Event Comment: [Account-Book: Tickets delivered by Ledger, Mrs Pitt, Hall (box-keeper), Paskins, Coates, Bent, Wilkins, Larkman, Street, Sturgeon, Brice, Thompson, Dyke, Powell, Lee will be admitted.] Receipts: #432 14s. 6d. (41.1.0; 2.12.0; tickets: 389.1.6)

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: Lady Mary Bertie to Katherine Noel, 4 March 1670@1: I was with my Lady Rochester and my Lady Bettey Howard and Mrs Lee at a play (HMC, 12th Report, Part V, Vol. II, page 23)

Event Comment: A poem--To the Duke on His Return. Written by Nat. Lee--was separately printed in 1682, and Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) is dated 29 May 1682. A note on the Folger Shakespeare Library copy states that the lines were spoken at the King's Theatre, but the date on which it was recited is uncertain. The poem has been reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 113-15

Event Comment: On this date, L. C. 5@16, p. 101 (Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 10n) Nathaniel Lee's The Duke of Guise was banned. John Drummond to Marquis and Duke of Queensberry, 16 July 1682: Ther is a play hear to be acted that maks a great business, for the Duke of Munmuth has complained of it, and they say that notwithstanding it is to be acted sometime nixt weik. They call it the Duke of Guise, but in the play the true story is cheinged to the plott time hear (HMC, Buccleuch-Queensberry MSS., 1903, II 108). Newsletter, 29 July 1682: A play by Mr Dryden, termed the Duke of Guise, wherein the Duke of Monmouth was vilified and great interest being make for the acting thereof, but coming to His Majesty's knowledge is forbid, for though His Majesty be displeased with the Duke yet he will not suffer others to abuse him (HMC, 15th Report, Part VII, 1898, p. 108). Newdigate newsletters, 29 July 1682: A play having been made [by] Mr Dryden termed ye Duke of Guise supposed to Levell att the villifying the Duke of Monmouth & many other protestants & great Interest made for the Acting thereof but bringing to the knowledge of his Matie the same was forbidd for though his Maties pleasure is to be dissatisfyed and angry with the Duke of Monmouth, yet hee is not willing that others should abuse him out of a naturall affection for him (Wilson, Theatre Notes from the Newdigate Newsletters, p. 81)

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the premiere is not known, although a reference in the text to 1690 suggests that the play may have been produced in that year; but the fact that it was not advertised in the London Gazette until 6-9 April and not entered in the Term Catalogues until May 1691 suggest that it posaibly appeared early in 1691. This play was discussed in Wit for Money, or Poet Stutter; A Dialogue between Smith, Johnson, and Poet Stutter; containing Reflections on some late Plays, and particularly on Love for Money, or The Boarding School. The British Museum copy of this pamphlet has a manuscript date of 23 April 1691. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42: The Boarding School; Wrote by Mr Durfy, it took well being justly Acted. Earl of Ailesbury, mid-January 1690@1: My Lady Fenwick was a great intriguer, and had always castles in the air in her imagination to that degree, that I was present at a play where she was brought in. If I mistake not it was The Boarding School, and the famous comic, Mr Lee, in woman's clothes represented her to the life, and so exactly had her features and complexion that one could hardly have distinguished one from the other (Memoirs, [London, 1890], II, 390-91)