Event Comment: The Lord Mayor's Show. By John Tatham. The author mentions as his assistants: Andrew Dakers and William Lightfoot, painters; Thomas Whiting, joyner; and Richard Clear, carver

Event Comment: See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 116. This was the King's Company (under Killigrew), split off from the United Company. According to Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 2) the roster included: Theophilus Bird, Hart, Mohun, Lacy, Burt, Cartwright, Clun, Baxter, Robert Shatterel, William Shatterrel, Duke [Marmaduke Watson], Hancock, Kynaston, Wintersel, Bateman, Blagden. (But see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 295.) According to the articles of agreement, 5 Nov. 1660 (Herbert, Dramatic Records, pp. 96-100), the Duke's Company (under Davenant) included Thomas Batterton, Thomas Sheppey, Robert Noakes, James Noakes, Thomas Lovell, John Moseley, Cave Underhill, Robert Turner, Thomas Lilleston

Event Comment: Edition of 1661: By the Worshipful Company of Grocers. Evelyn, Diary: I saw the Lord Major passe in his Water Triumph to Westminster being the first solemnity of this nature after 20 years. Pepys, Diary: I was (after office was done) ready to go to my Lord Mayor's feast, as we are all invited; but the Sir Williams were both loth to go, because of the crowd, and so none of us went....This Lord Mayor, it seems, brings up again the custom of Lord Mayors going the day of their instalment to Paul's, and walking round about the Cross, and offering something at the altar

Event Comment: The King's Company. This play appears on Herbert's List, following the entry for 26 Oct. 1661. (See William VanLennep, "Thomas Killigrew prepares his Plays for Production," J. Q. Adams Memorial Studies (Washington, D. C., 1948, p. 803.) Pepys, Diary: W. Pen and I to the Theatre, but it was so full that we could hardly get any room, so he went up to one of the boxes, and I into the 18d. places, and there saw Love at first sight, a play of Mr Killigrew's and the first time that it hath been acted since before the troubles, and great expectation there was, but I found the play to be a poor thing, and so I perceive every body else do. BM Add. Mss. 34217, fol. 31b, in Hotson Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 246: @First then to speake of his Majestys Theatre@Where one would imagine Playes should be better@Love att the first sight did lead the dance@But att second sight it had the mischance@To be so dash'd out of Countenance as@It never after durst shew itts face@All though its bashfullnesse as tis thought@Be far from being the Authors ffault.

Event Comment: This play was seen at the red bull by Jacques Thierry and Will Schellinks (Seaton, Literary Relationships, pp. 333, 335). Seaton speculates that the play may be: (1) Rowley's A Shoemaker a Gentleman; (2) a droll made out of the Christopher Sly prologue of The Taming of the Shrew; (3) Tourneur's lost The Nobleman or Great Man. William VanLennep ("The new-made Nobleman," Times Literary Supplement, 20 June 1936, p. 523) thinks that it may be Beaumont and Fletcher's Noble Gentleman. Nicoll (Restoration Drama, pp. 309-10) believes that this was Jolly's Company acting at the red bull

Event Comment: It is possible that Katherine Phillips' Pompey, which was given in Dublin in February 1662@3, may have been presented in London in the late spring of 1663. Sir William Davenant's The Playhouse To Be Let, which apparently appeared in London in the late summer of 1663, has in Act V some elements of travesty upon Pompey. It is unlikely that its appearances in Dublin would make satire upon it have much point to London audiences without a performance in London; the spring of 1663 would be the most likely time for a presentation in London