Event Comment: Pepys, Diary:, 23 April: My wife stopped me; and, after a little angry talk, did tell me how she spent all day yesterday with M. Batelier and her sweetheart, and seeing a play at the New Nursery, which is set up at the house in Lincoln's Inn Fields, which was formerly the King's house

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: The King's Company. It is uncertain when this play was first given, but it may well have appeared in the summer, as it was licensed for publication 9 Oct. 1669 and entered in the Term Catalogues, November 1669

Event Comment: On this day the Lord Chamberlain issued an order (L. C. 5@12, p. 252; in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 252) signifying the King's pleasure that: "ye french Comoedians haue liberty to Act and Play And that noe Persons pr[e]sume to molest or disturbe them in their Acting & playing.

Event Comment: Newsletter, 7 April: Last evening their Majesties were diverted with a comedy acted at St James's by the little young ladies of the Court, who appeared extraordinarily glorious and covered with jewels (HMC, Fleming MSS. 12th Report, VII, 70). This may have been a performance of The Faithful Shepherdess which was entered by Richard Boyle, Earl of Burlington, in his diary, 2 April 1670 [error for 6 April (?)]: I saw Lady Mary, daughter of the Duke of York, and many young ladies act the Faithful Shepherdess very finely (Diary, Volume V, in Chatsworth. I owe this entry to Professor Kathleen Lynch). In Covent Garden Drollery, 1672 (ed. G. Thorn-Drury), p. 68, is an Epilogue spoken by the Lady Mary Mordaunt, before the King and Queen at court, to the Faithful Shepherdess. As Lady Mary was then about twelve, this Epilogue seems to confirm the possibility that the play was The Faithful Shepherdess acted by amateurs

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, June 1670, and the Prologue refers to the arrival of French royalty at Dover (May 1670); hence, it is likely that the play was first produced in the late spring. Edition of 1670: Written in French by Moliere; and rendered into English with much Addition and Advantage By Mr Medbourne, Servant to His Royal Highness

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)

Event Comment: On this day arrived in London the news of the death of the King's sister, the Duchess of Orleans, which occured on 20 June 1670. According to The Bulstrode Papers (I, 144), 25 June 1670: The players are silenced dureing this tyme of sadness. [Probably acting ceased for at least six weeks, the customary period for silencing the companies when the Court went into full mourning. Nevertheless, the Duke's Company may have been permitted to act at Oxford. See Sybil Rosenfeld, "Some Notes on the Players in Oxford, 1661-1713," Review of English Studies XIX (1943), 366-67.

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but, as the companies were probably silenced to at least the end of July, and the play was entered in the Stationers' Register, 12 Sept. 1670, it was probably acted in August 1670. The Dedication tends to confirm this with the statement: in spight of a dead Vacation

Event Comment: [The King's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but a letter--see 2 Jan. 1670@1--indicates that the first part had been acted before that date and that Part II was to be shortly staged. The point of the Prologue spoken by Ellen Gwyn seems to have derived from an incident at Dover (see Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 20) in May 1670, when James Nokes attired himself in a ridiculous fashion, including "Broad wast Belts." The speakers of the Epilogue and the Prologue to the Second Part are mentioned in Sir William Haward's MS (Bodl. MS Don. b., pp. 248-49); see The Poems of John Dryden, ed. James Kinsley (Oxford, 1958), IV, 1848-49. In Part I a song Beneath a myrtle shade, with music by John Bannister, is in Choice Songs and Ayres, First Book, 1673. Another, Wherever I am, with music by Alphonso Marsh, is in the same collection, as is also How unhappy a lover am I, the music by Nicholas Staggins. Mrs John Evelyn to Mr Bohun, ca. Jan. 1670@1: Since my last to you I have seen The Siege of Grenada, a play so full of ideas that the most refined romance I ever read is not to compare with it; love is made so pure, and valour so nice, that one would image it designed for an Utopia rather than our stage. I do not quarrel with the poet, but admire one born in the decline of morality should be able to feign such exact virtue; and as poetic fiction has been instructive in former ages, I wish this the same event in ours. As to the strict law of comedy I dare not pretend to judge: some think the division of the story is not so well if it could all have been comprehended in the day's actions (The Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn, ed. William Bray, IV, 25). According to John Evelyn--see 9 Feb. 1670@1--Robert Streeter did some of the scenes for this play. In the Preface to The Fatal Discovery, ca. February 1697@8, George Powell, in discussing revivals of Dryden's plays, stated: In relation to our reviving his Almanzor...very hard crutching up what Hart and Mohun could not prop

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is in a membrandum of Lord Cheyne, Huntington Library MS EL II, 145: for Coach to a play calld Tartuff

Event Comment: The King's Company. See G. J. Gray, "The Diary of Jeffrey Boys of Gray's Inn, 1671," Notes and Queries, 27 Dec. 1930, p. 455

Event Comment: The King's Company. See G. J. Gray, "The Diary of Jeffrey Boys of Gray's Inn, 1671," Notes and Queries, 27 Dec. 1930, p. 455

Event Comment: The King's Company. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 81

Event Comment: The King's Company. Evelyn, Diary, 9 Feb.: & next day was acted there the famous Play, cald the Siege of Granada two days acted successively: there were indeede very glorious scenes & perspectives, the work of Mr Robert? Streeter

Event Comment: The King's Company. Evelyn, Diary, 9 Feb. 1670@1, suggests that Part I was given on Friday 10 and Part II on Saturday 11 Feb. 1670@1

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known. Although the play was not entered in the Stationers' Register until 6 Oct. 1671, a reference in the Dedication to a Lenten performance suggests that it appeared about this time. A song, A wife I do hate, with music by Pelham Humphrey, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Fifth Book, 1685

Event Comment: The King's Company. See 2 and 3 Jan. 1670@1 for the difficulties in dating this performance

Event Comment: In the Term Catalogues a new edition of John Wilson's The Cheats was announced as licensed on 30 May 1671. This play had previously been given in March 1663. The edition of 1671 states that it has been given by the King's Company at the Theatre Royal, and it may have been revived at this time

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the fact that the play was licensed for printing on 30 Aug. 1671 suggests an early summer production

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: It is uncertain what play was acted on this day. In A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 81, there is an unnamed play in the accounts for 6 Nov. 1670 to 29 Oct. 1671, with Philaster as the next play in the sequence. Philaster has been assigned to 1 Nov. 1672, laaving the play for this day unknown. The King's Company

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 2. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 347. It is uncertain, however, just when this performance occurred. The L. C. lists at Harvard (see VanLennep, Plays on the English Stage, p. 19) suggest that the three performances at the head of this list belong to the spring of 1672 rather than the spring of 1671. If this is correct, this performance of Sir Solomon is out of place in the list, for it can hardly be placed at 14 Nov. 1672, yet it is surprising that, so soon after the opening of dg, the Duke's Company should act at court, especially when the King and Queen attended dg on the following day, 15 Nov. 1671. This performance of Sir Solomon should be judged as an uncertain one