Love's Labour's Lost (1925) Yale/Appendix E
APPENDIX E
Suggestions for Collateral Reading
Walter Pater: Essay on Love's Labour's Lost in Appreciations (1889), pp. 167–175. (Written in 1878.)
S. L. Lee: 'A New Study of Love's Labour's Lost.' Gentleman's Magazine, Oct., 1880, vol. 249, pp. 447–458.
Andrew Lang: 'The Comedies of Shakespeare, with Illustrations by E. A. Abbey and Comment by Andrew Lang.' X Love's Labour's Lost. Harper's Magazine, May, 1893, pp. 900–913.
J. M. Robertson: Shakespeare and Chapman. London, 1917, pp. 107–120. (A superior example of 'heretical' criticism. Holofernes is explained as a satire on Chapman.)
H. D. Gray: The Original Version of 'Love's Labour's Lost,' with a Conjecture as to 'Love's Labour's Won.' Stanford University Publications, 1918. (Well-informed but over-imaginative. )
H. B. Charlton: The Date of 'Love's Labour's Lost.' Modern Language Review, July, October, 1918, vol. xiii, pp. 257–266, 387–400. (See discussion, Appendix B, p. 132 ff.)
Abel Lefranc: Sous le Masque de 'William Shakespeare.' Paris, 1919. Chap. vii, vol. ii, pp. 17–103. (The book argues that William Stanley, Earl of Derby, wrote Shakespeare. The chapter cited contains interesting data illustrative of Love's Labour's Lost.)
Austin K. Gray: The Secret of 'Love's Labour's Lost.' Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc., September, 1924, vol, xxxix, pp. 581–611. (An attempt to explain the play in the light of Lord Southampton's nugatory betrothal to Elizabeth Vere, 1591.)
The Furness Variorum edition of Love's Labour's Lost, Philadelphia, 1904, is excellent even beyond the average of its series. That in the Arden series, edited by H. C. Hart, 1906 (2d ed., 1913), contains much valuable illustrative material (the critical conclusions in the Introduction are often exceptionable). The edition of Sir A. Quiller-Couch and Mr. J. Dover Wilson for the Cambridge University Press (1923) exploits the modern methods of bibliographical annotation, often with over-imaginative results.