Event Comment: Mainpiece [1st time; T 5, by William Henry Ireland; incidental music by William Linley. Prologue by Sir James Bland Burges; Epilogue by Robert Merry (see text)]: With new Scenes, Dresses & Decorations. The Scenes designed and excuted by Greenwood and Capon. The Dresses by Johnston, Gay & Miss Rein. Printed slip attached to Kemble playbill: A malevolent and impotent attack on the Shakspeare MSS. [i.e. those forged by W. H. Ireland, of which this play was one] having appeared, on the Eve of representation of Vortigern, evidently intended to injure the interest of the Proprietor of the MSS., Mr Samuel? Ireland [W. H. Ireland's father] feels it impossible, within the short space of time that intervenes between the publishing and the representation, to produce an answer to the most illiberal and unfounded assertions in Mr Malone's enquiry [i.e. Edmond Malone, An Inquiry into the Authenticity of certain Papers attributed to Shakspeare, Queen Elizabeth, and Henry, Earl of Southampton, 1796]. He is therefore induced to request that Vortigern may be heard With that Candour that has ever distinguished a British Audience. The Play is now at the Press, and will in a very few days be laid before the Public. [But it was not issued until 1799 (see below). See also Bernard Grebanier, The Great Shakespeare Forgery, London, 1966.] 4 Apr., states that the first three acts were listened to with patience, but beginning with the fourth act the play was damned, when "one tremendous yell of indignation from the pit burst simultaneously." "At four o'clock the doors of the theatre were besieged; and, a few minutes after they were opened, the pit was crowded solely with gentlemen. Before six not a place was to be found in the boxes, and the passages were filled...The audience betrayed symptoms of impatience early in the representation; but, finding its taste insulted by bloated terms, which heightened the general insipidity, its reason puzzled by discordant images, false ornaments, and abortive efforts to elevate and astonish, pronounced its sentence of condemnation at the conclusion of the play" (Gentleman's Magazine, Apr. 1795, pp. 346-47). "Irelands play of Vortigern I went to. Prologue spoken at 35 minutes past 6 [see 29 Mar.]: Play over at 10. A strong party was evidently made to support it, which clapped without opposition frequently through near 3 acts, when some ridiculous passages caused a laugh, mixed with groans-Kemble requested the audience t o hear the play out abt. the end of 4th act and prevailed.-The Epilogue was spoken by Mrs Jordan who skipped over some lines which claimed the play as Shakespeares. Barrymore attempted to give the Play out for Monday next but was hooted off the stage. Kemble then came on, & after some time, was permitted to say that "School for Scandal would be given," which the House approved by clapping. Sturt of Dorsetshire was in a Stage Box drunk, & exposed himself indecently to support the Play, and when one of the stage attendants attempted to take up the green cloth [i.e. a carpet which, by custom, was laid on the stage during the concluding scene of a tragedy], Sturt seized him roughly by the head. He was slightly pelted with oranges" (Joseph Farington, Diary, 1922, I, 145). Account-Book, 4 Apr.: Paid Ireland his share for the 1st Night of Vortigern #102 13s. 3d. Morning Chronicle, 29 Mar. 1799: This Day is published Vortigern and Henry the Second (4s.). Receipts: #555 6s. 6d. (528.6.0; 26.9.6; 0.11.0)

Event Comment: Account-Book: Received of the Earl of Chesterfield for a private box #105; Paid Simonet for 4 rehearsals #8 8s. Receipts: #270 4s. 6d. (259.14.6; 10.10.0)

Event Comment: See Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 116. This was the King's Company (under Killigrew), split off from the United Company. According to Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 2) the roster included: Theophilus Bird, Hart, Mohun, Lacy, Burt, Cartwright, Clun, Baxter, Robert Shatterel, William Shatterrel, Duke [Marmaduke Watson], Hancock, Kynaston, Wintersel, Bateman, Blagden. (But see also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 295.) According to the articles of agreement, 5 Nov. 1660 (Herbert, Dramatic Records, pp. 96-100), the Duke's Company (under Davenant) included Thomas Batterton, Thomas Sheppey, Robert Noakes, James Noakes, Thomas Lovell, John Moseley, Cave Underhill, Robert Turner, Thomas Lilleston

Event Comment: By Permission of the Lord Chamberlain. Benefit for The Literary Fund. [In this performance the male parts were acted chiefly by amateurs; the female parts were acted by professionals. Prologue and Epilogue by Thomas Morris (Morning Herald, 17 Apr.).] The Committee for the Management of the Literary Fund respectfully inform the Public that affecting instabces of Merit in distress exceed their power of relief by the ordinary Subscription; and that they wish to have recourse to every honourable expedient to increase that power. The Admission will be by Tickets, at the Opera Prices. Boxes and Pit 10s. 6d. 1st Gallery 5s. 2nd Gallery 3s. No more Company will be admitted than the House will hold with perfect convenience; and when the proper number of Tickets is issued, no means of admission can be obtained. The Doors to be opened at 6:00. To begin at 7:00 precisely. Registers: Thomas Dale, M. D.; Mr Deputy Nichols. Treasurers: Thomas Morris, Esq.; Mr E. Brooke. "In the course of the play we observed several restorations of Shakespeare's text, with some interpolations. The boldest of the latter was the introduction of Richard's son to him in the tent, the night befiredthedbefore the Battle of Bosworth field. This scene was borrowed, as we believe, from Thomas? Hull's Legendary Tale of Richard Plantagenet. It was well written, and produced a considerable degree of effect. The Ghosts were banished, and the start and stagger of Richard, heretofore the theatrical trick of the scene, necessarily omitted" (Diary, 17 Apr.)

Event Comment: Tickets deliver'd out by the author of Thomas and Sally will be taken this night. [Bickerstaffe took in #85 6s. in ready money and #12 18s. from tickets (Boxes 12; Pit 18) Total #98 4s.] Paid Dibdin for singing 5 nights in Thomas and Sally and 1 night in Romeo #1 10s. (Account Book). Charges #64 5s. (Account Book)

Event Comment: Benefit for Fawcett. 3rd piece: By permission of Thomas Harris, Esq.; never acted at this theatre, and for that night only. [Address by Thomas Hurlstone (Morning Herald, 25 Aug.)]. Morning Herald, 19 Aug.: Tickets to be had of Fawcett at his house, No. 9, Tottenham-Court-Road, opposite Howland-street

Event Comment: London Gazette, 25-29 Nov. 1686: Whereas Mr Thomas Otway some time before his death made Four Acts of a Play, whoever can give Notice in whose Hands the Copy lies, either to Mr Thomas Betterton, or Mr William Smith, at the Theatre Royal, shall be well Rewarded for his pains

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but the fact that the play was advertised in the Post Boy, 27-30 June 1696, suggests that it was first acted not later than early June 1696 and probably not later than late May 1696. A dialogue, Fly, fly from my sight, between a Eunuch Boyr and a Virgin, set by Daniel Purcell and sung by Bowen and Mrs Cross, is in Deliciae Musicae, The Second Book of the Second Volume, 1696. This was also printed separately, without a date, by Thomas Cross, with the statement that the dialogue was written by Thomas D'Urfey. Gildon, English Dramatick Poets, ca. 1698, p. 111: For the Distress of Morena never fail'd to bring Tears into the Eyes of the Audience

Event Comment: Rich's Company. The date of the first performance is not known, for the play was apparently not printed until 1704. Nevertheless, some details indicate a performance early in the early in the season of 1696-97. In the first place, the presence of Verbruggen in the cast indicates that it must have been acted before 1 Jan. 1696@7, when Verbruggen was permitted to act at Lincoln's Inn Fields. The play also parodies the works of Mrs Manley, whose The Royal Mischief had been staged (probably) in April 1696, and it is likely that the company would emphasize the pertinence of the parody by presenting it soon after the appearance of the original. Although The Female Wits may not have been acted until later in the autumn, it seems likely that it was acted first in the late summer or early autumn. Preface, Edition of 1704: [The] Success of this Play has been such...having been Acted six Days running without intermission....Among the rest, Mr Powel and his Wife excell'd in the Characters they represented, as did Mrs Verbruggen, who play'd the Chief Character....The Lady whose Play is rehears'd, personated one Mrs M-ly [Manley]

Event Comment: Betterton's Company. John Coke (see below), writing on 16 March 1696@7, referred to a "new farce" appearing at this theatre on this day, but no "new farce" is known at this period; on the other hand, an edition of Mountfort's farce published in 1697 indicates a revival in this season and is a likely possibility for this date. John Coke to Thomas Coke, 16 March 1696@7: Saturday a new farce was acted at the new house, which did not take. The Mourning Bride was acted till Saturday, and was full to the last (HMC, 12th Report, Part II, Cowper MSS., II, 368). Robert Shirley to Thomas Coke, 13 March 1696@7: I am, dear Sir, indebted to you in sending me so ingenious an account of Mr Congreve's tragedy, which I hear on all sides far exceeded what the world expected from him in that part of dramatic poetry (ibid)