Event Comment: By Permission of the Lord Chamberlain. By Desire of the Ancient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons, who on this occasion will attend in proper cloathing, and the different Regalias of their Order. Afterpiece [1st time; F 2, author unknown. MS: Larpent 685; not published. Author of Prologue unknown]. The Doors to be opened at 5:00. To begin at 6:30. Tickets to be had at the Globe in Pall-mall; the Black Horse, Coventry-street; the Castle, in Castle-Court, Cornhill; the Rose Coffee-house in the Old Bailey; the Half Moon Tavern, Cheapside; and at the Theatre, where places for the boxes may be taken. Great care will be taken to have the House well aired

Event Comment: Paid Housekeeper's Bills #21 9s.; Ditto his properties #1 19s. (Drury Lane Treasurer's Book). [These bills amounted to #222 and #37 respectively for the season, or an average of #6 per week for Housekeeping Bills and #1 per week for properties. No further itemization will be made. A patron wrote a letter to the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser on 6 Oct. 1766, suggesting that he was annoyed by the way "our noisy friends in the Upper Gallery" kept calling for the Prologue. The Uproar increased when the farce or Daphne and Amintor began. Mr Vernon was oblig'd to step forward, Cap in hand and apologize, which put him out of character." Castle was not in bill. Noted in review. See 4 Oct.] Receipts: #145 16s. 6d. (Drury Lane Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. It is not certain this is the first performance, but it may well have been. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@139, p. 125. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 346. Pepys, Diary: Sir W. Pen and I to the Duke's house, where a new play. The King and Court there: the house full, and an act begun. And so went to the King's. Downes (p. 28): Sir Martin Marral, The Duke of New-Castle, giving Mr Dryden a bare translation of it, out of a Comedy of the Famous French Poet Monseur Moleire: He adapted the Part purposely for the Mouth of Mr Nokes, and curiously Polishing the whole....All the Parts being very Just and Exactly perform'd, specially Sir Martin and his Man, Mr Smith, and several others since have come very near him, but none Equall'd, nor yet Mr Nokes in Sir Martin: This Comedy was Crown'd with an Excellent Entry. In the Last Act at the Mask, by Mr Priest and Madam Davies; This, and Love in a Tub, got the Company more Money than any preceding Comedy

Event Comment: [In mainpiece the playbill assigns Horatio to Kemble, but he "being indisposed, Harley was the Horatio" (Thespian Magazine, June 1793, p. 1).] Receipts: #129 7s. (123.0; 6.7)

Event Comment: [In mainpiece the playbill assigns Horatio to Kemble, but "The publick is respectfully informed that on account of the sudden indisposition of Kemble the part of Horatio will be performed by Whitfield" (printed slip attached to Kemble playbill).] Receipts: #238 5s. (156.12; 78.9; 3.4)

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the premiere is not known, although a reference in the text to 1690 suggests that the play may have been produced in that year; but the fact that it was not advertised in the London Gazette until 6-9 April and not entered in the Term Catalogues until May 1691 suggest that it posaibly appeared early in 1691. This play was discussed in Wit for Money, or Poet Stutter; A Dialogue between Smith, Johnson, and Poet Stutter; containing Reflections on some late Plays, and particularly on Love for Money, or The Boarding School. The British Museum copy of this pamphlet has a manuscript date of 23 April 1691. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42: The Boarding School; Wrote by Mr Durfy, it took well being justly Acted. Earl of Ailesbury, mid-January 1690@1: My Lady Fenwick was a great intriguer, and had always castles in the air in her imagination to that degree, that I was present at a play where she was brought in. If I mistake not it was The Boarding School, and the famous comic, Mr Lee, in woman's clothes represented her to the life, and so exactly had her features and complexion that one could hardly have distinguished one from the other (Memoirs, [London, 1890], II, 390-91)