Event Comment: The King's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@12, p. 17: Cattalines Conspiracie King here. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 344. Although the L. C. list and Pepys disagree as to the play performed, Pepys' uncertainty suggests that he may have put down the wrong title and that the L. C. list is correct. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and there saw, I think, The Maiden Queene. Pepys, Diary, 15 Jan.: [Sir W. Coventry] told me of the great factions at court at this day, even to the sober engaging of great persons, and differences, and making the King cheap and ridiculous. It is about my Lady Harvy's being offended at Doll Common's acting of Sempronia [see 18 Dec. 1668], to imitate her; for which she got my Lord Chamberlain, her kinsman, to imprison Doll: when my Lady Castlemayne made the King to release her, and to order her to act it again, worse than ever, the other day, where the King himself was: and since it was acted again, and my Lady Harvy provided people to hiss her and fling oranges at her: but it seems the heat is come to a great height, and real troubles at court about it

Event Comment: The King's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@12, p. 17: the King here. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 344. Mrs John Evelyn to Mr Terryll, 10 Feb. 1668@9: one of my Lord of Newcastle's for whch printed apoligies are scattered in the assembly by Briden's order, either for himself who had some hand in it, or for the author most; I think both had right to them (Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn, ed. William Bray, IV, 14)

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, where The Heyress, notwithstanding Kinaston's being beaten, is acted: and they say the King is very angry with Sir Charles Sedley for his being beaten, but he do deny it. But his part is done by Beeston, who is fain to read it out of a book all the while, and thereby spoils the part, and almost the play, it being one of the best parts in it; and though the design is, in the first conception of it, pretty good, yet it is but an indifferent play, wrote, they say, by my Lord Newcastle, But it was pleasant to see Beeston come in with others, supposing it to be dark, and yet he is forced to read his part by the light of the candles. and this I observing to a gentleman that sat by me, he was mightily pleased therewith, and spread it up and down. But that, that pleased me most in the play is, the first song that Knepp sings, she singing three or four; and, indeed, it was very finely sung, so as to make the whole house clap her.... My wife being in mighty ill humour all night, and in the morning I found it to be from her observing Knepp to wink and smile on me, and she says I smiled on her; and, poor wretch! I did perceive that she did, and do on all such occasions, mind my eyes. I did, with much difficulty, pacify her, and were friends, she desiring that hereafter, at that house, we might always sit either above in a box, or, if there be [no] room, close up to the lower boxes

Event Comment: Mrs John Evelyn to Mr Terryll: The censure of our plays comes to ee at the second hand. There has not been any new lately revived and reformed, as Catiline, well set out with clothes and scenes; Horace, with a farce and dances between every act composed by Lacy and played by him and Nell, which takes; one of my Lord of Newcastle's, for which printed apologies are scattered in the assembly by Briden's order, either for himself who had some hand in it, or for the author most; I think both had right to them (The Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn, ed. Bray, IV, 14)

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse...and there saw The Faithfull Shepherdesse. But, Lord! what an empty house, there not being, as I could tell the people, so many as to make up above #10 in the whole house! The being of a new play at the other house, I suppose, being the cause, though it be so silly a play that I wonder how there should be enough people to go thither two days together, and not leave more to fill this house. The emptiness of the house took away our pleasure a great deal, though I liked it the better; for that I plainly discern the musick is the better, by how much the house the emptier

Event Comment: Add. Mss. 36916, folio 128, 2 March 1668@9: The occasion of this [a challenge of the Duke of Buckingham to a duel by Lord Halifax or another friend of Sir William Coventry] there was a new play to be acted on Saturday last called the Country Gentleman, said to be made by the Duke & Sr Robt Howard, wherein tis said that the Earle of Clarendon, Sr Wm Coventry and some other Courtiers are plainly personated, but especially Sr William in the midst of his table of Writings; this he (or some of his relations) would not brooke, but whether he or the Ld Halifax was to fight the Duke is not knowne, but the King hath prevented all; and the play is not acted. [See also Pepys, 4 and 6 March]

Event Comment: See 27 Feb. and 4 March. Pepys, Diary: [Sir W. Coventry] told me the matter of the play [The Rehearsal] that was intended for his abuse, wherein they foolishly and sillily bring in two tables like that which he hath made, with a round hole in the middle, in his closet, to turn himself in; and he is to be in one of them as master, and Sir J. Duncomb in the other, as his man or imitator: and their discourse in those tables, about the disposing of their books and papers, very foolish. But that, that he is offended with, is his being made so contemptible, so that any should dare to make a gentleman a subject for the mirth of the world; and that therefore he had told Tom Killigrew that he should tell his actors, whoever they were, that did offer any thing like representing him, that he would not complain to my Lord Chamberlain, which was too weak, nor get him beaten, as Sir Charles Sidly is said to do, but that he would cause his nose to be cut

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance, apparently the premiere, is on the L. C. list at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage", p. 14. Downes (p. 28): After this my Lord Orrery, Writ Two Comedies: The first call'd Guzman...took very well

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: And my wife being gone abroad with W. Hewer, to see the new play to-day, at the Duke of York's house, Guzman, I dined alone.... I thence presently to the Duke of York's playhouse, and there, in the 18d. seat, did get room to see almost three acts of the play; but it seemed to me but very ordinary. After the play done, I into the pit, and there find my wife and W. Hewer...[and] here I did meet with Shadwell, the poet, who, to my great wonder, do tell me that my Lord of Orrery? did write this play, trying what he could do in comedy, since his heroique plays could do no more wonders. This do trouble me; for it is as mean a thing, and so he says, as hath been upon the stage a great while; and Harris, who hath no part in it, did come to me, and told me in discourse that he was glad of it, it being a play that will not take

Event Comment: On this day the Lord Chamberlain issued an order (L. C. 5@12, p. 252; in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 252) signifying the King's pleasure that: "ye french Comoedians haue liberty to Act and Play And that noe Persons pr[e]sume to molest or disturbe them in their Acting & playing.

Event Comment: As had been the case in recent years, the Lord Mayor's swearing-in lacked the formal pageantry which had been characteristic of the day in the early 1660's

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Although this performance is not certainly the premiere, it is the earliest known acting of the play. This performance is on the L. C. lists at Harvard. See VanLennep, "Plays on the English Stage", p. 14. John Boyle, Fifth Earl of Orrery: Master Anthony too the sequel of Guzman was after Lord Orrery's Death brought upon the Stage, but being disrelish'd by the Audience appear'd only one Night. It is probable The Author had not supervis'd and corrected It sufficiently before he died (The Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, ed. W. S. Clark II, II, 950). If these private notes, written some fifty years after the premiere, are correct, this performance may have been the premiere and the only day of acting it

Event Comment: Once again, the ceremony of swearing in the Lord Mayor did not include a formal pageant

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is in a membrandum of Lord Cheyne, Huntington Library MS EL II, 145: for Coach to a play calld Tartuff

Event Comment: An order of the Lord Chamberlain (5@12, p. 202) dated 1 April 1671, states that the theatres are to be closed because of the death of the Duchess of York on 31 March 1671. See Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 322. It is uncertain how long the theatres were closed, but probably the closure extended for six weeks

Event Comment: The Diary of Robert Hooke, 1672-1678: at Scaramuches at york house. present: the King, Duke of York, Lord Ormond &c. (ed. H. W. Robinson and Walter Adams [London, 1935], p. 42). See slso Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, pp. 118-19, and John Harold Wilson, A Theatre in York House, Theatre Notebook, XVI (1962), 75-78

Event Comment: Preparations for the production of a play (Calisto) at court in midwinter had been underway by this time. On this day Margaret Blagge wrote to John Evelyn: the play goes on mightily, which I hoped would never have proceeded farther....Would you believe it, there are some that envy me the honour (as they esteeme it) of acting in this play (The Life of Mrs Godolphin, ed. Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxford [1847], p. 96. See also pp. 93-95.). Several orders for costumes, scenes, and properties dated through the winter offer valuable information concerning details of the preparations. See Nicoll, Restoration Drama, pp. 357-58, p. 43n; Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, pp. 178-227

Event Comment: [Evelyn, Diary: [I] was at the repetition of the Pastoral, on which [occasion] my friend Mrs Blagg, had about her neere 20.000 pounds worth of Jewells, of which one she lost, borrowed of the Countesse of Suffolck, worth about 80 pounds, which the Duke made good; & indeede the presse of people was so greate, that it was a wonder she lost no more. There is some doubt that this was a full performance of the work, for Evelyn refers to it as "the repetition" and other evidence points to 15 Feb. 1674@5 as the first complete production. See Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, pp. 180-81. It is probable that Mrs Blagge's loss of jewels occurred, not on this date, but on 15 Feb. 1674@5. For a more complete account of that incident, see The Life of Mrs Godolphin by John Evelyn of Wotton, ed. Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxford (London, 1874), pp. 97-101. See also 15 Feb. 1674@5

Event Comment: The date of the premiere is not known, but Robert Hooke, attended play on 27 Aug. 1675 which might well refer not to Psyche but to Duffett's travesty of it. In addition, John Harold Wilson has argued that the reference in the Prologue to "The new-come Elephant" probably concerns the elephant imported by Lord George Berkeley and sold by 12 Aug. 1675 (see The Diary of Robert Hooke, p. 174). The cast also contains a number of "young actors" who might well have had an opportunity to act in a play in the summer vacation

Event Comment: G. Lady Chaworth to Lord Roos, 7 Sept. 1675: The Dutchesse of York? lykes Bartholomew Faire so well she hath bin att [it] againe incognito on Friday (HMC, 12th Report, Part V, Rutland Papers, II, 27)

Event Comment: According to L. C. 7@1-see Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p.325n--a disagreement within the King's Company resulted in the Lord Chamberlain's directing Michaell Mohun, Charles Hart, Edward Kynnaston, and William Cartwright to manage the company under his supervision

Event Comment: G. Lady Chaworth to Lord Roos, 19 Jan. 1676@7: Theire is two niewe plays which are much comended-the siege of Jerusalem by the Emperour Vespasienv, and his son Titus's love with Berenice; the epilogue is much praysed that tells tis not like to please this age to bring them a story of Jerusalem who would more delight in one of Sodome and a vertuous woman which in this age they promise shan't be seene but on the stage (HMC, Rutland MSS., 1889, II, 36)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The play was not printed. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349. Andrew Marvell to Sir Edw. Harley, 17 Nov. 1677: To-day is acted the first time Sir Popular Wisdom or the Politician, where my Lord Shaftesbury and all his gang are sufficiently personated. I conceive the King will be there (HMC, 14th Report, Appendix, Part II, 1894, Portland MSS., Volume III, p. 357)

Event Comment: The Dowager Countess of Sunderland to Henry Sidney, 19 Feb. 1679@80: The players have been disturbed again by drunken people's jokes. They called my Lord Arran a rogue; and one Fitzpatrick pointed at Mr Thinne, and called him that petitioning fool, and swore a hundred oaths; he said that he deserved #20,000 a-year, but that fool deserved nothing (R. W. Blencowe, Diary of the Times of Charles the Second [London, 1843], I, 279-80). See also 2 and 9 Feb. 1679@80

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. That this date is the premiere is conjectured from the order, dated 11 Dec. 1680, forbidding further acting of this play. See L. C. 5@144, p. 28, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p.1 on: Whereas I am informed that there is Acted by you a Play called Lucius Junius Brutus..wherein are very Scandalous Expressions & Reflections upon ye Government these are to require you Not to Act ye said Play again. In the Preface to Charles Gildon's The Patriot (1703) it is stated that Lee's play was banned after the third day's Acting, by the Lord Chamberlain Arlington as an anti-monarchical play." As the order is dated 11 Dec. 1680, the drama was probably presented on 8, 9, and 10 Dec. 1680.