Event Comment: Last time but one of the Company's performing this season. House. Mr Garrick as before Mr Vernon being hoarse Mr Davies play'd Sr. John Loverule some body in the Pit call'd for Vernon as his Name was in the Bills Mr Davies told them that Mr Vernon had been ill these two day [sic] and it was thought unnecessary to trouble them with an apology they afterwards call'd for the Early Horn Mr Davies told them he did not know of doing the part till after two therefore he was not prepar'd. they call'd out & bid him go on his own way (Hopkins Diary). [MacMillan's note from Kemble omits the comment on the afterpiece. Song The Early Horn had been traditional for the part of Sir John for over 30 years. See 10 Sept. 1741.] Paid Mr Short, Chorus, 5s.; Blurton 4 days salary in full #1 6s. 8d.; French on acct #100. Receipts: #305 13s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) of the play bears the date of acquisition 3 June [1690, apparently], and the play was advertised in the London Gazette, No 2566, 12-16 June 1690. See Fredson Bowers, A Bibliographical History of the Fletcher-Betterton Play, The Prophetess, 1690, The Library, 5th Series, XVI (1961), 169-75. It seems likely that the opera was first given early in June 1690. An edition of The Vocal and Instrumental Musick of The Prophetess appeared in 1691. See Works of Henry Purcell, Purcell Society, IX. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42): The Prophetess, or Dioclesian an Opera, Wrote by Mr Betterton; being set out with Coastly Scenes, Machines and Cloaths: The Vocal and Instrumental Musick, done by Mr Purcel; and Dances by Mr Priest; it gratify'd the Expectation of Court and City; and got the Author great Reputation. [See also R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theater (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), Chapter V; and E. W. White, Early Theatrical Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59), 44.] The Muses' Mercury (January 1707, pp. 4-5): This prologue was forbidden to be spoken the second Night of the Representation of the Prophetess. Mrs Shadwell was the occasion of its being taken notice of by the Ministry in the last Reign: He happen'd to be at the House on the first Night, and taking the beginning of the Prologue to have a double meaning, and that Meaning to reflect on the Revolution, he told a Gentleman, He would immediately Put a stop to it. When that Gentleman ask'd, Why he wou'd do the Author such a Disservice? He said, Because while Mr Dryden was Poet Laureat, he wou'd never let any Play of his be Acted. Mr Shadwell informed the Secretary of State of it, and representing it in its worst Colours, the Prologue was never Spoken afterwards, and is not printed in Mr Dryden's Works, or his Miscellanies. Cibber, Apology (ed. Lowe, II, 13-14): A Prologue (by Dryden) to the Prophetess was forbid by the Lord Dorset after the first War in Ireland. It must be confess'd that this Prologue had some familiar, metaphorical Sneers at the Revolution itself; and as the Poetry of it was good, the Offence of it was less pardonable

Event Comment: Nothing said abour ye prolog: (Cross). The Music of the Funeral Procession compos'd by Dr Boyce. [See "William Boyce's 'Solemn Dirge' in Garrick's Romeo and Juliet Production of 1750," by Charles Haywood, Shakespeare Quarterly, Spring, 1960.] This day is Publish'd at 1s. 6d. Romeo and Juliet a Tragedy, revised and alter'd from Shakespear by Theophilus Cibber, First revised in September 1744, at the Theatre in the Haymarket; now acted at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane. To which is added a Serio-Comic Apology for Part of the Life of Mr Theophilus Cibber, Comedian, written by himself. Interspers'd with memoirs and anecdotes relating to the Stage Managements, Theatrical Resolutions, &c. also cursory Observations on principal Players: particularly Mr Quin, Mr Ryan, Mrs Woffington, Mrs Ward, and Miss Bellamy; Mr Garrick, Mr Barry, Mrs Cibber, Mrs Clive, Mrs Pritchard, &c. Likewise Original Letters that passed between the late Sir Thomas DeVeil and Mr Theophilus Cibber relating to the Stage Act, Concluding with a copy of Verses, call'd the Contrite Comedian's Confession. Printed for C. Corbett, the Publisher, at Addison's Head, facing St Dunstan's Church, Fleet St; G. Woodfall, at the King's Arms, the corner of Craig's Court, Charing Cross. [See 11 Oct.] Receipts: #170 (Cross)

Event Comment: Never acted. [See Genest's comment (IV, 618) derived from Cumberland and the London Magazine-its appeal to the fashionable circles, its damnation at first performance because of the hanging of Harlequin in full view, and its modification thereafter. See 18 June and Horace Walpole to George Montagu [Arlington Street] July 28, 1761: I came to town yesterday through clouds of dust to see The Wishes, and went ac- [I, 381] tually feeling for Mr Bentley, and full of the emotions he must be suffering. What do [you] think in a house crowded was the first thing I saw! Mr and Madam Bentley perked up in the front boxes and acting audience at his own play--no, all the impudence of false patriotism never came up to it! Did one ever hear of an author that had couraee to see his own first night in public? I don't believe Fielding or Foote himself ever did--and this was the modest bashful Mr Bentley, that died at the thought of being known for an author, even by his own acquaintance! In the stage-box was Lady Bute, Lord Halifax and Lord Melcomb-I must say the two last entertained the house as much as the play-your King was prompter, and called out to the actors every minute to speak louder-the other went backwards and forwards behind the scenes, fetched the actors into the box, and was busier than Harlequin. The curious prologue was not spoken, the whole very ill-acted. It turned out just what I remembered it, the good parts extremely good, the rest very flat and vulgar-the genteel dialogue I believe might be written by Mrs Hannah. The audience was extremely fair. The first act they bore with patience, though it promised very ill-the second is admirable and was much applauded-so was the third-the fourth woeful-the beginning of the fifth it seemed expiring, but was revived by a delightful burlesque of the ancient chorus-which was followed by two dismal scenes, at which people yawned-but were awakened on a sudden by Harlequin's being drawn up to a gibbet nobody knew why or wherefore-this raised a prodigious and continued hiss, Harlequin all the while suspended in the air-at last they were suffered to finish the play, but nobody attended to the conclusion-modesty and his lady all the while sat with the utmost indifference-I suppose Lord Melcombe had fallen asleep [p. 382] before he came to this scene and had never read it. The epilogue was about the King and new Queen, and ended with a personal satire on Garrick-not very kind on his own stage-to add to the judge of this conduct, Cumberland two days ago published a pamphlet to abuse him. It was given out for tonight with more claps than hisses, but I think it will not do unless they reduce it to three acts." [p. 383]. Correspondence with George Montagu. Ed. W. S. Lewis & Ralph Brown. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), I, 381-83] Note: (I, 381n): Bentley's play of The Wishes or Harlequin's Mouth Opened, was offered to Garrick and Rich the beginning of 1761, but wasrefused by both. His nephew Cumberland showed it to Lord Melcomb, who carried it to Lord Bute, with a compliment in verse to that Lord by Mr Cumberland. Lord Bute showed it to the King, who sent Bentley #200 and ordered the new summer company to play [it]. There was a prologue, flattering the King and Lord Bute which Foote refused to act. Two days before it was played, Cumberland wrote an anonymous pamphlet, addressed to Mr Bentley, and abusing Garrick, who had refused to act Cumberland's tragedy of Cicero's banishment, which he printed this year [1761], unacted. The Wishes were played for the first time July 27th, 1761; the 2d 3d and part of the 4th, acts were much applauded, but the conclusion extremely hissed. The Epilogue concluded with a satire on Garrick. It was acted five nights. About the same time he wrote a tragedy called Philodamus, which he was to read to Garrick, but the latter was so angry at their treatment of him, that he declared against seeing Mr Bentley" (MS account by HW of Bentley's writings, in the collection of Lord Waldegrave at Chewton Priory)

Event Comment: Paid 6 days salary at #82 16s. 5d. per diem--#496 18s. 6d.; Mrs Abington on cloaths account #2; Mr French on acct #2. Mr D. Garrick's Night. Charges #84 (Treasurer's Book). Profit to D. G. for sixth night of Inst of Garter #115 7s. 6d. Mainpiece: Not acted in 4 years. [See 2 Dec. 1767.] Garrick recovered from his illness (Winston MS 10). [Of the mainpiece: "How the managers could think of shoving Mr Cautherly into the part of Captain Plume, is, to us, a matter of surprize....The part requires elegance, vivacity and the easy deportment of an accomplish'd gentleman. We never remember to have seen this character more completely performed, than by Mr Smith at Covent Garden Theatre (who is everything that criticism can wish) nor much worse, than by Mr Cautherly, who does not possess one requisite for the character, and is the effeminate and insipid School-boy throughout the whole. To this we may add, that he was not perfect, and made a great mistake, by coming in where he should not which oblig'd him to retire again. This was an unpardonable fault, though it was the first time of his appearing in this character."--Theatrical Review, 2 Nov. Of the afterpiece: "We were not a little pleased to observe this evening, that Mr King, in the character of Sir Dingle, omitted the parody on the lines with which the third act of Otway's Orphan concludes. But we think the introducing a chine of roast beef, decorated with a flag, to be carried off in triumph by the rabble, accompanied, from the orchestra with music of the old song of that title is a pitiful addition to the performance, and intended only as a sacrifice to the caprice of the riotous inhabitants of the upper gallery. Had this Entertainment been exhibited at a French theatre it would have had some claim to merit. This seems to be a piece of stage policy, arising from a consciousness, that the whole performance is too contemptible to meet with countenance from any but the sons of riot, for which reason they are brib'd to support it, by this notable trick."--Theatrical Review, 2 Nov.] Receipts: #199 7s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: In Mr G. fine Scene with Thomas , Just as he was going to trust him with the Secret the House was very Silent and Mr G. very fine a fellow in the Gallery bawld out--Speak louder--It disconcerted Mr G. very much (Hopkins Diary). [MacMillan's note from Kemble differs slightly.] Paid Mr Waller's Bill (hosier) #30 16s. 9d.; Mr Pryer [Turner] #3 2s.; Mr Bannizter [sic] for two songs #5 5s. Receipts: #242 6s. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: Mainpiece [1st time; C 5 by Thomas Holcroft. Prologue and Epilogue by the author (London Chronicle, 21 Feb.)]. Morning Herald, 29 Feb. 1792: This day is published The Road to Ruin (1s. 6d.). Receipts: #233 5s. (231.1; 2.4)

Event Comment: Benefit for King. [This was Smith's last appearance on the stage, from which he had officially retired on 9 June 1788.] Broadside in Kemble playbills announcing this benefit: Mr King most respectfully informs the Public that his Night is fixed for Friday the 18th of May, when will be presented The School for Scandal. Mr King has the pleasure to add that Mr Smith, who was so long and so worthily applauded by the Public, and was the original performer of Charles Surface in the above, distinguished Comedy, at the particular request of Mr King, backed by a strong assurance from many admirers and encouragers of the Drama that it will not only add to Mr King's emolument but highly gratify the Town, has kindly consented to return to the Theatre for one night, and resume his favourite Character. "We had been told that Smith pourtrayed the Manners of a finished gentleman with more delicacy and characteristic propriety than any actor of his day; but this did not appear to us to be his particular excellence; he stands too wide to be graceful, and his deportment gains no advantage from a perpetual application of his hand to the lower part of the waist. These habits are far from elegant. His Charles, however, is a favourable specimen of that sort of acting which commonly falls under the denomination of the old school: light, airy, and natural; which excites applause without any anxious endeavour to produce it; which suffers the points to tell of themselves, and does not place them as so many traps to ensnare the injudicious part of the audience" (Monthly Mirror, May 1798, p. 299). "He was received with the most heart-felt gratulations by an audience who did not expect any apology for such acting, though he saw fit to deliver one at the conclusion of the play" (Monthly Visitor, May 1798, p. 72). Times, 4 May: Tickets to be had of King at his house, New Store-street, Bedford-square. Receipts: #674 6s. (388.0.6; 55.17.6; 2.0.0); tickets: 228.8.0) (charge: #212 5s. 6d.)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 2. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 347. This performance may well be the premiere. In the Preface the author states that the play was asked for on Shrove Tuesday and he wrote it within a week; a premiere, then, before this date would allow very little time for rehearsal. This play is certainly a "Lenten" performance, for it was acted on a Wednesday in Lent and was referred to in the Prologue as a "Lenten Play." See the discussion under The Spanish Rogue (March 1673) and Gray, pp. 785-86. See also J. G. McManaway, The Copy for The Careless Lovers," MLN, XLVI (1931), 406-9. Preface to the edition of 1673: [This play] was written at the Desire of the Young Men of the Stage, and given them for a Lenten-Play, they ask't it not above a Week before Shrove-Tuesday