Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. As the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1681, it was probably first acted not later than March 1681. The title page states: Revis'd with Alterations

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play appears on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120--see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349--without an assigned year. For arguments against assigning it to 1 March 1679@80, see the discussion in mid-June1680

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120--see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349--immediately following the 1 March listing for The Soldier's Fortune. Because The Spanish Fryar was apparently a newly acted play on 1 Nov. 1680, the performance on this L. C. list is assigned to 8 March 1680@1 rather than to 8 March 1679@80

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120: with ye Q: & a Box for ye Maides of Honor. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349

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. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell dated his copy, 17 Dec. 1681; hence a November 1681 first production is likely. See VanLennep, Two Restoration Comedies, pp. 57-58

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 020. The date of the first performance is not known, but it may well have been about this time, as the Prologue refers to Michaelmas Term and the reopening of the playhouses ("Theatres are up"). The play was entered in the Term Catalogues in February 1681@2

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but a reference in the Prologue to the "Ignoramus" Jury (24 Nov. 1681) and the entering of the play in the Term Catalogues in February 1681@2 (and its advertisement in Domestick Intelligence, 2-6 Feb. 1681@2) suggest a premiere in December 1681

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but a copy in the British Museum (161 d 20) has a MS date, 27 Jan. 1681@2, and the play was advertised in True Protestant Mercury, 4-8 Feb. 1681@2; hence it was probably first presented in early January, perhaps late in 1681

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. CSPD, Charles II, 1682, p. 24: Jan. 12. By the Russian? ambassador's particular command a play called the Tempest was played yesterday, at which he was present

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not certain, but it was probably this day. A letter dated 26 Jan. 1681@2 speaks of the preceding day's performance as the "poet's day," presumably the third day; it is likely, therefore, that the premiere fell on Monday, 23 Jan. 1681@2. The Prologue and Epilogue, were printed separately in 1682 and reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 50-51. Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) bears his acquisition date of 14 Feb. 1681@2. A note on the Library of Congress copy indicated that Smith spoke the Prologue. A song, Great Augustus like the glorious sun, with music by John Blow, is in A New Collection of Poems and Songs, 1683. Another, Now the Tones all must droop, sung by Bowman, is in the same collection, but without indication of the composer, and a third, Twa bonny lads were Sawney and Jockey, without singer or composer, is in the same collection

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. A performance of this play is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. The entry is not clear, but it appears to be Jany 24, although Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349, reads it as June 24

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Lady Anne Howe to the Countess of Rutland, 26 Jan. 1681@2: The King went by water to the new play yesterday, it being the poet's day, and is call'd the Loyallest (HMC, Rutland MSS., 12th Report, Appendix, Part V, p. 64). Newsletter, 26 Jan. 1681@2: Yesterday was a new play called the Royalist, where the Salamanca Doctor is exposed (HMC, 10th Report, Appendix, Part IV, p. 175)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company received the customary payment of #20. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 183

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The Loyal Protestant, 18 Feb. 1681@2: On the 16th instant his Excellency the Morocco Embassador was pleased to divert himself at thi R. Highness's Theatre, where, to the satisfaction of his Excellency, was acted the Tragedy of Mackbeth

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The play was apparently never published, but the Prologue and Epilogue were printed and have been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 43-45. The Epilogue also appeared in Miscellany, Being a Collection of Poems by several Hands, 1685, and has been reprinted in A Little Ark, ed. G. Thorn-Drury, p. 46. The latest date at which the play, with the Prologue and Epilogue, first appeared is 5 April 1682, the date Luttrell placed on his copies (Huntington Library), presumably representing the day on which he acquired them. G. Thorn-Drury, commenting upon the Epilogue, points out that it refers to the trial of Pilkington, one of the Sheriffs of London, ca. 25 March 1681@2. It seems likely, then, that this lost play was presented in March

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is uncertain, but the fact that Luttrell dated his separately printed copies of the Prologue and Epilogue 5 April 1682 (Huntington Library) sets a probability that the play first appeared within a week to ten days preceding that date. The Prologue and Epilogue, separately printed, have been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 89-91. A Prologue Intended for Vertue Bertray'd, by Thomas Shadwell, is reprinted in Welbeck Niscellany 3, A Collection of Poems by Several Hands, ed. Francis Needham, 1934. Some details in it suggest the "Dead Time" preceding Easter, when the Court was gone, the Russian ambassador departed, the Moroccan Ambassador shortly to go. The Russian ambassador left on 15 Feb. 1681@2 OS (see Evelyn, Diary), and the Prologue refers to the execution of Colonel Vratz and his accomplices on 10 March 1681@2 (Evelyn, Diary)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell purchased his copies of the separately printed Prologue and Epilogue on 15 May 1682 (Huntington Library); hence, the premiere occurred before that date. The Prologue also refers to the feast which the Whigs attempted to hold at Haberdashers' Hall on 21 April 1682 but were restrained, pointing toward late April as a probable date for the first performance. The separately printed Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 77-79. A song, In Phyllis all vile jests are met, with music by Giovanni Draghi, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Fourth Book, 1683. Langbaine (English Dramatic Poets, 1691, p. 19): This Play had the luck to be well receiv'd in the Town

Event Comment: Impartial Protestant Mercury, 2 May 1682: Mr Charles? Deering? son to Sr Edward D., and Mr Vaughan?, quarrelled in the Duke's Playhouse, and presently mounted the stage and fought, and Mr D. was dangerously wounded, and Mr V. secured lest it should prove mortal. [See also, Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80.

Event Comment: On this date the officers of the Duke's Company and the King's Company entered into agreements to merge the two companies. For details, see Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 271; Fitzgerald, A New History, I, 154-58; and Nicoll, Restoration Drama, pp. 296-97. See also Langhans, New Restoration Theatre Accounts, p. 122, for evidence that the union had been effectively made by 13 May 1682. See page 123 for evidence that the company probably acted continuously to 7 August 1682, then closed until early October. But see 10 August 1682

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The Loyal Protestant, 20 May 1682: May 18. Yesterday his Excellency the Morocco Embassador was entertain'd at His Royal Highness's Theatre with a Play, called, Sir Timothy Treat all. [See also True Protestant Mercury, 17-20 May 1682; Luttrell, A Brief Relation, I, 187; Wilson, More Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters," p. 59.

Event Comment: A poem--To the Duke on His Return. Written by Nat. Lee--was separately printed in 1682, and Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) is dated 29 May 1682. A note on the Folger Shakespeare Library copy states that the lines were spoken at the King's Theatre, but the date on which it was recited is uncertain. The poem has been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 113-15

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Newdigate newsletters, 17 June 1682: And the Mor. Embr...this day...took his leave of ye Playhouse having seen Epsom Wells (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, pp. 80-81)