Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the licensing date of 13 March 1677@8 suggests a late February premiere. In addition, the many names of minor performers point to a Lenten performance. The Prologue also speaks of it as a 'Lenten Play.

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but a licensing date of 13 April 1678 suggests a production in March. This play is entered ahead of Trick for Trick primarily because the latter has a slightly later licensing date

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. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@143, p. 162. An entry for the same play on L. C. list, 5@144, p. 120, with the date 25 April, is possibly an error. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, pp. 348-49. There is no indication that this performance is the premiere, but a licensing date of 31 May 1678 suggests a premiere in April 1678

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known. As the play was licensed for printing, 10 March 1678@9, March 1679 is the latest likely date for the premiere

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 premiere is not known, but its Prologue indicates that it follows The Woman Captain. Like that play and The Virtuous Wife, Caius Marius was entered in the Term Catalogues, November 1679, but the large number of plays apparently presented earlier in the autumn suggests that this one could hardly have been brought on the stage before October 1679

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 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 King's Company. This play was acted at Oxford on 19 March 1680@1 before Charles II (see True Protestant Mercury, 19-23 March 1680@1; Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 80; and Smith's Protestant Intelligence, 24-28 March 1681). The play may have been given first in London; if not, it probably was not acted there until after Easter, 3 April 1681. The company also performed The Plain Dealer in Oxford on 21 March 1680@1 (Smith's Protestant Intelligence, 24-28 March 1681)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell dated his copy, 17 Dec. 1681; hence a November 1681 first production is likely. See VanLennep, Two Restoration Comedies, pp. 57-58

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not certain, but it was probably this day. A letter dated 26 Jan. 1681@2 speaks of the preceding day's performance as the "poet's day," presumably the third day; it is likely, therefore, that the premiere fell on Monday, 23 Jan. 1681@2. The Prologue and Epilogue, were printed separately in 1682 and reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 50-51. Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) bears his acquisition date of 14 Feb. 1681@2. A note on the Library of Congress copy indicated that Smith spoke the Prologue. A song, Great Augustus like the glorious sun, with music by John Blow, is in A New Collection of Poems and Songs, 1683. Another, Now the Tones all must droop, sung by Bowman, is in the same collection, but without indication of the composer, and a third, Twa bonny lads were Sawney and Jockey, without singer or composer, is in the same collection

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell purchased his copies of the separately printed Prologue and Epilogue on 15 May 1682 (Huntington Library); hence, the premiere occurred before that date. The Prologue also refers to the feast which the Whigs attempted to hold at Haberdashers' Hall on 21 April 1682 but were restrained, pointing toward late April as a probable date for the first performance. The separately printed Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 77-79. A song, In Phyllis all vile jests are met, with music by Giovanni Draghi, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Fourth Book, 1683. Langbaine (English Dramatic Poets, 1691, p. 19): This Play had the luck to be well receiv'd in the Town

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 United Company. The date of the first Performance is not known, but, as the play was advertised in The Observator, 8 Aug. 1683, it was probably first acted not later than July 1683. A song, Welcome mortal to this place, set to music by Captain Pack for this play, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, 1684

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not certain, but it was very likely this day. Writing on 12 May 1688, Peregrine Bertie states that it had been acted nine days successively. If the ninth performance fell on Friday 12 May, the premiere probably occurred on Wednesday 3 May. The Prologue and Epilogue, printed separately, are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 261-63. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 41): This Play by its Excellent Acting, being often Honour's with the presence of Chancellor Jeffereies, and other great Persons had an Uninterrupted run of 13 Days together. Note, The Poet receided for his third Day in the House in Drury Lane at single Prizes 130 l. which was the greatest Receipt they ever had at that House at single Prizes. Dedication, Edition of 1688: This, I must confess, made me hope for success upon the Stage, which it met with, but so great, as was above my expectation (in this Age which has run mad after Farces) no Comedy, for these many years, having fill'd the Theatre so long together: And I had the great Honour to find so many Friends, that the House was never so full since it was built, as upon the third day of this Play; and vast numbers went away, that could not be admitted. For Leigh as Belfond Sr, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 147-48; and for Underhill as Lolpoop, I, 154-55. For further comment upon the play, see 12 May 1688

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the fact that the play was announced in the London Gazette, 23-27 May 1689, and entered in the Term Catalogues, June 1689, suggests that the premiere probably occurred not later than April 1689, possibly very early in May 1689

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but it followed The Gordian Knot Unty'd, which is mentioned in the Prologue. Edward III was advertised in the London Gazette, No. 2629, 19-22 Jan. 1690@1, and entered in the Term Catalogues, February 1690@1. The authorship is uncertain. The title page bears no author's name, but the Dedication is signed by Will. Mountfort. In addition, on 10 Oct. 1691 Mountfort received a grant of #10 when Edward III was played before the Queen (L. C. 5@150, p. 306, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 357). On tne other hand, the Gentleman's Journal, October 1692, stated that it was written by the author of Henry the Second, which has been attributed to John Bancroft. See Nicoll, Restoration Drama, pp. 388-89, for a summation of the evidence on this problem. Alfred Harbage, Elizabethan-Restoration Palimpsest, Modern Language Review, XXXV (1940), 319, thinks that this is a revision of Robert Davenport's The Politic Queen

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known. This is the second of three plays which have been assigned to December 1690 (see Alphonso and The Mistakes). It was entered in the Term Catalogues, Feb. 1690@1, and advertised in the London Gazette, No. 2638, 19-23 Feb. 1690@1