From this, Oliver concludes that an original version of the play existed in which Hortensio was simply a friend of Petruchio's, and had no involvement in the Bianca subplot, but wishing to complicate things, Shakespeare rewrote the play, introducing the Litio disguise, and giving some of Hortensio's discarded lines to Tranio, but not fully correcting everything to fit the presence of a new suitor. This is important in Duthie's theory of an "Ur-Shrew" insofar as he argues it is the original version of "The Shrew" upon which "A Shrew" is based, not the version which appears in the 1623 "First Folio". As Oliver argues, ""A Shrew" is a report of an earlier, Shakespearian, form of "The Shrew" in which Hortensio was not disguised as Litio." Oliver suggests that when Pembroke's Men left London in June 1592, they had in their possession a now lost early draft of the play. Upon returning to London, they published "A Shrew" in 1594, some time after which Shakespeare rewrote his original play into the form seen in the "First Folio". Duthie's arguments were never fully accepted at the time, as critics tended to look on the relationship between the two plays as an either-or situation; "A Shrew" is "either" a reported text "or" an early draft. In more recent scholarship, however, the possibility that a text could be both has been shown to be critically viable. For example, in his 2003 Oxford Shakespeare edition of "2 Henry VI", Roger Warren makes the same argument for "The First Part of the Contention". Randall Martin reaches the same conclusion regarding "The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of Yorke" in his 2001 Oxford Shakespeare edition of "3 Henry VI". This lends support to the theory that "A Shrew" could be both a reported text and an early draft. "The Taming of the Shrew" has been the subject of critical controversy. Dana Aspinall writes "Since its first appearance, some time between 1588 and 1594, "Shrew" has elicited a panoply of heartily supportive, ethically uneasy, or altogether disgusted responses to its rough-and-tumble treatment of the 'taming' of the 'curst shrew' Katherina, and obviously, of all potentially unruly wives." Phyllis Rackin argues that "seen in the context of current anxieties, desires and beliefs, Shakespeare's play seems to prefigure the most oppressive modern assumptions about women and to validate those assumptions as timeless truths."