Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the fact that the play was advertised in the London Gazette, No. 3140, 12-16 Dec. 1695, to be published 17 Dec. 1695, suggests that its first appearance was not later than November 1695. According to the Edition of 1695, the music was set by the late Henry Purcell, Courteville, Samuel? Aykerod, and other composers. For Purcell's music, see Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XVI (1906), xxix-xxxi. The songs were sung by Miss Cross and Mrs Verbruggen. Preface, Edition of 1696: I must inform the Reader, that this Third Part before it came upon the Stage was acknowledg'd and believ'd by all that saw it, and were concern'd (as well those that heard it read, as those that were Actors, who certainly, every one must own, are in their Affairs skilful enough to know the value of things of this Nature) to be much the best of all the Three Parts;...tho prepar'd by my indefatigable Diligence, Care, Pains, nay, the variety which I thought could not possibly miss the expected Success, yet by some Accidents happening in the Presentment, was disliked and explored; The Songish part which I used to succeed so well in, by the indifferent performance the first day, and the hurrying it on so soon, being streightned in time through ill management--(tho extreamly well set to Musick, and I'm sure the just Critick will say not ill Writ) yet being imperfectly performed, was consequently not pleasing; and the Dances too, for want of some good Performers, also disliked; all which, tho impossible for me to avoid, and not reasonably to be attributed any way to a fault in me, yet the noisy Party endeavour'd to use me as ill as if it were, till the generous Opposition of my Friends gave me as much reason to thank them for their Justice, as to despise the others Malice.... As to the Poppet Shew in the Fourth Act, the Accident of its being plac'd so far from the Audience, which hindred them from hearing what either they or the Prolocutor said, was the main and only reason of its diverting no better. A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702) p. 17: Sullen: The third Part of Don Quixote. Ramble: Oh the ever-running Streams of Helicon! by all that's Poetical, my Friend Durfey; good lack! I thought I shou'd meet with him before we got half way: Well, in the name of Impudence, what luck? Sullen: Damn'd, Damn'd to all intents and purposes. Ramble: His first and second Part did well

Event Comment: Mainpiece: Never acted before. Characters new dressed &c. [See Theatrical Review; or, Annals of the Drama, 1763, pp. 67-74: Bless us what a sweet consistent piece of business is a modern Tragedy." See Boswell's account of his attendance that night with two friends, With oaken cudgels in our hands and shrill sounding catcalls in our pockets," ready prepared to damn the play (London Journal), p. 154 ff.).] Critical Strictures on the New Tragedy of Elvira, published this month (Gentleman's Magazine). I then undressed for the Play. My father and I went to the Rose, in the Passage of the Playhouse, where we found Mallet, with about thirty friends. We dined together, and went from thence into the Pitt, where we took our places in a body, ready to silence all opposition. However, we had no occasion to exert ourselves. Not withstanding the malice of a party, Mallet's nation, connections and indeed imprudence, we heard nothing but applause. I think it was deserved. The play was borrowed from de la Motte, but the details and language have great merit. A fine Vein of dramatick poetry runs thro' the piece. The Scenes between the father and son awaken almost every sensation of the human breast; and the Council would have equally moved, but for the inconvenience unavoidable upon all Theatres, that of entrusting fine Speeches to indifferent Actors. The perplexity of the Catastrophe is much, and I believe justly, critisized. But another defect made a strong impression upon me. When a Poet ventures upon the dreadful situation of a father who condemns his son to death; there is no medium; the father must either be monster or a Hero. His obligations of justice, of the publick good, must be as binding, as apparent as perhaps those of the first Brutus. The cruel necessity consecrates his actions, and leaves no room for repentance. The thought is shocking, if not carried into action. In the execution of Brutus's sons I am sensible of that fatal necessity. Without such an example, the unsettled liberty of Romev would have perished the instant after its birth. But Alonzo might have pardoned his son for a rash attempt, the cause of which was a private injury, and whose consequences could never have disturbed an established government. He might have pardoned such a crime in any other subject; and the laws could exact only a equal rigor for a son; a Vain appetite for glory, and a mad affectation of Heroism, could only influence him to exert an unequal & superior severity (Gibbon's Journal, ed. D. M. Low [New York, n.d.], pp. 202-4)

Event Comment: Benefit for Mrs Powell. "If we make allowances for embarrassment and imperfect study, the performance of Mrs Powell was by no means indifferent" (Monthly Mirror, May 1796, p. 50). Afterpiece: Not acted these 4 years. Morning Herald, 2 May: Tickets to be had of Mrs Powell, No. 22, Henrietta-street, Covent-Garden. Receipts: #466 11s. 6d. (189.3.6; 53.1.6; 4.14.6; tickets: 216.15.0) (charge: #212)

Event Comment: MMiss Pritchard did Beatrice (Cross). Mainpiece: By Desire. Receipts: #200 (Cross)

Event Comment: Mainpiece [1st time; MD 3, by the Hon. Francis North. Johnstone was from cg]: The Music partly new by Gyrowetz, and partly compiled [by Miss Monck, or Monckton] from Paisiello, Sacchini, and Guglielmi. With new Dresses, Decorations, &c. Books of the Songs to be had at the Theatre. Oracle, 27 June: The chief excellence of this piece is the preservation of costume. Gazetteer, 27 June: Bensley disgraced a performance otherwise good by concluding his sentences with a rant, and a look at the gallery. Times, 9 July 1791: This day is published The Kentish Barons (1s. 6d.)

Event Comment: [The Young Gentleman who played Zaphna was Wroughton. "His real name was Rottan, but altered euphonia gratia. He was designed for a surgeon and served his apprenticeship at Bath. The following playbills show that he met with approbation on the stage. He remained with Covent Garden from this time till the end of the season 1785-86. He then played in Ireland one Winter, and was engag'd at Drury Lane Theatre in the beginning of the season 1787-88. This was the occasion of Mr Wroughton's leaving Covent Garden, I mean it was thus conjectured. Mr Lewis had been appointed manager of that theatre for Mr Harris. Mr Lewis and Mr Wroughton lived next door neighbors in Broad Court at the top of Bow Street, and were sworn friends:--they laughed together, lived together--In the season 1784-85 two new performers Mr Holman and Mr Pope, appeared on the Covent Garden Stage--these young men were great favorites with Mr Harris; Mr Holman, attracting at this time very crowded audiences, stood so particularly high in his regard, that his partiality made him guilty of some injustice to older and abler actors in the theatre. Mr Henderson had really cause to complain of neglect; and Mr Wroughton thought himself equally oppressed. At this time we had a Club and met every Wednesday fortnight during Lent at the Long Room in Hamstead at dinner. Our Club consisted of a certain number of us belonging indifferently to either theatre, and two or three other gentlemen who were not actors. Mr King, Mr Quick, Mr Farren, Mr Mattocks, myself, etc., etc. When the bottle had a little warmed Mr Wroughton he threw out some sarcasms on his Friend Mr Lewis's management; Mr Lewis retorted; Their tempers grew hot, their words grew aggravating; Mr Wroughton struck Mr Lewis; Mr Lewis returned the blow. They were parted; all the pleasures of the day were over, and the Club broke up in confusion. I was not present this day, but have related what Mr Siddons told me of this Quarrel, and I imagine that Mr Wroughton's attack on Mr Lewis sprang from a suspicion that he was too willing to execute Mr Harris's designs in favour of Mr Holman. Be this as it may, Mr Wroughton was discharged from cg at the expiration of his Articles with Mr Harris."--Hopkins MS Notes.] Receipts: #186 3s. (Account Book)

Event Comment: Benefit for Pope. At the particular Desire of his Excellency the Ambassador [see 7 May] from the Sublime Porte:. 3rd piece: At End of Act I of the DIVERTISEMENT. Written by Edward Jerningham, Esq., with Alterations and Additions, interspersed with Music, after the manner of Rousseau's PYGMALION. Morning Chronicle, 19 Apr.: Tickets to be had of Pope, Half-Moon-street, Piccadilly. Receipts: #231 17s. (138/14; 3/3; tickets: 90/0)

Event Comment: This piece was greatly Cut & Alter'd. the 5th Act Entirely left out & many Airs interspers'd all through; got up with a vast deal of trouble to everbody concern'd in it but particularly to Mr Coleman, who attended every Rehearsal & had alterations innumberable to make. Upon the Whole, never was anything so murder'd in the Speaking. Mr W. Palmer & Mrs Vincent were beyond Description bad; & had it not been for the Children's Excellent performance, (& particularly Miss Wright who Sung delightfully) the Audience would not have Suffer'd'em to have gone half thro' it. The Sleeping Scene particularly displeas'd. Next day it was reported, The Performers first Sung the Audience to S leep, & then went to Sleep themselves (Hopkins). Fairies pleas'd--Serious parts displeas'd--Comic between both (Cross Diary). This piece of Shakespear's was greatly cut and altered,--the fifth act entirely left out,--and many airs introduced--got up with a vast deal of trouble to all concerned, but particularly to Mr Colman, who attended every rehearsal, and had alterations innumerable to make. Upon the whole, I believe, never was piece so murdered as this was by the singing speakers, in which Mrs Vincent and Mr W. Palmer were beyond description bad; and had it not been for the children's excellent performance (particularly Miss Wright, who ran away with all the applause and very deservedly) the audience would not have suffered them to have gone half thro' it.--The sleeping particularly displeased. The next day it was reported, the performers sung the audience to sleep, and then went to sleep themselves (Hopkins Diary-MacMillan). Overture and airs composed by the most eminent English masters. Book of the play sold at the theatre, 1s. [See "A Midsummer Night's Dream in the Hands of Garrick and Colman," PMLA, June 1939.] Receipts: #98 7s. (MacMillan)

Event Comment: Benefit for Pope. 2nd piece: Written by Edward Jerningham, Esq., with Alterations and Additions (interspersed with Music, after the manner of Rousseau's Pygmalion). The Music composed by Hook. The subject of the above Performance is taken from a remarkable incident in the Life of Margaret . Morning Herald, 2 Mar.: Tickets to be had of Mrs Pope at her house, No. 5, Half-moon-street, Piccadilly. Receipts: #368 15s

Event Comment: Mainpiece: Never performed before. New Scenes and Dresses. This Comedy is a first production of Mrs Cowley--It was receiv'd with very great Applause-Indeed the performers play'd very well and deserv'd it--the Prologue was written by the Author of the Play dull and Mr Gar. wrote a most Excellent Epilogue quite Local--which was received with uncommon Applause (Hopkins Diary). [MacMillan's note from Kemble differs slightly. Mainpiece reviewed in the Westminster Magazine for Feb.: "As we have lately been much afflicted with the melancholy fate of theatrical authors, we have a pleasure more than common in the great sucess of this piece."] Receipts: #256 5s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: Benefit for Mrs Pope. Mainpiece: Not acted these 6 years. [When still Miss Younge Mrs Pope had 1st acted Fatima at the Crow Street Theatre, Dublin, 4 Mar. 1771.] Public Advertiser, 9 Mar.: Tickets to be had of Mrs Pope at her house, Half-moon Street. Receipts: #343 10s. 6d. (230.3.6; 8.3.0; tickets: 105.4.0)

Event Comment: 2nd piece [1st time; D 3, by Henry Neuman, based on Der Opfertod, by August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue. Text (R. Phillips, 1799) assigns no parts]. Boxes 5s. Pit 3s. 1st Gallery 2s. 2nd Gallery 1s. The Doors to be opened at 6:00. To begin at 7:00 [same throughout season]. Places for the Boxes to be taken of Rice, at the Theatre. The Theatre, since the last Season, has been newly Decorated. [Beginning with 19 June the playbill: Printed by T. Woodfall, Drury Lane; on 4 Sept.: No. 104, Drury Lane.] Morning Chronicle, 27 June 1799: This Day is published Family Distress (2s.). Gentleman's Magazine, May 1800, pp. 406-8, prints a letter from "J. B." in which strong exception is taken to Kotzebue in general, and this play in particular. "Theatrical entertainments have an extensive influence upon the manners of Society. When well regulated, and the pieces for representation well selected both as to matter and manner, they may be esteemed friendly to morality, and improvers of public taste. But what shall we say when both these ends are disregarded; when moral virtue is banished from the scene, and purity of taste is destroyed by affected language and pantomimical decorations? Improvements in almost every art and science have been within a few years, rapid and important. But that is not the case with the stage; nor can it be, while Kotzebue and his friends usurp the venerable boards of Shakespeare." The writer then, in sarcastic terms, outlines the plot of Family Distress. [Pope and Miss Chapman were both from cg.