Florence Hazrat on the Contentious History of a (Perfect) Literary Tool
Shakespeare and friends would call punctuation “distinctions,” according to the Latin tradition, or “pointing,” because of the medieval practice of placing dots or points at different levels of the line. The first occurrence of the word “punctuation” happens in the French dialogue book Orthoepia Gallica from 1593 by translator and language teacher John Eliot, whose funny and colloquial conversations in facing columns on the page influenced Shakespeare’s witty repartee. Eliot challenges London French teachers to “find fault” with his “pricks, nicks, and tricks,” referring to his punctuation and rhetoric.
Article continues after advertisement
He was certainly a flamboyantly creative writer and inspired teacher; yet one can take him seriously here: “Pricks” performed “tricks” as punctuation became a vehicle to think about the technological revolutions of the time, gender relationships, and literary genres reflecting social and historical concerns like kingship or geographical exploration.
Punctuation was also a channel for exploring interior worlds: the mind, memory, emotions. Particularly when something wasn’t working quite right: In a society that prized eloquence above all else, writers became more interested in depicting the delay, interruption, or even failure of speech rather than its glorious fullfilment. Perhaps the sons (and some daughters) of the humanists hesitated to put their faith in language quite as much as previous generations had.
Yet, considering how his own life was cut short so tragically at the height of his social and literary success, it’s hard not to entertain interpretations of the interrupted sentence as an eerie omen.
And perhaps it was precisely the opposite: Writing had become so powerful at expression that it could now subvert itself without losing any of its magic. One such master of consciously suspended speech was the uncontested king of brackets: Sir Philip Sidney.
