. Interioris templi alumnus.

The above were thrown in Dryden's grave. We are assured they were never
in print before.

[Footnote 1: Athen. Oxon.]

[Footnote 2: He might have added, 'twas unnatural.]

[Footnote 3: Defence, or the Essay on Dramatic Poetry.]

[Footnote 4: Original Poems.]

[Footnote 5: This was written before Mr. Dodsley's edition of Virgil in
English appeared.]

[Footnote 6: Essay on Criticism.]

[Footnote 7: Life of Congreve.]

[Footnote 8: In Millar's edition of the bishop's work, we have the
following note upon this passage. 'This (says the editor) must be
understood of his performances for the stage; for as to his personal
character, there was nothing remarkably vicious in it: but his plays
are, some of them, the fullest of obscenity of any now extant.']

* * * * *

Sir CHARLES SEDLEY, Bart.

This gentleman, who obtained a great name in the world of gallantry, was
son of Sir John Sedley, of Aylesford in Kent. When our author was about
the age of 17, he became a fellow of Wadham college 1656, but he took no
degree. When he quitted the university, he retired into his own country,
and neither went to travel nor to the inns of court. As soon as the
restoration was effected, Sir Charles came to London, in order to join
in the general jubilee, and then commenced wit, courtier, poet, and
gallant.

He was so much applauded in all conversations that he began to be the
oracle of the poets; and it was by his judgment every performance was
approved or condemned; which made the King jest with him, and tell
him, that nature had given him a patent to be Apollo's viceroy. Lord
Rochester bears testimony to this, when he puts him foremost among the
judges of poetry.

I loath the rabble, tis enough for me,
If Sedley, Shadwell, Shepherd, Wycherly,
Godolphin, Butler, Buckhurst, Buckingham,
And some few more, whom I omit to name,
Approve my sense, I count their censure same.

It happened by Sir Charles, in respect of the king, as is said of the
famous cardinal Richlieu, viz. That they who recommended him to the
Royal savour, thereby supplanted themselves, and afterwards envied him;
but with this difference between the Cardinal and Sir Charles, that the
latter was never ungrateful. When he had a taste of the court, as the
King never would part with him, so he never would part from the King;
and yet two things proved particularly detrimental to him in it, fir