Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 2: Charles 8. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 347

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This date of the premiere is not known, but the presence of Cademan (who was injured in August 1673) in the cast suggests a late spring or early summer production. In addition, two songs, in the play, Beauty no more shall suffer eclipse, and Full round the health good natured and free, both set by Robert Smith, are in Choice Ayres and Songs, 1673 (which was entered in the Stationers' Register, June 1673). It is possible, then, that the play was first given early as May 1673. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 33: A Comedy call'd The Reformation, Written by a Master of Arts in Cambridge; the Reformation in the Play, being the Reverse to the Laws of Morality and Virtue; it quickly made its Exit, to make way for a Moral one

Event Comment: The King's Company. It is difficult to assign a date to this burlesque, but it is obviously a satiric thrust at Elkanah Settle's The Empress of Morocco, which had been acted on 3 July 1673, and on Macbeth, which had been most recently acted (probably) on 9 Aug. 1673. As the title page of Duffett's burlesque does not name a theatre, it is not known whether it was acted before the King's Company left Lincoln's Inn Fields for the new theatre in Drury Lane. But the fact that Settle's Empress of Morocco was acted again at Dorset Garden on 6 Dec. 1673 makes December 1673 a likely month (or the King's Company to play its burlesque, although it may have been given in the late summer or early autumn, as many lesser actors are in the cast

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but, as the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1674, it was probably first presented not later than the early months of 1674

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 King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 359. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 345. There is no certainty that this performance is the premiere, but an additional performance on 20 Nov. 1675 and the entry of the play into the Stationers' Register, 29 Nov. 1675, suggest that the first production probably occurred in early or mid-November 1675. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 10-11), gives a cast which is identical except for omissions. For Kynaston's acting of Morat (especially in the later years of the century), see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 124-26

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but the date of licensing, 4 May 1676, suggests a production not later than March or April 1676. The Dedication indicates that the play was also acted privately at the residence of the Duchess of Albemarle, New-Hall

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but the large proportion of minor actors and the licensing for printing on 4 Nov. 1676 suggest a production in the late summer or early autumn

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the fact that the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, 22 Nov. 1676, suggests that it was first acted not much later than September 1676. The Dedication: I know it is a triffle that by the meaness of the stile, the want of good design, and the ill representation at the Theatre, being play'd to the worst advantage, has got little credit with the World

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 359: The Rivall Queene. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 346. That this is the premiere is indicated by a letter from the Marquis of Worcester to the Marchioness, 17 March 1676@7: Sir Charles Sedley's Cleopatra has been acted often, and to-day a new play of the death of Alexander, but I have not been to see either, living a mighty drudging life (HMC, 12th Report, Appendix, Beaufort MSS., IX, 66). Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 11), has a cast which agrees (except for omissions) with that in the edition of 1677. Downes adds (p. 16): [Hart in] Alexander, towards the latter End of his Acting; if he Acted in any one of these but once in a Fortnight, the House was fill'd as at a New Play, especially Alexander, he Acting that with such Grandeur and Agreeable Majesty, That one of the Court was pleas'd to Honour him with this Commendation; That Hart might Teach any King on Earth how to Comport himself

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: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the licensing of the play on 13 Aug. 1677 suggests a production not later than July 1677. Dedication to edition of 1678: But having...suffer'd so much through the defects of setting off, when it came on the Stage, it dares not now reject any Accomdation the Press cane give it. For (with the Theatres good leave to speak Truth,) it cannot receive greater Disadvantage in the Reading, than it met in the Presenting, The chief Parts Acted by Women; and, for their Ease, and somewhat of decorum, as was pretended, whole scenes left out, and scarcely any one Speech unmangled and entire. As for Adornments, in Habit, Musick, and Scene-Work it was Vacation-time, and the Company would not venture the Charge

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but as the play was entered in the Stationers' Register, 16 Jan. 1677@8, it was probably first acted not later than December 1677

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 premiere is not known, but the fact that the play the play was entered in the Term Catalogues in November 1679 suggests that it was first acted not much later than September 1679

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known. The play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1680, and advertised in the True News, 12-15 May 1680, suggesting a production not later than April 1680. Nevertheless, the fact that the Prologue refers to the attack on John Dryden in Rose Street (18 Dec. 1679) and to the petitions to Parliament--Luttrell, A Brief Relation, I, 31, on 13 Jan. 1679@80, refers to petitions subscribed by several thousands--suggests that the play appeared during January 1679@80

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the fact that Narcissus Luttrell purchased a copy on 22 March 1679@80 suggests that the premiere occurred not later than February. A copy, with Luttrell's date of purchase, is in the Ohio State University Library. (I am indebted to Professor J. H. Wilson for this information.

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-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">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: The Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library), 9 Feb. 1679@80: The late disorders at the Playhouse hath soe much incenst his Matye that tis said he hath commanded the persons to be proceeded Agt as Ryotters (Wilson, Theatre Notes, p. 80). [In Domestick Intelligence, 8-10 Feb. 1679@80, is a reference to an information in the King's Bench brought against those who participated in the disorders in the Duke's playhouse.

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: The Duke's Company. As the play was not printed until 1689, the date of composition is uncertain. In Act I, however, a reference to the death of the Earl of Rochester (26 July 1680) suggests that the play probably followed that even rather closely. On the other hand, the latest likely date for the first production seems set at late 1682 by the fact that Thomas Farmer's music for the play in BM Add. Mss. 19183-19185 is dated December 1682. The play has been placed in September 1680 as the earliest likely date (the presence of an experienced cast makes somewhat unlikely a production in mid-summer 1680). A song, All other blessings are but toys, with music by Thomas Farmer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Fourth Book, 1683. A song, Lovely Selina, innocent and free, with music by John Blow, is in the same collection; and another, Weep all ye nymphs, with music by John Blow, is in The Theater of Music, The First Book, 1685

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. As the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1681, it was probably first acted not later than March 1681. The title page states: Revis'd with Alterations

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: The King's Company. There is no indication as to when the first performance occurred, but as the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, May 1682, its first appearance was probably not later than March 1682. A copy in the Library of Congress has a MS date of 7 July, probably a date of acquisition. A song The larks awake the drowsy morn, with music by Pack, is not in the printed play but is in A New Collection of Songs and Poems by D'Urfey, 1683

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