Johnson having argued for some time with a pertinacious gentleman; his opponent, who had talked in a very puzzling manner, happened to say, ’I don’t understand you, Sir:’  upon which Johnson observed, ’Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding[966].’

Talking to me of Horry Walpole, (as Horace late Earl of Orford was often called[967],) Johnson allowed that he got together a great many curious little things, and told them in an elegant manner[968].  Mr. Walpole thought Johnson a more amiable character after reading his Letters to Mrs. Thrale:  but never was one of the true admirers of that great man[969].  We may suppose a prejudice conceived, if he ever heard Johnson’s account to Sir George Staunton[970], that when he made the speeches in parliament for the Gentleman’s Magazine, ’he always took care to put Sir Robert Walpole in the wrong, and to say every thing he could against the electorate of Hanover[971].’  The celebrated Heroick Epistle, in which Johnson is satyrically introduced, has been ascribed both to Mr. Walpole and Mr. Mason.  One day at Mr. Courtenay’s, when a gentleman expressed his opinion that there was more energy in that poem than could be expected from Mr. Walpole; Mr. Warton, the late Laureat, observed, ’It may have been written by Walpole, and buckram’d by Mason[972].’

He disapproved of Lord Hailes, for having modernised the language of the ever-memorable John Hales of Eton[973], in an edition which his Lordship published of that writer’s works.  ’An authour’s language, Sir, (said he,) is a characteristical part of his composition, and is also characteristical of the age in which he writes.  Besides, Sir, when the language is changed we are not sure that the sense is the same.  No, Sir; I am sorry Lord Hailes has done this.’

Here it may be observed, that his frequent use of the expression, No, Sir, was not always to intimate contradiction; for he would say so, when he was about to enforce an affirmative proposition which had not been denied, as in the instance last mentioned.  I used to consider it as a kind of flag of defiance; as if he had said, ’Any argument you may offer against this, is not just.  No, Sir, it is not.’  It was like Falstaff’s ‘I deny your Major[974].’

Sir Joshua Reynolds having said that he took the altitude of a man’s taste by his stories and his wit, and of his understanding by the remarks which he repeated; being always sure that he must be a weak man who quotes common things with an emphasis as if they were oracles; Johnson agreed with him; and Sir Joshua having also observed that the real character of a man was found out by his amusements,—­Johnson added, ‘Yes, Sir; no man is a hypocrite in his pleasures[975].’