Event Comment: See Calendar of the Middle Temple Records, ed. Hopwood, p. 169, for a fee of #20 paid to Sir William Davenant's@company, the receipt being signed by Richard Baddeley; and for #1 5s. for baize to cover the stage and scenes. The play may well have been Love and Honour

Event Comment: See Nicoll (Restoration Drama, p. 277) and Hotson (Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 114) for discussion of an order addressed to George Jolly forbidding him to act further until differences between him and Beeston are settled

Event Comment: The King's Company. This play appears on Herbert's List, following the entry for 26 Oct. 1661. (See William VanLennep, "Thomas Killigrew prepares his Plays for Production," J. Q. Adams Memorial Studies (Washington, D. C., 1948, p. 803.) Pepys, Diary: W. Pen and I to the Theatre, but it was so full that we could hardly get any room, so he went up to one of the boxes, and I into the 18d. places, and there saw Love at first sight, a play of Mr Killigrew's and the first time that it hath been acted since before the troubles, and great expectation there was, but I found the play to be a poor thing, and so I perceive every body else do. BM Add. Mss. 34217, fol. 31b, in Hotson Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 246: @First then to speake of his Majestys Theatre@Where one would imagine Playes should be better@Love att the first sight did lead the dance@But att second sight it had the mischance@To be so dash'd out of Countenance as@It never after durst shew itts face@All though its bashfullnesse as tis thought@Be far from being the Authors ffault.

Event Comment: According to L. C. 5@137, p. 100 (Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 280), a play, unidentified, was given at court

Event Comment: This performance was attended by Jacques Thierry and Will Schellinks, who stated: Judged to be their best play (Seaton, Literary Relationships, pp. 334-36). This performance may have been the premiere. The Duke's Company. BM Add. Mss. 34217, in Hotson (Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 247): @Then came the Knight agen with his Lawe@Against Lovers the worst that ever you sawe@In dressing of which he playnely did shew it@Hee was a far better Cooke then a Poet@And only he the Art of it had@Of two good Playes to make one bad.

Event Comment: The King's Company. See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 118. See also The Variety, in Bentley, Jacobean and Caroline Stage, III, 149-51; and James Shirley's The Ball; or, French Dancing Master, in Bentley, V, 1079. See also 10 Nov. 1661

Event Comment: The King's Company. See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 118. This was a new play, but it is not clear that this day was the premiere. BM Add. Mss. 34217, in Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 246: @For the surprizall it was a good proofe@By its getting them mony it took well enough@Without which Divell take the Play@Be it never so good the Actors say@But they may thanke God with all their hart@That Lacy plaid Brankadoros part.

Event Comment: On this day Jacques Thierry and Will Schellinks saw fencing on the stage at this theatre (Seaton, Literary Relationships, pp. 334, 336)

Event Comment: Hotson (Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 178-79) believes that this was Jolly's organization. See also the list of Sir Edward Browne's attendance at plays in the introduction to this season. An edition of this play appeared in 1663, but the title page does not state at what theatre the play was given. Pepys, Diary: Thence to taken my wife to the redd bull, where we saw Doctor Faustus, but so wretchedly and poorly done, that we were sick of it, and the worse because by a former resolution it is to be the last play we are to see till Michaelmas

Event Comment: This play is in Herbert, Dramatic Records p. 118: Cornelia a New Play, sir W. Bartleys. The date in Herbert is 1 June, a Sunday in 1662, with another play in the same group falling on Sunday. Nevertheless, the verse comment (see below) written, apparently, before the summer of 1662 points toward 2 June 1662 rather than 1 June 1663. Edward Browne also lists it as one of the plays he attended. The play was not printed. BM Add. Mss. 34217, in Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 246: @For Cornelia they all doe say@There was abundance of witt in the play@Indeed t'had soe much t' was the worse for 't@For t' was to witty for the vulgar sort@And they who'd have poetts their Benefactors@Say witt without mony's naught for the Actors.

Event Comment: An unnamed play was acted at court. See L. C. 5@137, p. 389, in Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 280

Event Comment: Some time (probably not long) before this date Aglaura [by Sir John Suckling] was acted by the King's Company. Pepys, Diary: Thence to Mr Wotton, the shoemaker's, and there bought a pair of boots, cost me 30s., and he told me how Bird hath lately broke his leg, while he was fencing in Aglaura, upon the stage, and that the new theatre of all will be ready against term

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary, 20 Oct.: Young Killigrew did so commend The Villaine, a new play made by Tom Porter, and acted only on Saturday at the Duke's house, as if there never had been any such play come upon the stage. The same yesterday was told me by Captain Ferrers; and this morning afterwards by Dr Clerke, who saw it. Downes, p. 23: Written by Major Thomas Porter; this Play by its being well perform'd, had Success extremly beyond the Company's Expectation....It Succeeded 10 Days with a full House, to the last. [Downes especially praises Price. The edition of 1663 has a Prologue but no actors' names and no epilogue.

Event Comment: This play was seen by Jacques Thierry and Will Schellinks (Seaton, Literary Relationships, pp. 334, 336). The company may have been Jolly's, but it may also have been the King's temporarily acting there. See Sprague, Beaumont and Fletcher, p. 22, and Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, pp. 178-79

Event Comment: See Boswell (Restoration Court Stage, p. 280), who identifies the company as the King's Company. Evelyn, Diary: Saw the Young Admiral acted coram Rege &c

Event Comment: L. C. 5@137, p. 389, in Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 281. By the Duke's Company. Charles II to Madame (his sister), 9 Feb. 1662@3: I am just now called for to goe to Play (C. H. Hartman, Charles II and Madame [London, 1934], p. 68)

Event Comment: In the Prologue to The Cheats (mid-March 1663) are allusions to three plays which apparently were popular on the stage at this time: Jonson's The Silent Woman ("Sir Poll"); Jonson's The Devil is an Ass ("No little Pugge, nor Devil"); and Davenant's The Siege of Rhodes ("No tedious Sieges in the Musick-room")

Event Comment: For an account of the play, see John Wilson's The Cheats, ed. Milton C. Nahm (Oxford, 1935). It was licensed on 6 March (p. 124), acted, then forbade on 22 March in an order: Letter to Mr Tho. Killigrew: Signifying the Ks Pleasure that the New Play called the Cheates be no more represented till it be reuiewed by Sir Jo. Denham & Mr Waller. 22 March. 1662-3 (p. 130). Abraham Hill to John Brooke, 28 March 1663: P.S. The new play, called The Cheats, has been attempted on the Stage; but it is so scandalous, that it is forbidden (Familiar Letters of? Abraham Hill, [London, 1717], p. 103. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 16) concerning Lacy: @For his just Acting, all gave him due Praise,@His Part in the Cheats, Jony Thump, Teg and Bayes,@In these Four Excelling, The Court gave him the Bays.

Event Comment: On this date a band of French comedians received a permit authorizing them to bring their scenes and stage decoration to England. See W. J. Lawrence, "Early French Players in England," The Elizabethan Playhouse and Other Studies, p. 140; Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 252; and Madame M. Horn-Monval, "French Troupes in England during the Restoration," Theatre Notebook, VII (1953), 82

Event Comment: This play was presumably acted by the Duke's Company. In the preface to Heraclius, Emperour of the East, published in 1664, the author, Lodowick Carlell, complains that he had submitted his translation of Corneille, only to have it returned the very day that this version appeared on the stage. See also the letter by Katherine Philips, under Pompey the Great, Jan. 1663@4. Pepys, Diary: We made no long stay at dinner; for Heraclius being acted, which my wife and I have a mighty mind to see, we do resolve, though not exactly agreeing with the letter of my vowe, yet altogether with the sense, to see another this month, by coming hither instead of that at court, there having ueen none conveniently since I made my vowe for us to see there, nor like to be this Lent, and besides we did walk home on purpose to make this going as cheap as that would have been, to have seen one at Court, and my conscience knows that it is only the saving of money and the time also that I intend by my oaths....The play hath one very good passage well managed in it, about two persons pretending, and yet denying themselves, to be son to the tyrant Phocas, and yet heire of Mauricius to the crowne. The garments like Romans very well. The little girle is come to act very prettily, and spoke the epilogue most admirably. But at the beginning, at the drawing up of the curtaine, there was the finest scene of the Emperor and his people about him, standing in their fixed and different postures in their Roman habitts, above all that ever I yet saw at any of the theatres

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play apparently was not printed. Pepys, Diary: and then with my wife by coach to the Duke's house, and there saw The German Princess acted, by the woman herself; but never was any thing so well done in earnest, worse performed in jest upon the stage; and indeed the whole play, abating the drollery of him that acts her husband, is very simple, unless here and there a witty sprinkle or two

Event Comment: Charles II to Madame, 14 July 1664: I am just now come from seeing a new ill play and it is almost midnight (C. H. Hartman, Charles II and Madame [1934], p. 108). W. J. Lawrence, in a review of Boswell, The Restoration Court Stage, in Modern Language Review, XXVIII (1933), 103, stated his belief that this play was acted at court this day

Event Comment: The King's company. On 31 Aug. or 1 Sept. 1664 Orrery wrote to Sir Henry Bennett: Ther was noe Play of myne Acted, they are now but Studyinge it; I hope within less then a Fortnight twill be on ye Theater And if you are not surfetted, with what of mine you have already seene [Henry V], I will beg ye honour to wait on you when tis Acted (see The Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, ed. W. S. Clark@II [Cambridge, Mass., 1937], 1, 102). The play is also on the list of Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 138. Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 281, lists it among the plays given at court, but Sir Heneage Finch's note (see below) seems to indicate an afternoon performance. Sir Heneage Finch to Sir Edward Dering, 15 Sept. 1664: Yesterday was acted, in the Greatest and noblest presence wch ye Court can make, before ye fullest Theatre, & with the highest applause imaginable, my Lo Orerys new play calld ye Generall formerly acted in Ireland by the name of Altamira, but much altered & improved. From thence the whole Court went to Wallingford house, where the Earl of Arran and the Lady Mary Stuart were that night before Supper marryd in the Gallery (Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, I, 103, from Stowe MS 744 f. 81)

Event Comment: An unnamed play was acted by the King's Company at the Cockpit at Court. See L. C. 5@138, p. 156, in Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 281

Event Comment: H. B. Wilson, The History of the Merchant-Taylors' School (London, 1814), 1, 344n: 15 March 1664@5. There was this day presented to the court, the bill of charges in erecting the Stage and Seates and other necessaries in the hall, when the Schollers of the companies schoole, at St Laurence Pounctneys, London, acted the play called Love's Pilgrimage, amounting unto seventeen Poundes, Tenn-shillings, and nine-pence