Researching classical plays: Much Ado About Nothing

'Much Ado About Nothing' was written by the famous play write William Shakespeare in 1598; 'Much Ado About Nothing' (MAAN) is a comedic play best known for "the merry war between two couples." [Much Ado About Nothing, The Arden Shakespeare.] "It combines elements of robust hilarity, with more serious meditations on honour, shame and court politics"  This play offers a variety of light and dark to life and love; and it is seen to be so truthfully written that matters today seem still relevant to the words he wrote back in the 15th century. Especially in the context of social harmonies, gender status and "the desire to love and to be loved"; which all so happen to be subjects I will talk about later. 
    From the brief bits of information I already know about the play, I can already say that it has a lot of relevance to both a contemporary style and audience; but we shall see...

Staging: ·         

Shakespeare's plays, and any other sort of theatrical performances back then, had to be versatile. Unlike our shows now, the Elizabethans were not privileged (slight metaphor there!) enough to have indoor theatres. Therefore all plays were performed in outdoor performance halls, which became of the name 'the theatre'.  This was the more common performance space in which Shakespeare's plays were performed in, such as Much Ado About Nothing, however some were performed in Inn's or castles as entertainment for the Royals. But more importantly they had to be versatile in the fact that these shows (MAAN)  were performed in 'The Globe.' 

'The Globe' got its name through the Hamlet (a Shakespeare play) quote, "All the world's a stage." The world, as I hope you know, is of a circular formation. It is a globe. So if 'all the world is a stage' it made sense to create these 'outdoor playhouses' (now known as a theatre) in a circle around the stage; to create the illusion that the audience represented the world, which was situated around the stage. This takes me back to how MAAN  would've been extremely versatile; the actors had to ensure they entertained all sections of the audience at, pretty much, all times. The image, on the right, is a sketched diagram of The Globe. 

So starting at the top (literally) we had what was called the tower. Here gave home to the canon that was sometimes used as well as a church bell. The church bell came as most useful, back in the day. Set was hardly ever used, so the sounding of a church bell helped the imagination of the audience. If a wedding, the bell would be rung and it would help paint the wedding scene in the minds of the audience. For example, the bell would've sounded in Act 4, Scene 1 of Much Ado About Nothing, which is the scene in which Claudio and Hero go to exchange vows. The bell would've also been used as a mean of telling the time, again for the audience picture night or day etc. This might have been used in Act 3 Scene 1 in which Beatrice heads to the 'orchard' to listen to Hero's and Ursula's 'false bait' they lay about Benedick loving Beatrice. The bell could be rung as she enters the 'orchard' as a means to signify afternoon; allowing the audience to picture a warm, sunny afternoon etc. The canon, which as already mentioned, also lived up in the tower. The canon isn't used during MAAN at any point; however it would be a clever touch if you included it into a recreation of the play as it has had a big effect on the life of The Globe. The canon, famously known to be fired during a performance of All is True. A piece about King Henry the eighth. As King Henry entered the ball, various canons were fired as a grand entrance for the royal highness. The canon fired but the sparks from this caught alight the thatched roof. There was no such thing as fire extinguishers nor a fire brigade so the original Globe burnt down. Accounts read that only few men happened to help put out the fire, but that was only them throwing their cans of ale over it; in the hope it would put it out... 
The Balcony would be where those of a Royal kind would sit. The balcony is situated directly opposite the audience pit; almost like proving the point that the Royals were very much above everyone else; including the actors-both literally and physically. 
Although saying that, the Heavens where placed above the Balcony as it really was believed that Gods, angel, fairies etc were above all-so that includes the Royals. The heavens, as sort of already give away, is where the fictional characters were lowered from; so this included the Gods. Possibly in MAAN the Friar could be lowered from the heavens purely because any religious teacher were seen as very well respected and therefore, for this act of respect, a lowering from the heavens would seem suitable. 
The opposite to the heavens, would become the Trap Door. The trap door acted as hell (but strangely was never called that.) The trap door was the entrance 'door'for again, all fictional characters, but all of the evil nature. If you're a Shakespeare fan you'll know the witches from Macbeth would arrive from here. In MAAN it would make sense if Don John arrived through the trap door, purely because of his bad nature; but he plays human, so therefore he can only enter through the main stage doors.
The main stage doors are the exit of the tiring room, which we know as the backstage area. This got its name as you would go and change your 'attire' in this room. There isn't anything too exciting to tell you about the tiring room, it only gets as exciting as a backstage area we know today. The main stage gave home to the pillars which were so often used in MAAN. Both Benedick and Beatrice would've used these pillars, the four that stood at the four corners of the stage, during both scenes in which they discover the other is "sick in love"  with them. Its important to see the reactions of Beatrice and Benedick in both of these scenes as they are the main pull in the scene being comedic. So in the original staging of the play, these pillars would be used to allow the two characters to move around the stage, one to be seen by the whole audience, and two to be able to create a really energetic scene, with Benedick and Beatrice racing around the pillars as Hero, Ursula, Claudio and Leonato continue "laying the false sweet bait"  for Benedick and Beatrice. 
      Nowadays the pillars would be seen as an inconvenience to the directors and audiences, whereas Shakespeare used them to his advantage and really made use of them to capture the comedic sides to both Benedick and Beatrice as well as many other characters that feature in his other plays. 

You then had the Yard. It was one penny to stand in the yard, and these were the hardest members of your audience in which you had to keep engage. Standing for a long 2 hour and more long Shakespeare play, possibly in the rain with an awful view of the stage meant these audience members would become distracted quicker.

Othello and the moving walls

In more modern recreations of the play, I have seen the pillars being changed into walls. The walls were situated half way across the stage, and with the staging being rotational, they acted in the same way as the pillars did in the original staging. David Tennant, in this modern version still gave off the same effect with over-hearing the "false sweet bait" Claudio and Leonato laid for him about Beatrice's love to him. If I were to recreate this, I would use the staging in which I saw used in Frantic Assembly's version Othello. In this performance, Othello created a sequence off falling in and out of the of the moving walls. The moving walls created a drunken effect to the scene which fitted well with this Othello version which was set in a pub. Anyways, the moving walls in my modern creation of Much Ado About Nothing would act as Benedick and Beatrice's pillars. The walls had crevasses in which allowed the actors to hide in but still be seen by the audience. Which means that Beatrice and Benedick could hide in these, in perhaps the setting off a pub or a house; but from here they could still hear and react to the entire peice. The Othello use of the moving walls was really, visually pleasing. It gave the play a lot more energy and excitement as the physical theatre moments made every move around the moving walls have more meaning. I would give both Beatrice and Benedick physical theatre sequences in this section, also, purely because I fell in love with how effective it looked on stage. 

Shakespeare's performance style would be most closely linked to a conventional style; and by this I mean he wrote things that suited the 'suitable and agreed standards' of that day and age. As far as I know, he wrote about nothing too controversial (however we shall see in the social/political section of this assignment.) 

         

   

Social
Socially the play is rife. It is full of social statues that would've been seen as extremely important back in the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare never lived a 'well-off' lifestyle, he only had the freedom to an education thanks to his father winning an award for free education. This era specifically was reigned by Queen Elizabeth I, the sixth ruler and the last ruler of Tudor. Back then she was considered the best monarch, with thanks to her and the 'Golden Age' the more creative approach to life was introduced such as Shakespeare. The big dilemma, however, was brought up by a protestant protester named John Knox;

"it is more than a monster in nature that a woman should reign and bear empire over a man." 

This statement is questioning the ability and the right for a woman to be reigning the country. Woman's rights were very limited then, it was seen as our job, and our job only to stay at home and care for the house, do the washing and cooking etc. However, many would disagree with Knox purely because Elizabeth was seen as a 'different kind of Queen.' She experienced a lot throughout her reign that perhaps changed things for woman; but plainly speaking, I believe even the existence of a positive, and good female reigning would've no doubt changed things for the woman then. She transformed our so, poverty driven country into a striving place to live in, all in the 45 years she reigned over a male-dominated country. However, I believe Shakespeare has both subtly and cleverly used Queen Elizabeth I into Beatrice: Elizabeth refused to marry. She believed that if she were to marry, she would be seen as a weaker Queen and therefore the power she had put behind the name of 'women' would disappear instantly. I gather back then this would've been seen as almost insane, but a part of me believes Shakespeare had a more open-mind and understood the Queen's reasons and possibly agreed with them; unlike the population at the time. "Just, if he send me no husband, for the which blessing I am at him upon my knees every morn and evening" [Act 2, Scene 1] Beatrice speaks here of how grateful she is that God has not sent her a man. It isn't obvious, but the strong and independence that comes with her characteristics proves that her beliefs lie similarly to that of the Queens; she would not marry in risk of making herself appear weak...So it's no wonder that Shakespeare wrote Beatrice in such a fiery, dominant and independent way; she did an awful lot for England at the time and it leads to me to say that, clearly, Shakespeare saw her as a big influence on him whereas many others at the time were still looking down on the fact she was a 'woman reigning!' 
    

Blue against the black. Much Ado About Nothing male characters.

Costumes in the original performance of Much Ado About Nothing would've been taken from influences of the time in which they were written. In the very original performances it is very possibly that the male characters whom were seen as good (the likes of Claudio, Benedick etc) wore blue with there soldiers uniforms. And those seen as evil (Don Pedro) would wear black. These colours already represent social importances; because simply, looking at the colour blue we see a more positive and happier colour in comparison to the colour black. In the military, then and now, our men wore/wear blue sashes as a mark of pride and to honour their positions in the military; and this is something that is brought into the modernised version in which features Catherine Tate and David Tennant. In this modernised version, a blue sash (I am linking this to the blue colours that might have been worn in the very original performance) is worn to represent those men situated higher up in the infantry. A red sash being the opposite, in which would be worn by those 'on-the-front' men. In this modern version, Claudio wears the blue sash and slightly contradicting myself, this could represent the fact that the story is mainly based on him and his love for Hero; therefore he should be seen as the hero and most liked male character of the play. Which leaves us with Benedick in the red sash, proving to us that his role in the play is slightly less important than Claudio's but he still plays a big part in it all; as do the 'front-line' soldiers do. 

More smartly dressed example.

As I have made a large point of, social status/importance in MAAN is a large aspect. This is most definitely an aspect in which I would want to carry over to a modern creation. For this I would possibly think of setting it in a college environment. College (less than school) is still very much about looking good and fitting in. School is the worst contender for this, but for the storyline to fit better; college age range works better. Like in the picture above, we sort of have two male groups; the good and evil, as such. For this to work, I would create them by there sense of fashion. So at college we have the 'chavs' who rock up in full Nike tracksuits, then you have the opposite with the guys who wear smart looking shirts/t-shirts. These would form our two male groups, showing, quite visibly social statuses. Being un-stereotypical, the nike tracksuits would be of the lower social status, it could represent, also, the lower range of money income. Don Pedro would be one of the nike tracksuits guys. The smart/casual dressed guys would be formed from Claudio, Benedick and Leonato etc. The well-dressed approach shows they are perhaps more 'cool' in the college environment. 

Nike Tracksuits

This is only a brief example however, already I hope you can see the difference and how that MAAN would really work in a college enviroment purely because there is so much you could do basing it simply on just costumes. 














Political


Typically, Elizabethan era plays were most commonly played and performed in the 'Inn-Yard' theatre which would usually be situated in the yard (garden) of a local inn. The inn-yards could be said as the original theatres; to some extent. These yards were later then converted in playhouses. But the inn-yards were really for the less well off persons of that time as these performances were inexpensive simply because they were performed in pub gardens. These performances usually only held up to 500 people but they satisfied the socially less privileged of them all. Plays that were performed in the famously-known Globe Theatre were watched by a much larger audience capacity of 1,500; and these (excluding the yard, see heading Staging) were watched by the more middle and upper-classed popularity simply because these were the types of people whom could afford to go and watch (or should I say 'hear') a play. Returning back to Much Ado About Nothing, with the inn-yards being first used as a performance space back in 1420; it is almost certain that MAAN was performed in these spaces. To me this highlights, again, how open minded Shakespeare must've been in that era. Being the writer of MAAN, he would have given permission for it to be performed in the inn-yards (which were known more for the less well off audience types to attend) which, getting to my point, meant that he simply wanted his plays to be seen and liked by all. For him it wasn't a problem that he showed it to the lower-class, and as a guess I could see this being as a bad mark against Shakespeare's name from the upper-classed. It being almost like a cool student going over to make conversation to one of those weird kids; and the cool kid being mocked for doing so...? So perhaps the upper-classed looked down and badly upon Shakespeare at times? 

An example of a 15th Century inn-yard

Politically it is known that Shakespeare included a lot of this subject (politics)  into his plays; understandably as it was and still is such a relevant thing that surrounds us still. As far as I can recall, all of Shakespeare's pieces are set out of England; and that was to avoid any direct political insults and also to avoid criticism which would lead to a bad reputation. His plays told more fantasised versions of the recent past (his recent past that is) and how that affected or effected the present they had when writing the plays.


Politically, Much Ado About Nothing doesn't have much to do with the politics in which were happening at the time. Which makes it hard for me to perhaps incorporate this into a more contempoarised version. However, the friar wouldn't really need to be such an important character and could even be replaced by an un-seen Prime Minister or someone of a high up status, as the friar is in the original. This would make the modern version more relevant for a modern audience. With that said, you may still be wondering how the friars role could be slotted into a Prime Ministers role; however I would change Benedick and Beatrice around into a gay couple. Therefore, similarly to the friar, the Prime Ministers agreement to same sex marriages allows the marriage to go forward; as does the friar during the original. This way, it becomes extremely relevant to the modern day we live in. It would also bring in another audience type; those whom are for gay marriage or in support of the new gay marriage laws. 

Irrelevant annotation for you: "Nothing" back then meant the females genitalia, and to me I see the title to be a reference to Shakespeare's political views; as though it was a way for him to 'on the surface' tell the world that this play wasn't really about anything, 'nothing'. But, to those whom 'look deeper' will understand what the play is really about. 






Economical
At the beginning of Queen Elizabeth I's reign, England was in a very poor state; this was thanks to financing the wars of Philip II. We were also suffering a hatred towards Spain, which, all-in-all left the civilians living in a very poor world. Beggars and vagabonds became the most common way to live your life; Vagabonds are people without a home, whom 'wonder from place to place', without a job. Vagabonds became the thing to be purely because of the sudden lost of money throughout the country; but also due to the new found unlikeness towards the religious houses of Henry VII. With Elizabeth stepping up to the throne at this economically tough time, the business of 'woollen cloth'. (And as much as we take woollen jumpers for granted now; we have to give it credit for getting us back on our (as a country) feet again!) Cloth was most popular with the middle and upper-class of the time. Architecture also flourished in this time period which, again, was popular with the middle and upper class. Tin and copper mining began around this time also. Inns in London were beginning to be used to train lawyers in. The iron industry also flourished. Jobs were becoming more popular to have, after the period of vagabonds, and it was the time of farmers; blacksmiths, bakers, basket-makers, glovers (like Shakespeare's father) and many more. Over the time of all these new things beginning, and jobs becoming more popular, London grew massively economically. Elizabeth had a major hand in all of this, she stirred on the mining and in a way helped greatly in the advertisement of the silk, the copper etc. But as well as she did do, it was never seen as enough. Nor was it really, ever enough. London in 1500th's had no postal service, no fire brigade (hence the burn down of The Globe could never be stopped nor prevented!) religious houses were kept as hospitals after the wars and battles that occurred before her reign, so the demand for actual religious places was high too. Robbery and violence had stayed rife after the period of the beggars and vagabonds (understandably, as robbing foods etc is indefinitely a lot easier than finding the money to pay for them.) Tobacco became popular so money was yet again an issue, and with the cost at three shillings seeming very cheap to us nowadays, it equalled to 3p which was (brace yourselves) a fair bit of money spent. However, it was the raids of battle ships during the battle of Manila; in which we defeated Spain and Portugal. Our 'men' stole whatever items they thought had a possible market on them. Most famously a large pot, which was filled with spices, pearls, silk, silver and gold in which, of course, was given straight to the reigning Queen as a gift. As you can now see, England started off in a very bad, poverty-driven place at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, that is. We (England) had our rise and falls but with the reign of the strongest, most famously historical Queen, we are, I guess where we are now. 

The economy, in which, undoubtedly plays a part in the original of Much Ado About Nothing, could revolved around the costumes and accessories in which feature. 

Original Beatrice costume 

Focussing purely on Beatrice for the requirements of this assignment; I have inserted an image of sketches in which would've been the designs of Beatrice's costume. The blue features here again, like mentioned under the Social heading, which again proves that her role is of some great meaning to the play; and perhaps even more so than Benedicks-as in my earlier analysis he wears red because he isn't written down as the plays hero. So the blue shows off her status, and that both she thinks she's largely better than Benedick but also the fact that Shakespeare has written her to be better than him. Moving back on topic, her costume was made out of silk (or something to resemble silk.) This tells me that the whole play and all the characters in which feature in it, are more upper-class than they are middle-class. Silk was pretty much brand new at the time of the plays release, which like anything, undoubtedly meant it wasn't cheap. Shakespeare most purposefully gave Beatrice a silk dress to highlight that these people were well off enough to afford such luxury's. He's done it subtly enough for us to notice that it was in the full intention that these characters were made to be of a high disposition. This would also be well represented through the maid's costume. 

The costume of a maid perhaps (right)

The maid, on the right, is wearing, coincidentally, both red and blue. But focussing this more on the economical issues; her costume was most probably made of cotton. There is no real information I could find in which told me directly cotton was the cheapest material however the discovery and use of cotton has been used since 4500BC. And with that information I can only gather that at the time of Shakespeare and Much Ado About Nothing cotton was most probably the cheapest material. With this said, the cotton costume material for the maid represents her economic status in the play. Clearly she is a lot less 'well off' than any of the other characters in the play; in comparison to Beatrice's silk, blue dress. 


Economy wise, my modern version of Much Ado About Nothing would again be showed through the likes of costume. For example the maid would be in a costume that could be seen as 'cheap'. For this, she could simply be wearing the non-branded clothes that are seemingly 'un-cool' in a school/college environment.The opposite of this would be Leonato's costume, which would be something of the more smart/casual look I mentioned earlier on. Similarly with the likes of Don Pedro, he would be wearing the nike tracksuit. All of this would help subtly prove the economic statues throughout the play.





Cultural
Culturally, the Elizabethan era really flourished. Especially in the likes of festivals and celebratory days that have stayed the same for us in this day and age:
(Between) 3rd February- 9th March: Shrove Tuesday was celebrated. This is typically (I say 'typically' like I was fully aware of this) an Elizabethan festivity. It was a very much loved festival and although it's not widely celebrated nowadays, most of us don't decline to excuse to have pancakes! Running through the city of London was tradition on the Tuesday itself-which as you can expect did cause violence in, sometimes, our beloved theatres. 'Cock throwing' was the most popular of all events on this day, which included tying a a cockerel to a post and throwing stones at it until it died. However, as horrendous that sounds, it was done as an act to prove the past. The rioting especially was to cleanse the city of the past and well... the cockerel was a patriotic act as a cockerel represented France. 

Wassailing in action

24th December: Christmas eve of course! This was the time for them to decorate (not at the beginning of November like a neighbour of mine!!) the houses with holly and ivy; which is no doubt what gave the song influences. Christmas eve was also the time to sing songs, songs more than carols that we know today. And unlike us, the Elizabethans would have drums and other instruments to accompany them. This occasion especially, wassailing would happen- wassailing is an ancient way of Christmas carolling, or so as we know it today- at the same drinking 'plenty and merrily'. 

Culturally, it's really hard to find a way to include this into my contemporary version. Especially because our cultural relevance a today are completly different to how they were back in Shakespeare's time. Also because Much Ado About Nothing doesn't have any obvious cultural references it would be hard to incorporate this and include this into my modern version. However, contradicting myself, simply just making the piece contemporary would naturally give the piece its own, modern cultural aspects purely because of the modern school environment, gay marriages etc. 

Religion
During the Elizabethan era there were two main religions; one being Catholic and the other Protestant. And as you may already be able to guess, they didn't bode well. In the early 15th Century, everyone practised Catholicism. One of the main teachings of Catholicism in the 15th Century was:

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus."

This meant that if you were any of the below, you were considered not worth saving:

• A Muslim, Hindu or Buddist. Or another member of a non-Christian religion
• An Atheist (non-believer in any religion)
• Or if you were another member of another Christian denomination

So, the Catholic teaching could be seen as rather 'tough'. Things like this prompted a change in religion, which became Protestant. Because they were two 'rivalling' religions they had their differences, for one, the protestants believed that the Bible is a full information guide as to how the Christians behaviour must be measured- the Bible is something that they have to follow utterly and completely. Whereas, simply putting it, the Catholics, yes agreed that the Bible had such importance in their religion however they believed that just the Bible alone to follow, was not enough. Whereas the Protestants thought it was; and you can see where the disagreement lays. 

With Shakespeare being under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the chances are likely that he was Protestant seeing as that is whom she followed. However, his parents were most likely Catholic, due to being a different generation etc. (This is still an on-going debate however.) And some brief information that has been released because of this debate is that researchers believe that Shakespeare was secretly a Catholic. From my point of view, that would make sense as his parents are said to be both Catholics and it is rather hard to talk your parents out of forcing you to be a Catholic. I personally believe he was protestant, and to my disappointment I have no real evidence for my statement despite my repeatedly mentioned fact that, to me, Shakespeare was a very open-minded man. I see a lot of his history as possibly rather controversial at the time in which he was living which lead me to believe that living to the expectations of the people around him didn't matter to him. So had has an open mind, he wasn't glued to living to the rules of his era, he could see more than just the world he was guided through. So therefore, it wouldn't surprise me if he were Catholic, if that's something he felt was the right way forward he would've stuck to it- but it contradicts my point that his Catholicism was kept a secret, but I link that back to him "avoiding criticism and a bad reputation." 

With Shakespeare being around at the time of a very religious reign; it would make sense for all his characters (specifically in Much Ado About Nothing) to be very religious; however now knowing the play well, I can't see religion in the characters, as obvious as you could in say other plays of his. However, I focus my point on the whole sexual and false circumstance that is the maid playing Hero in order to fool Claudio of her cheating on him (the night before there wedding may I add.) Relating to this to the chastity ring, a Christian ring which would be worn for the entire period of being un-married, this was to show that you've not and will not have sex before exchanging vows. This act would've been greatly looked down upon; it was seen as a sin from the Churches point of view. The Christian teachings of sex before marriage follows: "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband". This teaches that sex can only happen when you have 'your'e own husband or wife'. With this teaching, it makes it clear that 'Hero's' act of wrong doing was such a sinful act. And although this wrong doing was all fake under Hero's name, Don Pedro still committed a sinful act and therefore proves my earlier point of him being seen as a more 'evil' character; who goes against God and the religions in which they were living in during their era. 

Religion back in Shakespeare's day was really, very important. It still has its importance nowadays but it's a lot less hidden from our day to day lives. It's again, not another large aspect to the original version of Much Ado About Nothing, but it could become a much larger part to my contemporary version purely because of the gay marriage which would become Benedick and Beatrice. Religion, then and now is quite highly against this so I could really, majorly incorporate religion into all this. Perhaps Don Pedro could be one of the main characters against the 'gay marriage' in which would feature in the play; which spurs him into tricking the 'Claudio' equivilant etc. 


To conclude, I can possibly understand in a lot more detail that Shakespeare was truly a legend in Theatre and English studying to this day. Everything about him has a meaning and it is all told in various pieces of his. I still don't understand how a contemporary audience wouldn't enjoy any of this, but it would be the same if someone were to talk about Albert Einstein... 

Much Ado About Nothing was of course very relevant to the time period in which it was influenced, written and released in due to all of those factors. However, it is still extremely relevant: love and marriage for one, woman are not looked down upon for not marrying and it isn't seen as anything compulsory. Woman have so many more rights now-which is great! Someone as powerful as Queen Elizabeth isn't so rare now, we have had people like Margaret Thatcher whom ran as Prime Minister, and although not overly liked, was still a female prime minister!! This powerful and independent female role has made Beatrice such a well-liked character in the play purely because she is so relevant to the ever-changing society we live in. She stands her ground about marriage and men especially and I'm sure many females could relate to her fully nowadays. Religion has always been relevant, throughout all era's and although it isn't a major pull in the play itself the subtle mentions have there relevance's. We haven't stuck to sex before marriage as being 'sinful' however our religions still highly believe this and that the act in which Don Pedro committed would still be seen as shameful to the Christians of this day and age. And finally social statuses, which is probably most relevant now. We live in a fully socially correct world. Everyone has to be of a certain status, almost like everyone has to be equal but not at the same time. Schools, I think have the toughest social status levels going; you've got the more popular students, the middle-ish students and then the un-cool students. And with these set levels, it is seen as very un-cool to be at the lowest level. Therefore, we grow up believing we have to be of a certain way in order to be at the top of the levels. We have to have the top class phone and branded shoes etc. And similarly like Much Ado About Nothing, people would do anything (i.e. the maid having sex) to raise themselves up the social chart.








Introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing]

Staging: (http://bloggingshakespeare.com/how-did-they-stage-eavesdropping-in-much-ado-about-nothing )

Economical: http://faculty.tnstate.edu/smcurtis/Elizabethan%20Economy.htm

Political: http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-biography-elizabethan-theatre-playhouse-inn-yards.htm

Culturally: http://www.carelpress.co.uk/shakespeareplays/twelfthnight/assets/Festivals.pdf

Social: http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/religion-elizabethan-england.htm