Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's Theatre, where we saw Midsummer's Night's Dream, which I had never seen before, nor shall ever again, for it is the most inspid ridiculous play that ever I saw in my life. I saw, I confess, some good dancing and some handsome women, which was all my Pleasure

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: After dinner with my wife to the Duke's Theatre, and saw the second part of Rhodes, done with the new Roxalana; which do it rather better in all respects for person, voice, and judgment, than the first Roxalana [Mrs Davenport]. Home with great content with my wife, not so well pleased with the company at the house to-day, which was full of citizens, there hardly being a gentleman or woman in the house; a couple of pretty ladies by us that made sport in it, being jostled and crowded by prentices

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: Thence to Lincoln's Inn Fields; and it being too soon to go to dinner, I walked up and down, and looked upon the outside of the new theatre, now a-building in Covent Garden, which will be very fine

Event Comment: This play was seen by Jacques Thierry and Will Schellinks (Seaton, Literary Relationships, pp. 334, 336), but no theatre is named. The most recent dated performance was given by the Duke's Company, 5 Dec. 1661

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: After dinner by water to the Royall Theatre [Bridges St]; but that was so full they told us we could have no room. And so to the Duke's House; and there saw Hamlett done, giving us fresh reason never to think enough of Betterton. Who should come upon the stage but Gosnell, my wife's maid? but neither spoke, danced, nor sung; which I was sorry for. But she becomes the stage very well

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the Royall Theatre [Bridges St], but they not acting today, then to the Duke's house, and there saw The Slighted Mayde, wherein Gosnell acted Pyramena, a great part, and did it very well, and I believe will do it better and better, and prove a good actor. The play is not very excellent, but is well acted, and in general the actors, in all particulars, are better than at the other house

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: To the New Theatre [Vere St], which, since the King's players are gone to the Royal one [Bridges St], is this day begun to be employed by the fencers to play prizes at

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: Nethercot (Davenant,pp. 337-78) believes that this play was brought out in the late summer of 1663. The Epilogue refers to the Long Vacation, presumably the summer of 1663, as the play is referred to in Stapylton's The Stepmother, which was licensed 26 Dec. 1663. In Act V is a farce relating to Pompey; as Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets, p. 405) states: Pompey, a Tragedy, which I have seen acted with great Applause, at the Duke's Theatre, and at the End was acted that Farce printed in the fifth Act of The Play-house to be Let. [See also June 1663.

Event Comment: On this date a band of French comedians received a permit authorizing them to bring their scenes and stage decoration to England. See W. J. Lawrence, "Early French Players in England," The Elizabethan Playhouse and Other Studies, p. 140; Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 252; and Madame M. Horn-Monval, "French Troupes in England during the Restoration," Theatre Notebook, VII (1953), 82

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 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: Pepys, Diary: And took my wife out immediately to the King's Theatre, it being a new month, and once a month I may go, and there saw The Indian Queen acted; which indeed is a most pleasant show, and beyond my expectation; the play good, but spoiled with the ryme, which breaks the sense. But above my expectation most, the eldest Marshall did do her part most excellently well as I ever heard woman in my life; but her voice not so sweet so Ianthe's [Mrs Betterton's]; but, however, we came home mightily contented

Event Comment: Pepys, 7 March, refers to a new play at the King's Theatre. Possibly it was Thomas Porter's The Carnival, published in 1664, with no actors' names, no prologue, no epilogue, and announced in The Intelligencer, 2 May 1664

Event Comment: A facsimile of a bill announcing A Trial of Skill at this playhouse, 30 May 1664, is in Rariora, ed. John Eliot Hodgkin (London, n.d.), III, 53-54. See also William VanLennep, The Death of the Red Bull, Theatre Notebook, XVI (1962), 133-34

Event Comment: Mrs Pepys attended a play, but the theatre and the play are not named by Pepys

Event Comment: The play was entered in the Stationers' Register on 26 May 1665. In addition, the Prologue alludes to The Indian Queen (25 Jan. 1663@4): @The Scenes are old, the Habits are the same,@We wore last year, before the Spaniards came.@ Printed with The Indian Emperour was The Connexion of the Indian Emperour to the Indian Queen, which may have been distributed at the theatre, for Bayes, in The Rehearsal, remarks: Besides, Sir, I have printed above a hundred sheets of paper to insinuate the Plot into the Boxes

Event Comment: W. S. Clark (Works of Orrery, 1, 40-41) believes that this is Thomas Middleton's play, not one by Orrery. Henry Savile to George Savile: I am come newly from my Lord of Orrery's new play called The Widow, whose character you will receive from better hands. I will only say that one part of it is the humour of a man that has great need to go to the close stool, where there are such indecent postures as would never be suffered upon any stage but ours, which has quite turn'd the stomach of so squeamish a man as I am, that am used to see nothing upon a theatre that might not appear in the ruelle of a fine lady (Savile Correspondence, ed. W. D. Cooper, Camden Society, LXXI [1858], 4)

Event Comment: Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery, to Edward, Viscount Conway, 17 July 1666: If we meet at London you will see a Play Acted, wh I writt by ye King s Command; I call it, Edward ye Black Prince; And if ever I writt anythinge fit for ye Theatre this Play is it (Calendar of State Papers, Ireland, 1666-1669, p. 158; in The Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, 1, 43)

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is listed in the L. C. records 5@139, p. 129: at the Theatre the Queenes Mate there. L. C. 5@12, p. 17 reads: King & Queene here

Event Comment: [The King's Company. Evelyn, Diary: Saw the Virgin Queene a play written by Mr Dryden &c. [Possibly the run of this play continued, for Pepys saw it again on 25 March and there are no certain performances of other plays at the King's Theatre. If Secret Love was acted without interruption, except for the customary non-acting days in Lent, it was probably given on 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 March.

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: And took up my wife, and to Polichinelli at Charing Crosse, which is prettier and prettier, and so full of variety that it is extraordinary good entertainment. (See also George Speaight, The History of the English Puppet Theatre [London, 1955], p. 75.

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: In haste to carry my wife to see the new play I saw yesterday, she not knowing it. But there, contrary to expectation, find The Silent Woman. However in; and there Knipp come into the pit...[and] tells me the King was so angry at the liberty taken by Lacy's part to abuse him to his face, that he commanded they should act no more, till Moone [Mohun] went and got leave for them to act again, but not this play. The King mighty angry; and it was better indeed, but very true and witty. I never was more taken with a play than I am with this "Silent Woman," as old as it is, and as often as I have seen it. There is more wit in it than goes to ten new plays. Nathaniel Wanby, Coventry, 1667: We have known in our time that the Silent Woman hath had the loud applause of a whole theatre (BM Harleian MS. 6430, p.23)

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@139, p. 129, and 5@12, p. 17; Bartholomew fayre at the Theatre. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 343