Italic Handwriting Doesn't Have To Slope

[caliken]

You make my case, again, when you mention expedient. Slanting the letters creates more opportunities for expedience without sacrificing thinness of joins. Since the most common joins are from the bottom of one letter to the top of the next, the steeper the effective join angle (for thinnest joins) the narrower one can make the spacing between letters without having to resort to pen lifts or nib turning. Slanting the letters slightly compromises the letter shapes, but it also creates a steeper effective join angle, 45 degrees for an italic nib plus the angle at which the letters slant. (Of course, there is the alternative... L-oblique nibs.)

If you re-read my original post, you'll see that I'm not arguing that upright Italic is better, or as fast, or even as attractive as sloped Italic; merely that upright Italic is just as valid a form as sloped Italic and that Italic itself does not mean 'sloping'.

Ken

Edited May 25, 2012 by caliken

[Mickey]

I agree, the term is debatable, but cursive (according to my dictionary) is derived from the verb currere*, which means to run. Look at your own examples above, which I believe makes an important point in support of the distinction I would drawn. The addition of those few degrees of slant allows more joins to run, rather than simply ligate, allowing a cursive closer in function to true running scripts, such as those developed in 19th century U.S.

 

* curve seems to derive from curvare: to bend.

 

Even with clear definitions, the boundaries between "cursive" and "running hand" overlap. Paleographer Dianne Tillotson's glossary definition of cursive is, "script which is rapidly written as letters are joined together." Rapidity causing joins is a key. This would leave out James Pickeringʻs unjoined but rapid cursive, so Iʻd rather admit Mr. Pickeringʻs cursive as cursive by not being so absolute about the definition.

 

(Great digging in the weeds, HDoug!)

 

I would take slight issue with your analysis or at least with how you've stated it here. I don't entirely buy the notion that rapidity causes the joins, preferring either that joining is a secondary characteristic of cursive (which would also disqualify Pickering's usage) or that in some hands incidental joins eventually evolved to increase the speed, which is my sense of it.

 

The hardware available to today's scribes I think further supports my supposition. Contemporary italic nibs exist in two principle forms, formal (or crisp) and cursive, the latter having relieved edges to facilitate joining in a running (I would say cursive) hand. (There is no reason to relieve the corners if one joins simply for visual reasons.)

 

"Running hand" isn't defined by Dr. Tillotson's glossary because the word belongs to a more modern (post paleographic?) era, but I think of it as it is simply defined in various places, "script written quickly and connected by long, continuous strokes of the pen." Running hand defines one extreme of the cursive continuum perhaps as the Niccoli example described by Blunt as "formal" defines the other extreme.

 

Again, we end up with speed being the primary determiner, not joining (which, to my sense, could be either coincidental or evolutionary). The lack of a definition for "running hand" in the cited gloss may be no more significant than oversight. Currere means to run and, as it is the root of cursive, this characteristic probably needs to be considered non-negotiable, and style principles which increase speed considered determinative or at least given greater weight than visual characteristics only associated with the style (e.g., whether the hand allows joins or not).

 

Another possibility is that running is used to describe collision, as in the letters run into each other; they abut. This seems broadly to be the sense of the cursive Ken wishes to apply, but I don't think it works, as it does not allow for cursive hands which do not feature joining.

 

Here's a document dated circa 1499 (when the printing press seems to have put some speed incentive into surviving scribes) which has writing somewhat similar to the Niccoli I previously posted. This upright script is described as "humanistic cursive" in its record at the e-codices Virtual Manuscript Library of Switzerland.

 

If we are to credit Niccolo di Niccoli with 'inventing' italic, we should be prepared to accept that prior to the time he did, that he wrote in some other style or mode, perhaps something now described as humanist, and when not writing in his new hand, continued in the former mode. I would heartily subscribe to this notion, as it clears up many of the questions at hand. (pardon) It allows Niccoli to have written in both a joined, rapid or running hand which was not slanted (humanist cursive, as above) and a joined, rapid hand which is slanted (italic). It likewise allows Niccoli or subsequent scribes to have written in an un-joined, rapid, slanted hand (a formal italic) and allow 'humanist' its own separate, upright niche.

 

Here is my grand theory. Once humanist cursive leaned over and became italic, scribes recognized that more joins were practical than formerly and that the maximum amount of joins (and speed) could be achieved with the right amount of slant. After a few centuries of experimentation, a range of optimum slants can be identified, slants which yield acceptably uniform spacing, good speed, and minimally compromised letter proportions. They seem to lie between 5-12 degrees. (Seven degree is a popular figure.)

[HDoug]

Oh, maybe I ought to be clear about something. I'm using "italic" and "humanistic cursive" in the Alfred Fairbank sense, which is fairly interchangeably, and I think caliken and I are on the same page on that. Here's a link to the Society for Italic Handwriting explaining that.

 

The really interesting thing to me is in the handwriting and lettering before the age of the printed book. We have become very used to authoritative "by the book" examples of things, but before the mechanical replication of identical content (and form) there was a great variety in the forms of all the implements we used and of letters too. So when caliken opened this thread that challenged the commonly held idea that "italic" meant sloped, I wanted to show examples from history to compliment his own versions.

 

The thing is, we can not only find vertical italic writing, we can find sloped bookhands, unjoined cursives, and joined formal book hands. And it was all "by the book" because you wrote the book!

 

And since I'm one of those simple people that enjoys looking at pictures, here is yet another example from history (from the University of Notre Dame, Hesburgh Library, Special Collections) in a hand described as, "Humanist cursive (bastarda all'antica)." Manuscript dates from 1490 - 1510, well after the introduction of printed books.

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7078/7269059378_a46c091a8b_z.jpg

 

And a close up:

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7082/7269060314_57cfe74888_c.jpg

 

Doug

Edited May 25, 2012 by HDoug

[Mickey]

The thing is, we can not only find vertical italic writing, we can find sloped bookhands, unjoined cursives, and joined formal book hands. And it was all "by the book" because you wrote the book!

 

 

I think you nailed it right there (the underline is mine), as far as "scholarship" and authoritative voices goes. At some point, logic, usefulness, and usage all need to be applied to the question. (We maintain, delete, or create a distinction only when doing so makes logical sense, provides greater clarity, and usage supports it.)

 

The problems I see, and why I suggest making exactly the distinction Fairbank declines to make, is that italic has a well established meaning for all but the antiquarians. Further, italic in the typeset world (even more so in the e-type world) has become a transform (forward slanting) rather than a specific letter form. We also have that niggling detail that Niccoli is credited (rightly or wrongly) with 'inventing' italic. What, then did Niccoli invent if it is not a slanted form of something otherwise called humanist (or whatever)? (BTW, I find this last question the one most problematic to the Fairbank POV. The other stuff is a taxonomical debate.)

Edited May 25, 2012 by Mickey

[brunico]

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7082/7269060314_57cfe74888_c.jpg

 

Doug

 

Wow, HDoug, I'd recognise your handwriting anywhere! Now don't tell me, Rouille d'ancre and Lie de thé?

 

Seriously, thanks for a fascinating example. It has a neatness to it, of course, but also a life, some irregularity and almost spikiness in the flow. It's a delightful exercise to try and copy it. But I feel it would be an affectation to carry over that internal s into my own hand...

[HDoug]

What, then did Niccoli invent if it is not a slanted form of something otherwise called humanist (or whatever)?

 

Niccoli developed a particular script that usually slants, but as caliken points out, does not have to. Italic is not just a slanted form of humanist script.

 

Although many scribes at the time were emulating Carolingian letter forms (to the point where some paleographers call the attempts efforts at rebadging), Niccoli's form is distinct from those of others. Here is an example of humanist book hand done at around the same time as the Niccoli example. The letter forms are different. If you slant this you do NOT get italic.

 

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8016/7271078822_7e6e841d3c_z.jpg

 

And in close up:

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7229/7271078362_da2c153586_c.jpg

 

I can't even imagine emulating this kind of humanist book hand. This is just amazing to me.

 

Doug

[HDoug]

Rouille d'ancre and Lie de thé?

 

Hah! I love these colors too although I assume that they were originally red and black. Still I love browns and for a while was using my own mix of Noodler's FPN Galileo Manuscript Brown, Black, and... I forget. My current brown is Platinum Pigment Brun Sepia, which is well behaved and waterproof.

 

Doug

[Mickey]

 

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7229/7271078362_da2c153586_c.jpg

 

 

 

The most obvious difference is that this was written with an entirely different orientation of pen edge than the Niccoli examples. The strong verticals could easily have been done with what we now call a right-oblique, the left corner of the nib being higher than the right. Note that the thinnest lines (e.g., the exit stroke from the 't') are at about 30 degrees, pretty much what you'd expect with a 15 degree right-oblique. (Note also that the thinnest strokes in the Niccolo example fall at 45 degrees, exactly where one would expect with a right-angle cut 'italic nib.'

 

Rewrite this passage, changing the nib to italic (and changing nothing else) and it would look more like Niccoli's hand. Finally adjust the proportions a bit to get the most attractive letters from the steeper thin stroke axis and it's closer still. (Generally, steepening the thin stroke axis dictates a more condensed script, one where the majuscule is increasingly taller than it is wide.)

 

I'm not seeing anything that is revolutionary in Niccoli's upright script. It is mostly the same script as the above altered (logically) to make best use of a right angled edged pen. The real evolutionary move, was to slant the hand, making even more compact scripts possible and exploiting the speed potential offered by the larger number of simple joins.

 

(Lovely stuff, though)

[caliken]

Rewrite this passage, changing the nib to italic (and changing nothing else) and it would look more like Niccoli's hand.

 

This is Foundational script,(developed by Edward Johnston from Humanist Bookhand) and upright Italic.

The structures are entirely different.

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/humanistitalic400.jpg

Ken

Edited May 26, 2012 by caliken

[Mickey]

Rewrite this passage, changing the nib to italic (and changing nothing else) and it would look more like Niccoli's hand.

 

This is Foundational script,(developed by Edward Johnston from Humanist Bookhand) and upright Italic.

The structures are entirely different.

 

 

And? Different from what and what does it have to do with my post?

 

I agree Johnson developed this script, which I first admired when Jimmy Carter was President of the United States (coincidence, not causality), but how it relates to what I asked HDoug (what he believed was novel about Niccoli's script or scripts) I can't imagine. The Foundational script's structure and pedigree are not in question.

[HDoug]

Rewrite this passage, changing the nib to italic (and changing nothing else) and it would look more like Niccoli's hand.

 

This is Foundational script,(developed by Edward Johnston from Humanist Bookhand) and upright Italic.

The structures are entirely different.

 

 

And? Different from what and what does it have to do with my post?

Caliken's examples show that the upright Johnston/humanist bookhand is structurally different from the upright Niccoli/italic cursive so it's not slant that makes it italic. This helps illustrate the title premise of this thread, "Italic Handwriting Doesn't Have To Slope."

 

Doug

[Mickey]

Caliken's examples show that the upright Johnston/humanist bookhand is structurally different from the upright Niccoli/italic cursive so it's not slant that makes it italic. This helps illustrate the title premise of this thread, "Italic Handwriting Doesn't Have To Slope."

 

Doug

 

I don't dispute that it is structurally different, - that's still abundantly clear 35 years after I first saw it - but I've never referred to it as italic. I've called it humanist or, more specifically Johnston's humanist hand. I even stated in this forum that I admired it and wished it was a hand I could command. But I never described it as italic and don't see it as such. It is to my mind Johnston's riff on the earlier style, though undoubtedly influence by successor hands. One might even call it a culminating statement on the hands before italic, much as J. S. Bach's "Art of the Fugue" is culminating statement on a style of counterpoint (rather than a technical document, such as Fux's "Gradus ad Parnassum"), a grand performance or exercise of art.

 

Did Johnston call it italic? I could easily be wrong, but I don't recall that he did. That others since may have called it italic (for no better reason than convenience) doesn't convince me. If Johnston didn't call it italic and wrote it with an oblique cut nib (as seems likely), it fails the duck test and has little relevance to my question.

 

Addendum: Let's make this simple. The use of an edged pen, even one cut at right angles, does not make a script italic. (Can we agree on this?) Simply being written in Italy or by an Italian is irrelevant, as well. There must be some other conditions which must be satisfied for a hand to be judged italic. What do they include? The most obvious seem to me to be slant, proportion (of the minuscules), propensity for oblique forms (?). Details, such as the shape of the 'a' seems important, but are probably not by themselves determinative, or are they?

 

Johnston's Foundational hand doesn't slant, has the earlier (squarer) proportion, does not feature oblique forms, and uses the non-italic 'a.' What about it is italic?

Edited May 27, 2012 by Mickey

[HDoug]

Johnston's Foundational hand doesn't slant, has the earlier (squarer) proportion, does not feature oblique forms, and uses the non-italic 'a.' What about it is italic?

 

Read again, caliken is saying it is NOT italic:

 

This is Foundational script,(developed by Edward Johnston from Humanist Bookhand) and upright Italic.

The structures are entirely different.

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/humanistitalic400.jpg

Ken

 

To which I would reiterate the theme of this thread, "Italic Handwriting Doesn't Have To Slope."

 

So I think we are agreed on terms and the thread theme. Maybe we can persuade caliken to devise more upright italics for our contemplation?

 

Doug

[Mickey]

Johnston's Foundational hand doesn't slant, has the earlier (squarer) proportion, does not feature oblique forms, and uses the non-italic 'a.' What about it is italic?

 

Read again, caliken is saying it is NOT italic:

 

To which I would reiterate the theme of this thread, "Italic Handwriting Doesn't Have To Slope."

 

 

To which I re-reiterate, if it's not italic, what does it have to do with this thread? Whether is slopes or not, it is only slightly more relevant to the stated topic than kanji.

 

(You might reread my posts. Nowhere did I say that Ken claimed Foundational was italic.)

[HDoug]

To which I re-reiterate, if it's not italic, what does it have to do with this thread? Whether is slopes or not, it is only slightly more relevant to the stated topic than kanji.

 

(You might reread my posts. Nowhere did I say that Ken claimed Foundational was italic.)

On the contrary, you seem to be claiming that italic is humanist/foundational slanted:

 

Here is my grand theory. Once humanist cursive leaned over and became italic, scribes recognized that more joins were practical than formerly and that the maximum amount of joins (and speed) could be achieved with the right amount of slant. After a few centuries of experimentation, a range of optimum slants can be identified, slants which yield acceptably uniform spacing, good speed, and minimally compromised letter proportions. They seem to lie between 5-12 degrees. (Seven degree is a popular figure.)

 

There must be some other conditions which must be satisfied for a hand to be judged italic. What do they include? The most obvious seem to me to be slant

...

Caliken and I refuted your claims with examples. Humanist/foundational is structurally different from italic, and italic doesn't have to slope.

 

Doug

Edited May 26, 2012 by HDoug

[Mickey]

Balderdash!

 

Whoever claimed that Foundational / Humanist wasn't structurally different from italic - I certainly didn't - nor do I hear you arguing that it wasn't one of the influences, even the seminal influence on italic. So, I can't imagine whom or what you believe you have refuted. You haven't even provided an explanation of how you believe the styles are are different. If the differences are architectural (which they are) a list of the differences, as you see them, would be useful. Pictures may say a thousand words, but sometimes there is no substitute for a few well chosen letters, joined, not shaken.

 

As for proving Italic doesn't have to slant, you haven't even provided a list of which salient features constitutes italic. Without that, no proof may proceed. Proof, my Aunt Tilly' tin type: proof which lacks even clearly stated opinion. What you've done hardly constitutes a decent straw man argument.

[HDoug]

Whoever claimed that Foundational / Humanist wasn't structurally different from italic - I certainly didn't

But then you say

You haven't even provided an explanation of how you believe the styles are are different. If the differences are architectural (which they are) a list of the differences, as you see them, would be useful

If you believe they are structurally different, then you agree with my position.

 

But then you say

As for proving Italic doesn't have to slant, you haven't even provided a list of which salient features constitutes italic.

If you believe they are structurally different then I would not have to provide a list of salient features because you could. I'm not suggesting you do, but I have no doubt you could if pressed.

What you've done hardly constitutes a decent straw man argument.

 

Well, that's good because that certainly wasn't my intention.

 

Doug

[watch_art]

I had no idea there could be so much dispute, discussion, even argument, over italic handwriting. Or is it NOT italic... I'm not sure.

 

[melissa59]

I have been watching this tennis match discussion with great interest. It is quite educational to watch the authorities debate, so long as it does not come to blows.

 

I hope you don't mind a rank amateur knocking a foul ball across the court a bit. Of course, my comments might cause linguists, calligraphers and historians alike to roll over in their graves.

 

After reading some of the earlier posts, I got to thinking (very dangerous when that happens), the word "cursive" means nothing when applied to early scripts unless those scribes referred to it as such.

 

So, I did a cursory (cursory: meaning hasty or sloppy, derived from the root word cursorious a Latin word meaning "of running") search on the Internet and learned that some people believe it is the Chinese of the Han Dynasty who invented cursive writing. Apparently, the Chinese (probably modern era Chinese) refer to that early script as cǎoshū, translated as a "rough" or "sloppy" script.

 

I also read that when applied to handwriting, the word "cursive" is mostly a U.S. term with our U.K. friends liking "joined-up" and our brethren in New Zealand calling it "linking".

 

Now you guys have changed the conversation back to slant, as it refers to italic script. Sheesh! There is no way I can keep up with this game! However, I did an initial (as in first step not first letters of a name) search and found the following conflicting information:

 

Wikipedia page describes Niccoli's Italic script as incorporating "features and techniques characteristic of a quickly-written hand: oblique forms, fewer strokes per character, and the joining of letters." It says nothing of slant.

 

Dictionary.com's definition says it is "usually sloped to the right," which leads me to believe that it is usually, though not always slanted.

 

FPN moderator, Ann Finley's Chancery Italic instructions do not say anything about sloping the letters, though her examples do appear to have the teeniest tiniest bit of slant.

 

IdiotsGuides.com (no I did NOT make that up) says that formal (probably not to be confused with informal) Italic is written with a 10-degree right slant.

 

That's all I have on the topics in this thread. If graded, I would probably get A in Plagiarizing, a B in Gullibility (for believing everything I read on the Internet), a D in Penmanship and a score of Love in Tennis.

[HDoug]

As long as the discussion doesn't take a slant toward cursing we'll all be fine.

 

Doug