Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Edward’s Diary Entry 88: The "I": Background to Blackletter

Blackletter came after the development of Carolingian miniscule script (left), arising from the court of Charlemagne in the 8th century. Manuscripts were given an official style, which at that time produced a clear, easily readable script. The Godescalc Evangelistary, Godescalc Sacramentary, Godescalc Gospels, or Godescalc Gospel Lectionary (Paris, BNF. lat.1203) is an illuminated manuscript made by the Frankish scribe Godescalc and today kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. It was commissioned by the Carolingian king Charlemagne and his wife Hildegard on October 7, 781 and completed on April 30, 783 AD. The Evangelistary is the earliest known manuscript produced at the scriptorium in Charlemagne's Court School in Aachen. Carolingian manuscripts (produced in large numbers in a monastery at Tours, of which Alcuin, a distinguished scholar from York, became abbot in 796) are among the most clear and legible documents in the history of writing. Then, somewhere in the years of the 12th century, out of nowhere (at least most sources give no indication of such location, only stating “the Carolingian minuscule was superseded by Gothic blackletter hands”) the clear, concise script of Caroline empire was replaced by the Gothic tradition with Blackletter:

“In the later Middle Ages, the clarity of the Carolingian script becomes lost. A much darker and denser style evolves in northern Europe from the 11th century. It is known as 'black letter', because of the almost oppressive weight of dark ink on each densely packed page….
This medieval style derives partly from an aesthetic impulse (there is drama in dark pen strokes and in the angular ends left by a broad nib), but it is above all a matter of economy. Parchment is expensive. Books are much in demand, particularly with the growth of universities. If the letters in a word and the words in a sentence are squashed more closely together, less pages are used and the book is cheaper.”             

But I couldn’t help thinking that something as “dramatic” and original as Blackletter was no chance occurrence. Could “economy” only be argued for its appearance? The development of an entirely new and quite complicated script takes great effort, time, patience, study and practice. If we place ourselves in that period, we would have to imagine a group of studious monks and illuminators actually re-designing all the capital letters, working on them, almost creating them from scratch. And since this was not just a variation of an existing script, but something completely new, human creativity and inspiration had to play a major role. When such a studious group of professionals or artists or scholars or seers develop something totally new, we need to surmise that they have their reasons; they must know something, and be interesting in transmitting something. Economising on paper, as alleged above, may be one thing, but the script itself does not seem to be “economical” in its calligraphic expression. On the contrary, it is highly decorative and requires more pen strokes than a simpler hand. To say that it just “evolved” or “appeared” is much too simple. There is something else here that no one has seen, and I have not been able to discover from written sources.

My way of explaining it is as follows. Culture was in the hands of the church. Universities were incipient, with the founding of the University of Bologna in 1088 (Oxford in 1096, Salamanca in 1134, Paris in 1150, Cambridge in 1209…). So monasteries were still seedbeds of learning and creation, with particular emphasis of course on “spiritual” matters, in line with the times. As old parchments were reproduced, and Roman and Greek scripts were fused for knowledge and artistic effect, a certain group of monks must have worked on this new style of lettering, drawing up glyphs that were particularly decorative and artistic, developed from the initials and illuminations used in many Books of Hours. This decorative style, in the capitals at least, involved incorporating more strokes than the absolutely essential. Now apart from the decorative effects, are there any other meanings behind these strokes? Do they intend to symbolise more than meets the eye? Stay with me and we shall see…
(to be continued…)

No comments:

Post a Comment