Event Comment: The Duke's Company, presumably. Evelyn, Diary: This night was acted my Lord Brahals Tragedy cal'd Mustapha before their Majesties &c: at Court: at which I was present, very seldom at any time, going to the publique Theaters, for Women now (& never 'til now) permitted to appeare & act, which inflaming severall young noble-men & gallants, became their whores, & to some their Wives, wittnesse the Earle of Oxford, Sir R. Howard, Pr. Rupert, the E. of Dorset, & another greater person than any of these, who fell into their snares, to the reproch of their noble families, & ruine both of body & Soule: I was invited to see this Tragedie, exceedingly well writ, by my Lord Chamberlain, though in my mind, I did not approve of any such passe time, in a season of such Judgements & Calamitie. Pepys, Diary: Here my Lord Bruncker proffered to carry me and my wife into a play at court to-night, and to lend me his coach home, which tempted me much; but I shall not do it

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, where two acts were almost done when I come in; and there I sat with my cloak about my face, and saw the remainder of The Mayd's Tragedy; a good play, and well acted, especially by the younger Marshall, who is become a pretty good actor, and is the first play I have seen in either of the houses since before the great plague, they having acted now about fourteen days publickly. But I was in Mighty pain lest I should be seen by any body to be at a play. Elegy on that Worthy and Famous Actor, Mr Charles Hart, who departed this Life Thursday August the 18th., 1683: @Such Pow'r He had o'r the Spectators gain'd,@As forc'd a Real passion from a Feign'd.@For when they saw Amintor bleed, straight all@The House, for every Drop, a Tear let fall;@And when Arbaces wept by sympathy,@A glowing Tide of Wo gush'd from each Eye.@ [Reprinted in Thorn-Drury, A Little Ark, pp. 47ff; Sprague, Beaumont and Fletcher, p.38.

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: After dinner, with my wife, to the King's house to see The Mayden Queene, a new play of Dryden's, mightily commended for the regularity of it, and the strain and wit; and, the truth is, there is a comical part done by Nell, which is Florimell, that I never can hope ever to see the like done again, by man or woman. The King and Duke of York were at the play. But so great performance of a comical part was never, I believe, in the world before as Nell do this, both as a mad girle, then most and best of all when she comes in like a young gallant; and hath the motions and carriage of a spark the most that ever I saw any man have. It makes me, I confess, admire her

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: My wife and I and Sir W. Pen to the King's playhouse, and there saw The Mayden Queene, which, though I have often seen, yet pleases me infinitely, it being impossible, I think, ever to have the Queen's part, which is very good and passionate, and Florimel's part, which is the most comicall that ever was made for woman, ever done better than they two are by young Marshall and Nelly

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and there saw The Black Prince again: which is now mightily bettered by that long letter being printed, and so delivered to every body at their going in, and some short reference made to it in heart in the play, which do mighty well; but, when all is done, I think it is the worst play of my Lord Orrery's. But here, to my great satisfaction, I did see my Lord Hinchingbroke and his mistress, with her father and mother; and I am mightily pleased with the young lady, being handsome enough--and, indeed, to my great liking, as I would have her. I could not but look upon them all the play

Event Comment: The King's Company, This performance is on the L. C. lists 5@139, p. 129, and 5@12, p. 17. The latter states: The King here. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 344. Elkanah Settle's Prologue to his revision of Philaster (1695): @The good old Play Philaster ne're can fail@But we Young Actors, how shall we prevail?@Philaster and Bellario, let me tell ye,@For these Bold Parts we have no Hart, no Nelly;@Those Darlings of the Stage, that charm'd you there.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. If The Royal Shepherdess was acted six days consecutively, the interruption of its run for this day is due to the tradition of the company's not regularly acting on Wednesday and Fridays in Lent. Pepys, Diary: To the Duke of York's playhouse, and there saw an old play, the first time acted these forty years, called The Lady's Tryall, acted only by the young people of the house; but the house very full. But it is but a sorry play, and the worse by how much my head is out of humour by being a little sleepy and my legs weary since last night

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but this play belongs to a group which have been considered as "Lenten plays," ones in which the young actors of a company comprise a large portion of the cast. On this basis, as Easter fell on 30 March 1673, this play has been assigned to March 1673. See Philip B. Gray Jr, Lenten Casts and the Nursery: Evidence for the Dating of Certain Restoration Plays, PMLA, LIII (1938), 781-94; for this play particularly, pp. 791-92. A song, Down with this love, set for this play by Alphonso Marsh, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, 1676

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 King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but, as the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1674, a first production not later than March 1674 is likely. In addition, the relatively large number of minor actors suggests that it might be a Lenten performance by the young players of the company. As to the authorship, the title page states: Written by a Person of Honour. On the other hand, Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets, p. 526) reports that he had heard that it was written by Duffett. The second Prologue is in Covent Garden Drollery, 1673, but the fact that it was intended but not spoken does not assist in dating the first performance

Event Comment: The Bulstrode Papers (1, 274): The first of January ye young Princes are to divert their Maties and Court wth a play & an opera in whch ye splendour of ye English monarchy will be seen

Event Comment: [Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library), 4 Feb. 1674@5: Tuesday night after Counsell their Maties & Court were present at the Rehearsal of the great Maske wch is to be publiquely acted on Shrove Tuesday; by wch tyme her Royall Highness will be able to be present at it, being already very well after her Lying in, as is also ye young princess (Wilson, Theatre Notes, p. 79). The Bulstrode Papers (1, 277): 8 Feb. 1674@5: On Wed night after Councell their Maties and Royal Highnesses were present at the rehearsall of the Great Maske wch will be publiquely acted on Tuesday 7 night next. [The two sources agree on the intended date of the performance but disagree upon the date of the rehearsal.

Event Comment: Boswell (Restoration Court Stage, pp. 180-81) believes that a performance occurred on this day, as well as on 16 Feb. 1674@5, Shrove Tuesday, the date often specified in advance statements. For previous notices, see 2 Feb. 1674@5, 15 and 22 Dec. 1674. Edition of 1675:....followed at innumerable Rehearsals, and all the Representations by throngs of Persons of the greatest Quality...at the 20th or 30th, for near so often it had been Rehearsed and Acted....And the Composer of all the Musick both Vocal and Instrumental Mr Staggins. Langbaine. (English Dramatick Poets, p. 92): a Masque at court, frequently presented there by Persons of great Quality, with the Prologue, and the Songs between the Acts: printed in quarto Lond. 1675....This Masque was writ at the Command of her present Majesty: and was rehearsed near Thirty times, all the Representations being follow'd by throngs of Persons of the greatest Quality, and very often grac'd with their Majesties and Royal Highnesses Presence. John Evelyn (The Life of Mrs Godolphin): [Mrs Blagge] had on her that day near twenty thousand pounds value of Jewells, which were more sett off with her native beauty and luster then any they contributed of their own to hers; in a word, she seemed to me a Saint in Glory, abstracting her from the Stage. For I must tell you, that amidst all this pomp and serious impertinence, whilst the rest were acting, and that her part was sometymes to goe off, as the scenes required, into the tireing roome, where severall Ladyes her companions were railing with the Gallants trifleingly enough till they were called to reenter, she, under pretence of conning her next part, was retired into a Corner, reading a booke of devotion, without att all concerning herself or mingling with the young Company; as if she had no farther part to act, who was the principall person of the Comedy...[With] what a surprizeing and admirable aire she trode the Stage, and performed her Part, because she could doe nothing of this sort, or any thing else she undertooke, indifferently....Thus ended the Play, butt soe did not her affliction, for a disaster happened which extreamly concern'd her, and that was the loss of a Diamond of considerable vallue, which had been lent her by the Countess of Suffolke; the Stage was immediately swept, and dilligent search made to find it, butt without success, soe as probably it had been taken from her, as she was oft inviron'd with that infinite crowd which tis impossible to avoid upon such occasion. Butt the lost was soon repair'd, for his Royall Highness understanding the trouble she was in, generousely sent her the wherewithall to make my Lady Suffolke a present of soe good a Jewell. For the rest of that days triumph I have a particular account still by me of the rich Apparell she had on her, amounting, besides the Pearles and Pretious Stones, to above three hundred pounds (ed. Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxford [London, 1847], pp. 97-100). See also 15 Dec. 1674

Event Comment: On this date the masque was certainly acted, and the possible performance on 15 Feb. 1674@5 may have been a final rehearsal. Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library): This day the great maske at court is publiquely acted wch is intended to exceed all others of that Nature, the 2 young Princesses, the Duke of Monmouth & all ye principall persons of quality abt ye Court having parts in it (Wilson, Theatre Notes, p. 79). The Bulstrode Papers (1, 277): 15 Feb. 1674@5: To-morrow the great mask at Court is to be publickly acted in all its bravery and pompe, the like of whch was never yett seene, all the greatest persons of quality about Court having pts in it

Event Comment: The date of the premiere is not known, but Robert Hooke, attended play on 27 Aug. 1675 which might well refer not to Psyche but to Duffett's travesty of it. In addition, John Harold Wilson has argued that the reference in the Prologue to "The new-come Elephant" probably concerns the elephant imported by Lord George Berkeley and sold by 12 Aug. 1675 (see The Diary of Robert Hooke, p. 174). The cast also contains a number of "young actors" who might well have had an opportunity to act in a play in the summer vacation

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. There is considerable uncertainty as to the date of production of this play. Because it was licensed for printing on 2 Aug. 1677, it was probably first acted not later than July 1677. Because some of the names in the cast represent younger actors, it has been thought to be a Lenten production (see Gray, Lenten Casts, pp. 789-90). It seems, however, that the play, because of its reference to performances by the French comedians (the Epilogue refers to "de French Troop at toder end o'Town ") and the offering of Rare en Tout on29 May 1677, probably was acted in June 1677. The Prologue also refers to the comedy as The Women's Play," suggesting that it was produced for the actresses' annual benefit

Event Comment: Henry Savile to the Earl of Rochester, 17 Dec. 1677: I had allmost forgott for another argument to bring you to towne that a French troop of comaedians bound for Nimeguen were by adverse winds cast into this hospitable port and doe act at Whitehall soe very well that it is a thousand pittyes they should not stay, especially a young wench of fifteen, who has more beauty and sweetnesse than ever was seen upon the stage since a friend of our left it (HMC, Bath MSS., 1907, II, 161). W. J. Lawrence (Early French Players in England, pp. 148-49) identifies the French actress as Francoise Pitel, later Mlle Raisin

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but as the play was licensed for printing on 27 March 1679, the premiere must have been no later than March 1679. It is possible that Midnight's Intrigue--see introductory note to the 1676-77 season-is an earlier version of this play. The Epilogue suggests that the players faced thin audiences during the spring and that Drury Lane had been closed for some time: So hard the Times are, and so thin the Town, @Though but one Playhouse, that must too lie down. It is possible that Mrs Behn's The Young King may have been acted at this time. See September 1679

Event Comment: John Verney to Sir R. Verney, 23 June 1679: Churchill, for beating an orange wench in the Duke's playhouse, was challenged by Capt. Otway (the poet), and were both wounded, but Churchill most. The relation beinb told the King, by Sir John Holmes, as Churchill thought to his prejudice he challenged Holmes, who fighting, disarmed him, Churchill. On Saturday, at the Duke's Theatre, happened a quarrel between young Bedlow and one of the novices of St Omer's, and many swords were drawn, but as yet I have not heard whether any blood was shed in this religious quarrel (HMC, Verney MSS., 7th Report, Appendix, 1879, p. 473)

Event Comment: William Blaythwaite to Sir Robert Southwell, 4 Sept. 1679 [describing a visit made on 3 Sept. 1679 by Sir Edward Dering, Mrs Helena Percival, Miss Helena, Miss Betty, and himself]: What we saw was the dancing on the ropes performed first by Jacob Hall and his company, then by a Dutch dancer, who did wonderful feats. From thence we went to the Elephant, who I think was more terrible than pleasant to the young spectators (Morley, Memoirs of Bartholomew Fair, p. 192)

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 May 1681, Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, p.222) has argued that the reference in the Prologue to the young men (presumably Gray, Goodman, and Clarke; see February 1679@80) who had gone to Scotland and returned empty-handed suggests a performance near March 1680, when these references would have more point than they would have a year later

Event Comment: Newdigate newsletters: On Tuesday night late there happened a difference between the Senior and Young men belonging to the King's play house which grew to such a height that they all drew their swords which occasioned the wounding of severall. But in the end the Seniors shut up the dores and sent word to his Matie in regard they were the builders of the house who received answer yesterday that the Law was open. Where upon they are to have a tryall this Weeke before the Lord Chancellor (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80). See also Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 268-70

Event Comment: The United Company. There is uncertainty concerning this date; it appears on Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) of the separately printed Prologue and Epilogue, and the date may represent the time of his purchase rather than a date of performance. The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 141-45. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 39-40): All the preceding Plays, being the chief that were Acted in Dorset-Garden, from November 1671, to the Year 1682; at which time the Patentees of each Company United Patents; and by so Incorporating the Duke's Company were made the King's Company, and immediately remov'd to the Theatre Royal in Drury-Lane. Upon this Union, Mr Hart being the Heart of the Company under Mr Killigrew's Patent never Acted more, by reason of his Malady; being Afflicted with the Stone and Gravel, of which he Dy'd some time after: Having a Sallary of 40 Shillings a Week to the Day of his Death. But the Remnant of that Company; as, Major Mohun, Mr Cartwright, Mr Kynaston, Mr Griffin, Mr Goodman, Mr Duke Watson, Mr Powel, Sr, Mr Wiltshire, Mrs Corey, Mrs Bowtell, Mrs Cook, Mrs Montfort. [Joined the new company]. Note, now Mr Monfort and Mr Carlile, were grown to the Maturity of good Actors. The mixt Company then Reviv'd the several old and Modern Plays, that were the Propriety of Mr Killigrew, as Rule a Wife, and have a Wife: Mr Betterton Acting Michael Perez; Don Leon, Mr Smith, Cacofogo, Mr Cartwright: Margaretta, Mrs Barry: Estiphania, Mrs Cook. Next, @The Scornful Lady.@The Plain Dealer.@The Mock Astrologer.@The Jovial Crew.@The Beggars Bush.@Bartholomew-Fair.@The Moor of Venice.@Rollo.@The Humorous Lieutenant.@The Double Marriage.@ With divers others. George Powell, Preface to The Treacherous Brothers (1690): The Time was, upon the uniting of the Two Theatres, that the Reviveing of the old stock of Plays, so ingrost the study of the House, that the Poets lay dorment; and a new Play cou'd hardly get admittance, amongst the more precious pieces of Antiquity, that then waited to walk the Stage. Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 95-96): I shall content myself with telling you that Mohun and Hart now growing old [for, above thirty Years before this Time, they had severally born the King's Commission of Major and Captain in the Civil Wars), and the younger Actors, as Goodman, Clark, and others, being impatient to get into their Parts, and growing intractable, the Audiences too of both Houses then falling off, the Patentees of each, by the King's Advice, which perhaps amounted to a Command, united their Interests and both Companies into one, exclusive of all others in the Year 1682. This Union was, however, so much in favour of the Duke's Company, that Hart left the Stage upon it, and Mohun survived not long after

Event Comment: The United Company. Newdigate newsletters, 20 Jan. 1682@3: Yesterday was acted at the Theatre Royall the first of a new play Entituled the City Politiques the novelty of wch drew a Confluence of Spectators under both Qualifications of Whigg and Tory to hear and behold a Ld Mayor Sheriffs & some Aldermen with their wives in yr usuall formalityes buffoond & Reviled a great Lawyer with his young Lady Jeared and Intreagued Dr Oates pfectly represented berogued & beslaved the papist plott Egregiously Rediculed the Irish Testemonyes Contradictiorily disproved & befoold the Whiggs totally vanquished & undon Law & property men oreruld & there wanted nothing of Artifice in behaviour and discourse to render all those obnoxious & dispised in fine such a medly of occurences intervened that twas a question whether more of Loyalty designe or Rhetorique prvailed but there were mighty clappings among the poeple of both partyes in Expressing either their sattisfaction or displeasure (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81). The Prologue and Epilogue, separately Printed, have 20 Jan. 1682@3 as Luttrell's date of acquisition (Huntington Library) and are reprinted in Wiley's Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 166-69. John Dennis, To Mr --- In which are some Passages of the Life of Mr John Crown, Author of Sir Courtly Nice, June 23, 1719: About that time he writ The City Politicks, on purpose to Satyrize and expose the Whigs; a Comedy so agreeable, that it deserv'd to be writ in a much better Cause: But after he had writ he met with very great Difficulties in the getting it acted. Bennet Lord Arlington, who was then Lord Chamberlain of the King's Houshold, and who had secretly espous'd the Whigs, who were at that time powerful in Parliament, in order to support himself against the Favour and Power of the Lord Treasurer Danby, who was his declared Enemy, us'd all his Authority to suppress it. One While it was prohibited on the account of its being Dangerous, another while it was laid aside on the pretence of its being Falt and Insipid; till Mr Crown at last was forc'd to have Recourse to the king himself, and to engage him to give his absolute Command to the Lord Chamberlain for the acting of it; which Command the King was Pleas'd to give in his own Person (I, 49-50). Morrice Entry Book, Vol.1 1682@3: Mr Crowne [was cudgled on Wednesday last in St Martin's Lane and] hee that beat him said hee did it at the suite of the Earle of Rochester some time since deceased who greatly abused in the play for his penetency &c. (p. 353. I owe this note to the courtesy of Professor David M. Vieth of the University of Kansas and Professor G. H. Jones of Kansas State University)