Event Comment: See 27 Feb. 1668@9. Pepys, Diary: I did meet Sir Jeremy Smith, who did tell me that Sir W. Coventry was just now sent to the Tower, about the business of his challenging the Duke of Buckingham, and so was also Harry Saville to the Gate-house....So, meeting with my Lord Bellassis, he told me the particulars of this matter; that it arises about a quarrel which Sir W. Coventry had with the Duke of Buckingham about a design between the Duke and Sir Robert Howard, to bring him into a play [The Rehearsal] at the King's house, which W. Coventry not enduring, did H. Saville send a letter to the Duke of Buckingham, that he had a desire to speak with him. Upon which, the Duke of Buckingham did bid Holmes, his champion ever since my Lord Shrewsbury's business, go to him to know the business; but H. Saville would not tell it to any but himself, and therefore did go presently to the Duke of Buckingham, and told him that his uncle Coventry was a person of honour, and was sensible of his Grace's liberty taken of abusing him, and that he had a desire of satisfaction, and would fight with him. But that here they were interrupted by my Lord Chamberlain's coming in, who was commanded to go to bid the Duke of Buckingham to come to the King, Holmes having discovered it

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and there saw The Mock Astrologer, which I have often seen, and but an ordinary Play

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: My wife and I towards the King's playhouse, and by the way found Betty Turner?, and Bab. and Betty Pepys staying for us; and so took them all to see Claricilla, which do not please me almost at all, though there are some good things in it

Event Comment: The King's Company. See 3 March 1668@9 for another play acted(on a Wednesday in Lent by the young players. Langbaine, (English Dramatick Poets, p. 208): Coxcomb, a Comedy, which was reviv'd at the Theatre-Royal, the Prologue being spoken by Jo. Haines. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and there saw The Coxcomb, the first time acted, but an old play, and a silly one, being acted only by the young people

Event Comment: The King's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@12, p. 17: ye King here. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 344

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: Hearing that The Alchymist was acted, we did go, and took [Pierce] with us to the King's house; and it is still a good play, having not been acted for two or three years before; but I do miss Clun, for the Doctor. But more my eyes will not let me enjoy the pleasure I used to have in a play

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and saw The Generous Portugalls, a play that pleases me better and better every time we see it; and, I thank God! it did not trouble my eyes so much as I was afeard it would

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and saw The Spanish Curate revived, which is pretty good play, but my eyes troubled with seeing it, mightily

Event Comment: Sir Ralph Verney, 11 May 1670: The King & Duke are at dover...all the Towne is gonn, & the Kings Musicke, & Duke's players, & all the Bravery that could be got on such a sudden (Memoirs of the Verney Family [London, 1899], IV, 201). See also a newsletter, 17 May 1670 (HMC, Fleming MSS. 12th Report, VII, 70)

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the premiere probably occurred during this month. The Preface states: This Play, as it was wrote in less than a moneth, and was the last Play that was Acted at the King's Theatre in Covent-Garden, before the fatal Fire there. [The Preface may mean that this was the last new play acted before the fire.] Two songs for this play, with music by Robert Smith, are in Choice Songs and Ayres, The First Book, 1673

Event Comment: Anthony Devolto, an operator of puppet shows, was forced to petition the King against paying a fee for running a theatre, and the King granted his petition. See CSPD, 1672; in Speaight, The History of the English Puppet Theatre, p. 76

Event Comment: Journal of the Earl of Anglesey, 25 Jan. 1671@2: At eight of the clock The King's playhouse took fire, and most of that side of Russell Street and many other houses thereabout were burnt down, and we in Drury Lane and all about in great danger; but the Lord had mercy, and by great industry and blowing up houses the fire was overcome: I had no rest, but sat up almost all night, even till six in the morning. The Lord pardon sin, which brings judgements (HMC, 13th Report, Part VI [London, 1893], p. 270. The Bulstrode Papers (I, 217): About 8 hapened a sad and violent fire, which begun in the King's Theater, and in a few howers burnt down that...severall were hurt and killed, amongst which was Mr Bell, one of the actors in that house. For a poem, On the Unhappy Conflagration of the Theatre Royal, January 25th, 1672, see Fitzgerald, A New History of the English Stage, I, 137

Event Comment: The King's Company. Although the play was not licensed until 16 Oct. 1676 and not published until 1678, the Epilogue refers in detail to the burning of the King's Theatre in Bridges Street, Drury Lane, suggesting that the premiere came not long after that event

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 215: The King & Queene. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 345. The cast in the edition of 1681 may not, of course, be the one for this performance; but all the performers named in it could have performed at this time

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list 5@141, p. 215. the Kings Mate. See also Nicoll. Restoration Drama, p. 345

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 215: King & Queene. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 345

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 215: King & Queene. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 345

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. There is no certainty that this performance is the premiere, but as the play was licensed for printing on 9 Jan. 1676@7, this performance may well be the first one. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp.9-10) lists the same cast except for the ommission of Letice. It is not certain which Mrs Knight played Letice. Possibly it was Frances Maria Knight (see Wilson, All the King's Ladies, where she is tentatively listed for that role), but the presence of Mrs Ursula Knight on an undated L. C. list, 3@24, with the date of her swearing into the company given as 12 March 1676@7, it is quite likely that she played this role. (I owe this reference to Ursula Knight to Professor John Harold Wilson.) John Dennis: And when upon the first representations of the Plain Dealer, the Town, as The Authour has often told me, appeard Doubtful what Judgment to Form of it; the foremention'd gentlemen [The Duke of Buckingham, Earl of Rochester, Earl of Dorset, Earl of Mulgrave, Savil, Buckly, Sir John Denham, Waller] by their loud aprobation of it, gave it both a sudden and a lasting reputation (Defense and Defects of Dramatick Poetry, 1725, in The Works of John Dennis, ed. Hooker, II, 277)

Event Comment: See 22 May 1677. John Verney to Edmund Verney, 31 May 1677: On Wednesday his Majesty's birth night was some gallantry at Whitehall, where was acted a French opera, but most pitifully done, so ill that the King was aweary on't, and some say it was not well contrived to entertain the English gentry, who came that night in honour to their King, with a lamentable ill-acted French play, when our English actors so much surpass; however, the dances and voices were pretty well performed (HMC, 7th Report, Appendix, Part I, 1879, p. 468)

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: John Dryden to Lord Latimer, July 1677: But the Kings Comedy [probably Mr Limberham] lyes in the Sudds till you please to send me into Northamptonshyre: it will be almost such another piece of business as the fond Husband, for such the King will have it, who is parcell poet with me in the plott; one of the designes being a story he was pleas'd formerly to tell me; and therefore I hope he will keep the jeast in countenance by laughing at it...I have a farther honour to beg, that my Tragedy [All for Love], which will be acted at Michaelmasse, & is already written, may have the honour to be addressed to my Lord Treasurer; & that your Lordship and My Lord Mulgrave wil I hope beg together for me (The Letters of John Dryden, ed. Ward, pp. 11-12)

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