Event Comment: This date of performance is not a certainty; for the evidence, see Spencer, Shakespeare Improved, p. 94. Neither is Shadwell's authorship of the alterations a certainty, for the contributions of other playwrights have never been fully determined. (See Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 43.) The instrumental music was composed by Matthew Lock, with new vocal music by James? Hart and Pietro Reggio. See Songs Set by Signior Pietro Reggio, 1680. And differing versions of the second Prologue and the second Epilogue are in BM Egerton MS. 2623, ff. 54-55. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 34-35): The Year after in 1673. The Tempest, or the Inchanted Island, made into an Opera by Mr Shadwell, having all New in it; as Scenes, Machines; particularly, one Scene Painted with Myriads of Ariel Spirits; and another flying away, with a Table Furnisht out with Fruits, Sweetmeats and all sorts of Viands; just when Duke Trinculo and his Companions, were going to Dinner; all things Perform'd in it so Admirably well, that not any succeeding Opera got more Money

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance, the premiere, is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 216: first Acting. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 348. Nell Gwyn also attended this performance; see VanLennep, Nell Gwyn's Playgoing, p406. The title page states: The English Opera; or The Vocal Musick in Psyche, with the Instrumental Therein Intermix'd...By Matthew Lock. Preface: All the Instrumental Musick (which is not mingled with the Vocal) was Composed by that Great Master, Seignior Gio. Baptista Draghi, Master of the Italian Musick to the King. The Dances were made by the most famous Master of France, Monsieur St.Andree. The Scenes were Painted by the Ingenious Artist, Mr Stephenson. In those things that concern the Ornament or Decoration of the Play, the great industry and care of Mr Betterton ought to be remember'd, at whose desire I wrote upon this Subject. Roger North Upon Music: I am sure the musick in the Psyche was composed by Mr M. Lock, of whom wee may say, as the Greeks sayd of Cleomenes, that he was ultimus Heroum. This masque is also in print, and begins 'Great Psyche,' &c. and the book containing the whole musick of that entertainment is not unworthy of a place in a vertuoso's cabanet (ed. John Wilson [1959], pp. 306-7). Preface to Settle's Ibrahim (licensed 4 May 1676): I have often heard the Players cursing at their oversight in laying out so much on so disliked a play [Psyche]; and swearing that they thought they had lost more by making choice of such an Opera: writer than they had gained by all his Comedies; considering how much more they might have expected, had such an Entertainment had that scence in it, that it deserved: and that for the future they expect the Tempest, which cost not one Third of Psyche, will be in request when the other is forgotten. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 35-36): In February 1672. The long expected Opera of Psyche, came forth in all her Ornaments; new Scenes, new Machines, new Cloaths, new French Dances: This Opera was Splendidly set out, especially in Scenes; the Charge of which amounted to above 800l. It had a Continuance of Performance about 8 Days together it prov'd very Beneficial to the Company; yet the Tempest got them more Money

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is assumed from Downes' statement that the play was given on eight days and from known performances on 2 and 3 March 1674@5

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is assumed from Downes' statement that the play was given on eight days

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is assumed from Downes' statement that the play was given on eight days consecutively

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is assumed from Downes' statement that the play was acted eight days. If it was not given on Friday 5 March, it presumably was then given on 9 March

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 359. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 345. There is no certainty that this performance is the premiere, but an additional performance on 20 Nov. 1675 and the entry of the play into the Stationers' Register, 29 Nov. 1675, suggest that the first production probably occurred in early or mid-November 1675. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 10-11), gives a cast which is identical except for omissions. For Kynaston's acting of Morat (especially in the later years of the century), see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 124-26

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@142, p. 81: At the Virtuoso. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 348. Nell Gwyn also attended this performance; see VanLennep, Nell Gwyn's Playgoing, p. 407. The Diary of Robert Hooke, 25 May 1676: Mr Abraham Hill gave J. Hoskins, Aubery and I an account of Vertuoso play. A song, How retched is the slave to love, the music by Francis Forcer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Second Book, 1679. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37): The Libertine and Virtuoso: Both Wrote by Mr Shadwell; they were both very well Acted, and got the company great Reputation

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@142, p. 81. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 348. Nell Gwyn also attended this performance; see VanLennep, Nell Gwyn's Playgoing, p. 407. Nell Gwyn's attendance again on Friday 9 June suggests that she attended the premiere. On that assumption, this Calendar lists the probable ten performances which Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 36) alludes to: And all the Parts being admirably Acted, it lasted successively 10 Days; it got more Money than any preceding Modern Tragedy

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. It is not certain that this play was revived at this time, but Tom Essence, which was probably acted toward the end of August or in early September (it was licensed 4 Nov. 1676) contains a scene in "Malfey's Chamber," suggesting that a revival of The Duchess of Malfi had occurred not long before the production of Tom Essence. On the other hand, it should be noted that the cast in the edition of 1678 contains names which point to a much earlier production; for example, Cademan probably acted little after his injury in the summer of 1673 and Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 35) states that Cogan and Price died ca. 1673-74

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 359. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 346. There is no certainty that this performance is the premiere, but as the play was licensed for printing on 9 Jan. 1676@7, this performance may well be the first one. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp.9-10) lists the same cast except for the ommission of Letice. It is not certain which Mrs Knight played Letice. Possibly it was Frances Maria Knight (see Wilson, All the King's Ladies, where she is tentatively listed for that role), but the presence of Mrs Ursula Knight on an undated L. C. list, 3@24, with the date of her swearing into the company given as 12 March 1676@7, it is quite likely that she played this role. (I owe this reference to Ursula Knight to Professor John Harold Wilson.) John Dennis: And when upon the first representations of the Plain Dealer, the Town, as The Authour has often told me, appeard Doubtful what Judgment to Form of it; the foremention'd gentlemen [The Duke of Buckingham, Earl of Rochester, Earl of Dorset, Earl of Mulgrave, Savil, Buckly, Sir John Denham, Waller] by their loud aprobation of it, gave it both a sudden and a lasting reputation (Defense and Defects of Dramatick Poetry, 1725, in The Works of John Dennis, ed. Hooker, II, 277)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@143, p. 162: At the Fond Husband. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 36): [This comedy and Otway's The Soldier's Fortune] took extraordinary well, and being perfectly Acted; got the Company great Reputation and Profit. One song, Under the branches of a spreading tree, set by William? Turner, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Second Book, 1679. For Nokes and Leigh in this play, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 149. According to The Guardian, 15 June 1713, Charles II attended three of the first five nights of this play

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is known through a document summarized in The Theatrical Inquisitor and Monthly Mirror, July 1816, p. 25, and summarized in Fitzgerald, A New History, I, 145. Although this performance is the first certainly known, it is probably not the premiere, for the attendance (see below) was too small for the premiere of a new work by John Dryden. Since the play was entered in the Stationers' Register, January 1678, the first production was probably not long before this performance. The document in The Theatrical Inquisitor gives this information: The King's Box, no receipts; Mr Hayles' boxes, #3 (probably 15 spectators); Mr Mohun's boxes, #1 12s. (probably 8 spectators); Mr Yeats' boxes, 12s. (probably 3 spectators); James' boxes, #2 (probably 10 spectators). Mr Kent's pitt, 82 spectators, and Mr Britan's pitt, 35 spectators, a total of 117, paying #14 12s. 6d. Mr Bracy's gallery, 42 spectators; and Mr Johnson's gallery, 21 spectators; a total of 63 spectators, who paid #4 14s. 6d. Mr Thomson's gallery, 33 spectators, paying #1 13s. The total attendance appears to have been 249; the receipts were #28 4s. The house rent came to #5 14s. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 11) gives a cast which is identical except for omissions

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but a licensing date of 18 Feb. 1677@8 suggests a premiere not later than January 1677@8. It is possible, however, that this play followed Sir Patient Fancy (17 Jan. 1677@8), as the licensing date of Timon follows that for Sir Patient Fancy. Part of the music for Timon was composed by Louis Grabu and was published, without the singers' names, in Choice Ayres and Songs, 1679. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37): Timon of Athens, alter'd by Mr Shadwell; 'twas very well Acted, and the Musick in't well Perform'd; it wonderfully pleas'd the Court and City; being an Excellent Moral

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is uncertain. The date of licensing was 3 Jan. 1678@9, but Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, p. 222) has argued that it may well have been the first new play of the season. The Prologue refers to it as "The first Play bury'd since the Wollen Act," the Act going into effect on 1 Aug. 1678. For Sandford as Creon, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 131. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37): Oedipus King of Thebes, Wrote by Mr Nat. Lee and Mr Dryden: The last Writing the first two Acts, and the first the 3 last. This play was Admirably well Acted; especially the Parts of Oedipus and Jocasta: One by Mr Betterton, the other by Mrs Betterton; it took prodigiously being Acted 10 Days together

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known; an entry in L. C. 5@145, p. 120, lists it for 1 March, but leaves the year in question. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. Because the Prologue upbraids the audience for deserting Dorset Garden to see The Female Prelate at Drury Lane (beginning 31 May 1680) and because the Epilogue refers to railing at the Penny Post, a service inaugurated on 1 April 1680, a performance in mid-June 1680 seems the likely first production. If so, the L. C. entry for 1 March probably represents a revival for 1 March 1680@1. A song, Bonny lass gin thou wert mine, with music by Thomas Farmer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Third Book, 1681. For Leigh as Sir Jolly and Nokes as Sir Davy, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 147-48. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 36): These two Comedies [The Soulder's Fortune and D'Urfey's The Fond Husband] took extraordinary well, and being perfectly Acted; got the Company great Reputation and Profit

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not certain, particularly since an entry in L. C. 5@145, p. 120 (see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349) lists this play for 8 March, the year uncertain. Since the entry follows one for The Souldier's Fortune which followed the premiere of The Female Prelate, 31 May 1680, the L. C. entry probably is one for 8 March 1680@1. That the premiere occurred near 1 Nov. 1680 is suggested by a letter of Anne Montague to Lady Hatton, 1 Nov. 1680: For I never see the towne fuller, for I was to see the new play, The Spanish Frier, and there was all the world, but the Court is a letell dull yet; the Queen being sick, there is noe drawing room (Hatton Correspondence, Camden Society, XXII [1878], 240). A song, Farewell ungratefull Traytor, with music by Captain Pack and sung by Mrs Crofts, is in Act V. For Leigh's and Nokes' acting, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 143, 145-46. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37): 'Twas Admirably Acted, and produc'd vast Profit to the Company

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 Duke's Company. This performance is known by the separately printed Prologue and Epilogue: Prologue. By Mr Otway to his Play call'd Venice preserv'd or the Plot discover'd. Acted at His Royal Highness the Duke of Yorks Theatre, the 9th of February, 1681. [These have been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 61-66.] Luttrell dated his copy of the Prologue and Epilogue 11 Feb. 1681@2 (Huntington Library). It is not certain that 9 Feb. 1681@2 represents the first performance, but it may well be. For a comment by Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, on Mrs Barry, see The Orphan, February 1679@80

Event Comment: The United Company. There is uncertainty concerning this date; it appears on Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) of the separately printed Prologue and Epilogue, and the date may represent the time of his purchase rather than a date of performance. The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 141-45. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 39-40): All the preceding Plays, being the chief that were Acted in Dorset-Garden, from November 1671, to the Year 1682; at which time the Patentees of each Company United Patents; and by so Incorporating the Duke's Company were made the King's Company, and immediately remov'd to the Theatre Royal in Drury-Lane. Upon this Union, Mr Hart being the Heart of the Company under Mr Killigrew's Patent never Acted more, by reason of his Malady; being Afflicted with the Stone and Gravel, of which he Dy'd some time after: Having a Sallary of 40 Shillings a Week to the Day of his Death. But the Remnant of that Company; as, Major Mohun, Mr Cartwright, Mr Kynaston, Mr Griffin, Mr Goodman, Mr Duke Watson, Mr Powel, Sr, Mr Wiltshire, Mrs Corey, Mrs Bowtell, Mrs Cook, Mrs Montfort. [Joined the new company]. Note, now Mr Monfort and Mr Carlile, were grown to the Maturity of good Actors. The mixt Company then Reviv'd the several old and Modern Plays, that were the Propriety of Mr Killigrew, as Rule a Wife, and have a Wife: Mr Betterton Acting Michael Perez; Don Leon, Mr Smith, Cacofogo, Mr Cartwright: Margaretta, Mrs Barry: Estiphania, Mrs Cook. Next, @The Scornful Lady.@The Plain Dealer.@The Mock Astrologer.@The Jovial Crew.@The Beggars Bush.@Bartholomew-Fair.@The Moor of Venice.@Rollo.@The Humorous Lieutenant.@The Double Marriage.@ With divers others. George Powell, Preface to The Treacherous Brothers (1690): The Time was, upon the uniting of the Two Theatres, that the Reviveing of the old stock of Plays, so ingrost the study of the House, that the Poets lay dorment; and a new Play cou'd hardly get admittance, amongst the more precious pieces of Antiquity, that then waited to walk the Stage. Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 95-96): I shall content myself with telling you that Mohun and Hart now growing old [for, above thirty Years before this Time, they had severally born the King's Commission of Major and Captain in the Civil Wars), and the younger Actors, as Goodman, Clark, and others, being impatient to get into their Parts, and growing intractable, the Audiences too of both Houses then falling off, the Patentees of each, by the King's Advice, which perhaps amounted to a Command, united their Interests and both Companies into one, exclusive of all others in the Year 1682. This Union was, however, so much in favour of the Duke's Company, that Hart left the Stage upon it, and Mohun survived not long after

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not certain, but it was very likely this day. Writing on 12 May 1688, Peregrine Bertie states that it had been acted nine days successively. If the ninth performance fell on Friday 12 May, the premiere probably occurred on Wednesday 3 May. The Prologue and Epilogue, printed separately, are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 261-63. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 41): This Play by its Excellent Acting, being often Honour's with the presence of Chancellor Jeffereies, and other great Persons had an Uninterrupted run of 13 Days together. Note, The Poet receided for his third Day in the House in Drury Lane at single Prizes 130 l. which was the greatest Receipt they ever had at that House at single Prizes. Dedication, Edition of 1688: This, I must confess, made me hope for success upon the Stage, which it met with, but so great, as was above my expectation (in this Age which has run mad after Farces) no Comedy, for these many years, having fill'd the Theatre so long together: And I had the great Honour to find so many Friends, that the House was never so full since it was built, as upon the third day of this Play; and vast numbers went away, that could not be admitted. For Leigh as Belfond Sr, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 147-48; and for Underhill as Lolpoop, I, 154-55. For further comment upon the play, see 12 May 1688

Event Comment: If the sequence of performances outlined here is correct, this is the third day. See Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 41) for the receipts, and Peregrine Bertie's comments on 12 May 1688

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: The United Company. The date of the premiere is not known, although a reference in the text to 1690 suggests that the play may have been produced in that year; but the fact that it was not advertised in the London Gazette until 6-9 April and not entered in the Term Catalogues until May 1691 suggest that it posaibly appeared early in 1691. This play was discussed in Wit for Money, or Poet Stutter; A Dialogue between Smith, Johnson, and Poet Stutter; containing Reflections on some late Plays, and particularly on Love for Money, or The Boarding School. The British Museum copy of this pamphlet has a manuscript date of 23 April 1691. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42: The Boarding School; Wrote by Mr Durfy, it took well being justly Acted. Earl of Ailesbury, mid-January 1690@1: My Lady Fenwick was a great intriguer, and had always castles in the air in her imagination to that degree, that I was present at a play where she was brought in. If I mistake not it was The Boarding School, and the famous comic, Mr Lee, in woman's clothes represented her to the life, and so exactly had her features and complexion that one could hardly have distinguished one from the other (Memoirs, [London, 1890], II, 390-91)