Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known. The January issue of the Gentleman's Journal, wnich did not appear until some time in February, stated: Mr Congreve...hath written a Comedy, which will be acted in a little time, and is to be call'd, The Old Batchelor (p. 28). The Gentleman's Journal, February 1692@3 (issued in March 1693): The success of Mr Congreve's Old Batchelor has been so extraordinary, that I can tell you nothing new of that Comedy; you have doubtless read it before this, since it has been already printed thrice. And indeed the Wit which is diffus'd through it, makes it lose but few of those Charms in the Perusal, which yield such pleasure in the Representation. Mr Congreve will in some time give us another play; you may judge by this how acceptable it will be (p. 61). In addition, a reference in the Epilogue indicates that it was produced during Lent, ano since the third edition was advertized in the London Gazette, No. 2856, 23-27 March 1693, early March seems the most likely date for the premiere. According to The Female Wits (ca. 1696), The Old Batchelor was acted fourteen days successively. John Barnard of Yale University states that Narcissus Luttrell's copy of The Old Batchelor in the Newberry Library bears the notation: "10d Mar. 16 1692@3." BM Add. Mss. 4221 (341) Memoirs Relating to Mr Congreve Written by Mr Thomas Southern (in Macdonald, Bibliography of Dryden, p. 54n): When he began his Play the Old Batchelor haveing little Acquaintance with the traders in that way, his Cozens recommended him to a friend of theirs, who was very usefull to him in the whole course of his play, he engag'd Mr Dryden in its favour, who upon reading it sayd he never saw such a first play in his life, but the Author not being acquainted with the stage or the town, it woud be pity to have it miscarry for want of a little Assistance: the stuff was rich indeed, it wanted only the fashionable cutt of the town. To help that Mr Dryden, Mr Arthur Manwayring, and Mr Southern red it with great care, and Mr Dryden putt it in the order it was playd, Mr Southerne obtained of Mr Thos. Davenant who then governd the Playhouse, that Mr Congreve should have the privilege of the Playhouse half a year before his play was playd, wh. I never knew allowd any one before. The music for the play was composed by Henry Purcell. See Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XXI (1917), iii-v

Event Comment: Mainpiece [1st time; C 5]: Altered from Beaumont and Fletcher, by Dryden [by Thomas King. The original alteration, 1700, was by Sir John Vanbrugh, not by Dryden. The present alteration has been attributed to John Philip Kemble, but in his copy of the play, now in the Huntington Library (K-D 95), he has written "by Thomas King"]. Public Advertiser, 22 Nov. 1787: This Day is published, as now revived with material Additions, The Pilgrim (1s.). Receipts: #85 9s. 6d. (72.5.0; 13.4.6; 0.0.0)

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: Gentleman's Journal, February 1691@2 (licensed 12 Feb. 1691@2): Mr Dryden has compleated a new Tragedy, intended shortly for the Stage, wherein he hath done a great unfortunate Spartan no less justice than Roman Anthony met with in his All for Love. You who give Plutarch a daily reading, can never forget with what magninimity (under all his tedious misfortunes) Cleomenes behaved himself, in the Aegyptian Court. This Hero, and the last Scene of his Life, has our best Tragic Poet chose for his fruitful Subject....Mr Dryden makes his Spartans, in this, speak as manly heroic Lacedaemonians, those more than Romans ought to speak, and since I am certain of your assent, at least, to my faith, I shall be bold to add, That tho I cannot but grant that Cleomenes alone could be author of his own glorious performances, yet I am most confident that their intire lustre will be fully maintained by Dryden's lively description, and Mr Betterton's natural imitation

Event Comment: An unidentified letter, 22 March 1693@4. There is hardly anything now to make it acceptable to you, but an account of our winter diversions, and chiefly of the new plays which have been the entertainment of the town. The first that was acted was Mr Congreve's, called The Double Dealer [see October 1693]. It has fared with that play, as it generally does with beauties officiously cried up: the mighty expectation which was raised of it made it sink, even beneath its own merit. The character of The Double Dealer is artfully writt, but the action being but single, and confined within the rules of true comedy, it could not please the generality of our audience, who relish nothing but variety, and think any thing dull and heavy which does not border upon farce.--The criticks were severe upon this play, which gave the author occasion to lash 'em in his Epistle Dedicatory, in so defying or hectoring a style, that it was counted rude even by his best friends; so that 'tis generally thought he has done his business, and lost himself: a thing he owes to Mr Dryden's treacherous friendship, who being jealous of the applause he had gott by his Old Batchelour, deluded him into a foolish imitation of his own way of writing angry prefaces. The 2d play is Mr Dryden's, called Love Triumphant, or Nature will prevail [see 15 January 1694]. It is a tragi-comedy, but in my opinion one of the worst he ever writt, if not the very worst: the comical part descends beneath the style and shew of a Bartholomew-fair droll. It was damn'd by the universal cry of the town, nemine contradicente, but the conceited poet. He says in his prologue, that this is the last the town must expect from him; he had done himself a kindness had he taken his leave before. The 3d is Mr Southern's call'd The Fatal Marriage, or the Innocent Adultery [see February 1693@4]. It is not only the best that author ever writt, but is generally admired for one of the greatest ornaments of the stage, and the most entertaining play has appeared upon it these 7 years. The plot is taken from Mrs Behn's novel, called the Unhappy Vow-Breaker. I never saw Mrs Barry act with so much passion as she does in it; I could not forbear being moved even to tears to see her act. Never was poet better rewarded or incouraged by the town; for besides an extraordinary full house, which brought him about 140 #. 50 noblemen, among whom my Lord Winchelsea, was one, give him guineas apiece, and the printer 36 #. for his copy. This kind usage will encourage desponding minor poets, and vex huffing Dryden and Congreve to madness. [For the fourth play, see 21 March 1693@4; Edmond Malone, Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare (London, 1821), III, 162-64.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the Opera, where there was a new play (Cutter of Coleman Street), made in the year 1658, with reflections much upon the late times; and it being the first time, the pay was doubled, and so to save money, my wife and I went up into the gallery, and there sat and saw very well; and a very good play it is. It seems of Cowly's making. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 25): This Comedy being Acted so perfectly Well and Exact, it was perform'd a whole Week with a full Audience. John Dennis, Dedication to The Comical Gallant, 1702: The only Play that ever Mr Cowley writ, was barbarously treated the first night, as the late Mr Dryden has more than once informed me, who has told me that he went to see it with the famous Mr Sprat, now Bishop of Rochester, and that after the Play was done, they both made a visit to Mr Cowley. Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets, p. 81): This Play met with some Opposition, at its Representation under this new Name, from some who envyed the Authors unshaken Loyalty to the Prince, and the Royal Cause, in the worst of Times. BM Add. Mss. 34217, fol. 31b, in Hotson (Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 247): @The Cutter of Coleman street had more fame@Before the Author chang'd its name@And shewd himselfe an Englishman right@By mending of things to spoyle them quite@And bee's more to blame because he can tell@(No better) to make new strings soe well.

Event Comment: Mainpiece: Alter'd from Beaumont and Fletcher by Sir John Vanbrugh and Mr Dryden

Event Comment: Benefit Castelman, the Treasurer. Mainpiece: Alter'd from Beaumont and Fletcher by Sir John Vanbrugh and Mr Dryden. [Tickets at Castelman's Lodgings, at Mr Watford's, Upholder, over-against the Sun Tavern, Russel Street, Bloomsbury.

Event Comment: Mainpiece: Alter'd from Beaumont and Fletcher by Sir John Vanbrugh and Mr Dryden

Event Comment: Mainpiece: Alter'd from Beaumont and Fletcher, by Sir John Vanbrugh and Mr Dryden. Afterpiece: An English Opera, written by the late Mr Addison, and new set to Musick by Mr Arne, reserving two or three Favourite Songs, out of his former Opera