Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: I took them [Mrs Pepys and Deb.] to the Nursery, where none of us ever were before; where the house is better and the musique better than we looked for, and the acting not much worse, because I expected as bad as could be: and I was not much mistaken, for it was so. However, I was pleased well to see it once, it being worth a man's seeing to discover the different ability and understanding of people, and the different growth of people's abilities by practise. Their play was a bad one, called Jeronimo is Mad Again, a tragedy. Here was some good company by us, who did make mighty sport at the folly of their acting, which I could not neither refrain from sometimes, though I was sorry for it.... I was pretthly served this day at the playhouse-door, where, giving six shillings into the fellow's hand for us three, the fellow by legerdemain did convey one away, and with so much grace faced me down that I did give him but five, that, though I knew the contrary, yet I was overpowered by his so grave and serious demanding the other shilling, that I could not deny him, but was forced by myself to give it him

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play is on the L. C. lists at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage", p. 14. A song in this play, Thus all our Lives, with music by John Banister, is in Choice Songs and Ayres, 1673. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 31): [Concerning several plays] All which Expir'd the third Day, save the Royal Shepherdess, which liv'd Six. Pepys, Diary: To the Duke of York's house, and there before one, but the house infinite full, where, by and by, the King and Court come, it being a new play, or an old one new vamped, by Shadwell, called The Royal Shepherdesse!; but the silliest for words and design, and evepything, that ever I saw in my whole life, there being nothing in the world pleasing in it, but a good martial dance of pikemen, where Harris and another do handle their pikes in a dance to admiration; but never less satisfied with a play in my life

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. If Downes is correct that this play was given six days successively, it was probably acted through Thursday 4 March 1668@9

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. If The Royal Shepherdess was acted six days consecutively, the interruption of its run for this day is due to the tradition of the company's not regularly acting on Wednesday and Fridays in Lent. Pepys, Diary: To the Duke of York's playhouse, and there saw an old play, the first time acted these forty years, called The Lady's Tryall, acted only by the young people of the house; but the house very full. But it is but a sorry play, and the worse by how much my head is out of humour by being a little sleepy and my legs weary since last night

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play is on the L. C. list at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage", pp. 12-14. The play seems to be a translation by Shadwell of Moliere's Tartuffe. Elkanah Settle, in the Preface to his Ibrahim (licensed 4 May 1676) attacks Shadwell and refers to Shadwell's translation of Tartuffe into The Hypocrite, which, according to Settle, was acted six days

Event Comment: The news of the death of Henrietta-Maria, the Queen Mother, reached London ca. 3 Sept. 1669. There may well have been an order forbidding playing, although it is not extant; but an order, L. C. 5@12, p. 251 (in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 322) directs the two companies to act again on Monday, 18 Oct. 1669. Probably the theatres were closed for approximately six weeks

Event Comment: [The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. lists at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage", pp. 16-17. This performance may have been the premiere. Shadwell, in his Preface, implies that it was acted six days. As Saturday was a day frequently chosen for a first showing and as the play was certainly given again on 14 Dec. 1670, the sequence of performaces which follow in this Calendar is based on the assumption that Saturday 10 Dec. 1670 was the first day, Wednesday 14 Dec. 1670 the fourth day of acting. The Preface: This Play...came upon the Stage with all the disadvantages imaginable: First, I was forced, after I had finish'd it, to blot out the main design of it; finding, that, contrary to my intention, it had given offence. The second disadvantage was, that notwithstanding I had (to the great prejudice of the Play) given satisfaction to all the exceptions made against it, it met with the clamorous opposition of a numerous party, bandied against it, and resolved, as much as they could, to damn it, right or wrong, before they had heard or seen a word on't. The last, and not the least, was, that the Actors (though since they have done me some right) at first were extreamly imperfect in the Action of it.... This of mine, after all these blows, had fall'n beyond Redemption, had it not been revived, after the second day, by her [Mrs Johnson's (?)] kindness (which I can never enough acknowledge) who, for four days together, beautified it with the most excellent Dancings that ever has been seen upon the Stage. This drew my enemies, as well as friends, till it was something better acted, understood, and liked, than at first

Event Comment: An order of the Lord Chamberlain (5@12, p. 202) dated 1 April 1671, states that the theatres are to be closed because of the death of the Duchess of York on 31 March 1671. See Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 322. It is uncertain how long the theatres were closed, but probably the closure extended for six weeks

Event Comment: Journal of the Earl of Anglesey, 25 Jan. 1671@2: At eight of the clock The King's playhouse took fire, and most of that side of Russell Street and many other houses thereabout were burnt down, and we in Drury Lane and all about in great danger; but the Lord had mercy, and by great industry and blowing up houses the fire was overcome: I had no rest, but sat up almost all night, even till six in the morning. The Lord pardon sin, which brings judgements (HMC, 13th Report, Part VI [London, 1893], p. 270. The Bulstrode Papers (I, 217): About 8 hapened a sad and violent fire, which begun in the King's Theater, and in a few howers burnt down that...severall were hurt and killed, amongst which was Mr Bell, one of the actors in that house. For a poem, On the Unhappy Conflagration of the Theatre Royal, January 25th, 1672, see Fitzgerald, A New History of the English Stage, I, 137

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but John Harold Wilson, Six Restoration Play-Dates, Notes and Queries, June 1962, p. 221, has argued, primarily on references in the Epilogue, that the play was probably produced before the opening of the new Theatre Royal in Drury Lane and following two unsuccessful plays: The Mall and The Amorous Old Woman. The Prologue is in New Songs and Poems a la Mode, 1677. Preface to the edition of 1675: This play was left in Mr Dryden's hands many years since. The Author of it was unknown to him, and return'd not to claim it

Event Comment: London Gazette, No. 961, 1-4 Feb. 1674@5: A Rare Concert of four Trumpets Marine, never heard before in England. If any Persons desire to come and hear it, they may repair to the Fleece Tavern, near St James's, about two of the clock in the Afternoon every day in the Week (except Sundays). Every Concert shall continue one hour, and so to begin again; the best places are one shilling, the other six pence

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is uncertain, but John Harold Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, pp. 221-22) assigns it to mid-June primarily because of the Prologue intended to be spoken by Haines and the order, dated 18 June 1677, for the arrest of Haines for speaking an obscene Epilogue (error for Prologue?); in addition, the next play at Drury Lane, The Rival Kings, refers to Haines and "last time," establishing the sequence of performance of these two plays. For the arrest of Haines, see Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 328n. Wits Led by the Nose was licensed for printing on 16 Aug. 1677

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is uncertain. The date of licensing was 3 Jan. 1678@9, but Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, p. 222) has argued that it may well have been the first new play of the season. The Prologue refers to it as "The first Play bury'd since the Wollen Act," the Act going into effect on 1 Aug. 1678. For Sandford as Creon, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 131. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37): Oedipus King of Thebes, Wrote by Mr Nat. Lee and Mr Dryden: The last Writing the first two Acts, and the first the 3 last. This play was Admirably well Acted; especially the Parts of Oedipus and Jocasta: One by Mr Betterton, the other by Mrs Betterton; it took prodigiously being Acted 10 Days together

Event Comment: In November 1678 the Duke of Modena sent his troupe of comedians to London. They remained there until mid-February 1678@9 but apparently played only six times in three months. For an account of this troupe, see A. L. Bader, The Modena Troupe in England, Modern Language Notes, L (1935), 367-69, and I. K. Fletcher, Italian Comedians in England in the 17th Century, Theatre Notebook, VIII (1954), 86-91. See also Calendar of Treasury Books, 1676-1679, pp. 1160, 1230, and Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 124

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the date 31 May 1681 on a copy in the Ohio State University Library, representing Luttrell's purchase of a copy, argues for a performance initially in April or early May 1681. See Wilson, Six Restoration Play-Dates, p. 222

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, pp. 222-23) argues from a number of references (principally in the Epilogue) to events of early 1681 which point to a premiere near May 1681: to the dissolution of Parliament, 28 March 1681; to the comet which appeared in November 1680 and disappeared in January 1680@1; to the Hatfield Maid; to William Lilly, the astrologer, who is referred to as though alive, thus suggesting a premiere before his death, 9 June 1681. It is possible that the premiere may have been earlier than this. In 1681 was published Poeta de Tristibus; or, The Poet's Complaint, whose author had obviously read the Prologue and Epilogue to The Unhappy Favourite. He represents himself as a disappointed dramatist whose tragedy has been rejected by both houses because "their Summer-store@Will all this Winter last." With the work entered in the Term Catalogues in 1682 and a copy purchased by Narcissus Luttrell with his note "4d 1681 12 Nov" (see A Bibliography of John Dryden, ed. Macdonald, pp. 235-36), his quotations from the Epilogue to The Unhappy Favourite and references to the Prologue would offer no difficulties if it were not that the "Author's Epistle" in which the references are made is dated "at Dover the Tenth day of January 1680@1," thus suggesting that he had seen the Prologue and Epilogue before that date. Nevertheless, some of the references in the Epilogue (to Heraclitus Ridens, beginning on 1 Feb. 1680@1, and Democritus Ridens, beginning on 14 March 1680@1) preclude a January premiere for the Prologue and Epilogue. Possibly the dating of the "Author's Epistle" is in error

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. The date of the first performance is not certain, but contemporary sources refer to the fact that William Smith, who died in the last week of December, fell ill on the fourth day of its run; hence, it probably was first presented in mid-December. One song, O take him gently from the pile, set by John Eccles and sung by Mrs Bracegirdle, is in Deliciae Musicae, The Fourth Book, 1696. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 44: The Grand Cyrus, wrote by Mr Banks; it was a good Play; but Mr Smith, having a long part in it, fell Sick upon the Fourth Day and Dy'd, upon that it lay by, and ne'er have bin Acted since. Gildon, English Dramatick Poets, p. 6: Tho' this Play had been formerly refus'd the Action, yet it held up its Head about Six Days together, and has been since Acted several Times. A Comparison Between the Two Stages: Sullen, p. 16: Banks's, which the Players damn'd and wou'd not Act of a great while, but at length it was acted, and damn'd then in manner and form

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. The date of the premiere is not known. The Dedication to the play, written in Rome, is dated 20 Aug. 1695 N.S., and advertisement of the play in the London Gazette, No 3200, 9-13 July 1696, represent the limits on its production. In a letter, dated (probably) November 1695, Dryden refers to the forthcoming appearance of his son's play, and on 26 May 1696 he negotiates with Tonson for its publication (Letters of John Dryden, pp. 79, 82). Probably the play appeared early in 1696, and certainly not much later than April 1696. John Barnard, The Dates of Six Dryden Letters, Philological Quarterly, XLII (1963), 400-401, believes that Dryden's letter was written ca. 26 May 1695 and that the play was probably acted in late 1695

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, for the play was apparently not printed until 1704. Nevertheless, some details indicate a performance early in the early in the season of 1696-97. In the first place, the presence of Verbruggen in the cast indicates that it must have been acted before 1 Jan. 1696@7, when Verbruggen was permitted to act at Lincoln's Inn Fields. The play also parodies the works of Mrs Manley, whose The Royal Mischief had been staged (probably) in April 1696, and it is likely that the company would emphasize the pertinence of the parody by presenting it soon after the appearance of the original. Although The Female Wits may not have been acted until later in the autumn, it seems likely that it was acted first in the late summer or early autumn. Preface, Edition of 1704: [The] Success of this Play has been such...having been Acted six Days running without intermission....Among the rest, Mr Powel and his Wife excell'd in the Characters they represented, as did Mrs Verbruggen, who play'd the Chief Character....The Lady whose Play is rehears'd, personated one Mrs M-ly [Manley]

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The fact that Lady Morley saw a performance on 25 Nov. 1696 and that the play was a success suggests a run of at least six performances

Event Comment: John Dryden to his sons, 3 Sept. 1697: After my return to Town, I intend to alter a play of Sir Robert Howards, written long since, & lately put by him into my hands: tis calld The Conquest of China by the Tartars. It will cost me six weeks study, with the probable benefit of an hunderd pounds. In the meane time I am writeing a Song for St Cecilia's feast, who you know is the Patroness of Musique. This is troublesome, & no way beneficiall: but I coud not deny the Stewards of the feast, who came in a body to me, to desire that kindness (Letters of John Dryden, p. 93)

Event Comment: Rich's Company. Lady Morley attended this performance: Lady Morley and nne in the Box att Bonduca. 8s. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 377. When this play was revived at Drury Lane on 12 Feb. 1705, the bill bore the heading: Not Acted these Six Years

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but Dryden, writing on 14 Dec. 1699, indicates that this play had had its first performance by that date. The Dedication is dated 10 Jan. 1699@1700, and the play was advertised in the Post Boy, 20-23 Jan. 1699@1700. Preface, Edition of 1700: Another difficulty this Play labour'd under, was its being acted at a time when the whole Town was so much, and so justly diverted by the Trip to the Jubilee. When the play was revised and reprinted in 1714, the new edition--The Victim; or Achilles and Iphigenia in Aulis--indicates that The Invocation to Diana in the last act was set by Gottfreid Finger, the first verse being sung by Freeman, the second verse by Mrs Erwin, and the third verse by W. Pate. Advertisement, Edition of 1714: The following Tragedy...having been translated into English [from Racine], with considerable Additions, by Mr Boyer, and pass'd the Correction and Approbation of the late famous Mr Dryden, and several other Persons distinguish'd as well by their Wit and Learning, as by their Taste and Discernment, was acted with general Applause, towards the End of the Year 1699, and Beginning of 1700. The Reasons why this Excellent Play stopt, on a sudden, in a full Career, are, in some Measure, accounted for in Mr Boyer's Preface: To which he might have added, That the Dutchess of Marlborough, who at that Time bore an irresistable Sway, bespoke the Comedy then in Vogue [The Constant Couple], during the Ruin of Iphigenia in Aulis; And that this Tragedy receiv'd no small Prejudice, from the Person that acted Eriphyle [Mrs Wilkins], who sunk under the Weight of so great a Part. A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702), pp. 24-25: Sullen: Then comes the second Iphigenia in all her Charms, and like a superious Mistress was resolv'd to eclipse her Rival: No cast was spar'd by the Masters, nor toil by the Actors; the Town was bespoke in its favour, and all the Friends of this new Fletcher and Beaumont were ingaged to clap it. She appear'd, but what pity 'twas (as the Prefacer says) that a Play which had such a glorious run shou'd in four Days disappear, never to rise again. Oh! says Mr D@@, mine was acted six Days; and I'll hold you a hundred Pound--just what I got by't--How's that?, says Boyer--I say, Sir, that I'll hold you, or any Man, a hundred Pound, 'twill be acted again ten times this Winter. With that B@@ fell a laughing, and replies, Sir, says he, I'll stake my French Dictionary against your Criticisms on Blackmore, and that I think is odds enough--I say,"I'll hold you that Bet, that you did not get fifty Shillings by't, and that the House lost a hundred Pound. This had like to ha' made sad work; but all was well, for neither of 'em have been acted since, for they both sleep in everlasting Tranquillity. [See also pp. 23-25 for other remarks about the two Iphigenia plays.

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. It is not certain that this play was given at this time, but Vanbrugh, writing on 25 Dec. 1699, states that Thomas Dogget, who had been acting in Norwich, was in London "last Week," and acted six times, presumably on 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Dec. 1699. The Amorous Widow is a likely play for this week, as Barnaby Brittle was one of Dogget's best roles. In addition, the Inner Temple, which usually requested popular plays, selected it for its revels on 3 Feb. 1699@1700. Nearly all the individuals in the cast in the 1710 edition acted in London during this season, with two exceptions: Fieldhouse and Mrs Hunt. Their roles may have been played by them or by other performers if they were not in the company at this time. I owe the suggestion that this was the play in which Dogget appeared to Professor Lucyle Hook

Event Comment: Benefit Mrs Knight. Not Acted there these Six Years. Written by the late Sir George Etheridge