Event Comment: The King's company. On 31 Aug. or 1 Sept. 1664 Orrery wrote to Sir Henry Bennett: Ther was noe Play of myne Acted, they are now but Studyinge it; I hope within less then a Fortnight twill be on ye Theater And if you are not surfetted, with what of mine you have already seene [Henry V], I will beg ye honour to wait on you when tis Acted (see The Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, ed. W. S. Clark@II [Cambridge, Mass., 1937], 1, 102). The play is also on the list of Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 138. Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 281, lists it among the plays given at court, but Sir Heneage Finch's note (see below) seems to indicate an afternoon performance. Sir Heneage Finch to Sir Edward Dering, 15 Sept. 1664: Yesterday was acted, in the Greatest and noblest presence wch ye Court can make, before ye fullest Theatre, & with the highest applause imaginable, my Lo Orerys new play calld ye Generall formerly acted in Ireland by the name of Altamira, but much altered & improved. From thence the whole Court went to Wallingford house, where the Earl of Arran and the Lady Mary Stuart were that night before Supper marryd in the Gallery (Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, I, 103, from Stowe MS 744 f. 81)

Event Comment: On this date the masque was certainly acted, and the possible performance on 15 Feb. 1674@5 may have been a final rehearsal. Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library): This day the great maske at court is publiquely acted wch is intended to exceed all others of that Nature, the 2 young Princesses, the Duke of Monmouth & all ye principall persons of quality abt ye Court having parts in it (Wilson, Theatre Notes, p. 79). The Bulstrode Papers (1, 277): 15 Feb. 1674@5: To-morrow the great mask at Court is to be publickly acted in all its bravery and pompe, the like of whch was never yett seene, all the greatest persons of quality about Court having pts in it

Event Comment: Edward Gower to Sir R. Leveson, 26 Feb. 1660@1: No more plays at court after this night, and but three days this week at the playhouse (HMC, 5th Report, 1876, p. 202). Boswell (Restoration Court Stage, p. 279) accepts this as evidence that a play was acted at Court on this night. As this was Shrove Tuesday, Gower's statement may well reflect the restrictions upon plays during Lent

Event Comment: The King's Company. See 5 Feb. Pepys, Diary: [The Slighted Maid] being done, we took coach and to court, and there got good places, and saw The Wilde Gallant, performed by the King's house, but it was ill acted, and the play so poor a thing as I never saw in my life almost, and so little answering the name, that from beginning to end, I could not, nor can at this time, tell certainly which was the Wild Gallant. The King did not seem pleased at all, all the whole play, nor any body else, though Mr Clerke whome we met here did commend it to us....Now as my mind was but very ill satisfied with these two plays themselves, so was I in the midst of them sad to think of the spending so much money and venturing upon the breach of my vow, which I found myself sorry for, I bless God, though my nature would well be contented to follow the pleasure still. But I did make payment of my forfeiture presently, though I hope to save it back again by forbearing two plays at court for this one at the Theatre, or else to forbear that to the Theatre which I am to have at Easter. But it being my birthday and my day of liberty regained to me, and lastly, the last play that is likely to be acted at Court before Easter, because of the Lent coming in, I was the easier content to fling away so much money

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Boswell (Restoration Court Stage, p. 282) thinks that this play given on the L. C. lists--see Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 346--between 29 Oct. and 6 Nov., may have been acted on this day. See also an order for supplies for the comedians acting at court in Alwin Thaler, Shakespear to Sheridan, p. 290. Pepys, Diary: I to White Hall, where I staid walking up and down till night, and then got almost into the playhouse, having much mind to go and see the play at Court this night; but fearing how I should get nome, because of the bonefires and the lateness of the night to get a coach, I did not stay

Event Comment: The King's Company. For an edition of this play from the MS prompt copy, see The Change of Crownes, ed. F. S. Boas (Oxford University Press, 1949). For the consequences of Lacy's ad libbing, see 16, 20, and 22 April, and 1 May. Pepys, Diary: I to the King's house by chance, where a new play: so full as I never saw it; I forced to stand all the while close to the very till I took cold, and many people went away for want of room. The King and Queene, and Duke of York and Duchesse of York there, and all the Court, and Sir W. Coventry. The play called The Change of Crownes; a play of Ned Howard's the best that ever I saw at that house, being a great play and serious; only Lacy did act the country-gentleman come up to Court, who do abuse the Court with all the imaginable wit and plainness about selling of places, and doing every thing for money. The play took very much.... Gervase Jaquis to the Earl of Huntington, 16 April: Here is another play house erected in Hatton buildings called the Duke of Cambridgs play-house, and yester-day his Matie the Duke & many more were at the King's Playe house to see some new thing Acted (Hastings MSS, HA 7654, Huntington Library)

Event Comment: The King's Company. Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library), 15 Nov. 1681: This being ye Q.s birthday ye K.s players acted Alexdr ye great after wch was a ball & entertainment given to ye Ct. (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80). Luttrell, 15 Nov. 1681: The 15th, being the birth day of her majestie, was kept with ringing of bells, bonefires, &c.; and at night there was a play acted at Whitehall before the king and queen, where the court appeared in great splendor (A Brief Relation, I, 144). The Earl of Arran to Ormond, 15 Nov. 1681: I am going to a play at court (HMC, Ormonde MSS., New Series, VI, 230). L. C. 5@144, p. 246, 22 Nov. 1681: Whereas Jeoffrey Ayleworth, Thomas ffarmer, Thomas ffinall & Richard Tomlinson foure of his Mates Musitians have neglected their dury in attending at ye play acted before his Mate at Whitehall on Tuesday night last for which I have suspended them (L. C. to the Treasurer of the Chamber, in Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 100)

Event Comment: The date of the premiere is not known, but the fact that the opera was advertized in the Post Man, 14-16 Jan. 1696@7, suggests that it was first acted not later than December 1696. As the title page indicates, the work had been intended for presentation before the Court, but the death of Queen Mary prevented its appearance at Court. A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702), p. 19: Sullen: But to go on, Cynthia and Endymion. Ramble: What a Pox is that? I never heard on't. Sullen: I believe not; 'tis one of Durfey's Toys. Ramble: Durfey's? what again? 'twas just now we parted with him. Sullen: Ay but Sir, you must know this is an Opera--and as he tells us in the Title-page, design'd t be perform'd at court before the late Queen--there's for you; Durfey in his Altitudes--but notwithstanding the vain and conceited Title-page, 'tis good for nothing within: He's the very Antipodes to all the Poets, Antient and Modern: Other Poets treat the Deities civilly, but Mr Durfey makes the Gods Bullies, and Jilts of the chastest Goddesses. Ramble: So, I suppose that was mawl'd, notwithstanding the Honour which he says the Queen intended it. Sullen: 'Twas well for Durfey her late Majesty never saw it; Gad if she had, People wou'd ha' said, it had first been the cause of her Illness, and then of her Death; for 'tis a mortifying Piece o' my Word; Yes, yes,--it was Damn'd