Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. Luttrell, however, dated the copy he purchased 6 July 1680 (VanLennep, Two Restoration Comedies, pp. 57-58) and attributed it to Mrs Aphra Behn. If copies were available in early July, the play was most probably performed in June 1680. Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets, p. 547) had heard that Mrs Behn was the author, but A Comparison between the Two Stages (p. 11) attributed it to Thomas Betterton. For a discussion of the authorship, see also Ten English Farces, ed. Leo Hughes and A. H. Scouten (Austin, Texas, 1948), pp. 203-4

Event Comment: The King's Company. The Newdigate newsletters, 3 June 1680: On Munday last the King's players began to Act...Pope Joan & on Tuesday the D. of Norolke was there to see it (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80)

Event Comment: The King's Company. The Newdigate newsletters, 3 June 1680: But on Wednesday the Duchesse of Portsmouth to disoblige Mr Settle the Poet carryed all the Court with her to the Dukes house to see Macbeth (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. See dl, 2 June 1680

Event Comment: The King's Company acted at Oxford during this month. See Sybil Rosenfeld, Some Notes on the Players in Oxford, 1661-1713, Review of English Studies, XIX (1943), 369-70

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 Duke's Company. As the play was not printed until 1689, the date of composition is uncertain. In Act I, however, a reference to the death of the Earl of Rochester (26 July 1680) suggests that the play probably followed that even rather closely. On the other hand, the latest likely date for the first production seems set at late 1682 by the fact that Thomas Farmer's music for the play in BM Add. Mss. 19183-19185 is dated December 1682. The play has been placed in September 1680 as the earliest likely date (the presence of an experienced cast makes somewhat unlikely a production in mid-summer 1680). A song, All other blessings are but toys, with music by Thomas Farmer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Fourth Book, 1683. A song, Lovely Selina, innocent and free, with music by John Blow, is in the same collection; and another, Weep all ye nymphs, with music by John Blow, is in The Theater of Music, The First Book, 1685

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not certain, but the Dedication speaks of its being acted two days and an order, L. C. 5@144, p. 29 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p.1 on), dated 14 Dec. 1680, banning it suggest that it was performed on 11 and 13 Dec. 1680. It is possible, however, that Tate's statements may refer to performances on 18 and 19 Jan. 1680@1. Dedication, Edition of 1681: For the two Days in which it was Acted, the Change of the Scene, Names of Persons, &c. was a great Disadvantage: many things were by this means render'd obscure and incoherent that in their native Dress had appear'd not only proper but gracefull. I call'd my Persons Sicilians but might as well have made 'em Inhabitants of the Isle of Pines. Henry Purcell composed the music for a song, "Retir'd from any mortal's sight." See Purcell, Works, The Purcell Society, XX (1916), ix-x

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. That this date is the premiere is conjectured from the order, dated 11 Dec. 1680, forbidding further acting of this play. See L. C. 5@144, p. 28, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p.1 on: Whereas I am informed that there is Acted by you a Play called Lucius Junius Brutus..wherein are very Scandalous Expressions & Reflections upon ye Government these are to require you Not to Act ye said Play again. In the Preface to Charles Gildon's The Patriot (1703) it is stated that Lee's play was banned after the third day's Acting, by the Lord Chamberlain Arlington as an anti-monarchical play." As the order is dated 11 Dec. 1680, the drama was probably presented on 8, 9, and 10 Dec. 1680.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. An entry in L. C. 5@145, p. 120 (see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349) lists a performance for 4 April, once thought to be 4 April 1680; but as this date falls on Sunday, it more likely represents a revival on 4 April 1681. As the Epilogue appears to appeal to Parliament (which existed from 15 Oct. 1680 to 18 Jan. 1680@1) to vote funds for King Charles, "Our King of Poets," it seems likely that the play was first performed before the close of Parliament. The play was not entered in the Term Catalogues until June 1681. A song, Phyllis whose heart was unconfined, set by Thomas? Farmer; and another, A pox upon this cursed life, set by Captain Pack, are in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Fourth Book, 1683

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: The King's Company. According to the L. C. records (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 33 on) the King's Theater was closed from 19 to 29 Jan. 1680@1

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. As the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1681, it was probably first acted not later than March 1681. The title page states: Revis'd with Alterations

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play appears on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120--see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349--without an assigned year. For arguments against assigning it to 1 March 1679@80, see the discussion in mid-June1680

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120--see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349--immediately following the 1 March listing for The Soldier's Fortune. Because The Spanish Fryar was apparently a newly acted play on 1 Nov. 1680, the performance on this L. C. list is assigned to 8 March 1680@1 rather than to 8 March 1679@80

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 Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120: with ye Q: & a Box for ye Maides of Honor. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349

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: 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: In an inquiry concerning how many days the King's Company had been unable to act in the spring, William Cartwright on this day stated that he had been ill and absent and had not been among the players more than four or five times since 1 Feb. 1680@1. 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: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell dated his copy, 17 Dec. 1681; hence a November 1681 first production is likely. See VanLennep, Two Restoration Comedies, pp. 57-58