Final answer:
The theater manager's willingness to let Aven and her friends have the theater to themselves could be influenced by historical practices of private theater booth ownership, the evolution of theater management, or a desire to provide a special and memorable experience.
Step-by-step explanation:
The theater manager may have been willing to let Aven and her friends have the theater to themselves for several historical and practical reasons. One reason can be traced back to the days when theater booths were sold to private citizens who had autonomy over their space, using it for various purposes beyond watching theatrical productions. These booths sometimes served as places for secret encounters or even improvised offices, with curtains that could close off completely from the rest of the house. Another factor could be the changes in ownership and management that occurred over time, which by the Renaissance had led to more structured engagements and empowerment of actors. This evolution in theatrical management could mean that theater managers were more accommodating to requests from patrons. Moreover, considering the issue faced by many European theaters with absentee booth owners which obstructed renovation and compliance efforts, a contemporary manager might be more inclined to make practical use of the theater in unconventional ways.
In another scenario, perhaps drawn from a work of fiction set in a theater environment, the willingness to let a few individuals have a theater to themselves might arise from circumstances such as a special event or the absence of a crowd where "Ain't ut crowdut?" reflects the typically full attendance, and the manager could make an exception due to low turnout or the presence of a regular or esteemed patron. Additionally, recalling the example of the successful musical RENT introducing $20 tickets and making theater more accessible, managers might have incentives to create a memorable experience for attendees, thus fostering long-term patronage.