This venerable personage ought, with propriety, to have been introduced in an earlier period of the work; he has indeed been casually mentioned, but his talents and accomplishments were of so high and superior a character, that it looks a little inconsistent with the profound respect which he evidently inspired, not to have solicited attention to him before. He was one of the soundest scholars in Europe, certainly to be classed among the most skilful and accomplished geographers, an admirable critic, and in every character, and every relation of life, entitled to the most exalted encomium. With all these claims to esteem and love, he was of the greatest simplicity of manners, unaffected, unassuming, powerful in argument, but not like Johnson, overbearing; an excellent divine, steady patriot, and unalterable friend. His works will endure with the language in which they were written, and in other languages also; his geographical researches, having necessarily attracted the attention of those engaged in similar pursuits, in all parts of civilized Europe. He seems to have had one talent in common with Herodotus, that with respect to places hitherto partially known, and imperfectly explored, further investigation generally proved his conjectures to have been founded on the most substantial grounds, and his conclusions true. This is more particularly the fact, with respect to the Periplus of the Erythræan Sea, and the examination of the strange hypothesis of Bryant, relating to the plain of Troy. By the way, the name of Jacob Bryant occurs occasionally in our Sexagenarian’s Recollections. It is stated that he once or twice encountered him in literary societies. But he represents Bryant, allowing him at the same time all that his warmest advocates can require, as being very tenacious of his opinions, and impatient of contradiction. Any opposition to his affirmations, however candidly or temperately expressed, he was apt to consider as a declaration of hostility; and on one in which the amiable personage was concerned, who forms the immediate subject of this article, he degraded himself so far as to use the coarsest terms of invective; nay, he even called his learned opponent ASSASSIN. Mark, reader, the contrast of the two characters. The person thus vilely, as well as falsely stigmatized, merely in reply expressed “surprize to find that a man of letters, of integrity, of talents, of refined manners, of an understanding cultivated by all the studies, classical and religious, which tend to soften asperity of mind, and severity of judgment, should so far transgress the law of controversy, as to style his adversary an assassin, because upon a question of literature, he dared to be of a different opinion, and to assign some reasons for that difference.”