vival of a spiritual or metaphysical,
as opposed to a merely sensational, philosophy which has been going on
ever since. No such results can be attributed to Johnson's talk. But
talk is one thing and preaching another: and the final criticism on
Coleridge as a talker was given once for all in Charles Lamb's
well-known answer to his friend's question: "Did you ever hear me
preach, Charles?" "Never heard you do anything else." Luther again,
though much more of a human being than Coleridge and apparently a
livelier talker, was, after all, the leader of one of the greatest
movements the world has ever seen, and like his disciple, Johnson's
friend John Wesley, no doubt had no time to fold his legs, and have his
talk out. Besides leaders of movements are necessarily somewhat narrow
men. For {160} them there is only one thing of importance in the
world, and their talk inevitably lacks variety. That, on the other
hand, is one of the three great qualities in which Johnson's talk is
supreme. Without often aiming at being instructive it is not only
nearly always interesting but with an amazing variety of interest. The
theologian, the moral philosopher, the casuist, the scholar, the
politician, the economist, the lawyer, the clergyman, the schoolmaster,
the author, above all the amateur of life, all find in it abundance of
food for their own particular tastes. Each of them--notably for
instance, the political economist--may sometimes find Johnson mistaken;
not one will ever find him dull. On every subject he has something to
say which makes the reader's mind move faster than before, if it be but
in disagreement. Reynolds, who had heard plenty of good talkers,
thought no one could ever have exceeded Johnson in the capacity of
talking well on any subject that came uppermost. His mere knowledge
and information were prodigious. If a stranger heard him talk about
leather he would imagine him to have been bred a tanner, or if about
the school philosophy, he would suppose he had spent his life in the
study of Scotus and Aquinas. No doubt the variety was a long way from
universality. Johnson was too {161} human for the dulness of
omniscience. He had his dislikes as well as predilections. The least
affected of men, he particularly disliked the then common fashion of
dragging Greek and Roman history into conversation. He said that he
"never desired to hear of the Punic War while he lived," and when Fox
talked of Catiline he