Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) of the play bears the date of acquisition 3 June [1690, apparently], and the play was advertised in the London Gazette, No 2566, 12-16 June 1690. See Fredson Bowers, A Bibliographical History of the Fletcher-Betterton Play, The Prophetess, 1690, The Library, 5th Series, XVI (1961), 169-75. It seems likely that the opera was first given early in June 1690. An edition of The Vocal and Instrumental Musick of The Prophetess appeared in 1691. See Works of Henry Purcell, Purcell Society, IX. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42): The Prophetess, or Dioclesian an Opera, Wrote by Mr Betterton; being set out with Coastly Scenes, Machines and Cloaths: The Vocal and Instrumental Musick, done by Mr Purcel; and Dances by Mr Priest; it gratify'd the Expectation of Court and City; and got the Author great Reputation. [See also R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theater (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), Chapter V; and E. W. White, Early Theatrical Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59), 44.] The Muses' Mercury (January 1707, pp. 4-5): This prologue was forbidden to be spoken the second Night of the Representation of the Prophetess. Mrs Shadwell was the occasion of its being taken notice of by the Ministry in the last Reign: He happen'd to be at the House on the first Night, and taking the beginning of the Prologue to have a double meaning, and that Meaning to reflect on the Revolution, he told a Gentleman, He would immediately Put a stop to it. When that Gentleman ask'd, Why he wou'd do the Author such a Disservice? He said, Because while Mr Dryden was Poet Laureat, he wou'd never let any Play of his be Acted. Mr Shadwell informed the Secretary of State of it, and representing it in its worst Colours, the Prologue was never Spoken afterwards, and is not printed in Mr Dryden's Works, or his Miscellanies. Cibber, Apology (ed. Lowe, II, 13-14): A Prologue (by Dryden) to the Prophetess was forbid by the Lord Dorset after the first War in Ireland. It must be confess'd that this Prologue had some familiar, metaphorical Sneers at the Revolution itself; and as the Poetry of it was good, the Offence of it was less pardonable

Event Comment: Benefit for Mrs Jordan. [In mainpiece the playbill retains King as Sir Peter Teazle, but "Murray, on account of the indisposition of King, was the Sir Peter to Mrs Jordan's Lady Teazle" (Monthly Mirror, May 1797, p. 311).] Tickets delivered for the 15th [for which day the benefit was first announced] will be admitted. "On the whole, Mrs Jordan's Lady Teazle, if not excellent, was respectable; and at a time when it was thought that it would be impossible to personify her Ladyship [i.e. after the retirement of Miss Farren], Mrs Jordan is commendable in having endeavoured it...[Sir Peter] was a part well suited to Murray, who excels in the still and the pathetic...In the screen scene his mirth in revealing to Charles the story of the French milliner, and his amazement the moment after when Charles, throwing down the screen, presented that milliner in the shape of Lady Teazle, must confirm the reputation of Murray. 'Lady Teazle!' (exclaimed he, turning from her towards the door, and in an accent alarmingly impressive), 'Lady Teazle, by all that is damnable!" (Monthly Visitor, June 1797, pp. 531-32). True Briton, 6 May: Tickets to be had of Mrs Jordan, No. 14, Somerset-street, Portman-square. Receipts: #550 3s. (232.4.0; 72.2.0; 7.10.6; tickets: 238.6.6) (charge: free)

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and there saw The Silent Woman; the best comedy, I think, that ever was wrote; and sitting by Shadwell the poet, he was big with admiration of it. Here was iy Lord Brouncker and W. Pen and their ladies in the box....Knepp did her part mighty well