Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 32) states: The first new Play Acted there, was King Charles the VIII. of France; it was all new Cloath'd, yet lasted but 6 Days together, but 'twas Acted now and then afterwards. Two songs for this play, Too justly alas, set by James Hart, and O love if e'er thou'lt ease a heart, set by Pelham Humphrey, are in Choice Songs and Ayres, First Book, 1673

Event Comment: This date of performance is not a certainty; for the evidence, see Spencer, Shakespeare Improved, p. 94. Neither is Shadwell's authorship of the alterations a certainty, for the contributions of other playwrights have never been fully determined. (See Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 43.) The instrumental music was composed by Matthew Lock, with new vocal music by James? Hart and Pietro Reggio. See Songs Set by Signior Pietro Reggio, 1680. And differing versions of the second Prologue and the second Epilogue are in BM Egerton MS. 2623, ff. 54-55. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 34-35): The Year after in 1673. The Tempest, or the Inchanted Island, made into an Opera by Mr Shadwell, having all New in it; as Scenes, Machines; particularly, one Scene Painted with Myriads of Ariel Spirits; and another flying away, with a Table Furnisht out with Fruits, Sweetmeats and all sorts of Viands; just when Duke Trinculo and his Companions, were going to Dinner; all things Perform'd in it so Admirably well, that not any succeeding Opera got more Money

Event Comment: Mainpiece: By Particular Desire. Paid Mr Vincent for 3 sets of Abels Symphonies #2 5s. (Account Book). Receipts: #116 11s. (Account Book). This was the last time Mr Beard appeared on the stage. John Beard Esq Buried in the vault (at Hampton) 12 Feb. 1791. This celebrated actor was bred up at the King's Chapel, and was afterwards one of the singers at the Duke of Chandos's Chapel at Canons, where he took a part in Handel's Oratorio of Hester. His first appearance on the stage was 30 August 1737, in the character of Sir John Loverule [Devil to Pay], at Drury Lane. In 1739 he married Lady Henrietta Herbert, daughter of James, Earl of Waldegrave, and Widow of Lord Edward Herbert. Upon this event he quitted the Stage. After a few years he returned to it again, and continued to be a great favourite with the public both as an actor and a vocal performer till 1767, when he finally retired from the theatre. Lady Henrietta Beard died in 1753; and in 1759 Mr Beard married a Daughter of John Rich Esq Patentee of Covent Garden Theatre. On this occasion he removed a second time to that theatre, where he had acted from 1744 to 1748; and on the death of his father-in-law in 1761, was appointed Manager. Mr Beard, who was as much esteem'd in private life as he was admired on the stage, was for many years an Inhabitant of Hampton. See Lysons's Middlesex Parishes, p. 89 and 80. Mr Beard died 4 Feb. 1791, aged 74 years. See his Epitaph, ibidem. See Lady Beard's Epitaph in St Pancreas Churchyard (Hopkins MS Notes)

Event Comment: The Author's Night. N.B. As the time limited by Mr Foote's Patent is now expiring the Company will perform every night of the week, (Saturday excepted). Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays Barry and Mrs Dancer. Tuesdays and Thursdays Mr Foote (Public Advertiser). Set down as much as I can remember of the additions to the Orators. In the evening finished a copy for the Printer of the General Evening Post of an answer to a flattering letter which appeared in that paper some time ago. It is in praise of the Duke of York and other wretches, who not knowing how to spend enough of the Nation's money have fitted up a Theatre in St James Street on which to exhibit their own folly and profusion (Neville MS Diary). [Neville's piece appeared in the Post 8 Sept.

Event Comment: [This New Comedy (by Mrs Elizabeth Griffith) seems not to have been performed this night, according to the author's Preface to her Edition of 1772. Shuter had been unattentive and absent from many rehearsals]: At length though late [in the season] a day was appointed for the representation, and on that morning Mr Shuter appeared at rehearsal, pretty much in the same state as before, and confessed himself incapable of performing his part, that night. Upon which the play was oblig'd to be further postponed, and handbills were sent about at noon, to advertise town of the disappointment....A further final day was afterwards determined on, but the audience being out of humour at their former disappointment, called Mr Shuter to account for it, on his first appearance; which threw him into such confusion, that he was not able to get the better of it, throughtout the whole performance...in the hurry of his spirits the actor not only forgot his part, the deficiency of which he endeavoured to supply with his own dialect, but also seemed to lose all idea of the character he was to perform; and made the Governor appear in a light which the author never intended: that of a mean, ridiculous buffoon. [Mrs Griffith concluded her preface by relating how her friends stood by the piece, but two or three in the gallery, when it was given out again objected and threw an apple at the chandeliers, which so perturbed the management that the play was withdrawn. She therefore published it by subscription, prefixing the names of about 440 subscribers, persons of the first quality, including James Boswell, Edmund Burke, Col. Burgoyne, the Duke of Devonshire, David Garrick, Mrs Montague, William Richardson, and a host of writers, players, and people of fashion. This list provides a pretty good roster of those who filled the boxes and part of the pit of both theatres at the time.] Paid Younger #2 2s. for the license for A Wife in the Right (Account Book). Receipts: #218 12s. (Account Book)

Event Comment: On this date, L. C. 5@16, p. 101 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 10n) Nathaniel Lee's The Duke of Guise was banned. John Drummond to Marquis and Duke of Queensberry, 16 July 1682: Ther is a play hear to be acted that maks a great business, for the Duke of Munmuth has complained of it, and they say that notwithstanding it is to be acted sometime nixt weik. They call it the Duke of Guise, but in the play the true story is cheinged to the plott time hear (HMC, Buccleuch-Queensberry MSS., 1903, II 108). Newsletter, 29 July 1682: A play by Mr Dryden, termed the Duke of Guise, wherein the Duke of Monmouth was vilified and great interest being make for the acting thereof, but coming to His Majesty's knowledge is forbid, for though His Majesty be displeased with the Duke yet he will not suffer others to abuse him (HMC, 15th Report, Part VII, 1898, p. 108). Newdigate newsletters, 29 July 1682: A play having been made [by] Mr Dryden termed ye Duke of Guise supposed to Levell att the villifying the Duke of Monmouth & many other protestants & great Interest made for the Acting thereof but bringing to the knowledge of his Matie the same was forbidd for though his Maties pleasure is to be dissatisfyed and angry with the Duke of Monmouth, yet hee is not willing that others should abuse him out of a naturall affection for him (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81)

Event Comment: On this day a quarrel occurred at lif between Henry Killigrew and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, but the play is not named in the various accounts of the affair. For details, see HMC, 12th Report, Part VII, p. 51; and Carl Niemeyer, "Henry Killigrew and the Duke of Buckingham", Review of English Studies, XII (1936), 326-28. Pepys, Diary: 22 July: Creed tells me of the fray between the Duke of Buckingham at the Duke's playhouse the last Saturday (and it is the first day I have heard that they have acted at either the King's or Duke's house this month or six weeks) and Henry Killigrew, whom the Duke of Buckingham did soundly beat and take away his sword, and make a fool of, till the fellow prayed him to spare his life; and I am glad of it; for it seems in this business the Duke of Buckingham did carry nimself very innocently and well

Event Comment: See 27 Feb. 1668@9. Pepys, Diary: I did meet Sir Jeremy Smith, who did tell me that Sir W. Coventry was just now sent to the Tower, about the business of his challenging the Duke of Buckingham, and so was also Harry Saville to the Gate-house....So, meeting with my Lord Bellassis, he told me the particulars of this matter; that it arises about a quarrel which Sir W. Coventry had with the Duke of Buckingham about a design between the Duke and Sir Robert Howard, to bring him into a play [The Rehearsal] at the King's house, which W. Coventry not enduring, did H. Saville send a letter to the Duke of Buckingham, that he had a desire to speak with him. Upon which, the Duke of Buckingham did bid Holmes, his champion ever since my Lord Shrewsbury's business, go to him to know the business; but H. Saville would not tell it to any but himself, and therefore did go presently to the Duke of Buckingham, and told him that his uncle Coventry was a person of honour, and was sensible of his Grace's liberty taken of abusing him, and that he had a desire of satisfaction, and would fight with him. But that here they were interrupted by my Lord Chamberlain's coming in, who was commanded to go to bid the Duke of Buckingham to come to the King, Holmes having discovered it

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The Prologue to the Queen of Arragon Acted before the Duke of York, Upon his Birthday, and Epilogue to the Same To the Duchess, by Samuel Butler, are in The Poetical Works of Samuel Butler, ed. R. B. Johnson (London, 1893), II, 175-77. Newsletter, 12 Oct. 1668: The Duke of York's birthday will be celebrated with the usual solemnities, a play being prepared for the entertainment of the ladies. The piece chosen is The Queen of Arragon. It will be acted in the Guard Chamber at St James's (HMC, Fleming MSS., 12th Report, Appendix, Part VII, p. 59). Pepys, Diary: But the Duke of York being gone out, and to-night being a play there, and a great festival, we would not stay

Event Comment: On this day and on Friday the 20th the Duke's players gave The Impertinents; or, The Sullen Lovers or Sir Salomon. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 29) lists these as the two plays presented by the Duke's Company, but no contemporary statement indicates for certain which play was given on each day. The Journal of Sir Richard Bulstrode: Yesterday [19] at five of ye clocke, the Court were entertained with a comedy acted by the Duke's player (The Bulstrode Papers, 1879, I, 139). Saturday 28 May 1670: The absence of the court which continues at Dover till Wensday next makes us very barren of news. There is the greatest gallantry and mirth imaginable. The Dukes players have beene there all the time past came up yesterday and the kings goe downe this day (Aston Papers, Vol. XVI, Add. Mss. 36916, folio 182)