Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: With wife, Mercer, Deb., and W. Hewer to the Duke of York's playhouse, and there saw The Impertinents, a pretty good play

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: To the Duke of York's playhouse, and there met my wife and Deb. and Mary Mercer and Batelier, where also W. Hewer was, and saw Hamlet, which we have not seen this year before, or more; and mightily pleased with it; but, above all, with Betterton, the best part, I believe, that ever man acted

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: I with Lord Brouncker (who was this day in an unusual manner merry, I believe with drink), J. Minnes, and W. Pen to Bartholomew-Fair; and there saw the dancing mare again, which, to-day, I find to act much worse than the other day, she forgetting many things, which her master beat her for, and was mightily vexed; and then the dancing of the ropes, and also the little stage-play, which is very ridiculous

Event Comment: The King's Company. This play is on L. C. list, 5@12, p. 17: ye king here. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 344. The play was apparently designed for the opening of the Bridges St playhouse in November 1666 but was not then acted. The edition of 1667 gives a intended cast. Bonhomme-Cartwright; Valerio-$C. Hart; Ergasto-$W. Winterson [$Wintershall]; Don Buisson-Burt; La Fleur-$E. Keninston [$Kynaston]; Sganarelle-J. Lacy; Mascarillio-$M. Moon [$Mohun]; Jodelet-ander, $Wilbraham">R. Shatterel; Housekeepers-$Alexander, $Wilbraham; Mary and Anne-$The Two Marshalls; Isabella-$Mrs Rutter; Lysette-$Nel Guin; Prologue Intended for the Overture of the Theatre, 1666; Epilogue. [In this list the names Alexander and Wilbraham are not otherwise known and may represent errors in the printed list.

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and there saw The Silent Woman; the best comedy, I think, that ever was wrote; and sitting by Shadwell the poet, he was big with admiration of it. Here was iy Lord Brouncker and W. Pen and their ladies in the box....Knepp did her part mighty well

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: Knepp's maid comes to me, to tell me that the women's day at the playhouse is to-day, and that therefore I must be there, to encrease their profit....I by coach toward the King's playhouse, and meeting W. Howe took him with me, and there saw The City Match; not acted these thirty years, and but a silly play: the King and Court there; the house, for the women's sake, mighty full

Event Comment: [The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: My wife and Mercer, and W. Hewer and Deb., to the King's playhouse, and I afterwards by water with them, and there we did hear the Eunuch (who, it seems, is a Frenchman, but long bred in Italy) sing, which I seemed to take as new to me, though I saw him on Saturday last [see 10 Oct. 1668], but said nothing of it; but such action and singing I could never have imagined to have heard, and do make good whatever Tom Hill used to tell me. [The Eunuch may be Baldassare Ferri.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: My wife and I to the Duke of York's playhouse; and there saw, the first time acted, The Queene of Arragon, an old Blackfriars' play, but an admirable one, so good that I am astonished at it, and wonder where it hath lain asleep all this while, that I have never heard of it before. Here met W. Batelier and Mrs Hunt, Deb's aunt; and saw her home--a very witty woman, and one that knows this play, and understands a play mighty well

Event Comment: The King's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@12, p. 17: Cattalines Conspiracie King here. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 344. Although the L. C. list and Pepys disagree as to the play performed, Pepys' uncertainty suggests that he may have put down the wrong title and that the L. C. list is correct. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and there saw, I think, The Maiden Queene. Pepys, Diary, 15 Jan.: [Sir W. Coventry] told me of the great factions at court at this day, even to the sober engaging of great persons, and differences, and making the King cheap and ridiculous. It is about my Lady Harvy's being offended at Doll Common's acting of Sempronia [see 18 Dec. 1668], to imitate her; for which she got my Lord Chamberlain, her kinsman, to imprison Doll: when my Lady Castlemayne made the King to release her, and to order her to act it again, worse than ever, the other day, where the King himself was: and since it was acted again, and my Lady Harvy provided people to hiss her and fling oranges at her: but it seems the heat is come to a great height, and real troubles at court about it

Event Comment: See 27 Feb. and 4 March. Pepys, Diary: [Sir W. Coventry] told me the matter of the play [The Rehearsal] that was intended for his abuse, wherein they foolishly and sillily bring in two tables like that which he hath made, with a round hole in the middle, in his closet, to turn himself in; and he is to be in one of them as master, and Sir J. Duncomb in the other, as his man or imitator: and their discourse in those tables, about the disposing of their books and papers, very foolish. But that, that he is offended with, is his being made so contemptible, so that any should dare to make a gentleman a subject for the mirth of the world; and that therefore he had told Tom Killigrew that he should tell his actors, whoever they were, that did offer any thing like representing him, that he would not complain to my Lord Chamberlain, which was too weak, nor get him beaten, as Sir Charles Sidly is said to do, but that he would cause his nose to be cut

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Although this performance is not certainly the premiere, it is the earliest known acting of the play. This performance is on the L. C. lists at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage", p. 14. John Boyle, Fifth Earl of Orrery: Master Anthony too the sequel of Guzman was after Lord Orrery's Death brought upon the Stage, but being disrelish'd by the Audience appear'd only one Night. It is probable The Author had not supervis'd and corrected It sufficiently before he died (The Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, ed. W. S. Clark II, II, 950). If these private notes, written some fifty years after the premiere, are correct, this performance may have been the premiere and the only day of acting it

Event Comment: The Duke's Company acted at Oxford during this month, offering Cambyses and, presumably, other plays of which we have no record. See W. J. Lawrence, "Oxford Restoration Prologues," Times Literary Supplement, 16 Jan. 1930, p. 43, and Sybil Rosenfeld, "Some Notes on the Players in Oxford, 1661-1713," Review of English Studies, XIX (1943), 368

Event Comment: Early in 1672 a group of French players may have acted in London, but the evidence is not precise or detailed. See W. J. Lawrence, Early French Players in England, p. 142

Event Comment: The Diary of Robert Hooke, 1672-1678: at Scaramuches at york house. present: the King, Duke of York, Lord Ormond &c. (ed. H. W. Robinson and Walter Adams [London, 1935], p. 42). See slso Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, pp. 118-19, and John Harold Wilson, A Theatre in York House, Theatre Notebook, XVI (1962), 75-78

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance (entitled The French Opera) is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 73. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 345. The edition of 1674 (appearing in both an English and a French version) states: An Opera, or, a Vocal Representation. First Compos'd by Monsieur P. P. Now put into Musick by Monsieur Grabut, Master of His Majesties Musick. And Acted by the Royall Academy of Musick, At the Theatre-Royal in Covent-Garden. The names of the singers for this production are not known, but it is possible that some of the French singers who appeared in Calisto in the following season, 1674-75, were in London for this production. See Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, pp. 201, 222, and W. J. Lawrence, Early French Players in England, The Elizabethan Playhouse and Other Studies, p. 145. French dancers in the opera were Pecurr [Preux], LeTemps, Shenan, D'muraile. See L. C. 5@140, p. 472, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 355

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is uncertain, but John Harold Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, pp. 221-22) assigns it to mid-June primarily because of the Prologue intended to be spoken by Haines and the order, dated 18 June 1677, for the arrest of Haines for speaking an obscene Epilogue (error for Prologue?); in addition, the next play at Drury Lane, The Rival Kings, refers to Haines and "last time," establishing the sequence of performance of these two plays. For the arrest of Haines, see Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 328n. Wits Led by the Nose was licensed for printing on 16 Aug. 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 True News; or, Mercurius Anglicus, 4-7 Feb. 1679@80: On Munday night last happened a great dispute in the Duke's Play-house, some Gentlemen in their Cupps entring into the Pitt, flinging Links at the Actors, and using several reproachfull speeches against the Dutchess of P. and other persons of Honour, which has occasioned a Prohibition from farther Acting, till his Majesties farther pleasyre. A letter written by the Dowager Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, dated 6 Jan. 1679@80 [possibly misdated] refers to disorders which are similar to those recorded in The True News: You must needs hear of the abominable disorders amongst us, calling all the women whores and the men rogues in the playhouses--throwing candles and links--calling my Lord Sunderland traitor, but in good company; the Duke of York?, rascal; and all ended in "God bless his Highness, the Duke of Monmouth. We will be for him against the world." I am told they may be fined a great deal if they are prosecuted. Two of these are knights of shires, Sir Scroope How, and my Lord Wharton's@eldest son; the only sufferer yet is Porter. They are ashamed, I hear, and afraid (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Times of Charles the Second by the Honourable Henry Sidney [London, 1843], I, 237)

Event Comment: The Dowager Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, 19 Feb. 1679@80: The players have been disturbed again by drunken people's jokes. They called my Lord Arran a rogue; and one Fitzpatrick pointed at Mr Thinne, and called him that petitioning fool, and swore a hundred oaths; he said that he deserved #20,000 a-year, but that fool deserved nothing (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Times of Charles the Second [London, 1843], I, 279-80). See also 2 and 9 Feb. 1679@80

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This is another in the series of Court performances in L. C. 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 350, and 11 Feb. 1679@80. Mountstevens to Henry Stevens, 20 Feb. 1679@80: Upon Sunday the Court is to be in mourning for the death of the Princess Elizabeth, sister to Prince Rupert. (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Time of Charles the Second [London, 1843], I, 283)

Event Comment: Lord Preston (in Paris) to the Duke of York, 22 Sept. 1683, N.S.: I should not have presumed to give your Highness the trouble of this if something of charity had not induced me to it. I do it at the instance of a poor servant of his Majesty's who some time since was obliged by a misfortune to leave England. It is Mr Grahme [Grabut?], sir, whom perhaps your Highness may remember. Mr Betterton coming hither some weeks since by his Majesty's command, to endeavour to carry over the Opera, and finding that impracticable, did treat with Monsr Grahme to go over with him to endeavour to represent something at least like an Opera in England for his Majesty's diversion. He hath also assured him of a pension from the House, and finds him very willing and ready to go over. He only desireth his Majesty's protection when he is there, and what encouragement his Majesty shall be pleased to give him if he finds that he deserves it (HMC, 7th Report, Part I, p. 290). W. J. Lawrence (Early French Players in England, p. 149) argued that Grahme should be Grabut, who had once been Master of the King's Music (to 1674) and who had settled in Paris. Grabut was certainly back in London in the spring of 1684

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell dated his copy of the separately-printed Prologue and Epilogue 5 April 1684 (J. W. Dodds, Thomas Southerne, p. 48). Very probably the play first appeared during the week of 31 March-5 April, immediately following Easter. The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 191-94. This may have been the last new role William Smith undertook for some years; see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, 1, 78-79, for the incident which prompted Smith's leaving the stage for awhile. One song, I never saw a face till now, with music by Captain Pack, is in The Theater of Music, the First Book, 1685; and another, O why did e'er my thoughts aspire, the music by R. King, is in the same collection. A third song, See how fair Corinna lies, the music by Captain Pack, is in A Collection of Twenty-Four Songs, 1685

Event Comment: The United Company. Rowland Davies, 13 June 1689: After dinner I went with Mr N. Lysaght and W. Jephson to see Circe acted at the Queen's Theatre, which was done to admiration, with better scenes than I could imagine (The Journal of the Very Rev. Rowland Davies, Camden Society, Vol. 68 [1856], 24)

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) of the play bears the date of acquisition 3 June [1690, apparently], and the play was advertised in the London Gazette, No 2566, 12-16 June 1690. See Fredson Bowers, A Bibliographical History of the Fletcher-Betterton Play, The Prophetess, 1690, The Library, 5th Series, XVI (1961), 169-75. It seems likely that the opera was first given early in June 1690. An edition of The Vocal and Instrumental Musick of The Prophetess appeared in 1691. See Works of Henry Purcell, Purcell Society, IX. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42): The Prophetess, or Dioclesian an Opera, Wrote by Mr Betterton; being set out with Coastly Scenes, Machines and Cloaths: The Vocal and Instrumental Musick, done by Mr Purcel; and Dances by Mr Priest; it gratify'd the Expectation of Court and City; and got the Author great Reputation. [See also R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theater (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), Chapter V; and E. W. White, Early Theatrical Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59), 44.] The Muses' Mercury (January 1707, pp. 4-5): This prologue was forbidden to be spoken the second Night of the Representation of the Prophetess. Mrs Shadwell was the occasion of its being taken notice of by the Ministry in the last Reign: He happen'd to be at the House on the first Night, and taking the beginning of the Prologue to have a double meaning, and that Meaning to reflect on the Revolution, he told a Gentleman, He would immediately Put a stop to it. When that Gentleman ask'd, Why he wou'd do the Author such a Disservice? He said, Because while Mr Dryden was Poet Laureat, he wou'd never let any Play of his be Acted. Mr Shadwell informed the Secretary of State of it, and representing it in its worst Colours, the Prologue was never Spoken afterwards, and is not printed in Mr Dryden's Works, or his Miscellanies. Cibber, Apology (ed. Lowe, II, 13-14): A Prologue (by Dryden) to the Prophetess was forbid by the Lord Dorset after the first War in Ireland. It must be confess'd that this Prologue had some familiar, metaphorical Sneers at the Revolution itself; and as the Poetry of it was good, the Offence of it was less pardonable