Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: Sir W. Pen, my wife and I to the Theatre, and there saw The Country Captain, the first time it hath been acted this twenty-five years, a play of my Lord Newcastle's, but so silly a play as in all my life I never saw, and the first that ever I was weary of in my life. Herbert (Dramatic Records, p. 118) lists Love's Mistress for this date for Vere St., but the item is out of the normal order of the entries. To move it to 26 Oct. 1662 would place it on a Sunday. The play had been given previously (2 March 1661, 11 March 1661, 25 March 1661) by both the Duke's Company and King's Company. Possibly Herbert entered it on the wrong day. On Herbert's list, following Love's Mistress, are two plays, The Contented Collinell [Brenoralt] and Love at First Sight, each listed without a date. The former, under the title Brenoralt, had been acted at Vere St. on 23 July 1661; the second was soon to be acted there on 29 Nov. 1661

Event Comment: See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 116. This was the King's Company (under Killigrew), split off from the United Company. According to Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 2) the roster included: Theophilus Bird, Hart, Mohun, Lacy, Burt, Cartwright, Clun, Baxter, Robert Shatterel, William Shatterrel, Duke [Marmaduke Watson], Hancock, Kynaston, Wintersel, Bateman, Blagden. (But see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 295.) According to the articles of agreement, 5 Nov. 1660 (Herbert, Dramatic Records, pp. 96-100), the Duke's Company (under Davenant) included Thomas Batterton, Thomas Sheppey, Robert Noakes, James Noakes, Thomas Lovell, John Moseley, Cave Underhill, Robert Turner, Thomas Lilleston

Event Comment: According to M. Summers (A Bibliography of Restoration Drama, p. 13) Love's Mystery was entered into but erased from Herbert's original manuscript under his date. (See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 116.) The King's Company

Event Comment: This play is in Herbert, Dramatic Records p. 118: Cornelia a New Play, sir W. Bartleys. The date in Herbert is 1 June, a Sunday in 1662, with another play in the same group falling on Sunday. Nevertheless, the verse comment (see below) written, apparently, before the summer of 1662 points toward 2 June 1662 rather than 1 June 1663. Edward Browne also lists it as one of the plays he attended. The play was not printed. BM Add. Mss. 34217, in Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 246: @For Cornelia they all doe say@There was abundance of witt in the play@Indeed t'had soe much t' was the worse for 't@For t' was to witty for the vulgar sort@And they who'd have poetts their Benefactors@Say witt without mony's naught for the Actors.

Event Comment: See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 118, where this play appears under date of 6 July, a Sunday in 1662; it is the second of the plays on this list to fall on Sunday in 1662 (see 2 June 1662). Following The Brothers on Herbert's list is Antipodes (by Richard Brome), without a date, between 6 and 23 July

Event Comment: The Faithful Virgins (MS Bodleian Rawl. Poet. 195, ff. 49-78) bears a permit to be acted by the Duke's Company, a permit signed by Henry Herbert. Since Herbert retired in July 1663, the play, if performed, can be dated from about 1661 to June 1663

Event Comment: Flora's Figarys appears in Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 148, under this date. As Flora's Vagaries, it had been acted at Christ Church, Oxford, on 8 Jan. 1663. The play was not published before 1670, and the entry in Herbert's list has sometimes been regarded as the date of licensing, sometimes as the date of a performance in London. Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 427, assigned it to ca. January 1662@3 at Vere St, presumably because "Mr Bird" in the cast in the quarto of 1670 referred to Theophilus Bird, who died before 3 Nov. 1663. But the cast in the edition of 1670 is presumably that for 5 Oct. 1667, when Pepys saw the play and referred to Nell Gwyn and Mrs Knepp as acting in it; they, too, are listed in the quarto of 1670 but could hardly have played in it in 1663. If the cast in the 1670 edition is not that for 3 Nov. 1663 and if the "Mr Bird" is Theophilus Bird Jr, then the obstacles to consiuering 3 Nov. 1663 as the date of a performance rather than of licensing are less formidable. [I am indebted to professor John Harold Wilson for much of this argument.