Event Comment: Mainpiece: a new Farce of Two Acts. [Author not known. Apparently not printed.]Afterpiece: (by a Company of Singers just imported) A new Musical Burlesque of two Acts, in a Grand Oratorio. [By Henry Carey.] The Musical Connoisseurs are desir'd do take Notice, that the Company keeps up strictly to the Italian Taste, the Notes being full of Grandeur and Harmony, and the Words full of low Nonsense; and as a further Indication of his Attachment, it is so contriv'd, that two powerful Parties are already form'd to support the two beautiful Rivals, Mauxalinda and Margeria; but which of them will carry their Point, Time alone must determine. It will be deem'd a lasting Obligation to any Chronologer, in what University soever presiding, if he will communicate the precise Century Moore of Moore-Hall liv'd in, so that the Hero may be dress'd in Character; but if the Recherche should prove too laborious, it is resolv'd he shall come as near the Figure of the Divine Farinello as possible. N.B. The Dragon was intended to have charm'd the City at Stationer's Hall; but from a Punctilio very common to Singers, he insisted on exerting his Musical Faculty at the Hay-Market. Admission: 5s., 3s., 2s. 7 p.m

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: Mr Moore coming to me, my wife staid at home, and he and I went out together...and so home with him to the cockpit, where, understanding that "Wit without money" was acted, I would not stay

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: Mr Moore and I to the Theatre, where was The Scornful Lady, acted very well, it being the first play that ever he saw

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: Captain Ferrers and Mr Moore and I to the Theatre, and there saw Hamlett very well done

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: Mr Moore and I to Love in a Tubb, which is very merry, but only so by gesture, not wit, at all, which methinks is beneath the House

Event Comment: The United Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@147, p. 69: ye Moore of Venice at Whitehall. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 350. See also an L. C. notice, 5@147, p. 24 (in Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 85) concerning Preparations for plays to be acted at court every week

Event Comment: The date of this amateur performance is not known, but the date generally accepted is December 1689. See Alfred Loewenberg, The Annals of Opera, Second Edition, Columns 85-86; and R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theatre (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), pp. 38-69. The Epilogue is in New Poems (1690)

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

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but it very probably occurred not later than May 1691, as the play was advertised in the London Gazette, 4-8 June 1691. For discussions of it, see E. W. White, Early Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59), 44-45, and R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theatre, Chapter III. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42: King Arthur an Opera, wrote by Mr Dryden: it was Excellently Adorn'd with Scenes and Machines: The Musical Part set by Famous Mr Henry Purcel; and Dances made by Mr Jo. Priest: The Play and Musick pleas'd the Court and City, and being well perform'd, twas very Gainful to the Company. Roger North: I remember in Purcell's excellent opera of King Arthur, when Mrs Butler, in the person of Cupid, was to call up Genius, she had the liberty to turne her face to the scean, and ner back to the theater. She was in no concerne for her face, but sang a recitativo of calling towards the place where Genius was to rise, and performed it admirably, even beyond any thing I ever heard upon the English stage....And I could ascribe it to nothing so much as the liberty she had of concealing her face, which she could not endure should be so contorted as is necessary to sound well, before her gallants, or at least her envious sex. There was so much of admirable musick in that opera, that it's no wonder it's lost; for the English have no care of what's good, and therefore deserve it not (Roger North on Music, ed. John Wilson [London, 1959], p. 217-18)