Shakespeare was not the only writer of plays in England at the time, you know. There were hundreds of them. And all of them drew people to the theatre. They went to see history plays and tragedies and romantic comedies and magical fantasies and political satire and clever stories about con artists. Most of these were not characterized by misery and unhappiness at the end. There were at least six operating theatres at any time in London, each capable of holding more than 1000 people six days a week. That is a lot of people attending the theatre. Why did they go? Because their alternatives were blood sports like bearbaiting which was not very intellectually stimulating and sermons in church, which were not very exciting. Theatre was the best entertainment going and it was great! Shakespeare was an extraordinary playwright, but that does not mean that everyone else writing at the time was not doing a great job.
I think many people enjoyed to watch William Shakespeare's plays because of the way he expressed unhappy endings and misery.
The social classes in the theatre were arranged so the richer, higher class people had the better veiw and more comfortable seats. As the theatres in shakespeares day were usually circular in shape this meant that the better seats were higher up. The poorer seats were in the open air space in the middle or the theatre with no seats unlike the richer classes above them.
Theater can be a strong force in social change. A good example of this is theater for development, in which theater is used to empower and influence communities by allowing people to express their ideas for social improvement in a creative format. Check out the related link to learn more about theater of development.
Royalty believed in the Divine Right of Kings, meaning that God granted power directly to the king, without the benefit of the Social Contract.
Pretty tough. There was no social support for the poorest. You starved, and had to either beg or steal to get food. Shakespeare's portrayal of "Poor Tom" gives some idea of the situation of Bedlam beggars.
The social status of Romeo and Juliet is nobility
No there were no social classes in the Apache tribe.
The social classes in the theatre were arranged so the richer, higher class people had the better veiw and more comfortable seats. As the theatres in shakespeares day were usually circular in shape this meant that the better seats were higher up. The poorer seats were in the open air space in the middle or the theatre with no seats unlike the richer classes above them.
Well, since prosperity is economic success and social classes are people who are alike...(social classes-a group of people who have similar backgrounds, income(money), and way of living) Prosperity lead to social classes by people learning more about each other and exploring. Thank you!!!!!!!!!! have fun in social studies....
The social classes in ancient Rome were not groups of people coming together to learn something. They were parts of society. A person's social class was determined by his/her birth.The social classes in ancient Rome were not groups of people coming together to learn something. They were parts of society. A person's social class was determined by his/her birth.The social classes in ancient Rome were not groups of people coming together to learn something. They were parts of society. A person's social class was determined by his/her birth.The social classes in ancient Rome were not groups of people coming together to learn something. They were parts of society. A person's social class was determined by his/her birth.The social classes in ancient Rome were not groups of people coming together to learn something. They were parts of society. A person's social class was determined by his/her birth.The social classes in ancient Rome were not groups of people coming together to learn something. They were parts of society. A person's social class was determined by his/her birth.The social classes in ancient Rome were not groups of people coming together to learn something. They were parts of society. A person's social class was determined by his/her birth.The social classes in ancient Rome were not groups of people coming together to learn something. They were parts of society. A person's social class was determined by his/her birth.The social classes in ancient Rome were not groups of people coming together to learn something. They were parts of society. A person's social class was determined by his/her birth.
Social classes varied. Most of the people in the classes were made of negro slaves which made up one fourth of the Maryland colony.
There were many people advising the pharaoh
The different type of people that have high classes or low classes. For example poor people or wealthy people.
Theater can be a strong force in social change. A good example of this is theater for development, in which theater is used to empower and influence communities by allowing people to express their ideas for social improvement in a creative format. Check out the related link to learn more about theater of development.
kings, priest,and,enslaved people
UR held about 30,000 people,social classes included rulers and priests, trader's, craft workers, and artist's .
When the Aryans first entered India, they were divided in three social classes, the warriors, the priests and the common people.
The social classes didn't help everyone. It did help the rich people, because then everyone would respect them and treat them well. But for the poor people, it didin't help them. A lot of people can treat them poorly, and show no respect. That is not good. It does not really matter about what social class you are in. Everyone has to treat everybody equally. So the social classes only helped about fifty percent of the people in China.