5 ms·

In what possible sense could a building from 1567 be 'London's earliest theatre'? Has the journalist misunderstood something about it being the earliest of the

by rozab 6y ago

In what possible sense could a building from 1567 be 'London's earliest theatre'? Has the journalist misunderstood something about it being the earliest of the Elizabethan era?

dang 6y ago
Not clear what the intended scope of 'earliest' is, so we replaced the title above with a different sentence from the article.
- oldlondonta 6y ago
  Earliest in this case lines up well with "first permanent".
  - dang 6y ago
    Ok, given your comments and the BBC probably being reliable on the topic of English theatre, I've reverted back to the original title. Thanks!
oldlondonta 6y ago
I just finished The Great Courses course The History of London and they spend quite a bit of time talking about theatre in London and it was pretty much banned/heavily controlled for most of London's history. As a result London just didn't have purpose built theatres very early compared to a lot of other cities.
- dang 6y ago
  That's fascinating. I assume it was banned/controlled for religious reasons? But then the religion doesn't fork until 1534 (Church of England), so why would it have been banned earlier, and why the difference with other countries?
  - oldlondonta 6y ago
    I relistened to snippets from the course and I think my previous comment about banning for most of history was wrong though the title still right. I was thinking of the formation of the Kings Company and Dukes Company but they were after not before this. From what I've gathered from relistening to snippets from the course and a bit of Googling the actual answer is lack of demand. London was abandoned for hundreds of years after the Romans left, then there wasn't a big interest in the arts for a long time because of other priorities like being regularly sacked/plagues/etc. I do know theatres were still kept out of the city proper once they started popping up but I can't find why other than again fear of plague.
    - efreak 6y ago
      See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23499672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23499672
- rozab 6y ago
  I was thinking that there must have been a Roman theatre in Londinium, but apparently not. There were known theatres in St Albans and Colchester though
rsynnott 6y ago
They may mean first purpose-built, and it actually might be that. People were quite paranoid about theatre in England back in the day; Shakespeare's plays, say, had to be approved by a government censor. It was very much the "jazz/rock music/video games/tiktok are corrupting the youth" of its day.
- trekrich 6y ago
  Every generation always has something. The coming of the morse code machine, BBS, Internet etc. There is an interesting book on this kind of thing. Check out a book called Writing on the wall, by Tom Standage.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    I think there is a video of I believe Frank Zappa in a discussion in the US with some "morally enthusiastic" republicans before some committee where he is decrying censorship. That moral defender said that they don't employ censorship. Censorship is something the government does. No, they were going to be censored by private entities... how the turn tides... it feels like going back in time and not only because Americans began to talk about culture.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > Shakespeare's plays, say, had to be approved by a government censor Can you point me to some literature on that? The infamous law in England that all plays had to be approved by the Lord Chamberlain (a situation which persisted until the late 1960s) dates from 1737, and thus over a century after Shakespeare’s time.
  - phaemon 6y ago
    In Elizabethan times, plays required a license from the Master of the Revels, who would censor anything illegal (references to rebellion or religion for example). Google should supply plenty of details. Generally, though, the monarchy of the time was quite supportive of the theatre. Just as well really, as the City of London was run by Puritans at the time and they'd gladly have shut down every one of the theatres. That's the reason they were generally built outside the City.

by rozab 6y ago

In what possible sense could a building from 1567 be 'London's earliest theatre'? Has the journalist misunderstood something about it being the earliest of the Elizabethan era?

dang 6y ago

Not clear what the intended scope of 'earliest' is, so we replaced the title above with a different sentence from the article.

oldlondonta 6y ago
Earliest in this case lines up well with "first permanent".
- dang 6y ago
  Ok, given your comments and the BBC probably being reliable on the topic of English theatre, I've reverted back to the original title. Thanks!

oldlondonta 6y ago

I just finished The Great Courses course The History of London and they spend quite a bit of time talking about theatre in London and it was pretty much banned/heavily controlled for most of London's history. As a result London just didn't have purpose built theatres very early compared to a lot of other cities.

dang 6y ago
That's fascinating. I assume it was banned/controlled for religious reasons? But then the religion doesn't fork until 1534 (Church of England), so why would it have been banned earlier, and why the difference with other countries?
- oldlondonta 6y ago
  I relistened to snippets from the course and I think my previous comment about banning for most of history was wrong though the title still right. I was thinking of the formation of the Kings Company and Dukes Company but they were after not before this. From what I've gathered from relistening to snippets from the course and a bit of Googling the actual answer is lack of demand. London was abandoned for hundreds of years after the Romans left, then there wasn't a big interest in the arts for a long time because of other priorities like being regularly sacked/plagues/etc. I do know theatres were still kept out of the city proper once they started popping up but I can't find why other than again fear of plague.
  - efreak 6y ago
    See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23499672 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23499672
rozab 6y ago
I was thinking that there must have been a Roman theatre in Londinium, but apparently not. There were known theatres in St Albans and Colchester though

rsynnott 6y ago

They may mean first purpose-built, and it actually might be that. People were quite paranoid about theatre in England back in the day; Shakespeare's plays, say, had to be approved by a government censor. It was very much the "jazz/rock music/video games/tiktok are corrupting the youth" of its day.

trekrich 6y ago
Every generation always has something. The coming of the morse code machine, BBS, Internet etc. There is an interesting book on this kind of thing. Check out a book called Writing on the wall, by Tom Standage.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  I think there is a video of I believe Frank Zappa in a discussion in the US with some "morally enthusiastic" republicans before some committee where he is decrying censorship. That moral defender said that they don't employ censorship. Censorship is something the government does. No, they were going to be censored by private entities... how the turn tides... it feels like going back in time and not only because Americans began to talk about culture.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> Shakespeare's plays, say, had to be approved by a government censor Can you point me to some literature on that? The infamous law in England that all plays had to be approved by the Lord Chamberlain (a situation which persisted until the late 1960s) dates from 1737, and thus over a century after Shakespeare’s time.
- phaemon 6y ago
  In Elizabethan times, plays required a license from the Master of the Revels, who would censor anything illegal (references to rebellion or religion for example). Google should supply plenty of details. Generally, though, the monarchy of the time was quite supportive of the theatre. Just as well really, as the City of London was run by Puritans at the time and they'd gladly have shut down every one of the theatres. That's the reason they were generally built outside the City.