Rhetorical punctuation in Vanity Fair?

In his edition of Vanity Fair, Peter L. Shillingsburg insists that Thackeray "tended to punctuate rhetorically rather than syntactically" (660), (1) a point of major importance. The first purpose of Shillingsburg's edition is "to present the text as much as possible as Thackeray produced it, free of the unnecessary interference of the publishers and printers" (ii). This presentation is possible for only twelve chapters (1-6, 8-13): the manuscript for these chapters survives and is used as Shillingsburg's copy-text, thus allowing readers to experience, more or less, Thackeray's original punctuation. Shillingsburg admits that rhetorical punctuation "often corresponds to our syntactically based form of punctuation" (ii) but its "primary function" is to guide readers in "oral presentation" (661)--more specifically, "to indicate pauses of varying length," (2) a comma representing "a short pause," "a semicolon a pause twice as long as a comma," "a colon a pause three times as long as a comma" (ii), and a period the longest of all. Shillingsburg is not specific about the period; he merely includes it as the fourth in a list of marks requiring pauses "of increasing length" (661). (3) He also seems evasive when he adds that "dashes surround interruptions and come closest to performing the syntactical function of modern punctuation" (661)--a comment which does not explain how the many dashes are to be treated in an "oral presentation."

In its earliest form punctuation was in part a physiological device; marks signified places for breathing, and were also guides to "sense." Gradually the marks came to be considered elocutionary guides; they signified pauses for effect, not merely breath. After a complex evolution in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, by the end of the 1840's punctuation was generally explained in terms of grammar and sentence structure. (4) As early as 1795, Lindley Murray in his well-known English Grammar still expressed a belief in pauses, but he also explained his rules with grammatical terminology--for example, Rule X for the use of the comma: "The case or nominative absolute, and the infinitive mood absolute, are separated by commas from the body of the sentence...." (376). Samuel Rousseau's approach is indicated by his title: Punctuation: Or, An Attempt to Facilitate the Art of Pointing, on the Principles of Grammar and Reason (1813). However, he too acknowledged pauses--relegating them to brief references in footnotes! By 1844, for the influential John Wilson pauses had become irrelevant; he declared unequivocally that "the art of Punctuation is founded rather on grammar than on rhetoric" (15). Such notations prove nothing definite about Thackeray, but they do suggest that he was writing in a period when elocutionary or rhetorical punctuation, the careful regulating of pauses for "oral presentation," was by no means the invariable rule.

It seems highly improbable that Thackeray read aloud as he wrote and carefully determined minute pauses to which he expected his readers to be sensitive, and nearly as improbable that he had an "inner voice" finely attuned to pauses in hundreds and hundreds of pages of writing. Unlike poetry and drama, which are truly "realized" only when presented orally, novels are written for the eye, not the ear, and the eye does not measure duration. Of course, writing may be read aloud, and I for one have tried to read portions of Vanity Fair aloud, pausing according to the system outlined by Shillingsburg. The experiments have been unsuccessful: I was distracted as I tried to measure different pauses for different marks, and I found myself shifting to my normal reading voice and giving equal pauses for commas and semicolons and sometimes for colons, (5) and slightly more measurable pauses for dashes and terminal marks.

In spite of the different emphases theorists and grammarians have given through the centuries, the basic reasons for punctuation may have remained hopelessly mixed or overlapping, perhaps because written expression is always potentially spoken expression and vice versa. With reference to the Middle Ages, Walter J. Ong explains that the "dual purpose of the marks" (that is, "oratorical breath" marks and guides to sense) "was really incipient in their very early use" (353; also see 358). Today we use the terms rhetorical (elocutionary, interpretative) and syntactical (structural, grammatical), but they may not designate two separate, independent systems. The outspoken Eric Partridge warns: "To attempt a rigid dichotomy of rhetorical and grammatical uses of the comma would be crassly stupid: and this condemnation ... applies to punctuation in general" (14). We have one set of written marks which serve a double purpose--that is, as guides to sentence structure for silent readers and as indicators of pauses, as well as sentence structure, for oral readers. Indeed, there is no denying that when prose is read aloud, punctuation in individual sentences or in brief passages may be translated into pauses which may be rhetorically necessary or effective (much, punctuation, however, may be rhetorically "neutral"). On the other hand, I must repeat that I am skeptical that Thackeray worked with an elaborate system of pausing in order to prepare his text, a long novel, for "oral presentation," and equally skeptical that oral interpreters of novels, what few there may be, can work with a system of carefully and minutely graduated pauses.

Shillingsburg's assertion that Thackeray's was a "basically rhetorical punctuation" (ii) is not explained through illustration, though, admittedly, it is difficult to envision the form convincing illustration could take (perhaps a recording?). Shillingsburg concentrates on a single sentence (described, not quoted), containing four independent clauses, the first two separated by a comma, the second and third by a semicolon, the third and fourth by a colon. The manuscript version, Shillingsburg argues, achieves "balance," which is lost in the first edition where the sentence is punctuated with a series of semicolons. Without knowing the subject matter of the sentence, I speculate that "balance" would have been better achieved (at least visually) by the sequence of comma, semicolon, comma. Moreover, could a listener actually perceive "balance" in a sentence by hearing three pauses of different length? By chance, the manuscript sentence is an example of the "step" system, a method of punctuation explained, with variations, by several eighteenth- and nineteenth-century grammarians. (6) Thus, in Shillingsburg's example, marks of different ranks logically follow one another. Generally, the lack of evidence makes one wonder how Shillingsburg has arrived at the degree of certainty that he exhibits.

The Garland Edition is by no means an exact printed version of manuscript punctuation. Shillingsburg has "emended silently" "routine inadequacies" (732) in eight categories--for instance, regularizing quotation marks, as well as adding commas for some appositives and some series. (7) According to my count, in at least two hundred and fifty additional cases (chapters 1-5, 8-13) he has relied on the first edition rather than the manuscript, adding marks missing in the manuscript and changing others. As far as I can determine these emendations have no effect on meaning but do illustrate a moderate degree of carelessness on Thackeray's part.

If there were no rules or customary procedures and if one punctuated only according to patterns of spoken English, pauses definitely would be required following initial subordinate clauses, verbal phrases, long prepositional phrases, and absolute constructions. In approximately thirty cases (a noteworthy though not great number), Thackeray does not signal the necessary pauses. Please try, if possible, to read the following aloud without pausing at my additions, the bracketed marks:

--"This letter completed [,] Miss Pinkerton proceeded to write...." (3).

--"As the majestic Jos stepped out of the creaking vehicle [,] the crowd gave a cheer...." (47).

--"If mere parsimony would have made a man rich [,] Sir Pitt Crawley might have become very wealthy...." (76).

--"Taking her accustomed drive one day [,] she thought fit to order that 'that little governess' should accompany her to Mudbury: before they had returned [,] Rebecca had made a conquest ..." (93).

Of course, in many instances, Thackeray does punctuate similar sentences with commas, sentences in which syntactical and rhetorical consideration are indistinguishable. (8)

In several other cases punctuation is omitted in the Garland Edition. Shillingsburg has allowed some series to stand without punctuation because "it has seemed pedantic, or obtrusive" to add commas (676); thus, we read: "excessively foolish trivial twaddling and ultra-sentimental" (5); "good for nothing honest lazy fellows" (72). Some appositives unpunctuated in the manuscript have been changed; others have not: "Jos that fat gourmand drank" (50); "Mrs. Bute Crawley the rector's wife refused" (73). There are a few sentences in which marks absolutely needed for "oral presentation," and perhaps even for silent reading, are missing: "In consequence of Dobbin's victory, his character rose prodigiously in the estimation of all his schoolfellows and the name of Figs which bad been a byword and reproach became as respectable and popular a nickname as any other in use in the school" (39) (we cannot totally escape from the ancient practice of supplying "breath marks"). Even the following would be improved with an additional mark: "But when Miss Rebecca Sharp and her stout companion lost themselves in a solitary walk similarly straying, they both felt that the situation was extremely tender and critical and now or never was the moment Miss Sharp thought to provoke that declaration which was trembling on the timid lips of Mr. Sedley" (48).

In many cases it seems that Thackeray used commas, semicolons, and colons indiscriminately. In the following example the three marks separate four independent clauses, but the marks easily could have appeared in different positions: "So she gave him her hand kindly and gratefully: and he crossed the Square; and she waited and waited, but George never came" (99). If the final comma had been a dash or a colon, one might argue that a lengthy pause was appropriate and rhetorically effective. Here the punctuation is erratic:

   He carried his taste for boxing and athletic exercise into
   private life: there was not a fight within twenty miles at
   which he was not present; nor a race: nor a coursing
   match nor a regatta nor a ball nor an election nor a
   visitation-dinner nor indeed a good dinner in the whole
   county but he found means to attend it. (84)

One might guess that Thackeray started but did not finish punctuating the sentence. And here particularly arbitrary: "He never was well dressed: but he took the hugest pains to adorn his big person: and passed many hours daily in that occupation" (19). Given the undramatic subject matter, commas or slight pauses would have been sufficient.

What must be emphasized, however, is Thackeray's extraordinary use of colons, both in number and in manner (and sometimes in odd places). Thanks to Shillingsburg's edition, we know that the colons are indeed Thackeray's and not compositors' additions. As many as eleven colons may appear on a single page (106), as many as seven in a single sentence (59). Thackeray particularly liked colons to separate items in an enumeration or series--sometimes an enumeration with repeated key words or parallel structure.

--"If they are good and kindly, to love them and shake them by the hand: if they are silly, to laugh at them confidentially in the reader's sleeve: if they are wicked and heartless, to abuse them in the strongest terms which politeness admits of" (72).

--"He was her Europe: her Emperor: her allied Monarchs and august Prince Regent: he was her sun and moon...." (102).

--"She never had seen a man so beautiful or so clever: such a figure on horseback: such a dancer: such a hero in general...." (102).

--"Mrs. Bute who knew how many days the sirloin of beef lasted at the Hall: how much linen was got ready at the great wash: how many peaches were on the South Wall: how many doses her Ladyship took when she was ill...." (85).

   The turkey carpet has rolled itself up, and retired sulkily
   under the sideboard: the pictures have hidden their faces
   behind old sheets of brown paper: the ceiling lamp is
   muffled up in a dismal sack of brown holland: the
   window-curtains have disappeared under all sorts of
   shabby envelopes: the marble bust of Sir Walpole
   Crawley is looking from its black corner at the bare
   boards and the oiled fire-irons, and the empty card-racks
   over the mantle-piece: the cellaret has lurked away behind
   the carpet: the chairs are turned up beads and tails along
   the walls: and in the dark corner opposite the statue, is an
   old-fashioned crabbed knife-box, locked and sitting on a
   dumb waiter. (59)

The extraordinary "turkey carpet" sentence exemplifies what Partridge calls the "cumulative" or "progressive" colon: the sentence presents "a series of related acts," and achieves "a linked succession, a chain of events" (59).

As I have concluded elsewhere, "for Thackeray, colons often seem to have been both grammatical and rhetorical markers--that is, emphatic marks signifying equality" (113). Today it seems to me that Thackeray "coloned" sentences are a distinctive feature of his prose style; some of these sentences can be visually interesting (in part at least because the punctuation is unexpected) and orally effective insofar as the punctuation determines tempo and emphasis.

In all the chapters of Vanity Fair for which the manuscript is not the copy-text, the punctuation seems as acceptable as one could hope to expect. In the twelve chapters focused on here, my guess is that 90% of the punctuation is more or less conventional; that 5% is individualistic but acceptable (including some colons); and that only 5% is inadequate--that is, excessively peculiar or simply missing. But a guess is obviously not convincing proof.

The same may be said about Shillingsburg's assertion that Thackeray punctuated "rhetorically rather than syntactically." The unproved assertion may be an excuse for Thackeray, a way of trying to defend him against the charges of punctuating carelessly and erratically: if, the argument might go, a writer does not care to follow conventions and wishes to mark where he prefers pauses of different length in an "oral presentation" of his work--a subjective procedure--no one can object and say that he is wrong.

Finally, though it may not be possible to reach very far beyond assertions and guesses, I hope that the question posed in my title can be answered with "doubtful," at least "doubtful" if "rhetorical" means the consistent use of graduated pauses.

(1) Shillingsburg uses the words "tended to" and "basically,"--but his comments give the impression that he has no great reservations--for instance, "the basic principle of rhetorical punctuation, which Thackeray clearly intended to follow ..." (660-61).

(2) In 1981 Shillingburg made the same claim: "Perhaps it should be reiterated that the semicolon was not, in the mid-nineteenth century, primarily a division between semantic units, but a rhetorical pause of slightly longer duration than a comma and slightly shorter than a colon" ("Final" 46).

(3) Shillingsburg cites no source for his scale of pauses, but he may have been influenced by one of the numerous nineteenth-century printers' manuals--say, Charles H. Timperley, whose scale is the same as Shillingsburg's. For the period. Timperley calls for a pause "double that of a semicolon"--thus, a pause four times as king as the pause for a comma. Although Timperley borrowed heavily from earlier manuals and from Murray's important Grammar, he actually shortened the length of the pauses required by Murray, who wrote: "The Comma represents the shortest pause: the Semicolon, a pause double that of the comma; the Colon, double that of the semicolon: and the Period, double that of the colon" (369)--thus, if one counts, the comma, 1; the semicolon, 2; the colon, 4; the period, 8. It seems that historically there was no one system establishing the length of rhetorical pauses.

(4) The history of punctuation is complex. See the important articles by Ong and Honan. In "Pointing" I add information on the colon. Partridge notes that "the grammatical or constructional or logical [system of punctuation] ... has always predominated prose.... " (6).

(5) At times colons seem to require significant pauses, as dashes generally do. The subject matter and the structure of a given sentence influence how king one may pause for a colon or colons.

(6) Generally, once a comma was used as a mark of separation, a semicolon was required for the next separation, and the next after the semicolon, the colon.

(7) These emendations are "recorded in deposited files" (732) at Mississippi State University. For a list of the eight categories, see Vanity Fair 661-62, 676.

(8) If we were to test the other standard uses of the comma, we might find the same type of correlation; that is, the conventions or rules may be codifications of natural pauses.

Works Cited

Deueau, Daniel P. "Pointing Theory and Some Victorian Practices." REAL 4 (1986): 97-134.

Honan, Park. "Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Punctuation Theory." English Studies 41 (1960): 92-102.

Murray, Lindley. An English Grammar. 1795. New ed. Vol. 1. London: Longman, 1808.

Ong, Walter J. "Historical Backgrounds of Elizabethan and Jacobean Punctuation Theory." PMLA 59 (1944): 349-60.

Partridge, Eric. You Have a Point There. 1953. London: Routledge, 1977.

Rousseau, Samuel. Punctuation: Or, An Attempt to Facilitate the Art of Pointing, on the Principles of Grammar and Reason. London: Longman, 1813.

Shillingsburg, Peter L. "Final Touches and Patches in Vanity Fair: The First Edition." Studies in the Novel 13 (1981): 40-50.

Thackeray, William Makepeace. Vanity Fair. Ed. Peter L. Shillingsburg. New York: Garland, 1989.

Timperley, Charles H. The Printer's Manual. 1838. London: Gregg, 1965.

Wilson. John. A Treatise on English Punctuation. 1844. 2nd ed. enl. London: John Wilson, 1850.

Professor Emeritus--Minnesota State University System