Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance, the premiere, is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 216: first Acting. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 348. Nell Gwyn also attended this performance; see VanLennep, Nell Gwyn's Playgoing, p406. The title page states: The English Opera; or The Vocal Musick in Psyche, with the Instrumental Therein Intermix'd...By Matthew Lock. Preface: All the Instrumental Musick (which is not mingled with the Vocal) was Composed by that Great Master, Seignior Gio. Baptista Draghi, Master of the Italian Musick to the King. The Dances were made by the most famous Master of France, Monsieur St.Andree. The Scenes were Painted by the Ingenious Artist, Mr Stephenson. In those things that concern the Ornament or Decoration of the Play, the great industry and care of Mr Betterton ought to be remember'd, at whose desire I wrote upon this Subject. Roger North Upon Music: I am sure the musick in the Psyche was composed by Mr M. Lock, of whom wee may say, as the Greeks sayd of Cleomenes, that he was ultimus Heroum. This masque is also in print, and begins 'Great Psyche,' &c. and the book containing the whole musick of that entertainment is not unworthy of a place in a vertuoso's cabanet (ed. John Wilson [1959], pp. 306-7). Preface to Settle's Ibrahim (licensed 4 May 1676): I have often heard the Players cursing at their oversight in laying out so much on so disliked a play [Psyche]; and swearing that they thought they had lost more by making choice of such an Opera: writer than they had gained by all his Comedies; considering how much more they might have expected, had such an Entertainment had that scence in it, that it deserved: and that for the future they expect the Tempest, which cost not one Third of Psyche, will be in request when the other is forgotten. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 35-36): In February 1672. The long expected Opera of Psyche, came forth in all her Ornaments; new Scenes, new Machines, new Cloaths, new French Dances: This Opera was Splendidly set out, especially in Scenes; the Charge of which amounted to above 800l. It had a Continuance of Performance about 8 Days together it prov'd very Beneficial to the Company; yet the Tempest got them more Money

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: Flora's Figarys appears in Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 148, under this date. As Flora's Vagaries, it had been acted at Christ Church, Oxford, on 8 Jan. 1663. The play was not published before 1670, and the entry in Herbert's list has sometimes been regarded as the date of licensing, sometimes as the date of a performance in London. Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 427, assigned it to ca. January 1662@3 at Vere St, presumably because "Mr Bird" in the cast in the quarto of 1670 referred to Theophilus Bird, who died before 3 Nov. 1663. But the cast in the edition of 1670 is presumably that for 5 Oct. 1667, when Pepys saw the play and referred to Nell Gwyn and Mrs Knepp as acting in it; they, too, are listed in the quarto of 1670 but could hardly have played in it in 1663. If the cast in the 1670 edition is not that for 3 Nov. 1663 and if the "Mr Bird" is Theophilus Bird Jr, then the obstacles to consiuering 3 Nov. 1663 as the date of a performance rather than of licensing are less formidable. [I am indebted to professor John Harold Wilson for much of this argument.

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)