Event Comment: [Mainpiece in place of The Winter's Tale; afterpiece of The Jubilee, both announced on playbill of 5 Nov. In mainpiece the playbill assigns the Queen to Mrs Hopkins, but on the Kemble playbill her name is deleted. The name of her substitute has not come to light.] Receipts: #91 15s. (69/12; 21/13; 0/10)

Event Comment: [In mainpiece the playbill assigns Jessica to Mrs Bland, but "an apology was made stating the indisposition of Mrs Bland, and requesting that Miss Heard might be permitted to perform Jessica, which was agreed to" (Thespian Magazine, Apr. 1793, p. 243). In afterpiece the playbill assigns Mrs Matadore to Mrs Hopkins, but "Benson informed the audience that owing to a mistake in the bills, Mrs Hopkins's Name had been inserted instead of Mrs Booth's (ibid).] Receipts: #139 11s. (136.12; 2.19)

Event Comment: Powell: [In mainpiece] Jones the Doctor, Packer [retained in playbill] ill. The Jew rehearsed at 10 (for Bannister Jun.; Mrs Hopkins ill); Siege of Belgrade at 12 . Receipts: #461 15s. 6d. (390/0/0; 69/18/6; 1/5/0; tickets not come in: 0/12/0)

Event Comment: Powell: Notice being sent yesterday of Mrs Hopkins being ill, a Book of the Jew was sent to Mrs Heard about 4 o'clock in the Afternoon for her to study the Part of Mrs Ratcliffe, who, after keeping it till this morning, returned it saying she could not undertake it, in Consequence of which Mrs Maddocks read the Part. Mountaineers rehearsed at 10. Receipts: #292 16s. 6d. (221.12.6; 69.0.0; 2.4.0)

Event Comment: Flora's Figarys appears in Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 148, under this date. As Flora's Vagaries, it had been acted at Christ Church, Oxford, on 8 Jan. 1663. The play was not published before 1670, and the entry in Herbert's list has sometimes been regarded as the date of licensing, sometimes as the date of a performance in London. Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 427, assigned it to ca. January 1662@3 at Vere St, presumably because "Mr Bird" in the cast in the quarto of 1670 referred to Theophilus Bird, who died before 3 Nov. 1663. But the cast in the edition of 1670 is presumably that for 5 Oct. 1667, when Pepys saw the play and referred to Nell Gwyn and Mrs Knepp as acting in it; they, too, are listed in the quarto of 1670 but could hardly have played in it in 1663. If the cast in the 1670 edition is not that for 3 Nov. 1663 and if the "Mr Bird" is Theophilus Bird Jr, then the obstacles to consiuering 3 Nov. 1663 as the date of a performance rather than of licensing are less formidable. [I am indebted to professor John Harold Wilson for much of this argument.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of performance is uncertain. The play was entered in the Stationers' Register, 15 Feb. 1663@4, and its publication noted in The Newes, 3 March 1663@4. Katherine Philips, writing from Cardigan, Wales to Lady Temple in London, 24 Jan. 1663@4: I beleive er'e this you have seen the new Pompey either acted or written & then will repent your partiallity to ye other, but I wonder much what preparations for it could prejudice Will Davenant when I heare they acted in English habits, & yt so aprope yt Caesar was sent in with his feather & Muff, till he was hiss'd off ye Stage & for ye Scenes I see not where they could place any yt are very extra-ordinary, but if this play hath not diverted ye Cittizens wives enough Sr W: D: will make amends, for they say Harry ye 8th & some later ones are little better then Puppett-plays. I understand ye confederate-translators are now upon Heraclius, & I am contented yt Sr Tho. Clarges (who hath done that last yeare) should adorn their triumph in it, as I have done in Pompey (Harvard Theatre Collection)

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: With my wife to the King's house, but there found the bill torn down and no play acted.... Here [at lif; see below] met with Mr Rolt, who tells me the reason of no play to-day at the King's house. That Lacy had been committed to the porter's lodge for his acting his part in the late new play [see 15 April], and that being thence released he come to the King's house, there met with Ned Howard, the poet of the play, who congratulated his release; upon which Lacy cursed him as that it was the fault of his nonsensical play that was the cause of his ill usage. Mr Howard did give him some reply, to which Lacy [answered] him, that he was more a fool than a poet; upon which Howard did give him a blow on the face with his glove; on which Lacy, having a cane in his hand, did give him a blow over the pate. Here Rolt and others that discoursed of it in the pit this afternoon did wonder that Howard did not run him through, he being too mean a fellow to fight with. But Howard did not do any thing but complain to the King of it; so the whole house is silenced, and the gentry seem to rejoice much at it, the house being become too insolent