Event Comment: Charles II entered London on this day, an event which occasioned several works of a quasi-dramatic nature. One was The Famous Tragedie of the Life and Death of Mrs Rump...As it was presented on a burning Stage at Westminster the 29th of May, 1660. It has a Prologue and Epilogue; the author is not known. A second is An Ode Upon the Happy Return of King Charles II to his Languishing Nations, May 29. 1660. This work, by James Shirley, with music by Dr Coleman, was printed in 1660, and reprinted in A Little Ark, ed. G. Thorn-Drury (1921), pp. 21-23. A third is A True Relation of the Reception of his Majestie and Conducting him through the City of London...on Tuesday the 29 of this instant May, being the Day of his Majesties Birth

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: Mrs Pierce and her husband and I and my wife to Salisbury Court, where coming late he and she light of Col. Boone that made room for them, and I and my wife sat in the pit, and there met with Mr Lewes and Tom Whitton, and saw The Bondman done to admiration

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: So back to the Cockpitt [Whitehall], and there, by the favour of one Mr Bowman, he [Creed] and I got in, and there saw the King, and Duke of York and his Duchess (which is a plain woman, and like her mother, my Lady Chancellor). And so saw The Humersome Lieutenant acted before the King, but not very well done. But my pleasure was great to see the manner of it, and so many great beauties, but above all Mrs Palmer, with whom the King do discover a great deal of familiarity. Sometime before the Coronation of Charles II, on 23 April 1661, there may have been acted The Merry Conceited Humours of Bottom the Weaver. An edition of 1661 refers to its being "often publikely acted by some of his Majesties Comedians" and the Dedication suggests that it would make a good entertainment at the mirthful time of the Coronation. The edition lists no actors' names, no prologue, no epilogue

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the Theatre, and saw Brenoralt, I never saw before. It seemed a good play, but ill acted; only I sat before Mrs Palmer, the King's mistress, and filled my eyes with her, which much pleased me

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. If the play was acted on eight successive days, as Downes states, this would be the eighth, and last, performance in this run Pepys, Diary: I took her [Mrs Pepys] to the opera, and shewed her The Witts, which I have seen already twice, and was most highly pleased with it

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: And late after dinner took Mrs Martha out by coach, and carried her to the Theatre in a frolique, to my great expense, and there shewed her part of the Beggar's Bush, without much pleasure, but only for a frolique

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: [Mrs Pepys] and I by coach to the Opera and Theatre, but coming too late to both, and myself being a little out of tune we returned

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: My wife and I by coach to the Opera, and there saw the 2nd part of The Siege of Rhodes, but it is not so well done as when Roxalana [Mrs Davenport] was there, who, it is said, is now owned by my Lord of Oxford

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the Theatre to The French Dancing Master, and there with much pleasure gazed upon her (Lady Castlemaine); but it troubles us to see her look dejectedly and slighted by People already. The play pleased us [Pepys and Mrs Pepys] very well; but Lacy's part, the Dancing Master, the best in the world

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: After dinner with my wife to the Duke's Theatre, and saw the second part of Rhodes, done with the new Roxalana; which do it rather better in all respects for person, voice, and judgment, than the first Roxalana [Mrs Davenport]. Home with great content with my wife, not so well pleased with the company at the house to-day, which was full of citizens, there hardly being a gentleman or woman in the house; a couple of pretty ladies by us that made sport in it, being jostled and crowded by prentices

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the Duke's House, where we saw The Villane again; and the more I see it, the more I am offended at my first undervaluing the play, it being very good and pleasant, and yet a true and allowable tragedy. The house was full of citizens, and so the less pleasant, but that I was willing to make an end of my gaddings, and to set to my business for all the year again to-morrow. Here we saw the old Roxalana [Mrs Davenport] in the chief box, in a velvet gown, as the fashion is, and very handsome, at which I was glad

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: And so carried her [Mrs Pepys] to the fayre [bf], and showed her the monkeys dancing on the ropes, which was strange, but such dirty sport that I was not pleased with it. There was also a horse with hoofs like rams hornes, a goose with four feet, and a cock with three. Thence to another place, and saw some German Clocke works, the Salutation of the Virgin Maryv, and several Scriptural stories; but above all there was at last represented the sea, with Neptune, Venus, mermaids, and Ayrid on a dolphin, the sea rocking, so well done, that had it been in a gaudy manner and place, and at a little distance, it had been admirable

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.