Event Comment: The Faithful Virgins (MS Bodleian Rawl. Poet. 195, ff. 49-78) bears a permit to be acted by the Duke's Company, a permit signed by Henry Herbert. Since Herbert retired in July 1663, the play, if performed, can be dated from about 1661 to June 1663

Event Comment: The King's Company. For praise of Lacy, see Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 16, or 27 Nov. 1662. Pepys, Diary: To the Royal Theatre by water, and landing, met with Captain Ferrers his friend, the little man that used to be with him, and he with us, and sat by us while we saw Love in a Maze. The play is pretty good, but the life of the play is Lacy's part, the clown, which is most admirable; but for the rest, which are counted such old and excellent actors, in my life I never heard both men and women so ill pronounce their parts, even to my making myself sick therewith

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: With my wife by water to the Royall Theatre; and there saw The Committee, a merry but indifferent play, only Lacey's part, an Irish footman, is beyond imagination. Here I saw my Lord Falconbridge, and his Lady, my Lady Mary Cromwell, who looks as well as I have known her and as well clad; but when the House began to fill she put on her vizard, and so kept it on all the play; which of late is become a great fashion among the ladies, which hides their whole face

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary To the Royall Theatre, where I resolved to bid farewell, as shall appear by my oaths to-morrow against all plays either at publique houses or Court till Christmas be over. Here we saw The Faithfull Sheepheardesse, a most simple thing, and yet much thronged after, and often shown, but it is only for the scenes' sake, which is very fine indeed and worth seeing; but I am quite out of opinion with any of their actings, but Lacy's, compared with the other house

Event Comment: This play was seen by Olaus Borrichius (Seaton, Literary Relationships, p. 337). As its later performances were given by the King's Company, it was probably acted at Bridges St on this occasion. The play was not printed until 1674, and the date of the premiere is not known

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play is assigned to this period because it was licensed on 16 Oct. 1663 and advertised in The Intelligencer, 23 Nov. 1663. There is no specific evidence that it was acted in the autumn of 1663. See 20 and 21 March 1666@7 for a later production

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The play was licensed on 26 Dec. 1663, but the date of the premiere is uncertain. The Prologue and Epilogue refer to the end of the Long Vacation, and the beginning of Michaelmas Term on 9 Oct. 1663 suggests a performance in October

Event Comment: By the King's Company. The fee paid the players was the customary #20. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 16: To Drake, the upholsterer, for a serge Curtain and for hire of a screen on All Hallows day, #1

Event Comment: Charles II to Madame, 10 Dec. 1663: I am just now going to see a new play (C. H. Hartmann, Charles II and Madame[1934], p. 89). The Duke's Company. W. J. Lawrence, in a review of Boswell, The Restoration Court Stage, in Modern Language Review, XXVIII (1933), 103, suggests that it was The Step-Mother which was given on this occasion. The edition of 1664 lists: The Prologue to the King at the Cockpit at White-Hall. The Epilogue to the King

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. On Thursday 10 Dec. 1663, Pepys reported that this play was to be acted the following week, but the date of the first performance is uncertain. But--except for the holidays--it was probably acted on consecutive days until 1 Jan. 1663@4, when Pepys saw it. The play is also in Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 138, as a "Revived Play." Pepys, Diary: I perceive the King and Duke and the Court was going to the Duke's playhouse to see Henry VIII. acted, which is said to be an admirable play. But, Lord! to see now near I was to have broken my oathe, or run the hazard of 20s. losse, so much my nature was hot to have gone thither; but I did not go. Downes (p.24): King Henry the 8th, This Play, by Order of Sir William Davenant, was all new Cloath'd in proper Habits: The King's was new, all the Lords, the Cardinals, the Bishops, the Doctors, Proctors, Lawyers, Tip-staves, new Scenes: The part of the King was so right and justly done by Mr Betterton, he being Instructed in it by Sir William, who had it from Old Mr Lowen, that had his Instructions from Mr Shakespear himself, that I dare and will aver, none can, or will come near him in this Age, in the performance of that part: Mr Harris's performance of Cardinal Wolsey, was little Inferior to that, he doing it with such just State, Port, and Mein, that I dare affirm, none hitherto has Equall'd him:...Every part by the great Care of Sir William, being exactly perform'd; it being all new Scenes; it continu'd Acting 15 Days together with general Applause

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of performance is uncertain. The play was entered in the Stationers' Register, 15 Feb. 1663@4, and its publication noted in The Newes, 3 March 1663@4. Katherine Philips, writing from Cardigan, Wales to Lady Temple in London, 24 Jan. 1663@4: I beleive er'e this you have seen the new Pompey either acted or written & then will repent your partiallity to ye other, but I wonder much what preparations for it could prejudice Will Davenant when I heare they acted in English habits, & yt so aprope yt Caesar was sent in with his feather & Muff, till he was hiss'd off ye Stage & for ye Scenes I see not where they could place any yt are very extra-ordinary, but if this play hath not diverted ye Cittizens wives enough Sr W: D: will make amends, for they say Harry ye 8th & some later ones are little better then Puppett-plays. I understand ye confederate-translators are now upon Heraclius, & I am contented yt Sr Tho. Clarges (who hath done that last yeare) should adorn their triumph in it, as I have done in Pompey (Harvard Theatre Collection)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. William Hamon (or Hammond) saw a performance near the end of the period between Michaelmas 1663 and Lady Day 1664. The entry in his journal (which I owe to the courtesy of Dr. Giles Dawson) reads: Item spent in carrying Mrs & sistar to King Lear 00 09 06 (Folger MS. v. a. 422)

Event Comment: The King's Company. There is no indication as to whether this is the first performance of the play. Pepys, Diary: I took my wife out, for I do find that I am not able to conquer myself as to going to plays till I come to some new vowe concerning it, and that I am now come, that is to say, that I will not see above one in a month at any of the publique theatres till the sum of 50s. be spent, and then none before New Year's day next, unless that I do become worth #1,000 sooner than then, and then am free fo come to some other terms.... to the King's house, and there met Mr Nicholson, my old colleague, and saw The Usurper, which is no good play, though better than what I saw yesterday. However, we rose unsatisfied

Event Comment: The King's Company. It is difficult to determine the run of the play, as all the known performances fall on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but, except for 30 January, a Fast Day, it may well have been performed daily. L. C. 5@138, f. 15: A Warrant to the Master of the Great Wardrobe to prouide and deliuer to Thomas Killigrew Esq. to the value of forty pounds in silkes for to cloath the Musick for the play called the Indian Queen to be acted before their Maties Jan. 25th 1663 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 354)

Event Comment: The King's Company. The players received the customary fee of #20. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 25

Event Comment: This play, which was licensed on 22 April 1664, was a revision of Flecknoe's Love's Dominion, 1654. There is no indication, other than the date of licensing, which points to a specific time when it was acted. The Duke's Company

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: My wife and I by coach to The Duke's house, where we say The Unfortunate Lovers; but I know not whether I am grown more curious than I was or no, but I was not much pleased with it, though I know not where to lay the fault, unless it was that the house was very empty, by reason of a new play at the other house. Yet here was my Lady Castlemaine in a box. In An Elegy on the Death of Edward Angel, 1673, two lines suggest that Angel acted Friskin: @Adieu, dear Friskin: Unfort'nate Lover weep,@Your mirth is fled, and now i' th' Grave must sleep.

Event Comment: This play was presumably acted by the Duke's Company. In the preface to Heraclius, Emperour of the East, published in 1664, the author, Lodowick Carlell, complains that he had submitted his translation of Corneille, only to have it returned the very day that this version appeared on the stage. See also the letter by Katherine Philips, under Pompey the Great, Jan. 1663@4. Pepys, Diary: We made no long stay at dinner; for Heraclius being acted, which my wife and I have a mighty mind to see, we do resolve, though not exactly agreeing with the letter of my vowe, yet altogether with the sense, to see another this month, by coming hither instead of that at court, there having ueen none conveniently since I made my vowe for us to see there, nor like to be this Lent, and besides we did walk home on purpose to make this going as cheap as that would have been, to have seen one at Court, and my conscience knows that it is only the saving of money and the time also that I intend by my oaths....The play hath one very good passage well managed in it, about two persons pretending, and yet denying themselves, to be son to the tyrant Phocas, and yet heire of Mauricius to the crowne. The garments like Romans very well. The little girle is come to act very prettily, and spoke the epilogue most admirably. But at the beginning, at the drawing up of the curtaine, there was the finest scene of the Emperor and his people about him, standing in their fixed and different postures in their Roman habitts, above all that ever I yet saw at any of the theatres

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play apparently was not printed. Pepys, Diary: and then with my wife by coach to the Duke's house, and there saw The German Princess acted, by the woman herself; but never was any thing so well done in earnest, worse performed in jest upon the stage; and indeed the whole play, abating the drollery of him that acts her husband, is very simple, unless here and there a witty sprinkle or two

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Evelyn, Diary: Saw a facecious Comedy Cald Love in a Tub

Event Comment: The King's Company. The play was entered in the Stationers' Register, 27 June 1664. For the Epilogue, see R. G. Ham, "Dryden's Epilogue to The Rival Ladies, 1664," Review of English Studies, XIII (1937), 76-80

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: [Mrs Pepys] and I to the King's house, and saw The Silent Woman; but methought not so well done or so good a play as I formerly thought it to be, or else I am now-a-days out of humour. Before the play was done, it fell such a storm of hayle, that we in the middle of the pit were fain to rise; and all the house in a disorder

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The play apparently was never printed. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 26: Made out of Spanish, by the Earl of Bristol. Pepys, Diary: Went to a play, only a piece of it, which was at the Duke's house, Worse and Worse; just the same manner of play, and writ, I believe, by the same man as The Adventures of Five Hours; very pleasant it was, and I begin to admire Harris more than ever

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: And seeing The Bondman upon the post, I consulted my oaths and find I may go safely this time without breaking it...There I saw it acted. It is true, for want of practice, they had many of them forgot their parts a little; but Betterton and my Poor Ianthe outdo all the world. There is nothing more taking in the world with me than that play