Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@142, p. 81. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 348. There is no indication as to whether this is the premiere. The play was advertised in the London Gazette, 6-9 Aug. 1677

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 359. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 346. This play was not published. It might be John Fletcher's The Captain

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 359: Scaramucha & Harlakyn. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 346. There is no certainty that this performance is the premiere, but the entry of the play in the Term Catalogues for July 1677 makes probable a first performance in May 1677

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: The King's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but see the discussion of Wits Led by the Nose, mid-June 1677, for the relationship of the two plays. The Rival Kings was entered, and deleted, in the Stationers' Register, 26 July 1678; but because the play was entered in the Term Catalogues, November 1677, it seems likely that its premiere occurred in 1677

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@143, p. 162. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. It is likely that this comedy was played on each acting day from 31 May to 8 June 1677

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@143, p. 162. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349

Event Comment: The King's Company suffered from internal disagreements during this portion of the summer. For details, see L. C. 5@142, p. 98, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 326, and Thaler, Shakspere to Sheridan, p. 291

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, and it may have been acted before this season; hence, it is entered also in the preliminary list in the season of 1676-77. As the play was licensed for printing on 4 Oct. 1677, September 1677 is probably the latest time at which it could have been produced. The play is an alteration of Thomas Middleton's No Wit, No Help, Like a Woman's. It has been attributed to both Mrs Aphra Behn and Thomas Betterton

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known. As the play was licensed for printing on 2 Nov. 1677, it may have had its First performance in October rather than September

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 February 1677@8, it was advertised in the London Gazette, 29 Oct.-1 Nov. 1677, and was probably acted in October 1677 or earlier. See also, in the introductory list of plays, Thomas Rymer's Edgar, which may have been acted in opposition to Ravenscroft's play

Event Comment: The King's Company apparently acted an unnamed play on this day. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, ed. Inderwick, III, 126

Event Comment: The Duke's Company acted an unnamed play on this day. See A Calendar of Middle Temple Records, ed. Hopwood, p. 177. Although the payment is dated 13 Feb., it may be a delayed payment for a play on this date

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120: The King at ye Tempest. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@143, p.162. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. The Diary of Edward Lake, 16 Nov. 1677: This day the court began to whisper the prince's sullennesse, or clownishnesse, that hee took no notice of his princesse at the playe and balle (Camden Miscellany, 1847, I, 9)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The play was not printed. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. Andrew Marvell to Sir Edw. Harley, 17 Nov. 1677: To-day is acted the first time Sir Popular Wisdom or the Politician, where my Lord Shaftesbury and all his gang are sufficiently personated. I conceive the King will be there (HMC, 14th Report, Appendix, Part II, 1894, Portland MSS., Volume III, p. 357)

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: The King's Company. This performance is known through a document summarized in The Theatrical Inquisitor and Monthly Mirror, July 1816, p. 25, and summarized in Fitzgerald, A New History, I, 145. Although this performance is the first certainly known, it is probably not the premiere, for the attendance (see below) was too small for the premiere of a new work by John Dryden. Since the play was entered in the Stationers' Register, January 1678, the first production was probably not long before this performance. The document in The Theatrical Inquisitor gives this information: The King's Box, no receipts; Mr Hayles' boxes, #3 (probably 15 spectators); Mr Mohun's boxes, #1 12s. (probably 8 spectators); Mr Yeats' boxes, 12s. (probably 3 spectators); James' boxes, #2 (probably 10 spectators). Mr Kent's pitt, 82 spectators, and Mr Britan's pitt, 35 spectators, a total of 117, paying #14 12s. 6d. Mr Bracy's gallery, 42 spectators; and Mr Johnson's gallery, 21 spectators; a total of 63 spectators, who paid #4 14s. 6d. Mr Thomson's gallery, 33 spectators, paying #1 13s. The total attendance appears to have been 249; the receipts were #28 4s. The house rent came to #5 14s. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 11) gives a cast which is identical except for omissions

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is known from a document in The Theatrical Inquisitor and Monthly Mirror, July 1816, p. 26, and in Fitzgerald, A New History, I, 145. This document lists the receipts and attendance: The King's box, #1 10s., possibly six persons; Mr Hayles' boxes, #2 16s., possibly 14 persons; Mr Mohun's boxes, #3 16s., possibly 19 persons; Mr Yate's boxes, #1 15s. 6d., possibly 9 persons; James' boxes, #2 4s., possibly 11 persons. Mr Kent's pit, 112 persons; and Mr Britan's pit, 79 persons; a total of 191 persons paying #23 17s. 6d. Mr Bracy's gallery, 100 persons; Mr Johnson's gallery, 44 persons; a total of 144 persons, paying #10 16s. Upper Gallery, 119 persons, paying #5 19s. Mrs Kempton (upper gallery?), 5s. The house rent is listed as #5 14s. The attendance appears to total at least 513 persons. Compare these data with those for 12 Dec. 1677

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but a licensing date of 18 Feb. 1677@8 suggests a premiere not later than January 1677@8. It is possible, however, that this play followed Sir Patient Fancy (17 Jan. 1677@8), as the licensing date of Timon follows that for Sir Patient Fancy. Part of the music for Timon was composed by Louis Grabu and was published, without the singers' names, in Choice Ayres and Songs, 1679. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37): Timon of Athens, alter'd by Mr Shadwell; 'twas very well Acted, and the Musick in't well Perform'd; it wonderfully pleas'd the Court and City; being an Excellent Moral

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. There is no certainty that this is the first performance, but a licensing date of 28 Jan. 1677@8 and Mrs Behn's statement in the Preface that she hurried the play into print suggest a premiere not far from this date. Edition of 1678: To the Reader: I Printed this Play with all the impatient haste one ought to do, who would be vindicated from the most unjust and silly aspersion, Woman could invent to cast on Woman; and which only my being a Woman has procured me, That it was Bawdy, the least and most Excusable fault in the Men Writers, to whose Plays they all crowd, as if they came to no other end then to hear what they condemn in this: but from a Woman it was unnaturall. One song, Sitting by yonder river side, with music by Thomas? Farmer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Second Book, 1679

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but a licensing date of 28 March 1678 suggests a first performance not later than February 1678. One song, One night while all the village slept, with music by Louis Grabu and words by Sir Car Scroop, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Third Book, 1681. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 17): Major Mohun...[in] Mithridates, &c. An Eminent Poet seeing him Act this last, vented suddenly this Saying: Oh Mohun, Mohun! Thou little Man of Mettle, if I should write a 100 Plays, I'd Write a Part for thy Mouth; in short, in all his Parts, he was most Accurate and Correct. [Downes, p. 12, gives an identical cast except for omissions.] Princess Anne apparently played Ziphares and Frances Apsley played Semandra in a production of this drama, probably at St James's Palace or at Sir Allen Apsley's house in St James's Square, between January 1677@8 and August 1679. See Benjamin Bathurst, Letters of Two Queens (London, 1924), p. 61

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the licensing date of 13 March 1677@8 suggests a late February premiere. In addition, the many names of minor performers point to a Lenten performance. The Prologue also speaks of it as a 'Lenten Play.

Event Comment: Although the records are somewhat ambiguous, the Duke's Company possibly acted an unnamed play on this date. See A Calendar of the Middle Temple Records, ed. Hopwood, p. 177

Event Comment: The King's Company apparently acted an unnamed play on this occasion. See A Calendar of the Inner Temple Records, III, 127