Event Comment: Nell Gwyn attended a performance on this day, but the play is not known. See VanLennep, Nell Gwyn's Playgoing, p. 407

Event Comment: The King's Company acted at the Revels this day, but the play is not known. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 114

Event Comment: The Duke's Company acted at the Revels on this day, but the play is not known. See A Calendar of the Middle Temple Records, ed. Hopwood, p.177

Event Comment: The King's Company apparently acted an unnamed play on this day. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 126

Event Comment: The Duke's Company acted an unnamed play on this day. See A Calendar of Middle Temple Records, ed. Hopwood, p. 177. Although the payment is dated 13 Feb., it may be a delayed payment for a play on this date

Event Comment: There may have been a play given on this day, but the evidence is confusing. See A Calendar of Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 127-28

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the premiere is not known. Pepys saw it on 6 March 1679@80, calling it a "New Play," and that may have been the first day. The Prologue alludes also to the Duke of York's triumphant return from Scotland on 24 Feb. 1679@80, and the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1680. For Mrs Bracegirdle as the "little Girl," see Edmund Curll, History of the English Stage (1741), p. 26, and Lucyle Hook, Anne Bracegirdle's First Appearance, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1959), 134. For Betterton as Castalio and Mrs Barry as Monimia, probably as they performed in the next decade, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 116, 160. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37) gives the same cast except for omissions and except for Serina-Mrs Mountfort, who acted it later. Downes (pp. 37-38) adds: [Monimia, Belvidera in Venice Preserved, and Isabella in The Fatal Marriage] These three Parts, gain'd her the Name of Famous $Mrs Barry, both at court and City; for when ever She Acted any of these three Parts, she forc'd Tears from the Eyes of her Auditory, especially those who have any Sense of Pity for the Distress't. These 3 Plays, by their Excellent Performances, took above all the Modern Plays that succeeded. A song for this play, Come all the youths whose hearts have bled, the music by Forcer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Third Book, 1681

Event Comment: A new agreement, intended to improve affairs in the King's Company, was signed this day. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 264-65

Event Comment: The King's Company. After the banning of The Sicilian Usurper, it was brought on again under a new title and survived two days before it also was banned. Tate's statement concerning its reception--see 11 Dec. 1680--may refer to these two performances rather than to the sequence in December. Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library), 20 Jan. 1680@1: K. Richd ye 2.d a play, being forbid acting att ye Ks house the Poet put the name Tyrant of Sicily upon it by wch means it was acted twice this weeke, but the Cheate being found out it was forbid acting againe (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80)

Event Comment: This day is one of several on which, according to William Morley, treasurer of the King's Company, the receipts fell below #10, to #3 14s. 6d. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267

Event Comment: On this day the receipts at the King's House fell to #3 2s. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267

Event Comment: The receipts of the King's Company on this day were only #3 13s. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but as the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, November 1681, it was probably first given in September, certainly not later than October. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 38-39): Being a kind of Opera, having several Machines of Flyings for the Witches, and other Diverting Contrivances in't: All being well perform'd, it prov'd beyond Expectation; very Beneficial to the Poet and Actors. Edition of 1682, To the Reader: I heard that great opposition was design'd against the Play (a month before it was acted)...The Master of the Revels (who I must confess used me civilly enough) Licenc'd it at first with little alteration: But there came such an Alarm to him...that upon a Review, he expunged all that you see differently Printed, except about a dozen lines which he struck out at the first reading....I had so numerous an assembly of the best sort of men, who stood so generously in my defence, for the first three days, that they quash'd all the vain attempts of my Enemies, the Inconsiderable Party of Hissers yielded, and the Play lived in spight of them

Event Comment: The King's Company. The exact date of this performance is not known, but the Prologue refers to "After a four Months Fast," suggesting that the theatre did not reopen until the end of the Long Vacation (24 Oct. 1681 is the beginning of Michaelmas Term). The Epilogue also seems to refer to events at Bartholomew Fair, and the Prologue to the King's visit to Newmarket, from which the King did not return until 12 Oct. 1681. Furthermore, The Impartial Protestant Mercury, No. 54, 28 Oct. 1681, reports: A Revised Play was some days since Acted on an Eminent Publick Theatre, and the Prologue is extreamly talked of. [The periodical reprints some of the lines (which are essentially those in the printed version).] The Loyal Protestant, No. 70, 29 Oct. 1681, refers to the same performance and reprints part of the Epilogue (which also is essentially that of the separately printed Epilogue). All of these elements point to a performance in mid-October. Both the Prologue and the Epilogue were printed separately, and have been reprinted by Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 43-45. Broadside copies of the Prologue and Epilogue in the Huntington Library bear Luttrell's manuscript notations that both were written by Dryden. Luttrell's date of acquisition is 13 Feb. 1681@2, an instance in which Luttrell's date of purchase does not apparently correspond closely to a date of performance

Event Comment: For reports on the Lord Mayor's Day, see Luttrell, A Brief Relation, I, 139-40, and The Impartial Protestant Mercury, No 55, 28 Oct.-1 Nov. 1681

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Two sources naming the play attended by the Morocco ambassador differ as to what play was presented. CSPD, Charles II, 1682, p. 35: 19 Jan. 1681@2: To-day the Morocco Ambassador goes to a play named Circe at the Duke's House. Impartial Protestant Mercury, 20-24 Jan. 1681@2: The Morocco Ambassador, On Thursday last, went to the Duke's Theatre, where was Acted Psyche, a Play of extraordinary splendor, with which his Excellency was extreamly pleas'd

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Lady Anne Howe to the Countess of Rutland, 26 Jan. 1681@2: The King went by water to the new play yesterday, it being the poet's day, and is call'd the Loyallest (HMC, Rutland MSS., 12th Report, Appendix, Part V, p. 64). Newsletter, 26 Jan. 1681@2: Yesterday was a new play called the Royalist, where the Salamanca Doctor is exposed (HMC, 10th Report, Appendix, Part IV, p. 175)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is uncertain, but the fact that Luttrell dated his separately printed copies of the Prologue and Epilogue 5 April 1682 (Huntington Library) sets a probability that the play first appeared within a week to ten days preceding that date. The Prologue and Epilogue, separately printed, have been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 89-91. A Prologue Intended for Vertue Bertray'd, by Thomas Shadwell, is reprinted in Welbeck Niscellany 3, A Collection of Poems by Several Hands, ed. Francis Needham, 1934. Some details in it suggest the "Dead Time" preceding Easter, when the Court was gone, the Russian ambassador departed, the Moroccan Ambassador shortly to go. The Russian ambassador left on 15 Feb. 1681@2 OS (see Evelyn, Diary), and the Prologue refers to the execution of Colonel Vratz and his accomplices on 10 March 1681@2 (Evelyn, Diary)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Newdigate newsletters, 5 Aug. 1682: [Yesterday the] Dutchess goes to ye Dukes Theatre--that and ye Kings house haveing Joyned interests the latter being Discontinued where will be purposely Acted for her Anna Bullen being a deepe Tragedy of the beheading of the said Lady by Henry the 8th (Wilson, Theatres Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81). See also London Mercury, 8 Aug. 1682. Juliana Brabazon to the Countess of Rutland, Aug. 1682: The Dutches of Yorke kept her bed the day after seeing Anna Bulloigne acted (HMC, 12th Report, Rutland MSS., Part V, 1889, p. 77)

Event Comment: Domestick Intelligence, 11-14 Sept. 1682: Southwark 12--This day the Scaffold of a Booth fell down, with several Actors, Men and Women on it, and falling upon a Child that stood underneath, crushed it to death

Event Comment: Langhans, New Restoration Theatre Accounts, pp. 123-24, believes that acting resumed on 9 Oct. 1682 and continued to 14 July 1683, followed by 14 acting days between 16 July and 6 Oct. 1683.. Betterton and Smith managed the company for the proprietor

Event Comment: The Duke of York: I have been at a play this day (CSPD, Charles II, 1682, p. 497)

Event Comment: The United Company. As the play was certainly acted on 1 Dec. 1682, it was probably given also on 29 Nov., in spite of the death of Prince Rupert on that day

Event Comment: The United Company. Possibly the play was repeated on this day, unless the report of the Abbe Rouchi--see 28 Nov. 1682--means that the play was given only three times

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of this revival is not precisely known but that it occurred in mid-March is indicated by Luttrell's date of 21 March 1683@4 on his copy of the separately-printed Prologue and Epilogue (Bindley Collection, William Andrews Clark@Jr@Library). It should be noted, however, that Friday 21 March is a Friday in Lent, a day on which the companies sometimes did not act. The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 202-6. When this play was advertised to be acted on 8 Nov. 1704, the bill bore the heading: "Not Acted these 20 Years." Langbaine (English Dramatic Poets, p. 37): This Play was reviv'd by the Players, since the Union of the Two Houses, and reprinted in quarto Lond. 1684 with a new Prologue and Epilogue, the former written by Jo. Haynes the Comedian