The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.1740  Thursday, 13 October 2005

From: 		Stephen R Miller <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Thursday, 13 Oct 2005 09:03:07 +0100
Subject: 	RE: A Shrew

If the current state of scholarship concerning A Shrew is murky, as 
Larry Weiss states, the reason surely lies in the popular, but murky, 
quartos of A Shrew itself.  Years of investigating this text for my 
modern-spelling edition left me convinced of theory 4b as he lists them -

 >4.  A Shrew is a revision of The Shrew
 >  b.  by someone else (any ideas who?)

I cannot say 'who' though the sources were memorial, I feel.

On the question of what happened to the Sly continuation, a suggestion: 
  The F1 text was published in 1623 by which time Shakespeare<RIGHT 
SINGLE QUOTATION MARK>s The Shrew may have acquired its sequel.  If the 
players produced the two plays together, it would be logical for them to 
omit the Sly conclusion to The Shrew with its apparent closure of the 
thread to be taken up afresh by The Tamer Tam'd.

Sincerely,
Stephen Miller

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.