Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@143, p. 162. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. It is likely that this comedy was played on each acting day from 31 May to 8 June 1677

Event Comment: The King's Company apparently acted an unnamed play on this day. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 126

Event Comment: The Duke's Company acted an unnamed play on this day. See A Calendar of Middle Temple Records, ed. Hopwood, p. 177. Although the payment is dated 13 Feb., it may be a delayed payment for a play on this date

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@143, p.162. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. The Diary of Edward Lake, 16 Nov. 1677: This day the court began to whisper the prince's sullennesse, or clownishnesse, that hee took no notice of his princesse at the playe and balle (Camden Miscellany, 1847, I, 9)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The play was not printed. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. Andrew Marvell to Sir Edw. Harley, 17 Nov. 1677: To-day is acted the first time Sir Popular Wisdom or the Politician, where my Lord Shaftesbury and all his gang are sufficiently personated. I conceive the King will be there (HMC, 14th Report, Appendix, Part II, 1894, Portland MSS., Volume III, p. 357)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C., 5@145, p. 120: Mr Lymberham. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, P. 349. There is no indication as to whether this performance was the premiere, but it probably was part of its initial run, which was limited to three days. Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets): In this Play (which I take to be the best Comedy of his) he so much expos'd the keeping part of the Town, that the Play was stopt, when it had but thrice appear'd on the Stage (p. 164). [In the Dedication to the play, Dryden also refers to its being stopped.

Event Comment: The Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, ed. Browning (p. 137): This day in the afternoon I had a quarrell in the King's playhous upon this occasion. As I sate in the pit a gentleman, whose name I afterwards heard to be Mr Symons came and placed himself next to me, and not content to rest ther, after a while desired me to give him my seat, or to exchange with him, (pretending he was to speake to one of his acquaintances on the other side). I had noe mind to quitt my seat, which was better to see than his; besides, he haveing been drinking, his manner of askeing was not altogather soe gratefull, insomuch as I denyed it. Here upon he said I was uncivil, and I tould him he was a rascall; upon which words we were both prepared to strike one another, had not a gentleman that sate near us (one Sir Jonathan Trelany) put his hand between us to prevent it

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is uncertain. The date of licensing was 3 Jan. 1678@9, but Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, p. 222) has argued that it may well have been the first new play of the season. The Prologue refers to it as "The first Play bury'd since the Wollen Act," the Act going into effect on 1 Aug. 1678. For Sandford as Creon, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 131. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37): Oedipus King of Thebes, Wrote by Mr Nat. Lee and Mr Dryden: The last Writing the first two Acts, and the first the 3 last. This play was Admirably well Acted; especially the Parts of Oedipus and Jocasta: One by Mr Betterton, the other by Mrs Betterton; it took prodigiously being Acted 10 Days together

Event Comment: There may have been a play given on this day, but the evidence is confusing. See A Calendar of Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 127-28

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the premiere is not known. Pepys saw it on 6 March 1679@80, calling it a "New Play," and that may have been the first day. The Prologue alludes also to the Duke of York's triumphant return from Scotland on 24 Feb. 1679@80, and the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1680. For Mrs Bracegirdle as the "little Girl," see Edmund Curll, History of the English Stage (1741), p. 26, and Lucyle Hook, Anne Bracegirdle's First Appearance, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1959), 134. For Betterton as Castalio and Mrs Barry as Monimia, probably as they performed in the next decade, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 116, 160. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37) gives the same cast except for omissions and except for Serina-Mrs Mountfort, who acted it later. Downes (pp. 37-38) adds: [Monimia, Belvidera in Venice Preserved, and Isabella in The Fatal Marriage] These three Parts, gain'd her the Name of Famous $Mrs Barry, both at court and City; for when ever She Acted any of these three Parts, she forc'd Tears from the Eyes of her Auditory, especially those who have any Sense of Pity for the Distress't. These 3 Plays, by their Excellent Performances, took above all the Modern Plays that succeeded. A song for this play, Come all the youths whose hearts have bled, the music by Forcer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Third Book, 1681

Event Comment: A new agreement, intended to improve affairs in the King's Company, was signed this day. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 264-65

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. That this date is the premiere is conjectured from the order, dated 11 Dec. 1680, forbidding further acting of this play. See L. C. 5@144, p. 28, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p.1 on: Whereas I am informed that there is Acted by you a Play called Lucius Junius Brutus..wherein are very Scandalous Expressions & Reflections upon ye Government these are to require you Not to Act ye said Play again. In the Preface to Charles Gildon's The Patriot (1703) it is stated that Lee's play was banned after the third day's Acting, by the Lord Chamberlain Arlington as an anti-monarchical play." As the order is dated 11 Dec. 1680, the drama was probably presented on 8, 9, and 10 Dec. 1680.

Event Comment: The King's Company. After the banning of The Sicilian Usurper, it was brought on again under a new title and survived two days before it also was banned. Tate's statement concerning its reception--see 11 Dec. 1680--may refer to these two performances rather than to the sequence in December. Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library), 20 Jan. 1680@1: K. Richd ye 2.d a play, being forbid acting att ye Ks house the Poet put the name Tyrant of Sicily upon it by wch means it was acted twice this weeke, but the Cheate being found out it was forbid acting againe (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80)

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, pp. 222-23) argues from a number of references (principally in the Epilogue) to events of early 1681 which point to a premiere near May 1681: to the dissolution of Parliament, 28 March 1681; to the comet which appeared in November 1680 and disappeared in January 1680@1; to the Hatfield Maid; to William Lilly, the astrologer, who is referred to as though alive, thus suggesting a premiere before his death, 9 June 1681. It is possible that the premiere may have been earlier than this. In 1681 was published Poeta de Tristibus; or, The Poet's Complaint, whose author had obviously read the Prologue and Epilogue to The Unhappy Favourite. He represents himself as a disappointed dramatist whose tragedy has been rejected by both houses because "their Summer-store@Will all this Winter last." With the work entered in the Term Catalogues in 1682 and a copy purchased by Narcissus Luttrell with his note "4d 1681 12 Nov" (see A Bibliography of John Dryden, ed. Macdonald, pp. 235-36), his quotations from the Epilogue to The Unhappy Favourite and references to the Prologue would offer no difficulties if it were not that the "Author's Epistle" in which the references are made is dated "at Dover the Tenth day of January 1680@1," thus suggesting that he had seen the Prologue and Epilogue before that date. Nevertheless, some of the references in the Epilogue (to Heraclitus Ridens, beginning on 1 Feb. 1680@1, and Democritus Ridens, beginning on 14 March 1680@1) preclude a January premiere for the Prologue and Epilogue. Possibly the dating of the "Author's Epistle" is in error

Event Comment: This day is one of several on which, according to William Morley, treasurer of the King's Company, the receipts fell below #10, to #3 14s. 6d. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267

Event Comment: On this day the receipts at the King's House fell to #3 2s. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267

Event Comment: The receipts of the King's Company on this day were only #3 13s. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 267

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but as the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, November 1681, it was probably first given in September, certainly not later than October. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 38-39): Being a kind of Opera, having several Machines of Flyings for the Witches, and other Diverting Contrivances in't: All being well perform'd, it prov'd beyond Expectation; very Beneficial to the Poet and Actors. Edition of 1682, To the Reader: I heard that great opposition was design'd against the Play (a month before it was acted)...The Master of the Revels (who I must confess used me civilly enough) Licenc'd it at first with little alteration: But there came such an Alarm to him...that upon a Review, he expunged all that you see differently Printed, except about a dozen lines which he struck out at the first reading....I had so numerous an assembly of the best sort of men, who stood so generously in my defence, for the first three days, that they quash'd all the vain attempts of my Enemies, the Inconsiderable Party of Hissers yielded, and the Play lived in spight of them

Event Comment: For reports on the Lord Mayor's Day, see Luttrell, A Brief Relation, I, 139-40, and The Impartial Protestant Mercury, No 55, 28 Oct.-1 Nov. 1681

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Two sources naming the play attended by the Morocco ambassador differ as to what play was presented. CSPD, Charles II, 1682, p. 35: 19 Jan. 1681@2: To-day the Morocco Ambassador goes to a play named Circe at the Duke's House. Impartial Protestant Mercury, 20-24 Jan. 1681@2: The Morocco Ambassador, On Thursday last, went to the Duke's Theatre, where was Acted Psyche, a Play of extraordinary splendor, with which his Excellency was extreamly pleas'd

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Lady Anne Howe to the Countess of Rutland, 26 Jan. 1681@2: The King went by water to the new play yesterday, it being the poet's day, and is call'd the Loyallest (HMC, Rutland MSS., 12th Report, Appendix, Part V, p. 64). Newsletter, 26 Jan. 1681@2: Yesterday was a new play called the Royalist, where the Salamanca Doctor is exposed (HMC, 10th Report, Appendix, Part IV, p. 175)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Loyal Protestant, 2 Feb. 1681@2: This day his Excellency the Embassedor of Morocco was present at the Dukes Theatre, where the Tempest was acted with which his Excellency seem'd extreamly pleased. [Essentially the same report is in Monthly Recorder, 1 Feb.-1 March 1681@2.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The play was apparently never published, but the Prologue and Epilogue were printed and have been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 43-45. The Epilogue also appeared in Miscellany, Being a Collection of Poems by several Hands, 1685, and has been reprinted in A Little Ark, ed. G. Thorn-Drury, p. 46. The latest date at which the play, with the Prologue and Epilogue, first appeared is 5 April 1682, the date Luttrell placed on his copies (Huntington Library), presumably representing the day on which he acquired them. G. Thorn-Drury, commenting upon the Epilogue, points out that it refers to the trial of Pilkington, one of the Sheriffs of London, ca. 25 March 1681@2. It seems likely, then, that this lost play was presented in March

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is uncertain, but the fact that Luttrell dated his separately printed copies of the Prologue and Epilogue 5 April 1682 (Huntington Library) sets a probability that the play first appeared within a week to ten days preceding that date. The Prologue and Epilogue, separately printed, have been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 89-91. A Prologue Intended for Vertue Bertray'd, by Thomas Shadwell, is reprinted in Welbeck Niscellany 3, A Collection of Poems by Several Hands, ed. Francis Needham, 1934. Some details in it suggest the "Dead Time" preceding Easter, when the Court was gone, the Russian ambassador departed, the Moroccan Ambassador shortly to go. The Russian ambassador left on 15 Feb. 1681@2 OS (see Evelyn, Diary), and the Prologue refers to the execution of Colonel Vratz and his accomplices on 10 March 1681@2 (Evelyn, Diary)

Event Comment: On this day, L. C. 5@16, p. 83 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 10n) John Crowne's The City Politiques was banned