Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@142, p. 81: At the Man of Mode. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 348. Nell Gwyn also attended this performance. See VanLennep, Nell Gwyn's Playgoing, p. 407. It is uncertain whether this is the premiere, but the licensing date of 3 June 1676 suggests that the first production may have occurred at this time. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 36): This Comedy being well Cloath'd and well Acted, got a great deal of Money. One song, As Amoret with Phyllis sat, the words by Sir Car Scroope and the music by Nicholas Staggins, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Second Book, 1679; another, When first Amintas charmed my heart, the music by Staggins, is in the same collection, Fifth Book, 1684. John Dennis: I remember very well that upon the first acting this Comedy, it was generally believed to be an agreeable Representation of the Persons of Condition of both both Sexes, both in Court and Town; and that all the World was charm'd with Dorimont (A Defence of Sir Fopling Flutter, 1722, p. 18). For the full text of Dennis' discussion of this play, see The Critical Works of John Dennis, ed. E. N. Hooker (Baltimore, 1943), II, 241-50

Event Comment: Young Gentlewoman-Miss E. Miller, marryed since to Mr Thomas Baker, an actor of cg, and a singing master. Mrs Baker is at present separated from her husband (1792) and performs only at Sadler's Wells in Pantomimes &c! Qu: Count Haslang and Mrs Baker (Hopkins MS Notes). Income from Boxes #27 2s. 6d. Nightly expense as usual #32 16s. 11d. Receipts: #74 7s. 6d. (Winston Theatrical Record)

Event Comment: By Particular desire. [Isaac Reed saw this performance and noted that Miss Elliot played Polly (Isaac Reed, Diaries, ed. C. E. Jones (Univ. of California Publ. English, 1946), p. 14).

Event Comment: [Macklin dismissed after this night. See the account in The Genuine Arguments of the Council, with the Opinion of the Court of the King's Bench, &c., By a Citizen of the World, (London, 1774). Extracts in E. R. Page, George Colman, the Elder (New York, 1935). See notes for 23 and 30 Oct. and the subsequent action in note for 20 Nov. He did not return until 18 May 1775. This night was aparently, except for #4 5s. which was not recorded on the books of the theatre until 18 June well after the season closed. Macklin's suit in court against the rioters was judged 24 Feb. 1775. A column and a half account of the trial appeared in the Public Advertiser, Saturday 13 May 1775, giving the testimony of the witnesses accused of starting the riot, the lawyers, and the judge. The accused were Leigh, Miles, James, Aldus, and Clarke. The first four were convicted of a conspiracy and a riot, the last of a riot only. During the Course of the Business Lord Mansfield took Occasion to observe, that the Right of Hissing, and Applauding in a theatre was an unalterable Right, but there was a wide Distinction between expressing the natural Sensations of the Mind as they arose on what was seen and heard, and executing a pre-concerted Desagn, not only to hiss an Actor when he was playing a Part in which he was universally allowed to be excellent, but also to drive him from the theatre, and effect his utter ruin." See also William W. Appleton, Charles Macklin, An Actors Life (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), Chapter X.

Event Comment: Boxes 5s. Pit 3s. Gallery 2s. Upper Gallery 1s. Full prices. No money returned after curtain is drawn up. Vivat Rex. [A. Murphy and S. Foote joined a partnership and rented dl theatre from Garrick for summer performances (Genest, IV, 616). For Gentleman, Miller? See Winston MS 9.

Event Comment: Never acted. [See Genest's comment (IV, 618) derived from Cumberland and the London Magazine-its appeal to the fashionable circles, its damnation at first performance because of the hanging of Harlequin in full view, and its modification thereafter. See 18 June and Horace Walpole to George Montagu [Arlington Street] July 28, 1761: I came to town yesterday through clouds of dust to see The Wishes, and went ac- [I, 381] tually feeling for Mr Bentley, and full of the emotions he must be suffering. What do [you] think in a house crowded was the first thing I saw! Mr and Madam Bentley perked up in the front boxes and acting audience at his own play--no, all the impudence of false patriotism never came up to it! Did one ever hear of an author that had couraee to see his own first night in public? I don't believe Fielding or Foote himself ever did--and this was the modest bashful Mr Bentley, that died at the thought of being known for an author, even by his own acquaintance! In the stage-box was Lady Bute, Lord Halifax and Lord Melcomb-I must say the two last entertained the house as much as the play-your King was prompter, and called out to the actors every minute to speak louder-the other went backwards and forwards behind the scenes, fetched the actors into the box, and was busier than Harlequin. The curious prologue was not spoken, the whole very ill-acted. It turned out just what I remembered it, the good parts extremely good, the rest very flat and vulgar-the genteel dialogue I believe might be written by Mrs Hannah. The audience was extremely fair. The first act they bore with patience, though it promised very ill-the second is admirable and was much applauded-so was the third-the fourth woeful-the beginning of the fifth it seemed expiring, but was revived by a delightful burlesque of the ancient chorus-which was followed by two dismal scenes, at which people yawned-but were awakened on a sudden by Harlequin's being drawn up to a gibbet nobody knew why or wherefore-this raised a prodigious and continued hiss, Harlequin all the while suspended in the air-at last they were suffered to finish the play, but nobody attended to the conclusion-modesty and his lady all the while sat with the utmost indifference-I suppose Lord Melcombe had fallen asleep [p. 382] before he came to this scene and had never read it. The epilogue was about the King and new Queen, and ended with a personal satire on Garrick-not very kind on his own stage-to add to the judge of this conduct, Cumberland two days ago published a pamphlet to abuse him. It was given out for tonight with more claps than hisses, but I think it will not do unless they reduce it to three acts." [p. 383]. Correspondence with George Montagu. Ed. W. S. Lewis & Ralph Brown. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), I, 381-83] Note: (I, 381n): Bentley's play of The Wishes or Harlequin's Mouth Opened, was offered to Garrick and Rich the beginning of 1761, but wasrefused by both. His nephew Cumberland showed it to Lord Melcomb, who carried it to Lord Bute, with a compliment in verse to that Lord by Mr Cumberland. Lord Bute showed it to the King, who sent Bentley #200 and ordered the new summer company to play [it]. There was a prologue, flattering the King and Lord Bute which Foote refused to act. Two days before it was played, Cumberland wrote an anonymous pamphlet, addressed to Mr Bentley, and abusing Garrick, who had refused to act Cumberland's tragedy of Cicero's banishment, which he printed this year [1761], unacted. The Wishes were played for the first time July 27th, 1761; the 2d 3d and part of the 4th, acts were much applauded, but the conclusion extremely hissed. The Epilogue concluded with a satire on Garrick. It was acted five nights. About the same time he wrote a tragedy called Philodamus, which he was to read to Garrick, but the latter was so angry at their treatment of him, that he declared against seeing Mr Bentley" (MS account by HW of Bentley's writings, in the collection of Lord Waldegrave at Chewton Priory)

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 first performance is not known, but it very probably occurred not later than May 1691, as the play was advertised in the London Gazette, 4-8 June 1691. For discussions of it, see E. W. White, Early Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59), 44-45, and R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theatre, Chapter III. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42: King Arthur an Opera, wrote by Mr Dryden: it was Excellently Adorn'd with Scenes and Machines: The Musical Part set by Famous Mr Henry Purcel; and Dances made by Mr Jo. Priest: The Play and Musick pleas'd the Court and City, and being well perform'd, twas very Gainful to the Company. Roger North: I remember in Purcell's excellent opera of King Arthur, when Mrs Butler, in the person of Cupid, was to call up Genius, she had the liberty to turne her face to the scean, and ner back to the theater. She was in no concerne for her face, but sang a recitativo of calling towards the place where Genius was to rise, and performed it admirably, even beyond any thing I ever heard upon the English stage....And I could ascribe it to nothing so much as the liberty she had of concealing her face, which she could not endure should be so contorted as is necessary to sound well, before her gallants, or at least her envious sex. There was so much of admirable musick in that opera, that it's no wonder it's lost; for the English have no care of what's good, and therefore deserve it not (Roger North on Music, ed. John Wilson [London, 1959], p. 217-18)

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is stated in Luttrell, A Brief Relation, II, 435, 28 April 1692: On Monday will be acted a new opera, call the Fairy Queen: exceeds former playes: the clothes, scenes, and musick cost 3000#. [According to Some Select Songs As they are Sung in the Fairy Queen (1692) tne singers were Mrs Ayliff, Mrs Dyer, Freeman, Mrs Butler, and Pate. See Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XII (1903), ii; E. W. White, Early Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59 ), 45; and R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theatre, Chapter IV.] Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 42-43: The Fairy Queen, made into an Opera, from a Comedy of Mr Shakespeare s: This in Ornaments was Superior to the other Two [King Arthur and The Prophetess]; especially in Cloaths, for all the Singers and Dancers, Scenes, Machines and Decorations, all most profusely set off; and excellently perform'd, chiedly the Instrumental and Vocal part Compos'd by the said Mr Purcel, and Dances by Mr Priest. The Court and Town were wonderfully satisfy'd with it; but the Expences in setting it out being so great, the Company got very little by it. Gentleman's Journal, May 1692: The Opera of which I have spoke to you in my former hath at last appear'd, and continues to be represented daily: it is call'd, The Fairy Queen. The Drama is originally Shakespears, the Music and Decorations are extraordinary. I have heard the Dances commended, and without doubt the whole is very entertaining. [As the May issue of the Gentleman's Journal was licensed on 14 May, the statement that The Fairy Queen continued to be acted daily may indicate consecutive performances from 2 May to at le ast 14 May 1692.

Event Comment: At the Desire of several Persons of Quality. Afterpiece: a Grotesque Entertainment. With new Scenes and Habits. Daily Post, 17 Nov.: We hear the following new Pieces are writ into Parts and are to be play'd at [dl] with all convenient Expedition, viz, The Perjur'd Love; or, The Broken Heart, a Tragedy; The Provident Wife; or, The Doctor's the Disease, a Comedy; and the Tragedy of Brutus

Event Comment: Never Acted before. [By Charles Johnson.] Preface: I had the Mortification to see this Play acted the first Night, and to hear the Characters of Mother Lupine and her Women disapprov'd by several of the Audience, who, as if they thought themselves in bad Company, were very severe

Event Comment: Benefit Roberts and Jones. Afterpiece: A New Ballad Opera of one Act [by Edward Phillips]. [For a puff of the afterpiece, see Daily Advertiser, 25 April, and Daily Post, 2 May.