Event Comment: Three Brothers of ye Delavals play'd ye Eldest Othello, ye next Iago, ye next Cassio--+Brabantio & Lodovico Mr Pine Roderigo-Cap. Stevens and Wife Emelia $Mrs Quan did Desdemona, the performance was very decent & met with great applause the Audience from ye Boxes to the upper Gallery were fill'd with people of ye first rank & make a most brilliant appearance. & ye greatest Crowd at ye Doors I ever saw. their Agreement for ye House was a receipt of one of the Alfred Houses upon an Averidge. they had all new cloaths, & very nicely ornamented with Diamonds (Cross). [See eulogy and criticism in some detail concerning the acting, by John Hill, Inspector No 3.] All Gentlemen and Ladies who intend going in coaches this evening to Drury Lane Theatre, are desired to order their coachmen to drive thro' Covent Garden, and stop at Bridges St. Door, and as soon as they have set down the company to drive off directly towards the Strand.--Those who go in chairs, are requested to order the men to the New Door in Russel St., and to prevent the avenues being stopt up no person will be admitted to either passage without first showing their tickets at the outward door (General Advertiser). Tickets Lost. If any person has found three tickets (numbers forgot) for the private play this night at Drury Lane, and will be so kind as to bring them to the Bar of the Rainbow Coffee House, Ironmonger Lane, shall receive 15s. for the whole, or in proportion for one or two of them (General Advertiser). Tomorrow Morning at 8 o'clock will be published' (price 6d.) by Thomas Carnan, at Mr Newberry's, at the Bible and Sun in St Paul's Churchyard; An Occasional Prologue and Epilogue to Othello, as it will this night be acted at the theatre-Royal in Drury Lane, by Persons of distinction, for their diversion. Written by Christopher Smart, A.M., Fellow of Pembroke Hall in the University of Cambridge. To be had at the place above mentioned, and at the pamphlet shops at the Royal Exchange and Charing Cross. This Prologue and Epilogue will be entered in the Hall Book of the Company of Stationers, and whoever presumes to pyrate them, or any part of them, will be persecuted as the Law directs (General Advertiser). [Both pieces by Christopher Smart, according to the Daily Advertiser. See two exceedingly favorable critical comments and one derogatory reprinted in the Gentleman's Magazine, March 1751 (pp. 119-22): "The greatest part of the play was much better performed than it ever was on any stage before. In the whole, there was a face of nature that no theatrical piece, acted by common players ever came up to." Macklin was Delaval's dramatic coach, according to one of these articles.

Event Comment: Afterpiece [1st time; CO 2. but printed in 3, by John O'Keeffe]: Taken [by its author]. with various Alterations, from the Opera of The Lad of the Hills [see 9 Apr. 1796]. The Music partly compiled, and the Overture, new Music and the Accompaniments to the National Airs, composed by Shield. Books of the Songs to be had in the Theatre. Account-Book. 3 Oct.: Paid O'Keeffe for the Alteration of the Lad of the Hills and the Golden Pippin [see 5 Nov.] #100. Receipts: #220 19s. 6d. (209.15.6; 11.4.0)

Event Comment: Mainpiece: Not acted these 5 years [acted 16 Jan. 1789]. Afterpiece [1st time at a public theatre (1st acted at Lord Barrymore's private theatre at Wargrave, 13 Apr. 1791); P 2, by Carlo Antonio Delpini. Not published]: With entire new Music, Scenery, Machinery, Dresses, and Decorations. The Music composed by Baumgarten. The Scenes painted by Richards, Hodgins, Pugh, Walmsley, and other assistants. Books of the Songs [W. Woodfall, 1791] to be had at the Theatre. Nothing under Full Price will be taken. "The Piece was last night very incorrectly exhibited...The scenes of the destruction of the cottage by fire, the view of Strawberry-hill, and Blue Beard's infernal palace...are worthy of commendation. The last scene was not grand enough: the wings were by no means in unison" (Public Advertiser, 22 Dec.). Receipts: #279 13s. (249.19; 29.14)

Event Comment: In a letter to the Daily Post. 4 June, the Patentees of Drury Lane-Mary Wilks, John Ellys, Hester Booth, and John Highmore-stated the cast of the Patentees. The gist of their statement is: (1) They operate under a Patent commencing 1 Sept. 1732 which, by Deaths and Legal Assignments, is the property of the four, with Highmore possessing one half, at an expence of #6,000 and upwards. (2) Several of the Players have threatened to desert the service of the Patentees and have contracted with some of the Trustees (the Sharers) to secure possession of the Theatre. (3) Drury Lane is let upon lease from the Duke of Bedford, granted to Thomas Kynaston and Francis Stanhope, Trustees for the Sharers (commonly called Renters) of Drury Lane at the rent of #50 annually upon a Fine of 1,000 guineas paid for the renewal of the lease. (4) The Players, under the Patentees, have acted at Drury Lane for twenty-one years without any interruption form the Trustees upon the sole contract that the Patentees pay the Trustees #3 12s. each acting night, besides the Liberty of seeing Plays. (5) At the beginning of this Season the manager's office received a letter from a few of the Renters demanding an Advance of Rent. Highmore, being new, was concerned, and asked the managers to take care of the matter; and thereafter the signers (the Patentees) had heard of no further discontent among the Renters. (6) To defend themselves against stories of hardship or complaint by the actors, the Patentees point out that the following weekly salaries had been paid: Colley Cibber #12 12s.; Theophilus Cibber #5; Mills Sr, #1 daily for 200 days certain, and a benefit, clear of all charges; Mills Jr #3; Johnson #5; Miller #5; Harper #4; Griffin #4; Shepard #3; Hallam, for himself and his father, the latter of little or no service, #3; Mrs Heron #5; Mrs Butler #3. For these charges and others, the Patentees stand a daily expence of #49 when the theatre is open. (7) Further, the Patentees paid Cibber Jr his wife's whole salary without her being able to act the greater part of the winter, #9 weekly for the two; Mills Jr, in the same circumstances with his wife, #5 10s. weekly for the two; Miller a salary (amounting to #40) for eight weeks before he acted, and a gratuity of ten guineas; Griffin a present of ten guineas; Harper a present, amount not specified; Mrs Heron an increase form 40s. to #5 weekly, although she refused afterward to play several parts assigned her and acted but seldom

Event Comment: [This was the last performance ever held in this theatre. On 27 June the Morning Chronicle published the playbill for that same evening: Love in a Village and Comical Courtship, but on 29 June the same newspaper reported that on "Friday [26 June] (soon after the performances of the evening were finished at China Hall, Rotherhithe) the theatre was discovered to be on fire. The flames increased so rapidly that in a short time the whole building, with all the scenes, stage, cloaths, &c. were consumed...There is no doubt but the theatre was wilfully set on fire." During the course of the summer it was rebuilt, but "Yesterday morning the play-house at China-hall, Rotherhithe, was blown down by the violence of the wind. The said play-house was burnt down last summer, but it being insured was rebuilt by contract, and the tiling of it completely finished last week" (Gazetteer, 26 Nov. 1778). And see 30 July.

Event Comment: t foot of Bill]: Whenever a Pantomime or Farce shall be advertised, the advanced prices shall be returned to those who do not choose to stay; and on Thursday next will be published the Manager's reasons for his conduct in the present dispute. Winston MS.: Fleetwood, the manager, and servants driven from doors & all rushed in. Genest, IV, 137-38: A country gentleman was taken from an upper box and carried before a magistrate. This step when known by the audience occasioned much mischief. Acting the play not allowed. General Advertiser, 22 Nov.: An Address to the Public, dl Theatre 20 November. As the extraordinary disturbances which have lately happened at this theatre greatly affect the diversions of the publick, as well as the property of the manager, he thinks it incumbent on him to justify his conduct by giving a fair statement of the case....The reasons of complaint assigned, he apprehends, are the exhibition of Pantomimes, Advanced Prices, and Insults on the audience--as to the first, he submits it to be considered that however distasteful such pieces may be to the delicacy of some judgments, yet there are others to whose taste they are suited; as the playhouse may be considered as the general mart of pleasure, it is only from the variety of entertainment, the different tastes of the public can be supplied--of this the receipts of the house are a sufficient evidence, it being notorius, how necessary the addition of such pieces is towards procuring the best play a numerous audience. With regard to the advanced prices, the Manager hoped he should in some measure be justified by the great increase of the charges of the theatre which, notwithstanding any reduction that has been made, are still at least a fourth part greater than usual--but as in this point he has already submitted, he conceives it can no longer remain the subject of their displeasure, especially as by an advertisement handed about the theatre it was said that every objection would cease, when the manager consented to return the advanced prices to those, who did not choose to be tortured with entertainments. As to insults on the audience...last week upon some persons flinging the sconces and candles on the stage a quarrel arose, in the confusion of which a Gentleman was secured, but by whom the Manager knows not, nor ever gave any order, or was any acquainted with the affair till after he was discharged, for the truth of which he refers to the affidavit annexed. As to the accusation of several bruisers (as they are termed) being employed on Saturday night to insult Gentlemen, the Manager declares, that there was none but the Peace Officers, Carpenters, and Scene-men (which on account of the Entertainments are very numerous) and other servants belonging to the theatre; nor did they appear till urged by the tumult, by tearing up benches and threat'ning to come on the stage and demolish the scenes; nor could the Manager apprehend this legal precaution to prevent mischief and defend his property would ever be construed as an infringement on the liberty of an audience, especially when it is considered, what great damages he sustained some years ago on an attempt of the like nature--if any such persons appeared in the pit, the Manager presumes, they must have come in with the multitude, after his doorkeepers were drove from their posts, and the house was open to all; which was evident from several hundred persons more being present at the disturbance than were at the performance that night, who then came to a determination to prevent any performance on the Monday. After this impartial account of his conduct, the manager appeals to the judgment of the publick what foundation he has given for the outrageous disturbance on Monday night; and cannot help thinking, the real injuries he has sustained, too severe a punishment for an imaginary offence, having lost several hundred pounds already, by people being terrified from frequenting the theatre. A total exclusion is now insisted on, the Manager to resign his property, the Publick to be deprived of their diversions and the players of their subsistence; And all this after every concession, becoming one gentleman to ask, or another to make, has been submitted to. [Affidavit of Constable followed. See Genest, IV, 139-40.] The following three pamphlets came out expressing points of view concerning Fleetwood and his policy and management: I. The Disputes between the Director of d.l. and the Pit Potentates, 20 Nov. As a Letter to a Friend it tells the resolution: not to have old Pantomimes (so execrably bad that they were damn'd when new) imposed on them, unless the manager would take no more than common prices; reports how Fleetwood stocked the pit with Men of doughty valor...disguised in the habits of Gentlemen, to throw out all who protested; protests the system of casting employed whereby 2nd rate actors appeared in good parts; discusses hardship cases of certain actors (Mrs Roberts, Mrs Horton, Mrs Mills) and asks why Theophilus Cibber is not on the stage. 2. An Impartial Examen of the Present Contests, by Mr Neitherside, 1744: harks back to Fleetwood's finacial policies of the previous year, deploring his relations with the actors and with manager of cg; scourges him for miscasting his plays around one prominent actor, rather than giving a balanced performance; deplores his paying Mrs Cibber, Mrs Clive so much; revives the 1743 dispute which led to secession; dislikes the casting for 2 Nov. of Love's Last Shift; suggests better casts for many plays; scores the Licensing Act for reducing players to slavery; hopes for resumption of balanced performances. 3. Stage Policy Detected, or some Selcet Pieces of Theatrical Secret History Laid Open, in a Letter to a Certain Manager, 1744: takes apart Fleetwood's Defense, statement by statement, giving him the lie at each point. Suggests the real money from the house comes from Pit and Box, which are protesting his pantomimes; shows full attendance at Rehearsal and Macbeth with no afterpieces. Especially dislikes the hired bruisers, and the cast of the Alchemist for 6 Nov

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: Betterton's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the Songs were advertised in the Flying Post, 6-8 Dec. 1698, and the play in the London Gazette, 19-22 Dec. 1698; hence, the premiere was certainly not later than early December and was probably not later than November. In fact, on 5 Dec. 1698 Dr. William Aglionby wrote Matthew Prior, referring to Dennis, "a poor poet who has made us a fine entertainment of Rinaldo and Armida" (quoted in The Works of John Dennis, II, 489). In a dialogue written by John Oldmixon (Reflections on the Stage [London, 1699], p. 101) Savage, referring to Rinaldo and Armida, states: I have seen it 3 or 4 times already, but the Musick is so fine, and the Play pleases me so well, that I shall not think it a burthen [to see it again] (in The Works of John Dennis, I, 479). The Musical Entertainments in the Tragedy of Rinaldo and Armida (1699) is reprinted, with an introduction by Herbert Davis, in Theatre Miscellany (Luttrell Society Reprints, No 14, Oxford, 1953), pp. 103-15. One song, Ah queen, ah wretched queen, give o'er, sung by Gouge, is in Mercurius Musicus, 1699; and another, Jolly breeze that comes whistling, sung by Gouge, is in Twelve New Songs, 1699. A Comparison between the Two Stages (1702), p. 22: Critick: At last, (as you say) the old Stagers moulded a piece of Pastry work of their own, and made a kind of Lenten Feast with their Rinaldo and Armida; this surpriz'd not only Drury-lane, but indeed all the Town, no body ever dreaming of an Opera there; 'tis true they had heard of Homer's Illiads in a Nut-shel, and Jack in a Box, and what not?...Sullen: Well, with this Vagary they tug'd a while, and The Jolly-Jolly breeze-came whistling thro'-all the Town, and not a Fop but ran to see the Celebrated Virgin in a Machine; there she shin'd in a full Zodiack, the brightest Constellation there; 'twas a pleasant Reflection all this time to see her scituated among the Bulls, Capricorns, Sagittaries, and yet the Virgo still remain itacta....Critick: But this merry Time lasted not always; every thing has an end, and at length down goes Rinaldo's inchanted Mountain; it sunk as a Mole-hill seen on't: What a severity was this? that the Labour of such a gigantick Poet, nay Critick, shou'd give up the Ghost so soon: The renown'd Author thought himself immortal in that Work, and that the World was to last no longer than his Rinaldo; and tho' he stole every thing from the Italian, yet he said, what the Italian did was but Grub-street to his. See also 5 Jan. 1698@9 for a letter written by Mrs Barry, in part concerning Rinaldo and Armida

Event Comment: Weekly Journal or Saturday's Post, 18 Nov.: We hear that the Theatre in the Hay-Market, where lately the French Strollers us'd to perform, will be opened in a little time, for the Diversion of the City and Liberty of Westminster. The Actors, as well as the Plays, they say, will be entirely new, and the whole to be under the Management and Direction of that noted Projector, $Aaron Hill, Esq.

Event Comment: [This month published Observations on the Use of Theatres, their present regulations and possible improvements. Price 1s. Printed for Cooper. See review in Gentleman's Magazine (p. 232). Proposal is that the "conduct of theatrical entertainments be for the future taken under the care of the goverment, and a person of judgment and integrity appointed by the name of comptroller, or conductor of the stage, who alone shall determine what old plays shall be acted, and what new ones received; and who shall take charge of the money received, and defray the necessary expenses, accounting for the remainder to the public. The author seemingly Dr John Hill, lately (see 21 Dec. 1758) upset by the failure of his farce, The Rout. (Winston MS 8). Receipts: #108 (Cross); #122 6d. (Winston MS 8)

Event Comment: For an account of the play, see John Wilson's The Cheats, ed. Milton C. Nahm (Oxford, 1935). It was licensed on 6 March (p. 124), acted, then forbade on 22 March in an order: Letter to Mr Tho. Killigrew: Signifying the Ks Pleasure that the New Play called the Cheates be no more represented till it be reuiewed by Sir Jo. Denham & Mr Waller. 22 March. 1662-3 (p. 130). Abraham Hill to John Brooke, 28 March 1663: P.S. The new play, called The Cheats, has been attempted on the Stage; but it is so scandalous, that it is forbidden (Familiar Letters of? Abraham Hill, [London, 1717], p. 103. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 16) concerning Lacy: @For his just Acting, all gave him due Praise,@His Part in the Cheats, Jony Thump, Teg and Bayes,@In these Four Excelling, The Court gave him the Bays.