Event Comment: [The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: My wife and Mercer, and W. Hewer and Deb., to the King's playhouse, and I afterwards by water with them, and there we did hear the Eunuch (who, it seems, is a Frenchman, but long bred in Italy) sing, which I seemed to take as new to me, though I saw him on Saturday last [see 10 Oct. 1668], but said nothing of it; but such action and singing I could never have imagined to have heard, and do make good whatever Tom Hill used to tell me. [The Eunuch may be Baldassare Ferri.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: My wife and I to the Duke of York's playhouse; and there saw, the first time acted, The Queene of Arragon, an old Blackfriars' play, but an admirable one, so good that I am astonished at it, and wonder where it hath lain asleep all this while, that I have never heard of it before. Here met W. Batelier and Mrs Hunt, Deb's aunt; and saw her home--a very witty woman, and one that knows this play, and understands a play mighty well

Event Comment: The King's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@12, p. 17: Cattalines Conspiracie King here. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 344. Although the L. C. list and Pepys disagree as to the play performed, Pepys' uncertainty suggests that he may have put down the wrong title and that the L. C. list is correct. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and there saw, I think, The Maiden Queene. Pepys, Diary, 15 Jan.: [Sir W. Coventry] told me of the great factions at court at this day, even to the sober engaging of great persons, and differences, and making the King cheap and ridiculous. It is about my Lady Harvy's being offended at Doll Common's acting of Sempronia [see 18 Dec. 1668], to imitate her; for which she got my Lord Chamberlain, her kinsman, to imprison Doll: when my Lady Castlemayne made the King to release her, and to order her to act it again, worse than ever, the other day, where the King himself was: and since it was acted again, and my Lady Harvy provided people to hiss her and fling oranges at her: but it seems the heat is come to a great height, and real troubles at court about it

Event Comment: See 27 Feb. and 4 March. Pepys, Diary: [Sir W. Coventry] told me the matter of the play [The Rehearsal] that was intended for his abuse, wherein they foolishly and sillily bring in two tables like that which he hath made, with a round hole in the middle, in his closet, to turn himself in; and he is to be in one of them as master, and Sir J. Duncomb in the other, as his man or imitator: and their discourse in those tables, about the disposing of their books and papers, very foolish. But that, that he is offended with, is his being made so contemptible, so that any should dare to make a gentleman a subject for the mirth of the world; and that therefore he had told Tom Killigrew that he should tell his actors, whoever they were, that did offer any thing like representing him, that he would not complain to my Lord Chamberlain, which was too weak, nor get him beaten, as Sir Charles Sidly is said to do, but that he would cause his nose to be cut

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Although this performance is not certainly the premiere, it is the earliest known acting of the play. This performance is on the L. C. lists at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage", p. 14. John Boyle, Fifth Earl of Orrery: Master Anthony too the sequel of Guzman was after Lord Orrery's Death brought upon the Stage, but being disrelish'd by the Audience appear'd only one Night. It is probable The Author had not supervis'd and corrected It sufficiently before he died (The Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, ed. W. S. Clark II, II, 950). If these private notes, written some fifty years after the premiere, are correct, this performance may have been the premiere and the only day of acting it

Event Comment: The Duke's Company acted at Oxford during this month, offering Cambyses and, presumably, other plays of which we have no record. See W. J. Lawrence, "Oxford Restoration Prologues," Times Literary Supplement, 16 Jan. 1930, p. 43, and Sybil Rosenfeld, "Some Notes on the Players in Oxford, 1661-1713," Review of English Studies, XIX (1943), 368

Event Comment: Early in 1672 a group of French players may have acted in London, but the evidence is not precise or detailed. See W. J. Lawrence, Early French Players in England, p. 142

Event Comment: The Diary of Robert Hooke, 1672-1678: at Scaramuches at york house. present: the King, Duke of York, Lord Ormond &c. (ed. H. W. Robinson and Walter Adams [London, 1935], p. 42). See slso Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, pp. 118-19, and John Harold Wilson, A Theatre in York House, Theatre Notebook, XVI (1962), 75-78

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance (entitled The French Opera) is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 73. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 345. The edition of 1674 (appearing in both an English and a French version) states: An Opera, or, a Vocal Representation. First Compos'd by Monsieur P. P. Now put into Musick by Monsieur Grabut, Master of His Majesties Musick. And Acted by the Royall Academy of Musick, At the Theatre-Royal in Covent-Garden. The names of the singers for this production are not known, but it is possible that some of the French singers who appeared in Calisto in the following season, 1674-75, were in London for this production. See Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, pp. 201, 222, and W. J. Lawrence, Early French Players in England, The Elizabethan Playhouse and Other Studies, p. 145. French dancers in the opera were Pecurr [Preux], LeTemps, Shenan, D'muraile. See L. C. 5@140, p. 472, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 355

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is uncertain, but John Harold Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, pp. 221-22) assigns it to mid-June primarily because of the Prologue intended to be spoken by Haines and the order, dated 18 June 1677, for the arrest of Haines for speaking an obscene Epilogue (error for Prologue?); in addition, the next play at Drury Lane, The Rival Kings, refers to Haines and "last time," establishing the sequence of performance of these two plays. For the arrest of Haines, see Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 328n. Wits Led by the Nose was licensed for printing on 16 Aug. 1677

Event Comment: Henry Savile to the Earl of Rochester, 17 Dec. 1677: I had allmost forgott for another argument to bring you to towne that a French troop of comaedians bound for Nimeguen were by adverse winds cast into this hospitable port and doe act at Whitehall soe very well that it is a thousand pittyes they should not stay, especially a young wench of fifteen, who has more beauty and sweetnesse than ever was seen upon the stage since a friend of our left it (HMC, Bath MSS., 1907, II, 161). W. J. Lawrence (Early French Players in England, pp. 148-49) identifies the French actress as Francoise Pitel, later Mlle Raisin

Event Comment: The True News; or, Mercurius Anglicus, 4-7 Feb. 1679@80: On Munday night last happened a great dispute in the Duke's Play-house, some Gentlemen in their Cupps entring into the Pitt, flinging Links at the Actors, and using several reproachfull speeches against the Dutchess of P. and other persons of Honour, which has occasioned a Prohibition from farther Acting, till his Majesties farther pleasyre. A letter written by the Dowager Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, dated 6 Jan. 1679@80 [possibly misdated] refers to disorders which are similar to those recorded in The True News: You must needs hear of the abominable disorders amongst us, calling all the women whores and the men rogues in the playhouses--throwing candles and links--calling my Lord Sunderland traitor, but in good company; the Duke of York?, rascal; and all ended in "God bless his Highness, the Duke of Monmouth. We will be for him against the world." I am told they may be fined a great deal if they are prosecuted. Two of these are knights of shires, Sir Scroope How, and my Lord Wharton's@eldest son; the only sufferer yet is Porter. They are ashamed, I hear, and afraid (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Times of Charles the Second by the Honourable Henry Sidney [London, 1843], I, 237)

Event Comment: The Dowager Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, 19 Feb. 1679@80: The players have been disturbed again by drunken people's jokes. They called my Lord Arran a rogue; and one Fitzpatrick pointed at Mr Thinne, and called him that petitioning fool, and swore a hundred oaths; he said that he deserved #20,000 a-year, but that fool deserved nothing (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Times of Charles the Second [London, 1843], I, 279-80). See also 2 and 9 Feb. 1679@80

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This is another in the series of Court performances in L. C. 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 350, and 11 Feb. 1679@80. Mountstevens to Henry Stevens, 20 Feb. 1679@80: Upon Sunday the Court is to be in mourning for the death of the Princess Elizabeth, sister to Prince Rupert. (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Time of Charles the Second [London, 1843], I, 283)

Event Comment: Lord Preston (in Paris) to the Duke of York, 22 Sept. 1683, N.S.: I should not have presumed to give your Highness the trouble of this if something of charity had not induced me to it. I do it at the instance of a poor servant of his Majesty's who some time since was obliged by a misfortune to leave England. It is Mr Grahme [Grabut?], sir, whom perhaps your Highness may remember. Mr Betterton coming hither some weeks since by his Majesty's command, to endeavour to carry over the Opera, and finding that impracticable, did treat with Monsr Grahme to go over with him to endeavour to represent something at least like an Opera in England for his Majesty's diversion. He hath also assured him of a pension from the House, and finds him very willing and ready to go over. He only desireth his Majesty's protection when he is there, and what encouragement his Majesty shall be pleased to give him if he finds that he deserves it (HMC, 7th Report, Part I, p. 290). W. J. Lawrence (Early French Players in England, p. 149) argued that Grahme should be Grabut, who had once been Master of the King's Music (to 1674) and who had settled in Paris. Grabut was certainly back in London in the spring of 1684

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell dated his copy of the separately-printed Prologue and Epilogue 5 April 1684 (J. W. Dodds, Thomas Southerne, p. 48). Very probably the play first appeared during the week of 31 March-5 April, immediately following Easter. The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 191-94. This may have been the last new role William Smith undertook for some years; see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, 1, 78-79, for the incident which prompted Smith's leaving the stage for awhile. One song, I never saw a face till now, with music by Captain Pack, is in The Theater of Music, the First Book, 1685; and another, O why did e'er my thoughts aspire, the music by R. King, is in the same collection. A third song, See how fair Corinna lies, the music by Captain Pack, is in A Collection of Twenty-Four Songs, 1685

Event Comment: The United Company. Rowland Davies, 13 June 1689: After dinner I went with Mr N. Lysaght and W. Jephson to see Circe acted at the Queen's Theatre, which was done to admiration, with better scenes than I could imagine (The Journal of the Very Rev. Rowland Davies, Camden Society, Vol. 68 [1856], 24)

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: By Elkanah Settle. Luttrell, A Brief Relation, 29 Oct. 1692: This day the usuall show of lord mayors, where the king and queen dined, most of the nobility, &c., but the prince and princesse were not invited: the feast was at charge of lord mayor and court of alderman: the lord mayor subscribed 300#, each she rife, 150#, and the aldermen 50# apeice: the kings regiment of foot guards was all in new cloths, and the horse guards too: the militia of Middlesex were as a guard in the Strand, and the artillery, with silver and steell headpeices, lined tne streets where the mayor came

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, for the play was apparently not printed until 1704. Nevertheless, some details indicate a performance early in the early in the season of 1696-97. In the first place, the presence of Verbruggen in the cast indicates that it must have been acted before 1 Jan. 1696@7, when Verbruggen was permitted to act at Lincoln's Inn Fields. The play also parodies the works of Mrs Manley, whose The Royal Mischief had been staged (probably) in April 1696, and it is likely that the company would emphasize the pertinence of the parody by presenting it soon after the appearance of the original. Although The Female Wits may not have been acted until later in the autumn, it seems likely that it was acted first in the late summer or early autumn. Preface, Edition of 1704: [The] Success of this Play has been such...having been Acted six Days running without intermission....Among the rest, Mr Powel and his Wife excell'd in the Characters they represented, as did Mrs Verbruggen, who play'd the Chief Character....The Lady whose Play is rehears'd, personated one Mrs M-ly [Manley]

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but Dryden, writing on 14 Dec. 1699, indicates that this play had had its first performance by that date. The Dedication is dated 10 Jan. 1699@1700, and the play was advertised in the Post Boy, 20-23 Jan. 1699@1700. Preface, Edition of 1700: Another difficulty this Play labour'd under, was its being acted at a time when the whole Town was so much, and so justly diverted by the Trip to the Jubilee. When the play was revised and reprinted in 1714, the new edition--The Victim; or Achilles and Iphigenia in Aulis--indicates that The Invocation to Diana in the last act was set by Gottfreid Finger, the first verse being sung by Freeman, the second verse by Mrs Erwin, and the third verse by W. Pate. Advertisement, Edition of 1714: The following Tragedy...having been translated into English [from Racine], with considerable Additions, by Mr Boyer, and pass'd the Correction and Approbation of the late famous Mr Dryden, and several other Persons distinguish'd as well by their Wit and Learning, as by their Taste and Discernment, was acted with general Applause, towards the End of the Year 1699, and Beginning of 1700. The Reasons why this Excellent Play stopt, on a sudden, in a full Career, are, in some Measure, accounted for in Mr Boyer's Preface: To which he might have added, That the Dutchess of Marlborough, who at that Time bore an irresistable Sway, bespoke the Comedy then in Vogue [The Constant Couple], during the Ruin of Iphigenia in Aulis; And that this Tragedy receiv'd no small Prejudice, from the Person that acted Eriphyle [Mrs Wilkins], who sunk under the Weight of so great a Part. A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702), pp. 24-25: Sullen: Then comes the second Iphigenia in all her Charms, and like a superious Mistress was resolv'd to eclipse her Rival: No cast was spar'd by the Masters, nor toil by the Actors; the Town was bespoke in its favour, and all the Friends of this new Fletcher and Beaumont were ingaged to clap it. She appear'd, but what pity 'twas (as the Prefacer says) that a Play which had such a glorious run shou'd in four Days disappear, never to rise again. Oh! says Mr D@@, mine was acted six Days; and I'll hold you a hundred Pound--just what I got by't--How's that?, says Boyer--I say, Sir, that I'll hold you, or any Man, a hundred Pound, 'twill be acted again ten times this Winter. With that B@@ fell a laughing, and replies, Sir, says he, I'll stake my French Dictionary against your Criticisms on Blackmore, and that I think is odds enough--I say,"I'll hold you that Bet, that you did not get fifty Shillings by't, and that the House lost a hundred Pound. This had like to ha' made sad work; but all was well, for neither of 'em have been acted since, for they both sleep in everlasting Tranquillity. [See also pp. 23-25 for other remarks about the two Iphigenia plays.

Event Comment: Benefit Johnson. The Diary of Mary Countess Cowper, pp. 103-4; She [Mrs Clayton] and Lady W. Powlett, and I went to the Play together, for the Benefit of Johnson, who is the best Comedian this Day upon the Stage, and I believe as true and good a Player as ever was in any Age, for the Parts that he plays