Paleografia latina. Antichità e Medioevo

by Bernhard Bischoff, Gilda P. Mantovani (Editor), Stefano Zamponi (Editor)

First published in 1979, this work, by the greatest living authority on medieval palaeography, offers the most comprehensive and up-to-date account in any language of the history of Latin script. It contains a detailed account of the role of the book in cultural history from antiquity to the Renaissance and outlines the history of book illumination. By setting the development of Latin script in its cultural context, it provides an unrivalled introduction to the nature of medieval Latin culture.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, Palaeography, Reference, Medieval History, Academic

440 pages, Paperback

First published March 30, 1990

Reviews

[Daan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Leest prima, maar kleine afbeeldingen van letters wanneer ze omschreven worden zou echt heel veel toevoegen.

[Charlie Fenton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Giving it 5 stars as it is useful book for those studying it and probably the most important one, it is very dry though

[Kayleigh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not that clear about Insular script.
I had to read this one for a class.

[Alison · Rating 5 out of 5]

Would that I could memorize every tidbit of information in this tome. This is especially good for pre-cursive scripts.

[Sam DiBella · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is thicc. If you don't have your own attached reference library or are not a medievalist (I don't and am not), roughly 50% of the book will be lost on you. A+ for completionism though

[Alessandro · Rating 4 out of 5]

La parte di mezzo non è per niente user friendly, proprio per com'è scritta e gestita, ma non riesce a rovinare un volume che complessivamente è molto interessante.
Al massimo avrei gradito un po' più di approfondimento su materiali, composizione e layout, ma non mi lamento.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dry as dust.

[Elodie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Molto denso e un po' vecchiotto
Il manuale in sé mi sembra completo in quanto affronta e descrive le principali forme scrittorie occidentali nella loro evoluzione storica.
Si nota però sin da subito l'impostazione fortemente nozionistica e datata che lo caratterizza. Sembra di trovarsi a tutti gli effetti davanti ad un saggio per specialisti e non ad un manuale per studenti.

In particolare davanti agli occhi del lettore si estendono pagine e pagine con elenchi di manoscritti. Lo scopo sarebbe quello di indicare i testimoni più importanti per ciascuna scrittura, ma l'autore non dà nessun tipo di strumento per orientarsi nelle fitte pagine e operare una selezione delle informazioni, a meno che non si conoscano già in anticipo i manoscritti di cui si parla.

Allo stesso modo le descrizioni discorsive delle particolarità di ciascuna scrittura non sono sempre perspicue e costringono il lettore a un notevole sforzo di immaginazione; seppur presenti, le tavole grafiche illustrano solo gli esempi principali, mentre tutto il resto è demandato alla fantasia del lettore.

Insomma, senza dubbio si avverte tutto il peso di una impostazione didattica sterile e superata.

[Nicholas Whyte]

http://nhw.livejournal.com/975558.html[return][return]This book is not a popular introduction, but a scholarly overview of the subject, and so it's a surprisingly good read, especially when you consider it was originally written in German.[return][return]The book starts with an overview of what was written and how - the shift from scroll to codex (a codex being what we normally refer to as a "book"); the shift from papyrus to parchment/vellum to paper; different inks; other things that were written on, like the ubiquitous but ephemeral wax tablets. Fascinating stuff about what has survived and what hasn't; a personal letter from the bishop of London to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance, written in about 704.[return][return]Then the middle section, which is the must substantial and technical, on the spread of different styles of Latin handwriting, staring in Ireland and Britain and then concentrating on Germany, France and Italy, with excursions to Scandinavia, and the Czechs get a look-in too, as do the Mozarabs, a group one doesn't often hear much about. Not a lot of concentration on individual letters, more on general style issues and how they tie in with politics - Charlemagne is of course a very big figure here, the only person whose name is commemorated in a style of writing. But he also looks at the evolution of shorthand, and the abbreviations which are the biggest headache in palaeography (explaining why there is no real standard), and briefly looks at the evolution of the numbers.[return][return]For me, that last point was always the weirdest. Although in the documents I used to look at, the numbers 0,1,2,3,6,8 and 9 were normally tolerably recognisable, 4, 5 and 7 were not, and it was easy to mistake an early "5" for a modern "4" if reading quickly. [return][return]Apparently the man we have to thank for this is Gerbert of Aurillac, whose contribution to Western culture and the history of science deserves to be much better known.[return][return]The final section looks rather briefly at the manuscript as a cultural artifact, and while interesting enough could have done with a bit of contextualisation with other cultural artifacts. In fact, that is my biggest complaint about the book generally, that as a monograph on a pretty technical topic, admittedly written for the specialist, knowledge of a lot of the context is assumed. Most seriously, lots of places are mentioned, but there are no maps; I would have appreciated some sense of the geographical as well as intellectual connections between Corbie and Luxeuil, for instance.[return][return]Anyway, the business end of this is only 220 pages, so despite the density of the subject matter it is a quick read, and often intriguing for the glimpses we get of individual scribes and patrons who helped to shape the letters we read today. My favourite sentence:[return][return]"Nevertheless, in the ninth century, Danila, the scribe of the three-columned bible of La Cava, mastered capitalis, uncial, half-uncial, a slanting half-uncial with uncial admixture, and minuscule, all with equal elegance." (p. 99)

[JD Waggy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I could put my whole three-and-a-half page precis on here, but that would be silly and devoid of opinion anyway.
This would be a great teaching text. If you want to go through this with someone who knows what he's talking about, do it. This is a packed overview with some great ideas about how history affected the evolution of writing, and it has a ton of pictures of the different scripts so you know what Bishchoff's talking about when he says the downward stroke of this or whatever.
But on your own? THIS SUCKS. The first section, a brief history of writing tools, is incredibly interesting. The second and third sections, the actual history of various scripts, is about on par with watching paint dry. I was so friggin' bored, partially because I'm not a paleographer, and partially because this is a really dense book. It's not for someone to just pick up and read, really, and I wish I'd had someone to go through it with me. So, glad I own it as a medievalist, but not a bedtime read for kicks.

[AskHistorians]

Probably the primary text on Latin script and book history from old Roman Capitals to Humanist Bookhand. For as much as it covers, this book is as clear and concise as they come. Excellent, indispensable resource.