Most student essays on Measure for Measure focus on Angelo, Isabella, and the Duke, leaving the comic characters of Vienna in the background. Yet figures like Pompey, Mistress Overdone, Constable Elbow, and Lucio provide some of the sharpest commentary on how the law works in practice. Essays that engage with them tend to be more original and often reveal a deeper understanding of the play's social world.

Encouraging students to write about the subplot requires an assignment that points them there. A prompt asking how the play shows the effects of Angelo's new enforcement on ordinary Viennese people, or how the comic scenes reflect on the seriousness of the main plot, invites attention to the whole play. Teachers should then be ready to reward students for venturing beyond the familiar scenes.

The rubric for such essays should give credit for the range of evidence, since drawing on multiple plotlines shows a more complete reading of the play. It should also value the ability to connect the comic scenes to the main themes, rather than treating them as isolated jokes. This combination of breadth and connection distinguishes stronger essays.

Characters Worth Examining

Pompey, a tapster turned pimp, offers witty commentary on the futility of trying to regulate desire by law, and his exchanges with Escalus reveal an official system that is more concerned with appearances than solutions. Constable Elbow's malapropisms show how clumsy and unreliable the enforcement of the law can be. Lucio, a fast-talking gentleman, spreads slander about the Duke and exposes the gap between a ruler's public image and his reputation on the street.

• Pompey and Mistress Overdone as figures affected by the crackdown
• Elbow and Froth as examples of muddled legal procedure
• Escalus as a voice of moderation within the system
• Lucio as a commentator whose reliability is itself in question
• Barnardine as a prisoner who resists the machinery of execution

Evaluating Claims About Class and Law

Students who write about class should base their claims on specific scenes and language, not on general assumptions about early modern society. A strong essay might analyze the trial scene in Act 2, in which Elbow's confused accusations are met with Angelo's impatience, and argue that the play shows how legal authority can grow indifferent to the people it affects. A weaker essay might simply assert that the rich exploit the poor without showing where the text supports this.

Be alert to overgeneralization about the play's politics. It is tempting to read the comic scenes as a clear social critique, but the play also treats these characters with humor and sometimes suspicion. Reward students who acknowledge this complexity and avoid turning the play into a simple morality tale.

Rewarding Language Analysis in Comic Scenes

The comic scenes are full of wordplay, puns, and bawdy humor that reward close reading. Students who examine how Elbow's misused words accidentally reveal truths, or how Pompey turns legal language against his questioners, demonstrate real analytical skill. Encourage students to treat the humor as a deliberate choice that shapes meaning.

Because some of the jokes rely on early modern slang, students may need help with glossaries or annotated editions. A student who researches the meaning of a pun and uses it in their analysis deserves credit for effort and insight. Feedback can also suggest what additional resources might help them go further.

Efficient Feedback on Broader Essays

Essays that range across many scenes and characters can be harder to grade, since they require you to remember many details. Keeping a short reference sheet of the main scenes and characters helps you check accuracy quickly. It also lets you spot when students have overlooked relevant evidence that could strengthen their argument.

AI feedback tools can assist by mapping which characters and scenes each essay uses and highlighting whether the argument relies on a single scene. Teachers can review that information and tailor comments to encourage more varied evidence. This makes it easier to give individualized feedback across a large set of essays.