Event Comment: Hotson (Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 178-79) believes that this was Jolly's organization. See also the list of Sir Edward Browne's attendance at plays in the introduction to this season. An edition of this play appeared in 1663, but the title page does not state at what theatre the play was given. Pepys, Diary: Thence to taken my wife to the redd bull, where we saw Doctor Faustus, but so wretchedly and poorly done, that we were sick of it, and the worse because by a former resolution it is to be the last play we are to see till Michaelmas

Event Comment: Possibly on this day, Davenant and Killigrew, with a united company, began acting at this theatre. In L. C. 5@137, p. 332 (6 Oct. 1660) is a list of His Majesty's Comedians: Burt, Hart, Mohun, Robert Shatterell, Lacy, Wintershell, Clunne, Cartwright, Edward Shatterell, Baxter, Loveday, Kynaston, Betterton. (See Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 294; Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 204.) Hotson, p. 205, states that the company acted daily from 8 to 16 Oct. 1660

Event Comment: Thomas Lilleston, one of Rhodes' actors, was brought before the Middlesex Sessions, charged with acting a play on this date. (See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 197.)

Event Comment: On this date General Monk and the Council of State issued an order forbidding stage plays. (See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 196, and The Diurnal of Thomas Rugg, ed. Sachse, pp. 61, 67.)

Event Comment: According to Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 198, Rhodes had to pay a fine for every day his company acted at the cockpit to 28 July 1660

Event Comment: In Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 82, is a list of the plays acted by the Red Bull actors: The Humorous Lieutenant. Beggars Bushe. Tamer Tamed. The Traytor. Loves Cruelty. Wit without Money. Maydes Tragedy. Philaster. Rollo Duke of Normandy. Claricilla. Elder Brother. The Silent Woman. The Weddinge. Henry the Fourthe. Merry Wives of Windsor. Kinge and no Kinge. Othello. Damboys [Bussy D'Ambois]. The Unfortunate Lovers. The Widow. This list (see Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 203) apparently concerns plays revived by this company, some before 10 Sept. 1660, some afterward. (See also the list of plays at the opening of the season and also 6 and 23 June 1660.

Event Comment: A draft of a proposed order, i Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 201, specifies the companies acting at this time: Forasmuch as wee are advertis'd, that divers persons, and Companies have assembled, and doe dayly assemble themselves together at the Play-Houses called the red bull, in St. Johns Street, the cockpit in Drury Lane, and a certaine Play-House in Salisbury Court, and at other places within our Citty of London and County of Middlesex, without the least Colour of Authority, and doe there act, performe and shew in publique, Comedies, Tragedies, and other Entertainments of the Stage

Event Comment: See Nicoll (Restoration Drama, p. 277) and Hotson (Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 114) for discussion of an order addressed to George Jolly forbidding him to act further until differences between him and Beeston are settled

Event Comment: The King's Company. This play appears on Herbert's List, following the entry for 26 Oct. 1661. (See William VanLennep, "Thomas Killigrew prepares his Plays for Production," J. Q. Adams Memorial Studies (Washington, D. C., 1948, p. 803.) Pepys, Diary: W. Pen and I to the Theatre, but it was so full that we could hardly get any room, so he went up to one of the boxes, and I into the 18d. places, and there saw Love at first sight, a play of Mr Killigrew's and the first time that it hath been acted since before the troubles, and great expectation there was, but I found the play to be a poor thing, and so I perceive every body else do. BM Add. Mss. 34217, fol. 31b, in Hotson Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 246: @First then to speake of his Majestys Theatre@Where one would imagine Playes should be better@Love att the first sight did lead the dance@But att second sight it had the mischance@To be so dash'd out of Countenance as@It never after durst shew itts face@All though its bashfullnesse as tis thought@Be far from being the Authors ffault.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the Opera, where there was a new play (Cutter of Coleman Street), made in the year 1658, with reflections much upon the late times; and it being the first time, the pay was doubled, and so to save money, my wife and I went up into the gallery, and there sat and saw very well; and a very good play it is. It seems of Cowly's making. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 25): This Comedy being Acted so perfectly Well and Exact, it was perform'd a whole Week with a full Audience. John Dennis, Dedication to The Comical Gallant, 1702: The only Play that ever Mr Cowley writ, was barbarously treated the first night, as the late Mr Dryden has more than once informed me, who has told me that he went to see it with the famous Mr Sprat, now Bishop of Rochester, and that after the Play was done, they both made a visit to Mr Cowley. Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets, p. 81): This Play met with some Opposition, at its Representation under this new Name, from some who envyed the Authors unshaken Loyalty to the Prince, and the Royal Cause, in the worst of Times. BM Add. Mss. 34217, fol. 31b, in Hotson (Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 247): @The Cutter of Coleman street had more fame@Before the Author chang'd its name@And shewd himselfe an Englishman right@By mending of things to spoyle them quite@And bee's more to blame because he can tell@(No better) to make new strings soe well.

Event Comment: This performance was attended by Jacques Thierry and Will Schellinks, who stated: Judged to be their best play (Seaton, Literary Relationships, pp. 334-36). This performance may have been the premiere. The Duke's Company. BM Add. Mss. 34217, in Hotson (Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 247): @Then came the Knight agen with his Lawe@Against Lovers the worst that ever you sawe@In dressing of which he playnely did shew it@Hee was a far better Cooke then a Poet@And only he the Art of it had@Of two good Playes to make one bad.

Event Comment: The King's Company. See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 118. BM Add. Mss. 34217, in Hotson, p. 246: @O' th' contrary Salendina for witt@Most say did come far short of it@And though I confesse there was some fault there@Yett this I'll say in defense of the Author@A good Plott though ill writt lookes more like a Play@Then all your fine lines when the plott is away.

Event Comment: The King's Company. See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 118. This was a new play, but it is not clear that this day was the premiere. BM Add. Mss. 34217, in Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 246: @For the surprizall it was a good proofe@By its getting them mony it took well enough@Without which Divell take the Play@Be it never so good the Actors say@But they may thanke God with all their hart@That Lacy plaid Brankadoros part.

Event Comment: This play is in Herbert, Dramatic Records p. 118: Cornelia a New Play, sir W. Bartleys. The date in Herbert is 1 June, a Sunday in 1662, with another play in the same group falling on Sunday. Nevertheless, the verse comment (see below) written, apparently, before the summer of 1662 points toward 2 June 1662 rather than 1 June 1663. Edward Browne also lists it as one of the plays he attended. The play was not printed. BM Add. Mss. 34217, in Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 246: @For Cornelia they all doe say@There was abundance of witt in the play@Indeed t'had soe much t' was the worse for 't@For t' was to witty for the vulgar sort@And they who'd have poetts their Benefactors@Say witt without mony's naught for the Actors.

Event Comment: This play was seen by Jacques Thierry and Will Schellinks (Seaton, Literary Relationships, pp. 334, 336). The company may have been Jolly's, but it may also have been the King's temporarily acting there. See Sprague, Beaumont and Fletcher, p. 22, and Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 178-79

Event Comment: See HMC, Report III, Appendix, p. 215a; Hotson, pp. 214-15; B. M. Wagner, "John Rhodes and Ignoramus," Review of English Studies, V (1929), 43-48. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, pp. 302n, 423. This appears to be the Duke's Company

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: The King's Company. This play has generally been assigned to June 1669, partly on the basis of a suit--see Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 252-53, 348-55-over a scene for it which Isaac Fuller, the scene designer, states was finished by 23 June 1669. The suit also states that the play ran for fourteen days, but it is not certain that the theatres played on consecutive days in the summer. The play has been assigned to 24 June 1669 on the basis of a letter from Charles II to Princess Henriette-Anne, dated 24 June [1669]: I am just now going to a new play that I heare very much commended (Cyril Hughes Hartmann, Charles II and Madame [London, 1934], p. 259). Elizabeth Cottington to Herbert Aston, ca. May 1669: Wee ar in expectation still of Mr Draidens play. Ther is a bowld woman [Aphra Behn (?)] hath oferd one: my cosen Aston can give you a better account of her then I can. Some verses I have seen which ar not ill; that is commentation enouf: she will think so too, I believe, when it comes upon the ptage. I shall tremble for the poor woman exposed among the critticks (Arthur Clifford, Tixall Letters [London, 1815], II, 60)

Event Comment: During this month the dissident players from the King's Company--Goodman, Gray, and Clarke--returned from Edinburgh. For details, see Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 262-63

Event Comment: A new agreement, intended to improve affairs in the King's Company, was signed this day. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 264-65

Event Comment: The finances of the King's Company continued to deteriorate and to be a source of dissension and confusion. For some months, beginning with February 1681, the receipts were often under #10 nightly, and sometimes the company apparently ceased acting. For a full account, see Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 266-67

Event Comment: This day is one of several on which, according to William Morley, treasurer of the King's Company, the receipts fell below #10, to #3 14s. 6d. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267

Event Comment: On this day the receipts at the King's House fell to #3 2s. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267

Event Comment: In an inquiry concerning how many days the King's Company had been unable to act in the spring, William Cartwright on this day stated that he had been ill and absent and had not been among the players more than four or five times since 1 Feb. 1680@1. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267

Event Comment: The receipts of the King's Company on this day were only #3 13s. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267