At 03:01 PM 3/21/02 +0100, Otto Stolz wrote: >PS. > >I wrote: > >> <http://www.faz.net/> > > >To see an enlarged picture of today's frontpage (including the title in >Fraktur, of course), klick on the 2nd tab (which is labelled in Fraktur). >I have not given the link to the enlarged version, because it is changed, >dayly.
The tab itself has the 'A', also. >>Some use other variants, such as >> <http://www.giessener-anzeiger.de/>. > >This "A" has the same topology (though in a different style) as Gutenberg's, >which I have described as "trapezoid". I forgot about that one. Thanks for reminding me. Not exactly so. "Fraktur" is a collective name, comprising various typographic designs (including several variants of letter-A topology) over 5 centuries in print, and some more in handwriting. A good overview can be found in Albert Kapr & Hans Peter Willberg: "Fraktur : Form und Geschichte der gebrochenen Schriften" (1993) ISBN 3-87439-260-0 Gutenberg's bible (~1455), to start with, had its "A" closed on top (but trapezoid rather than triangular), with two left legs. Maximilian's "Theuerdank" (1517), had the triangular form in section initials (illuminated capitals), but both forms (I think), in the running text (I have only a small sample here, so I will have to check at home, if anybody wants to know this detail). >I cannot recall having seen the pinched "U" shape for the letter A >in any of the [German newspaper names], >"Fraktur" is a collective name, comprising various typographic designs >(including several variants of letter-A topology) over 5 centuries in >print, and some more in handwriting. A good overview >can be found in > Albert Kapr & Hans Peter Willberg: > "Fraktur : Form und Geschichte der gebrochenen Schriften" (1993) > ISBN 3-87439-260-0 sounds interesting. >Gutenberg's bible (~1455), to start with, had its "A" closed on top >(but trapezoid rather than triangular), with two left legs. >Maximilian's "Theuerdank" (1517), had the triangular form in >section initials (illuminated capitals), but both forms (I think), >in the running text (I have only a small sample here, so I will >have to check at home, if anybody wants to know this detail). Aha. This changes nothing about my argument that the evolution of the script was from Roman to Fraktur (as opposed to being a simplification in the other direction), but makes 'A' a less universal example of a character whose form in Fraktur leaves visual traces of this development. >Most papers (of those having fraktur in their titles) use an "A" >akin to this notorious example: > <http://www.faz.net/> > >Some use other variants, such as > <http://www.giessener-anzeiger.de/>. > > > which I attribute to the need for newspapers to have easily > > readable names, even if convention requires a Fraktur style font for > > their name. > >The FAZ-style "A" design has been used in many fonts, e. g. Caslon's >Blackletter (London 1821), I'm less familiar with the history of the use of type in England. I had been under the impression that Roman type was in much more widespread use there much earlier than in Germany or Scandinavia for that matter. >"Fette Gotisch" (Offenbach 1893); >at these times, Fraktur was common knowledge. So I guess, >the readability is not the primary reason for the prevalence >of this variant, in newspaper titles. (However, I cannot suggest >any other motive.) And do we know why our very idea of a newspaper is bound up with the use of Fraktur (or Blackletter) in the title? FAZ has preserved (invented?) the curious tradition of having editorials titled in Fraktur, but regular headlines in Roman. I wonder also, if there wasn't at the end of the 19th century, an attempt to modernize Fraktur (parallel to or as an alternative to switching to Roman). If so, that might have influenced the choice of type styles for the title of certain newspapers. A./
