CRITICISM

Barbour, Richmond. “‘There Is Our Commission’: Writing and Authority in Measure for Measure.” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 99, no. 2 (April 2000): 193-214.

Provides an analysis of monarchical concerns as addressed via the character of the Duke in Measure for Measure.

Bawcutt, N. W. Introduction to The Oxford Shakespeare: Measure for Measure, edited by N. W. Bawcutt, pp. 42-63. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

Provides an overview of Measure for Measure, including plot and character analysis and a discussion of sources.

Bradbrook, Muriel. “The Balance and the Sword in Measure for Measure.” In Muriel Bradbrook on Shakespeare, pp. 118-28. Sussex: Harvester Press, 1984.

Examines issues of law as they are dealt with in Measure for Measure.

Dunkel, Wilbur. “Law and Equity in Measure for Measure.” Shakespeare Quarterly 13, no. 3 (summer 1962): 275-85.

Notes that Measure for Measure was written and produced in a climate acutely aware of the importance of administering law while keeping justice and equity in balance.

Feingold, Michael. “The Duke of Hazard.” Village Voice 46, no. 26 (3 July 2001): 67.

Reviews Mary Zimmerman's direction of Measure for Measure as one that presents the play at face value, with little or no attempt at interpreting the perceived problems with the play.

Gates, Anita. “Finding New Treasures in a Deep, Dark Comedy.” New York Times (7 April 2000): E5.

Lauds the Women's Shakespeare Company production of Measure for Measure.

Gibbons, Brian. Introduction to Measure for Measure, edited by Brian Gibbons, pp. 1-72. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Presents a critical evaluation of Measure for Measure, including a discussion of the political context in which the play was written and its major characters.

Hayne, Victoria. “Performing Social Practice: The Example of Measure for Measure.” Shakespeare Quarterly 44, no. 1 (spring 1993): 1-29.

Analyzes text and performance issues associated with Measure for Measure in the social and political context of its time, and comments on its impact and significance for modern audiences, especially with respect to issues of sexual and marital regulation.

Howarth, Herbert. “Shakespeare's Flattery in Measure for Measure.” Shakespeare Quarterly 16, no. 1 (winter 1965): 29-37.

Draws parallels between Measure for Measure and King James I's Basilikon Doron, noting that although Shakespeare did not overly rely on this text, it does serve as an important point of comparison to the play.

Isherwood, Charles. “Measure for Measure.” Variety 383, no. 6 (25 June 2001): 29.

Presents a positive review of Mary Zimmerman's production of Measure for Measure.

Marrapodi, Michele. “English and Italian Intertexts of the Ransom Plot in Measure for Measure.” In Shakespeare and Intertexuality: The Transition of Cultures between Italy and England in the Early Modern Period, edited by Michele Marrapodi, pp. 103-17. Rome, Italy: Bulzoni Editore, 1999.

Examines how Shakespeare's source texts, including Martin Luther's pamphlet On Secular Authority, treated the issues of justice and mercy.

McCandless, David. “Measure for Measure.” In Gender and Performance in Shakespeare's Problem Comedies, pp. 80-122. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997.

Studies Measure for Measure as a play that dramatizes the gender crisis of the early Jacobean period, which was marked by challenges to the traditional paradigm of passive femininity. McCandless notes that Shakespeare's problem comedy reflects this dissonance in society, and that its characters highlight both the conflict and fears that plagued contemporary society regarding issues of gender, sexual power, and politics.

Owen, Lucy. “Mode and Character in Measure for Measure.” Shakespeare Quarterly 25, no. 1 (winter 1974): 17-32.

Notes that Shakespeare chose to focus on a realistic exploration of the meaning of forgiveness, repentance, and justice in Measure for Measure, and theorizes that the perceived problems of the play stem from the absence of a supernatural resolution.

Price, Jonathan R. “Measure for Measure and the Critics: Towards a New Approach.” Shakespeare Quarterly 20, no. 2 (spring 1969): 179-204.

Provides a brief overview of the critical history surrounding Measure for Measure, theorizing that the unresolved issues in the play are part of a deliberate effort by the playwright to keep his audience engaged until the very end.

Sale, Roger. “The Comic Mode of Measure for Measure.” Shakespeare Quarterly 19, no. 1 (winter 1968): 55-61.

Proposes that Measure for Measure is an experimental play that foreshadows Restoration comedy and the nineteenth-century novel.