¹ See R. G. Ham, R. E. S., Vol. ix, July, 1933.

² The acting date is ordinarily given as c. September 1677. So Allardyce Nicoll, A History of the Restoration Drama, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1928), p. 355. Professor Nicoll writes me that in his MS notes on the Hand-list of Restoration Plays, he has: ‘possibly the summer of 1677.‘ M. Summers sets the date down as definitely September. A Bibliography of the Restoration Drama (London, [1935]), p. 36.

³ It is a reprint, slightly altered, of The Country Girl, 1647, whose author, according to the title page, was “T. B.,” taken by A. H. Bullen (D.N.B.) to be Thomas Brewer. John Leanerd calls himself the author of The Country Innocence.

⁴ This is Wm. Chamberlayne's Love's Victory, 1658, with a new farcical subplot substituted. The author, perhaps Chamberlayne himself, is not indicated.

⁵ M. Summers (op. cit., p. 142), on the evidence of this line, gives “Midnight's Intrigues” as the title of a play acted at Dorset Garden in the spring of 1677, but that may be only an approximation of the title and we might with equal justice give the play to Drury Lane, since Sir Symon is jibing at both houses.

⁶ Langbaine does not list The French Conjurer under “Thomas Porter” but under “T. P.” in his list of “Supposed Authors.” The Lives and Characters, 1699, p. 152.

⁷ So the title-page reads.

⁸ In the Epistle Dedicatory, Leanerd speaks of Fortune “robbing me of the Honour of my Plays continuance for that time [after ‘the first, second, and other times it was acted‘]; by a Mischance which hapned to one, whose Part was too considerable to be quickly, studied.” A. Nicoll (op. cit.,) has for the acting date: “D. L. c. April 1677.” M. Summers, in his edition of Roscius Anglicanus, gives this date as Feb. 1676/7 on p. 97, and as March, 1677, on p. 233. In The Playhouse of Pepys (London, 1935), p. 413, he says it was acted in Lent, 1677.

⁹ As printed in first ed.

¹⁰ Some Account of the English Stage, I, 226. For a list of the three casts here under discussion, see below.

¹¹ Op. cit., i, 200.

¹² M. Summers writes that Genest conveys a false impression here by speaking of the “younger part of the Company,” as though The Country Innocence were lightly regarded. “I have no doubt the case … was as good a rally as could be contrived. Indeed some excellent actors took part.” The Playhouse of Pepys (London, 1935), p. 413.

¹³ See L. Hotson, The Commonwealth and Restoration Stage (Cambridge, Mass., 1928), p. 217.

¹⁴ See the royal patent for the Nursery reprinted in The Shakespeare Society's Papers, iii, 162–169.

¹⁵ This passage is quoted by Genest (op. cit., i, 152–153) but the true significance is not seen.

¹⁶ “Restoration Stage Nurseries,” Archiv für das Studium der neuern Sprachen und Literaturen (1911), p. 301. Commenting on this entry in Pepys, Lawrence writes: “The point largely depends upon whether we are justified in assuming with Genest that ‘the young men and women of the house’ were the Nursery Players.” But having asked this vital question, he discusses it no further and assumes throughout the article that Pepys is speaking here of Nursery Players, and that the two groups—“young actors” and Nursery Players—were one and the same. Lawrence concludes that “the Nursery players [were allowed] to perform in the ordinary theatres during Lent, when the casts of their plays were sometimes augmented by the drafting in of a few of the regular players.” Rather, as we shall see, the regular players, who in Lent were “the young men and women,” may have taken in one or two apprentices from the Nursery.

¹⁷ Pepys's comment makes it certain he had not on 21 March 1666/7 seen the Nursery cast as Lawrence assumes, but part of the Duke's Company rather, for Pepys had been agreeably surprised by the acting of the “young men and women of the house” instead of disgusted as he is here at the Nursery.

¹⁸ See L. Hotson, op. cit., p. 231. I am indebted to Hotson for the following lists of shareholders in both the Duke's and King's Companies.

¹⁹ Acted D. G. March 1672/3.

²⁰ The contrast contained in the metaphor appears to change here. “Those Murdering Playes, the Stage's Men of War” is contrasted throughout, however, not with the “Younger Actors” themselves but with the unostentatious plays put on by the “Younger Actors.”

²¹ The italics are mine.

²² These share-holders might be actors, or might not as in the case of Dame Davenant.

²³ The one or more actors in these Lenten casts who do not appear in the regular ones were probably temporary recruits from the Nursery.

²⁴ On 3 March 1668/9, a Wednesday in Lent, Pepys saw The Lady's Tryall acted at the Duke's Theatre “only by the young people of the house,” a phrase which might suggest, even more than his “young men and women,” actors young in years. Even though old troupers were in the Lenten casts, the absence of the actor-sharers would give rôles to more of the young and inexperienced, and the cast would appear predominantly young to a seasoned critic like Pepys. Unfortunately The Lady's Tryall was a revival and no record is left of that particular Lenten cast.

²⁵ See Hotson, op. cit., p. 231.

²⁶ Pepys, 14 Nov. 1666.

²⁷ Idem, 24 Oct. 1667.

²⁸ See Pepys for that date.

²⁹ See “The Case of Philip Cademan,” L. C. 7/3, reprinted by A. Nicoll, op. cit., pp. 329–330. Cademan was born in 1643. As he was Davenant's stepson, it is not surprising to find him playing an important rôle in Stapylton's The Slighted Maid in Feb. 1662/3, just after his admission to the company. He was severely wounded in 1673 and though he was a hireling till 1695, his wages after 1673 constituted a pension.

³⁰ See Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, ed. Summers, p. 20.

³¹ The important point for us is that the presence of women like Mrs. Norris proves that the phrase “young men and women” cannot be taken literally and never suggests apprentices in a Nursery.

³² See Pepys for 28 Sept. 1668, the women's day or benefit at the play-house. Settle's Ambitious Slave, 1694, was given to the women, and probably also Porter's The French Conjurer. See below.

³³ The actresses who were not important enough to have individual benefits and who, like all actresses, were on a salary, had presumably in Lent their own chance to share in the gate receipts. The “young men and women of the house” were probably then on equal terms, even though Ravenscroft wrote that The Careless Lovers was given to the young men for a Lenten Play. The men would naturally have assumed the management.

³⁴ A. Nicoll has “c. April” on other grounds than that of cast. M. Summers gives “March, 1671.” The Playhouse of Pepys, p. 386.

³⁵ Op. cit., i, 120.

³⁶ As early as 1662, he had been playing stellar rôles, such as Malignii in The Villain.

³⁷ See Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, ed. Summers, p. 20.

³⁸ Reprinted by A. Nicoll, “Charles II at the Theatre.—II,” LTLS, Sept. 21, 1922, pp. 600–601; and idem, Restoration Drama, p. 310.

³⁹ Nicoll (ibid.) explains how Betterton could have been using his old theatre in Oct. 1673, as well as his new D. G. theatre, Killigrew having recently given up his temporary occupancy of the L.I.F.

⁴⁰ Op. cit., p. 289.

⁴¹ In November, 1662, he had acted a boy's part in Ignoramus at Whitehall. He had graduated from a nursery, in experience at least, long before 1673.

⁴² Roscius Anglicanus, ed. Summers, p. 35. Leigh played Old Bellair in The Man of Mode, March, 1676.

⁴³ In some cases a single actor-sharer may have helped out the hirelings at Lent, and probably for the sake of his name on the bill been well paid for it. Duffett's The Amorous Old-Woman was played entirely by hirelings at the King's Theatre though an actor-sharer, Mohun, spoke the Prologue. Nicoll has the date “c. March, 1674.” Summers definitely calls it a Lenten play. The Playhouse of Pepys, p. 400.

⁴⁴ Downes (Rosc. Ang., ed. Summers, p. 35) states that ‘Mr. Gillo‘ came in c. 1673.

⁴⁵ Ibid.

⁴⁶ Licensed for printing August 2, 1677. On the basis of this, Nicoll (op. cit.) gives the date of production: “c. July 1677.” However, the play has evidence of being acted in early spring, probably Lent: (1) In the Prologue, the French Conjurer himself speaks of “de French Troop at toder end o' Town.” This must refer to the company newly arrived in Feb. 1676/7. On February S the theatre in Whitehall was ordered to be got ready for them. See L. C. 5/141, p. 528, quoted by Nicoll, op. cit., p. 342. The earlier the allusion was made after that date, the more pointed it would have been. The French troupe was in London as late as May 29. See L. C. 5/142, p. 38, quoted by Nicoll, op. cit., p. 317. This is the last record of the visit. The French Conjurer could not have referred to “de French Troop,” in any case, as late as “c. July 1677.” (2) The French Conjurer reminds his audience explicitly of the Lenten season when he says: “Begar. var me in London in tis garb on St. Taffie's day, me should be hang on te signe-post for te Jack-a-Lent.” (Act i, Scene i.) The Welsh festival of St. David's (“St. Taffie's”) Day came in Lent—March 1—and was celebrated by the wearing of leeks in the hat by some of the English as well as the Welsh. The leek would also suggest Lenten fare.

⁴⁷ See Pepys, 28 Sept., 1668.

⁴⁸ We must still allow, in generalizing about minor casts, for the possibility that certain plays were put on by hirelings at other times then Lent. Tom Essence had a cast like that of The French Conjurer: Percival, Crosby, Norris, Gillow, Anth. Leigh, Richards. A. Nicoll has the date of its production: c. Sept. 1676, without definite evidence. The Constant Nymph had a similar cast: Percival, Gillow, Richards, Medbourne and Jevon. A. Nicoll has: c. July 1677. The Dedication seems at first to put the date some time in the summer. The author tells us how badly the play was acted because the chief parts were taken by women and “as for Adornments, in Habit, Musick, and Scene-Work, it was Vacation-time, and the Company would not venture the Charge.” However, “Vacation-time” did not apply only to the summer. It could apply just as well to the several other intervals between the terms. In that year, 1677, for example, Hilary Term ended February 12. From then until the beginning of Easter Term, May 2, was a vacation during which many people, in London for the sitting of the courts, would leave for the country and thin out the theatre audiences. Lent fell during this vacation, from February 28 to April 15. The Constant Nymph may have been in this “Vacation-time.”

⁴⁹ For the acting date of The Rival Kings, A. Nicoll (op. cit.) has: c. June 1677.

⁵⁰ Killigrew's Company, after the burning of the T. R. in Bridges Street, was acting at the Lincoln's Inn Fields temporarily until the royal order came to cease at midsummer, 1673. Genest lists the play under the heading “T. R. 1674.” Nicoll: L.I.F. c. June 1673. Summers: T. R. May 1673. The Playhouse of Pepys, p. 397. In the Prologue to The Spanish Rogue, we hear from Mrs. Boutell:

This must apply to the old Lincoln's Inn Fields and not to the new Drury Lane, so that Genest cannot be right. As Killigrew's Company began acting at Lincoln's Inn Fields on February 26, 1671/2, they could have put on The Spanish Rogue as early as Lent.

⁵¹ Moreover, no “King's Nursery” existed in 1673. Only in 1667 were there possibly two nurseries, one being for the King's Company, under Bedford. See Hotson, op. cit., p. 217.

⁵² Downes, Rosc. Ang. ed. Summers, p. 19. Harris was Prince Prospero in Davenant's Love and Honour, 21 Oct. 1661.

⁵³ Downes has 1664. Nicoll thinks this incorrect. Op. cit., p. 279. Downes lists “Lyddoll” and Griffin as among those not coming into the King's Company “till after they had begun in Drury-Lane,” April 8, 1663. Some time after 28 Sept. 1677 and by 1678, Philip Griffin became a “Master Partner or Sharer.”

⁵⁴ W. Rye reprints a license issued by the City of Norwich to allow Coysh's Company to act, on 6 August 1672. Extracts from the Court Books of the City of Norwich, 1666–1688 (Norwich, 1905). Quoted by Summers, The Playhouse of Pepys, p. 124.

⁵⁵ See L. C. 5/137, p. 31, for a warrant for livery.

⁵⁶ See Hotson, op. cit., p. 254.

⁵⁷ See the lists of sharers 17 December, 1673 and 1 May, 1676, reprinted by Hotson, op. cit., p. 254.

⁵⁸ The Lenten group characteristically rallied itself on bad or stale plays, as we learn from others of its prologues and epilogues, e.g., Prol. to The Rambling Justice. Cited above.