Event Comment: This play was presumably acted by the Duke's Company. In the preface to Heraclius, Emperour of the East, published in 1664, the author, Lodowick Carlell, complains that he had submitted his translation of Corneille, only to have it returned the very day that this version appeared on the stage. See also the letter by Katherine Philips, under Pompey the Great, Jan. 1663@4. Pepys, Diary: We made no long stay at dinner; for Heraclius being acted, which my wife and I have a mighty mind to see, we do resolve, though not exactly agreeing with the letter of my vowe, yet altogether with the sense, to see another this month, by coming hither instead of that at court, there having ueen none conveniently since I made my vowe for us to see there, nor like to be this Lent, and besides we did walk home on purpose to make this going as cheap as that would have been, to have seen one at Court, and my conscience knows that it is only the saving of money and the time also that I intend by my oaths....The play hath one very good passage well managed in it, about two persons pretending, and yet denying themselves, to be son to the tyrant Phocas, and yet heire of Mauricius to the crowne. The garments like Romans very well. The little girle is come to act very prettily, and spoke the epilogue most admirably. But at the beginning, at the drawing up of the curtaine, there was the finest scene of the Emperor and his people about him, standing in their fixed and different postures in their Roman habitts, above all that ever I yet saw at any of the theatres

Event Comment: BM Add. Mss. 34096, folio 63r 64v, Whitehall, 15 July 1692: The Prince and Princesse of Danemarke...yesterday...tooke barge to Goe to ye Play House. [See Benjamin Bathurst, Letters of Two Queens (London, 1924), p. 225, for a letter by Princess Anne ordering boats to take her to the theatre.

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not precisely known, but by 9 May 1693 it had been acted four times (see Dryden's letter, below); on the other hand, the Gentleman's Journal, February 1692@3 (issued in March) had stated that D'Urfey's new farce would not appear until after Easter. Hence, it may well have been the first new play after Passion Week. A dialogue, Behold, the man with that gigantick might, the music by Henry Purcell and sung by Mr Reading and Mrs Ayliff, is in Orpheus Britannicus, 1690. See Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XXI (1917), viii-x. A dialogue, By these pigsnes eyes that stars do seem, the music by John Eccles and sung by Dogget and Mrs Bracegirdle, is in Joyful Cuckoldom, ca. 1695. Another, Stubborn church division, folly, and ambition, to a Ground of Mr Solomon Eccles, is in Thesaurus Musicus, 1694. And Maiden fresh as a rose, the verse by D'Urfey and sung by Pack, but not printed in the play, is in The Merry Musician, I (1716), 56-57. This last song may have been for a later revival. Gentleman's Journal, April 1693 (issued in May 1693): Since my last we have had a Comedy by Mr Durfey; 'tis called the Richmond Heiress or a Woman once in the right (p. 130). Dryden to Walsh, 9 May 1693: Durfey has brought another farce upon the Stage: but his luck has left him: it was sufferd but foure dayes; and then kickd off for ever. Yet his Second Act, was wonderfully diverting; where the scene was in Bedlam: & Mrs Bracegirdle and Solon [Dogget] were both mad: the Singing was wonderfully good, And the two whom I nam'd, sung better than Redding and Mrs Ayloff, whose trade it was: at least our partiality carryed it for them. The rest was woeful stuff, & concluded with Catcalls; for which the two noble Dukes of Richmond and St@Albans were chief managers (The Letters of John Dryden, pp. 52-53)

Event Comment: James Brydges, Diary: I set Mr Bullock down at ye Playhouse, & came home (Huntington MS St 26). John Dryden wrote to Mrs Steward on 23 Feb. [1699@1700, but possibly 1698@99, as the letter concerns theatrical affairs of the autumn and winter of 1698-99]: The Poem of The Confederates [see The Island Princess, November 1698] some think to be Mr Walsh: the copies are both lik'd. And there are really two factions of ladyes, for the two play-houses. If you do not understand the names of some persons mention'd I can help you to the knowledge of them. You know, Sir Tho. Skipwith is master of the play-house in Drury-Lane; and my Lord Scarsdale is the patron of Betterton's house, being in love with somebody there [presumably Anne Bracegirdle] (The Letters of John Dryden, p. 133)

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. This performance is known by a letter of John Dryden to Mrs Steward, 7 Nov. 1699: There is this day to be acted a New tragedy, made by Mr Hopkins, & as I believe in rhime. He has formerly written a play in verse calld Boadicea, which you fair Ladyes likd: & is a poet who writes good verse without knowing how, or why; I mean he writes naturally well, without art or learning, or good sence (The Letters of John Dryden, p. 124). The Dedication to the play is dated 1 Nov. 1699, but the play was not advertised until, apparently, in the Post Man, 17-20 Feb. 1699@1700

Event Comment: Alice Hatton, writing on (possibly) 20 Jan. 1699@1700: I was last night (with Lady Longuevil and Lady Arundel) at ye Princess's, and Lady Long: was so kind to offer to carry me to ye Oppera to day with her and Lady Portland; but I was so unfortunate as to be engaged to go to Lady Denbighs to see ye famous Mrs Binges dance, or else I should have bin glad to have waited on Lady Long: tho I had seen it before and think it very silly. Mr Abel is to have a fine musicke meeting to morrow, and ye tickets are guineas a piece, wch is a little to much for me to throw away; so I shall not be there, and I find so many yt can afford it better of my mind, yt I fancy, if he had lower rates, he would have got more (Hatton Correspondence, Camden Society, XXIII [1878], 245). It is difficult to assign a proper date to this letter. It is unlikely that it was written on Saturday 20 Jan., as Abell was not likely to offer a concert on Sunday at which admission would be charged. It is possible that the opera referred to is The Grove, which is known to have been performed on 19 Feb. 1700, but the fact that this opera was unsuccessful makes it unlikely that it had its premiere in mid-January and was played again in mid-February. Perhaps the letter should be dated mid-February

Event Comment: According to a letter, 29 July 1700, in Letters of Wit, Politicks, and Morality (1701), p. 404, the playhouses had closed by this day

Event Comment: See Daily Courant, 25 Dec; for a letter discussing the decline of the drama, and see a letter from Hill to Booth on current theatrical affairs, in Hill, Works, I, 181-84

Event Comment: In a letter to the Daily Post. 4 June, the Patentees of Drury Lane-Mary Wilks, John Ellys, Hester Booth, and John Highmore-stated the cast of the Patentees. The gist of their statement is: (1) They operate under a Patent commencing 1 Sept. 1732 which, by Deaths and Legal Assignments, is the property of the four, with Highmore possessing one half, at an expence of #6,000 and upwards. (2) Several of the Players have threatened to desert the service of the Patentees and have contracted with some of the Trustees (the Sharers) to secure possession of the Theatre. (3) Drury Lane is let upon lease from the Duke of Bedford, granted to Thomas Kynaston and Francis Stanhope, Trustees for the Sharers (commonly called Renters) of Drury Lane at the rent of #50 annually upon a Fine of 1,000 guineas paid for the renewal of the lease. (4) The Players, under the Patentees, have acted at Drury Lane for twenty-one years without any interruption form the Trustees upon the sole contract that the Patentees pay the Trustees #3 12s. each acting night, besides the Liberty of seeing Plays. (5) At the beginning of this Season the manager's office received a letter from a few of the Renters demanding an Advance of Rent. Highmore, being new, was concerned, and asked the managers to take care of the matter; and thereafter the signers (the Patentees) had heard of no further discontent among the Renters. (6) To defend themselves against stories of hardship or complaint by the actors, the Patentees point out that the following weekly salaries had been paid: Colley Cibber #12 12s.; Theophilus Cibber #5; Mills Sr, #1 daily for 200 days certain, and a benefit, clear of all charges; Mills Jr #3; Johnson #5; Miller #5; Harper #4; Griffin #4; Shepard #3; Hallam, for himself and his father, the latter of little or no service, #3; Mrs Heron #5; Mrs Butler #3. For these charges and others, the Patentees stand a daily expence of #49 when the theatre is open. (7) Further, the Patentees paid Cibber Jr his wife's whole salary without her being able to act the greater part of the winter, #9 weekly for the two; Mills Jr, in the same circumstances with his wife, #5 10s. weekly for the two; Miller a salary (amounting to #40) for eight weeks before he acted, and a gratuity of ten guineas; Griffin a present of ten guineas; Harper a present, amount not specified; Mrs Heron an increase form 40s. to #5 weekly, although she refused afterward to play several parts assigned her and acted but seldom

Event Comment: See a letter by Benjamin Victor to Matthew Debourg, in Victor, original Letters . . . (1776), I, I4ff which Deutsch, Handel, p. 409, thinks should be dated ca. 15 May 1736. Ricb's Register: Duke and Princesses present

Event Comment: Mainpiece: by Shakespear. Receipts: #90 7s. (Account Book); #90 (Rylands MS.). [For a discussion of this performacne, see a letter by William Shenstone, 21 Jan., in Letters of William Shenstone, p. 16.

Event Comment: By particular Desire. Written by Shakespear. [In a letter dated 6 Feb., Shenstone discusses recent plays he has seen. See Letters of William Shenstone, pp. 17-18.

Event Comment: t foot of Bill]: Whenever a Pantomime or Farce shall be advertised, the advanced prices shall be returned to those who do not choose to stay; and on Thursday next will be published the Manager's reasons for his conduct in the present dispute. Winston MS.: Fleetwood, the manager, and servants driven from doors & all rushed in. Genest, IV, 137-38: A country gentleman was taken from an upper box and carried before a magistrate. This step when known by the audience occasioned much mischief. Acting the play not allowed. General Advertiser, 22 Nov.: An Address to the Public, dl Theatre 20 November. As the extraordinary disturbances which have lately happened at this theatre greatly affect the diversions of the publick, as well as the property of the manager, he thinks it incumbent on him to justify his conduct by giving a fair statement of the case....The reasons of complaint assigned, he apprehends, are the exhibition of Pantomimes, Advanced Prices, and Insults on the audience--as to the first, he submits it to be considered that however distasteful such pieces may be to the delicacy of some judgments, yet there are others to whose taste they are suited; as the playhouse may be considered as the general mart of pleasure, it is only from the variety of entertainment, the different tastes of the public can be supplied--of this the receipts of the house are a sufficient evidence, it being notorius, how necessary the addition of such pieces is towards procuring the best play a numerous audience. With regard to the advanced prices, the Manager hoped he should in some measure be justified by the great increase of the charges of the theatre which, notwithstanding any reduction that has been made, are still at least a fourth part greater than usual--but as in this point he has already submitted, he conceives it can no longer remain the subject of their displeasure, especially as by an advertisement handed about the theatre it was said that every objection would cease, when the manager consented to return the advanced prices to those, who did not choose to be tortured with entertainments. As to insults on the audience...last week upon some persons flinging the sconces and candles on the stage a quarrel arose, in the confusion of which a Gentleman was secured, but by whom the Manager knows not, nor ever gave any order, or was any acquainted with the affair till after he was discharged, for the truth of which he refers to the affidavit annexed. As to the accusation of several bruisers (as they are termed) being employed on Saturday night to insult Gentlemen, the Manager declares, that there was none but the Peace Officers, Carpenters, and Scene-men (which on account of the Entertainments are very numerous) and other servants belonging to the theatre; nor did they appear till urged by the tumult, by tearing up benches and threat'ning to come on the stage and demolish the scenes; nor could the Manager apprehend this legal precaution to prevent mischief and defend his property would ever be construed as an infringement on the liberty of an audience, especially when it is considered, what great damages he sustained some years ago on an attempt of the like nature--if any such persons appeared in the pit, the Manager presumes, they must have come in with the multitude, after his doorkeepers were drove from their posts, and the house was open to all; which was evident from several hundred persons more being present at the disturbance than were at the performance that night, who then came to a determination to prevent any performance on the Monday. After this impartial account of his conduct, the manager appeals to the judgment of the publick what foundation he has given for the outrageous disturbance on Monday night; and cannot help thinking, the real injuries he has sustained, too severe a punishment for an imaginary offence, having lost several hundred pounds already, by people being terrified from frequenting the theatre. A total exclusion is now insisted on, the Manager to resign his property, the Publick to be deprived of their diversions and the players of their subsistence; And all this after every concession, becoming one gentleman to ask, or another to make, has been submitted to. [Affidavit of Constable followed. See Genest, IV, 139-40.] The following three pamphlets came out expressing points of view concerning Fleetwood and his policy and management: I. The Disputes between the Director of d.l. and the Pit Potentates, 20 Nov. As a Letter to a Friend it tells the resolution: not to have old Pantomimes (so execrably bad that they were damn'd when new) imposed on them, unless the manager would take no more than common prices; reports how Fleetwood stocked the pit with Men of doughty valor...disguised in the habits of Gentlemen, to throw out all who protested; protests the system of casting employed whereby 2nd rate actors appeared in good parts; discusses hardship cases of certain actors (Mrs Roberts, Mrs Horton, Mrs Mills) and asks why Theophilus Cibber is not on the stage. 2. An Impartial Examen of the Present Contests, by Mr Neitherside, 1744: harks back to Fleetwood's finacial policies of the previous year, deploring his relations with the actors and with manager of cg; scourges him for miscasting his plays around one prominent actor, rather than giving a balanced performance; deplores his paying Mrs Cibber, Mrs Clive so much; revives the 1743 dispute which led to secession; dislikes the casting for 2 Nov. of Love's Last Shift; suggests better casts for many plays; scores the Licensing Act for reducing players to slavery; hopes for resumption of balanced performances. 3. Stage Policy Detected, or some Selcet Pieces of Theatrical Secret History Laid Open, in a Letter to a Certain Manager, 1744: takes apart Fleetwood's Defense, statement by statement, giving him the lie at each point. Suggests the real money from the house comes from Pit and Box, which are protesting his pantomimes; shows full attendance at Rehearsal and Macbeth with no afterpieces. Especially dislikes the hired bruisers, and the cast of the Alchemist for 6 Nov

Event Comment: [During this year was published the Tricks of the Town Laid Open; or, a Companion for a Country Gentleman. Consisting of seventeen letters from a Gentleman in London to his friend in the country, to dissuade him from coming to London. Letters VI and VII are on the humors, customs, and tricks of the playhouse. They give an amusing account of the ways in which whores, sharpers, bullies and bawds identify a newcomer to town in the playhouse and try to bilk him. No. VII gives also some general account of audience reactions to plays. Most go, it says, for the singing, dancing, scenes and fine costumes. His conclusion: go to the theatre only if you have three hours to waste.

Event Comment: The Characters all New Dress'd. A new Comedy [by Dr Benjamin Hoadly] never before acted. [The previous July Garrick had been entertained by the Rev. Dr John Hoadly at Alresford and carried on a pleasant correspondence with him afterwards. In his letter 19 Aug. 1746 (Folger) he wrote]: I had the pleasure of the Doctor's company [brother Benjamin Hoadly] to supper at my lodgings the night before I set out for this place; we talk'd about Ranger, but whether he will appear next winter or sleep forever in ye scritore, is not yet determined: 'tis pit, faith. [That this friendship was exceedingly profitable to Garrick is indicated by the fact that Benjamin Hoadly seems to have turned over the profits from the three author's nights to Garrick. (1) Garrick by a bargain with John Rich received #80 advance cash and promised to pay nightly charges (3rd, 6th, & 9th nights) of #60, and (2) to divide equally the remaining profits on those nights. The agreement was drawn 27 Dec. 1746. Garrick noted on this document]: N.B. the copy of the play is my own, and the profit arising from the printing of it. [Hoadly seems to have received only the #100 given him by George II for dedicating the printed copy to him.] [Settlement for the three performances was made 6 April. Total receipts for those nights (14, 18, 21 Feb.) was #570 11s. Total expenses were #182 2s. (including #2 2s. for the licensing). The profit of #388 9s. was equally divided and Garrick received his #194 4s. 6d. on that day. He had received the other #80 the day before the play opened, 11 Feb. 1747. See documents in Folger, Holograph Letters of David Garrick, p. 38, seemingly Edmund Malone's copy, of BM Add MSS 21508.] Receipts: #205 9s. 6d

Event Comment: Benefit for a Tradesman under Confinement. [This benefit had first been advertised on Monday 11 Nov. Tickets were to be had at seven Coffee Houses, at Mr Watkins' Optician, at Charing Cross, Mrs Crokett's, Harberdasher at the Seven Stars, Ludgate St., and at the stage door. On the day of the benefit one Philantropos contributed a letter in support of it which was printed in the first column of the General Advertiser. The Tradesman was a bookseller who was "the immediate instrument of ushering into the world some of the most valuable books that have been publish'd for these 30 years." But he had paid more attention to the advancement of letters than "to the lucrative views that attend the trade in general," so, in the eyes of Philantropos deserved the support of the town at this benefit.] The death of Mr Cooke mentioned in the Papers is a mistake, he being in a fair way of recovery (General Advertiser)

Event Comment: Two days ago a Letter [price 1s.] came out to Miss Nossiter in which Mrs Cibber is abu'd & tother greatly extoll'd. The Author has also fell foul upon Mr Murphy author of Gray's Inn Journal. It is wrote by one Morgan an Irish Gent: High words has pass'd at ye Bedford Coff. H. between him and Murphy & 'tis thought a Duel will be ye Consequence (Cross). [See The Authorship of a Letter to Miss Nossiter, Shakespeare Quarterly, January 1952, p. 69.

Event Comment: The Characters New Dressed. Play never acted before. [See Three Original Letters to a Friend in the Country on the Cause and Manner of the late Riot at the Theatre Royal in Drury Lane. See also two letters in The Theatrical Review; or, Annals of the Drama, 1 March 1763. This number includes (pp. 117-25) a critique on the Discovery. Critic found it a piece of much merit particularly in the perusal," but on stage frequently tedious and heavy owing to a scarcity of incident and an uncommon lengthening of the acts."

Event Comment: Full Prices. Afterpiece: A Pantomimic dance by Love (Biographia Dramatica). Much followed and brought several crowded houses, and the success chiefly owing to the reports our newspapers were, at that time, daily filled with, of the French wild Beast that was devouring (and yet pursued by) children. This wild beast was happily introduced in this pantomime, pursued by boys led on by a Frenchman. At last the Beast made his Re-entry, and ran across the stage with the poor Frenchman in his mouth, to the great joy of the Pit, Box and Galleries (Victor, History of Theatres, III, 72). Dorilas for the first time by Mr Cautherly--very decent, but wanted spirit. This pantomime is fathered by Mr Lowe [?]--went off with applause, --Mr Garrick made most of the Business to it, which is very good (Hopkins Diary). [Letter from C. V. Theatricus on ladies' removing their hats in the theatre. A Gentleman had requested it and a debate ensued in the Public Advertiser, as to whether he wished to see the play better or to gaze more audaciously on many pretty faces. Long letter also from G. F. Theatricus to the Public Advertiser, commenting on the excellence of Powell, Mrs Yates, Holland, the Palmers, Cautherly and Bensley for their performance in Venice Preserved, Romeo and Juliet, and Mahomet respectively.

Event Comment: AAsh Wednesday. Publish'd this day. Price only 1s. Letters which have passed between John Beard Esq Manager of Covent Garden Theatre, and John Shebbeare, M.D. Wherefore I thus entreat with due Submission, Between the Bard and me you'd make decision, The whole now on your Approbation waits. Prologue to the Perplexities, sung by Mr Beard. Printed for G. Kearsly N.B. This Pamphlet is entered at Stationers Hall, whoever pyrates any part of it will be prosecuted. [This pamphlet of 50 pages is given a four-column review in the Gentleman's Magazine for March (p. 124). The controversy was over a play which Shebbeare submitted to Beard and which the latter finally rejected after holding it two seasons. Beard's letters are quoted. The reviewer is severe upon Shebbeare: Upon the whole for anything that has hitherto appeared, the managers of both theatre have rather been to blame for receiving some pieces that they should have rejected, than for rejecting any they should have received. No piece has yet been printed, by the rejection of which the managers have betrayed their trust, or neglected their duty to the public. There may be such pieces in manuscript, but, if there are, the most effective way of avenging the author on the manager is to print them, for the voice of the public would instantly and effecturally do justice to the writter...by compelling the representation.' Shebbeare was Joseph Pittard?]

Event Comment: [The following day Garrick received a letter from L. A. Ein Schweitzer: "As you spare nothing in adding new characters etc. to the Masquerade...I hope you will introduce in it the dress as described hereunder, being the first, perhaps, that ever appeared in this country. It is that of a country maid of the Cantoon of Bern; and as the Allemande is really a Swiss Dance, nobody could with more propriety wear it than Sga Vidini who would greatly shine in it." The hairdo is described in detail--ringlets, with cap and small feather, and no powder. The jacket, skirt, and socks (red jacket with black trim, black skirt, red stockings) are described in detail. "N.B. The dress in my opinion would also do very well for a Colombine. The man's dress is not suitable to a dance." Folger Library Copy, Garrick Correspondence, Vol. IV, MS Letter 42.

Event Comment: Paid Housekeeper's Bill #4 9s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book). [This month was published An Appeal to the Publick from the Judgment of a certain Manager, with Original Letters and the Drama of One Act (The Politician Reform'd) which was refus'd representation. By T. R. An amusing introduction and exchange of letters, which, for once, puts Garrick in a not unfavorable light, and serves to spice the publication of the author's play.] Receipts: #263 17s. (Treasurer's Book)