Editing The Taming of the Shrew (section)

==== The relationship with ''A Shrew'' ====
One of the most fundamental critical debates surrounding ''The Shrew'' is its relationship with ''A Shrew''. There are five main theories as to the nature of this relationship:
# The two plays are unrelated other than the fact that they are both based on another play which is now lost. This is the ''Ur-Shrew'' theory (in reference to ''[[Ur-Hamlet]]'').<ref>See esp. {{harvp|Houk|1942}} and {{harvp|Duthie|1943}}. See also {{harvp|Morris|1981|pp=16–24}} and {{harvp|Oliver|1982|pp=23–25}}.</ref>
# ''A Shrew'' is a reconstructed version of ''The Shrew''; i.e. a [[bad quarto]], an attempt by actors to reconstruct the original play from memory.<ref>See esp. {{harvp|Alexander|1926}} and {{harvp|Alexander|1969}}. See also {{harvp|Morris|1981|pp=14–16}} and {{harvp|Oliver|1982|pp=16–18; 31–34}}.</ref>
# Shakespeare used the previously existing ''A Shrew'', which he did not write, as a source for ''The Shrew''.<ref>See esp. {{harvp|Shroeder|1958}}. See also {{harvp|Morris|1981|pp=24–26}} and {{harvp|Evans|1997|pp=104–107}}.</ref>
# Both versions were legitimately written by Shakespeare himself; i.e. ''A Shrew'' is an early draft of ''The Shrew''.<ref>See {{harvp|Duthie|1943}}, {{harvp|Oliver|1982|pp=13–34}}, {{harvp|Marcus|1991}} and {{harvp|Marcus|1996|pp=101–131}}.</ref>
# ''A Shrew'' is an adaptation of ''The Shrew'' by someone other than Shakespeare.{{sfnp|Miller|1998|pp=1–57}}

The exact relationship between ''The Shrew'' and ''A Shrew'' is uncertain, but many scholars consider ''The Shrew'' the original, with ''A Shrew'' derived from it;{{sfnp|Morris|1981|pp=12–50}}{{sfnp|Oliver|1982|pp=13–34}}{{sfnp|Miller|1998|pp=1–12}}{{sfnp|Thompson|2003|pp=163–182}} as H.J. Oliver suggests, there are "passages in [''A Shrew''] [...] that make sense only if one knows the [Follio] version from which they must have been derived."{{sfnp|Oliver|1982|p=19}}

The debate regarding the relationship between the two plays began in 1725, when [[Alexander Pope]] incorporated extracts from ''A Shrew'' into ''The Shrew'' in his edition of Shakespeare's works. In ''The Shrew'', the Christopher Sly framework is only featured twice; at the opening of the play, and at the end of Act 1, Scene 1. However, in ''A Shrew'', the Sly framework reappears a further five times, including a scene which comes after the final scene of the Petruchio/Katherina story. Pope added most of the Sly framework to ''The Shrew'', even though he acknowledged in his preface that he did not believe Shakespeare had written ''A Shrew''.{{sfnp|Hodgdon|2010|p=18}} Subsequent editors followed suit, adding some or all of the Sly framework to their versions of ''The Shrew''; [[Lewis Theobald]] (1733), [[Sir Thomas Hanmer, 4th Baronet|Thomas Hanmer]] (1744), [[William Warburton]] (1747), [[Samuel Johnson]] and [[George Steevens]] ([[The Plays of William Shakespeare|1765]]) and [[Edward Capell]] (1768).{{sfnp|Hodgdon|2010|pp=18–19}} In his 1790 edition of ''The Plays and Poems of William Shakespeare'', however, [[Edmond Malone]] removed all ''A Shrew'' extracts and returned the text to the 1623 ''First Folio'' version.{{sfnp|Hodgdon|2010|p=20}} By the end of the eighteenth century, the predominant theory had come to be that ''A Shrew'' was a non-Shakespearean source for ''The Shrew'', and hence to include extracts from it was to graft non-authorial material onto the play.{{sfnp|Miller|1998|p=3}}

This theory prevailed until 1850 when Samuel Hickson compared the texts of ''The Shrew'' and ''A Shrew'', concluding ''The Shrew'' was the original, and ''A Shrew'' was derived from it. By comparing seven passages which are similar in both plays, he concluded "the original conception is invariably to be found" in ''The Shrew''. His explanation was that ''A Shrew'' was written by [[Christopher Marlowe]], with ''The Shrew'' as his template. He reached this conclusion primarily because ''A Shrew'' features numerous lines almost identical to lines in Marlowe's ''[[Tamburlaine]]'' and ''[[Doctor Faustus (play)|Dr. Faustus]]''.<ref>See {{harvp|Hickson|1850a}} and {{harvp|Hickson|1850b}}</ref>

In 1926, building on Hickson's research, [[Peter Alexander (Shakespearean scholar)|Peter Alexander]] first suggested the bad quarto theory. Alexander agreed with Hickson that ''A Shrew'' was derived from ''The Shrew'', but he did not agree that Marlowe wrote ''A Shrew''. Instead, he labelled ''A Shrew'' a bad quarto. His main argument was that, primarily in the subplot of ''A Shrew'', characters act without motivation, whereas such motivation is present in ''The Shrew''. Alexander believed this represents an example of a "reporter" forgetting details and becoming confused, which also explains why lines from other plays are used from time to time; to cover gaps which the reporter knows have been left. He also argued the subplot in ''The Shrew'' was closer to the plot of ''I Suppositi''/''Supposes'' than the subplot in ''A Shrew'', which he felt indicated the subplot in ''The Shrew'' must have been based directly on the source, whereas the subplot in ''A Shrew'' was a step removed.{{sfnp|Alexander|1926}} In their 1928 edition of the play for the New Shakespeare, [[Arthur Quiller-Couch]] and [[J. Dover Wilson|John Dover Wilson]] supported Alexander's argument.{{sfnp|Quiller-Couch|Wilson|1953|pp=129–143}} However, there has always been critical resistance to the theory.{{sfnp|Oliver|1982|pp=16–18}}{{sfnp|Miller|1998|p=7}}{{sfnp|Hodgdon|2010|pp=21–22}}{{sfnp|Irace|1994|p=14}}{{sfnp|McDonald|2001|p=203}}{{sfnp|Richmond|2002|p=58}}{{sfnp|Jolly|2014}}

An early scholar to find fault with Alexander's reasoning was [[E. K. Chambers|E.K. Chambers]], who reasserted the source theory. Chambers, who supported Alexander's bad quarto theory regarding ''[[Henry VI, Part 2|The First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster]]'' and ''The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of Yorke'', argued ''A Shrew'' did not fit the pattern of a bad quarto; "I am quite unable to believe that ''A Shrew'' had any such origin. Its textual relation to ''The Shrew'' does not bear any analogy to that of other 'bad Quartos' to the legitimate texts from which they were memorised. The [[nomenclature]], which at least a memoriser can recall, is entirely different. The verbal parallels are limited to stray phrases, most frequent in the main plot, for which I believe Shakespeare picked them up from ''A Shrew''."{{sfnp|Chambers|1930|p=372}} He explained the relationship between ''I Suppositi''/''Supposes'' and the subplots by arguing the subplot in ''The Shrew'' was based upon both the subplot in ''A Shrew'' and the original version of the story in Ariosto/Gascoigne.{{sfnp|Chambers|1930|pp=324–328}}

[[File:Carl Gehrts Petruccios Hochzeit 1885.jpg|thumb|''Petruccio's hochzeit'' by [[Carl Gehrts]] (1885)]]

In 1938, Leo Kirschbaum made a similar argument. In an article listing over twenty examples of bad quartos, Kirschbaum did not include ''A Shrew'', which he felt was too different from ''The Shrew'' to come under the bad quarto banner; "despite protestations to the contrary, ''The Taming of a Shrew'' does not stand in relation to ''The Shrew'' as ''The True Tragedie'', for example, stands in relation to ''3 Henry VI''."{{sfnp|Kirschbaum|1938|p=43}} Writing in 1998, Stephen Roy Miller offers much the same opinion; "the relation of the early quarto to the ''Folio'' text is unlike other early quartos because the texts vary much more in plotting and dialogue [...] the differences between the texts are substantial and coherent enough to establish that there was deliberate revision in producing one text out of the other; hence ''A Shrew'' is not merely a poor report (or 'bad quarto') of ''The Shrew''."{{sfnp|Miller|1998|p=ix}} Character names are changed, basic plot points are altered (Kate has two sisters for example, not one), the play is set in [[Athens]] instead of Padua, the Sly framework forms a complete narrative, and entire speeches are completely different, all of which suggests to Miller that the author of ''A Shrew'' thought they were working on something different from Shakespeare's play, not attempting to transcribe it for resale; "underpinning the notion of a 'Shakespearean bad quarto' is the assumption that the motive of whoever compiled that text was to produce, differentially, a verbal replica of what appeared on stage."{{sfnp|Miller|1998|p=6}} Miller believes that Chambers and Kirschbaum successfully illustrate ''A Shrew'' does not fulfil this rubric.

Alexander's theory continued to be challenged as the years went on. In 1942, R.A. Houk developed what came to be dubbed the ''Ur-Shrew'' theory; both ''A Shrew'' and ''The Shrew'' were based upon a third play, now lost.{{sfnp|Houk|1942}} In 1943, G.I. Duthie refined Houk's suggestion by arguing ''A Shrew'' was a memorial reconstruction of ''Ur-Shrew'', a now lost early draft of ''The Shrew''; "''A Shrew'' is substantially a memorially constructed text and is dependent upon an early ''Shrew'' play, now lost. ''The Shrew'' is a reworking of this lost play."{{sfnp|Duthie|1943|p=356}} Hickson, who believed Marlowe to have written ''A Shrew'', had hinted at this theory in 1850; "though I do not believe Shakspeare's play to contain a line of any other writer, I think it extremely probable that we have it only in a revised form, and that, consequently, the play which Marlowe imitated might not necessarily have been that fund of life and humour that we find it now."{{sfnp|Hickson|1850b|p=347}} Hickson is here arguing that Marlowe's ''A Shrew'' is not based upon the version of ''The Shrew'' found in the ''First Folio'', but on another version of the play. Duthie argues this other version was a Shakespearean early draft of ''The Shrew''; ''A Shrew'' constitutes a reported text of a now lost early draft.{{sfnp|Duthie|1943}}

Alexander returned to the debate in 1969, re-presenting his bad quarto theory. In particular, he concentrated on the various complications and inconsistencies in the subplot of ''A Shrew'', which had been used by Houk and Duthie as evidence for an ''Ur-Shrew'', to argue that the reporter of ''A Shrew'' attempted to recreate the complex subplot from ''The Shrew'' but got confused; "the compiler of ''A Shrew'' while trying to follow the subplot of ''The Shrew'' gave it up as too complicated to reproduce, and fell back on love scenes in which he substituted for the maneuvers of the disguised Lucentio and Hortensio extracts from ''Tamburlaine'' and ''Faustus'', with which the lovers woo their ladies."{{sfnp|Alexander|1969|p=114}}

After little further discussion of the issue in the 1970s, the 1980s saw the publication of three scholarly editions of ''The Shrew'', all of which re-addressed the question of the relationship between the two plays; [[Brian Morris, Baron Morris of Castle Morris|Brian Morris]]' 1981 edition for the second series of the [[Arden Shakespeare]], H.J. Oliver's 1982 edition for the Oxford Shakespeare and Ann Thompson's 1984 edition for the New Cambridge Shakespeare. Morris summarised the scholarly position in 1981 as one in which no clear-cut answers could be found; "unless new, external evidence comes to light, the relationship between ''The Shrew'' and ''A Shrew'' can never be decided beyond a peradventure. It will always be a balance of probabilities, shifting as new arguments and opinions are added to the scales. Nevertheless, in the present century, the movement has unquestionably been towards an acceptance of the Bad Quarto theory, and this can now be accepted as at least the current orthodoxy."{{sfnp|Morris|1981|p=45}} Morris himself,{{sfnp|Morris|1981|pp=12–50}} and Thompson,{{sfnp|Thompson|2003|pp=163–182}} supported the bad quarto theory, with Oliver tentatively arguing for Duthie's bad quarto/early draft/''Ur-Shrew'' theory.{{sfnp|Oliver|1982|pp=13–34}}

[[File:Washington Allston, American - Scene from Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" (Katharina and Petruchio) - Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|left|''Scene from Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew'' by [[Washington Allston]] (1809)]]

Perhaps the most extensive examination of the question came in 1998 in Stephen Roy Miller's edition of ''A Shrew'' for the New Cambridge Shakespeare: The Early Quartos series. Miller agrees with most modern scholars that ''A Shrew'' is derived from ''The Shrew'', but he does not believe it to be a bad quarto. Instead, he argues it is an adaptation by someone other than Shakespeare.{{sfnp|Miller|1998|pp=1–57}} Miller believes Alexander's suggestion in 1969 that the reporter became confused is unlikely, and instead suggests an adapter at work; "the most economic explanation of indebtedness is that whoever compiled ''A Shrew'' borrowed the lines from Shakespeare's ''The Shrew'', or a version of it, and adapted them."{{sfnp|Miller|1998|p=10}} Part of Miller's evidence relates to Gremio, who has no counterpart in ''A Shrew''. In ''The Shrew'', after the wedding, Gremio expresses doubts as to whether or not Petruchio will be able to tame Katherina. In ''A Shrew'', these lines are extended and split between Polidor (the equivalent of Hortensio) and Phylema (Bianca). As Gremio ''does'' have a counterpart in ''I Suppositi'', Miller concludes that "to argue the priority of ''A Shrew'' in this case would mean arguing that Shakespeare took the negative hints from the speeches of Polidor and Phylema and gave them to a character he resurrected from ''Supposes''. This is a less economical argument than to suggest that the compiler of ''A Shrew'', dismissing Gremio, simply shared his doubts among the characters available."{{sfnp|Miller|1998|pp=26–27}} He argues there is even evidence in the play that the compiler knew he was working within a specific literary tradition; "as with his partial change of character names, the compiler seems to wish to produce dialogue much like his models, but not the same. For him, adaptation includes exact quotation, imitation and incorporation of his own additions. This seems to define his personal style, and his aim seems to be to produce his own version, presumably intended that it should be tuned more towards the popular era than ''The Shrew''."{{sfnp|Miller|1998|p=27}}

As had Alexander, Houk and Duthie, Miller believes the key to the debate is to be found in the subplot, as it is here where the two plays differ most. He points out that the subplot in ''The Shrew'' is based on "the classical style of [[Latin literature|Latin]] comedy with an intricate plot involving deception, often kept in motion by a comic servant." The subplot in ''A Shrew'', however, which features an extra sister and addresses the issue of marrying above and below one's class, "has many elements more associated with the romantic style of comedy popular in London in the 1590s."{{sfnp|Miller|1998|p=9}} Miller cites plays such as [[Robert Greene (dramatist)|Robert Greene]]'s ''[[Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay]]'' and ''[[Fair Em]]'' as evidence of the popularity of such plays. He points to the fact that in ''The Shrew'', there are only eleven lines of romance between Lucentio and Bianca, but in ''A Shrew'', there is an entire scene between Kate's two sisters and their lovers. This, he argues, is evidence of an adaptation rather than a faulty report;

{{blockquote|while it is difficult to know the motivation of the adapter, we can reckon that from his point of view an early staging of ''The Shrew'' might have revealed an overly wrought play from a writer trying to establish himself but challenging too far the current ideas of popular comedy. ''The Shrew'' is long and complicated. It has three plots, the subplots being in the swift Latin or Italianate style with several disguises. Its language is at first stuffed with difficult Italian quotations, but its dialogue must often sound plain when compared to Marlowe's thunder or Greene's romance, the mouth-filling lines and images that on other afternoons were drawing crowds. An adapter might well have seen his role as that of a 'play doctor' improving ''The Shrew'' – while cutting it – by stuffing it with the sort of material currently in demand in popular romantic comedies.{{sfnp|Miller|1998|p=12}}}}

Miller believes the compiler "appears to have wished to make the play shorter, more of a romantic comedy full of wooing and glamorous [[rhetoric]], and to add more obvious, broad comedy."{{sfnp|Miller|1998|p=28}}