G. Glossary of Spelling and Capitalization

This glossary records Thackeray's spelling and capitalization practices for words and phrases in the copy-text of Catherine in cases where the copy-text's forms are unusual, inconsistent, or different from Thackeray's characteristic forms. In addition, the entries that follow contain, where possible, discussions of the usual forms found in Fraser's Magazine; and in all cases a suggestion is made as to whether the copy-text form is likely to be authorial.

The glossary is divided into two sections. The first contains a series of major categories of words and phrases (aristocratic and military titles, numbers, words ending in "ise," etc.). The second is an alphabetical list of individual words and phrases which do not fit into the major categories.

Major Categories

The categories are discussed in the following order:

1. Royal, Aristocratic, and Military Titles
2. Royal and Aristocratic Titles of Address
3. Occupational Titles
4. Abstract Concepts
5. Family Members
6. Names
7. Numbers
8. Any-, Every-, Some-, No-, Up-, Down-
9. -ise, -ize
10. -n't
11. Past Tense, Past Participles
12. a-

Abbreviations

Collection:    A Collection of Letters of W. M. Thackeray, 1847-1855. London: Smith, Elder, 1887.

DLB:     Edgar F. Harden, "William Makepeace Thackeray." Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 21 Victorian Novelists Before 1885. Ed. Ira B. Nadel and William E. Fredeman. Detroit: Gale, 1983. 258-93.

Esmond:   W. M. Thackeray, The History of Henry Esmond. Ed. Edgar F. Harden. New York: Garland, 1989.

Gaskell:   Philip Gaskell, From Writer to Reader: Studies in Editorial Method. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.

Hays:   Photocopy of the manuscript of "The Terrible Hays Tragedy." Pierpont Morgan Library MA 1028.

Letters:&nbsp'  The Letters and Private Papers of William Makepeace Thackeray. Ed. Gordon N. Ray. 4 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945-46.

Ray:   Gordon Ray's two-volume biography of Thackeray: The Uses of Adversity, 1811-1846. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955 (Ray 1). The Age of Wisdom, 1847-1863. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958 (Ray 2).

VF:   W. M. Thackeray, Vanity Fair: A Novel without a Hero. Ed. Peter L. Shillingsburg. New York: Garland, 1989.

VFfacs.:   Facsimile page of manuscript in the Riverside edition of Vanity Fair. Ed. Geoffrey and Kathleen Tillotson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963. 670.

Citations from Fraser's Magazine are usually given without dates, it being understood that volumes 19 and 20 of the Magazine are from 1839, while volume 21 is from 1840.

Citations of the form “VF 13 with 558" mean that both page 13 and page 558 of the Shillingsburg edition of Vanity Fair should be consulted.

A reference of the form “VF 23(2)" means that there are two examples cited on page 23 of Vanity Fair.

1. Royal, Aristocratic, and Military Titles

A sampling of articles appearing in Fraser's Magazine at the time Catherine was appearing there reveals that the Fraser's style was to use lower case for references to royalty, the nobility, and the military, except in cases where names followed titles (e.g., Queen Caroline, 21: 5). In second references to members of royalty, the nobility, or the military, Fraser's would print "the major," "the lieutenant," "the count," "the king," or "the queen," never capitalizing such references.¹ Thackeray's style, however, was quite different. When referring to specific persons already introduced, his practice in works and letters for which manuscripts survive is almost invariably to capitalize. My sampling of more than 180 of such references shows that he capitalized more than 90 per cent of the time.²

When not specifying a particular person already introduced, but referring to "a count" or "our young count" or "counts," Thackeray's practice is less clearcut, but he still in general leans towards capitalization. Overall, judging from a sample of about 80 references, he capitalizes more than 75 per cent of the time, especially for references to the nobility, generals, and princesses.³

Thackeray is least likely to capitalize in phrases such as "like fine little queens" (Letters 2: 291) and "was colonel" (VF 42 with 736). See "a corporals guard" (Esmond 445); "no prince" (Esmond 50); "happy as a king" (Letters 1: 482); "as sovereign" and "as monarch" (Esmond 95). But note four capitalized examples: "as—Sergeant Major" (Letters 1: 95); "any Princess" (Esmond 295); "be a King" (DLB 284); and "appointed an Ensign" (Esmond 154).

Following the usual practice in Fraser's, the copy-text of Catherine generally does not capitalize royal, aristocratic, and military references, though there are exceptions. For instance, though "the count" usually appears lower case, it is capitalized five times in the first installment and three times subsequently.

2. Royal and Aristocratic Titles of Address

For phrases referring to persons of high rank, such as "her majesty," "his royal highness," and "his grace," Thackeray's tendency is to capitalize "majesty," "highness," and "grace," but he is inconsistent about capitalizing the preceding pronoun. For lesser titles, such as "my lady" and "your ladyship," his tendency is not to capitalize at all, especially not to capitalize the pronouns.⁴ The copy-text contains 66 examples of "majesty," "highness," "excellency," and “grace,” along with eight capitalized ones.  It invariably prints “lordship” and “ladyship” lower case (29 examples) and usually does the same with “my lord” and “my lady” (21 lower case, 7 capitalized). 

3. Occupational Titles

Thackeray often capitalizes occupational titles such as "the Director of the Opera" (Letters 2: 165), "the President of the Cham. of Deputies" (1: 358), "Chief Magistrate" (3: 169), "Lord of the Butteries" (Esmond 4), "the Rector of the Parish" (Esmond 25 with 560), "the Master of the College" (Esmond 108), and "Cornet of the Guard" (Esmond 126 with 522). In the copy-text, the following titles of this sort are uncapitalized:

commissioner of appeals 

the parson of the parish 

captain of horse 

ordinary of Newgate 

4. Abstract Concepts

Thackeray often capitalizes references to abstract concepts. For instance, in an 1839 letter to his mother he talked of "Vice and Virtue . . . Lies . . . Abstract Good . . . Evil . . . Lust and Hunger . . . Pain . . . systems of Terror & Revenge" (Letters 1: 402-403). Ten years later he capitalized "Virtue" in another letter (Letters 2: 517), but did write it lower case one time (in the phrase "den of virtue and dullness": Letters 2: 834). He is not entirely consistent in this, even within the same phrase: see, for instance, his apostrophe, "O Genius, Glory, ambition" (Letters 1: 251). In Vanity Fair, though he writes at one point of those who are "Faithless, Hopeless, Charityless," he also writes of "faith and beauty and innocence" (VF 72, 103). Still, his tendency is to capitalize in these instances, as in Esmond (135), where he writes of "Ambition, Temptation, Justice . . . Love, Gratitude, and Fidelity." For six more capitalized examples, see Letters 1: 425 ("Liberty"); 2: 206 ("Goodness Truth Purity" and "Truth and Love and Humility"); VF 28 ("the Ideal"), 72 ("Laughter"), 85 ("Love"). For another mixed phrase, see VF 696 ("Shift Self & poverty").

In the copy-text, some words of this sort are capitalized (e.g., “Love, like Death”) and some are not (e.g., “love and war”).

5. Family Members

When using words referring to family members, Thackeray clearly tends (76 times out of 93) to capitalize for direct address and when using the words as names ("good bye Mother," "tell Father," etc.), but his practice is less clear when referring to "his mother" or "their father."⁵ There are 20 references in the copy-text in which family members are addressed directly or “named” (e.g., “O, aunt”; “father and mother died very young”), all but four lower case.

6. Names

Judging by Thackeray's practices in his letters and diary entries, he seems not to have been too concerned about consistency in the spelling of names. He referred to one of his friends variously as FitzGerald, Fitzgerald, and Fitz-Gerald; to another as McClise and MacClise; and so on. He also used the spellings Basle and Basel in the same letter about the Swiss city, referred within the same paragraph of a letter to "Jack Shepherd" and "Jack Sheppard," and, most relevant for this edition, in speaking of one of the Medici referred to her within the same letter as "Catherine" and "Catharine."⁶

The Catherine-Catharine variation also occurs in the copy-text (“Catharine” is found at the end of Chapter 1 and in the captions to two of the illustrations, while "Catherine" is found everywhere else).  The following variations are also present: Peterborow-Peterborough, Pickadilly-Piccadilly, Holophernes-Holofernes, Marybone-Marylebone, Eddenboro-Edinburgh.⁷

7. Numbers

Thackeray's practice is not to use hyphens when spelling out numbers in the form "five and twenty": there are sixteen examples of such numbers in his manuscripts, all without hyphens. Fraser's, in contrast, is inconsistent; a sampling of its pages shows four of such numbers hyphenated and two not.⁸ The sample is smaller for other forms of numbers in Thackeray, but none of them is hyphenated: there are four examples of numbers in the form "twenty four" (VF 4, 8; Letters 1: 437; 2: 834), one in the form "two thirds" (VF 24), and two in the form "one and eightpence" (Letters 1: 75, 405).

The numbers in the copy-text are inconsistently hyphenated.

8. Any-, Every-, Some-, No-, Up-, Down-

Thackeray's practice concerning words beginning with these prefixes ("anyone," "everything," "somebody," etc.) is variable, and the situation is complicated because, as can be seen in the facsimiles of his manuscripts, he usually made the letter "y" in such a way that it did not connect to the next letter, regardless of whether he meant to begin a new word or not. Still, certain tendencies can be identified. Thackeray has a clear preference (18 examples to five) for "everything" over "every thing" and an even stronger preference (18-3) for "anything" over "any thing." In this he goes against the practice of Fraser's, including the copy-text, which is to print these two compounds (and all other compounds beginning with "any" and "every") as separate words.⁹ For "any body," "any one," and "any where," Thackeray, in the manner of Fraser's, prefers separate words. He also prefers the following forms found in the copy-text: "up stairs," "down stairs," "for ever," "somebody," "somewhere," "something," "no where," "every one," and "some one."¹⁰

9. -ise, -ize

Nowadays, the distinction between the suffixes "ise" and "ize" for words like "recognize," "realize," and "sympathize" has become a national question: the British generally use "ise," while North Americans use "ize." However, even today there are important British authorities that advocate "ize" (notably the OED and Fowler's Modern English Usage), and in earlier centuries even more British authorities used "ize." Samuel Johnson spelled "sympathize," "organize," and "realize" with a "z," though he recommended an "s" for "criticise" and "advertise." The 1796 Pronouncing Dictionary also recommended "ise" for "criticise," but it recommended "ize" for "sympathize," "sermonize," "realize," "organize," and "tantalize," and even sanctioned "surprize" as a variant (the OED notes that "surprize" survived as a variant through the nineteenth century). Richardson in 1836 recommended "ize" for "organize," "realize," "sympathize," and "sermonize," though not for "criticise," "advertise," "surprise" or "recognise."

In contrast, the compositors who worked on Fraser's rigorously pursued an "ise" style for words such as "realise," "characterise," "patronise," "apologise," "moralise," "criticise," "recognise," and of course "surprise,"¹¹ and this style is reflected in Catherine. The Fraser's text of Catherine contains 30 words ending in "ise" or "ising" and only four ending in "izing."¹²

Fraser's practice, however, was not Thackeray's. Thackeray's overwhelming tendency—in more than 85 per cent of the more than 80 examples discovered—was to use "ize," even for "surprize" and "recognize," as well as for “sympathize,” “tyrannize,” and “apologize,” all of which appear in the copy-text spelled “ise.”¹³ 

10. -n't

Though generally the copy-text prints words like "didn't" and "haven't" as single words,  in one section of the August installment it prints "did n't," "do n't," "have n't," "had n't," and "is n't" (Chapter 7; Fraser's 20: 231, 232). Thackeray occasionally spells these contractions as separate words,¹⁴ but he usually used the single-word form, and since this could be simply a compositor’s error or eccentricity, the conventional single word forms have been used in this edition.

11. Past Tense, Past Participles

The copy-text contains a number of constructions involving past participles and the simple past that sound odd to modern ears, constructions such as: "the ale run all down her face," "healths were drank," "He sighed and drunk," and "His lordship . . . begun," In these and other cases, what is now considered the past participle is used for the simple past and vice versa. This seems to be neither an error nor a deliberate attempt at archaism. In the early nineteenth century, despite the teachings of grammar books such as Lindley Murray's (Murray 68-71; Cobbett 63-65), writers were still using forms for which sanction can be found, if at all, only in very early grammars, e.g., the 1711 work by James Greenwood (140) and the 1654 work by Jeremiah Wharton (52). George H. McKnight notes (522) that Sir Walter Scott continued to use such archaic forms as "drunk" for "drank," "sunk" for "sank," and "run" for "ran." Constructions such as "having began," "I have drank," "and then sunk," and "He sung" can be found in the periodicals of 1839.¹⁵ Such constructions can also be found in Fraser's (outside of Catherine) and in Thackeray's other writings. ¹⁶ In short, whatever the grammarians may have been recommending, Thackeray and his contemporaries were still interchanging "drunk" and "drank," "begun" and "began," and so on, just as is done in the copy-text.

12. a-

The copy-text is inconsistent concerning the hyphenation of two sorts of words beginning with "a." Thus one can find in it both "a-going" and "a going" and "three shillings a-week" and "three shillings a week." Thackeray, in 16 examples found in his manuscripts, does not use hyphens in either of these types of constructions. ¹⁷ 

Individual Words and Phrases

ambassador When referring to official ambassadors (or ambassadresses), Thackeray capitalizes this word seven times (Esmond 301, 302(3); Letters 1: 305; 2: 495, 816) and lower-cases it only once (Esmond 14). He also lower-cases it one time when referring to an unofficial figurative ambassador (Esmond 103). In the copy-text, nine of the ten references to ambassadors, official or not, are printed lower case.

a'n't This copy-text spelling is not found in the manuscripts, where the spelling is either "an't" (Letters 1: 56, 404) or "a'nt" (Letters 1: 39).

atchieve This spelling, which the OED records as a variant through the nineteenth century, is Thackeray's usual form (see VF 76; Esmond 76, 100, 247, 283, 294; Letters 2: 609). The copy-text uses “achieve.”

Bacchic In the one example discovered in the manuscripts ("of Bacchic fury": Letters 2: 247), Thackeray capitalized this word. The copy-text prints it in lower cars.

back-parlour This phrase, inconsistently hyphenated in the copy-text, is not hyphenated in the three examples found in Thackeray's manuscripts; nor does it contain a "u" there as it does in the copy-text: see VF 34; Letters 1: 272; 2: 358.

battle Thackeray, in three cases out of four, left this word lower case even in titles such as "battle of the Boyne" (Esmond 51), "battle of Vittoria" (VF 101 with 739), and "battle of Armageddon" (Letters 1: 410), though he did write "Battle of Borodino" (VF 48). The copy-text also uses the lower-case form, as in "the battle of Almanza."

befal, befel Thackeray spells these words with only one "l": see Esmond 51, 122, 154; VF 101; Letters 1: 359. The copy-text uses the one-l spelling four times out of five.

behoves This copy-text spelling is also the one found in Thackeray’s manuscripts.  See Letters 2: 837.

bishoprick This copy-text spelling is also the spelling found in Johnson and Richardson. There are no examples from Thackeray, but he does at times spell the following words similarly: "terrifick," "publick," "musick," "scientifick," "gigantick," "heroick" (Letters 1: 221, 239, 256, 344, 357; Esmond 243).

chariot and six See "coach and six."

Church, Churchyard Thackeray capitalizes these words when giving the full name of a particular church. See "Saint Margaret's Church" (Hays 33), "the Church at Jerusalem" (Letters 2: 406), "St. Paul's Churchyard" (Letters 1: 264), "St. Paul's Church Yard" (VF 433). The copy-text prints both "St. Margaret's churchyard"  and "St. Margaret's Churchyard."

clench, clinch The copy-text uses "clenched" and "clench," but "clinching." Thackeray uses "clenched" in Esmond (101), but provides no other examples. The OED lists "clinch" as a variant surviving into the nineteenth century (see "clinch," verb 1, meaning 2.b), and Johnson prefers it to "clench," while Richardson lists both spellings.

Coach In the two examples found, Thackeray  capitalizes this word when giving the full name of a particular vehicle. See "the Hague Coach" (Letters 2: 838) and "the Trafalgar Coach" (VF 76). The copy-text uses the lower-case form "Exeter coach."

coach (or chariot) and six Thackeray does not hyphenate combinations of this type in the six examples found. See "coach and six" (Esmond 527, 617, 630); "coach and eight" (Esmond 630); and "coach and four" (VF 74, 88), but the copy-text prints "coach-and-six" and "chariot-and-six."

Cock of the School Thackeray capitalized this term once in Vanity Fair (35),  but the copy-text uses "cock of the school."

Coffee-House Thackeray spells this combination variously with a hyphen or as two words (Letters 1: 29; 2: 118, 838(2); Esmond 109, 166, 168, 281, 295), but never as a single word. As well, he capitalizes both the "C" and the "H" four times (Esmond 109, 166, 281, 295), the "C" alone twice (Letters 1: 29; 2: 118), and neither letter three times (Letters 2: 838(2); Esmond 168). The copy-text uses "coffeehouse" twice; it also hyphenates the word three times at the end of lines. As well, the copy-text always prints the word without capitals, except in the end-line hyphenation "Tilt Yard Coffee-house."

congée The copy-text's somewhat unusual spelling of the old word for a bow is also found twice in Esmond (4, 128). Johnson prefers "congé," Richardson lists "conge," and the OED suggests either "congee" or "congé," but does reproduce "congée " from Esmond in one of its quotations.

Corsican Upstart Thackeray capitalizes this phrase in VF (48) and similarly capitalizes "the Usurper" in Esmond (277); but the copy-text prints "the Corsican upstart."

Court Thackeray's tendency (by a 9-4 margin) is to capitalize this word when it refers to a ruler's circle of courtiers: see Esmond 105, 152, 169, 174, 250(2), 275, 297; Letters 1: 434 (capitalized), as opposed to Letters 1: 33, 136; Esmond 105, 617 (lower case). The examples of “court” in this meaning in the copy-text are all printed lower case.

court yard Occurs as two words in Esmond (557, 559, 582). The copy-text uses the hyphenated  spelling "court-yard."

curtsey This is the only spelling found in Thackeray's manuscripts: see Esmond 67, 77, 81, 282; VF 16, 95. The copy-text spells the word this way six times, but prints one example of "courtesy."

cut-throats, cutthroats Thackeray uses both spellings (Letters 2: 292, 807). The copy-text is also inconsistent.

Devil When referring to Satan (and not just calling someone a "poor devil," as in Letters 1: 239, or making a conventional remark like "who the devil," as in VF 105), Thackeray generally capitalizes this word (four cases out of five): see Letters 1: 126, 199, 380; 2: 21 (capitalized); 2: 829 (lower case). The copy-text prints the word lower case in the phrase “galloped as if the devil were at our heels.”

Doctor Thackeray almost invariably capitalizes this word (49 times out of 52), whether referring to medical doctors or doctors of divinity, and whether referring to a specific person already named ("the Doctor") or to doctors more generally ("other Doctors," "a little Doctor," "his Doctor," etc.). See Esmond 14, 15, 36, 37, 42, 60, 65(2), 66(4), 67, 69, 70, 117, 276, 316(7), 499; VF 8, 18, 33, 34(2), 36, 88; Letters 1: 275, 290(2), 353, 367, 471-72, 474, 475, 476, 478, 479, 486; 2: 46, 52, 81, 84, 112 (49 capitalized); Letters 1: 452; Esmond 450; VF 32 (three lower case). Fraser's practice is quite different: all 21 references found in it outside Catherine print "doctor" lower case: 20: 18(2), 23, 29, 674(12), 675(5). In Catherine the word appears lower case as well (29 times).

As for the issue of "Dr." versus "Doctor," Thackeray uses both forms interchangeably (see "Doctor Tusher" and "Dr. Tusher" in Esmond 94, 97), as does the copy-text.

dosing, dozing Thackeray used "doze," not "dose" in the five examples found (see Letters 1: 350, 394; 2: 601, 602, 603), just as he used "ize" and not "ise." Fraser's, on the other hand, used "dose" at least once outside Catherine (20: 30) and did so again in the copy-text.

&c. Thackeray uses "&c." or "&c" (no period), but not "etc." in the five examples found: see Esmond 34, 515; Letters 1: 404, 442; 2: 10. The usual copy-text form is "&c."; there is, however, one example of "etc."

Fair In six of eight examples found, Thackeray capitalizes this word when giving the full name of an exhibition (e.g., Greenwich Fair). See Letters 1: 194, 264; 2: 248; Esmond 20, 22, 126 (capitalized); Letters 2: 692, 833 (lower case). The copy-text uses the lower-case forms "Stratford fair" and "Stourbridge fair."

Fate The evidence from Thackeray's writings indicates that he distinguished between two meanings of this word. When using it to mean simply the inevitable events of the future or one's lot in life (in this meaning often preceded by "the"), he does not capitalize it. But when using it in a personified way to mean a mythic being or agency which determines one's lot, he usually does. Compare "her cheeks had shared the fate of roses" with "in the hands of Heaven and Fate" (Esmond 70, 52). For other capitalized personifications, see Esmond 81, 104, 137, 315; Letters 2: 81, 221, 416, 794; 4: 343. Sometimes, it is true, Thackeray uses lower case for what seems like personification (Esmond 457; VF 31), but for the most part he maintains the distinction, a distinction usually seen in the copy-text as well. However, there are some clear personifications printed lower case in the copy-text: "fate did not ordain"; "the dark fates"; "in the hands of fate"; and "an unlucky ordinance of fate."

Fortune When using this word in the personified sense, Thackeray capitalized it at least once: Esmond 303 ("when Fortune shook her wings"). The copy-text capitalizes "Fortune" at one point, but lower-cases it at another.

Gods Thackeray capitalized this word in nine of eleven examples found : Letters 1: 459; 2: 10, 107, 446, 814; Esmond 92, 556, 567, 568 (nine capitalized); Letters 1: 413; Esmond 57 (two lower case). The copy-text does not capitalize it.

good bye Thackeray spells this variously "good bye" (21 times), "goodbye" (12 times), and occasionally "good-bye" (twice). See Letters 1: 44, 50, 55, 62, 113, 116, 145, 174, 176, 183, 184, 251, 354, 472; 2: 190, 209, 241, 256; Esmond 598; VF 6, 7 ("good bye"); Letters 1: 245, 251, 257, 265, 267, 312, 325, 350; 2: 77, 91, 183, 357 ("goodbye"); Esmond 83; Letters 1: 62 ("good-bye"). The copy-text spells it "Good bye."

grey Thackeray's invariable spelling in the 16 examples found is "grey": see Letters 1: 275, 298, 303; 2: 322, 404, 729, 795; VF 93; Esmond 21, 40, 58, 72, 83, 124, 175, 180 (16 examples). In contrast, the six examples found in Fraser's outside Catherine are all spelled"gray" (see 19: 87, 88, 224, 427, 437), and “gray” is also the invariable copy-text spelling.

One especially interesting example of the grey-gray dichotomy between Thackeray and Fraser's concerns the translation of a German poem that Thackeray first included in a letter to Edward FitzGerald in 1835. In the letter, the translation begins with the phrase, "The cold grey hills" (Letters 1: 298). Three years later, Thackeray published his translation in Fraser's as one of "Four German Ditties." In Fraser's (17: 579), the opening phrase became "The cold gray hills."

half a dozen Thackeray does not hyphenate this phrase in the nine examples found: see Letters 1: 133, 202, 203, 283, 349; 2: 76, 77; VF 98; Esmond 484. Fraser's is inconsistent (19: 725, 728), as is the copy-text.

half a guinea There is one example of "half a guinea" in Vanity Fair (26). The copy-text uses "half-a-guinea."

hark ye The copy-text prints, variously, "Hark ye," "hark-ye," "harkye," and "Heark you." Fraser's elsewhere prints "harkye" (19: 426), and there is little evidence from Thackeray's writings (one "hark you" at Esmond 187).

headache, toothache Although Thackeray produces such forms as "head-ache" and "head ach" (Letters 1: 80, 64-65), his usual spelling is "headache" (17 times: Letters 1: 22, 36(2), 200, 317; 2: 43, 143; Esmond 55, 56, 62, 68, 94, 113(2); VF 9, 22, 113). He never uses the copy-text spelling "headach."

As for "toothache," there are two examples of this word in the manuscripts, one spelled "tooth-ache" and the other "toothache" (Letters 2: 95, 714). The word appears in the copy-text as “toothach” just a few lines after “headach.”  It also appears as “toothach” in Fraser’s outside Catherine: 18: 606, 21:3.

Heaven Thackeray is inconsistent about capitalizing this word, as is the copy-text. See Letters 1: 176; 2: 33, 36, 89, 404, 464; VF 93, 106; DLB 284; Esmond 52 (ten capitalized); Letters 1: 183, 271, 500; 2: 44; VF 81 (five lower case).

Hell Thackeray capitalizes "Hell" in all five examples found: Letters 1: 402, 403, 404, 464; 2: 299. The copy-text prints the word lower case.

History As he does with "Fate," Thackeray tends to capitalize "History" when referring to a quasi-personified abstraction meaning the past, but not when referring to a subject of study or a particular story. See the following capitalized examples: Esmond 3(2), 4, 245; Hays 79. The copy-text does not capitalize the word even when personified (e.g., "Is not history . . . full of instances . . .?").

Inn Thackeray often capitalizes this word,  especially when referring to an already mentioned establishment ("the Inn"): he capitalizes “the Inn” thirteen times out of fifteen.  See Letters 1: 67(3), 352, 464; 2: 361, 791, 793; VF 593; Esmond 20, 21, 24, 61 (13 capitalized); Letters 2: 790; VF 66 (two lower case). When the copy-text uses the phrase “the inn,” however, it invariably prints it lower case.

Ma'am Thackeray consistently capitalizes this word in all fifteen examples found, but spells it in various ways. He uses "Ma'am" (Letters 2: 505, 724), "Maam" (Letters 2: 404, 475); "Mam" (Letters 2: 338, 447, 513), and even "Mom" (VF 710) and "Mum" (Letters 2: 507). In contrast, the Fraser's style in the four examples found is to spell the word "ma'am" with no capitalization (see 21: 33, 40, 42, 45).

Madam, Madame Thackeray primarily uses "Madam" (see Esmond 82, 101; Letters 1: 445, 458; 2: 42, 54, 338, 392, 578), but occasionally uses "Madame" even for Englishwomen (see Letters 1: 208, 410, 466; Esmond 560). This may explain the appearance of "Madame Marlborough" and "Madame Dobbs" in the copy-text, which otherwise uses "Madam" for Englishwomen.

Thackeray capitalizes this word even in phrases like "ah Madam" and "perhaps Madam will . . ." (12 examples). In such situations, the copy-text does not usually capitalize. It prints one "Madam" and 29 examples of “madam.”

Marshal, Marshall Thackeray used both spellings in the same 1831 letter (Letters 1: 179-80). The copy-text uses “Marshall” once and “Marshal” seven times.

moon Though Thackeray tends to capitalize "Sun" (q.v.), he tends not to capitalize "moon": see Letters 1: 371; 2: 37; VF 44, 67, 92, 106 (six lower case). "Moon" is capitalized once (VF 102), but only in the phrase "Sun and Moon." The copy-text prints the word lower case.

night-cap, nightcap Thackeray tends to hyphenate this word, but is inconsistent: see Letters 1: 447; 4: 343; VF 25, 67; Esmond 115 (five hyphenated); Esmond 111; Letters 2: 307 (two as a single word); Letters 1: 303 (one as two separate words). The copy-text uses both "night-cap" and "nightcap."

O, oh There are two issues here: a) "O" vs. "oh" and b) punctuation after "O."

Thackeray uses both "O" and "oh," but uses "O" much more often: see Letters 1: 360, 362, 363, 380, 395, 397, 413, 458, 473, 477; 2: 227, 380, 589(2), 692, 710, 756, 814(2); Esmond 65, 117(2), 573(2), 582, 585, 586, 613, 628(2); VF 8, 9, 16, 17, 20(2), 23, 24, 27, 28, 71(2), 77, 80, 81, 82, 96(2), 98, 99, 101, 103, 108, 110, 112, 739 (56 examples of "O" or "o"); Letters 1: 354, 356, 478; 2: 510, 589, 730; VF 49, 65, 68, 103 (ten examples of "oh"). Fraser's practice outside Catherine is the exact opposite: twenty examples of “oh” and only one “O” (see 20: 22, 29, 54, 61, 292(2), 473(2), 614(2), 668; 21: 289(9), as opposed to 20: 18).  The copy-text uses an almost equal number of both forms (35 O’s and 39 ohs).  Peter Shillingsburg notes (VF 726) that the compositors of Vanity Fair tended, though inconsistently, to change Thackeray's manuscript O's to ohs, and the same thing may have happened here.

As to punctuation, Thackeray only occasionally puts a comma after "O." In the 56 examples cited above, only six contain a comma (Letters 2: 692, 756, 814; Esmond 65, 117; VF 99). The copy-text similarly prints a comma after O three times out of 35.

Parliament Thackeray tends to capitalize this word (10 examples out of 14): see VF 75, 105; Letters 1: 177, 214, 215; 2: 30; Esmond 12(2), 247, 295 (capitalized); VF 75, 92; Esmond 619 (lower case); VFfacs (ambiguous). The copy-text prints it lower case.

perriwig Thackeray almost invariably uses the double-r spelling, which the OED records as a variant. See Letters 1: 224; Esmond 3, 20, 58, 115, 117(2), 173, 181, 440, 513 (eleven examples). Cf. Letters 3: 52 for a single example of "periwig." The copy-text uses the single-r spelling.

Pope By analogy with "King" and other such titles, one would expect Thackeray to capitalize "Pope," and indeed in the two examples found in his manuscripts he does so: see Letters 2: 761(2). In contrast, the two examples found in Fraser’s outside Catherine are lower case (19: 189; 20: 295), as are the two examples in the copy-text.

psha, psha'd The copy-text inconsistently prints both "psha" (six times) and "pshaw" (twice), and uses "pshawed" in the phrase "pished, and then pshawed." Thackeray used "psha" eight times out of nine (Letters 1: 384; 2: 38, 835; VF 17; Esmond 101, 116, 124, 127, as opposed to Letters 1: 159), and twice used "psha'd" in the phrase "pished [or pish'd] and psha'd" (Esmond 75, 295). Outside Catherine, Fraser's used "pshaw" four times out of five : see 20: 23, 50, 51, 164 (“pshaw”) versus 20: 45 (“psha”).

Quaker Thackeray capitalizes references to Quakers (and to a "Quakeress") at Letters 1: 350; 2: 835; VF 38; and Esmond 281. The copy-text prints “quaker” lower case.

quarreling Thackeray uses only one "l" in this word in all six examples found: see Letters 2: 38, 89; VF 17, 89(2); Esmond 128. The copy-text uses the double-l form.

Reverence IIn the four examples found in his letters, Thackeray capitalized this word when referring to churchmen (see Letters 2: 557, 591, 602, 788).  The copy-text in similar references prints the word lower case.

ribands, ribbons The copy-text consistently uses the older spelling, "ribands," a spelling found elsewhere in Fraser's (19: 230). Thackeray's practice is inconsistent: see VF 66, 71; Esmond 63, 94, 99, 174, 178, 252 (eight examples of "ribbon(s)"); Letters 1: 277, 483; Esmond 252, 263 (four examples of "riband").

Road When giving the full title of a road or street, the examples from the manuscripts show Thackeray capitalizing “Road” and not joining it by a hyphen to the preceding name: see "Albion Street," "Eaton Square," and "Russell Square" (Letters 1: 268, 343; VF 3). The copy-text similarly prints "Albion Street," "Edgware Road," and "Oxford Road," but also "Oxford-road" and "Stratford road."

Saint Thackeray capitalized this word 15 times out of 18: see Letters 1: 41, 405, 413; 2: 474, 650(2); Esmond 47, 79, 102, 110(2), 111, 116, 153, 297 (15 capitalized), as opposed to Letters 2: 73; Esmond 26, 48 (three lower case). The copy-text prints it lower case.

In titles such as "St. Margaret's" and "Saint Margaret's", the copy-text is inconsistent about spelling out "Saint," as was Thackeray: he abbreviated it eleven times and spelled it out five times. See "Saint Germains" (Esmond 149) and "St. Germains" (Esmond 265, 302). See also VF 708(2); Letters 1: 362; Hays 33 (four spelled out); Esmond 255(5), 256(2), 295, 311 (nine abbreviated).

saloons The OED notes this spelling as a variant of "salons." Richardson lists only "saloon" and not "salon." Thackeray's practice is mixed: he uses both “Salon” and “saloon” (four examples of each), always capitalizing “Salon” but lower-casing “saloon.”  See Letters 1: 85, 99(2), 183 ("Salon"); Letters 2: 793, 834; Esmond 150; VF 68 ("saloon" or "saloons"). The copy-text uses the spelling "saloons."

sat, sate The copy-text uses these two forms interchangeably (eight examples of "sate" and seven of "sat"). Fraser's style seems to be "sat" (see three examples: 19: 75; 20: 29, 285). Thackeray's style is mixed. In his earliest writings (1829-32), he seems to prefer "sat": see Letters 1: 39, 62, 195, 196, 202, 207, 208(2), 217 (nine examples). "Sate" first appears in 1832 (three examples: Letters 1: 199, 200, 208) and by the time of Vanity Fair and Esmond (late 1840s, early 1850s) has become quite dominant: see VF 10, 42, 70, 105, 110, 111; Esmond 53, 61, 64, 120, 125, 126, 138, 243; Letters 2: 359, 523, 731, 834 (18 examples of "sate"), as opposed to Letters 2: 766; VF 48; Esmond 305 (three examples of "sat"). Unfortunately, no examples from the time of Catherine could be found; the closest example is a "sate" from 1843 (Letters 2: 834).

schoolboy, school-boy The copy-text uses both spellings, and so does Thackeray in his other writings: see Letters 1: 249 ("school-boys") and VF 42 ("schoolboys").

Secretary When referring to high officials, Thackeray capitalized this word in all six examples found. See Esmond 284(2), 317(3); Letters 2: 495. The copy-text prints the word lower case in referring to Walpole as the army secretary.

sergeant, serjeant Thackeray's manuscripts reveal one example of "sergeant" with a "g" and one with a "j" (Letters 1: 95; VF 697). The copy-text is also inconsistent.

shan't Thackeray spells this word variously "shant" (a form not sanctioned by the OED) and, more usually, "shan't," but never "sha'n't" ("shant": Letters 1: 356; 2: 161, 166; "shan't": Letters 1: 421, 468; 2: 138, 164, 244; VF 695; Esmond 557, 558). The copy-text uses both "shan't" and "sha'n't," the latter being a form not found in the examples from Thackeray’s manuscripts.

she devil, she-devil Thackeray uses both forms (Letters 1: 202, 435), as does the copy-text.

shew The copy-text consistently uses "shew" for the verb "show," though not for the noun. This is also Fraser's style outside the pages of Catherine (see 21: 48, 88, 193, 194, 197). Thackeray's style is interesting: it seems to have changed just about the time he completed Catherine. From 1829 through November 1839 (when he had written all but the last two episodes of the novel), Thackeray invariably used "shew": see Letters 1: 69, 75, 96, 119, 123, 126, 137, 157, 182, 188, 197, 214, 248, 251, 263, 291, 304, 316, 391 (19 examples). After that, however, he seems to have switched almost entirely to "show": see Letters 1: 466 (August-September 1840, six months after the completion of Catherine); 2: 130, 542; VF 22, 43, 107, 708; Esmond 149 (eight examples of "show" after 1839), as opposed to Letters 2: 798 (an 1851 letter containing the only post-1839 example of "shew").

Siege In contrast to his practice with "battle," Thackeray capitalized this word in the phrases "Siege of Jerusalem" (Letters 1: 158) and "Castlewood Siege" (Esmond 438). The copy-text uses lower-case forms.

Sir The copy-text prints "sir" lower case in all but one case, and this is Fraser's general style outside Catherine (16 examples lower case and none capitalized: see 19: 177(4), 178, 425(3), 426(2), 427(2); 20: 23(2), 24, 29). Thackeray, however, almost invariably capitalized the word (85 capitalized examples and only three lower case). See Letters 1: 443; 2: 295; 3: 575(2); DLB 286(2); VF 17, 20(3), 24, 36(4), 38, 67(2), 70, 78, 81, 82(2), 98, 105, 109(2), 111(6); Esmond 22, 43, 46(2), 47(3), 52, 64(2), 70, 101, 102, 104(2), 115(2), 122(2), 124, 125(2), 147(6), 187, 251, 296, 297, 303, 304(2), 305(2), 306(2), 308, 316(9), 317, 539, 563 (85 capitalized examples); cf. VF 20, 35; Esmond 305 (three lower case).

sirrah Since Thackeray's clear tendency was to capitalize "Sir," one might expect him to have capitalized this word as well, but the evidence is very scanty: one capitalized example and one lower case (Esmond 285, 21). The copy-text uses the lower-case form.

Squire Thackeray capitalizes this word in such phrases as "the young Squires," "their Squire," and even "a Squire": see VF 89(2), 93; Esmond 299; Letters 2: 405. The copy-text prints the word lower case.

staid, stayed The copy-text prints "staid" one time instead of "stayed," the spelling it uses elsewhere. Thackeray uses both forms, but “staid” appears more often: see Letters 1: 176, 191; VF 28 (three examples of "staid"); Letters 1: 114 (an example of "stayed").

step- The copy-text is inconsistent with compound words beginning with this prefix; it hyphenates sometimes ("step-father") and runs the words solid at others ("stepfather"). The evidence from Thackeray's manuscripts is sketchy: two hyphenated examples (Letters 2: 399, 798) and two as two separate words (Letters 2: 358; VF 68),none as a single unhyphenated word.

stupified Thackeray uses this spelling (a variant recorded in the OED) as well as "stupefied." See Letters 2: 153; Esmond 62 ("stupified"); Letters 2: 286; Esmond 62 ("stupefied"). The copy-text uses "stupefied."

Sun Thackeray's capitalization practice with this word is mixed, the situation being complicated by the fact that in his handwriting it is sometimes difficult to distinguish a capital "S" from a lower-case one. For an example of this problem, see Volume 2 of Thackeray's Letters: the frontispiece to that volume is a facsimile reproduction of one of Thackeray's letters containing the word "Sun." In the facsimile, the "S" in "Sun" appears to be capitalized. However, Gordon Ray's printed version of the letter (37) prints "sun" lower case. Twenty-two other examples of "sun/Sun" have been discovered in Thackeray's manuscripts, as presented by Ray, Shillingsburg, and Harden. Assuming that these editors are correct in their interpretations of Thackeray's handwriting in these twenty-two cases, Thackeray capitalized "Sun" thirteen times and lower-cased it nine times (see VF 102, 111, 736; Letters 1: 145, 288; 2: 474, 636, 716; Esmond 513, 557, 582, 618, 620: 13 capitalized; Letters 1: 181, 253, 467; 2: 604, 794; VF 101; Esmond 7, 22, 180: nine lower case). The copy-text prints the word lower case.

Surgeon Thackeray's tendency is to capitalize this word: see VF 734, 736; Esmond 129(3), 131, 138 (seven capitalized); VF 23, 105 (two lower case). The copy-text prints the word lower case.

Thuilleries Thackeray used this obsolete spelling, which is the spelling found in the copy-text, in an 1832 diary.  In an 1849 letter, he spelled the word Tuilleries.

to day, to night, tomorrow Fraser's style is quite straightforward: it hyphenates all these words. See 19: 431, 432, 659(2); 20: 149 ("to-morrow"); 19: 430, 659; 20: 29, 162 ("to-day"); 19: 431; 20: 23, 292 ("to-night"). Consistent with this practice, all three words are hyphenated in the copy-text. However, Thackeray's practice is not to hyphenate any of these words. Rather, he tends to spell "to day" as two separate words, "tomorrow" as a single, unhyphenated word, and "to night" as either two words or one, but not hyphenated. See Letters 1: 36, 38(2), 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 64, 65, 76, 79, 83, 110, 184, 213, 225, 228, 267, 270, 305, 350, 353, 355(2), 356(2), 357, 358, 359, 393, 477; 2: 72;VF 65, 687 (39 examples of "to day"); cf. Letters 1: 42 (one example of "today"); there are no examples of "to-day." See also Letters 1: 36, 49, 63, 80, 105, 226, 276, 354; VF 735 (nine examples of "to night"); cf. five examples of "tonight" (Letters 1: 49, 355, 356, 358, 413). And see Letters 1: 42, 55, 57, 63, 77, 79, 100, 173, 185, 302, 305, 306, 350, 352, 353, 356(2), 360, 361, 379, 383, 385, 390, 401, 421; 2: 72, 73, 175(2), 258(2); VF 24(2), 25, 106; Esmond 67, 127, 241 (38 examples of "tomorrow"); cf. five examples of "to morrow" (Letters 1: 70, 89, 131, 200, 248). Note that the OED records the two-word versions of "to day" and "to night," as does Johnson (under "to," meanings 25, 26).

 

toothache See "headache."

University Thackeray capitalizes this word in references such as "the University": see Letters 1: 38, 65(2), 66, 82, 83, 137; VF 83; Esmond 67, 79 (ten examples). The copy-text prints the word lower case.

villany The OED notes that this spelling was more common than "villainy" in the nineteenth century. Thackeray uses it in Esmond (125), though he uses "villainy" elsewhere (Letters 2: 835; VF 72). The copy-text uses “villany.”

wagon, waggon Thackeray's practice is inconsistent for this word. He uses "wagon" three times (Letters 1: 66 and twice at 131) and "waggon" or "waggons" three times (Letters 1: 219, 248; Esmond 239). The copy-text's spelling is "wagon(s)."

well nigh Thackeray tends to write this compound as two words (five examples: Letters 1: 215, 290; 2: 107, 253; VF 67) rather than hyphenating it (one example: Letters 1: 343). The copy-text is inconsistent, printing both “well-nigh” and “well nigh.”

wo, woful Thackeray does not usually use an "e" in these words (eleven e-less spellings and only one with an e): see Letters 2: 205; VF 34 ("wo"); Letters 1: 324; 2: 60, 335, 609, 770; VF 5; Esmond 49, 58, 263 ("woful," "wofully"), though cf. Esmond 137 ("woe"). The copy-text also uses the e-less spelling.