Memoir of Francis Hodgson
Francis Hodgson to Humphrey Sumner, 1 October 1807
Dear Sir,—I am greatly obliged by your keeping the
tutorship open for me so long; and lament the ![]()
| BUTLER. LOCKE. PEARSON. | 81 |
![]()
necessity of my absence from Cambridge till
Christmas.
Concerning the subject of my lectures I am very glad to have
the opportunity of some communication with you. The books you mention
(Locke and Pearson) are as yet by no means among my
intimate acquaintance; but I will take the liberty of offering my general ideas
of their character to your consideration. Upon Butler, I believe, we are agreed, that his ‘Analogy’ is too
profound a work for any but the severest student to comprehend. At the lectures
by Mr. Lloyd which I attended at
Cambridge, I gathered that there was much in Locke controverted by subsequent reasoners; but I did not
perceive that anything had been added to the explanation and argument of
Pearson for a succession of years. Of the effect which
Mr. Lloyd’s lectures had upon his hearers, as
all were at the same college with myself, I can form some opinion. It is an
assured truth that not one pupil out of a dozen gained anything from the
Locke lecture when I was at college. But Mr.
Lloyd has made Locke the study of his life.
If then, with his excellent understanding and long application, he could not
render the lecture interesting or useful, how is another person to do it? It is
![]()
| 82 | MEMOIR OF REV. F. HODGSON. | |
![]()
my belief that in the ‘Essay on the Human Understanding’
Mr. Locke is often bewildered in the subtlety of his
own reasoning. Nothing is so dark as metaphysical speculation, and nothing,
therefore, requires so plain a light to be thrown upon it. That Mr.
Locke’s manner is popular, or likely to catch the
attention of young men, I cannot allow. It is very different with
Pearson. His reasoning is clear, intelligible, and
convincing. I do not, then, despair of being able ‘to tell the tale as
’tis told me,’ which is the chief thing required in a lecture
extracted from Pearson; but I do despair of forcibly
recommending the fine-spun lucubrations of Mr. Locke to
the attention of my pupils.
I have written this letter very hastily, in the midst of
uncongenial employment, and of hard additional labour at my publication. You
will therefore, I trust, excuse any misstatement of opinion expressed upon the
moment, though not formed without previous consideration. The fact is, that
ever since your kind promise of appointing me to the tutorship, I have found my
thoughts naturally engaged in my few leisure hours with the business of my
future work. And I will request your permission to enter a little further into
the result of my reflections. Young men are but three years at ![]()
![]()
King’s, and any very
accurate knowledge of a philosophical work cannot be communicated to them by an
hour’s explanation every day in the half terms. That the generality of
young men will take much trouble to prepare themselves for lectures is not to
be expected. A few will really examine their work beforehand; a few more will
just run it over; but the greater part will not look at it till the moment.
Still they may learn something, they may all learn something, if the subject is
interesting, and if their instructor adapts his manner to their prejudices and
their turn of thought. But I contend that a metaphysical subject is not
generally interesting, although a religious subject is more so than any other;
and, as to manner, the young are all impatient of delay. If a lecturer is slow,
they conceive that he is stupid, and then the business is done. Now, I question
whether any but the most superf1cial knowledge of Locke could be imparted without a very cautious slowness of
interpretation. . . .
Since I left college my reading has been very miscellaneous.
It has chiefly been devoted to Greek and Latin authors, but has diverged a good
deal into French and English literature. Lectures upon the Belles Lettres, in
short, have been my principal ![]()
| 84 | MEMOIR OF REV. F. HODGSON. | |
![]()
study. I do not pretend to
any deep knowledge here; neither my age nor my other engagements can have
allowed much proficiency. But, having read Rollin and Blair when a
boy, a third set of lectures upon the same subject was put into my hands some
years since by a lecturer of the name of Barron. He has not, I think, supplied many of the deficiencies
of his predecessors, although in his essay on Logic he has, I think, done more
than they had attempted. What I fancied worth remembering in my own reading I
always noted down, and when I was requested, not long since, to give a
collected opinion of these writers, I interwove my own observations with
extracts and opinions from their works. This employment, and the translation of
Juvenal, have, with other occasional
exertions of the same kind, filled my time since I left college; and I mention
these circumstances to introduce a proposal which, had I not waited for some
previous intimation from you upon the subject, I should have submitted to your
consideration a month ago. Suppose a lecture upon Belles Lettres—a
general account of the sages, historians, orators, and poets of Greece and
Rome. For instance, Demosthenes; the
character of his age, the state of Greece, and of Athens particularly, when he
![]()
| PROPOSED LECTURE UPON LITERATURE. | 85 |
![]()
flourished; the
history and effect of his orations; a comparison between his style and that of
other orators. Or, to make the lecture more general, it might embrace a
connected account of all the principal Greek and Roman writers, the examination
of their style, with extracts from their works; and a general comparison of
ancient and modern literature might be made both pleasant and useful. Quinctilian, Longinus, Diogenes
Laertius, Macrobius, would
open their stores to me, nor have I mentioned the treasure of treasures,
Aristotle. Surely one could blend a
spell from them all enough to attract the Old Court.
I request your indulgence for this imperfect exposition of a
plan of lectures; but, as I look forward to Cambridge as my residence for many
years, and enter upon that residence under your auspices (quod spiro
et placeo, si placeo, tuum est), I think it right to make you as
much acquainted as I am with my views and inclinations before entering upon my
employment.
Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC)
Athenian philosopher and scientist who studied under Plato; the author of
Metaphysics,
Politics,
Nichomachean Ethics, and
Poetics.
William Barron (d. 1803)
Professor of logic, rhetoric, and metaphysics in the University of St Andrews (1778); his
Lectures on Belles Lettres and Logic (1806) was posthumously
published.
Hugh Blair (1718-1800)
Scottish man of letters and professor of rhetoric at Edinburgh University; author of the
oft-reprinted
Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, 2 vols (1784)
and much-admired
Sermons, 5 vols (1777, 1780, 1790, 1794,
1801).
Joseph Butler, bishop of Durham (1692-1752)
English physico-theologian; he was author of the
Analogy of
Religion (1736); he was dean of St. Paul's (1740) and bishop of Durham
(1750).
Demosthenes (384 BC-322 BC)
Athenian orator, author of the
Philippics.
Diogenes Laertius (250 BC fl.)
Author of
Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers in ten
books.
Juvenal (110 AD fl.)
Roman satirist noted, in contrast to Horace, for his angry manner.
Thomas Lloyd (1762-1828)
Of Eton and King's College, Cambridge, where he was fellow and tutor (1785-1807); he was
vicar of Loys Weedon, Northamptonshire (1807-28).
John Locke (1632-1704)
English philosopher; author of
Essay concerning Human
Understanding (1690) and
Some Thoughts Concerning Education
(1695).
Longinus (50 fl.)
Greek rhetorician about whom nothing is recorded; author of
On the
Sublime. His dates are entirely uncertain.
Macrobius (400 fl.)
Roman philosopher, author of the dialogue
Saturnalia, and the
commentary
Somnium Scipionis.
John Pearson, bishop of Chester (1613-1686)
English divine; Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge (1661-72) and bishop of
Chester (1673); he published
Vindication of the Creed (1659).
Quintilian (35 c.-100 c.)
Roman rhetorician; author of
De Institutione Oratoria.
Charles Rollin (1661-1741)
Professor at the University of Paris; author of
Histoire ancienne
(1730-38),
Histoire de Rome (1738-48), and
Traité
des études (1726-32).
