Event Comment: Mainpiece: Not acted these 20 years. [See 11 Nov. 1752.] Characters New Dressed in the Habits of the Times. This play is alter'd by Mr Colman and receiv'd with Some Applause, but it don't seem to hit the present Taste a few hisses at the End (Hopkins Diary). [MacMillan's note from Kemble differs slightly.] Paid salary list #630 1s. 6d.; Widow Hunter #2 2s.; King's glass bill #3 17s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book). [Mainpiece reviewed and contrasted with the original in the Westminster Magazine for Jan.: "Upon the whole we cannot esteem this a striking comedy, even with the assistance it has now received,--the fine manner in which it is got up, and the great expence which the managers have been at in habiting the whole dramatis personae in splendid and characteristic Old English dresses. All the actors except Mr King and Mr Parsons performed but indifferently. Bensley is the worst Old Man we ever saw. He presents the countenace of a sickly old woman; and the uniform goggle of his eye, by which he means to express infirmity and distress is the look of a man in anguish from the colic. Mr Palmer, Mr Brereton, and Mr Davis have a bloated vulgarity about them, which should ever deter the manager from assigning them the parts of cavaliers or men of fashion. Baddeley, as usual, overdid his part, and Mr Yates, as usual, was not very perfect in his."] Receipts: #192 11s. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The Prologue and Epilogue, separately printed, bear Luttrell's date of acquisition, 21 April 1682 (Huntington Library), and have been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 102-05. The Prologue and Epilogue were advertised in The Observator, 27 April 1682, with the statement: Recommended to All Men of Sense and Loyalty

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) of the play bears the date of acquisition 3 June [1690, apparently], and the play was advertised in the London Gazette, No 2566, 12-16 June 1690. See Fredson Bowers, A Bibliographical History of the Fletcher-Betterton Play, The Prophetess, 1690, The Library, 5th Series, XVI (1961), 169-75. It seems likely that the opera was first given early in June 1690. An edition of The Vocal and Instrumental Musick of The Prophetess appeared in 1691. See Works of Henry Purcell, Purcell Society, IX. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42): The Prophetess, or Dioclesian an Opera, Wrote by Mr Betterton; being set out with Coastly Scenes, Machines and Cloaths: The Vocal and Instrumental Musick, done by Mr Purcel; and Dances by Mr Priest; it gratify'd the Expectation of Court and City; and got the Author great Reputation. [See also R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theater (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), Chapter V; and E. W. White, Early Theatrical Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59), 44.] The Muses' Mercury (January 1707, pp. 4-5): This prologue was forbidden to be spoken the second Night of the Representation of the Prophetess. Mrs Shadwell was the occasion of its being taken notice of by the Ministry in the last Reign: He happen'd to be at the House on the first Night, and taking the beginning of the Prologue to have a double meaning, and that Meaning to reflect on the Revolution, he told a Gentleman, He would immediately Put a stop to it. When that Gentleman ask'd, Why he wou'd do the Author such a Disservice? He said, Because while Mr Dryden was Poet Laureat, he wou'd never let any Play of his be Acted. Mr Shadwell informed the Secretary of State of it, and representing it in its worst Colours, the Prologue was never Spoken afterwards, and is not printed in Mr Dryden's Works, or his Miscellanies. Cibber, Apology (ed. Lowe, II, 13-14): A Prologue (by Dryden) to the Prophetess was forbid by the Lord Dorset after the first War in Ireland. It must be confess'd that this Prologue had some familiar, metaphorical Sneers at the Revolution itself; and as the Poetry of it was good, the Offence of it was less pardonable

Event Comment: Not acted in 30 years. Principal Characters new Dress'd. Written by Otway (General Advertiser). Mr Woodward did ye part of Malagene in which he took off Mr Foote & would have many of ye Actors but the Audience grew so outragious, that he was forc'd to desist ye 4th & 5th Acts were much hooted, Mr Havard in a part where he says Whir was severely treated, nor could he ever appear after in ye play, but the whole Audience echoed that Word--it was given out again, wch so enrag'd the Audience yt they call'd loudly for Garrick, but as he was not this Night at the House, they pull'd up the Benches, tore down ye King's Arms, & wou'd have done much more mischief had not Mr Lacy qone into the Pit, & talk'd to 'em, what they resented was giving out a piece again after they had damn'd it--the Gallery resented ye Guards being sent in--Mr Lacy was oblig'd to go upon the Stage after & tell 'em I had given out the play again, as ne'er a Manager was present to give other Directions--In his Argument Mr Lacy call'd a Witness in ye pit, saying that Gent: next to ye painter knows I was in ye pit when ye Guards went into the Gallery, so I cou'd not send 'em this painter after ye rout came behind the scenes & was angry for being call'd painter (his name was Hudson) but at length he as well as ye rest was pacified--and we gave out Provok'd Husband (Cross). [See Foote's retaliation in Daily Advertiser, 26 Jan.] Paid Capt. Turber 1!2 year's rent #11 3s. 4d. (Treasurer's Book). Receipts: #140 (Cross); #137 12s. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: Never acted. [See Genest's comment (IV, 618) derived from Cumberland and the London Magazine-its appeal to the fashionable circles, its damnation at first performance because of the hanging of Harlequin in full view, and its modification thereafter. See 18 June and Horace Walpole to George Montagu [Arlington Street] July 28, 1761: I came to town yesterday through clouds of dust to see The Wishes, and went ac- [I, 381] tually feeling for Mr Bentley, and full of the emotions he must be suffering. What do [you] think in a house crowded was the first thing I saw! Mr and Madam Bentley perked up in the front boxes and acting audience at his own play--no, all the impudence of false patriotism never came up to it! Did one ever hear of an author that had couraee to see his own first night in public? I don't believe Fielding or Foote himself ever did--and this was the modest bashful Mr Bentley, that died at the thought of being known for an author, even by his own acquaintance! In the stage-box was Lady Bute, Lord Halifax and Lord Melcomb-I must say the two last entertained the house as much as the play-your King was prompter, and called out to the actors every minute to speak louder-the other went backwards and forwards behind the scenes, fetched the actors into the box, and was busier than Harlequin. The curious prologue was not spoken, the whole very ill-acted. It turned out just what I remembered it, the good parts extremely good, the rest very flat and vulgar-the genteel dialogue I believe might be written by Mrs Hannah. The audience was extremely fair. The first act they bore with patience, though it promised very ill-the second is admirable and was much applauded-so was the third-the fourth woeful-the beginning of the fifth it seemed expiring, but was revived by a delightful burlesque of the ancient chorus-which was followed by two dismal scenes, at which people yawned-but were awakened on a sudden by Harlequin's being drawn up to a gibbet nobody knew why or wherefore-this raised a prodigious and continued hiss, Harlequin all the while suspended in the air-at last they were suffered to finish the play, but nobody attended to the conclusion-modesty and his lady all the while sat with the utmost indifference-I suppose Lord Melcombe had fallen asleep [p. 382] before he came to this scene and had never read it. The epilogue was about the King and new Queen, and ended with a personal satire on Garrick-not very kind on his own stage-to add to the judge of this conduct, Cumberland two days ago published a pamphlet to abuse him. It was given out for tonight with more claps than hisses, but I think it will not do unless they reduce it to three acts." [p. 383]. Correspondence with George Montagu. Ed. W. S. Lewis & Ralph Brown. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), I, 381-83] Note: (I, 381n): Bentley's play of The Wishes or Harlequin's Mouth Opened, was offered to Garrick and Rich the beginning of 1761, but wasrefused by both. His nephew Cumberland showed it to Lord Melcomb, who carried it to Lord Bute, with a compliment in verse to that Lord by Mr Cumberland. Lord Bute showed it to the King, who sent Bentley #200 and ordered the new summer company to play [it]. There was a prologue, flattering the King and Lord Bute which Foote refused to act. Two days before it was played, Cumberland wrote an anonymous pamphlet, addressed to Mr Bentley, and abusing Garrick, who had refused to act Cumberland's tragedy of Cicero's banishment, which he printed this year [1761], unacted. The Wishes were played for the first time July 27th, 1761; the 2d 3d and part of the 4th, acts were much applauded, but the conclusion extremely hissed. The Epilogue concluded with a satire on Garrick. It was acted five nights. About the same time he wrote a tragedy called Philodamus, which he was to read to Garrick, but the latter was so angry at their treatment of him, that he declared against seeing Mr Bentley" (MS account by HW of Bentley's writings, in the collection of Lord Waldegrave at Chewton Priory)

Event Comment: By Command of their Majesties. When the play began there was a very great Noise the performers were oblig'd to Stop and go off the Stage Mr Reddish went on and desir'd to Know their pleasure they said they wanted the Pit door be open'd to let out some of the people for so many had Crowded in that they could not Sit down-the door was open'd and in a little time after all was quiet and the Play was begun once more at a quarter after Seven. During this time the King Sent Two Messages to Mr G. to desire that he would not let this Noise disconcert him and his Majesty would take care that all should be quiet before the play began (Hopkins Diary). [MacMillan's note from Kemble: "I cannot say enough of Mr Garrick's Performance tonight." Kemble further notes that Garrick's fatigue led them to abandon further performances until Saturday 8 June.] Paid Mr Heard extra allowance #3; Ditto on note #5 5s.; Mr Carpenter's salary 15s.; Mr Martini a grautity #10 10s.; Wallis salary in full 13s. 4d. Receipts: #293 5s. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: Benefit for King. [This was Smith's last appearance on the stage, from which he had officially retired on 9 June 1788.] Broadside in Kemble playbills announcing this benefit: Mr King most respectfully informs the Public that his Night is fixed for Friday the 18th of May, when will be presented The School for Scandal. Mr King has the pleasure to add that Mr Smith, who was so long and so worthily applauded by the Public, and was the original performer of Charles Surface in the above, distinguished Comedy, at the particular request of Mr King, backed by a strong assurance from many admirers and encouragers of the Drama that it will not only add to Mr King's emolument but highly gratify the Town, has kindly consented to return to the Theatre for one night, and resume his favourite Character. "We had been told that Smith pourtrayed the Manners of a finished gentleman with more delicacy and characteristic propriety than any actor of his day; but this did not appear to us to be his particular excellence; he stands too wide to be graceful, and his deportment gains no advantage from a perpetual application of his hand to the lower part of the waist. These habits are far from elegant. His Charles, however, is a favourable specimen of that sort of acting which commonly falls under the denomination of the old school: light, airy, and natural; which excites applause without any anxious endeavour to produce it; which suffers the points to tell of themselves, and does not place them as so many traps to ensnare the injudicious part of the audience" (Monthly Mirror, May 1798, p. 299). "He was received with the most heart-felt gratulations by an audience who did not expect any apology for such acting, though he saw fit to deliver one at the conclusion of the play" (Monthly Visitor, May 1798, p. 72). Times, 4 May: Tickets to be had of King at his house, New Store-street, Bedford-square. Receipts: #674 6s. (388.0.6; 55.17.6; 2.0.0); tickets: 228.8.0) (charge: #212 5s. 6d.)

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. The date of the premiere is not known. The Dedication to the play, written in Rome, is dated 20 Aug. 1695 N.S., and advertisement of the play in the London Gazette, No 3200, 9-13 July 1696, represent the limits on its production. In a letter, dated (probably) November 1695, Dryden refers to the forthcoming appearance of his son's play, and on 26 May 1696 he negotiates with Tonson for its publication (Letters of John Dryden, pp. 79, 82). Probably the play appeared early in 1696, and certainly not much later than April 1696. John Barnard, The Dates of Six Dryden Letters, Philological Quarterly, XLII (1963), 400-401, believes that Dryden's letter was written ca. 26 May 1695 and that the play was probably acted in late 1695