Event Comment: Benefit for Mrs Mattocks. 1st piece: In 3 Acts. [In 1st piece the playbill assigns Welford to Holman, and in 3rd piece Don Carlos to the same. But "An uncle of Holman expired suddenly on Saturday morning. An apology was made for Holman in the evening, and Macready took the Parts he was to have performed in the Play and Farce" (True Briton, 8 May). In 1st piece Cheaterly is assigned to Macready; who took his place is not stated.] True Briton, 22 Apr.: Tickets to be had of Mrs Mattocks, No. 8, Great Russell-street, Covent-Garden. Receipts: #223 12s. 6d. (118.10.0; 4.2.0; tickets: 101.0.6)

Event Comment: Benefit for Mrs Martyr. 2nd piece [1st time; M. INT 1]. 3rd piece: Not acted these 2 years. Morning Chronicle, 17 Apr.: Tickets to be had of Mrs Martyr, No. 16, Martlet-court, Bow-street, Covent Garden. Receipts: #482 10s. (214.5.6; 8.9.0; tickets: 259.15.6)

Event Comment: Benefit for Townsend and Mrs Johnson. 3rd piece [1st time in London; F 1, by William Dunlap]: Performed with distinguished Applause at the John St.? Theatre, New York [on 9 Jan. 1797]; compressed into one act [from two], and adapted for the English Stage by a Gentleman [perhaps the author]. "Commencing at half past eleven o'clock, and after a tiresome variety of other entertainments, the audience thought they had had enough for their money, and demanded the fall of the curtain before the conclusion of [Tell Truth and Shame the Devil]" (Monthly Mirror, June 1799, p. 367). Morning Chronicle, 8 May: Tickets to be had of Townsend, No. 9, Leicester-place. [Mrs Johnson not listed.] Receipts: #442 17s. 6d. (108.1.0; 1.11.0; tickets: 333.5.6, of which Townsend sold 218.2.0; Mrs Johnson 115.3.6)

Event Comment: By Command of Their Majesties. "Towards the conclusion [of afterpiece, Miss DeCamp] fell with Kelly, while in the act of running down the stage; her head striking with so much violence against the boards that she fainted away [having received a severe contusion that necessitated surgery]" (Morning Herald, 8 Feb.). It is to be hoped that the events of Thursday Evening will prove a wholesome warning to the servants of the Theatre, and enforce the necessity of sweeping the stage with greater care. The disaster, it seems, originated in the peel of an orange, which the Copper Captain [in mainpiece] throws away" (Dramatic Censor, I, 210). Receipts: #591 19s. (525.13.6; 63.5.6; 3.0.0)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the Opera, where there was a new play (Cutter of Coleman Street), made in the year 1658, with reflections much upon the late times; and it being the first time, the pay was doubled, and so to save money, my wife and I went up into the gallery, and there sat and saw very well; and a very good play it is. It seems of Cowly's making. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 25): This Comedy being Acted so perfectly Well and Exact, it was perform'd a whole Week with a full Audience. John Dennis, Dedication to The Comical Gallant, 1702: The only Play that ever Mr Cowley writ, was barbarously treated the first night, as the late Mr Dryden has more than once informed me, who has told me that he went to see it with the famous Mr Sprat, now Bishop of Rochester, and that after the Play was done, they both made a visit to Mr Cowley. Langbaine (English Dramatick Poets, p. 81): This Play met with some Opposition, at its Representation under this new Name, from some who envyed the Authors unshaken Loyalty to the Prince, and the Royal Cause, in the worst of Times. BM Add. Mss. 34217, fol. 31b, in Hotson (Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 247): @The Cutter of Coleman street had more fame@Before the Author chang'd its name@And shewd himselfe an Englishman right@By mending of things to spoyle them quite@And bee's more to blame because he can tell@(No better) to make new strings soe well.

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys does not indicate that this performance is the premiere, and Summers, The Playhouse of Pepys, p. 137, states, without offering his evidence, that the play first appeared on 11 Aug. 1664. The play also appears in Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 138. If Pepys saw the premiere, the play was possibly given on 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 Aug. Pepys, Diary: Mr Creed dining with me I got him to give my wife and me a play this afternoon, lending him money to do it, which is a fallacy that I have found now once, to avoyde my vowe with, but never to be more practised I swear, and to the new play, at the Duke's house, of Henry the Fifth; a most noule play, writ by my Lord Orrery; wherein Betterton, Harris, and Ianthe's parts are most incomparably wrote and done, and the whole play the most full of height and raptures of wit and sense, that ever I heard; having but one incongruity, or what did not please me in it, that is, that King Harry promises to plead for Tudor to their Mistresse, Princesse Katherine of France, more than when it comes to it he seems to do; and Tudor refused by her with some kind of indignity, not with a difficulty and honour that it ought to have been done in to him. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 27-28: This Play was Splendidly Cloath'd: The King, in the Duke of York's Coronation Suit; Owen Tudor, in King Charle's: Duke of Burgundy, in the Lord of Oxford's, and the rest all New. It was Excellently Perform'd, and Acted 10 Days Successively

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: Being full of my desire of seeing my Lord Orrery's new play this afternoon at the King's house, The Black Prince, the first time it is acted; where though we come by two o'clock, yet there was no room in the pit, but we were forced to go into one of the upper boxes, at 4s. a piece, which is the first time I ever sat in a box in my life. And in the same box come, by and by, behind me, my Lord Barkeley and his lady; but I did not turn my face to them to be known, so that I was excused from giving them my seat; and this pleasure I had, that from this place the scenes do appear very fine indeed, and much better than in the pit. The house infinite full, and the King and Duke of York was there. By and by the play begun, and in it nothing Particular but a very fine dance for variety of figures, but a little too long. But, as to the contrivance, and all that was witty (which, indeed, was much, and very witty), was almost the same that had been in his two former plays of Henry the 5th and Mustapha, and the same points and turns of wit in both, and in this very same play often repeated, but in excellent language, and were so excellent that the whole house was mightily pleased with it all along till towards the end he comes to discover the chief of the plot of the play by the reading of a long letter, which was so long and some things (the people being set already to think too long) so unnecessary that they frequently begun to laugh, and to hiss twenty times, that, had it not been for the King's being there, they had certainly hissed it off the stage. But I must confess that, as my Lord Barkeley says behind me, the having of that long letter was a thing so absurd, that he could not imagine how a man of his parts could possibly fall into it; or, if he did, if he had but let any friend read it, the friend would have told him of it; and, I must confess, it is one of the most remarkable instances that ever I did or expect to meet with in my life of a wise man's not being wise at all times, and in all things, for nothing could be more ridiculous than this, though the letter of itself at another time would be thought an excellent letter, and indeed an excellent Romance, but at the end of the play, when every body was weary of sitting, and were already possessed with the effect of the whole letter, to trouble them with a letter a quarter of an hour long was a most absurd thing. After the play done, and nothing pleasing them from the time of the letter to the end of the play, people being put into a bad humour of disliking (which is another thing worth the noting), I home by coach, and could not forbear laughing almost all the way home, and all the evening to my going to bed, at the ridiculousness of the letter, and the more because my wife was angry with me, and the world, for laughing, because the King was there, though she cannot defend the length of the letter

Event Comment: The King's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but, as the companies were probably silenced to at least the end of July, and the play was entered in the Stationers' Register, 12 Sept. 1670, it was probably acted in August 1670. The Dedication tends to confirm this with the statement: in spight of a dead Vacation

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. There is no certainty that this date represents the premiere. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 2. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 347. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 33-34): Loves Jealousy, and The Morning Ramble. Written by Mr Nevil Pain. Both were very well Acted, but after their first run, were laid aside, to make Room for others; the Company having then plenty of new Poets. Two songs, Ah Corydon in vain you boast and Some happy soul come down and tell, both set by Robert Smith, are in Choice Songs and Ayres, The First Book, 1673

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@141, p. 2. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 347. There is no indication that this is the premiere. A song, From friends all inspired, set by Robert Smith, is in Choice Songs and Ayres, The First Book, 1673. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, pp. 33-34: Loves Jealousy, and The Morning Ramble. Written by Mr Nevil Pain: Both were very well Acted, but after their first run, were laid aside, to make Room for others; the Company having then plenty of new Poets

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. The date of the premiere is not known, but the date of licensing, 4 May 1676, suggests a production not later than March or April 1676. The Dedication indicates that the play was also acted privately at the residence of the Duchess of Albemarle, New-Hall

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@142, p. 81: At the Virtuoso. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 348. Nell Gwyn also attended this performance; see VanLennep, Nell Gwyn's Playgoing, p. 407. The Diary of Robert Hooke, 25 May 1676: Mr Abraham Hill gave J. Hoskins, Aubery and I an account of Vertuoso play. A song, How retched is the slave to love, the music by Francis Forcer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Second Book, 1679. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 37): The Libertine and Virtuoso: Both Wrote by Mr Shadwell; they were both very well Acted, and got the company great Reputation

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@142, p. 81. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 348. Nell Gwyn also attended this performance; see VanLennep, Nell Gwyn's Playgoing, p. 407. Nell Gwyn's attendance again on Friday 9 June suggests that she attended the premiere. On that assumption, this Calendar lists the probable ten performances which Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 36) alludes to: And all the Parts being admirably Acted, it lasted successively 10 Days; it got more Money than any preceding Modern Tragedy

Event Comment: The King's Company. There is no indication of the date of the first performance, but a licensing date of 6 April 1677 and the large number of minor actors in the cast suggest a Lenten performance. Preface to edition of 1677: I think (without Ostentation) never was House more throng'd;...The first, second, and other times it was Acted, I think lost me no Credit, but...Fortune...Jaded me, robbing me of the Honour of my Plays continuance for that time; by a Mischance which hapned to one, whose Part was too considerable to be quickly studied

Event Comment: The United Company. There is no certainty as to when the first performance occurred, but it can hardly be later than 11 Nov. 1690, when it was entered in the Stationers' Register; it was then advertised in the London Gazette, No. 2618, 11-15 Dec. 1690. On the assumption that the performance of Amphitryon on 21 Oct. 1690 followed its premiere, Distress'd Innocence has been assigned to late October 1690. The Overture and seven Act Tunes were composed by Henry Purcell. See Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XVI (1906), xix. Dedication, Edition of 1691: I must still own my self indebted on all Hands, not only to the kind Audience, but likewise to the kind Company, who amongst other Favours, were pleased to be at the Charge of dressing my Play to so much Advantage. But above all I must make my publick Acknowledgments to Mr Betterton for his several extraordinary Hints to the heightening of my best Characters, nor am I a little indebted to Mr Montfort, for the last Scene of my Play which he was so kind to write for me

Event Comment: Christopher Rich's Company. The date of this revival is not certain. Apparently the revival was in preparation before the division of the company, but the publication of the Songs in 1695 confines the production to the period between mid-April and the late autumn. For the opera, see The Works of John Dryden, Vol. VIII: The Plays, edited by John Harrington Smith and Dougald MacMillan (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1692), pp. 325-30; Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theatre, Chapter VI;and Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, Vol. XIX. The Songs (1695), the music by Henry Purcell, lists the following pieces and singers: I, Wake, wake, Quivera, sung by Freeman. I, Why shou'd men quarrel, sung by The Boy, with Flutes. Their looks are such that mercy flows, sung by Freeman. II, I come to sing, sung by Freeman. Scorn'd Envy here's nothing, sung by Freeman. Begone, curst Feinds of Hell, sung by Freeman. III, Ah, how happy we are, sung by Freeman and Church. I attempt from Love's sickness to fly, sung by Mrs Cross. IV, They tell us that you mighty powers above, sung by Mrs Cross. In addition, other parts of the opera appeared elsewhere: Act V, a Masque, set by Daniel Purcell, O Bless the Genial Bed with chast delights, in Deliciae Musicae, First Book of the Second Volume, 1696. [The others, since they do not name the performers, are omitted here.

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first performance of this revision is uncertain. Although the play was not entered in the Term Catalogues until June 1696, the edition is date 1695. The production was certainly before May 1696, when Horden died, but the only fact which suggests a performance as early as December is the date on the title page. When the play was revived at Drury Lane on 13 Oct. 1711, the bill bore the heading: Not Acted these Fifteen Years

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the fact that the play was advertised in the Post Boy, 11-13 May 1697, suggests that it was first acted about mid-April, a month before publication. For an account of the history of the play before its production, see Cibber, Apology, I, 217-18

Event Comment: [By Bevil Higgons. Date of premiere unknown. Published 15 Jan. 1702.] Dedicatory essay:...the short Time of its being Acted