Event Comment: Never acted. [See Genest's comment (IV, 618) derived from Cumberland and the London Magazine-its appeal to the fashionable circles, its damnation at first performance because of the hanging of Harlequin in full view, and its modification thereafter. See 18 June and Horace Walpole to George Montagu [Arlington Street] July 28, 1761: I came to town yesterday through clouds of dust to see The Wishes, and went ac- [I, 381] tually feeling for Mr Bentley, and full of the emotions he must be suffering. What do [you] think in a house crowded was the first thing I saw! Mr and Madam Bentley perked up in the front boxes and acting audience at his own play--no, all the impudence of false patriotism never came up to it! Did one ever hear of an author that had couraee to see his own first night in public? I don't believe Fielding or Foote himself ever did--and this was the modest bashful Mr Bentley, that died at the thought of being known for an author, even by his own acquaintance! In the stage-box was Lady Bute, Lord Halifax and Lord Melcomb-I must say the two last entertained the house as much as the play-your King was prompter, and called out to the actors every minute to speak louder-the other went backwards and forwards behind the scenes, fetched the actors into the box, and was busier than Harlequin. The curious prologue was not spoken, the whole very ill-acted. It turned out just what I remembered it, the good parts extremely good, the rest very flat and vulgar-the genteel dialogue I believe might be written by Mrs Hannah. The audience was extremely fair. The first act they bore with patience, though it promised very ill-the second is admirable and was much applauded-so was the third-the fourth woeful-the beginning of the fifth it seemed expiring, but was revived by a delightful burlesque of the ancient chorus-which was followed by two dismal scenes, at which people yawned-but were awakened on a sudden by Harlequin's being drawn up to a gibbet nobody knew why or wherefore-this raised a prodigious and continued hiss, Harlequin all the while suspended in the air-at last they were suffered to finish the play, but nobody attended to the conclusion-modesty and his lady all the while sat with the utmost indifference-I suppose Lord Melcombe had fallen asleep [p. 382] before he came to this scene and had never read it. The epilogue was about the King and new Queen, and ended with a personal satire on Garrick-not very kind on his own stage-to add to the judge of this conduct, Cumberland two days ago published a pamphlet to abuse him. It was given out for tonight with more claps than hisses, but I think it will not do unless they reduce it to three acts." [p. 383]. Correspondence with George Montagu. Ed. W. S. Lewis & Ralph Brown. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), I, 381-83] Note: (I, 381n): Bentley's play of The Wishes or Harlequin's Mouth Opened, was offered to Garrick and Rich the beginning of 1761, but wasrefused by both. His nephew Cumberland showed it to Lord Melcomb, who carried it to Lord Bute, with a compliment in verse to that Lord by Mr Cumberland. Lord Bute showed it to the King, who sent Bentley #200 and ordered the new summer company to play [it]. There was a prologue, flattering the King and Lord Bute which Foote refused to act. Two days before it was played, Cumberland wrote an anonymous pamphlet, addressed to Mr Bentley, and abusing Garrick, who had refused to act Cumberland's tragedy of Cicero's banishment, which he printed this year [1761], unacted. The Wishes were played for the first time July 27th, 1761; the 2d 3d and part of the 4th, acts were much applauded, but the conclusion extremely hissed. The Epilogue concluded with a satire on Garrick. It was acted five nights. About the same time he wrote a tragedy called Philodamus, which he was to read to Garrick, but the latter was so angry at their treatment of him, that he declared against seeing Mr Bentley" (MS account by HW of Bentley's writings, in the collection of Lord Waldegrave at Chewton Priory)

Event Comment: Benefit for Barry. Tickets deliver'd for King Arthur will be taken. Part of Pit laid into Boxes. Ladies send servants by 4 o'clock. Paid Supers, Kettle Drum, & practices to King Arthur #2 16s.; Printer's Bill #8 12s. (Treasurer's Book). Mary Martin to J. M. Rebow, 6 April (MS correspondence in Washington State University Library): There has not been any mention of Barry's Benefit in ye Papers till to Day when it is advertis'd for ye 23rd of this Month, & ye Play. After...ye Constant Couple, which I imagine is no very desirable thing to see so late in ye Season, therefore pray tell me if I must send ye Tickets back directly, or may keep them till you are in Town again, which I hope you certainly will be before that time; I find we are not ye only unfortunates that Mr Johnson disappoints of Places, for that it is his Constant Practice not to let a single Place, till all his Five Guinea Chaps are serv'd even if you are at ye Play House, & apply ye Instant ye Play is given out, for which reason Mr Garrick has desir'd Gentlemen will Write to him upon such Occasions, & it is now very commonly done. Receipts: #264 11s. 6d. Charges: #67. Profits to Barry: #197 11s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book)

Event Comment: According to Robert Withington (English Pageantry, An Historical Outline, Cambridge, Mass., 1918, I, 242n), the expense of the entertainment came to #7888 2s. 6d. (See also Pepys, Diary, and other accounts.) The Diurnal of Thomas Rugg, ed. Sachse, pp. 98-99: A lane [was] made in the Citty, made by the livery men of several companyes; and many pageants in the streets...Att Cheap sid his Majesty beheld a famous pagien, and staid there for som littl space, where were speeches made by the lady paganetts. Evelyn, Diary: I saw his Majestie go with as much pompe & splendor as any Earthly prince could do to the greate Citty feast...but the exceeding raine which fell all that day, much eclips'd its luster:...the streets adorn'd with Pageants &c: at immense cost

Event Comment: This play, possibly an adaptation from Corneille, was apparently not printed. It bears, however, some resemblances to Walter Hawkesworth's Latin comedy, Labyrinthus (which was first acted at Trinity College, Cambridge, in March 1602@3); and this Restoration play may be a variation on Hawkesworth's. Pepys, Diary: To the King's Playhouse...my wife and I and Madamoiselle. I paid for her going in, and there saw The Labyrinth, the poorest play, methinks, that ever I saw, there being nothing in it but the odd accidents that fell out, by a lady's being bred up in men's apparel, and a man in a woman's

Event Comment: The King's company. On 31 Aug. or 1 Sept. 1664 Orrery wrote to Sir Henry Bennett: Ther was noe Play of myne Acted, they are now but Studyinge it; I hope within less then a Fortnight twill be on ye Theater And if you are not surfetted, with what of mine you have already seene [Henry V], I will beg ye honour to wait on you when tis Acted (see The Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, ed. W. S. Clark@II [Cambridge, Mass., 1937], 1, 102). The play is also on the list of Herbert, Dramatic Records, p. 138. Boswell, Restoration Court Stage, p. 281, lists it among the plays given at court, but Sir Heneage Finch's note (see below) seems to indicate an afternoon performance. Sir Heneage Finch to Sir Edward Dering, 15 Sept. 1664: Yesterday was acted, in the Greatest and noblest presence wch ye Court can make, before ye fullest Theatre, & with the highest applause imaginable, my Lo Orerys new play calld ye Generall formerly acted in Ireland by the name of Altamira, but much altered & improved. From thence the whole Court went to Wallingford house, where the Earl of Arran and the Lady Mary Stuart were that night before Supper marryd in the Gallery (Dramatic Works of Roger Boyle, I, 103, from Stowe MS 744 f. 81)

Event Comment: Henry Muddiman, 29 Nov. 1666: The Players have upon great proffers of disposing a large share to charitable uses prevailed to have liberty to act at Both Houses, which they begin this day (CSPD, Charles II, clxxcii, 6, in Hotson, Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, p. 250). A manuscript prologue for the opening of the theatre in Bridges Street is in J. Payne Collier's MS Restoration Stage History, Part I, p. 106, in the Houghton Library, Harvard. The Diary of John Milward, Esq., ed. Caroline Robbins (Cambridge, 1938), p. 49: This day at my coming to the House [of Commons] it moved that plays might be tolerated and acted in the common theatres, and whether any members of the House of Commons should be admitted to go to acts of the playhouses, but it was not resolved

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. This date of the premiere is not known, but the presence of Cademan (who was injured in August 1673) in the cast suggests a late spring or early summer production. In addition, two songs, in the play, Beauty no more shall suffer eclipse, and Full round the health good natured and free, both set by Robert Smith, are in Choice Ayres and Songs, 1673 (which was entered in the Stationers' Register, June 1673). It is possible, then, that the play was first given early as May 1673. Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, p. 33: A Comedy call'd The Reformation, Written by a Master of Arts in Cambridge; the Reformation in the Play, being the Reverse to the Laws of Morality and Virtue; it quickly made its Exit, to make way for a Moral one

Event Comment: See also Luttrell, A Brief Relation, I, 362. The cost of the Pageants was #175; the total cost of the Lord Mayor's Show came to #473 4d. See Robert Withington, English Pageantry (Cambridge, Mass., 1920), II, 62

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell's date of acquistion of the separately-printed Prologue and Epilogue is 6 Feb. 1687@8 (see A. S. Borgman, The Life and Death of William Mountford [Cambridge, Mass., 1935], p. 26n). Very probably the play had its premiere early in February. The Prologue and Epilogue are reprinted in Wiley, Rare Prologues and Epilogues, pp. 256-58. A song, Lucinda close or veil those eyes, with music by J. B. Draghi, is in The Banquet of Musick, The Second Book, 1688. Charles Gildon, The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets (London, 1698 (?), p. 102: [It] did not succeed as the Author wish'd

Event Comment: The data in Langhans, New Restoration Theatre Accounts, pp. 130-31, leave the acting days uncertain. Between 13 May 1689 and 7 Dec. 1689 the company acted on 91 days. It then played regularly through 8 Feb. 1689@90, and acted on 83 days (out of a possible 84) between 10 Feb. and 7 June, on 8 days from 13 June through 4 July 1690. In Poems on Affairs of State= (Fifth Edition, 1703), I, ii, 238, is A Prologue spoken by Mr Mountfort, after he came from the Army, and Acted on the Stage (see also A. S. Borgman, The Life and Death of William Mountfort [Cambridge, Mass., 1935], p. 55). The date at which Mountfort spoke this Prologue is not certain, but he was certainly in London ca. Tuesday 15 Oct. 1689 when he was involved in a disagreement within the United Company. See L. C. 5@192, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 334n

Event Comment: The date of this amateur performance is not known, but the date generally accepted is December 1689. See Alfred Loewenberg, The Annals of Opera, Second Edition, Columns 85-86; and R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theatre (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), pp. 38-69. The Epilogue is in New Poems (1690)

Event Comment: The United Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@151, p. 369. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 352. The MS music composed for a revival of this play, apparently at this time, by G. Finger and Daniel Purcell, is in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge

Event Comment: The United Company. The date of the first performance is not known, but Luttrell's copy (Huntington Library) of the play bears the date of acquisition 3 June [1690, apparently], and the play was advertised in the London Gazette, No 2566, 12-16 June 1690. See Fredson Bowers, A Bibliographical History of the Fletcher-Betterton Play, The Prophetess, 1690, The Library, 5th Series, XVI (1961), 169-75. It seems likely that the opera was first given early in June 1690. An edition of The Vocal and Instrumental Musick of The Prophetess appeared in 1691. See Works of Henry Purcell, Purcell Society, IX. Downes (Roscius Anglicanus, p. 42): The Prophetess, or Dioclesian an Opera, Wrote by Mr Betterton; being set out with Coastly Scenes, Machines and Cloaths: The Vocal and Instrumental Musick, done by Mr Purcel; and Dances by Mr Priest; it gratify'd the Expectation of Court and City; and got the Author great Reputation. [See also R. E. Moore, Henry Purcell and the Restoration Theater (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), Chapter V; and E. W. White, Early Theatrical Performances of Purcell's Operas, Theatre Notebook, XIII (1958-59), 44.] The Muses' Mercury (January 1707, pp. 4-5): This prologue was forbidden to be spoken the second Night of the Representation of the Prophetess. Mrs Shadwell was the occasion of its being taken notice of by the Ministry in the last Reign: He happen'd to be at the House on the first Night, and taking the beginning of the Prologue to have a double meaning, and that Meaning to reflect on the Revolution, he told a Gentleman, He would immediately Put a stop to it. When that Gentleman ask'd, Why he wou'd do the Author such a Disservice? He said, Because while Mr Dryden was Poet Laureat, he wou'd never let any Play of his be Acted. Mr Shadwell informed the Secretary of State of it, and representing it in its worst Colours, the Prologue was never Spoken afterwards, and is not printed in Mr Dryden's Works, or his Miscellanies. Cibber, Apology (ed. Lowe, II, 13-14): A Prologue (by Dryden) to the Prophetess was forbid by the Lord Dorset after the first War in Ireland. It must be confess'd that this Prologue had some familiar, metaphorical Sneers at the Revolution itself; and as the Poetry of it was good, the Offence of it was less pardonable

Event Comment: For the Prologue, See Prior, Dialogues of the Dead, ed. A. R. Waller (Cambridge, 1907), p. 195. It is not certain on which day during the holidays the play was given

Event Comment: Translated from the Latin, as it was acted before King James the First by the Students at Cambridge

Event Comment: Afterpiece: A new Ballad Opera. Edition of 1733: By a Gentleman late of Trinity-College, Cambridge

Event Comment: As 10 Dec. 1740. [For a discussion of recent Shakespearean performances, see Thomas Edwards to Richard Owen Cambridge, 31 January 1740@41 in Bodleian MS. 1009, pp. 140-41.

Event Comment: Afterpiece An Historical Dramatic Piece of on act (taken from Shakespear) with a representation of the Trials of the Lords for High Treason, in the Reign of King Henry V. The Characters dress'd in the Habits of the times. With proper Scenes and Decorations. On account of the Extraordinary Scenery, &c, and to prevent any interruption in the performance, it's desired no persons will take it ill that they cannot admitted behind the Scenes.--General Advertiser. [This adaption most certainly occasioned by the trial, which began in Westminster Hall on 28 July of Lord Kilmarnock, Lord Cromarty, and Lord Balmerino for participation in the Rebellion of '45! (Hogan, Shakespeare in the Theatre, p. 199).] An Historical Dramatic Piece of one act, taken from Shakespear, will be perform'd, after a play, at Drury Lane; it will be a Representation of the trials of Lord Cambridge, Lord Scroopv, &c for High Treason, in the reign of King Henry the Fifth. The Characters are to [be] dress'd in rich antique Habits of the times.--Daily Advertiser, 31 July. Last night the Dramatick Piece call'd The Conspiracy Discover'd; or French Policy Defeated, with a representation of the Trials of the Lords for High Treason, was acted at dl, with great applause, and will be performed again tomorrow night at the desire of several persons of Distinction.--General Advertiser, 5 Aug

Event Comment: [The following letter appeared in the General Advertiser]: To Mr Ryan, Sir: As the Author whom you have judiciously, I think, call'd in to your Assistance on your Benefit Night is little known; his Name not having appeared upon the Stage in our Days; and from whence some may be apt to think it scarce worth while to produce him now;--it was thought advisable by many of your Friends, of which Number I profess myself, to draw up the following Account of him and his Dramatic Works, that such as are Strangers to him may have some further Inducement to favour you with their Company. Mr Thomas Randolph lived in the Reign of King Charles I, was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; but died young. He was a Man of pregnant Wit, gay Humour and of excellent Learning; which gain'd him the Esteem of the Polite Part of the Town, and particularly recommended him to the Favour of Ben Johnson, who adopted him one of his Sons, and held him in equal Esteem with the ingenious Mr Cartwright, another of the Laureat's adopted Sons:--The Plays he wrote were: [he lists 5 plays, commenting from Cokayne and Rich of Christ's Church College, Oxon, and West on the ethical quality of the last one, The Muses' Looking Glass]. In short, Sir, I doubt not but his old nervous Wit will still please, and join'd with the New Masque you have added, excite Curiousity enough to answer your Design; since by your Steadiness it was absoluteley necessary you should hava Novelty, as well as Interest, to procure half so good a House, as we all wish you, and especially, Your Humble Servant, I. M. [See 14 March afterpiece.

Event Comment: [T+Theatrical Monitor, No VI appeared this day with a blast, in the form of an occasional Epilogue, at the morals, language and plan of the Oxonian in Town. This was the first performance of Macklin's afterpiece in London. It had been played in Dublin. "Its curious idiom, half-brogue, and half Cockney, puzzled the audience, as did its highly topical Irish allusions. With his usual candor, Macklin observed: 'I believe the audience are right. (The play was withdrawn after this single performance.) There's a geography in humor as well as in morals, which I had not previously considered--'" Cooke, Macklin, p. 270. According to Kirkman, in his curtain speech Macklin "courageously admitted: 'Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very sensible tha there are several passages in this play which deserve to be probated and I assure you that they shall never offend your ears again!' As soon as Mr Macklin had finished this address, the audience testified their approbation of his determination, by loud and reiterated plaudits" (Kirkman, Memoirs of the Life of Macklin, II, 3). See Also Charles Macklin: An Actor's Life by William W. Appleton (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), p. 141.

Event Comment: Benefit for Quick. Afterpiece: A new Farce never performed. Altered from Sir Charles Sedley's Piece of the same title by Dr Goldsmith. Acted only this night (playbill). [The notation on the alteration is by Kemble on the playbill. The characters are: Sourby, Octavio, Wentworth, Dancing Master, Scamper, Clarissa and Jenny. See Edition by Alice I. Perry Wood (Cambridge, Mass., 1931).] Charges #66 5s. Profit to Quick #7 6d., plus #80 from tickets (Box 100; Pit 263; Gallery 156) (Account Book). [Brief review of the Grumbler in the Westminster Magazine for May 1773: "It was several years ago translated from the French, and received this night some additional touches from the pen of Dr Goldsmith. An entertainment of one act cannot be expected to contain much. The whole merit of this is centered in one character, and perhaps in one scene."] Receipts: #73 5s. 6d

Event Comment: [Macklin dismissed after this night. See the account in The Genuine Arguments of the Council, with the Opinion of the Court of the King's Bench, &c., By a Citizen of the World, (London, 1774). Extracts in E. R. Page, George Colman, the Elder (New York, 1935). See notes for 23 and 30 Oct. and the subsequent action in note for 20 Nov. He did not return until 18 May 1775. This night was aparently, except for #4 5s. which was not recorded on the books of the theatre until 18 June well after the season closed. Macklin's suit in court against the rioters was judged 24 Feb. 1775. A column and a half account of the trial appeared in the Public Advertiser, Saturday 13 May 1775, giving the testimony of the witnesses accused of starting the riot, the lawyers, and the judge. The accused were Leigh, Miles, James, Aldus, and Clarke. The first four were convicted of a conspiracy and a riot, the last of a riot only. During the Course of the Business Lord Mansfield took Occasion to observe, that the Right of Hissing, and Applauding in a theatre was an unalterable Right, but there was a wide Distinction between expressing the natural Sensations of the Mind as they arose on what was seen and heard, and executing a pre-concerted Desagn, not only to hiss an Actor when he was playing a Part in which he was universally allowed to be excellent, but also to drive him from the theatre, and effect his utter ruin." See also William W. Appleton, Charles Macklin, An Actors Life (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), Chapter X.

Event Comment: Sunday 30 Jan-Saturday last died James Love, Comedian, Master of Edinburg Theatre, late of Drury Lane. Was educated at Westminster School and went from there to Cambridge (Winston MS 10). Rec'd stopages #19 19s. 6d.; Paid salary list #529 2s.; Mr King's extra salary #3. Receipts: #183 19s. 6d. (Treasurer's Book)