Event Comment: W. S. Clark (Works of Orrery, 1, 40-41) believes that this is Thomas Middleton's play, not one by Orrery. Henry Savile to George Savile: I am come newly from my Lord of Orrery's new play called The Widow, whose character you will receive from better hands. I will only say that one part of it is the humour of a man that has great need to go to the close stool, where there are such indecent postures as would never be suffered upon any stage but ours, which has quite turn'd the stomach of so squeamish a man as I am, that am used to see nothing upon a theatre that might not appear in the ruelle of a fine lady (Savile Correspondence, ed. W. D. Cooper, Camden Society, LXXI [1858], 4)

Event Comment: The date of the premiere is not known, but Robert Hooke, attended play on 27 Aug. 1675 which might well refer not to Psyche but to Duffett's travesty of it. In addition, John Harold Wilson has argued that the reference in the Prologue to "The new-come Elephant" probably concerns the elephant imported by Lord George Berkeley and sold by 12 Aug. 1675 (see The Diary of Robert Hooke, p. 174). The cast also contains a number of "young actors" who might well have had an opportunity to act in a play in the summer vacation

Event Comment: The United Company. Lord Ashburnham's Diary: I waited on my Mother home and afterwards I went into the play (the Maiden Queen) There was a great deale of company, I came home before 8 at night, I am now not charm'd with Playes &c. (Ashburnham MS 932, East Sussex County Record Office, County Hall, Lewes, Sussex; I owe this entry and the subsequent ones from this MS to the kindness of Professor George Hilton Jones, Kansas State University). This is an unusual example of the revival of a play at the public theatre the day before its presentation at court

Event Comment: HHorace Walpole to Montagu, 3 Nov.: I shall be with you at the end of the week, but just now I am under the maidenhead-palpitation of an author; my Epilogue will, I believe, be spoke tomorrow night, and I flatter myself I shall have no faults to answer for but what are in it, for I have kept secret whose it is. It is now gone to be licensed, but as the Lord Chamberlain is mentioned, though rather to his honour it is possible it may be refused, as they are apt to think at the Office, that the Duke of Grafton can't be mentioned but in ridicule.--Horace Walpole's Correspondence with George Montagu, I, 48. Receipts: #119 1s

Event Comment: [Macklin dismissed after this night. See the account in The Genuine Arguments of the Council, with the Opinion of the Court of the King's Bench, &c., By a Citizen of the World, (London, 1774). Extracts in E. R. Page, George Colman, the Elder (New York, 1935). See notes for 23 and 30 Oct. and the subsequent action in note for 20 Nov. He did not return until 18 May 1775. This night was aparently, except for #4 5s. which was not recorded on the books of the theatre until 18 June well after the season closed. Macklin's suit in court against the rioters was judged 24 Feb. 1775. A column and a half account of the trial appeared in the Public Advertiser, Saturday 13 May 1775, giving the testimony of the witnesses accused of starting the riot, the lawyers, and the judge. The accused were Leigh, Miles, James, Aldus, and Clarke. The first four were convicted of a conspiracy and a riot, the last of a riot only. During the Course of the Business Lord Mansfield took Occasion to observe, that the Right of Hissing, and Applauding in a theatre was an unalterable Right, but there was a wide Distinction between expressing the natural Sensations of the Mind as they arose on what was seen and heard, and executing a pre-concerted Desagn, not only to hiss an Actor when he was playing a Part in which he was universally allowed to be excellent, but also to drive him from the theatre, and effect his utter ruin." See also William W. Appleton, Charles Macklin, An Actors Life (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), Chapter X.

Event Comment: By Permission [of the Lord Chamberlain]. Mainpiece [1st time in London; C 5, by Robert Hitchcock, 1st acted at Hull, 14 Nov. 1775]. Afterpiece: Written by George Alexander Stevens. [This was not Charles Macklin's play, The True-Born Irishman, 1st published in Jones' British Theatre, 1795, but Stevens's The French Flogged; or, The British Sailors in America.] Tickets delivered for the 23rd of September and for the Evening will be admitted

Event Comment: By Permission of the Lord Chamberlain. [1st time; M.ENT 3, by George Alexander Stevens. Larpent MS 533; not published. Songs published by R. Snagg, 1780.] The Overture, most of the Airs [see 6 Nov.], and Decorations entirely new. Ne Quid Nimis; or, Too much of one Thing is good for Nothing. Boxes 5s. Pit 3s. Gallery 2s. The Public are respectfully informed that the Upper Gallery will not be opened. The Doors to be opened at 6:00. To begin at 7:00. The Songs, written by G. A. Stevens, are to be had at the Theatre

Event Comment: By Authority of the Lord Chamberlain. At the request of several of the Scotch Nobility. Benefit for Raeburn. Mainpiece: In its original state, as it was written by Allan Ramsay in 1724 [recte 1725]. The Characters to be entirely new dressed. The Doors to be opened at 5:00. To begin at 6:00. No persons to be admitted behind the scenes, nor any money returned after the curtain is drawn up. Ladies are requested to send their servants by Five to keep places. Tickets to be had of Raeburn, No. 4, Gloucester-court, St. James's; of Walker, the Globe, Pall-mall; of Mackintosh, the George, East Harding-street, Shoe-lane; of Watson, the Fleece, Little Windmill-street (being the original Scotch house); of Mrs Shaw, the St. Andrew, near the Armitage-bridge, Wapping

Event Comment: The Lord Chamberlain sent an order, between four and five in the evening, to the two theatres to cease representing any plays, till after the funeral of the late Princess Amelia [daughter of George II; she died on 31 Oct.] (Morning Chronicle, 2 Nov.)

Event Comment: By Permission of the Lord Chamberlain. [Afterpiece: Prologue by George Colman elder.

Event Comment: Gazetteer, 20 Sept.: [On Saturday morning] official notice was given from the Lord Chamberlain's Office to shut the Theatres [because of the death of the Duke of Cumberland, brother of George III]

Event Comment: Benefit for Palmer. Mr Palmer most respectfully informs the Publick, the Lord Chamberlain having given Permission, Mr Colman having liberally granted the use of the Theatre, and his Brethren kindly consented to perform, that [there] will be presented...[as above. This benefit had originally been arranged for 20 Sept., but because of the death of the Duke of Cumberland, the theatre on that night was dark.] Tickets to be had of Palmer, No. 3, London Road, St. George's Fields; and of Rice, at the Theatre, where Places for the Boxes may be taken

Event Comment: [Extra night] By Authority of the Lord Chamberlain. Benefit for Waldron, prompter. Tickets to be had of Waldron, No. 54 , Drury-lane. 3rd piece: By permission of George Colman, Esq

Event Comment: Edition of 1661: By the Worshipful Company of Grocers. Evelyn, Diary: I saw the Lord Major passe in his Water Triumph to Westminster being the first solemnity of this nature after 20 years. Pepys, Diary: I was (after office was done) ready to go to my Lord Mayor's feast, as we are all invited; but the Sir Williams were both loth to go, because of the crowd, and so none of us went....This Lord Mayor, it seems, brings up again the custom of Lord Mayors going the day of their instalment to Paul's, and walking round about the Cross, and offering something at the altar

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: By coach to White Hall, thinking to have met at a Committee of Tangier, but nobody being there but my Lord Rutherford, he would needs carry me and another Scotch Lord to a play, and so we saw, coming late, part of The Generall, my Lord Orrery's (Broghill) second play; but, Lord! to see how no more either in words, sense, or design, it is to his Harry the 5th is not imaginable, and so poorly acted, though in finer clothes, is strange. And here I must confess breach of a vowe in appearance, but I not desiring it, but against my will, and my oathe being to go neither at my own charge nor at another's, as I had done by becoming liable to give them another, as I am to Sir W. Pen and Mr Creed; but here I neither know which of them paid for me, nor, If I did, am I obliged ever to return the like

Event Comment: The United Company. Newdigate newsletters, 20 Jan. 1682@3: Yesterday was acted at the Theatre Royall the first of a new play Entituled the City Politiques the novelty of wch drew a Confluence of Spectators under both Qualifications of Whigg and Tory to hear and behold a Ld Mayor Sheriffs & some Aldermen with their wives in yr usuall formalityes buffoond & Reviled a great Lawyer with his young Lady Jeared and Intreagued Dr Oates pfectly represented berogued & beslaved the papist plott Egregiously Rediculed the Irish Testemonyes Contradictiorily disproved & befoold the Whiggs totally vanquished & undon Law & property men oreruld & there wanted nothing of Artifice in behaviour and discourse to render all those obnoxious & dispised in fine such a medly of occurences intervened that twas a question whether more of Loyalty designe or Rhetorique prvailed but there were mighty clappings among the poeple of both partyes in Expressing either their sattisfaction or displeasure (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81). The Prologue and Epilogue, separately Printed, have 20 Jan. 1682@3 as Luttrell's date of acquisition (Huntington Library) and are reprinted in Wiley's Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 166-69. John Dennis, To Mr --- In which are some Passages of the Life of Mr John Crown, Author of Sir Courtly Nice, June 23, 1719: About that time he writ The City Politicks, on purpose to Satyrize and expose the Whigs; a Comedy so agreeable, that it deserv'd to be writ in a much better Cause: But after he had writ he met with very great Difficulties in the getting it acted. Bennet Lord Arlington, who was then Lord Chamberlain of the King's Houshold, and who had secretly espous'd the Whigs, who were at that time powerful in Parliament, in order to support himself against the Favour and Power of the Lord Treasurer Danby, who was his declared Enemy, us'd all his Authority to suppress it. One While it was prohibited on the account of its being Dangerous, another while it was laid aside on the pretence of its being Falt and Insipid; till Mr Crown at last was forc'd to have Recourse to the king himself, and to engage him to give his absolute Command to the Lord Chamberlain for the acting of it; which Command the King was Pleas'd to give in his own Person (I, 49-50). Morrice Entry Book, Vol.1 1682@3: Mr Crowne [was cudgled on Wednesday last in St Martin's Lane and] hee that beat him said hee did it at the suite of the Earle of Rochester some time since deceased who greatly abused in the play for his penetency &c. (p. 353. I owe this note to the courtesy of Professor David M. Vieth of the University of Kansas and Professor G. H. Jones of Kansas State University)

Event Comment: The United Company. This performance is known from testimony in the trial of Charles Lord Mohun for the attack on William Mountfort on 9 Dec. 1692. The evidence given by Brereton at the trial stated: I had not seen my Lord Mohun for two or three days before this Fact was committed;...but the Friday before, the Play of Alexander the Great was Acted, and my Lord Mohun and I were talking of the Play, and he said it was a good Play, and he commended Mr Mountford's Acting extreamly (The Tryal of Charles Lord Mohun [London, 1693], p. 26)