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)

Event Comment: [In mainpiece the playbill assigns Lady Sneerwell to Miss Sherry, but on the Kemble playbill a MS annotation substitutes Mrs Whitfield. Miss Sherry was ill; she died early in October.] "Sheridan has also despised the faults of another school, trap claps. Not a word in The School for Scandal is to be found in praise of Laws, Jack Tars, Innocence, an Englishman's castellum, or Liberty" (Reynolds, II, 227). Receipts: #193 13s. 6d. (155/11/0; 37/12/6; 0/10/0)

Event Comment: Mainpiece [1st time; C 5, by Thomas Holcroft, based on Le Glorieux, by Philippe Nericault, dit Destouches. In 1793 reduced by the author to an afterpiece of 3 acts. Prologue and Epilogue by the author (Knapp, 101, 307). This play was originally attributed to James Marshall (Public Advertiser, 5 Feb.); on 8 Feb. he wrote a letter to the editor of the Oracle, stating that "The School for Arrogance is not mine, but Mr Holcroft's...By appearing for a time as the ostensible author I hope I have contributed to heal what was most unaccomodating between Mr Harris and Mr Holcroft." And see Genest, VII, 24, 27.] Oracle, 19 Feb. 1791: This Day is published The School for Arrogance (1s. 6d.). "If Mrs Wells could be prevailed upon to speak out, so that the audience might hear, it would be of some advantage to the new play. At present, the performer who happens to be on the stage with her has it all in confidence" (Gazetteer, 9 Feb.). Receipts: #186 11s. (181.8; 5.3)

Event Comment: Benefit for King. [This was Smith's last appearance on the stage, from which he had officially retired on 9 June 1788.] Broadside in Kemble playbills announcing this benefit: Mr King most respectfully informs the Public that his Night is fixed for Friday the 18th of May, when will be presented The School for Scandal. Mr King has the pleasure to add that Mr Smith, who was so long and so worthily applauded by the Public, and was the original performer of Charles Surface in the above, distinguished Comedy, at the particular request of Mr King, backed by a strong assurance from many admirers and encouragers of the Drama that it will not only add to Mr King's emolument but highly gratify the Town, has kindly consented to return to the Theatre for one night, and resume his favourite Character. "We had been told that Smith pourtrayed the Manners of a finished gentleman with more delicacy and characteristic propriety than any actor of his day; but this did not appear to us to be his particular excellence; he stands too wide to be graceful, and his deportment gains no advantage from a perpetual application of his hand to the lower part of the waist. These habits are far from elegant. His Charles, however, is a favourable specimen of that sort of acting which commonly falls under the denomination of the old school: light, airy, and natural; which excites applause without any anxious endeavour to produce it; which suffers the points to tell of themselves, and does not place them as so many traps to ensnare the injudicious part of the audience" (Monthly Mirror, May 1798, p. 299). "He was received with the most heart-felt gratulations by an audience who did not expect any apology for such acting, though he saw fit to deliver one at the conclusion of the play" (Monthly Visitor, May 1798, p. 72). Times, 4 May: Tickets to be had of King at his house, New Store-street, Bedford-square. Receipts: #674 6s. (388.0.6; 55.17.6; 2.0.0); tickets: 228.8.0) (charge: #212 5s. 6d.)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: My wife and I to the Duke of York's house, and there saw Love Trickes, or the School of Compliments; a silly play, only Miss Davis?'s dancing in a shepherd's clothes did please us mightily

Event Comment: Full Prices. School for Lovers Published 1s. 6d

Event Comment: TThe School for Rakes publish'd at 1s. 6d

Event Comment: Benefit for the Author. Neville MS Diary: went with Mr and Mrs Willoughby to the 2 shilling gallery at Drury Lane to see the new comedy. The School for Rakes, which I do not like. Many of our new pieces are full of absurd compliments to--

Event Comment: Mainpiece [1st time; C 5, by Richard Brinsley Sheridan. Prologue by David Garrick. Epilogue by George Colman elder (London Chronicle, 9 May). Text 1st published (unauthorized), Dublin, 1780]: With New Scenes and Dresses. "No modern theatrical piece ever met with a fuller success, nor deserved it more... The performers deserve every sort of commendation for their spirited exertion in supporting the respective characters, especially Smith, King and the incomparable Mrs Abington" (Gazetteer, 9 May). "To my great astonishment there were more parts performed admirably in The School for Scandal than I almost ever saw in any play. Mrs Abington was equal to the first of her profession, Yates (the husband), Parsons, Miss Pope, and Palmer, all shone. It seemed a marvellous resurrection of the stage. Indeed, the play had as much merit as the actors. I have seen no comedy that comes near it since The Provoked Husband" (Walpole [13 July 1777], X, 82). Receipts: #224 10s. (215.12.0; 8.14.6; 0.3.6)

Event Comment: "A Gentleman who is as mad as myself about the School remark'd that the Characters upon the Stage at the falling of the Screen stand too long before they speak-I thought so too the first Night-he said it was the same on the 2d & was remark'd by others-tho they should be astonish'd & a little petrify'd, yet it may be carry'd to too great a length" (David Garrick to R. B. Sheridan, 12 May 1777, in The Letters of David Garrick, ed. D. M. Little and G. M. Kahrl, 1963, III, 1163). Receipts: #195 13s. (184.7; 10.19; 0.7)