Event Comment: See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 116. This was the King's Company (Killigrew's), now removed from the red bull to Gibbons' Tennis Court in Vere Street. Probably Clun acted Falstaff. (See An Elegy Upon the Most Execrable Murther in A Little Ark, ed. G. Thorn-Drury, pp. 30-31.

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: I to a play, The Scornfull Lady. [Because this play was offered at Vere Street on 21 Nov. 1660 and because Pepys had been attending that playhouse, it seems likely that this was also a production of the King's Company.

Event Comment: The King's Company. See Herbert (Dramatic Records, p. 117), where are listed The Loyall Subject, Mad Louer, The Wildgoose Chase following this play but preceding April 1661. Pepys, Diary: I went by coach to the play-house at the Theatre, our coach in King Street breaking, and so took another. Here we saw Argalus and Parthenia, which I lately saw, but though pleasant for the dancing and singing, I do not find good for any wit or design therein

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: And then out to the red bull (where I had not been since plays come up again)...where I was led by a seaman that knew me, but is here as a servant, up to the tireing-room, where strange the confusion and disorder that there is among them in fitting themselves, especially here, where the clothes are very poor, and the actors but common fellows. At last into the pitt, where I think there was not above ten more than myself, and not one hundred in the whole house. And the play, which is called All's lost by Lust, poorly done; and with so much disorder, among others, that in the musique-room the boy that was to sing a song, not singing it right, his master fell about his ears and beat him so, that it put the whole house in an uprore. Nicoll (Restoration Drama, p. 309) argues that George Jolly probably occupied the red bull in St John's Street, Clerkenwell. When Richard Walden saw the red bull players at Oxford in July 1661, Anne Gibbs acted Dionysia in All's Lost by Lust. It is possible that she played that role on this day. See Walden's Io Ruminans, 1662

Event Comment: Sixtus Petri Arnoldinus saw bear-baiting and bull-baiting at "the playhouse standing in St John's Street." See 16 Aug.; Zwager, p. 288

Event Comment: The King's Company. An edition, undated but possibly issued about this time, refers to its being acted at Vere Street. The edition has no cast, no prologue, no epilouge. Pepys, Diary: Sir W. Pen and his daughter and I and my wife to the Theatre, and there saw Father's own Son, a very good play, and the first time I ever saw it

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary This noon going to the Exchange, I met a fine fellow with trumpets before him in Leadenhall-street, and upon enquiry I find that he is the clerk of the City Market; and three or four men carried each of them an arrow of a pound weight in their hands. It seems this Lord Mayor begins again an old custome, that upon the first days of Bartholomew Fayre, the first, there is a match of wrestling, which was done, and the Lord Mayor there and Aldermen in Moorefields yesterday: to-day, shooting: and to-morrow, hunting.And this officer of course is to perform this ceremony of riding through the city, I think to proclaim and challenge any to shoot. It seems that the people of the fayre cry out upon it as a great hindrance to them

Event Comment: Henry Muddiman, 29 Nov. 1666: The Players have upon great proffers of disposing a large share to charitable uses prevailed to have liberty to act at Both Houses, which they begin this day (CSPD, Charles II, clxxcii, 6, in Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 250). A manuscript prologue for the opening of the theatre in Bridges Street is in J. Payne Collier's MS Restoration Stage History, Part I, p. 106, in the Houghton Library, Harvard. The Diary of John Milward, Esq., ed. Caroline Robbins (Cambridge, 1938), p. 49: This day at my coming to the House [of Commons] it moved that plays might be tolerated and acted in the common theatres, and whether any members of the House of Commons should be admitted to go to acts of the playhouses, but it was not resolved

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: I to Bartholomew fayre, to walk up and down; and there, among other things, find my Lady Castlemayne at a puppet-play, Patient Grizill, and the street full of people expecting her coming out. I confess I did wonder at her courage to come abroad, thinking the people would abuse her; but they, silly people! do not know her work she makes, and therefore suffered her with great respect to take coach, and she away, without any trouble at all, which I wondered at, I confess. I only walked up and down

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: [After stopping at Bridges Street] against our wills, went all to see Tu Quoque again, where there is pretty store of company, and going with a prejudice the play appeared better to us. Here we saw Madam Morland, who is grown mighty fat, but is very comely. But one of the best parts of our sport was a mighty Pretty lady that sat behind us, that did laugh so heartily and constantly, that it did me good to hear her

Event Comment: The Journal of Sir Richard Bulstrode (p. 19): This evening is repeated in the great Hall by foure persons of quality the Indian Emper, but the Company is made very private, soe as few attempt to gett in. Jean Chappuzeau, Le Theatre Francois (Paris, 1675), p. 55, states that in 1668 he saw a revival of The Indian Emperor in London. Pepys, Diary: 14 Jan.: They fell to discourse of last night's work at court, where the ladies and Duke of Monmouth and others acted The IndianEmperour; wherein they told me these things most remarkable: that not any woman but the Duchesse of Monmouth and Mrs Cornwallis did any thing but like fools and stocks, but that these two did do most extraordinary well: that not any man did any thing well but Captain O'Bryan, who spoke and did well, but, above all things, did dance most incomparably. That she did sit near the players of the Duke's house; among the rest, Mis Davis, who is the most impertinent slut, she says, in the world; and the more, now the King do show her countenance; and is reckoned his mistress, even to the scorne of the whole world; the King gazing on her, and my Lady Castlemayne being melancholy and out of humour, all the play, not smiling once. The King, it seems, hath given her a ring of #700, which she shews to every body, and owns that the King did give it her; and he hath furnished a house for her in Suffolke Street most richly, which is a most infinite shame. It seems she is bastard of Colonell Howard, my Lord Berkshire, and that he do pimp to her for the King, and hath got her for him; but Pierce says that she is a most homely jade as ever she saw, though she dances beyond any thing in the world

Event Comment: This play was reprinted in 1672, being entered in the Term Catalogues, 20 Nov. 1671. It probably was acted in the late summer of 1671. The title page states that it was acted at the Theatre Royal, Bridges Street

Event Comment: Journal of the Earl of Anglesey, 25 Jan. 1671@2: At eight of the clock The King's playhouse took fire, and most of that side of Russell Street and many other houses thereabout were burnt down, and we in Drury Lane and all about in great danger; but the Lord had mercy, and by great industry and blowing up houses the fire was overcome: I had no rest, but sat up almost all night, even till six in the morning. The Lord pardon sin, which brings judgements (HMC, 13th Report, Part VI [London, 1893], p. 270. The Bulstrode Papers (I, 217): About 8 hapened a sad and violent fire, which begun in the King's Theater, and in a few howers burnt down that...severall were hurt and killed, amongst which was Mr Bell, one of the actors in that house. For a poem, On the Unhappy Conflagration of the Theatre Royal, January 25th, 1672, see Fitzgerald, A New History of the English Stage, I, 137

Event Comment: The King's Company. This day marks the resumption of acting by the King's Company after the disastrous fire at Bridges Street, Drury Lane; the players turned to the theatre in Lincoln's Inn Fields which the Duke's Company had recently left. The Prologue was printed in Covent Garden Drollery, 1672. Sloane MS. 4455 folio 26 verso: The Prologue of a Play entitled Witt without Money-Spoken at the Dukes old Theatre (after the Kings was burnt) by the King's players, Feb. 26 1671. The Curtaine being drawne up all the Actors were discover'd on the stage in Melancholick postures, & Moone [Mohun] advancing before the rest speaks as follows, addressing chiefly to ye King then [present]. Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets, p. 216): Wit Without Money: a Comedy which I have seen acted at the Old House in little Lincolns-Inn-Fields with very great Applause: the part of Valentine being Play'd by that compleat Actor Major Mohun deceas'd. This was the first Play that was acted after the Burning the King's House in Drury-lane: a New Prologue being writ for them by Mr Dryden

Event Comment: The King's Company. Although the play was not licensed until 16 Oct. 1676 and not published until 1678, the Epilogue refers in detail to the burning of the King's Theatre in Bridges Street, Drury Lane, suggesting that the premiere came not long after that event

Event Comment: London Gazette, No. 958, 21-25 Jan. 1674@5: Mr John Bannister that lived in White-Fryers, is removed to Shandois-street, Covent-garden, and there intends to Entertain, as formerly, on Tuesday next, and likewise every Evening for the future, Sundays only excepted

Event Comment: London Gazette, No. 1045, 22-25 Nov. 1675: At Mr John Bannister's house in Chandois-street, Covent-garden, called the Musick-School, will be variety of Musick every Evening, beginning this present Thursday at six of the Clock

Event Comment: This work apparently was not published. It was referred to in Domestick Intelligence, 19 Dec 1679: Acted by Scholars of a Latin School in Cannon Street

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known. The play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1680, and advertised in the True News, 12-15 May 1680, suggesting a production not later than April 1680. Nevertheless, the fact that the Prologue refers to the attack on John Dryden in Rose Street (18 Dec. 1679) and to the petitions to Parliament--Luttrell, A Brief Relation, I, 31, on 13 Jan. 1679@80, refers to petitions subscribed by several thousands--suggests that the play appeared during January 1679@80

Event Comment: London Gazette, No. 2496, 10-14 Oct. 1689: The Concerts of Musick that were held in Bow-street and in York-Buildings, are now joyn'd together, and will be performed in York-Buildings on Thursday next, being the 17th instant, at Seven of the Clock at night, and will continue there every Monday and Thursday. [But see 11 Nov. 1689.

Event Comment: London Gazette, No 2500, 24-28 Oct. 1699: Whereas the Consort of Musick, lately in Bow-street, being remov'd to York Buildings, intended to have begun this present Munday, but upon an urgent occasion, are forc'd to defer it till the Monday after the King's Birth-day, being the 11th of November, and so continue every Munday for the future. [See also 17 Oct. 1689.

Event Comment: London Gazette, No 2533, 17-20 Feb. 1689@90: The Musick-Meeting that was lately held in Villers-street in York-Buildings, is removed to Exeter Change in the Strand; the Entrance is at the West-door of the said Exchange; and will begin at the Hours as formerly, every Monday

Event Comment: London Gazette, No. 2538, 6-10 March 1689@90: The Consort of Musick is again removed into Viller's Street, in York-Buildings, where it will be continued every Monday-night, at the usual Hour