’Once when somebody produced a newspaper in which there was a letter of stupid abuse of Sir Joshua Reynolds, of which Johnson himself came in for a share,—­“Pray,” said he, “let us have it read aloud from beginning to end;” which being done, he with a ludicrous earnestness, and not directing his look to any particular person, called out, “Are we alive after all this satire!"’

’He had a strong prejudice against the political character of Seeker[101], one instance of which appeared at Oxford, where he expressed great dissatisfaction at his varying the old established toast, “Church and King.”  “The Archbishop of Canterbury, said he (with an affected smooth smiling grimace) drinks,’ Constitution in Church and State.’” Being asked what difference there was between the two toasts, he said, “Why, Sir, you may be sure he meant something.”  Yet when the life of that prelate, prefixed to his sermons by Dr. Porteus and Dr. Stinton his chaplains, first came out, he read it with the utmost avidity, and said, “It is a life well written, and that well deserves to be recorded."’

’Of a certain noble Lord, he said, “Respect him, you could not; for he had no mind of his own.  Love him you could not; for that which you could do with him, every one else could[102]."’

’Of Dr. Goldsmith he said, “No man was more foolish when he had not a pen in his hand, or more wise when he had[103]."’

’He told in his lively manner the following literary anecdote:  “Green and Guthrie[104], an Irishman and a Scotchman, undertook a translation of Duhalde’s History of China.  Green said of Guthrie, that he knew no English, and Guthrie of Green, that he knew no French; and these two undertook to translate Duhalde’s History of China.  In this translation there was found ‘the twenty-sixth day of the new moon.’  Now as the whole age of the moon is but twenty-eight days, the moon instead of being new, was nearly as old as it could be.  Their blunder arose from their mistaking the word neuvieme ninth, for nouvelle or neuve, new."’

’Talking of Dr. Blagden’s copiousness and precision of communication, Dr. Johnson said, “Blagden, Sir, is a delightful fellow[105]."’

’On occasion of Dr. Johnson’s publishing his pamphlet of The False Alarm[106], there came out a very angry answer (by many supposed to be by Mr. Wilkes).  Dr. Johnson determined on not answering it; but, in conversation with Mr. Langton, mentioned a particular or two, which if he had replied to it, he might perhaps have inserted.  In the answerer’s pamphlet, it had been said with solemnity, “Do you consider, Sir, that a House of Commons is to the people as a Creature is to its Creator[107]?” To this question, said Dr. Johnson, I could have replied, that—­in the first place—­the idea of a CREATOR must be such as that he has a power to unmake or annihilate his creature.’

’Then it cannot be conceived that a creature can make laws for its CREATOR[108].’