Italic Handwriting Doesn't Have To Slope

[caliken]

Over many years, Italic has become defined as “slope writing” but this isn’t strictly

correct. Italic just means relating to Italy, its place of origin.“

 

“The slope of letters...is slightly to the right, but the italic hand can be written with upright

strokes...” Alfred Fairbank

 

Italics usually have a slope of about 5 degrees, but not necessarily. The relative

narrowness and archforms are sufficient to distinguish the hand from roman even if it is

upright.” John Woodcock

 

“Italic allows a choice of slope - from a vertical of 0 degrees to a slope of 15 degrees.”

Barbara Getty & Inga Dubay

 

I agree with Tom Gourdie that “the tilt or slope of Italic should come from speed and should

not be consciously adopted”.

 

Although the vast majority of examples of Italic handwriting are written at a slope, it isn’t

absolutely necessary, and there are many wonderful examples of Italic written upright -

and not just by left-handed writers.

 

Ken

[Jerome Tarshis]

First, I was very glad to read this. Ken's point was in my mind, and as he himself writes, it has been in the minds of some well-known teachers.

 

Second, I fear that the idea that italic writing ought to slope to the right may be rather difficult to walk away from. Many books of instruction show (and therefore teach) italic writing that slopes to the right. I am at a loss to know how to think about Tom Gourdie's suggestion that a slope to the right ought not to be consciously adopted. Practice sheets offered to students typically have diagonal parallel lines so that the student can learn to write at a consistent angle. If that isn't conscious adoption, I don't know what is. It may well be that Tom Gourdie himself never promulgated those practice sheets, but many other teachers have, and FPN offers help in finding them, the better to, well, consciously adopt a consistent angle.

 

For my own sake I applaud Ken's posting, but fear that in practical terms he is, let us say, spitting into the wind.

[caliken]

Thanks for the response, Jerome - your points are well made.

 

Whilst I think that consistency of slope is important and guidelines are valuable in achieving this, I think that Gourdie's point is that, if you're going to use guidelines to aid consistency, it's best to arrive at your natural slope (or lack of one) first, and then apply the guidelines for practice. In my book "Italic Variants" I advocate a 5 - 15 degrees slope for 'normal' italic. However, I include three variations of upright Italic, as attractive Italic writing doesn't have to be sloped.

 

 

 

Ken

Edited May 22, 2012 by caliken

[tawanda]

Oh, how comforting to know this! Thanks Ken. I am confounded by achieving a decent regular slope. I believe it is because of being left handed, and the fact that I already have my paper at over 90 degrees to my tummy, because it is most comfortable position for me to write due to my disability.

 

I've worked hard on my 'upright' fist and aspire to get it similar to HDoug's in terms of neatness, space, and the ability to write on plain paper in a straight line!

 

So, thank you Ken for lifting one worry from my shoulders! Now back to the practice notebook...

[Mickey]

Ken,

 

My readings and experience agree your observation, i.e., 0 to 15 degrees.

 

When I first learned italic, I wrote with little or no slant, certainly less than 5 degrees, but I increased the slant slightly (7-8 degrees) when I began writing cursively. Slanting the letters gave me thin joins, well proportioned letters, and tight spacing without having to manipulate the edge.

[KateGladstone]

These days, graphics-software and some online gudeline-printing sites (such as scribblers.co.uk ) make it easy to produce guidelines at any angle or none.Caliken, where can I buy your book ITALIC VARIATIONS ?

[melissa59]

Thanks, Ken. You have no idea how glad I am to read this those quotes!

It appears I won't have to undo nearly half a century of writing habits after all. I will however, have to spend a considerable amount of time teaching myself to write in a consistent size and shape.

 

Fred Eager's book arrived. I've not yet started any of the penmanship practices, but I did a bit of reading and I flipped through many of the pages to see what is in store for me. I was pleased to note that the exercises have only the slightest bit of right slant. Eager's book does not appear to put any emphasis on slant, only slant consistency.

 

In the back of his text there is a guide sheet for writers to measure their own handwriting slant. On that page he writes: "Good slant for the Calligraphic Mode is between 2 1/2 and 10" degrees, and "for the Cursive mode, between 5 and 15" degrees.

 

KateGladstone, here is a link to CaliKen's Website where you can order his books and DVD: http://www.caliken.co.uk

[caliken]

Fred Eager's book arrived. I've not yet started any of the penmanship practices, but I did a bit of reading and I flipped through many of the pages to see what is in store for me. I was pleased to note that the exercises have only the slightest bit of right slant. Eager's book does not appear to put any emphasis on slant, only slant consistency.

 

Thanks melissa59, for posting the link to my website and I'm glad that you found the information useful.

 

You'll find that almost all books on Italic writing have slightly different views on the degree of slope, or indeed the lack of it. However, they collectively agree on a slope of somewhere between 0-15 degrees.

 

Whatever slope is chosen, consistency is the key.

 

I was going to post several examples of upright Italic (including one by Alfred Fairbank) but I decided that it was safer not to risk copyright.

 

Instead, here are some of my own. There are few, if any, lettering variations here - the lettering is basically the same throughout, with differences created by the choice of nibs.

 

Ken

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/Uprightitaliccomposite2600-1.jpg

Edited May 22, 2012 by caliken

[caliken]

These days, graphics-software and some online gudeline-printing sites (such as scribblers.co.uk ) make it easy to produce guidelines at any angle or none.Caliken, where can I buy your book ITALIC VARIATIONS ?

Thanks for your interest in my "Italic Variations" book, Kate. It's available by PayPal through my website http://www.caliken.co.uk

 

Ken

Edited May 22, 2012 by caliken

[gwoodbridge]

I've had great fun and success with the Eager book. To piggy back on caliken's original post, I also discovered that the letters themselves can be drawn "upright", and the joins at the correct angle/slant will give the writing its Italic look.

[HDoug]

Hereʻs something I just came across that might be relevant. Here are a couple scans from the book, Sweet Roman Hand by Wilfrid Blunt that was published in 1952 that I just bought recently. Niccolo Niccoli is regarded by some as the originator of italic in the early 1400ʻs. Blunt presents these as an example of his "formal" hand. I think it would probably be described as an upright italic for the purposes of this thread. Up till seeing these examples, I had only seen images of Niccoliʻs slanted cursive italic from the 1420ʻs.

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7075/7259468718_4b40e3ae37_c.jpg

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7218/7259467832_41db04f457_c.jpg

 

In any case I really like this handwriting.

 

Doug

[caliken]

Thanks for posting these very beautiful examples by the 'father' of Italic writing. I hadn't seen them, before.

 

I particularly like the second example which is evenly-balanced, flowing Italic handwriting. It's clearly cursive italic in today's terms, with many joins and the branching upwards of the typical arched letters - and it's written upright. What a wonderful exemplar!

 

Ken

[Mickey]

Thanks for posting these very beautiful examples by the 'father' of Italic writing. I hadn't seen them, before.

 

I particularly like the second example which is evenly-balanced, flowing Italic handwriting. It's clearly cursive italic in today's terms, with many joins and the branching upwards of the typical arched letters - and it's written upright. What a wonderful exemplar!

 

Ken

 

Indeed lovely, but while joined, it is not a true running hand - sensible spacing making too many lifts unavoidable (e.g., 'accendi') -, which for me disqualifies it as cursive in the contemporary sense. Still, absolutely lovely and I do enjoy the look of some of the joins, especially joins into the letter 'i'.

[caliken]

Indeed lovely, but while joined, it is not a true running hand - sensible spacing making too many lifts unavoidable (e.g., 'accendi') -, which for me disqualifies it as cursive in the contemporary sense.

 

"Cursive" in the USA relates to Spencerian script and its derivatives, in which all minuscule letters are joined in a swift, running hand.

 

Cursive Italic has never been a true running hand in which all the letters are joined, and in contemporary terms, the second exemplar by Niccoli is Cursive Italic in which some letters are joined in a flowing script, although I note that this is erroneously described as 'formal'.

 

Which letters are joined and which are left unjoined, depends on which instruction book you read.

 

Formal Italic describes the same script, but with totally unjoined lettering.

 

Elsewhere on this forum, one of the founding members, James Pickering, posted his Italic handwriting which is totally unjoined and which he describes as "Cursive Italic". It would appear that the term, "cursive" originally meant "curved" and this definition still applies today, in certain quarters.

 

This is a fairly typical example of the two forms - Formal & Cursive.

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/ITALIC301.jpg

Edited May 24, 2012 by caliken

[Mickey]

Indeed lovely, but while joined, it is not a true running hand - sensible spacing making too many lifts unavoidable (e.g., 'accendi') -, which for me disqualifies it as cursive in the contemporary sense.

 

"Cursive" in the USA relates to Spencerian script and its derivatives, in which all minuscule letters are joined in a swift, running hand.

 

Cursive Italic has never been a true running hand in which all the letters are joined, and in contemporary terms, the second exemplar by Niccoli is Cursive Italic in which some letters are joined in a flowing script.

 

 

Which letters are joined and which are left unjoined, depends on which instruction book you read.

 

"There are no joins from j,q or y, and a few other joins are discouraged."

 

Formal Italic is generally meant to describe basically the same script, but with totally unjoined lettering.

 

Elsewhere on this forum, one of the founding members, James Pickering, posted his Italic handwriting which is totally unjoined and which he describes as "Cursive Italic". It would appear that the term, "cursive" originally meant "curved" and this definition still applies today, in certain quarters.

 

Ken

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/ITALIC300.jpg

 

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.

[caliken]

I am happy to accept your interesting derivation of cursive, but there are many examples of Italic which, far from running, are quite static - and are described as Cursive. A basic search brings up several definitions which just mention letter joining.

 

In terms of letter joining or the lack of it, I see no distinction between the slope example above, and the upright examples I posted earlier in this thread.

 

In both cases, the letters are joined where expedient, and otherwise left unjoined. This is typical Cursive

Italic.

Edited May 24, 2012 by caliken

[HDoug]

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.

 

"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.

 

But I don't want to get embroiled in argument and people can define things as they wish for their own convenience or torment. And nothing saves an argumentative post as… some pictures!

 

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.

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7234/7264332522_a111249926_z.jpg

 

And a close up:

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7093/7264363448_e5c4fbe3b9_c.jpg

 

A little too much coffee but considering how small the writing is, I like this upright cursive italic handwriting too!

 

Doug

[Mickey]

I am happy to accept your interesting derivation of cursive, but there must be another meaning as many examples of Italic, far from running, are quite static - and are described as Cursive.

 

In terms of letter joining or the lack of it, I see no distinction between the slope example above, and the upright examples I posted earlier in this thread.

 

In both cases, the letters are joined where expedient, and otherwise left unjoined. This is typical Cursive

Italic.

 

Sorry, no other derivation for cursive. The meaning is from some long-dead Roman. The root for cursive probably came into English during the Roman occupation, and the root for curve most likely not until sometime after Charlemagne (most likely in late Middle English, after people started throwing googlies). As we've learned in other threads, people are quite happy using terms however they like and with little regard for meaning, so it's not surprising you've seen novel uses. (You are fortunate, however, to be spared the worst English in the world, that spoken by American radio personalities and by our local TV anchors. I would rather hear a Cornishman sing Webern.)

 

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.)

 

At some slant angle, there are enough opportunities for joining that italic can become a truly running (or opportunistic) hand. (I believe it is somewhere around 7 degrees: 45 + 7 = 52. Hmm?) It's unlikely cursive italic (at whatever slant) will be as fast as a good commercial script, but in my experience it is probably rapid enough for most people's brains.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Mickey

[caliken]

Thanks for your input Mickey, but I still maintain that the example by Niccoli is Cursive Italic.

 

Cursive appears to have different meanings separated by an ocean and several centuries.

 

Spencerian Cursive handwriting and its derivatives, are running hands, with all of the minuscules joined together.

 

Italic Cursive has never been a totally joined-up form of handwriting. Although they often disagree, most Italic handwriting manuals go to great lengths in stating which letters should never be joined together.

 

From Tom Gourdie on the subject of Cursive Italic in "Handwriting for Today"

 

"In creating a cursive hand, allowance must be made for the pen to be lifted frequently......In any alphabet where convenient breaks are not provided, insistence on total joining leads to rapid deterioration of the hand at speed. It is just as wrong to refrain totally from ligaturing since this is detrimental to the development of good rhythm. Rules are given for ligaturing but should not be regarded as competely binding if handwriting is to be free and natural."

 

The text by Niccoli is in very beautiful, upright Cursive Italic.

 

Ken

Edited May 25, 2012 by caliken

[caliken]

A little too much coffee but considering how small the writing is, I like this upright cursive italic handwriting too!

 

Doug

Thanks for another beautiful example, Doug.