which is distinguished by superior animation, and a glow of vigorous fancy suited to the subject. He depicts the classical enthusiast, and the virtuoso, with a strength of colouring not inferior to some of Pope’s happiest portraits in his Epistles. His controversial and critical verses, it has already been hinted, are rather to be considered as literary curiosities than as poems, for what can be a poem which excludes the powers of invention, and interdicts the excursions of fancy? Yet, if there be a merit in versifying terms of art, some may also be allowed to the introduction of questions of grammar, criticism, and theology, with so much ease and perspicuity.

Byrom’s lines “On the Patron of England” are worthy of notice, as having excited a controversy which is, perhaps, not yet decided. In this poem he endeavoured to prove the non-existence of St. George, the patron saint of England, by this argument chiefly, that the English were converted by Gregory the First, or the Great, who sent over St. Austin for that purpose; and he conceives that in the ancient Fasti, Georgius was erroneously set down for Gregorius, and that George nowhere occurs as patron until the reign of Edward III. He concludes with requesting that the matter may be considered by Willis, Stukeley, Ames, or Pegge, all celebrated antiquaries, or by the society of antiquaries at large, stating the plain question to be, “Whether England’s patron was a knight or a pope?” This challenge must have been given some time before the year 1759, when all these antiquaries were living, but in what publication, if printed at all, we have not been able to discover. Mr. Pegge, however, was living when Byrom’s collected poems appeared, and judged the question

| of sufficient importance to be discussed in the society. His “Observations on the History of St. George” were printed in the fifth volume of the Archseologia, in answer, not only to Byrom, but to Dr. Pettingal, who in 1760 expressed his unbelief in St. George by a “Dissertation on the Equestrian Figure worn by the knights of the Garter:” Mr. Pegge is supposed to have refuted both. The controversy was, however, revived at a much later period (1795) by Mr. Milner, of Winchester, who, in answer to the assertions of Gibbon, the historian, has supported the reality of the person of St. George with much ingenuity. ¹