Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but as the play was licensed for printing on 27 March 1679, the premiere must have been no later than March 1679. It is possible that Midnight's Intrigue--see introductory note to the 1676-77 season-is an earlier version of this play. The Epilogue suggests that the players faced thin audiences during the spring and that Drury Lane had been closed for some time: So hard the Times are, and so thin the Town, @Though but one Playhouse, that must too lie down. It is possible that Mrs Behn's The Young King may have been acted at this time. See September 1679

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is uncertain, but the fact that the play was entered in the Stationers' Register on 14 April 1679 suggests a premiere not later than April 1679. A song, Can life be a blessing, with music by Thomas Farmer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Third Book, 1681

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is uncertain. The fact that the Epilogue suggests that it followed Settle's The Female Prelate is not a factor in the dating, as the Newdigate newsletters--see Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80--show that Settle's play was first acted on 31 May 1680, whereas Caesar Borgia was entered in the Term Catalogues, November 1679. Although the reference in the Epilogue to burning the Pope's Effigies" has been argued as referring to the Pope-burning procession of 17 Nov. 1679, the references in the Epilogue to Father Lewis, who was tried and convicted at York, 28 March 1679, suggest that it was written before his execution, 27 Aug. 1679. Hence the play may have been acted first some time in the late spring or the summer. A song, Blush not redder than the Morning, with music by Thomas Farmer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Third Book, 1681

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. An entry in L. C. 5@145, p. 120 (see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 349) lists a performance for 4 April, once thought to be 4 April 1680; but as this date falls on Sunday, it more likely represents a revival on 4 April 1681. As the Epilogue appears to appeal to Parliament (which existed from 15 Oct. 1680 to 18 Jan. 1680@1) to vote funds for King Charles, "Our King of Poets," it seems likely that the play was first performed before the close of Parliament. The play was not entered in the Term Catalogues until June 1681. A song, Phyllis whose heart was unconfined, set by Thomas? Farmer; and another, A pox upon this cursed life, set by Captain Pack, are in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Fourth Book, 1683

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The play was apparently never published, but the Prologue and Epilogue were printed and have been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 43-45. The Epilogue also appeared in Miscellany, Being a Collection of Poems by several Hands, 1685, and has been reprinted in A Little Ark, ed. G. Thorn-Drury, p. 46. The latest date at which the play, with the Prologue and Epilogue, first appeared is 5 April 1682, the date Luttrell placed on his copies (Huntington Library), presumably representing the day on which he acquired them. G. Thorn-Drury, commenting upon the Epilogue, points out that it refers to the trial of Pilkington, one of the Sheriffs of London, ca. 25 March 1681@2. It seems likely, then, that this lost play was presented in March

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: Luttrell, A Brief Relation, II, 437: This being the queen s birth day, a new ode was sung before her upon the occasion: the nobility and gentry, with the lord mayor and aldermen of this citty, attended to compliment thereon. Gentleman's Journal, May 1692: The 30th of April, being Her Majesties Birth-day, was observ'd with all the usual Solemnity. I design'd to have sent you an Attempt of mine in Verse, on that noble Subject: But having happily obtain'd a Copy of those writ by Sir Charles Sidley, it would have been an unpardonable Crime, to have joyn'd my weak Essay to a Piece by so great a Master. [The Ode, Love's Goddess Sure, the music by Henry Purcell, is in Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XXIV (1926), i.