Event Comment: The Duke's Company, presumably. Evelyn, Diary: This night was acted my Lord Brahals Tragedy cal'd Mustapha before their Majesties &c: at Court: at which I was present, very seldom at any time, going to the publique Theaters, for Women now (& never 'til now) permitted to appeare & act, which inflaming severall young noble-men & gallants, became their whores, & to some their Wives, wittnesse the Earle of Oxford, Sir R. Howard, Pr. Rupert, the E. of Dorset, & another greater person than any of these, who fell into their snares, to the reproch of their noble families, & ruine both of body & Soule: I was invited to see this Tragedie, exceedingly well writ, by my Lord Chamberlain, though in my mind, I did not approve of any such passe time, in a season of such Judgements & Calamitie. Pepys, Diary: Here my Lord Bruncker proffered to carry me and my wife into a play at court to-night, and to lend me his coach home, which tempted me much; but I shall not do it

Event Comment: The King's Company. This performance is on the L. C. list, 5@12, p. 17: King here. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 344. See Noyes, Ben Jonson on the English Stage, p. 307, for a letter to Lady Sunderland on this performance, and, p. 308, for an anecdote from The Life of the Late Famous Comedian, Jo. Haynes, concerning Haynes and Hart in a scene. For another allusion to the action, see Henri Ferneron, Louise de Keroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth (London, 1807), p. 179n. Pepys, Diary: 15 Jan. 1668@9: It is about my Lady Harvy's being offended at Doll Common's [Mrs Corey's] acting of Sempronia, to imitate her; for which she got my Lord Chamberlain, her kinsman, to imprison Doll: when my Lady Castlemayne made the King to release her. Mrs John Evelyn to Mr Terryll, 10 Feb. 1668@9: There has not been any new lately revived and reformed, as Catiline, well set out with clothes and scenes (Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn, ed. William Bray, IV, 14). See also 7 and 11 Dec. 1667

Event Comment: The King's Company. This play is on the L. C. list, 5@12, p. 17: Cattalines Conspiracie King here. See also Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 344. Although the L. C. list and Pepys disagree as to the play performed, Pepys' uncertainty suggests that he may have put down the wrong title and that the L. C. list is correct. Pepys, Diary: To the King's playhouse, and there saw, I think, The Maiden Queene. Pepys, Diary, 15 Jan.: [Sir W. Coventry] told me of the great factions at court at this day, even to the sober engaging of great persons, and differences, and making the King cheap and ridiculous. It is about my Lady Harvy's being offended at Doll Common's acting of Sempronia [see 18 Dec. 1668], to imitate her; for which she got my Lord Chamberlain, her kinsman, to imprison Doll: when my Lady Castlemayne made the King to release her, and to order her to act it again, worse than ever, the other day, where the King himself was: and since it was acted again, and my Lady Harvy provided people to hiss her and fling oranges at her: but it seems the heat is come to a great height, and real troubles at court about it

Event Comment: See 27 Feb. 1668@9. Pepys, Diary: I did meet Sir Jeremy Smith, who did tell me that Sir W. Coventry was just now sent to the Tower, about the business of his challenging the Duke of Buckingham, and so was also Harry Saville to the Gate-house....So, meeting with my Lord Bellassis, he told me the particulars of this matter; that it arises about a quarrel which Sir W. Coventry had with the Duke of Buckingham about a design between the Duke and Sir Robert Howard, to bring him into a play [The Rehearsal] at the King's house, which W. Coventry not enduring, did H. Saville send a letter to the Duke of Buckingham, that he had a desire to speak with him. Upon which, the Duke of Buckingham did bid Holmes, his champion ever since my Lord Shrewsbury's business, go to him to know the business; but H. Saville would not tell it to any but himself, and therefore did go presently to the Duke of Buckingham, and told him that his uncle Coventry was a person of honour, and was sensible of his Grace's liberty taken of abusing him, and that he had a desire of satisfaction, and would fight with him. But that here they were interrupted by my Lord Chamberlain's coming in, who was commanded to go to bid the Duke of Buckingham to come to the King, Holmes having discovered it

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: On this day the Lord Chamberlain issued an order (L. C. 5@12, p. 252; in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 252) signifying the King's pleasure that: "ye french Comoedians haue liberty to Act and Play And that noe Persons pr[e]sume to molest or disturbe them in their Acting & playing.

Event Comment: An order of the Lord Chamberlain (5@12, p. 202) dated 1 April 1671, states that the theatres are to be closed because of the death of the Duchess of York on 31 March 1671. See Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 322. It is uncertain how long the theatres were closed, but probably the closure extended for six weeks

Event Comment: John Verney to Sir Ralph Verney, 25 April 1675: The King on Saturday night sent for the keys from the Earl of Clarendon--'tis said the reason is, that last Thursday a play was acted at court, and after orders given that no more should be let in, his lordship came to the door, which the guard refused to open, tho' he told them who he was, on which he broke it open and struck a yeoman of the guard. Some say a chamberlain was never before turned out for beating a yeoman of the guard (HMC, 7th Report, Appendix, [1879], p. 464)

Event Comment: According to L. C. 7@1-see Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p.325n--a disagreement within the King's Company resulted in the Lord Chamberlain's directing Michaell Mohun, Charles Hart, Edward Kynnaston, and William Cartwright to manage the company under his supervision

Event Comment: The Duke's Company. That this date is the premiere is conjectured from the order, dated 11 Dec. 1680, forbidding further acting of this play. See L. C. 5@144, p. 28, in Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p.1 on: Whereas I am informed that there is Acted by you a Play called Lucius Junius Brutus..wherein are very Scandalous Expressions & Reflections upon ye Government these are to require you Not to Act ye said Play again. In the Preface to Charles Gildon's The Patriot (1703) it is stated that Lee's play was banned after the third day's Acting, by the Lord Chamberlain Arlington as an anti-monarchical play." As the order is dated 11 Dec. 1680, the drama was probably presented on 8, 9, and 10 Dec. 1680.

Event Comment: Luttrell, A Brief Relation, II, 315: The duke of Norfolke was abused in the fray at the playhouse: the house of lords examined the same, and sent for captain Primrose, who commanded the party of soldiers there, who excused himselfe therefrom: one of the bishops moved to suppresse the playhouse, it being a nursery of lewdness, but the temporall lords were against it, but directed the lord chamberlain to send his warrant to suspend them from acting till further order: which was accordingly done

Event Comment: Luttrell, A Brief Relation, II, 413: By order of the queen, the lord chamberlain has sent an order to the playhouse prohibiting the acting Mr Dryden s play called the tragedy of Cleomenes, reflecting much on the government. Gentleman's Journal, April 1692 (licensed 13 April): I was in hopes to have given you in this Letter an account of the Acting of Mr Dryden's Cleomenes; it was to have appear'd upon the Stage on Saturday last, and you need not doubt but that the Town was big with Expectation of the performance; but Orders came from Her Majesty to hinder its being Acted; so that none can tell when it shall be play'd

Event Comment: The Lord Chamberlain, L. C. 7@1--see Nicoll, Restoration Drama, p. 339-hearing that Dogget had left Lincoln's Inn Fields and Verbruggen had left Drury Lane, restated the order against players shifting companies, and ordered that Verbruggen was to stay with Drury Lane until 1 Jan. 1696@7 but that he might enter into agreement with Lincoln's Inn Fields to act there after the close of 1696

Event Comment: Rich's Company. Post Boy, 29 June-1 July 1697: The New Opera will be Acted this day for the benefit of the Undertaker....The new Opera...is acting with great applause. It is licensed by the Lord Chamberlain's Secretary, and the Master of the Revels; and may be had, with all the songs, at A. Roper's, at the Black-boy in Fleet-street, price 1s

Event Comment: Luttrell, A Brief Relation, IV, 674: The lord chamberlain has ordered that no playes be acted for 6 weeks while the mourning [for the Duke of Gloucester] continues

Event Comment: Benefit Corbett. [Luttrell, 21 March, states: "This being Passion week, there was a new opera acted last Monday at the old playhouse, which her majestie being informed of resented the same, and ordered the lord chamberlain to suffer no more till after Easter Sunday" (VI, 29). There is no known advertisement of the performance to which Luttrell refers.

Event Comment: [An order of this date by the Lord Chamberlain restricted the queen's to operas, Drury Lane to plays; the change became effective after 10 Jan. 1708.

Event Comment: Announced but not given. On 6 June the Lord Chamberlain silenced Drury Lane because of its failure to obey an order issued earlier which forbade the deduction of more than #40 from the receipts at a benefit

Event Comment: Steele wrote a Prologue for the opening, but the Lord Chamberlain had already engaged one by Tickell. For Steele's Prologue, see Blanchard, Occasional Verse of Richard Steele, p. 49: for Tickell's, see R. E. Tickell, pp. 231-32. Original Weekly Journal, 27 Sept.: His Majesty beheld the Performance with much Satisfaction. The young Princesses were present, and a very great Concourse of Nobility and Gentry

Event Comment: Benefit Ray and Mrs Moore. On this day a warrant for establishing an Academy of Music was issued. See Lord Chamberlain's Office, 7@3 and 5@157, p. 228

Event Comment: A meeting of the Court of Directors of the Royal Academy of Music initiated arrangements for a new season. For details, see Lord Chamberlain's Office, 7@3, Nicoll, p. 286, and Deutsch, p. 97

Event Comment: For further deliberations of the Court of Directors of the Royal Academy of Music, see Lord Chamberlain's Office, 7@3 or Deutsch, p. 97