and maimed copies had been foisted on "abused" purchasers, and really
no more IS said. Dr. Furness writes, "When we now find them using as
'copy' one of these very Quartos" (Much Ado about Nothing, 1600), "we
need not impute to them a wilful falsehood if we suppose that in
using what they knew had been printed from the original text,
howsoever obtained, they held it to be the same as the manuscript
itself . . . " That WAS their meaning, I think, the Quarto of Much
Ado had NOT been "maimed" and "deformed," as divers other quartos,
stolen and surreptitious, had been.

Shakspere, unlike most of the other playwrights, was a member of his
Company. I presume that his play was thus the common good of his
Company and himself. If they sold a copy to the press, the price
would go into their common stock; unless they, in good will, allowed
the author to pocket the money.

It will be observed that I understand the words of the Preface
otherwise than do the distinguished Editors of the Cambridge edition.
They write, "The natural inference to be drawn from this statement"
(in the Preface) "is that ALL the separate editions of Shakespeare's
plays were 'stolen,' 'surreptitious' and imperfect, AND THAT ALL
THOSE PUBLISHED IN THE FOLIO WERE PRINTED FROM THE AUTHOR'S OWN
MANUSCRIPTS" (my italics). The Editors agree with Dr. Furness, not
with Mr. Pollard, whose learned opinion coincides with my own.

Perhaps it should be said that I reached my own construction of the
sense of this passage in the Preface by the light of nature, before
Mr. Pollard's valuable book, based on the widest and most minute
research, came into my hands. By the results of that research he
backs his opinion (and mine), that some of the quartos are