Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Downes (p. 29): It took well, but Inferior to Love in a Tub. Pepys, Diary: I to the Duke of York's playhouse; where a new play of Etherige's called She Would if she Could; and though I was there by two o'clock, there was 1000 people put back that could not have room in the pit: and I at last, because my wife was there, made shift to get into the 18d. box, and there saw; but, Lord! how full was the house, and how silly the play, there being nothing in the world good in it, and few people pleased in it. The King was there; but I sat mightily behind, and could see but little, and hear not all. The play being done...here was the Duke of Buckingham to-day openly sat in the pit; and there I found him with my Lord Buckhurst, and Sidly, and Etherige, the poet; the last of whom I did hear mightily find fault with the actors, that they were out of humour, and had not their parts perfect, and that Harris did do nothing, nor could so much as sing a ketch in it; and so was mightily concerned: while all the rest did, through the whole pit, blame the play as a silly, dull thing, though there was something very roguish and witty; but the design of the play, and end, mighty insipid. Thomas Shadwell, Preface to The Humorists (1671): The last (viz.) imperfect Action, had like to have destroy'd She Would if she could, which I think (and I have the Authority of some of the best Judges in England for't) is the best Comedy that has been written since the Restauration of the Stage: And even that, for the imperfect representation of it at first, received such prejudice, that, had it not ben for the favour of the Court, in all probability it had never got up again; and it suffers for it, in a great measure, to this very day

Event Comment: Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 31: Note, About the Year 1670, Mrs Aldridge, after Mrs Lee, after Lady Slingsby, also Mrs Leigh Wife of Mr Antony Leigh, Mr Crosby, Mrs Johnson, were entertain'd in the Duke's House

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. As the play was not printed until 1689, the date of composition is uncertain. In Act I, however, a reference to the death of the Earl of Rochester (26 July 1680) suggests that the play probably followed that even rather closely. On the other hand, the latest likely date for the first production seems set at late 1682 by the fact that Thomas Farmer's music for the play in BM Add. Mss. 19183-19185 is dated December 1682. The play has been placed in September 1680 as the earliest likely date (the presence of an experienced cast makes somewhat unlikely a production in mid-summer 1680). A song, All other blessings are but toys, with music by Thomas Farmer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Fourth Book, 1683. A song, Lovely Selina, innocent and free, with music by John Blow, is in the same collection; and another, Weep all ye nymphs, with music by John Blow, is in The Theater of Music, The First Book, 1685

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the first performance is not known. Wilson (Six Restoration Play-Dates, pp. 222-23) argues from a number of references (principally in the Epilogue) to events of early 1681 which point to a premiere near May 1681: to the dissolution of Parliament, 28 March 1681; to the comet which appeared in November 1680 and disappeared in January 1680@1; to the Hatfield Maid; to William Lilly, the astrologer, who is referred to as though alive, thus suggesting a premiere before his death, 9 June 1681. It is possible that the premiere may have been earlier than this. In 1681 was published Poeta de Tristibus; or, The Poet's Complaint, whose author had obviously read the Prologue and Epilogue to The Unhappy Favourite. He represents himself as a disappointed dramatist whose tragedy has been rejected by both houses because "their Summer-store@Will all this Winter last." With the work entered in the Term Catalogues in 1682 and a copy purchased by Narcissus Luttrell with his note "4d 1681 12 Nov" (see A Bibliography of John Dryden, ed. Macdonald, pp. 235-36), his quotations from the Epilogue to The Unhappy Favourite and references to the Prologue would offer no difficulties if it were not that the "Author's Epistle" in which the references are made is dated "at Dover the Tenth day of January 1680@1," thus suggesting that he had seen the Prologue and Epilogue before that date. Nevertheless, some of the references in the Epilogue (to Heraclitus Ridens, beginning on 1 Feb. 1680@1, and Democritus Ridens, beginning on 14 March 1680@1) preclude a January premiere for the Prologue and Epilogue. Possibly the dating of the "Author's Epistle" is in error