the play written by Shakespeare.
198897
Try reading the book, and find out!
102611
On the web:\nhttp://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/julius_caesar/\nClick on each Act and Scene as needed and print.
324576
Have you read the play?  It might be easier to answer if you have!  We can't do your homework for you!  But, here are some questions to get you thinking . . . \n\nWhat COULDN'T Hamlet make up his mind about?  And why was this tragic?  \n\nThese seem like simple, or even stupid, questions, but answering them will give you a place to start . . .
173194
Hate to break it to you, but Shakespeare is English, and modern English at that.
144271
The merry wives of Windsor by Shakespeare.\n\nBut it was originally said by Publius Syrus in 42 b.c.
456451
Oh, Macbeth........well, the play is one of the easiest ones...........
169595
William Shakespeare authored Romeo and Juliet and it was one of his most famous plays alongwith Macbeth, The Merchant of Venice, A Midsummer's Night Dream etc. It was extensively potrayed during his time.
432532
King Lear is one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies.   The whole play is about lack of compromise.  \n\nGoneril poisoned her sister Regan and then killed herself.  These sites should be quite helpful to you.  Best of luck with your work.
292349
The whole play is about how humans are at the mercy of fate!  This is why the harder Oedipus tries to deny his fate, the more he is drawn into it.
512856
Go to:  http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/hamlet/\n\nyour satisfaction is guaranteed.
607010
Every thing you are ever going to need, to understand Shakespeare. Try the Sparknotes link first.\n\nhttp://sparknotes.com/shakespeare\n\nNo fear Shakespear.\n\n Romeo and Juliet\nHamlet\nMacbeth\nJulius Caesar\nThe Tempest\nMore...\n\n\nhttp://www.absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/biography/shakespeare_biography.htm\n\nhttp://www.shakespeare-online.com/plots/othellops.html\n\nhttp://www.absoluteshakespeare.com\n\nhttp://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/...
514637
It's always seemed that way to me, anti-Semitism was quite common in Shakespeare's day, and nothing in his life or writings suggest that he was any kind of a social reformer.  He wrote what the people paying him wanted to hear because that was his job.  Almost none of what he wrote about Richard III was true, he was, after all, writing for the Grand-daughter of the man who usurped Richard's throne, just as Sir Thomas More, the originator of most of the mis-information, was writing for the man himself, but he told it so brilliantly that the play has eclipsed the facts.  Most performances of "Merchant of Venice" that I've seen show Shylock as an evil man getting his just deserts, it is the mark of Shakespeare's brilliance that it could be just as validly played other ways.  A truly great play doesn't have only one interpretation, I've seen both Lawrence Olivier and Derek Jacobi as Hamlet, the interpretations were total opposites and both worked, that is what the actor contributes.  Never forget, Shakespeare's plays were meant to be watched, not read, you never get the full effect any other way.  I used to live in London, and I've seen several performances by the Royal Shakespeare Company, all of them enriched my appreciation of the plays far beyond what I could get just reading.
414923
That is from Act II Scene I : This is a narration of the scene of the soliloquy, in plain english.\n\n\nIt was totally silent. And pitch black. It was now or never. Macbeth stared into the darkness. And as he looked it seemed that a dagger hung there. He closed his eyes and opened them again. It was still there. He peered. It didn't waver. Was it really a dagger? Its handle towards his hand?\n\nHe tried to clutch it. His hand went right through it: it was still there and yet he couldn't feel it. Was it only a dagger of the mind, a false creation of a fevered brain?\n\nHe could still see it as he drew his own, real, dagger: it was pointing the way to Duncan's room. He knew he was seeing things and yet it was so real. And now there was blood on it, which hadn't been there before.\n\nIt was ridiculous. There was no such thing. He knew it was the violence in his mind that was coming out in the form of a bloody dagger.\n\nHis mind was filled with images of fear and horror and he stood there, overwhelmed by them, until a bell rang and brought him back to the business in hand.\n\n'I go, and it is done: the bell invites me.' He began walking. 'Don't hear it, Duncan; for it's a knell that summons you to heaven or to hell.' \n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\nFrom No Fear Shakespeare, an contemporary English "translation" would be...\n\nIs this a dagger I see in front of me, with its handle pointing toward my hand? (to the dagger) Come, let me hold you. (he grabs at the air in front of him without touching anything) I don't have you but I can still see you. Fateful apparition, isn't it possible to touch you as well as see you? Or are you nothing more than a dagger created by the mind, a hallucination from my fevered brain? I can still see you, and you look as real as this other dagger that I'm pulling out now. (he draws a dagger) You're leading me toward the place I was going already, and I was planning to use a weapon just like you. My eyesight must either be the one sense that's not working, or else it's the only one that's working right. I can still see you, and I see blood splotches on your blade and handle that weren't there before.
399431
"I do not believe that any book or person or event in my life ever made so great an impression on me as the plays of Shakespeare. They appear to be the work of some heavenly genius." \n- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe \nhttp://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=l&p=c&a=t&ID=9\n\n\nAlso, he made a speech regarding Shakespeare:\n\n Goethe's enthusiastic Rede zum Schakespears Tag (“Conversation from Shakespeare's Day”), had appeared after Goethe's return to Frankfurt in August 1771. \nhttp://poets.aspirennies.com/private/SiteBody/Romance/Poetry/Goethe/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe_Introspection_and_Religious_Mysticism.shtml\n\nHis first contribution in the 1771-1775 period was to unleash the Shakespeare mania for which the Sturm und Drang movement is famous. His speech *Zum Shaekespaers Tag* (For Shakespeare's Day, 1854) was presented two months after his return from Strasbourg; a dithyrambic celebration of Shakespeare as a poet of nature, it has remained one of the great milestones of German Shakespeare criticism. Even more influental was the Shakespearean history play Goetz von Berlichingen mit der eisernen Hand (Goetz von Berlichingen with the Iron Hand; translated as Goetz von Berlichingen, 1799), first drafted in November 1771 and published in a revised version two years later. The play is based on a sixteenth century chronicle in which the old baron Goetz tries to maintan his independence in the face of the encroaching empire . In the resulting conflict between traditionand law Goetz's side degenerates, against his will, into open rebellion. The evil of the court is embodied in the beautiful Adelheid, who seduces Goetz's old friend Weislingen into breaking his engagement to Goetz's sister Marie. After Weislingen marries Adelheid, she poisons him. Goetz dies in prison, welcoming the freedom of a higher world. The play is written in prose (the form of Wieland's translation of Shakespeare), with explisive diction and many short scenes. The emphasis on the prosaic aspects of Shakespearean diction and structure shows that the play is not only a statement in favor of Shakespeare but also a rejection of the orderly elegance of French neoclassical form for German drama.  \nhttp://worldroots.com/brigitte/goethe1.htm
247954
The Forcefulness of Love \n\nRomeo and Juliet is the most famous love story in the English literary tradition. Love is naturally the play’s dominant and most important theme. The play focuses on romantic love, specifically the intense passion that springs up at first sight between Romeo and Juliet. In Romeo and Juliet, love is a violent, ecstatic, overpowering force that supersedes all other values, loyalties, and emotions. In the course of the play, the young lovers are driven to defy their entire social world: families (“Deny thy father and refuse thy name,” Juliet asks, “Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love, / And I’ll no longer be a Capulet”); friends (Romeo abandons Mercutio and Benvolio after the feast in order to go to Juliet’s garden); and ruler (Romeo returns to Verona for Juliet’s sake after being exiled by the Prince on pain of death in II.i.76–78). Love is the overriding theme of the play, but a reader should always remember that Shakespeare is uninterested in portraying a prettied-up, dainty version of the emotion, the kind that bad poets write about, and whose bad poetry Romeo reads while pining for Rosaline. Love in Romeo and Juliet is a brutal, powerful emotion that captures individuals and catapults them against their world, and, at times, against themselves.\nThe powerful nature of love can be seen in the way it is described, or, more accurately, the way descriptions of it so consistently fail to capture its entirety. At times love is described in the terms of religion, as in the fourteen lines when Romeo and Juliet first meet. At others it is described as a sort of magic: “Alike bewitchèd by the charm of looks” (II.Prologue.6). Juliet, perhaps, most perfectly describes her love for Romeo by refusing to describe it: “But my true love is grown to such excess / I cannot sum up some of half my wealth” (III.i.33–34). Love, in other words, resists any single metaphor because it is too powerful to be so easily contained or understood.\nRomeo and Juliet does not make a specific moral statement about the relationships between love and society, religion, and family; rather, it portrays the chaos and passion of being in love, combining images of love, violence, death, religion, and family in an impressionistic rush leading to the play’s tragic conclusion.\n\n\n\n\nLove as a Cause of Violence\n \nThe themes of death and violence permeate Romeo and Juliet, and they are always connected to passion, whether that passion is love or hate. The connection between hate, violence, and death seems obvious. But the connection between love and violence requires further investigation.\nLove, in Romeo and Juliet, is a grand passion, and as such it is blinding; it can overwhelm a person as powerfully and completely as hate can. The passionate love between Romeo and Juliet is linked from the moment of its inception with death: Tybalt notices that Romeo has crashed the feast and determines to kill him just as Romeo catches sight of Juliet and falls instantly in love with her. From that point on, love seems to push the lovers closer to love and violence, not farther from it. Romeo and Juliet are plagued with thoughts of suicide, and a willingness to experience it: in Act III, scene iii, Romeo brandishes a knife in Friar Lawrence’s cell and threatens to kill himself after he has been banished from Verona and his love. Juliet also pulls a knife in order to take her own life in Friar Lawrence’s presence just three scenes later. After Capulet decides that Juliet will marry Paris, Juliet says, “If all else fail, myself have power to die” (III.v.242). Finally, each imagines that the other looks dead the morning after their first, and only, sexual experience (“Methinks I see thee,” Juliet says, “. . . as one dead in the bottom of a tomb” (III.v.242; III.v.55–56). This theme continues until its inevitable conclusion: double suicide. This tragic choice is the highest, most potent expression of
225948
William Shakespeare's plays among others, like Beaumont, Jonson etc. (17th Century)
591585
It was probably Christopher Marlowe..just kidding. I have no idea. It is fun to speculate. I'm sure he probably borrowed from other playwrights as was customary in the Elizabethan era. I leave these matters for the Oxford scholars.