How did scribes perceive the graphic change?
If you are reading this post, you more likely come from its first part “Visigothic script at the 19th
Colloquium of the CIPL”. If not, some context: Earlier this month, I gave a paper at the 19 th
Colloquium of the Comité international de paléographie latine about the change from Visigothic
script to Caroline minuscule. There, instead of going through a detailed list of graphic changes,
what I did was to organize my presentation into four main unsolved questions which can be
extrapolated to any period of graphic change aiming to foster discussion on the topic.
How did scribes perceive the graphic change from Visigothic
script to Caroline minuscule? :
To what extent were the scribes aware of the graphic differences between writing systems?
Were early 12th-century Galician scribes polygraphic amanuenses?
How were scribes trained in the new script? Who taught them?
Was the social status of Visigothic and Carolingian script scribes the same?
FIG. 1. A glimpse of one of the earliest charters written in Caroline minuscule from Galicia (dated 1126)
Medieval scribes did not have the freedom to choose the form of the letters they were using to
write as we have now. Rather, they had a model, a standard that was followed by a given
geographical area, which usually corresponds to a political entity – meaning a country or group of
kingdoms with a cultural link.
As for Visigothic script, as I guess as for many other medieval and modern scripts, it was not
decided per se that everything needed to be written in Visigothic; the script just evolved developing
to what we identify now as that particular graphic model. Caroline minuscule, on the other hand,
was, in the Iberian Peninsula, imposed. From the late 9th century on, the writing system that is
Carolingian was spread and prioritized instead of the Visigothic one in the scriptoria that populated
the different kingdoms of medieval Spain. Scribes who were, until that moment, using Visigothic,
needed, thereafter, to learn and apply Caroline minuscule. Some agree, some others did not.
Such a process of graphic change here roughly explained, offers an exceptional milieu upon which
to study many different aspects and not just the scripts used. For example, those scribes who
decided not to use Caroline, even when they were supposed to do so, show objection for a reason, be
it respect for a prior cultural tradition for them worth preserving or just old age and reluctance to
learn something new. They could belong to a scriptorium that was opposed to all Carolingian
graphic, religious, and/or political influence, or they might just have had problems to find and/or
afford a master of Caroline minuscule to teach them. As can be seen, the approach accepts a
rainbow of possibilities, as many as you want.
FIG. 2. The Harley Psalter, 1st half of the 11th c. © British Library, digitized at
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Harley_MS_603
Regardless of how we want to interpret the graphic change, what is beyond question is that scribes
were aware of it. They indeed perceived it. Let us leave aside the historical, political, cultural,
and/or religious change to focus upon the graphic one. To what extent were the scribes aware of the
graphic differences between writing systems? What my research has shown is that Visigothic
script scribes did recognize Caroline minuscule, being aware of its peculiarities.
In comparison with Visigothic, Caroline minuscule has a different set of letterforms –
particularly for a, g, I, and t -, and abbreviations – new to the system were, for example, those of
noster/uester with theme in r instead of in s [you can read more about abbreviations and
letterforms here and here]. Punctuation also has its nuances [more here]. The ductus is, however,
not far from that of Visigothic minuscule. Anyway, there was a difference. So, what some Visigothic
script scribes did was to start incorporating some of these new features into their hands, using a
typology that we now describe as transitional Visigothic script [more here and here].
Did they do it consciously or not? It can only be guessed; say they did. Why? Were they learning
the new system and, thus, did not master it yet? Were they trying to add some traces of trendiness
even when they did not want to change? Again, those who did not add the new features, why did
they preserve the Visigothic model? It is difficult to assess. What it can be said is that, through the
close examination of extant charters, they seem to have been a bit confused at first about which
features belong to which graphic model, since we find some hands that mixed scripts in a very
particular way. See the image below; this is a Visigothic minuscule hand who wrote a Carolingian
abbreviation adding also the Visigothic one.
FIG. 3. Caroline minuscule nb + Visigothic script sign
for -is © Santiago de Compostela, AHUS., Blanco
Cicerón, 188 (dated 1122)
Does this mean that the scribes who mixed both scripts were polygraphic amanuenses,
meaning that they were able to write in both scripts, Visigothic and Caroline? I do not think so.
Some of them might have been, but not all. In my point of view, most of the scribes working on this
transitional period of graphic change were either learning Caroline minuscule or irremediable
influenced by it, consciously or not. Another question to ask is whether they were polygraphic
Visigothic script scribes; I have already written about this here.
FIG. 4. Codex Vigilanus seu Albeldensis, late 10th c. © El Escorial d.I.2
How the process of learning a new script was for the scribes who decided to change? Leaving
aside the dissimilarities between the two writing systems, Visigothic and Caroline do not look so
different. Our brain needs to be reminded, though, that in medieval times written culture was not as
today. Most of the population now is able to write, in the Middle Ages this was not the case. Thus, to
learn a new script must have been a great deal. It is known that Carolingian masters came to the
Iberian Peninsula to teach the new script to those who wanted to learn it, but there is no direct
evidence to explain how the process itself was. For those who already knew Visigothic, it must
have been easier to learn the new features, or maybe not? If we were now obliged to modify the form
of our a or t, how long will take to our brain, eye and hand, to actually change? [see related
posts about me learning to write in Visigothic script].
FIG. 5. Learning to write in Visigothic script
Another difference between now and 12th century Iberian Peninsula is that, back then, writing was
a laborious and slow process; it can be assumed their brain had enough time to realize the
model the scribe’s hand should follow, or not? This could be another post. Let us just note here
that examples of codices in which the copyist lost his thought and wrote some lines in another script
have been preserved.
Finally, as for the last question, it has been suggested that those scribes and scriptoria that changed
to Caroline were thus accepting and acknowledging Carolingian cultural pre-eminence. If so,
it can be discussed whether Carolingian scribes held a higher status than Visigothic script scribes.
In my opinion, to assess this question is tricky if not impossible. I guess that if a center felt powerful
enough as to fight for the preservation of its own culture, it did not subdue; while if it was a minor
center it could have done so? What do you think?
PD. If you know about publications tackling one or several of these questions, I would be grateful if
you could please let me know.
– by Ainoa Castro
Suggested Citation: Castro Correa, A. “How did scribes perceive the graphic change?″. Littera
Visigothica (September 2015),
http://litteravisigothica.com/how-did-scribes-perceive-the-graphic-change (ISSN 2386-6330).
Writing in cursive and minuscule Visigothic script:
polygraphism in medieval Galicia
Some time ago I wrote about the different types of Visigothic script explaining that, according to
the speed of the strokes the scribe used in writing, the script can be classified into two main
typological variants: cursive and minuscule.[1] Visigothic cursive was, in general, drawn quickly,
without lifting the pen, which leads to multiple ligatures and connections between letters and words
[FIG. 2]. Visigothic minuscule, on the other hand, was written slowly, letter by letter, making it more
readable and appealing to the eye. I also mentioned that the cursive variant was the one preferred,
at least before the second half of the 11th century, to write charters –since cursive writing for legal
issues meant a direct link with the writing practices of the late Roman empire– while minuscule can
be found in almost all Visigothic script codices [list] as a main graphic variant. In saying that, it can
be thought that the scribe chose which typological variant he wanted –or was supposed– to use for
the manuscript he was commissioned to write, be it a charter or a codex, thus implying the scribes
were able to use both types. But, was that accurate? If we consider that all Visigothic script scribes
were capable of writing in both minuscule and cursive, were thus able to differentiate the uses and
traditions linked to both types of scripts too?
FIG. 1 Alphabets, cursive and minuscule Visigothic script.
To write in minuscule or cursive Visigothic script was not just a matter of writing quickly or slowly
but rather of using two different scripts, two different ideal graphic models. Both “variants” are
grouped under the name ‘Visigothic’ but they are, in fact, not the same script; they differ as for
their genetic and chronological origin –in all likelihood even their geographical origin was not the
same–, basic graphic characteristics and evolution, chronology… Cursive and minuscule alphabets
are not the same [FIG. 1], nor are their abbreviation or even punctuation systems (see more
here and here). Therefore, if we think a scribe had the ability to choose which type should be used
for his manuscript, we must also think he must have learned and mastered two different
writing systems.
Think about that for a moment. We are assuming the scribe was not only so skilled as to be able to
write, say, calligraphic cursive Visigothic script, but that he was also capable of writing a beautiful
codex in minuscule Visigothic, without mixing alphabets, or, even more significantly, abbreviation
systems! (read about medieval abbreviation systems here, part 3) There are substantial differences
between the abbreviations used in minuscule and in cursive scripts. Not to confuse which set should
he use really implied a profound understanding of the script. He must have been truly exceptional,
and his training center/school and master must have been highly remarkable too. So, how many
scribes do you think were able to achieve that in the early medieval Iberian Peninsula?
FIG. 2 Basic ligatures, cursive variant.
Although not all the manuscripts that were written and copied throughout the medieval scriptoria of
the Iberian Peninsula are extant, and plenty of them have no indication of who their material author
was, giving the sources preserved and the textual information they provide, very few scribes were
able to achieve such an accomplishment. Polygraphic scribes were scarce. It was uncommon for a
scribe to use both cursive and minuscule Visigothic script, and even more unusual if he also used
other coeval writing systems or alphabets that can be found in the myriad of cultures that was
medieval Spain. The examples we can be sure about are so scarce that they can be counted on the
fingers of one hand, or almost.
FIG. 3 Petrus. Samos 1061 (© AHN 1239/13) and Tuy 1071 (© ACTuy, 1/2).
For the Galician area, the one I am familiar with, with some 300 charters written in Visigothic script,
I only know of some ten examples of polygraphic scribes we can be completely sure about
since we have charters written by them in both cursive and minuscule scripts (or parts of charters:
text in minuscule and the scribe’s signature in cursive). One was brought up a couple of weeks ago
thanks to a colleague who, reading the last post about the signs used in charters for signatures,
recalled seeing the same scribe’s sign I posted in another charter than the one I extracted the image
from. That is Petrus [FIG. 3]. Bearing in mind how frequent the name Petrus was back then, and
still is, he indeed needed to differentiate himself from other scribes named Petrus, developing his
own distinctive sign as he did. We know of at least two charters written by this same Petrus, one
with a donation to the monastery of Samos dated 1061, and the other, a royal charter to the see of
Tuy, dated 1071. Petrus was a well-trained and skilled scribe. Both charters were written in a very
calligraphic script, the first in a neat Visigothic cursive and the second in minuscule variant, with all
its proper features and characteristics.
Could there have been more that we are not aware of? Sure there were more, within the same
Galician corpus. But how can we identify them when we have no examples of their polygraphism?
Remember, cursive and minuscule are two different scripts and thus they cannot be graphically
compared for recognising the same hand. Were all the skilled scribes, those of a higher cultural
level, polygraphs? It could be; it makes no sense to think about scribes specialised in only cursive or
minuscule. Can we assume that those scribes who wrote a perfectly calligraphic cursive Visigothic
script with a few abbreviations or even letter forms from the minuscule variant (or vice versa) are
telling us they knew and mastered both writing systems? Maybe they got distracted and forgot for a
second what the correct form of the sign for the ending -um was. Or, are they just picturing a
graphic environment in which both coeval systems were used and influenced one another? In other
words, that they did not really graphically differentiate between both writing systems.
FIG. 4 Semi-cursive script | © ACLu. 26 y Ainoa Castro.
What about the scribes who used the semi-cursive variant [FIG. 4] of Visigothic script? Were they
polygraphic scribes or just the few accomplished ones who allowed the graphic influence to happen?
The identification of the semi-cursive typological variant is intricate. It is not just a cursive Visigothic
with some features from the minuscule one (what I call ‘semi-cursive’) or vice versa (what I call
‘semi-minuscule’), but a total mix of alphabets, abbreviation and punctuation systems. In my point of
view, the semi-cursive should not be described as a typological variant, altogether with cursive and
minuscule, but as a mirror of the graphic skills the scribes who used it had. For me, every time I
come across an example of this script I think about a scribe who was not well trained in any variant
although had some knowledge about both. A scribe that did not belong to a main production centre
with a well-known school but to a small centre, maybe a small monastery or a parochial church –that
is why for some scholars the semi-cursive is also called elemental script.
So, scribes writing in a calligraphic script could thus have been polygraphs, meaning, able to write
in both cursive and minuscule, because they learned both writing systems in their high-level school,
while uncultured scribes were not polygraphs but rather just poor scribes mixing graphic
characteristics because of their cultural level? What was the process of learning to write in cursive
and minuscule?
[1] I do not consider here elongate since it is not a different writing system but a type of cursive
Visigothic script.
– by Ainoa Castro
Suggested Citation: Castro Correa, A. “Writing in cursive and minuscule Visigothic script:
polygraphism in medieval Galicia″. Littera Visigothica (March 2015),
http://litteravisigothica.com/writing-in-cursive-and-minuscule-visigothic-script-polygraphism-in-medi
eval-galicia (ISSN 2386-6330).