The term ‘blackletter’ encompasses textura, bastarda, rotunda, and fraktur typefaces (among others), although literature primarily focuses on the use of fraktur in Germany. Throughout this entry I will yield to the general term ‘blackletter’ and will not differentiate between forms. Further, it should be noted that ‘gothic’ is often used in place of ‘blackletter’. Robert Bringhurst insists that these two terms are not synonymous, stating that blackletter is actually ‘the typographic counterpart of the Gothic style in architecture’ (266). However, as much of the available literature uses the terms interchangeably, I have interpreted references to ‘gothic’ type to mean ‘blackletter’.

Blackletter type was initially used throughout Europe for continuous reading, notably in church service books, although its use for text matter now survives only in Germany (Dowding 5). Roman type has largely supplanted blackletter. Shaw and Bain hypothesize that blackletter and roman types have represented more prominent social binaries, such as ‘medievalism vs. modernity… German Romanticism vs. the French Enlightenment, the authority of the state vs. personal liberty and popular sovereignty… [and] mysticism vs. rationality’ (12), respectively. Similarly, Gutjahr suggests that the use of blackletter type reflects Western culture’s hesitancy to change anything associated with religious tradition (19). That is, the use of blackletter type represents traditional dominance of the Church, while roman type represents individual interpretation of religious texts. 

Martin Luther suggested that each person was his or her own priest, and that all Christians were capable of reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves. Hence, the Bible was to be made available to the laity so the text could speak directly to the people (Peterson 204-205). Luther translated the Bible into his vernacular, German, and John Wycliffe organized the first version of the English Bible in 1382 (Bragg 13), but it was not until the 1611 publication of the King James Bible that a lasting version of the English Bible was finally secured (Bragg 15). The esteemed reception of this translation from Latin into English marked a shift away from the centralized regulation of medieval Christian Europe (Bragg 15), and ultimately a shift towards humanism, as the Scriptures gradually became more accessible to laymen. The typographies of Bibles from this time reflect this shift as they become less ornate and more legible according to contemporary standards.

Humanist interest lay in simplicity of communication as opposed to elaboration. The content of the text was of greater importance than the appearance, and readers were willing to sacrifice aesthetic appeal for affordability and legibility (Wolfe). In Legibility of Print, Miles A. Tinker describes a study by Paterson and Tinker in which ten typefaces (nine roman and one blackletter) were presented to nine hundred college students. Students’ speeds of reading were noted while reading material printed in each type, in 10-point. It was discovered that Cloister Black, the one blackletter type, was read thirteen percent slower than Scotch Roman, a standard roman type, due to an increase in fixation frequency and perception time (Tinker 48). However, Philipp Luidl, a German, challenges Paterson and Tinker’s conclusion by asserting that blackletter has a more distinctive profile than roman due to its greater richness and more frequent use of ascenders and descenders, thus making it more legible (19). In response to this debate, Brian Maloney, Master Printer at Massey College, states that ‘we read best what we read most’ (Maloney). He proposes that familiarity with a particular typeface prompts ease of reading, thus explaining contradicting opinions regarding legibility. In Germany, all official printed matter, school textbooks, and newspapers were set in fraktur until 1941 (Willberg 44, 47). Luidl may, then, find this type more legible than roman because he has grown accustomed to it. Thus, Maloney’s assertion offers one possible justification for Tinker and Luidl’s differing opinions.

Typefaces of Bibles are not chosen at random; they reflect social circumstances, and changes in type coincide with social changes. These changes are likely not as drastic as the aforementioned binaries proposed by Shaw and Bain. However, on a grand scale, blackletter and roman do appear to represent a shift from the authority of the church towards individualism.

Works Cited

Bragg, Melvyn. The Book of Books: The Radical Impact of the King James Bible, 1611-2011. Berkeley: Counterpoint, 2011. Print.

Bringhurst, Robert. The Elements of Typographic Style. Version 3.1. Vancouver: Hartley & Marks, Publishers, 2005. Print.

Dowding, Geoffrey. An Introduction to the History of Printing Types. Clerkenwell: Wace & Company Ltd., 1961. Print.

Gutjahr, Paul C. “The Letter(s) of the Law: Four Centuries of Typography in the King James Bible.” Illuminating Letters: Typography and Literary Interpretation. Ed. Megan L. Benton. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2001. 17-44. Print.

Luidl, Philipp. “A Comparison of Fraktur and Roman Type: A German Study.” Blackletter: Type and National Identity. Eds. Paul Shaw and Peter Bain. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. 16-21. Print.

Maloney, Brian. “Putting on a Good Face.” University of Toronto. Alumni Hall, Toronto, ON. 16 Feb 2012. Lecture.

Peterson, R. Dean. A Concise History of Christianity. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 2000. Print.

Shaw, Paul, and Peter Bain. “Blackletter vs. Roman: Type as Ideological Structure.” Blackletter: Type and National Identity. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. 10-15. Print.

Tinker, Miles A. Legibility of Print. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1963. Print.

Willberg, Hans Peter. “Fraktur and Nationalism.” Blackletter: Type and National Identity. Eds. Paul Shaw and Peter Bain. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. 40-49. Print.