Event Comment: The King's Company. This play is one of a series represented by Prologues and Epilogues in Covent Garden Drollery, 1672, all of which may have been acted by the actress only. Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets, p. 213) states: This Play was One of those that were represented at the old Theatre in Lincolns-Inn-Fields, when the Women acted alone. The Prologue and Epilogue were spoken by Mrs Marshall, and printed in Covent-garden Drollery, pag. 18. About this Time there was a Prologue written on purpose for the Women by Mr Dryden, and is printed in his Miscellany Poems in octavo, p. 285

Event Comment: The King's Company. This is another in the series of plays acted entirely by actresses and probably Performed in the early summer of 1672. The Prologue and Epilogue are in Covent Garden Drollery, 1672. Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets, p. 313): This play was reviv'd at the Old Theatre, in little Lincolns-Inn-fields, and acted all by Women, a new Prologue and Epilogue being spoken by Mrs Marshall in Man's Cloaths, which Reader may find printed in Covent-Garden Drollery, 80, pag. 3. &c

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 2. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 347. Very probably this play was also acted on Friday 5 and Saturday 6 July 1672, but the company may not have acted daily in the summer

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. An unnamed play is the entry in A Calendar of the Middle Temple Records, ed. Hopwood, p. 175, but a Prologue to this play "Acted at the Middle Temple" is in A Collection of Poems Written upon several Occasions by several Persons (1673). It may have been acted at this time

Event Comment: [Newdigate newsletters (Folger Shakespeare Library), 4 Feb. 1674@5: Tuesday night after Counsell their Maties & Court were present at the Rehearsal of the great Maske wch is to be publiquely acted on Shrove Tuesday; by wch tyme her Royall Highness will be able to be present at it, being already very well after her Lying in, as is also ye young princess (Wilson, Theatre Notes, p. 79). The Bulstrode Papers (1, 277): 8 Feb. 1674@5: On Wed night after Councell their Maties and Royal Highnesses were present at the rehearsall of the Great Maske wch will be publiquely acted on Tuesday 7 night next. [The two sources agree on the intended date of the performance but disagree upon the date of the rehearsal.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. There is no indication of the first date of performance, but a licensing date of 19 Feb. 1676@7 suggests a December 1676 or January 1677 production.Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 38): Titus and Berenice, Wrote by the same Author [Thomas Otway], consisting of 3 Acts: With the Farce of the Cheats of Scapin at the end: This Play, with the Farce, being perfectly well Acted; had good Success

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 359: The Rivall Queene. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 346. That this is the premiere is indicated by a letter from the Marquis of Worcester to the Marchioness, 17 March 1676@7: Sir Charles Sedley's Cleopatra has been acted often, and to-day a new play of the death of Alexander, but I have not been to see either, living a mighty drudging life (HMC, 12th Report, Appendix, Beaufort MSS., IX, 66). Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 11), has a cast which agrees (except for omissions) with that in the edition of 1677. Downes adds (p. 16): [Hart in] Alexander, towards the latter End of his Acting; if he Acted in any one of these but once in a Fortnight, the House was fill'd as at a New Play, especially Alexander, he Acting that with such Grandeur and Agreeable Majesty, That one of the Court was pleas'd to Honour him with this Commendation; That Hart might Teach any King on Earth how to Comport himself

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 Duke's Company. There is considerable uncertainty as to the date of production of this play. Because it was licensed for printing on 2 Aug. 1677, it was probably first acted not later than July 1677. Because some of the names in the cast represent younger actors, it has been thought to be a Lenten production (see Gray, Lenten Casts, pp. 789-90). It seems, however, that the play, because of its reference to performances by the French comedians (the Epilogue refers to "de French Troop at toder end o'Town ") and the offering of Rare en Tout on29 May 1677, probably was acted in June 1677. The Prologue also refers to the comedy as The Women's Play," suggesting that it was produced for the actresses' annual benefit

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is not known. Although the play was not entered in the Term Catalogues until February 1677@8, it was advertised in the London Gazette, 29 Oct.-1 Nov. 1677, and was probably acted in October 1677 or earlier. See also, in the introductory list of plays, Thomas Rymer's Edgar, which may have been acted in opposition to Ravenscroft's play

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date for this performance is based upon Lump's remark in Act I: "Upon the one and twentieth of March..." Since the dedication bears a date of 16 Feb. 1678@9, the assumption is that the play was first acted on 21 March 1677@8. References in the Prologue also fit the public events of March 1678. Dedication, Edition of 1679: This Play...met not with that Success from the generality of the Audience, which I hop'd for, and you thought, and still think, it deserved

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of this performance is uncertain. It is one of a series of plays acted at Court, in L. C. 5@145, p. 120. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 350. In view of the recent disorders at the Duke's Theatre, it is somewhat surprising to have this series of plays acted at Court at this time, but three of the entries would fall on Sunday if the sequence is assigned to the season of 1680-81; hence, the series has been assigned to 1679-80

Event Comment: The King's Company. The Newdigate newsletters, 29 May 1680: Their Matyes players have put out a Bille that on Munday next they will Act a new play abt the ffemale prelate or the History of Pope Joan (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80). Newdigate newsletters, 3 June: On Munday last the King's players began to Act the new play called Pope Joan (ibid.)

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.

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but its listing in the Term Catalogues, November 1681, suggests late October as a likely latest date for its premiere. If Mithridates was acted in mid-October at the opening of Drury Lane, Sir Barnaby Whigg may well be the first new play offered by the King's Company in the autumn. A Song in Act I, Blow Boreas Blow, with music apparently by Henry Purcell, is in A Third Collection of New Songs...Words by Mr D'Urfey, 1685, and in Dramatic Works of Henry Purcell, Purcell Society, III (1917), xiv-xv

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not certain. This performance is known from an entry in the Newdigate newsletters, which also states that Rollo was to be acted on the following Monday. If this statement is accurate, the performance of The Loyal Brother on 4 Feb. 1681@2 may be the third night rather than the opening performance. Newdigate newsletters, 4 Feb. 1681@2: On Monday morn [the Moorish Ambassador] & ye Comers meet to conclude ye treaty and in ye afternoon goes to see Rollo D. of Normandy at ye Ks playhouse wre ye K was this afternoon to see ye new play calld ye Loyall brothr (Wilson, More Theater Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 59). The Prologue and Epilogue were printed separately and have been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 70-72. Luttrell acquired his copies (Huntington Library) on 7 Feb. 1681@2. In The Life of John Dryden (Chapel Hill, 1961), Charles E. Ward believes (pp. 166, 355) that The Loyal Brother was first acted in the autumn of 1681; but the entry in the Newdigate newsletters seems to make February 1682 the more probable time

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The Prologue and Epilogue, printed separately, bear Luttrell's MS notations: At ye Dukes theater at Venice Preserv'd &c. Acted 31 May. 1682 (Huntington Library, with Luttrell's date of purchase, 1 June 1682). The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 108-10. The Newdigate newsletters disagree as to the play acted: 1 June 1682: Yesterday the D. of Y. came to town & went wth his Dutchess to ye play called the Royallist (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80)

Event Comment: On this date, L. C. 5@16, p. 101 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 10n) Nathaniel Lee's The Duke of Guise was banned. John Drummond to Marquis and Duke of Queensberry, 16 July 1682: Ther is a play hear to be acted that maks a great business, for the Duke of Munmuth has complained of it, and they say that notwithstanding it is to be acted sometime nixt weik. They call it the Duke of Guise, but in the play the true story is cheinged to the plott time hear (HMC, Buccleuch-Queensberry MSS., 1903, II 108). Newsletter, 29 July 1682: A play by Mr Dryden, termed the Duke of Guise, wherein the Duke of Monmouth was vilified and great interest being make for the acting thereof, but coming to His Majesty's knowledge is forbid, for though His Majesty be displeased with the Duke yet he will not suffer others to abuse him (HMC, 15th Report, Part VII, 1898, p. 108). Newdigate newsletters, 29 July 1682: A play having been made [by] Mr Dryden termed ye Duke of Guise supposed to Levell att the villifying the Duke of Monmouth & many other protestants & great Interest made for the Acting thereof but bringing to the knowledge of his Matie the same was forbidd for though his Maties pleasure is to be dissatisfyed and angry with the Duke of Monmouth, yet hee is not willing that others should abuse him out of a naturall affection for him (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Newdigate newsletters, 5 Aug. 1682: [Yesterday the] Dutchess goes to ye Dukes Theatre--that and ye Kings house haveing Joyned interests the latter being Discontinued where will be purposely Acted for her Anna Bullen being a deepe Tragedy of the beheading of the said Lady by Henry the 8th (Wilson, Theatres Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81). See also London Mercury, 8 Aug. 1682. Juliana Brabazon to the Countess of Rutland, Aug. 1682: The Dutches of Yorke kept her bed the day after seeing Anna Bulloigne acted (HMC, 12th Report, Rutland MSS., Part V, 1889, p. 77)

Event Comment: The United Company. Newdigate newsletters, 20 Jan. 1682@3: Yesterday was acted at the Theatre Royall the first of a new play Entituled the City Politiques the novelty of wch drew a Confluence of Spectators under both Qualifications of Whigg and Tory to hear and behold a Ld Mayor Sheriffs & some Aldermen with their wives in yr usuall formalityes buffoond & Reviled a great Lawyer with his young Lady Jeared and Intreagued Dr Oates pfectly represented berogued & beslaved the papist plott Egregiously Rediculed the Irish Testemonyes Contradictiorily disproved & befoold the Whiggs totally vanquished & undon Law & property men oreruld & there wanted nothing of Artifice in behaviour and discourse to render all those obnoxious & dispised in fine such a medly of occurences intervened that twas a question whether more of Loyalty designe or Rhetorique prvailed but there were mighty clappings among the poeple of both partyes in Expressing either their sattisfaction or displeasure (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81). The Prologue and Epilogue, separately Printed, have 20 Jan. 1682@3 as Luttrell's date of acquisition (Huntington Library) and are reprinted in Wiley's Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 166-69. John Dennis, To Mr --- In which are some Passages of the Life of Mr John Crown, Author of Sir Courtly Nice, June 23, 1719: About that time he writ The City Politicks, on purpose to Satyrize and expose the Whigs; a Comedy so agreeable, that it deserv'd to be writ in a much better Cause: But after he had writ he met with very great Difficulties in the getting it acted. Bennet Lord Arlington, who was then Lord Chamberlain of the King's Houshold, and who had secretly espous'd the Whigs, who were at that time powerful in Parliament, in order to support himself against the Favour and Power of the Lord Treasurer Danby, who was his declared Enemy, us'd all his Authority to suppress it. One While it was prohibited on the account of its being Dangerous, another while it was laid aside on the pretence of its being Falt and Insipid; till Mr Crown at last was forc'd to have Recourse to the king himself, and to engage him to give his absolute Command to the Lord Chamberlain for the acting of it; which Command the King was Pleas'd to give in his own Person (I, 49-50). Morrice Entry Book, Vol.1 1682@3: Mr Crowne [was cudgled on Wednesday last in St Martin's Lane and] hee that beat him said hee did it at the suite of the Earle of Rochester some time since deceased who greatly abused in the play for his penetency &c. (p. 353. I owe this note to the courtesy of Professor David M. Vieth of the University of Kansas and Professor G. H. Jones of Kansas State University)

Event Comment: The documents analyzed by Langhans, New Restoration Theatre Accounts, pp. 120, 126-27, leave uncertain the date of resuming daily performances in the autumn of 1685. The Company acted regularly to 5 June 1686 and then acted 23 times between 7 June and 27 Sept. 1686

Event Comment: On this date William Hemmings' The Eunuch was licensed. The play was published in 1687, but there is no certainty that it was acted. The problem is made more complicated by the production of Sedley's Bellamira--see 12 May 1687-which was derived from Terence's The Eunuch. See the introductory note for the 1676-77 season for the possibility that The Eunuch was acted then

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but as the play was licensed to be published, 21 May 1688, it was probably first acted early in April 1688, perhaps in late March. In 1688, also was separately printed New Songs Sung in The Fool's Preferment: In I, I sigh'd and pin'd and There's nothing so fatal as Woman, the music composed by Henry Purcell. In III, Fled is my love, the music composed by Henry Purcell, and sung by Mountfort. 'Tis death alone and I'le mount to yon blue coelum, the music composed by Henry Purcell. In IV, I'le sail upon the Dog-star, and A Dialogue by Jockey and Jenny, Jenny, gin you can love, the composer not stated. In V, If thou wilt give me back my love, composed by Henry Purcell and sung by Mountfort. See also Purcell's Works, The Purcell Society, XX (1916), iv-vi. When this play was revived at Drury Lane on 16 July 1703, the bill was headed: Not Acted these Fifteen Years

Event Comment: Luttrell, A Brief Relation, II, 316: The players have begg'd pardon of the lords abused there, and have leave to act again on Monday. [The order for reopening is in L. C. 5@150, p. 345 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 361).] Newdigate Newsletters, 19 Dec. 1691: We heare that the Play house will be againe opened this Night or on Monday & will Continue to Act as formerly and tis S. the Sentinell who discharged his Musquet was tryed by a Court Martial and acquitted (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 82)