Event Comment: No Money will be taken behind the scenes, nor any money to be return'd after the Curtain is drawn up. The following Letter, signed A By-Stander was inserted in the London Daily Post and General Advertiser: As I am absolutely unconcerned in all the now subsiding Theatrical Disputes, I hope the following observations upon what happened last Tuesday Night at Drury Lane will not be thought unworthy the Publick attention. The Manager of a theatre is to regard the General sense of the Town, and not any Faction form'd thru pique or resentment; Such a Faction may be Noisy, it may be Insolent, but never can be Considerable enough to force either the Manager or the Publick into their terms. Their outrages are equally insults upon the Understanding of the Town, as they are injuries to the Property of the Manager. Therefore if the Manager shall at any time give way to such proceedings, Then and not till Then, the Publick has a right ot find fault with him. The stage Then becomes a property to the insolence of a few misled people; and all theatrical diversions, which in this and other countries used to be directed by Decency and Publick Approbation are sacrificed to a pitiful Personal Resentment. If the above propositions are undeniable, the following Queries are submitted to the Publick, and the answer to them will determine the Reasonableness of the Tuesday Night Riot: I. Whether the Rioters were not Inconsiderable in their numbers and Circumstances? II: Whether any Gentleman can answer to himself, for doing in a Body, a thing which no Gentleman can justify for doing by himself? III. Whether the Rioters can justify their breaking into the Boxes, and taking possession of the seats, which were taken by many persons of Quality and Distinction, at the same time refusing to pay anything; thereby robbing the Manager of all the money of the Boxes, and most part of the Pit? IV. Whether the Manager ought to suffer in his property for the private quarrel between any two actors, as was the case...? V: Whether if such insolences are not discountenanced in the most effectual manner by the Town, any publick diversion can continue longer than a noisy inconsiderable Cabal pleases? VI. Whether any other motive than a regard to Public Decency would have hindered the Manager and Mr. Garrick's friends (who were treble the number) from treating the rioters as they deserved? I should be glad to see the above questions fairly and impartially answered

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but the Gentleman's Journal, January 1691@2, suggests that it was first given in December 1691, although the tendency of this journal to be dated one month and appear in the next month makes the interpretation of its information difficult: We have had a new Comedy this last Month, call'd The Wives Execuse; or Cuckolds make themselves: It was written by Mr Southern, who made that call'd Sir Anthony Love, which you and all the Town lik'd so well. I will send you The Wives Excuse, as soon as it comes out in Print, which will be very speedily: And tho' the Town hath not been so kind to this last, as to the former, I do not doubt but you will own that it will bear a Reading; which some that meet with a better Fate too often do not; some that must be granted to be good Judges commend the Purity of its Language (pp. 51-52). Henry Purcell composed the music for this work. One song, Corinna I excuse thy face, the words (according to the Edition of 1692) by Tho. Cheek, the music by Henry Purcell, but without the singer's name, is in The Banquet of Musick, The Sixth and Last Book, 1692 (licensed 17 Feb. 1691@2). Say, cruel Amoret, sung by Mountfort; Hang this whining way, sung by Mrs Butler; and Ingrateful lover, the words by Major General Sackville, are in Joyful Cuckoldom, ca. 1695. See also Purcell, Works, Purcell Society, XXI (1917), xxvi-xxix

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known. The January issue of the Gentleman's Journal, wnich did not appear until some time in February, stated: Mr Congreve...hath written a Comedy, which will be acted in a little time, and is to be call'd, The Old Batchelor (p. 28). The Gentleman's Journal, February 1692@3 (issued in March 1693): The success of Mr Congreve's Old Batchelor has been so extraordinary, that I can tell you nothing new of that Comedy; you have doubtless read it before this, since it has been already printed thrice. And indeed the Wit which is diffus'd through it, makes it lose but few of those Charms in the Perusal, which yield such pleasure in the Representation. Mr Congreve will in some time give us another play; you may judge by this how acceptable it will be (p. 61). In addition, a reference in the Epilogue indicates that it was produced during Lent, ano since the third edition was advertized in the London Gazette, No. 2856, 23-27 March 1693, early March seems the most likely date for the premiere. According to The Female Wits (ca. 1696), The Old Batchelor was acted fourteen days successively. John Barnard of Yale University states that Narcissus Luttrell's copy of The Old Batchelor in the Newberry Library bears the notation: "10d Mar. 16 1692@3." BM Add. Mss. 4221 (341) Memoirs Relating to Mr Congreve Written by Mr Thomas Southern (in Macdonald, Bibliography of Dryden, p. 54n): When he began his Play the Old Batchelor haveing little Acquaintance with the traders in that way, his Cozens recommended him to a friend of theirs, who was very usefull to him in the whole course of his play, he engag'd Mr Dryden in its favour, who upon reading it sayd he never saw such a first play in his life, but the Author not being acquainted with the stage or the town, it woud be pity to have it miscarry for want of a little Assistance: the stuff was rich indeed, it wanted only the fashionable cutt of the town. To help that Mr Dryden, Mr Arthur Manwayring, and Mr Southern red it with great care, and Mr Dryden putt it in the order it was playd, Mr Southerne obtained of Mr Thos. Davenant who then governd the Playhouse, that Mr Congreve should have the privilege of the Playhouse half a year before his play was playd, wh. I never knew allowd any one before. The music for the play was composed by Henry Purcell. See Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XXI (1917), iii-v

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the Songs were advertised in the Flying Post, 6-8 Dec. 1698, and the play in the London Gazette, 19-22 Dec. 1698; hence, the premiere was certainly not later than early December and was probably not later than November. In fact, on 5 Dec. 1698 Dr. William Aglionby wrote Matthew Prior, referring to Dennis, "a poor poet who has made us a fine entertainment of Rinaldo and Armida" (quoted in The Works of John Dennis, II, 489). In a dialogue written by John Oldmixon (Reflections on the Stage [London, 1699], p. 101) Savage, referring to Rinaldo and Armida, states: I have seen it 3 or 4 times already, but the Musick is so fine, and the Play pleases me so well, that I shall not think it a burthen [to see it again] (in The Works of John Dennis, I, 479). The Musical Entertainments in the Tragedy of Rinaldo and Armida (1699) is reprinted, with an introduction by Herbert Davis, in Theatre Miscellany (Luttrell Society Reprints, No 14, Oxford, 1953), pp. 103-15. One song, Ah queen, ah wretched queen, give o'er, sung by Gouge, is in Mercurius Musicus, 1699; and another, Jolly breeze that comes whistling, sung by Gouge, is in Twelve New Songs, 1699. A Comparison between the Two Stages (1702), p. 22: Critick: At last, (as you say) the old Stagers moulded a piece of Pastry work of their own, and made a kind of Lenten Feast with their Rinaldo and Armida; this surpriz'd not only Drury-lane, but indeed all the Town, no body ever dreaming of an Opera there; 'tis true they had heard of Homer's Illiads in a Nut-shel, and Jack in a Box, and what not?...Sullen: Well, with this Vagary they tug'd a while, and The Jolly-Jolly breeze-came whistling thro'-all the Town, and not a Fop but ran to see the Celebrated Virgin in a Machine; there she shin'd in a full Zodiack, the brightest Constellation there; 'twas a pleasant Reflection all this time to see her scituated among the Bulls, Capricorns, Sagittaries, and yet the Virgo still remain itacta....Critick: But this merry Time lasted not always; every thing has an end, and at length down goes Rinaldo's inchanted Mountain; it sunk as a Mole-hill seen on't: What a severity was this? that the Labour of such a gigantick Poet, nay Critick, shou'd give up the Ghost so soon: The renown'd Author thought himself immortal in that Work, and that the World was to last no longer than his Rinaldo; and tho' he stole every thing from the Italian, yet he said, what the Italian did was but Grub-street to his. See also 5 Jan. 1698@9 for a letter written by Mrs Barry, in part concerning Rinaldo and Armida

Event Comment: London Post, 24-27 Nov. 1699: [William Joy] being oblig'd to leave Town in order to pursue some other Method, can shew but twice, which will be God-willing on Wednesday and Friday next at the Theatre in Dorset Garden, beginning Precisely at 11 a Clock, being resolved to shew no more before he leaves the Town

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but Dryden, writing on 14 Dec. 1699, indicates that this play had had its first performance by that date. The Dedication is dated 10 Jan. 1699@1700, and the play was advertised in the Post Boy, 20-23 Jan. 1699@1700. Preface, Edition of 1700: Another difficulty this Play labour'd under, was its being acted at a time when the whole Town was so much, and so justly diverted by the Trip to the Jubilee. When the play was revised and reprinted in 1714, the new edition--The Victim; or Achilles and Iphigenia in Aulis--indicates that The Invocation to Diana in the last act was set by Gottfreid Finger, the first verse being sung by Freeman, the second verse by Mrs Erwin, and the third verse by W. Pate. Advertisement, Edition of 1714: The following Tragedy...having been translated into English [from Racine], with considerable Additions, by Mr Boyer, and pass'd the Correction and Approbation of the late famous Mr Dryden, and several other Persons distinguish'd as well by their Wit and Learning, as by their Taste and Discernment, was acted with general Applause, towards the End of the Year 1699, and Beginning of 1700. The Reasons why this Excellent Play stopt, on a sudden, in a full Career, are, in some Measure, accounted for in Mr Boyer's Preface: To which he might have added, That the Dutchess of Marlborough, who at that Time bore an irresistable Sway, bespoke the Comedy then in Vogue [The Constant Couple], during the Ruin of Iphigenia in Aulis; And that this Tragedy receiv'd no small Prejudice, from the Person that acted Eriphyle [Mrs Wilkins], who sunk under the Weight of so great a Part. A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702), pp. 24-25: Sullen: Then comes the second Iphigenia in all her Charms, and like a superious Mistress was resolv'd to eclipse her Rival: No cast was spar'd by the Masters, nor toil by the Actors; the Town was bespoke in its favour, and all the Friends of this new Fletcher and Beaumont were ingaged to clap it. She appear'd, but what pity 'twas (as the Prefacer says) that a Play which had such a glorious run shou'd in four Days disappear, never to rise again. Oh! says Mr D@@, mine was acted six Days; and I'll hold you a hundred Pound--just what I got by't--How's that?, says Boyer--I say, Sir, that I'll hold you, or any Man, a hundred Pound, 'twill be acted again ten times this Winter. With that B@@ fell a laughing, and replies, Sir, says he, I'll stake my French Dictionary against your Criticisms on Blackmore, and that I think is odds enough--I say,"I'll hold you that Bet, that you did not get fifty Shillings by't, and that the House lost a hundred Pound. This had like to ha' made sad work; but all was well, for neither of 'em have been acted since, for they both sleep in everlasting Tranquillity. [See also pp. 23-25 for other remarks about the two Iphigenia plays.

Event Comment: Rich's Company. That this day was the premiere is implied by the Post Boy, 6-9 July 1700: This Day at the Theatre Royal in Drury-Lane, will be presented a New Comedy, never Acted before, called Courtship Alamode. Preface, Edition of 1700: This Play was so long expected e're it came into the World, that I'm oblig'd in Justice to my self, to excuse its appearance at at time when there were scarce Witnesses in Town of its Birth. It was enter'd in the other House [lif], where Mr Betterton did me all the Justice I cou'd indeed reasonably hope for. But that Example he gave, was not it seems to be follow'd by the whole Company, since 'tis known that Mr Bowman (I mention his Name to keep the reflection from other sharers) kept the first Character of my Play six weeks, and then cou'd hardly read six lines on't. How far that Way of management makes of late for the Interest and Honour of that House, is easie to be judg'd. Some who valu'd their reputations more, were indeed rarely or never absent. To these I gave my thanks; but finding that six or seven people cou'd not perform what was design'd for fifteen, I was oblig'd to remove it after so many sham Rehearsals, and in two days it got footing upon the other Stage [dl]. Where twas immediately cast to the best Advantage, and Plaid in less than twenty days. [In the Dedication Penkethman states that he saw the play into print after its being received well by the town.] A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1700), pp. 104-5: Ramble: Courtship Alamode, the Author, one Crawford, a Caledonian. Sullen: I remember it, and its Adventures; it was enter'd into the New-House, at the Recommendation of a certain Scotch Lord, and sojourning there six Months to no purpose, it travell'd afterwards to the Old-House, where it was with much ado Acted. Ramble: And Damn'd-there I was in with you