It was a year ago this week that Britain’s 250 theatres were shut, placing tens of thousands out of work and freezing the country’s cultural life indefinitely. Yet it’s not been the first lockdown that London’s theatre land has endured, and the lessons from the first great closure offer hope for an industry that suffered as much as any these past 12 months. Indeed, it could be said that lockdown helped shape our theatre.
Back in August 1592 plague had broken out in London and, fearing that plays might be super-spreader events, the city closed its playhouses, keeping them shut for two years. It was not the first time: thirty years earlier, in 1564, the Lord Mayor had worried that “the great and frequent confluences, congregations and assemblies of great numbers and multitudes of people pressed together in small rooms” was a key factor in the spread of disease. The Bishop of London, Edmund Grindal, wrote the same year that “there is no one thing” that “is more like to have renewed this contagion than the practice of an idle sort of people, common players, who now daily set up bills [adverts for performances], whereunto the youth resorteth excessively and there taketh infection”. As we all know, the authorities like to blame the young for spreading illness.
In times of disease, performances were often cancelled. “For the avoiding of Infection”, the Lord Mayor wrote in 1569, “all great resort, assembly, and concourse of people assembled and drawn together by reason of any plays, interludes or other shows should be forbidden”. Serious breakouts of plague, lasting several months, swept through London every few years between 1570 and 1583. But the theatre was never completely closed. By the end of this period, the Lord Mayor was writing, “one very great and dangerous inconvenience” was “the assembly of people to plays, to which do resort great multitudes of the basest sort of people, and many infected with sores running on them, which be otherwise perilous for contagion”.
For almost ten years after 1583, plague outbreaks had been more manageable. The 1592-94 pestilence was therefore a shock both in its suddenness and in its duration, and theatre people were of course not immune. Margaret Brayne was amongst those who died in this vicious resurgence of the disease — a woman who had helped to finance, build and run at least one of the earliest London playhouses, the Theatre. She may also have helped her husband John to build the oldest Elizabethan playhouse that we know of, the Red Lion, the pair helping to invent theatre as an architectural space.
But plague presented opportunities for those willing and able to pursue them. These were the years that Simon Forman started to build a public reputation by working as both doctor and magician in plague-stricken London districts. Through these early years of fame, Forman established a distinctively early modern reputation that spanned medicine, psychology, astrology and necromancy. He would later become much consulted by ordinary and famous Londoners, becoming an early modern celebrity.
Likewise, other professionals used this year as an opportunity to grow their profiles. The book publisher Joan Broome printed a play in 1592 and explained to her readers in a preface that “Since the plays in Paul’s were dissolved, there are certain comedies come to my hands by change”. In other words: the playhouse on London’s St Paul’s Cathedral site has now been closed, and I am therefore publishing some of its plays. Here a professional woman responds to closure by treating it as a business opportunity. Play publication increased widely in these years, and is a key reason why these texts survive today: in some ways we have plague, and the consequent theatre closures, to thank for the development and our knowledge of the period’s drama. And though we don’t know when Shakespeare’s writing career began, these were the years in which that writing started to make itself known, both onstage and in print.
But other Londoners found themselves utterly without work — and there was no furlough scheme in the 16th century. In 1593 the London watermen, who made money ferrying people across the Thames, petitioned the government for the reopening of the Rose playhouse in Southwark. These men depended on the audiences for much of their income: a reminder that it is not just the hospitality and entertainment industries that suffer at a time like this, but all those who enable the public to get out and about.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMy impression is that theatre has been stagnating for many years and audiences dwindling or at least failing to attract new, young members.
This painful period of closure might be just what theatre needs to stimulate innovation. I like the idea of more outdoor performances with the audience closer to the players as in Shakespeare’s day, and perhaps a more impromptu element.
I’ve seen so many youtube videos about flashmobs playing Beethoven, Mozart, etc. It looks like so much fun. I wonder if roving groups of players can do the same for short plays: appear suddenly in Hyde Park on a sunny Saturday afternoon and perform something that’s not too serious or challenging.
Idle thoughts from an idle man. I’m sure professional actors, playwrights, etc can come up with better ideas. They should certainly try.
Everything needs new ideas and they come from young people. Old people see new ideas as threats to their comfortable existences.
That’s a great idea. I’m not sure how far it will to meeting the costs of bed and board, but it will certainly encourage the players to become responsive to what the audiences might favour
Subsidized theatre will survive for now because it is a job creation scheme for the middle classes .The playwrights and actors who are still doing their bit for theatre are often over 80 and are basically the last generation who were raised without television-when they are gone will there be any appetite for theatre to continue?
Perhaps. I don’t know. I gave up on all the leftie-luvviedom years ago, having once been a very regular theatregoer.
However, the leftie-woke types who might still go the theatre seem to be the very people who are most afraid of Covid. So there’s a good chance they won’t be attending any public events for the rest of their lives.
….. and have you managed to find a far-right bigot theatre enclave in which you’re happy?
Well I go to amateur performances in which friends take part, and read Brecht at home.
“the leftie-woke types who might still go the theatre seem to be the very people who are most afraid of Covid”
How can you possibly know that?
Simplistic claptrap.
Tim Pool observed a few months ago that he couldn’t get lefties into his studio for interviews because they were so terrified of Covid. Conservatives, however, were happy to leave the house and go to his studio.
Yep. My daughter took me to Stratford in Summer 2019 and it has exactly the left-luvvie approach that the Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, Oregon has.
Shakespeare, of course, was a Commoner, son of a glover, darling. But he went to Stratford’s grammar school — where the pupils came to school with up to 8 pints of small beer every day — and learned Latin and made up plays on classical themes. What you might call an education.
The fundamental problem/dichotomy for the theater, the ballet and opera is that tickets are extraordinarily expensive. It’s one thing to pay a lot of money for a once in a lifetime experience, but quite another to pay for a “blah” experience. Even movie tickets are way overpriced and people will migrate, if they haven’t already, to looking entirely at home, even though many movies really do benefit from the big screen.
There’s Theatre, and then there’s theatre. So much of the discussion around the performing arts and the pandemic equates theatre with the west end etc. It is so much more than that. Personally I’m more interested in seeing the Edinburgh Festival re-established and small to medium scale local arts venues reopen and don’t give that much of a toss about the West End.
So much professional theatre is so cringingly awful. I grew up in a “theatre family”, which means I was involuntarily subjected to enough bad theatre before the age of 20 to last more than several lifetimes. I don’t just mean bad productions; poor action, direction etc. can be forgiven as long as the play itself it good, but bad plays. These days – pre-lockdown I mean – I mostly attend only community theatre productions of comedies (am partial to Oscar Wilde) or musicals, or the odd Shakespearean comedy.
Just to fill in on Shakespeare: it was because he was out of theatre work in 1592-3 that he wrote two long narrative poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. His output in the Jacobean period may have been significantly impacted by sporadic outbreaks of the plague. His bleakest tragedy King Lear was possibly written during a thetare lockdown in 1606.
Interesting, isn’t it, that even plague lockdowns and business closures in Shakespeare’s time – over a horrific bacterial disease that killed almost everyone it infected – lasted a shorter time than lockdowns in our time over a flulike viral disease with an over 99 percent survival rate. But I wrote a novel (my first; possibly also my last!) during the lockdown back in the spring of 2020 after I was temporarily laid off from my job, so I feel a certain sense of kinship with Shakespeare now.
Not forgetting Cromwells puritan shutdown of Theatres as well, till the “Merry Monarch” Charles II reopened them all, which also led to the bigoted puritans sailing off in a huff on the Mayflower to the new world as they didn’t like the new religious freedom in England and preferred only their dogma groupthink
Where is Basil Chamberlain when we need him?