Event Comment: The King's Company apparently acted an unnamed play on this occasion. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, III, 127

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but a licensing date of 13 April 1678 suggests a production in March. This play is entered ahead of Trick for Trick primarily because the latter has a slightly later licensing date

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is not known. As the licensing date for this play was 30 April 1678, it probably was acted before Easter, but it may have had its first production immediately after Easter, Sunday 31 March 1678

Event Comment: The Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, ed. Browning: I was with the King at the French play that night (p. 136)

Event Comment: The Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, ed. Browning (p. 137): This day in the afternoon I had a quarrell in the King's playhous upon this occasion. As I sate in the pit a gentleman, whose name I afterwards heard to be Mr Symons came and placed himself next to me, and not content to rest ther, after a while desired me to give him my seat, or to exchange with him, (pretending he was to speake to one of his acquaintances on the other side). I had noe mind to quitt my seat, which was better to see than his; besides, he haveing been drinking, his manner of askeing was not altogather soe gratefull, insomuch as I denyed it. Here upon he said I was uncivil, and I tould him he was a rascall; upon which words we were both prepared to strike one another, had not a gentleman that sate near us (one Sir Jonathan Trelany) put his hand between us to prevent it

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is uncertain. The date of licensing was 3 Jan. 1678@9, but Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, p. 222) has argued that it may well have been the first new play of the season. The Prologue refers to it as "The first Play bury'd since the Wollen Act," the Act going into effect on 1 Aug. 1678. For Sandford as Creon, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 131. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37): Oedipus King of Thebes, Wrote by Mr Nat. Lee and Mr Dryden: The last Writing the first two Acts, and the first the 3 last. This play was Admirably well Acted; especially the Parts of Oedipus and Jocasta: One by Mr Betterton, the other by Mrs Betterton; it took prodigiously being Acted 10 Days together

Event Comment: During February and March 1678@9 two plays, titles unknown, were acted before the King. See an order: To Edward Griffin, Esq. Treasurer of the Chamber, to be paid over to John Lacy, assigne of Charles Killigrew, Mastr of the revells, for two plays acted before his said Majestie in Feb'ry and March 1678@9 (Moneys Received and Paid for Secret Services, ed. J. Y. Akerman, Camden Society, LII 1851, 34)

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known. As the play was licensed for printing, 10 March 1678@9, March 1679 is the latest likely date for the premiere

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known. As the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, June 1679, it probably was acted first sometime in the preceding two or three months. Gildon's revision of Langbaine, English Dramatick Poets: This Play met not with the Applause the Author and his Friends expected (p. 28)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but as the play was licensed for printing on 27 March 1679, the premiere must have been no later than March 1679. It is possible that Midnight's Intrigue--see introductory note to the 1676-77 season-is an earlier version of this play. The Epilogue suggests that the players faced thin audiences during the spring and that Drury Lane had been closed for some time: So hard the Times are, and so thin the Town, @Though but one Playhouse, that must too lie down. It is possible that Mrs Behn's The Young King may have been acted at this time. See September 1679

Event Comment: John Verney to Sir R. Verney, 23 June 1679: Churchill, for beating an orange wench in the Duke's playhouse, was challenged by Capt. Otway (the poet), and were both wounded, but Churchill most. The relation beinb told the King, by Sir John Holmes, as Churchill thought to his prejudice he challenged Holmes, who fighting, disarmed him, Churchill. On Saturday, at the Duke's Theatre, happened a quarrel between young Bedlow and one of the novices of St Omer's, and many swords were drawn, but as yet I have not heard whether any blood was shed in this religious quarrel (HMC, Verney MSS., 7th Report, Appendix, 1879, p. 473)

Event Comment: It is not certain that this performance was given by the King's Company, but because it first produced the play, it has been assigned to Drury Lane. Pepys, Diary: Tuesday January the 27th...comeing home at night (after I had carryed my Cozen Winn Houblon home from a Play (shee would if she could). [Mornamont MS II, folio 1192, Cambridge University Library.] See also Arthur Bryant, Samuel Pepys: Years of Peril (New York, 1935), p. 314

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: The Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library), 9 Feb. 1679@80: The late disorders at the Playhouse hath soe much incenst his Matye that tis said he hath commanded the persons to be proceeded Agt as Ryotters (Wilson, Theatre Notes, p. 80). [In Domestick Intelligence, 8-10 Feb. 1679@80, is a reference to an information in the King's Bench brought against those who participated in the disorders in the Duke's playhouse.

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is not known. Although the play was not entered in the Term Catalogues until May 1681, Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, p.222) has argued that the reference in the Prologue to the young men (presumably Gray, Goodman, and Clarke; see February 1679@80) who had gone to Scotland and returned empty-handed suggests a performance near March 1680, when these references would have more point than they would have a year later

Event Comment: The King's Company. The Newdigate newsletters, 3 June 1680: But on Wednesday the Duchesse of Portsmouth to disoblige Mr Settle the Poet carryed all the Court with her to the Dukes house to see Macbeth (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80)

Event Comment: The King's Company acted at Oxford during this month. See Sybil Rosenfeld, Some Notes on the Players in Oxford, 1661-1713, Review of English Studies, XIX (1943), 369-70

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 King's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but as the play was entered in the Term Catalogues in November 1680, it was probably first acted in September or October 1680. The Dedication refers to the ineffectiveness of the company at this time. Dedication, Edition of 1680: A Play so worthless, and so Unfortunate. Nay, to sum up all its Misfortunes, it does not only owe so little to the Composers Hand, but breath'd too in a Season, when Poetry even with its softest and more Curious Aires, to the Ears of this untunable Age, sounds but harsh and unpleasant: nay, and what's yet worst of all, perform'd by the feeble Fragment of a Company.--'Tis true, the Theatre Royal was once all Harmony....But when this hapless Play came forth, its sweetest Pipes were stopt; [Praise of Hart]. But, Alas, the very best of Plays now find but a cold Reception

Event Comment: The King's Company. After the banning of The Sicilian Usurper, it was brought on again under a new title and survived two days before it also was banned. Tate's statement concerning its reception--see 11 Dec. 1680--may refer to these two performances rather than to the sequence in December. Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library), 20 Jan. 1680@1: K. Richd ye 2.d a play, being forbid acting att ye Ks house the Poet put the name Tyrant of Sicily upon it by wch means it was acted twice this weeke, but the Cheate being found out it was forbid acting againe (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80)

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: The King's Company. This play was acted at Oxford on 19 March 1680@1 before Charles II (see True Protestant Mercury, 19-23 March 1680@1; Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80; and Smith's Protestant Intelligence, 24-28 March 1681). The play may have been given first in London; if not, it probably was not acted there until after Easter, 3 April 1681. The company also performed The Plain Dealer in Oxford on 21 March 1680@1 (Smith's Protestant Intelligence, 24-28 March 1681)

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