Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but it was probably acted much earlier than November 1682, when it was entered in the Term Catalogues. The fact that the Epilogue refers to the Duke of York's "second Exile into Flanders" points to the possibility that it may have been acted near that time, i.e., between 24 Sept. 1679 and 14 Oct. 1679. It may have been first acted early as March 1679, when the political flights of the Duke of York were also a matter of public concern

Event Comment: The True News; or, Mercurius Anglicus, 4-7 Feb. 1679@80: On Munday night last happened a great dispute in the Duke's Play-house, some Gentlemen in their Cupps entring into the Pitt, flinging Links at the Actors, and using several reproachfull speeches against the Dutchess of P. and other persons of Honour, which has occasioned a Prohibition from farther Acting, till his Majesties farther pleasyre. A letter written by the Dowager Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, dated 6 Jan. 1679@80 [possibly misdated] refers to disorders which are similar to those recorded in The True News: You must needs hear of the abominable disorders amongst us, calling all the women whores and the men rogues in the playhouses--throwing candles and links--calling my Lord Sunderland traitor, but in good company; the Duke of York?, rascal; and all ended in "God bless his Highness, the Duke of Monmouth. We will be for him against the world." I am told they may be fined a great deal if they are prosecuted. Two of these are knights of shires, Sir Scroope How, and my Lord Wharton's@eldest son; the only sufferer yet is Porter. They are ashamed, I hear, and afraid (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Times of Charles the Second by the Honourable Henry Sidney [London, 1843], I, 237)

Event Comment: The Dowager Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, 19 Feb. 1679@80: The players have been disturbed again by drunken people's jokes. They called my Lord Arran a rogue; and one Fitzpatrick pointed at Mr Thinne, and called him that petitioning fool, and swore a hundred oaths; he said that he deserved #20,000 a-year, but that fool deserved nothing (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Times of Charles the Second [London, 1843], I, 279-80). See also 2 and 9 Feb. 1679@80

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This is another in the series of Court performances in L. C. 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 350, and 11 Feb. 1679@80. Mountstevens to Henry Stevens, 20 Feb. 1679@80: Upon Sunday the Court is to be in mourning for the death of the Princess Elizabeth, sister to Prince Rupert. (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Time of Charles the Second [London, 1843], I, 283)

Event Comment: By Thomas Jordan. Luttrell (A Brief Relation, I, 232). There was little or no show by land. The expenditures for the Procession came to #139 9s. 10d. See R. T. D. Sayle, Lord Mayors' Pageants of the Merchant Taylors' Company in the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries, p. 139

Event Comment: The United Company. This play was in rehearsal before the death of Charles II-see 6 Feb. 1684@5-and was staged shortly after the playhouse reopened. Luttrell's date of acquisition of the separately-printed Prologue and Epilogue is 9 May 1685 (in possession of Pickering and Chatto, Ltd., 1938), and the play may have been first given on that date or during the week preceding Saturday 9 May 1685. For Cibber's account of Mountfort as Sir Courtly, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 129. The separately-printed Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 228-30. A separately-printed Three New Songs in Sir Courtley Nice (1685) contains three songs, with the music by Samuel Ackroyde and an unknown composer. In addition, two songs, As I grazed unaware and O be kind my dear be kind, both composed by R. King, are in The Theater of Music, Second Book, 1685. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 40-41): The first new Comedy after King James came to the Crown, was Sir Courtly Nice, wrote by Mr Crown:...The Comedy being justly Acted, and the Characters in't new, Crown'd it with a general Applause: Sir Courtly was so nicely Perform'd, that not any succeeding, but Mr Cyber has Equall'd him. Note, Mr Griffin so Excell'd in Surly, Sir Edward Belfond, The Plain Dealer, none succeeding in the 2 former have Equall'd him, except his Predecessor Mr Hart in the latter. The Lover's Session; In Imitation of Sir John Suckling's Session of Poets (in Poems on Affairs of State, II [1703], 162): @Montrath was in Foppery conceiv'd another@Of Whitehall true Breed, Sir Nices Twin Brother:@None could tell, so alike all their Follies did seem,@Whether he acted Mumford, or Mumford him.

Event Comment: Samuel Pepys to Robert Southwell, 10 Oct. 1685: To night wee have had a mighty Musique--Entertainment at court for the welcoming home the King and Queen. Wherein the fraequent Returnes of the Words, Arms, Beauty, Triumph, Love, Progeny Peace, Dominion, Glory, &c. had apparently cost our Poet-Prophet more paine to finde Rhimes then Reasons (R. G. Howard, Letters and the Second Diary of Samuel Pepys [London, 1932], p. 171. [The entertainment for this occasion seems not to have survived.

Event Comment: The date of this amateur performance is not known, but the date generally accepted is December 1689. See Alfred Loewenberg, The Annals of Opera, Second Edition, Columns 85-86; and R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theatre (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), pp. 38-69. The Epilogue is in New Poems (1690)

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the fact that the separately printed Prologue and Epilogue bear a licensing date of 17 March 1689@90 suggests a first performance near that date, as on many Previous occasions the separately-printed prologues and epilogues appeared almost simultaneously with the first performance. The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 287-89. A song, I once had virtue, wealth, and fame, the music by R. King, is in The Banquet of Musick, The Fifth Book, 1691

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the Dedication is dated 5 May 1690; the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1690; and it was advertised in the London Gazette, No. 2557, 12-15 May 1690. Although the play may not have been first acted until mid-April, it may have been given in late March 1690. Dedication, Edition of 1690: I have no reason to complain of the reception of this Play. A song, The fire of love in youthful blood, the music composed by R. King, is in Apollo's Banquet, 1691

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: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but it very probably occurred not later than May 1691, as the play was advertised in the London Gazette, 4-8 June 1691. For discussions of it, see E. W. White, Early Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59), 44-45, and R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theatre, Chapter III. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42: King Arthur an Opera, wrote by Mr Dryden: it was Excellently Adorn'd with Scenes and Machines: The Musical Part set by Famous Mr Henry Purcel; and Dances made by Mr Jo. Priest: The Play and Musick pleas'd the Court and City, and being well perform'd, twas very Gainful to the Company. Roger North: I remember in Purcell's excellent opera of King Arthur, when Mrs Butler, in the person of Cupid, was to call up Genius, she had the liberty to turne her face to the scean, and ner back to the theater. She was in no concerne for her face, but sang a recitativo of calling towards the place where Genius was to rise, and performed it admirably, even beyond any thing I ever heard upon the English stage....And I could ascribe it to nothing so much as the liberty she had of concealing her face, which she could not endure should be so contorted as is necessary to sound well, before her gallants, or at least her envious sex. There was so much of admirable musick in that opera, that it's no wonder it's lost; for the English have no care of what's good, and therefore deserve it not (Roger North on Music, ed. John Wilson [London, 1959], p. 217-18)

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is stated in Luttrell, A Brief Relation, II, 435, 28 April 1692: On Monday will be acted a new opera, call the Fairy Queen: exceeds former playes: the clothes, scenes, and musick cost 3000#. [According to Some Select Songs As they are Sung in the Fairy Queen (1692) tne singers were Mrs Ayliff, Mrs Dyer, Freeman, Mrs Butler, and Pate. See Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XII (1903), ii; E. W. White, Early Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59 ), 45; and R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theatre, Chapter IV.] Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 42-43: The Fairy Queen, made into an Opera, from a Comedy of Mr Shakespeare s: This in Ornaments was Superior to the other Two [King Arthur and The Prophetess]; especially in Cloaths, for all the Singers and Dancers, Scenes, Machines and Decorations, all most profusely set off; and excellently perform'd, chiedly the Instrumental and Vocal part Compos'd by the said Mr Purcel, and Dances by Mr Priest. The Court and Town were wonderfully satisfy'd with it; but the Expences in setting it out being so great, the Company got very little by it. Gentleman's Journal, May 1692: The Opera of which I have spoke to you in my former hath at last appear'd, and continues to be represented daily: it is call'd, The Fairy Queen. The Drama is originally Shakespears, the Music and Decorations are extraordinary. I have heard the Dances commended, and without doubt the whole is very entertaining. [As the May issue of the Gentleman's Journal was licensed on 14 May, the statement that The Fairy Queen continued to be acted daily may indicate consecutive performances from 2 May to at le ast 14 May 1692.

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. Possibly Edmund Warcup attended this performance: Soe to the play with Dr Needham (The Journals of Edmund Warcup, 1676-1684, ed. Keith Feiling and F. R. D. Needham, English Historical Review, XL [1925], 241)

Event Comment: A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702), commenting upon Betterton's success with I Henry IV (see 9 Jan. 1699@1700) pictures Betterton entering his Closet and praying to Shakespeare for further assistance (p. 25), with the result that "tho' some of those Plays that Batterton Acted were Historical, and consequently highly irregular, yet they never fail'd to please" (p. 26). Sullen adds: Well, this lucky hit of Batterton's put D. Lane in a non-plus! Shakespear's Ghost was rais'd at the New-house, and he seem'd to inhabit it for ever: What's to be done then? Oh, says Rich I'll pray as well as he-What? Shall a Heathen Player have more Religion than a Lawyer? No, it shall never be said--with that Mr R@@ goes up to the Garret (a pair of Stairs higher than his own Apartment) and taking Ben Johnson's Picture with him, he implores. This work implies that Betterton presented Henry VIII in addition to I Henry IV and that Rich revived Volpone, The Alchymist, and The Silent Woman, which had, according to the author of this work, lain unacted for twenty years (p. 26)

Event Comment: Steele wrote a Prologue for the opening, but the Lord Chamberlain had already engaged one by Tickell. For Steele's Prologue, see Blanchard, Occasional Verse of Richard Steele, p. 49: for Tickell's, see R. E. Tickell, pp. 231-32. Original Weekly Journal, 27 Sept.: His Majesty beheld the Performance with much Satisfaction. The young Princesses were present, and a very great Concourse of Nobility and Gentry

Event Comment: Benefit R. Williams and Mrs Haughton. At the particular Desire of several Gentlemen and Ladies. Mainpiece: Written by Mr Cibber, Poet-Laureat to His Majesty

Event Comment: CCraftsman, 9 June: We hear...that the Rebel Players are not yet reduced to their Obedience, but it is thought that They will soon be obliged to surrender at Discretion. In that mean Time, the Publick waits with Impatience to see the Manifesto of their doubty Chief, Mr Theophilus Cibber, which He hath promised in the News-Papers. It is expected that, in this Manifesto, the young Captain will endeavour to prove that the King's Patent, after a solemn Adjudgment in the Court of Chancery, is of no Validity; and that picking a Gentleman's Pocket of Six Thousand Pounds is perfectly consistent with the Principles of Liberty. In the Daily Post, 11 June, Benjamin Griffin, Comedian, published his Humble Appeal to the Publick.The gist of his statement is: (1) Griffin had been under the management of Rich at Lincoln's Inn Fields, without any intention of leaving him, when, at the beginning of the season of 1721, the managers at Drury Lane sent him messages by Thurmond Sr and Shaw, seeking Griffin to treat with them. Griffin at first refused, but Steede, then the prompter of Drury Lane, prevailed upon him. Wilks immediately offered the same conditions Griffin had under Rich: #4 weekly and a benefit before 15 April, at the certain incident charge of #40. Wilks also offered him articles for three years, with a promise of an advance in salary and better terms at that time. (2) No sooner had Griffin agreed than the masters of both companies entered into a private agreement not to receive any one of the other's company, though discharged, without a private agreement to that purpose. (3) At the end of three years, under date of 12 December 1724, R. Castleman, the treasurer of Drury Lane, sent Griffin a note to the effect that the managers were willing to continue him at 10s. nightly (#3 weekly); as Griffin could not return to Rich, he had to accept the reduction in pay as well as a delay of his benefit to May and a payment of #50 for the charges. (4) He remained so until 1729, losing in salary #147 besides the #10 extra benefits. At Norris' illness and death, the managers returned him to #4 weekly but kept the charges at #50. (5) Under date of 4 June 1733, by the signatures of Mary Wilks, Hester Booth, John Highmore, and John Ellys, Griffin received a discharge from Drury Lane and full Liberty to treat with Rich or any one else. He asserts that he had no previous notice and received no reason for his discharge

Event Comment: Benefit the Author of the Farce. [R. Fabian.] By Their Majesties Command. Afterpiece: a Farce of Two Acts. Intermix'd with Songs. London Daily Post and General Advertiser, 13 May: On Saturday Night last, during the Play time, one Mr Mechlin (alias Macloughlin) who lately belong'd to [DL], having had a Dispute with Mr Hallam, of the same Theatre, about a particular Wig, which the latter had from the Wardrobe, to wear in his Part that Night, in the Farce, and which he resign'd to Mr Mechlin; but reproved him for his Behaviour, and ill Language. Some time after Mr Mechlin, thrust a Crabtree Stick that was in his Hand, at the Face of Mr Hallam, which enter'd at his Left Eye, and penetrated into his brain, of which Wound he languish'd till Sunday Night 6 o'clock, when he died