Event Comment: Mainpiece: Not acted these 12 years. [In mainpiece the playbill assigns Beverley to Palmer, but his "indisposition on Wednesday gave Kemble an opportunity of shewing himself in comedy" {Morning Chronicle, 28 Oct.).] Receipts: #110 10s. (81/18; 28/1; 0/11)

Event Comment: [By Richard Steele. Date of premiere unknown. Published 20 Dec.] Colley Cibber: I remember [Rich] once paid us nine Days in one Week: This happen'd when the Funeral...was first acted, with more than expected Success.-Apology, I, 263

Event Comment: Not Acted these Seven Years. Written by Ben Johnson. Daily Advertiser, 1 Nov.: On Saturday Night a great Number of Wax Candles were lighted in the Windows of Mr Cibber's, Mr Booth's, and Mr Wilks's Houses...on account of his Majesty's Birthday

Event Comment: Whereas divers Complaints have been made, that Numbers...shift from Box to Box, to the great Annoyance of the Ladies...which Inconvenience appears on Enquiry to be caus'd by many not Paying...an Office is erected in the Lobby to the Boxes, where all Persons (the Ladies Excepted) are asked to take Tickets before they go in. Receipts: #64 19s. (Account Book); #100 (Rylands MS.). Rylands MS.: Cibber ill

Event Comment: [In her memoirs Mrs Charke states that this play was acted four times consecutively during the run of Romeo and Juliet.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the licensing of the play on 13 Aug. 1677 suggests a production not later than July 1677. Dedication to edition of 1678: But having...suffer'd so much through the defects of setting off, when it came on the Stage, it dares not now reject any Accomdation the Press cane give it. For (with the Theatres good leave to speak Truth,) it cannot receive greater Disadvantage in the Reading, than it met in the Presenting, The chief Parts Acted by Women; and, for their Ease, and somewhat of decorum, as was pretended, whole scenes left out, and scarcely any one Speech unmangled and entire. As for Adornments, in Habit, Musick, and Scene-Work it was Vacation-time, and the Company would not venture the Charge

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first performance is uncertain, and the play has been sometimes assigned to December 1695. There are indications, however, that the play first appeared at a later time, but certainly not later than 14 March 1695@6, the date attached to the Dedication. The Epilogue has some allusions which suggest mid-February, for it refers to the "Fasting time" of Lent and to "Dancing at Drapers-Hall last Masquerade" (a masquerade ball was held there on 4 Feb. 1695@6). Dedication, Edition of 1696: This Play was given to my Care by a Friend: I promis'd him not to neglect it in the Difficulties it was to pass through. It has had hitherto but an unpleasant Journey; and I knew no better way to make Amends, than by taking up its Rest with you [Sir John Smith]; where I am assured its Reception will be the best a truly Noble and Generous Soul can give. I beg not your Protection, Sir, from those wide-mouth'd Curs, the Criticks: But since they have had their Ends in running it down, 'tis under the Shelter of your Name I desire a poor maim'd Thing, that did its best to shew them Sport, may lye secure from farther Danger....H. Horden. A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702), p. 18: Damn'd

Event Comment: [By Thomas Moore.] With Musick Vocal and Instrumental, Dances, and other Decorations proper to the same. Victor, History of the Theatres, II, 144: Three or four Years after the Performance of this famous Tragedy, I had the following account from several of the Actors who performed in it: That Sir Thomas gave them many good Dinners and Suppers during the Rehearsals of the Play, which they all laugh'd at as ridiculous; but as the Company was, at that Time, composed chiefly of young Actors, and got but small Encouragement from the Public; it may be justly said, their Necessities compelled them to perform this strange Tragedy, which stood some chance to divert from its Absurdities

Event Comment: By Command of His Royal Highness the Duke, and their Highnesses the Princesses Caroline, Mary, and Louisa [who were present]. London Daily Post and General Advertiser, 28 Feb.: The Author perceiving from the Behaviour of some Persons, a determin'd Resolution, notwithstanding the Presence of part of the Royal Family, to breed a Disturbance, to the Prejudice of the Play, occasion'd, as 'tis supposed, from an invidious Letter inserted in Thursday's Grubstreet Journal, has chose to withdraw his Play, rather than give them an Opportunity of gratifying their Malice, by a Repetition of such Disturbances as must necessarily prevent the Audience from hearing the Performance in Peace. Receipts: #112 14s

Event Comment: Mainpiece: By Particular desire. Afterpiece: Never Acted Before. [The Farce by Fielding is a sequel to The Virgin Unmasked.] Forbidden soon by the Lord Chamberlain. It being supposed that a particular man of quality was pointed at in one of the characters. The prohibition short of duration (Genest, III, 652). See A Letter to a Noble Lord to whom it alone belongs, occasioned by a representation at Drury Lane of a Farce call'd Miss Lucy in Town (1742), [a 20 page pamphlet criticizing the Lord Chamberlain for allowing this farce. Author gives a scene by scene account emphasizing the bawdry and discounting the pious conclusion. He concludes with remarks on theatrical dancing]: As to Dances, I think your province of prohibition does not extend; so the Public cannot owe their gratitude to you for several. I appeal to those who have been on the coast of Malabar and the banks of the Ganges whether we have not had some that have exceeded on posture, or anything of that kind so common amongst the polite Indians of Indostan. Afterpiece: Mrs Clive mimics the Muscovita admirably, and Beard Amorevoli intolerably (H. Walpole to H. Mann, 26 May).-Horace Walpole Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, I, 435. Receipts: #70

Event Comment: This play was reviv'd instead of ye London Cuckolds by way of Compliment to the City--not lik'd at all--Mr Ross being ill Mr Mattocks did his part at 2 Day's Notice, wch at the end of the 4 Act Mr Woodward told the Audience, & tho Mr Mattocks was hiss'd before, when he next appear'd they gave him great Applause. Mattocks never play'd a principal part before in London (Cross). Mainpiece: Never Acted there. [Inspector No 206 reports a letter on the lack of wisdom of giving the London Cuckolds on Lord Mayor's Day, as the morals of the trading youth have been corrupted by it the writer rejoices to see the substitution of Eastward Hoe for it (Daily Advertiser and Literary Gazette).] Receipts: #130 (Cross)

Event Comment: Rec'd of Squibb for an order for two into the Boxes the 4th inst. 10s. (Account Book). [Query: The same two friends for whom he gave orders on 27 Nov.? If so they must have been important persons as Squibb this night paid half its night's salary to seat them.] Receipts: #175 8s. (Account Book)

Event Comment: Mainpiece [1st time; C 5]: By the celebrated Henry Fielding; and never yet performed or published. With new Scenes, Dresses, &c. [and incidental music by Michael Arne. Prologue by David Garrick. Epilogue by the same (see text)]. Public Advertiser, 12 Dec. 1778: This Day is published The Fathers (1s. 6d.). "This play was written by Mr Henry Fielding, some years before his death. Mr Garrick saw it at that time. Mr Fielding gave the only fair copy he had of it to his friend Sir Charles Williams, of whose judgment he entertained a high opinion. Sir Charles soon after went abroad, and the comedy was mislaid. Mr. Fielding communicated this circumstance to his family on his death-bed; and enquiry was made for it, but without effect. At length Mr Thomas? Johnes, Member for Cardigan, looking over Sir Charles's books, found a comedy in manuscript, which he read, and, approving, had it transcribed and sent to Mr Garrick for his opinion, who, like Archimedes, cried out, 'This is the lost sheep! This is Mr Henry Fielding's play!' Mr Garrick communicating it to Mr Johnes, Mr Johnes immediately sent the original manuscript, which was in Mr Fielding's hand-writing, to the family, with his best wishes for its success, promising to assist it to the utmost of his power" (Gentleman's Magazine, Dec. 1778, p.586). See also, for corroboration of the above and for other details, Wilbur L. Cross, The History of Henry Fielding, 1918, III, 99-104. Receipts: #210 11s. 6d. (186.6.0; 23.19.6; 0.6.0)

Event Comment: Benefit for Mr and Mrs T. Kennedy. Mainpiece: Not acted these 2 years. Many Tickets of Mr Kennedy's having been stolen, he gives public Notice that no Tickets sold at the Doors or Avenues of the Theatre will have Admission this Evening. Morning Chronicle, 19 May: Tickets to be had of Kennedy, No. 44, Great Queen-street. Receipts: #108 4s. 6d. (41/1/6; 5/3/0; tickets: 62/0/0) (charge: #105)

Event Comment: [In mainpiece the playbill retains Miss Farren, "but on account of the sudden indisposition of Miss Farren her part in the play was read by Mrs Ward, who gave it with great effect, and having studied Miss Farren's manner, was a very tolerable substitute" (Diary, 2 May).] Afterpiece [1st time; C 3, by John Philip Kemble]: Taken from [The Country Lasses; or] The Custom of the Manor [by Charles Johnson]. Diary, 6 May 1789: This Day is published The Farm House (1s.). And see 6 May. Receipts: #165 3s. (125.12.0; 34.18.6; 4.12.6)

Event Comment: "Spectas, et tu Spectabere is the inscription over the curtain in the Little Haymarket Theatre. I was there on 29th [sic] July 1794: they gave a National opera, N. B. a piece in Scottish costumes. The men were dressed in flesh-coloured breeches, with white and red ribbons twisted round their stockings, a short, brightly-coloured, striped masons' apron, brown coat and waistcoat, over the coat a large, broad ensign's sash in the same style as the apron, and black cap shaped like a shoe and trimmed with ribbons. The women all in white muslin, brightly coloured ribbons in their hair, very broad bands in the same style round their bodies, also for their hats. They perform the same abominable trash as at Sadlers Wells. A fellow yelled an aria so horribly and with such exaggerated grimaces that I began to sweat all over. N. B. He had to repeat the aria. 0 che bestie!" (Haydn, pp. 294-95)

Event Comment: The United Company. As 9 Nov. 1692 is known to be the second day, it is assumed that 8 Nov. 1692 represents the first performance. (See entry for 9 Nov. 1692.) The authorship is uncertain; William Mountfort signed tne Dedication, but its authorship is linked with that of Edward III (November 1690), which may have been by Bancroft. Gentleman's Journal, October 1692 (not issued until November): Henry the Second, King of England, A new Play, by the Author of that call'd Edward the Third, which gave such universal satisfaction, hath been acted several times with applause. It is a Tragedy with a mixture of Comedy....Had you seen it acted, you would own that an Evening is pass'd very agreeably, when at a Representation of that pleasing Piece. [Alfred Harbage, Elizabethan-Restoration Palimpsest, Modern Language Review, XXXV (1940), 312-18, argues that this play is the Elizabethan Henry II once in the possession of Moseley. A song, In vain 'gainst Love I strove, composed by Henry Purcell and sung by Mrs Dyer, not in the printed play, is in Comes Amoris, 1693, and Joyful Cuckoldom 1695. See Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XX (1916), vii