Event Comment: [Account-Book: Tickets delivered by Mrs Egan, Hill, Hall (carpenter), Robson (music porter), Strahan, Simmons, Bologna, Williams, Hay, Findlay will be admitted.] Receipts: #438 18s. (43.18.6; 5.1.0; tickets: 389.18.6)

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: 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: 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 United Company. The date of this revival is not precisely known but that it occurred in mid-March is indicated by Luttrell's date of 21 March 1683@4 on his copy of the separately-printed Prologue and Epilogue (Bindley Collection, William Andrews Clark@Jr@Library). It should be noted, however, that Friday 21 March is a Friday in Lent, a day on which the companies sometimes did not act. The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 202-6. When this play was advertised to be acted on 8 Nov. 1704, the bill bore the heading: "Not Acted these 20 Years." Langbaine (English Dramatic Poets, p. 37): This Play was reviv'd by the Players, since the Union of the Two Houses, and reprinted in quarto Lond. 1684 with a new Prologue and Epilogue, the former written by Jo. Haynes the Comedian

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not certain, but it was very likely this day. Writing on 12 May 1688, Peregrine Bertie states that it had been acted nine days successively. If the ninth performance fell on Friday 12 May, the premiere probably occurred on Wednesday 3 May. The Prologue and Epilogue, printed separately, are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 261-63. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 41): This Play by its Excellent Acting, being often Honour's with the presence of Chancellor Jeffereies, and other great Persons had an Uninterrupted run of 13 Days together. Note, The Poet receided for his third Day in the House in Drury Lane at single Prizes 130 l. which was the greatest Receipt they ever had at that House at single Prizes. Dedication, Edition of 1688: This, I must confess, made me hope for success upon the Stage, which it met with, but so great, as was above my expectation (in this Age which has run mad after Farces) no Comedy, for these many years, having fill'd the Theatre so long together: And I had the great Honour to find so many Friends, that the House was never so full since it was built, as upon the third day of this Play; and vast numbers went away, that could not be admitted. For Leigh as Belfond Sr, see Cibber, Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 147-48; and for Underhill as Lolpoop, I, 154-55. For further comment upon the play, see 12 May 1688

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but it followed The Gordian Knot Unty'd, which is mentioned in the Prologue. Edward III was advertised in the London Gazette, No. 2629, 19-22 Jan. 1690@1, and entered in the Term Catalogues, February 1690@1. The authorship is uncertain. The title page bears no author's name, but the Dedication is signed by Will. Mountfort. In addition, on 10 Oct. 1691 Mountfort received a grant of #10 when Edward III was played before the Queen (L. C. 5@150, p. 306, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 357). On tne other hand, the Gentleman's Journal, October 1692, stated that it was written by the author of Henry the Second, which has been attributed to John Bancroft. See Nicoll, Restoration Drama, pp. 388-89, for a summation of the evidence on this problem. Alfred Harbage, Elizabethan-Restoration Palimpsest, Modern Language Review, XXXV (1940), 319, thinks that this is a revision of Robert Davenport's The Politic Queen