Event Comment: The King's Company. There is no indication as to whether this is the first performance of the play. Pepys, Diary: I took my wife out, for I do find that I am not able to conquer myself as to going to plays till I come to some new vowe concerning it, and that I am now come, that is to say, that I will not see above one in a month at any of the publique theatres till the sum of 50s. be spent, and then none before New Year's day next, unless that I do become worth #1,000 sooner than then, and then am free fo come to some other terms.... to the King's house, and there met Mr Nicholson, my old colleague, and saw The Usurper, which is no good play, though better than what I saw yesterday. However, we rose unsatisfied

Event Comment: Charles II to Madame, 14 July 1664: I am just now come from seeing a new ill play and it is almost midnight (C. H. Hartman, Charles II and Madame [1934], p. 108). W. J. Lawrence, in a review of Boswell, The Restoration Court Stage, in Modern Language Review, XXVIII (1933), 103, stated his belief that this play was acted at court this day

Event Comment: The King's Company. For an edition of this play from the MS prompt copy, see The Change of Crownes, ed. F. S. Boas (Oxford University Press, 1949). For the consequences of Lacy's ad libbing, see 16, 20, and 22 April, and 1 May. Pepys, Diary: I to the King's house by chance, where a new play: so full as I never saw it; I forced to stand all the while close to the very till I took cold, and many people went away for want of room. The King and Queene, and Duke of York and Duchesse of York there, and all the Court, and Sir W. Coventry. The play called The Change of Crownes; a play of Ned Howard's the best that ever I saw at that house, being a great play and serious; only Lacy did act the country-gentleman come up to Court, who do abuse the Court with all the imaginable wit and plainness about selling of places, and doing every thing for money. The play took very much.... Gervase Jaquis to the Earl of Huntington, 16 April: Here is another play house erected in Hatton buildings called the Duke of Cambridgs play-house, and yester-day his Matie the Duke & many more were at the King's Playe house to see some new thing Acted (Hastings MSS, HA 7654, Huntington Library)

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: So she [Mrs Pepys] and I to the King's playhouse, and there sat to avoid seeing Knepp in box above where Mrs Williams happened to be, and there saw The Usurper; a pretty good play, in all but what is designed to resemble Cromwell and Hugh Peters, which is mighty silly

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: With my wife to the King's playhouse, and there saw The Joviall Crew; but ill acted to what it was heretofore, in Clun's time, and when Lacy could dance

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but the play was entered in the Stationers' Register, 18 Nov. 1670, and was probably performed not long before that date. Preface: The misfortune it had in having some of the Parts ill and imperfectly performed, as also the laying down of it, the sixth day of its being presented, when the Audience was very near as considerable, as the first day it was Acted, as also an intermission hitherto occasioned by the long absence of some principal Actresses, could not but prejudice the esteem it gain'd

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. lists at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage", p. 18: The New Utopia. There is no indication as to whether this performance was the premiere. The Preface refers to malice against the plays, and the edition of 1671 has a poem: To the Author of the New Utopia. On the Miscarriage of his Play in Acting

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. lists at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage," pp. 18-19: The Town Shifts. There is no indication as to whether this is the premiere, and it should be noted that this date is a Wednesday in Lent

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. Very probably this play was also acted on Friday 5 and Saturday 6 July 1672, but the company may not have acted daily in the summer

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

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Nell Gwyn attended this performance. See VanLennep, Nell Gwyn's Playgoing, p. 408. There is no certainty that this is the premiere, but the reference in the Prologue to the long vacation and the licensing date of 25 Sept. 1676 point to a summer production

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 February 1677@8, it was advertised in the London Gazette, 29 Oct.-1 Nov. 1677, and was probably acted in October 1677 or earlier. See also, in the introductory list of plays, Thomas Rymer's Edgar, which may have been acted in opposition to Ravenscroft's play