son did in this instance.

His Majesty having observed to him that he supposed he must have read a
great deal; Johnson answered, that he thought more than he read; that he
had read a great deal in the early part of his life, but having fallen
into ill health, he had not been able to read much, compared with
others: for instance, he said, he had not read much, compared with Dr.
Warburton. Upon which the King said, that he heard Dr. Warburton was a
man of such general knowledge, that you could scarce talk with him on
any subject on which he was not qualified to speak; and that his
learning resembled Garrick's acting, in its universality. His Majesty
then talked of the controversy between Warburton and Lowth, which he
seemed to have read, and asked Johnson what he thought of it. Johnson
answered, "Warburton has most general, most scholastic learning; Lowth
is the more correct scholar. I do not know which of them calls names
best." The King was pleased to say he was of the same opinion; adding,
"You do not think then, Dr. Johnson, that there was much argument in the
case." Johnson said, he did not think there was. "Why truly, (said the
King,) when once it comes to calling names, argument is pretty well at
an end."

His Majesty then asked him what he thought of Lord Lyttelton's history,
which was then just published. Johnson said, he thought his style pretty
good, but that he had blamed Henry the Second rather too much. "Why,
(said the King,) they seldom do these things by halves." "No, Sir,
(answered Johnson,) not to Kings." But fearing to be misunderstood, he
proceeded to explain himself: and immediately subjoined, "That for those
who spoke worse of Kings than they deserved, he could find no excuse;
but that he could more easily conceive how some might speak better of
them than they deserved, without any ill intention; for, as Kings had
much in their power to give, those who were favoured by them would
frequently, from gratitude, exaggerate their praises: and as this
proceeded from a good motive, it was certainly excusable, as far as
errour could be excusable."

The King then asked him what he thought of Dr. Hill. Johnson answered
that he was an ingenious man, but had no veracity; and immediately
mentioned, as an instance of it, an assertion of that writer, that he
had seen objects magnified to a much greater degree by using three or
four microscopes at a time than by using one. "Now, (added Johnson,)
every one acquaint