Italic Handwriting Doesn't Have To Slope

[watch_art]

Love it!

:roflmho:

 

Thanks for the input Melissa!

[Mickey]

Withdrawn

Edited May 27, 2012 by Mickey

[katim]

Withdrawn

 

"Withdrawn" as in "shy, retiring, reticent" ? Not on the evidence of this thread, Mickey!

 

 

[caliken]

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

Italic, as devised by Nicolli, is NOT slanted Humanist. The structure is entirely different, and incidentally, has nothing to do with the cut of the nib. The most obvious difference is in the branching of the arches and the triangular wedge shapes.

 

Ken

Edited May 27, 2012 by caliken

[Mickey]

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

Italic, as devised by Nicolli, is NOT slanted Humanist. The structure is entirely different, and incidentally, has nothing to do with the cut of the nib. The most obvious difference is in the branching of the arches and the triangular wedge shapes.

 

Ken

 

Of course italic is not simply slanted Humanist, but the two are related. Italic either shares common ancestors with Humanist or is its descendant. The structure is not entirely different, that is gross over statement, at best. There are significant differences, no question. The interesting question is how Humanist (or the common ancestor) becomes italic, that is, what are the minimum number of feature or parameters which must be altered to create a hand that would be acceptably 'italic.' From this we might infer Niccoli's reasons for developing the hand, and, test whether an upright hand would satisfy his criteria, not yours or mine. We might also determine if he had a practical reason for developing the hand and, if he did, what the reason was, or if he developed it simply to scratch an aesthetic itch? In other words, test the hypothesis implicit in the topic heading, whether a hand needs to slant to be considered italic. My preference is for some slant, even for formal italic, but that's what it is, a preference. I'm quite taxonomically comfortable either way, but I am curious as to whether Niccoli would be.

 

The basic architecture is less interesting to me than the question of why Niccoli decided to slant the new hand: aesthetics, speed, or something else? As I pointed out earlier, slanting does produce more and different join opportunities, and may provide some speed gains. Why did Niccoli slant the hand?

 

As for nib cuts, some people feel it is easier to write hands such as Humanist with a right foot oblique nib. I am among them. That is not to say that it can't be written with a right-angled nib (I have one manual which recommends the standard italic nib - I don't care for the results, particularly; it looks too 'modern' - merely that it is easier for some people. I also believe it's the cut illustrated in Johnston's Writing, Illuminating, and Lettering. (Sorry, I can't confirm this. My copy is presently on loan.)

[Mickey]

Withdrawn

 

"Withdrawn" as in "shy, retiring, reticent" ? Not on the evidence of this thread, Mickey!

 

 

 

Nope, I merely discovered where this part of the discussion went vertical (or eccentric) and decided to 'sleep on it' before trying to get us back on point.

 

As for shy, retiring, or reticent: With strangers, usually; with friends, never!

[HDoug]

Mickey, as to your questions about the differences between humanist book hand and Niccoli's cursive version of it, I don't know if paleographers know or agree on an answer. My own understanding of it was stated previously:

 

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

...

 

If I were to guess what made Niccoli incline to slant his later script, I'd put a dollar on speed. Most book hands are vertical, and that's why I think Niccoli's careful script is upright (in so many ways!):

 

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

 

The later examples I've seen all appear to have been written more quickly:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Niccolo_de_Niccoli_italic_handwriting.jpg

 

But my question is, what do you mean when you use the term "italic"?

 

When I first learned italic, I wrote with little or no slant...

 

I'm not pressing you if you feel like this is some kind of interrogation. Just curious. At any rate I think we should stay away from the Humpty Dumpty requirement to make words mean precisely what we demand they mean. I just want to know what you mean when you use the term since you, at this point, seem to have no problem with "Italic Handwriting Doesn't Have to Slope" theme of this thread.

 

Doug

[caliken]

"Italic Handwritinhg doesn´t have to slope" wasn´t a question, but a statement.

 

I started this topic, as there are some on this forum who naturally write Italic upright and are concerned that they are doing something wrong and are not really writing Italic. I just wanted to reassure them that Italic Handwriting doesn´t need to be written on a slope to be valid.

 

Aside from my own experience of more than 50 years, I cite, amongst others, in support of this statement -

Niccolo de Niccoli - the creator of the style

Alfred Fairbank - the modern "father" of Italic handwriting who spearheaded the Italic revival.

Tom Gourdie - teacher with a world-wide reputation as an Italicist.

 

The Society of Italic Handwriting published a retrospective collection of everyday Italic handwriting. Whilst the majority are written at various slopes, there is a significant minority written upright.

 

Ken

[caliken]

This subject went off at a tangent with a discussion on the meanig of "cursive" when applied to Italic, and to the meaning of Italic itself.

 

As Italic is usually written at a slope, the word "Italic" has become generally to mean sloped lettering, but this is not the original meaning of the word.

The use of an edged nib, cut obliquely, may make writing Italic a little bit easier for some writers, but has no effect on the basic triangular-wedged shape of Italic script which is quite distinct from the Humanist form from which it derived. Humanist Bookhand written at a slope isn´t Italic Script, but is known as "Sloped Roman" and is quite different.

 

Ken

[Mickey]

Mickey, as to your questions about the differences between humanist book hand and Niccoli's cursive version of it, I don't know if paleographers know or agree on an answer. My own understanding of it was stated previously:

 

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

...

 

If I were to guess what made Niccoli incline to slant his later script, I'd put a dollar on speed. Most book hands are vertical, and that's why I think Niccoli's careful script is upright (in so many ways!):

 

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

 

The later examples I've seen all appear to have been written more quickly:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Niccolo_de_Niccoli_italic_handwriting.jpg

 

But my question is, what do you mean when you use the term "italic"?

 

When I first learned italic, I wrote with little or no slant...

 

I'm not pressing you if you feel like this is some kind of interrogation. Just curious. At any rate I think we should stay away from the Humpty Dumpty requirement to make words mean precisely what we demand they mean. I just want to know what you mean when you use the term since you, at this point, seem to have no problem with "Italic Handwriting Doesn't Have to Slope" theme of this thread.

 

Doug

 

I don't find myself at all pressed. This sort of dialog is useful (and fun), hopefully not just for us, but for those who eavesdrop.

 

The thread title does suggest an issue not entirely resolved. Since the world outside our little company of manual ink-slingers, think slant, perhaps it isn't entirely resolved or has become unresolved during the last couple of decades. For example, Italic has nothing to do with this screen font; none the less, pressing the appropriate icon produces italic arial, which differs in no significant way other than slant from its usual form, likewise TIMES ROMAN, (this one kills me) even Book Antiqua. See where I'm going? We are either out of step or better informed. (Hopefully both.) I've simply taken up the contrarian position to explore the question, "if not slant, what makes a script italic?" As you quote above, I did not initially write italic with much slope (I still don't), but I do write with a moderate amount of slant (c. 7 degrees) when I write cursively, which is now about the only way I write italic.

 

As for what I believe is italic, I find myself in the Potter Stewart position of saying "I know it when I see it." Beyond mentioning the obvious features - the novel 'a' and the integration of that shape (an asymmetrical ellipse) into many other characters (b, d, et al.) a less square proportion for the minuscules (n = c. 3h x 2w), and exploitation of the 45 degree thin stroke - I would be hard pressed to go much further. Still, those are pretty significant changes when coupled with any other modifications necessary to integrate them in an attractive hand. If pressed for a brief explanation, I don't think it would be all that wrong to say that italic is a hand which evolved around a single new character (shape), the 'a.' (Sorry, no correct representation immediately available.)

 

As I said, I'm really most interested in why Niccoli slanted the hand, which I suspect is related to why he made the other architectural changes. Speed is probably the answer, but I wonder how big a role the adoption of that single character played in the further development of what we know as italic. Sometimes a good, small idea coerces you to redesign the rest of your world.

[HDoug]

For example, Italic has nothing to do with this screen font; none the less, pressing the appropriate icon produces italic arial, which differs in no significant way other than slant from its usual form, likewise TIMES ROMAN, (this one kills me) even Book Antiqua. See where I'm going? We are either out of step or better informed.

 

Maybe you just need a computer upgrade. In both Mac OS(10.7.4) and iOS (5.1.1) the italic button in Times results in different letter forms. Note the branching arches, single storey a, and f descender:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7229/7291340812_9231bf8caa_o.jpg

 

Book Antiqua is even more different. Aside from the differences noted in Times, look at the v and ww:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8145/7291339954_4cefda37b4_o.jpg

 

I thought Cambria was interesting because the italic set even goes so far as to use an alternate g:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7213/7291341474_ce00203b4b_o.jpg

 

This might be getting even further off subject though. Maybe you ought to start a separate thread.

 

Doug

[Pincel]

"Italic handwriting doesn't have to slope," if you insist otherwise on your slanted view then you are really biased.

 

Ben

Edited May 29, 2012 by Pincel

[caliken]

The structure is not entirely different, that is gross over statement, at best.

 

Thank you for your typeset examples, Doug.

I reiterate - Whether upright or sloping, The Humanist and Italic structures are entirely different.

 

Ken

Edited May 29, 2012 by caliken

[Mickey]

For example, Italic has nothing to do with this screen font; none the less, pressing the appropriate icon produces italic arial, which differs in no significant way other than slant from its usual form, likewise TIMES ROMAN, (this one kills me) even Book Antiqua. See where I'm going? We are either out of step or better informed.

 

Maybe you just need a computer upgrade. In both Mac OS(10.7.4) and iOS (5.1.1) the italic button in Times results in different letter forms. Note the branching arches, single storey a, and f descender:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7229/7291340812_9231bf8caa_o.jpg

 

Some fonts swap to similar italic fonts, some don't (or can't). It is more application than OS dependent (probably dependent on font swap tables) For example, (in factory fresh MS Word in OSX 10.7.4) Baskerville swaps to italic, Old Baskerville merely slants. Time Roman italic is not Times Roman, at all, but a proportionally similar italic. Applications also indicate nonsensical things like Helvetica italic. (It's either one or the other.) Regardless of what shows up on the screen or page, these observations miss the point. The user interface really indicates what the common understanding is.

 

Italic sits in the same place in most word processor and text editor GUIs with the embolden, underscore, strike-through, superscript, subscript, and (sometimes) color buttons. Only one of these buttons does anything other than apply a simple transform to the selected font, and the one which acts differently, italic, acts sporadically, sometimes applying an architectural transform (slant) and sometimes performing an undocumented font swap. I would also point out that when an italic font is available, it has been, in my experience, that it is always a slanted italic. So regardless of what we know from our more enlightened positions, the general public probably thinks italic means slanted.

 

As for any contention that the structure of Humanist and Italic are entirely different: I would point out the apparent difference between humans and chimpanzees is probably greater than that between humanist and italic. (You can set the Bible in either font, but it's doubtful you'd want the chimp running the linotype. Somethings will substitute, some won't.) Yet it's doubtful anyone would claim for any reason other than religious that there are no structural similarities between human and chimp. We share common ancestors with our hairy cousins, or so my paleo-anthropologist friends tell me, just as italic does with humanist. As I said, a gross over-statement.

[HDoug]

... italic, acts sporadically, sometimes applying an architectural transform (slant) and sometimes performing an undocumented font swap.

You are referring to "fake italics" as described here in a Typography Deconstructed article:

 

Definition: While roman typefaces are upright, italic typefaces slant to the right. But rather than being just a slanted or tilted version of the roman face, a true or pure italic font is drawn from scratch and has unique features not found in the roman face.

 

Most word processing and desktop publishing programs have an option to turn a roman font into italic. If a matching italic version is installed, this may work fine. However, if an italic version is not available, some programs will create fake italics by simply slanting the roman typeface.

A typeface that is "drawn from scratch" is entirely different, no?

 

The actual typographical term for these "fake italics" is "oblique" -- itself an unfortunate term here at FPN where its meaning has been subject to much argument when applied to nibs. But this article from Fontfeed is instructive:

 

Both italics and obliques are slanted designs ... Yet there is a crucial difference. While an oblique looks like a slanted version of the roman weight, an italic has a different design.

...

As the term italic refers to a design trait rather than simply the slant of the characters it is possible to have an upright italic.

 

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8161/7297501530_de8f41fcc8_o.jpg

Your assertion that italic and humanist bookhand have common ancestors is not being disputed, but your analogy with evolution is over the top. The theory of evolution has all life plant and animal coming from a common one celled ancestor. Yet some are entirely different from others.

 

You have entered into typographical and biological matters after arguing over a variety of other issues. If you wish to argue yet something more, I encourage you to restrain yourself and start another thread where other members can join in without having to wander through the wilderness here.

 

As it is, calikenʻs statement, "Italic Handwriting Doesnʻt Have to Slope" remains true, and his examples much appreciated contributions to the FPN community.

 

Doug

Edited May 29, 2012 by HDoug

[Mickey]

I frankly don't understand the need to defend that which wasn't truly questioned, i.e., that Italic can be upright. My questions were perhaps too subtle. Why was the title "Italic Doesn't Have to Slope." Why not "Here are some lovely upright italic scripts?" Probably my worst offense was asking the question, "why did Niccoli decide to slant?"

 

The actual topic heading suggested, it seems unintentionally, a number of questions? For example, do some people believe that italic can only be slanted? (Thus they need enlightenment.) Or do some people only think of italic as being slanted? (Thus they need reeducation.) Sorry, I mistook another show and tell for an invitation to reasoned discussion. My bad.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Mickey

[HDoug]

...Why was the title "Italic Doesn't Have to Slope." Why not "Here are some lovely upright italic scripts?"

Because the original post did not contain examples.

 

...

Probably my worst offense was asking the question, "why did Niccoli decide to slant?"

To which I offered an answer here, and here, to which you took issue with here and here.

 

...The actual topic heading suggested, it seems unintentionally, a number of questions? For example, do some people believe that italic can only be slanted? (Thus they need enlightenment.) Or do some people only think of italic as being slanted?

Caliken answers those questions here.

 

...I mistook another show and tell for an invitation to reasoned discussion.

 

I do not take your participation in this thread as reasoned discussion. You present argumentative opinion with no citations and no examples. I donʻt know how other members feel about this so I could be in error, and in any case will not seek to intervene absent a complaint from a member.

 

I continue to encourage you to start a thread where you can discuss what you wish and have the participation of the other members here.

 

Doug

[melissa59]

Why was the title "Italic Doesn't Have to Slope."

 

This thread was in response a comment I made in another thread about my own handwriting.

I wrote, "I'm right handed. I have no idea why I tend to form my letters straight up and down. Sometimes, I will see a slight left slant and a slight right slant on the same line, but my words are mostly formed upright. I really hope Eager's book can help shake a lifetime of bad habits and learn some good ones."

 

In that thread, Caliken wrote, "It isn't necessary for Italic writing to be written at a slope. You haven't learned a bad habit! I'm starting a new topic to discuss this more fully."

 

I really have found this discussion interesting, on a great many levels.

[Mickey]

 

 

I do not take your participation in this thread as reasoned discussion. You present argumentative opinion with no citations and no examples. I donʻt know how other members feel about this so I could be in error, and in any case will not seek to intervene absent a complaint from a member.

 

I continue to encourage you to start a thread where you can discuss what you wish and have the participation of the other members here.

 

Doug

 

Absent some complaint from a member, your criticism and the thinly veiled threat in open forum is doubly inappropriate from someone in the moderators group.

[HDoug]

Absent some complaint from a member, your criticism and the thinly veiled threat in open forum is doubly inappropriate from someone in the moderators group.

 

The complaints here are mine and as a moderator I am being more moderate in my actions. I have not unapproved/disappeared any of your posts or issued any warning, but I do want others to know the kinds of things that will move me to do something. Primary among those is a complaint from a member. I wonʻt act automatically, but as long as others arenʻt offended I will generally let people post as they wish.

 

Just my having a complaint about your posts isnʻt sufficient for me to exercise any action against you.

 

Doug