Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This is the third in the series of Court performances in L. C. 5@145, p. 120: Sir Fopling Flutter. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 350, and 11 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: 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. It should be noted that not only is this date a Friday in Lent but it is also during the period of mourning for the Princess Elizabeth. Yet to place this performance in 1681 would make it fall on Sunday

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is another in the sequence of plays acted at court in L. C. 5@145, p. 120: Night's Intrigue. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 350, and 11 Feb. 1679@80. If this performance were placed on 6 March 1680@1, it would fall on Sunday

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. That this date is the premiere is conjectured from the order, dated 11 Dec. 1680, forbidding further acting of this play. See L. C. 5@144, p. 28, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p.1 on: Whereas I am informed that there is Acted by you a Play called Lucius Junius Brutus..wherein are very Scandalous Expressions & Reflections upon ye Government these are to require you Not to Act ye said Play again. In the Preface to Charles Gildon's The Patriot (1703) it is stated that Lee's play was banned after the third day's Acting, by the Lord Chamberlain Arlington as an anti-monarchical play." As the order is dated 11 Dec. 1680, the drama was probably presented on 8, 9, and 10 Dec. 1680.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. An entry in L. C. 5@145, p. 120 (see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349) lists a performance for 4 April, once thought to be 4 April 1680; but as this date falls on Sunday, it more likely represents a revival on 4 April 1681. As the Epilogue appears to appeal to Parliament (which existed from 15 Oct. 1680 to 18 Jan. 1680@1) to vote funds for King Charles, "Our King of Poets," it seems likely that the play was first performed before the close of Parliament. The play was not entered in the Term Catalogues until June 1681. A song, Phyllis whose heart was unconfined, set by Thomas? Farmer; and another, A pox upon this cursed life, set by Captain Pack, are in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Fourth Book, 1683

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 020. The date of the first performance is not known, but it may well have been about this time, as the Prologue refers to Michaelmas Term and the reopening of the playhouses ("Theatres are up"). The play was entered in the Term Catalogues in February 1681@2

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The Prologue and Epilogue, printed separately, bear Luttrell's MS notations: At ye Dukes theater at Venice Preserv'd &c. Acted 31 May. 1682 (Huntington Library, with Luttrell's date of purchase, 1 June 1682). The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 108-10. The Newdigate newsletters disagree as to the play acted: 1 June 1682: Yesterday the D. of Y. came to town & went wth his Dutchess to ye play called the Royallist (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80)

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: In L. C. 5@191 and 5@16, p. 118 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 445) are notices of the arrest of Lady Slingsby and Mrs Aphra Behn

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This play was also reprintdd in 1683. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120: Wth ye Q: & a box for ye Maides of honor. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. On this day Drury Lane was leased for nineteen years to Charles Davenant and his associates in furthering the union of the two companies. See Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 277

Event Comment: The United Company. This performance is known by a L. C. order, 5@144, p. 303 (see Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 356), dated 11 Nov. 1682, that Rule a Wife and Have a Wife be given at court on 15 Nov. 1682. The union of the Companies apparently became fully effective on this date