philosophy with no little enthusiasm, and gives it a preference to other subjects, more distinct than many may now admit; yet his work has certainly done more for the demolition of other systems than for instruction in any he has himself propounded. He perhaps carried the sceptical philosophy of Hume a little beyond its first bounds, by showing that we cannot comprehend the idea of simple substance, because, let the different qualities which, arranged in our mind, give us the idea of what we call an existing substance, be one by one taken away,—when the last is taken nothing at all will remain. To his doctrine that the mind was a unity, and did not contain separate powers and faculties, Locke's demolition of innate ideas must have led the way; but that great philosopher has not himself been spared from Sir William's undermining analysis, with which he attempted indeed to destroy the foundations of most existing systems. The Edinburgh Review, in a pretty extensive examination of the book, says, "We do not know very well what to say of this learned publication. To some readers it will probably be enough to announce, that it is occupied with metaphysical speculations. To others, it may convey a more precise idea of its character, to be told, that though it gave a violent headache in less than an hour, to the most intrepid logician of our fraternity, he could not help reading on till he came to the end of the volume.
"The book is written we think with more rhetorical ornament, and enlivened with more various literature, than is usual in similar discussions; but it is not, on this account, less 'hard to be spelled;' and after perusing it with considerable attention, we are by no means absolutely certain that we have apprehended the true scope and design of the author, or attained to a just perception of the system or method by which he has been directed. The subjects of his investigations are so various, his criticisms so unsparing, and his conclusions so hostile to every species of dogmatism, that we have sometimes been tempted to think, that he had no other view in this publication than to expose the weakness of human understanding, and to mortify the pride of philosophy, by a collection of insolvable cases, and undeterminable problems. It is but fair to recollect, however, that Mr Drummond has avowedly reserved the full exposition of his own theory to a subsequent volume, [this never appeared,] and professes in this to do little more than point out the insufficiency and contradictions that may be fairly imputed to those of preceding philosophers. It is only the task of demolition which he proposes now to accomplish; and it must be owned, that he has spread abroad his rubbish, and scattered abroad his dust, in a very alarming manner."
In 1810, Sir William, along with Mr Robert Walpole, published "Herculanensia," containing archaeological and etymological observations, partly directed towards a MS. found in the ruins ofHerculaneum. During the same year he published an "Essay on a Punic inscription found in the island of Malta." The inscription was interesting from its twice containing the name Hanni-Baal, or Hannibal; but it seems to have been merely used by Sir William as a nucleus round which he could weave an extensive investigation into the almost unknown and undiscoverable language of the Carthaginians. He proposed two methods of analytically acquiring some knowledge of this obscure subject; first, through the Phoenician and Punic vocables scattered through the works of Greek and Roman authors, and second, through the dialects cognate to the Phœnician, viz., the Arabic or ancient Syriac, the Samaritan, the Ethiopian, the fragments of Egyptian to be found in the modern Coptic, and the Hebrew.
In 1811, he printed the most remarkable of all his works, the "Œdipus Judaicus." It was not published; and probably, had it been so, it would have
