Rebuts the “fresh start” theory of Restoration drama, which regards the year 1660 as a turning point in English dramatic history. Stresses instead how and why 1660 should be seen as a moment of continuation as well as of change. Discusses the theatrical professionals (Henry Herbert, William Beeston, John Rhodes, Michael Mohun, George Jolly) who continued to suffer hardships and exclusion after the so-called restoration of the theatres, due to the exclusive theatre patents granted to Thomas Killigrew and William Davenant. Describes the legacy of the theatrical prohibition on the careers of dramatic stationers Francis Kirkman and Henry Herringman, as a respective loser and winner within the Restoration playbook trade. Argues that Restoration dramatic criticism ought to be read in the context of the 1640s and 1650s discourse analyzed in the first half of the monograph, which describes English drama’s identity centred around print publication. Notes that the modern conditions to study early modern drama, namely the existence of some kind of textual instantiation (a playtext, a fragment, allusion, or title in the historical record) were set in motion by the closure of the theatres in 1642.