CRITICISM

Andresen-Thom, Martha. “Thinking about Women and Their Prosperous Art: A Reply to Juliet Dusinberre's Shakespeare and the Nature of Women.” Shakespeare Studies 11 (1978): 259-76.

Presents Much Ado about Nothing's Beatrice as an example of the “female ego ideal” in Shakespearean drama.

Brooke, Stopford A. “Much Ado about Nothing.” In Ten More Plays of Shakespeare, pp. 1-30. London: Constable, 1913.

Offers a moral and impressionistic assessment of character in Much Ado about Nothing.

Cox, John F., ed. Introduction to Shakespeare in Production: Much Ado about Nothing, by William Shakespeare, pp. 1-85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Provides an introduction to Much Ado about Nothing that focuses on the performance history of the drama.

Crichton, Andrew B. “Hercules Shaven: A Centering Mythic Metaphor in Much Ado about Nothing.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 16, no. 5 (fall 1974): 619-26.

Examines Borachio's allusion to the shaven Hercules in Act III, scene iii of Much Ado about Nothing.

Draffan, Robert A. “About Much Ado.” Essays in Criticism 20, no. 4 (October 1970): 488-92.

Reflects on the characterization of Hero and Claudio in Much Ado about Nothing.

Fleissner, Robert T. “Love's Labour's Won and the Occasion of Much Ado.” Shakespeare Survey 27 (1974): 105-10.

Argues that Much Ado about Nothing is actually the subtitle of a drama originally called Love's Labour's Won.

Friedman, Michael D. “Male Bonds and Marriage in All's Well and Much Ado.” Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 35, no. 2 (spring 1995): 231-49.

Probes the opposition between male social relations and the impetus toward marriage depicted in Much Ado about Nothing and All's Well That Ends Well, particularly emphasizing the ways in which this conflict is reflected in theatrical interpretations of Benedick and Bertram.

Hunter, G. K. “Much Ado about Nothing.” In Shakespeare: The Late Comedies, pp. 20-32. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1962.

Describes Much Ado about Nothing as a tragicomedy concerned with the themes of deception and self-awareness.

Klein, Holger, ed. Introduction to Much Ado about Nothing: A New Critical Edition, pp. 11-35. Salzburg, Austria: Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 1992.

Summarizes the composition, sources, stage history, structure, characterization, and thematic framework of Much Ado about Nothing.

McCollom, William G. “The Role of Wit in Much Ado about Nothing.” In The Divine Average: A View of Comedy, pp. 139-52. Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1971.

Analyzes assorted examples of verbal wit, wordplay, pun, and parody used in Much Ado about Nothing.

Pasicki, Adam. “Some Rhetorical Figures in Much Ado about Nothing.” Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 15, no. 2 (1968): 147-54.

Categorizes and studies the various rhetorical devices—including anaphora, antimetabol, and punning—found in the language of Much Ado about Nothing.

Taylor, Michael. “Much Ado about Nothing: The Individual in Society.” Essays in Criticism 23, no. 2 (April 1973): 146-53.

Explores the balance between individualism and social responsibility depicted in Much Ado about Nothing, with particular regard to the figures of Don John, Claudio, Beatrice, and Benedick.

Traugott, John. “Creating a Rational Rinaldo: Study in the Mixture of the Genres of Comedy and Romance in Much Ado about Nothing.” Genre 15, nos. 1-2 (spring-summer 1982): 157-81.

Suggests that Shakespeare imaginatively altered his source material, including the writings of Ariosto, Spenser, and Sidney, to form his dramatic comedy Much Ado about Nothing.