His Majesty having observed to him that he supposed he must have read a good 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 much 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 the 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 just then 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 one 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 favored by them would frequently, from gratitude, exaggerate their praises; and as this proceeded from a good motive, it was certainly excusable as far as error 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 acquainted with microscopes knows that the more of them he looks through, the less the object will appear.”  “Why” (replied the King), “this is not only telling an untruth, but telling it clumsily; for if that be the case, every one who can look through a microscope will be able to detect him.”

“I now” (said Johnson to his friends, when relating what had passed) “began to consider that I was depreciating this man in the estimation of his Sovereign, and thought it was time for me to say something that might be more favorable.”  He added, therefore, that Dr. Hill was notwithstanding a very curious observer; and if he would have been contented to tell the world no more than he knew, he might have been a very considerable man, and needed not to have recourse to such mean expedients to raise his reputation.