"Denotement" or "Denotement"? 585 for Q 1, and, by implication, for Q 2 also. The Ashbee fac- simile, 1864, gives "u" for Q 1. The Praetorius-Griggs-Furni- vall fac-simile, 1885, (the "Othello" quartos being photographic reproductions of the British Museum copies) gives "u" for Q 1 and "n" for Q 2. The Bankside Shakespeare, 1890, reprinting Q 1 and F 1 on opposite pages, gives "u" for both. The Schroer fac-simile, Heidelberg, 1909, agrees exactly with the Praetorius- Griggs-Furnivall for both quartos. But we shall more probably find our true quittance in the unassailable pronouncements of modern bibliographical science, as found in the work of such leaders as Mr. Pollard and Mr. McKerrow in England, e.g., and Miss H. C. Bartlett in this country. The occurrence of an occasional variant reading, then, such as "denotement, "proves not faulty collation, necessarily, or a new "edition" or "issue" but merely one of several possible occurrences incidental to the processes of Eliza- bethan printing: 3 either (1) alteration while the sheets were passing through the press in which case the proof-reader must have changed "n" to "u" here, after only a few copies had been printed from his particular "forme" (or "u" to "n" after many copies had been printed); or (2), more probably, a com- mon mechanical accident, wherein the ink-ball must have drawn a single type out of the "forme" and the printer have then replaced it by the wrong letter, or in this case perhaps simply replaced it upsidedown. See "Notes on Bibliographi- cal Evidence," etc., by R. B. McKerrow, Trans. Bibliog. Soc. XII, 282-9. Now, of course, bibliographers will at once object that noth- ing but the physical confrontation of these nine copies and two fac-similes of Q 2 (or, of photographs or photostats of them), with the consequent opportunity to study all the minute varia- 3 To too hasty or casual inspection, the reading in Mr. Morgan's copy might possibly be taken for an "n," owing to the narrowness of the aperture at the top and the faintness of the cross-stroke at the bottom; but the use of a magnify- ing glass makes the "u" absolutely unmistakable, as Miss Belle Green kindly showed me. Still, this quasi-transitional form suggests the theoretical possibility that a further degree of freakishness in the mere inking of the type might acci- dentally transmute a genuine "u" into an apparent "n"; and if the British Museum quarto proves to be the only one reading "n," this hypothetical
explanation of the peculiarity becomes fairly tenable.
