Event Comment: [In mainpiece the playbill assigns Margarita to Mrs Powell, and Clara to Miss Heard, but Mrs Powell "being suddenly indisposed, Miss Heard was her substitute" (Morning Chronicle, 30 Sept.). It is not stated who acted Clara.] Receipts: #245 2s. (150.3.6; 92.18.6; 2.0.0)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The play was licensed on 26 Dec. 1663, but the date of the premiere is uncertain. The Prologue and Epilogue refer to the end of the Long Vacation, and the beginning of Michaelmas Term on 9 Oct. 1663 suggests a performance in October

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: The Duke's Company. The date of performance is uncertain. The play was entered in the Stationers' Register, 15 Feb. 1663@4, and its publication noted in The Newes, 3 March 1663@4. Katherine Philips, writing from Cardigan, Wales to Lady Temple in London, 24 Jan. 1663@4: I beleive er'e this you have seen the new Pompey either acted or written & then will repent your partiallity to ye other, but I wonder much what preparations for it could prejudice Will Davenant when I heare they acted in English habits, & yt so aprope yt Caesar was sent in with his feather & Muff, till he was hiss'd off ye Stage & for ye Scenes I see not where they could place any yt are very extra-ordinary, but if this play hath not diverted ye Cittizens wives enough Sr W: D: will make amends, for they say Harry ye 8th & some later ones are little better then Puppett-plays. I understand ye confederate-translators are now upon Heraclius, & I am contented yt Sr Tho. Clarges (who hath done that last yeare) should adorn their triumph in it, as I have done in Pompey (Harvard Theatre Collection)

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: With my wife to the King's house, but there found the bill torn down and no play acted.... Here [at lif; see below] met with Mr Rolt, who tells me the reason of no play to-day at the King's house. That Lacy had been committed to the porter's lodge for his acting his part in the late new play [see 15 April], and that being thence released he come to the King's house, there met with Ned Howard, the poet of the play, who congratulated his release; upon which Lacy cursed him as that it was the fault of his nonsensical play that was the cause of his ill usage. Mr Howard did give him some reply, to which Lacy [answered] him, that he was more a fool than a poet; upon which Howard did give him a blow on the face with his glove; on which Lacy, having a cane in his hand, did give him a blow over the pate. Here Rolt and others that discoursed of it in the pit this afternoon did wonder that Howard did not run him through, he being too mean a fellow to fight with. But Howard did not do any thing but complain to the King of it; so the whole house is silenced, and the gentry seem to rejoice much at it, the house being become too insolent

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Davenant's alterations were apparently not published. Pepys, Diary: To a play...at the Duke's house, where Tu Quoque was the first time acted, with some alterations of Sir W. Davenant's; but the play is a very silly play, methinks; for I, and others that sat by me, Mr Povy and Mr Progers, were weary of it; but it will please the citizens

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Langbaine, English Dramatick Poets, p. 509: [It] was alter'd (as I have heard by Mr Carthwright) by Mr Betterton. Downes, p. 30: [Done] by the same Author [Betterton]...and all the other Parts Exactly perform'd, it lasted Successively 8 Days, and very frequently Acted afterwards. Pepys, Diary: To the Duke of York's playhouse, and there, in the side balcony, over against the musick, did hear, but not see, a new play, the first day acted, The Roman Virgin, and old play, and but ordinary, I thought; but the trouble of my eyes with the light of the candles did almost kill me

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 216. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 348. The date on the list seems to be "3," but as this is a Sunday, it is more likely "9." This performance may well be the one to which Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 31) refers: Note, Mr Cademan in this Play [The Man's the Master], not long after our Company began in Dorset-Garden; his Part being to Fight with Mr Harris, was Unfortunately, with a sharp Foil pierc'd near the Eye, which so Maim'd both the Hand and his Speech, that he can make little use of either; for which Mischance, he has receiv'd a Pension ever since 1673, being 35 Years a goe. [For a discussion of this accident, see William VanLennep, Henry Harris, Actor, Friend of Pepys, Studies in English Theatre History (London, 1952), p. 16, and the entry under 20 Aug. 1673.

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 116. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 345. There is some uncertainty as to whether this is the premiere, but another performance on 15 Jan. 1674@5 and its entry in the Stationers' Register 13 Jan. 1674@5 suggest that this was probably the first performance

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 215. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 345. There is no certainty that this is the premiere, but it or the preceding Saturday may well be, since Sophonisba seems to have dominated the preceding week