Event Comment: Account-Book: Tickets delivered by Furkins, Bishop, Doe, Strahan, Warwhick, Thompson, Berecloth, Williams, Robson (music porter), Creswell, Simmons will be admitted. Receipts: #296 18s. 6d. (44.10.0; 5.3.0; tickets: 247.5.6)

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: Walking through Lincoln's Inn Fields observed at the Opera a new play, Twelfth Night, was acted there, and the King there; so I, against my own mind and resolution, could not forbear to go in, which did make the play seem a burthen to me, and I took no pleasure at all in it; and so after it was done went home with my mind troubled for my going thither, after my swearing to my wife that I would never go to a play without her

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. Pepys, Diary: To the Duke's house, and there saw Twelfth Night acted well, though it be but a silly play, and not related at all to the name or day. Downes, p. 23: Twelfth Night, Or what you will; Wrote by Mr Shakespear, had mighty Success by its well Performance:...All the Parts being justly Acted Crown'd the Play. Note, It aas got up on purpose to be Acted on Twelfth Night

Event Comment: Pepys, Diary: At Wotton's, the shoemaker's, who tells me the reason of Harris's going form Sir Wm. Davenant's house, that he grew very Proud and demanded #20 for himself extraordinary, more than Betterton or any body else, upon every new play, and #10 upon every revive; which with other things Sir W. Davenant would not give him, and so he swore he would never act there more, in expectation of being received in the other House; but the King will not suffer it, upon Sir W. Davenant's desire that he would not, for then he might shut up house, and that is true. He tells me that his going is at present a great loss to the House, and that he fears he hath a stipend from the other House privately. He tells me that the fellow grew very proud of late, the King and every body else crying him up so high, and that above Betterton, he being a more ayery man, as he is indeed. But yet Betterton, he says, they say do act some parts that none but himself can do

Event Comment: The King's Company. Pepys, Diary: With Sir Philip Carteret to the King's playhouse, there to see Love's Cruelty, an old play, but which I have not seen before and in the first act Orange Moll come to me, with one of the porters by my house, to tell me that Mrs Pierce and Knepp did dine at my house to-day, and that I was desired to come home. So I went out presently, and by coach home, and they were just gone away; so, after a very little stay with my wife, I took coach again, and to the King's playhouse again, and come in the fourth act; and it proves to me a very silly play, and to everybody else, as far as I could judge. But the jest is, that here telling Moll how I had lost my journey, she told me that Mrs Knepp was in the house, and so shews me to her, and I went to her, and sat out the play.... I could not but observe that Sir Philip Carteret would fain have given me my going into a play; but yet, when he come to the door, he had no money to pay for himself, I having refused to accept of it for myself, but was fain; and I perceive he is known there, and do run upon the score for plays, which is a shame.... In the pit I met with Sir Ch. North

Event Comment: See 27 Feb. and 4 March. Pepys, Diary: [Sir W. Coventry] told me the matter of the play [The Rehearsal] that was intended for his abuse, wherein they foolishly and sillily bring in two tables like that which he hath made, with a round hole in the middle, in his closet, to turn himself in; and he is to be in one of them as master, and Sir J. Duncomb in the other, as his man or imitator: and their discourse in those tables, about the disposing of their books and papers, very foolish. But that, that he is offended with, is his being made so contemptible, so that any should dare to make a gentleman a subject for the mirth of the world; and that therefore he had told Tom Killigrew that he should tell his actors, whoever they were, that did offer any thing like representing him, that he would not complain to my Lord Chamberlain, which was too weak, nor get him beaten, as Sir Charles Sidly is said to do, but that he would cause his nose to be cut

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 Duke's Company. The date of the first production is not known, and it may have been acted before this season; hence, it is entered also in the preliminary list in the season of 1676-77. As the play was licensed for printing on 4 Oct. 1677, September 1677 is probably the latest time at which it could have been produced. The play is an alteration of Thomas Middleton's No Wit, No Help, Like a Woman's. It has been attributed to both Mrs Aphra Behn and Thomas Betterton

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. There is no certainty as to the date of the first production; but as this play was entered in the Term Catalogues November 1679, it was certainly first acted by October 1679, possibly in September 1679. A musical number, The Loyal Protestant, the music by Thomas Farmer, is in Choice Ayres and Songs, The Third Book, 1681

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not certain, but the play was acted soon after Shadwell's death in November 1692. Gentleman's Journal, November 1692: We have lately lost Thomas Shadwell Esquire....The Comedy which, as I told you, he design'd for the Stage, was acted since his decease: 'Tis call'd the Volunteers; and though that Orphan wanted its Parent to support it, yet it came off with reasonable success. [When this play was revived at Drury Lane 27 July 1711, the bill bore the heading: Not acted these Twenty Years.

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the play was probably not acted later than September 1695, as it was advertised in the London Gazette, No. 3122, 10-14 Oct. 1695. Preface, Edition of 1696: It was the first I ever made Publick by appearing on the Stage, which (with the Advantage it met with, of admirable Acting) is all the Recommendations I have for exposing it...Ariadne. A song, Restless, in thought disturbed, set by John Eccles and sung by Mrs Hodgson, is in A Collection of Songs, 1696

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first production is not known, but the fact that it was advertised in the London Gazette, No. 3122, 10-14 Oct. 1695, indicates that it was probably acted not later than September 1695. Three songs were published separately: O how you protest, possibly set by Henry Purcell and sung by Mrs Knight; 'Twas within a Furlong, the words by Thomas D'Urfey, set by Henry Purcell, and sung by the Girl [Miss Cross]; and Man is for the woman made, the words by Pierre Motteux and set by Henry Purcell, are in Deliciae Musicae, The Third Book, 1696. See also Purcell's Works, Purcell Society, XX (1916), xix-xx. Preface, Edition of 1696: Notwithstanding the many Accidents that concurr'd to the Ruin of this Play, it succeeded above my Expectations: And I must own my self infinitely oblig'd to the Town, in receiving so favourably, what I at first never design'd for the Stage. Gildon, English Dramatick Poets, p. 121: This particular Play met with pretty good Success, for the Season of the Year, considering it the first Essay by a Young Writer, unacquainted with the Town. A Comparison Between the Two Stages (1702), p. 18: Sullen: Mock-Marriage, a young Fellows of the Town, a Retainer, and kind of Pensioner to the Stage. Ramble: What was it's Fate? Sullen: Damn'd, Damn'd