Event Comment: The Duke's Company. See Duffett's burlesque, above. The Diary of Robert Hooke, 6 Dec. 1673: Saw Empress of Morocco at Duke's Theatre. 1s. 6d. Dutchess of York? there

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is uncertain. The fact that the Epilogue suggests that it followed Settle's The Female Prelate is not a factor in the dating, as the Newdigate newsletters--see Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80--show that Settle's play was first acted on 31 May 1680, whereas Caesar Borgia was entered in the Term Catalogues, November 1679. Although the reference in the Epilogue to burning the Pope's Effigies" has been argued as referring to the Pope-burning procession of 17 Nov. 1679, the references in the Epilogue to Father Lewis, who was tried and convicted at York, 28 March 1679, suggest that it was written before his execution, 27 Aug. 1679. Hence the play may have been acted first some time in the late spring or the summer. A song, Blush not redder than the Morning, with music by Thomas Farmer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Third Book, 1681

Event Comment: Apparently The Man of Mode had an amateur revival in Brussels in the autumn, possibly before the Duke and Duchess of York, when they were away from London. Princess Anne to Frances Apsley, 3 Oct. 1679: The play is practisde to night Miss Watts is to be Lady townly which part I beleeve wont much become her. [See Benjamin Bathurst, Letters of Two Queens (London, 1924), pp. 111-12]

Event Comment: Receipts: #100 (Cross). The Upholsterer is deferr'd till Wednesday Next. The theatre commonly call'd the Duke of York's Theatre in York Buildings is now taken down, and dwelling houses going to be built. The beautiful ceiling was painted by Verrio, but could not be remov'd

Event Comment: Benefit for the Colleges of Philadelphia and New York. Mainpiece a Sacred Ode written by Dr Brown set to select Airs, Duets and Choruses from Mr Handel, and other Eminent Composers, with the addition of several new songs. Pit and Boxes to be put together. No Persons to be admitted without tickets, which will be deliver'd at the Office of the theatre at 1!2 a Guinea each; and also at the following Coffee House, viz: the Smyrna, Pall Mall; the Mount, Grosvenor St; George's, Temple Bar; the Rainbow, Cornhill, the New York, Sweetings's Alley; and the Pennsylvania, Birchin Lane. First Gallery 5s. Second Gallerp 3s. 6d. Galleries to be opened at half past Four, Pit and Boxes at Five. To begin at 1!2 after Six (playbill). This philanthropic enterprise, of which the theatrical benefit was but a part, seems not to have born much fruit for the respective Colleges. See Letter to the Governors of the Colleges of New York, respecting the Collection that was made in the Kingdom in 1762 and 1763, for the Colleges of Philadelphia and New York, to which are added Explanatory notes and appendix. By Sir James Jay, M. D. (London, 1771). The funds collected seem largely to have been used up in a law suit. The Governor of the College of New York, Rev. Dr Johnson, asked Jay to collect funds, which he did. Alderman Trecothick wrote Dr Johnson that the funds were not safe in Jay's hands. The Governors insulted Jay, and when they found they were wrong refused to apologize. They entered a bill against him in Chancery to gain the funds. It dragged out for four years. When the power of Attorney had been given to Trecothick, he claimed that a sum of #1437 15s. 6d. was unaccounted for by Jay, and was supposed to be in Jay's hands. Jay explained the Governors had not reckoned on reimbursement for his time and expenses for two years.

Event Comment: On this date, L. C. 5@16, p. 101 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 10n) Nathaniel Lee's The Duke of Guise was banned. John Drummond to Marquis and Duke of Queensberry, 16 July 1682: Ther is a play hear to be acted that maks a great business, for the Duke of Munmuth has complained of it, and they say that notwithstanding it is to be acted sometime nixt weik. They call it the Duke of Guise, but in the play the true story is cheinged to the plott time hear (HMC, Buccleuch-Queensberry MSS., 1903, II 108). Newsletter, 29 July 1682: A play by Mr Dryden, termed the Duke of Guise, wherein the Duke of Monmouth was vilified and great interest being make for the acting thereof, but coming to His Majesty's knowledge is forbid, for though His Majesty be displeased with the Duke yet he will not suffer others to abuse him (HMC, 15th Report, Part VII, 1898, p. 108). Newdigate newsletters, 29 July 1682: A play having been made [by] Mr Dryden termed ye Duke of Guise supposed to Levell att the villifying the Duke of Monmouth & many other protestants & great Interest made for the Acting thereof but bringing to the knowledge of his Matie the same was forbidd for though his Maties pleasure is to be dissatisfyed and angry with the Duke of Monmouth, yet hee is not willing that others should abuse him out of a naturall affection for him (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81)

Event Comment: On this day a quarrel occurred at lif between Henry Killigrew and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, but the play is not named in the various accounts of the affair. For details, see HMC, 12th Report, Part VII, p. 51; and Carl Niemeyer, "Henry Killigrew and the Duke of Buckingham", Review of English Studies, XII (1936), 326-28. Pepys, Diary: 22 July: Creed tells me of the fray between the Duke of Buckingham at the Duke's playhouse the last Saturday (and it is the first day I have heard that they have acted at either the King's or Duke's house this month or six weeks) and Henry Killigrew, whom the Duke of Buckingham did soundly beat and take away his sword, and make a fool of, till the fellow prayed him to spare his life; and I am glad of it; for it seems in this business the Duke of Buckingham did carry nimself very innocently and well

Event Comment: See 27 Feb. 1668@9. Pepys, Diary: I did meet Sir Jeremy Smith, who did tell me that Sir W. Coventry was just now sent to the Tower, about the business of his challenging the Duke of Buckingham, and so was also Harry Saville to the Gate-house....So, meeting with my Lord Bellassis, he told me the particulars of this matter; that it arises about a quarrel which Sir W. Coventry had with the Duke of Buckingham about a design between the Duke and Sir Robert Howard, to bring him into a play [The Rehearsal] at the King's house, which W. Coventry not enduring, did H. Saville send a letter to the Duke of Buckingham, that he had a desire to speak with him. Upon which, the Duke of Buckingham did bid Holmes, his champion ever since my Lord Shrewsbury's business, go to him to know the business; but H. Saville would not tell it to any but himself, and therefore did go presently to the Duke of Buckingham, and told him that his uncle Coventry was a person of honour, and was sensible of his Grace's liberty taken of abusing him, and that he had a desire of satisfaction, and would fight with him. But that here they were interrupted by my Lord Chamberlain's coming in, who was commanded to go to bid the Duke of Buckingham to come to the King, Holmes having discovered it