Styles of Arabic Script
In the tenth century, Ibn al-Nadim ambitiously cataloged âthe books of all peoples, Arab and foreign, existing in the language of the Arabs, as well as of their scripts.â2 His Kitab al-Fihrist references thousands of textsâmany of which have since been lostâlisting authors, titles, genres, brief descriptions, and sometimes specific bibliographic information, such as the size or the number of pages. Ibn al-Nadim prefaces his grand bibliography with a discussion of scripts and notational systems. An introductory section presents at least sixteen different systems of writing. These include scripts used for Syriac, Persian, Hebrew, Greek, Chinese, and Russian. The Latin alphabet is mentioned as the script of the Lombards, Saxons, and Franks. The various scripts are differentiated according to the direction of writing, the form and types of characters, and the tools of inscription. Nadim discusses diverse methods of sharpening writing implements, compares the Arabic reed pen with the brushes of Chinese scribes, and weighs the affordances of various substrates: clay, papyrus, parchment, and paper. Although scripts are organized according to nation, emphasis falls on stylistic differences of design and use rather than language. Every writing system, or script, is a collection of subscripts, or styles, and unique styles are further specified according to appearance, function, and technology.
Ibn al-Nadim constructs a typology of stylistic variation. He lists well over twenty varieties of Arabic script; three forms of Syriac; seven styles of Persian; and at least three styles of Greek script. Greek scribes in Abbasid Baghdad, for example, employed one style for sacred scripture, another style for official correspondence, and a third styleâa specialized shorthand reserved for âkings and the most eminent scribesââfor quick transcription.3 Ibn al-Nadim presents each of these stylistic differences as communicatively significant. Arabic script is presented with even greater, and more specific, variety. In one particularly detailed passage concerning styles of script, Ibn al-Nadim writes:
Among [the Arabic scripts] there is a style called Ashriyah, derived from the Sijillat al-Awsat handwriting. With it are written emancipations of slaves and sales of land and houses and other things. Among them is a style called the Mufattah, sprung from the Thaqil al-Nisf. The Mumsak style, with which they write on the half-size sheets, is derived from it. Three styles grow out of it: a style called the Mudawwar al-Kabir, which the scribes of this period call the Riâasi and which is written on the half-size sheets; also derived from it is a style called the Mudawwar al-Saghir, a general-utility script with which are written records, traditions, and poems; and a style called Khafif al-Thuluth al-Kabir. It is written on the half-size sheets, being derived from Khafif al-Nisf al-Thaqil. From it there springs a style called the Riqaâ, which is derived from Khafifal-Thuluth al-Kabir and with which are written signed edicts and similar things.4
To modern readers, the specificity is shocking. And for current purposes, the specific names are less important than the fact that the author takes time to list them. Ibn al-Nadim expects reader familiarity with the diverse implications of stylistic variation. Styles of script indicate particular uses and different genres of written messages. Styles are classified into families of common origin, they differentiate according to function, and they relate to particular sizes of paper. This detailed typology highlights the complex scribal milieu in which Ibn al-Nadim circulated. The style of Arabic script operated as a secondary code, alongside textual content. Through the choice of style, scribes could âconnote professional or social attitudes beyond the mere content of his or her message.⌠The type and size of a script and its amount of diacritics become an important manifestation of the senderâs attitude towards the addressee.â5 Scribes write for different reasons, for different audiences, and with different tools. Reporting from within that milieu, Ibn al-Nadim sees no reason why they should therefore share a common style of script.
The contemporary parallel to Ibn al-Nadimâs multiple styles is the digital font. Although fonts partake of a common alphabet, they carry distinct histories, imply distinct meanings, and indicate distinct roles. If Ibn al-Nadim were to examine the textual possibilities of a modern computer, he would likely be fascinated by the sheer variety of fonts. A single machine can display any number of writing systems and scripts, from Arabic to Chinese to Hebrew to Armenian to Latin. Narrowing the focus to the Latin alphabet and written English, Ibn al-Nadim might first note the twenty-six letters of the alphabet. He would then discuss the directionality of the writing: a progression of characters that flow from left to right and lines that run from top to bottom. And he would comment on methods of input, for example, typing as the movement of the fingers across the keys and how this differs from handwriting with a pen. Ibn al-Nadim might be pleasantly surprised that the visual space of the screen does not limit the number of words or the scope of the text. He would reserve his greatest fascination, however, for the sheer number of fonts. Ibn al-Nadim would painstakingly list each font, including italic and bold varieties, alongside guidelines for their proper use: the serifs of Times New Roman are said to assist the reading of printed passages, Helvetica works well for titles and text at a distance, Verdana is primarily a screen font, Comic Sans detracts from the seriousness of a message, and so forth. Modern texts are written for a variety of purposes. And Ibn al-Nadim would see no reason why they should therefore share a common font.
Styles of script, like fonts, are material artifacts. They have shape, size, color, and texture. Differences in style, appearance, and form help readers navigate the written landscape. This is as true today as it was in the tenth century. Arabic scribal practices deliberately employed the communicative potential of material and aesthetic variation. For early Islamic writers, the primary example is the separation of Qurâanic copies from all other writings. If the Qurâan is ontologically different from other texts, then it should look, feel, and operate differently than other writings.6 The primary distinction separating sacred and secular content occurs time and again with Arabic script. Hieratic styles are repeatedly contrasted with secular styles of administrative decree and everyday communication. In the manuscript era, differences of pen, style, and form separated the two channels. The Arabic term for a Qurâanic copy, mushaf (plural: masahif), specifically references its codex form.7 The codex form distinguished Qurâanic masahif from other texts, which commonly were written on scrolls. Early masahif were further distinguished by both the scale and the shape of the letters. Qurâanic styles were larger than other styles, and the size of the text was emblematic of its status. During the era of print, the sacred-secular distinction became a technological one. Handwritten masahif distinguished the Qurâan from secular printed works. The Qurâan was not printed by an Islamic administration until the nineteenth century, four centuries after printing of the Bible and well over a century after Islamic authorities first deployed print for secular purposes. Visual and technological practices separating sacred and secular content continued well into the twentieth century. In 1938, Abdullah Yusuf Ali published what would become one of the most popular English translations of the Qurâanic text.8 Whereas the English translation is printed with movable type, the Arabic text reproduces the handwritten calligraphy of Pir Abdul Hamid with photolithography. The handwritten line distinguishes the Arabic copy as something unique and beautiful. And that uniqueness is doubly lost in translation: the translation from Arabic to English and the translation from handwritten style to movable type.
The visual distinction of Qurâanic styles from other varieties of writing was already common by Ibn al-Nadimâs time. The Fihrist dedicates an entire section to identifying and classifying styles of script suitable for copying the Qurâan.9 In the seventh century, when Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik famously replaced iconographic imagery on Umayyad coins and monuments with religious and Arabic phrases, the distinction began to blur. Although Abd al-Malikâs script-only designs were visually novel, the move was initially criticized. Religious scholars frowned on the use of Arabic script on political currency.10 Muslims and non-Muslims alike could handle coins inscribed with Qurâanic phrases, which challenged the purity expected of religious text.11 By employing Arabic as a political marker, Abd al-Malik undercut the visual and stylistic distinction between sacred and secular authority. The implicit problemâhow to differentiate sacred and secular contentâwas answered by a design solution: stylistic variety. Specific styles and formalized design templates insulated Qurâanic copies from secular texts. The basic stylistic distinction bifurcated Arabic script into two categories, Kufic and naskh. The former grouping displays solidity and formality; the latter displays more cursive fluidity. Although the two categories are overly generalized, their visual distinction signals a much deeper current of stylistic and visual variation.
The hieratic Kufic styles appear rigid, stately, and bold. They emphasize geometric structure and horizontal extension: âslow-moving and dignified, exacting in their application and requiring skill to read, they bore the connotation of eternity and visually defined Islamâs perception of the holy book.â12 The category name derives from the city of Kufa, which became famous for the early beauty and precision of its Qurâanic script. Ibn al-Nadim associates a number of early styles with the city or locale in which they were written.13 Pairing stylistic differences with the names of localities may also have allowed early Muslim readers to gauge the provenance of Qurâanic masahif with which they came into contact. Ibn al-Nadim specifically identifies the Makkah (Meccan) script through its alif (which bends slightly to the left).14 But the fame of Kufic script won out, and the name now labels a wide category of overtly geometric, decorative, and bold-shaped Arabic styles. The naskh styles, in contrast, display slimmer lines ...