212 SIR WILLIAM Hamilton's philosophy. 



tions. The writings of Hobbes and of his immediate antagonists 

 came too soon to produce any appreciable influence in Scotland, or at 

 least their influence was interrupted by that of a work which has 

 created a more prominent epoch in the history of philosophy. It is 

 from Locke's Essay concerning Human understanding and the con- 

 sequences to which its doctrines were reduced by others, that we must 

 trace the most important philosophical systems which have since pre- 

 vailed in France and Germany, as well as in Britain. During the 

 earlier part of last century the doctrines of the Essay formed the 

 basis of the principal philosophical teaching in the Scottish Univer- 

 sities ; the abridgement by Bishop Wynne was a favourite test-book, 

 and the Elements of Logic by Professor William Duncan of Aberdeen 

 is also a mere summary of Locke.* 



But, in the transition from Locke to the speculations of Scotland, 

 we may not omit a philosopher, who has not, indeed, received the 

 same prominent position in our histories of philosophy, because his 

 doctrines are only now exerting their just influence by being only now 

 interpreted correctly, but who appears to me to have at once displayed 

 keener philosophical insight, and attained more nearly the true theory 

 of knowledge, as well as the true theory of existence. In Berkeley's 

 New Theory of Vision, which was published in 1709, if it be care- 

 fully read, there will be found rising to explicit statement at times 

 an implied theory of perception, not by sight alone, but by all the 

 senses ; the theory, in fact, which was more fully explained in the 

 Principles of Human Knowledge (l/IO), and which received its most 

 perfect form in the Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonoiis 

 (1/13). The received interpretation of this theory, which became 

 afterwards prevalent in the Scottish school, regards it as a reduction 

 of Locke's theory to partial scepticism — to scepticism concerning the 

 reality of material things. I cannot but maintain that few, who read 

 the bishop's writings afresh in the light of more recent speculations, 

 will rise from their perusal with any such interpretation of their 

 drift. What the drift of his teaching is, it must require considerable 

 time, in the face of such long-established misapprehension, to ex- 

 plain ; still, in the few sentences which the brevity of this sketch al- 

 lows me for such a purpose, 1 must endeavour to indicate, at least in 

 general, the meaning I attach to his theory. 



To interpret the theory, especially in so far as the interpretation of 



•Veitch's Memoir of D. Stewart, p. 25, note. 



