Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first production is not certain, but tradition states that Dryden died on the third day (1 May 1700); if this report is correct, the first performance occurred on 29 April 1700. In A Collection of New Songs...Compos'd by Mr Daniel Purcel, Perform'd in the Revis'd Comedy call'd the Pilgrim (1700) is a song, Chronos, Chronos, mend thy pace, with Janus sung by Freeman, Momus by Pate, Diana by Mrs Erwin. Gottfried Finger apparently composed the passage sung by Venus, Calms appear when storms are past. William Egerton, Faithful Memoirs of...Mrs Anne Oldfield (1731): The Pilgrim was indeed reviv'd for the Benefit of Mr Dryden, Ann. 1700, but he dying on third Night of its Representation, his Son attended the Run of it, and the Advantages accrued to his Family. Cibber, Apology, I, 269-70: This Epilogue, and the Prologue the same Play [The Pilgrim], written by Dryden, I spoke myself, which not being usually done by the same Person, I have a mind, while I think of it, to let you know on what Occasion they both fell to my Share....Sir John Vanbrugh, who had given some light touches of his Pen to the Pilgrim to assist the Benefit Day of Dryden, had the Disposal of the Parts, and I being then as an Actor in some Favour with him, he read the Play first with me alone, and was pleased to offer me my Choice of what I might like best for myself in it. But as the chief Characters were not (according to my Taste) the most shining, it was no great Self-denial in me that I desir'd he would first take care of those who were more difficult to be pleased; I therefore only chose for myself two short incidental Parts, that of the stuttering Cook and the mad Englishman....Sir John, upon my being contented with so little a Share in the Entertainment, gave me the Epilogue to make up my Mess; which being written so much above the Strain of common Authors, I confess I was not a little pleased with. And Dryden, upon his hearing me repeat it to him, made a farther Compliment of trusting me with the Prologue. Cibber, Apology, I, 305-6: In theYear 1699, Mrs Oldfield was first taken into the House, where she remain'd about a Twelve-month almost a Mute and unheeded, 'till Sir John Vanbrugh, who first recommended her, gave her the Part of Alinda in the Pilgrim revis'd. This gentle Character happily became that want of Confidence which is inseparable from young Beginners, who, without it, seldom arrive to any Excellence: Notwithstanding, I own I was then so far deceiv'd in my Opinion of her, that I thought she had little more than her Person that appear'd necessary to the forming a good Actress; for she set out with so extraordinary a Diffidence, that it kept her too despondingly down to a formal, plain (not to say) flat manner of speaking. Nor could the silver Tone of her Voice 'till after some time incline my Ear to any Hope in he favour. A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702), p. 27: [After Drury Lane and Lincoln's Inn Fields had revived Shakespeare and Johnson] Nay then, says the whole party at D. Lane, faith we'll e'en put the Pilgrim upon him--ay faith, so we will, says Dryden, and if youll let my Son have the Profits of the Third Night, I'll give you a Secular Mask: Done, says the House, and so the Bargain was struck

Event Comment: The Rose is a New Musical performance of Two Acts by Dr Arne a very dull insipid piece. Mr G. protested against its being perform'd its being perform'd it was hiss'd from the beginning & wd not Suffer it to be given out again, therefore Mr King went on & told them it Should not be perform'd again until it be alter'd (Hopkins Diary). [Macmillan's note from Kemble differs slightly. See critical damnation of The Rose in British Theatre Article in The London Magazine, Dec. 1772.] Book of the Entertainment to be had at the Theatre (playbill). Paid Mr Petit for men's cloaths, #8 8s. CTreasurer's Book). [Reviewer for Town and Country Magazine (Theatre, No. XLI) disappointed with the Rose: "We are told that this precious piece of stuff is the production of an Oxford student; it may be so, of this every auditor is certain, that the collegian who penned it was so entirely lost in the pursuit of some abstruse study, that he has totally forgot grammar, common sense, and even his mother tongue...it was unanimously damn'd."] Receipts: #172 6s. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: By Command of Their Majesties. [For Fanny Burney's pen and ink sketch of the royal box and her written description o it, as it appeared on this evening, see List of illustrations these volumes. Receipts: #261 14s. 6d. (260.14.0; 1.0.6)

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: Seeing that the Spanish Curate was acted to-day, I...home again and sent to young Mr Pen and his sister to go anon with my wife and I to the Theatre...we went by coach to the play, and there saw it well acted, and a good play it is, only Diego the Sexton did overdo his part too much. [Sir Edward Browne seems to connect this play with the Duke's Company. See Introdutcion to 1661-1662.

Event Comment: Boswell (Restoration Court Stage, pp. 180-81) believes that a performance occurred on this day, as well as on 16 Feb. 1674@5, Shrove Tuesday, the date often specified in advance statements. For previous notices, see 2 Feb. 1674@5, 15 and 22 Dec. 1674. Edition of 1675:....followed at innumerable Rehearsals, and all the Representations by throngs of Persons of the greatest Quality...at the 20th or 30th, for near so often it had been Rehearsed and Acted....And the Composer of all the Musick both Vocal and Instrumental Mr Staggins. Langbaine. (English Dramatick Poets, p. 92): a Masque at court, frequently presented there by Persons of great Quality, with the Prologue, and the Songs between the Acts: printed in quarto Lond. 1675....This Masque was writ at the Command of her present Majesty: and was rehearsed near Thirty times, all the Representations being follow'd by throngs of Persons of the greatest Quality, and very often grac'd with their Majesties and Royal Highnesses Presence. John Evelyn (The Life of Mrs Godolphin): [Mrs Blagge] had on her that day near twenty thousand pounds value of Jewells, which were more sett off with her native beauty and luster then any they contributed of their own to hers; in a word, she seemed to me a Saint in Glory, abstracting her from the Stage. For I must tell you, that amidst all this pomp and serious impertinence, whilst the rest were acting, and that her part was sometymes to goe off, as the scenes required, into the tireing roome, where severall Ladyes her companions were railing with the Gallants trifleingly enough till they were called to reenter, she, under pretence of conning her next part, was retired into a Corner, reading a booke of devotion, without att all concerning herself or mingling with the young Company; as if she had no farther part to act, who was the principall person of the Comedy...[With] what a surprizeing and admirable aire she trode the Stage, and performed her Part, because she could doe nothing of this sort, or any thing else she undertooke, indifferently....Thus ended the Play, butt soe did not her affliction, for a disaster happened which extreamly concern'd her, and that was the loss of a Diamond of considerable vallue, which had been lent her by the Countess of Suffolke; the Stage was immediately swept, and dilligent search made to find it, butt without success, soe as probably it had been taken from her, as she was oft inviron'd with that infinite crowd which tis impossible to avoid upon such occasion. Butt the lost was soon repair'd, for his Royall Highness understanding the trouble she was in, generousely sent her the wherewithall to make my Lady Suffolke a present of soe good a Jewell. For the rest of that days triumph I have a particular account still by me of the rich Apparell she had on her, amounting, besides the Pearles and Pretious Stones, to above three hundred pounds (ed. Samuel Lord Bishop of Oxford [London, 1847], pp. 97-100). See also 15 Dec. 1674

Event Comment: [As afterpiece Public Advertiser announces The Rival Candidates, but see Hopkins Diary, 12 Oct.] The Managers met again to-day, but nothing settled. Hamlet was given out. I saw Mr Sheridan, he told me that Mr Lacy and he had agreed that no Play should be given out, nor any Bills put up, till they had settled this Affair, which was to be done to-Morrow at Mr Wallis's (the Attorney's) where they were all to dine. I waited on Mr Lacy, who agreed to the same, and no Bills or Paragraph were sent to the Papers. All the Business of the Theatre is at a Stand, and no Rehearsal called. Wed. 16th--Mr Sheridan, Dr Ford and Mr Linley dined today by Appointment with Mr Wallis where Mr Lacy was to have met them; about four o'clock he sent a verbal Message that he could not come to Dinner, but would wait upon them in the Evening, and about nine o'clock he came, and everything was settled to the Satisfaction (of them all) and a Paragraph sent to the Papers, and the Hypocrite and Christmas Tale was advertised for Friday, but no Play was to be done on Thursday--Covent Garden did not play on Friday (Hopkins Diary). Public Advertiser, 16 Oct., summarizes the proprietors' dispute: the Drury Lane patent had been purchased [in 1747] by David Garrick and James Lacy. On his death Lacy had devised his half-share to his son, Willoughby Lacy; on his retirement from the stage Garrick had sold his half-share to Sheridan, Ford and Linley. The original agreement between Garrick and Lacy, as recited in a document retained by the attorney Albany Wallis was that, in case of the sale of either share of the patent, or any part of either share, the seller was obligated to offer the first refusal to purchase to the other partner, and that this was to be done only when the theatre was closed for the summer. In selling one half of his share to Robert Langford and to Edward Thompson, Willoughby Lacy was--so argued his three partners--acting illegally: he had not offered to them the first refusal, and he was negotiating the sale at a time when the theatre was open. Public Advertiser, 17 Oct.. prints a statement from Lacy saying that he did not feel himself bound by the original agreement between his father and Garrick, but that, in the interest of the business of the theatre, he had asked Langford and Thompson to withdraw their claim to partnership, to which request they had acceded. Receipts: #130 9s. 6d