How To Hold A Straight Pen For Copperplate

[caliken]

These instructions for holding a straight pen and writing Copperplate, are extacted from "The Art of Writing" by John Jenkins 1813.

 

When writing Copperplate with a straight pen, for the nib tines to splay evenly, the conventional tripod penhold isn't ideal, as it involves some uncomfortable contortion, which is hardly conducive to good writing. These very detailed instructions by John Jenkins, advocate a hand hold which is obviously very successful if his writing is anything to go by. This will be of particular interest on this forum, where many would like to write this style with a flexible-nibbed fountain pen. I've only had a brief attempt so far, and although it feels a bit strange, the tines do splay evenly and at the correct angle.

 

Regarding the book in general, this is the most comprehensive I've ever seen on the subject and he goes into every aspect of writing (not drawing as in Engrossers script) English Roundhand aka Copperplate.

 

His writing is truly exemplary and almost identical to the engraved 18th Century English Roundhand. In simplistic terms, his system separates the letter structures into 6 basic pen strokes. I'm not certain, but I believe that he may have been the first to advocate this method of constuction. Certainly, in his book, Dick Jackson gives credit to John Jenkins for this method which most have followed, ever since.

 

The book is available for download from IAMPETH

 

Ken

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd289/caliken_2007/Jenkinsinstructions800.jpg

Edited February 20, 2013 by caliken

[Mickey]

If I'm understanding the explanation correctly, what he suggests is pretty much what I did during for my earliest attempts at Copperplate, before I ever purchased an oblique holder. Essentially, I set the paper on the right side of the desk and turned my wrist over (anti-clockwise). The rest of the grip modification proceeded naturally from the wrist turn. This modification of page placement and grip not only pointed the nib in a more correct direction, it also lowered the angle at which the nib presented to the page, making push strokes less treacherous and snags less likely. Ultimately, I found it more comfortable and visually less challenging to sit side saddle to the desk and more upright, but other than that adaptation, this is still what I do when I write my usual Copperplate / Spencerian mish-mash with a flexible nib FP.

 

Thanks for the alerting us to the presence of this book on IAMPETH.

[caliken]

  On 2/20/2013 at 1:35 PM, Mickey said:

Thanks for the alerting us to the presence of this book on IAMPETH.

 

You're welcome. Actually, this book is a little goldmine and well worth downloading and printing off. The lettering, which is handwritten, is beautifully executed - to the same standard as the engravings in The Universal Penman IMO.

 

It sounds very similar to the straight pen technique you've been using, so you'll find it particularly interesting.

 

Ken

Edited February 20, 2013 by caliken

[thang1thang2]

I cannot seem to grasp this pose. I'm not so good with word descriptions in that regard... Would any of you who know this be so kind as to take a picture of the hand?

 

By the way. This is the download link for such lazy people as myself. http://www.iampeth.com/ADOBE_PDFs/Jenkins%20-%20Art%20of%20Writing.pdf

[WestLothian]

The full book may be browsed here Art of Writing

 

The posture description makes sense if rotating the body to have the right arm pointing to the top of the page and square to the front edge of the table.

 

This positions the left arm closest to the table and in front of the right arm forming the square - a diagram would have been very useful.

 

The engraving on page between 24 and 25 is less than helpful:

 

Edited February 20, 2013 by WestLothian

[DanF]

  On 2/20/2013 at 5:44 PM, thang1thang2 said:

I cannot seem to grasp this pose. I'm not so good with word descriptions in that regard... Would any of you who know this be so kind as to take a picture of the hand?

 

+1 for the picture request!

 

Dan

 

 

 

[Columba Livia]

The same posture and method of holding a pen(holder) continued to be used until at least the 1880s for both English Roundhand, and the semi-angular style (commonly known as Spencerian, although not the sole invention of Spencer) which developed in America. Hill's manual has good illustrations and Hill himself could obviously write both Roundhand and the Semi-Angular style:

 

http://i.imgur.com/2dre06q.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/57DKmnJ.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/aVl3sZ9.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/nB5fQFh.jpg

 

Source

Edited February 21, 2013 by Columba Livia

[Mickey]

I think the illustrations in Columba Livia's post make the point fairly well. Note the plane defined by the thumb and forefinger in the lower illustration on page 21. The plane is vertical or nearly vertical to the plane of the desk. In the modern grip, that plane is often tilted 30-45 degrees to the right, which causes the pen point to drift left of the axis defined by the forearm. "Correcting" to the more vertical position, swings the pen point well to the right. Placing the paper to the right of the body will cause the pen to swing even further, quite possibly 35 or more degrees anticlockwise from vertical (i.e., on to the Copperplate slant line).

[thang1thang2]

So basically it's not so much of holding your hand wrong, it's the fact that most people write with their arm at a 45º angle and you should write with more of a "arm straight out in front of you" angle?

[Mickey]

  On 2/21/2013 at 5:02 AM, thang1thang2 said:

So basically it's not so much of holding your hand wrong, it's the fact that most people write with their arm at a 45º angle and you should write with more of a "arm straight out in front of you" angle?

 

That and pronating the hand. The arm does not cross the body and the palm is turned down to the desk, not half open to the left. A ruler placed across the back of the wrist would be more or less level. That's my understanding.

[DanF]

Turns out that is pretty much what I've been doing. Several things about the verbal description threw me off.

 

When he said "Let the forefinger lie directly on the outward side or back part of the pen", I had no idea what he meant. To me, that would be the top, I was trying to figure out what "outward or back part" meant. I generally have the middle finger lower, so that the bottom of the pen can rest on it. Doesn't seem that makes much difference.

 

I do have a hard time with rolling the wrist over to the left so that the end of the pen points over the right shoulder, feels very unnatural, as does the arm movement from the shoulder with the mid arm braced on the desk. Makes perfect sense mechanically, but I have very little control of fine movement that way. How long does it take to get the hang of that?

 

i090000000i-00000000000000000000000000000006 2222222222E$$$$$$$$$$$lo3;/

 

My cat wanted to add that last bit; she evidently saw something that I must have missed, and felt it needed to be addressed. She's very helpful that way.

 

 

 

 

Dan

Edited February 21, 2013 by DanF

[caliken]

There is, however, one major difference between the two methods.

 

Jenkins -

 

"Let the hand be turned over to the left.......in this position, resting the hand on the inside of the wrist and the ends of the third and fourth fingers."

 

 

Hill -

 

"Rest the arm lightly upon the elbow and forearm, and the hand upon the two lower fingers....the hand is squarely on the palm and not rolled to one side. The wrist is free from the desk...."

 

 

The emboldened emphasis, is mine.

 

Jenkins' method (1813) was pre-Spencerian.

Could this change, 75 years later, in the Hill method, be a result of the emergence of Spencerian Script?

 

Ken

Edited February 21, 2013 by caliken

[Columba Livia]

Oh yeah, my mistake, for reading too quickly, on the different holds. I think this is actually the sort of hold Jenkins was describing:

 

http://i.imgur.com/M3gZhNz.jpg

^

http://www.etlettera.eu/en/node/160/detail/Planche-2

 

http://i.imgur.com/Kg4Zd65.jpg

^

http://www.etlettera.eu/en/node/156/detail/Tavola-A

^

(There seem to be 2 different holds depicted on the upper right in this one: one where the hand is on its side, and one where the hand is up on the fingers and the wrist much flatter)

 

  Quote

Could this change, 75 years later, in the Hill method, be a result of the emergence of Spencerian Script?

 

Hill mentions on one page:

 

To the Duntons, of Boston, and the late P.R Spencer, as the founders of the semi-angular penmanship, are the people indebted for the beautiful system of writing now in general use in the schools throughout the country.

^

http://archive.org/stream/manualofsochills00hillrich#page/17/mode/2up

 

I hazard that it would form a chain of influence which goes from Hill to Spencer/Dunton, then from Spencer (and presumably Dunton) to the system/s of Joseph Carstairs/James Henry Lewis (There was dispute over who taught it first) because Spencer was heavily influenced by Carstairs. One of Joseph Carstairs' pupils, Benjamin Franklin Foster c. 1830 wrote of:

 

The old method of teaching penmanship [...] that the pupil is permitted or directed to rest the wrist, and generally also the third and fourth fingers, and to execute the writing with the fingers alone

^

http://www.iampeth.com/books/foster/foster_practical_penmanship_page14.html

 

He mentions Jenkins' book so he could well have been referring to the hold Jenkins mentions:

 

Jenkins [...] published his system in 1791. He does not go into the principles of combinations in words and sentences, except in large hand. He is entitled to the merit of having given a very correct analysis of letters, useful rules of their formation and directions for the position of the body. He gave no practical rules for the attainment of a running hand, but left the pupil to subsequently practice for executing it rapidly and freely

^

http://www.iampeth.com/books/foster/foster_practical_penmanship_page8.html

Edited February 21, 2013 by Columba Livia

[Mickey]

  On 2/21/2013 at 8:03 AM, caliken said:

There is, however, one major difference between the two methods.

 

Jenkins -

 

"Let the hand be turned over to the left.......in this position, resting the hand on the inside of the wrist and the ends of the third and fourth fingers."

 

 

Hill -

 

"Rest the arm lightly upon the elbow and forearm, and the hand upon the two lower fingers....the hand is squarely on the palm and not rolled to one side. The wrist is free from the desk...."

 

 

The emboldened emphasis, is mine.

 

Jenkins' method (1813) was pre-Spencerian.

Could this change, 75 years later, in the Hill method, be a result of the emergence of Spencerian Script?

 

Ken

 

Ken,

 

As Bill Clinton might say, "It depends on what the meaning of wrist is" and, I would add, the meaning of 'rest,' as well. I believe these two quotations describe the very same approach, particularly if one presumes that 'not rest' might allow 'brush' or 'contact' but not 'lean on.' Just as easily, one might presume that 'wrist' includes the lower edge of the palm. Likewise, 'free from' does not mean 'not contacting' so much as it means 'not anchored to.' If one accepts that language is imperfect, the two descriptions could be easily interpreted as describing the same configuration. The most significant common element of both descriptions is pronation of the hand, which I believe is fairly clearly the primary intent.

 

Dan F,

 

The fingers are not as free to meddle with the palm pronated. For me, having already opted for more arm movement (whole arm, etc.), this shift was fairly easy. I've since abandoned writing shaded hands with straight pens and consequently reverted to the modern position, which serves nails and oblique holders equally well and with which I am more comfortable, having employed it most of my life.

 

Columba Livia, et al.

 

Are there any early grip illustrations (earlier than the ones presently under discussion) which clearly show the hand not pronated, i.e., in the modern manner, per Ken's avatar? My very imperfect memory doesn't recall any.

[caliken]

Columba Livia,

 

Thanks for the very comprehensive reply. It does seem to bear out my thoughts regarding the two methods. To quote your quote -

 

The old method of teaching penmanship [...] that the pupil is permitted or directed to rest the wrist, and generally also the third and fourth fingers, and to execute the writing with the fingers alone

 

It seems that Jenkins was advocating finger writing whereas Hill had moved onto the more 'modern' way of thinking, and was promoting Muscular Movement. Is this how you see it? If this is the case, finger writing doesn't seem to have done Jenkins any harm, as his English Roundhand is superb!

 

You seem to be able to dig up an answer to virtually any question that arises on the subject of lettering, which is most impressive. Have you taken up residence at the British Library?

 

Seriously, thanks for taking the time to research and for the clarification.

 

Ken

[Mickey]

  On 2/21/2013 at 2:11 PM, Columba Livia said:

http://i.imgur.com/Kg4Zd65.jpg

 

 

It's interesting, or perhaps indicative of the problems we have with historical materials. As you note, the two views of grip and hand position in the upper right do not agree. In the left view, the palm is rolled over to the right and on the right view it appears to be pronated. Likewise, the wrist is clearly rolled on the left and just as clearly pronated on the right. Note also the disparity of the positioning of the last two fingers.

 

Regarding the quoted description of 'the old method,' is it possible the implied new revelation might be nothing more than marketing hyperbola and that the 'new method' is nothing more than the 'old method' as practiced by competent practitioners and that the 'finger only' method was that practiced by failed penmen or penmen who failed to note the contribution of the arm in their writing?

 

Again, bravo for your digging in the weeds.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Mickey

[Columba Livia]

  On 2/21/2013 at 3:59 PM, Mickey said:

Regarding the quoted description of 'the old method,' is it possible the implied new revelation might be nothing more than marketing hyperbola and that the 'new method' is nothing more than the 'old method' as practiced by competent practitioners and that the 'finger only' method was that practiced by failed penmen or penmen who failed to note the contribution of the arm in their writing?

 

From reading Benjamin Franklin Foster's book, Practical Penmanship, he quotes Carstairs saying that that hitherto every good penman has had great command of movement, especially of their arm without always being aware of it, and goes on to argue that while knowledge of the form of letters is essential to good execution, so too is knowledge of the movements needed to execute them and he states that contemporary writing masters put too much emphasis on theoretical knowledge of the form of letters and neglect to provide instruction about movement/posture or provide very little and people end up writing with their fingers alone and shifting their hand about causing all sorts of problems.

 

He says that choosing between theoretical knowledge of letters form and the ability to write them, the ability to write letters (i.e movement) is more important than knowledge of their form.

 

However, he goes on to say that when people learn movement, this will cause the mind to reflect on the work of their hand: the execution of letters and so by learning movement they also learn form. Therefore, the emphasis of the teacher of writing should be on movement/execution above the form letters take, and the best way (so he argues) to teach movement/execution is by first focusing on writing solely with whole arm movement, not using fingers at all, and then allowing pupils to use fingers to execute ascenders and descenders only. The culmination should be in the pupil writing with the combined movement of the fingers and (fore) arm.

 

Pages 34 to 40 of his book:

 

http://www.iampeth.com/books/foster/foster_practical_penmanship_page25.html

 

However, as I quote below, John Jenkins mentions what is presumably combined movement:

the right arm and hand will be at perfect liberty to command the pen with freedom and ease

 

So perhaps the difference between Carstairs, Foster etc and what came before was their emphasis and focus on movement over form.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Columba Livia

[Columba Livia]

  On 2/21/2013 at 2:53 PM, caliken said:

It seems that Jenkins was advocating finger writing whereas Hill had moved onto the more 'modern' way of thinking, and was promoting Muscular Movement. Is this how you see it?

 

At first glance Jenkins appears to advocate pure finger writing, p5 of his book:

two things are absolutely necessary to be attended to, that anyone may soon become master of this art. The first is, to get a perfect idea of each principal stroke will impressed on the mind. The second is, to acquire the right motion of the fingers, or pressure of the pen, in order to draw these strokes upon the paper

However, Jenkins was aware of arm movement since on p25 of his book, he wrote:

a proper inclination of the left side of the body to the table [...] Sitting in this position the body will naturally lean on the left arm or elbow ; the natural consequence of which is, the right arm and hand will be at perfect liberty to command the pen with freedom and ease.

Compare this with what the explicit advocate of arm movement Benjamin Franklin Foster said:

if the left side of the body approach the table [...] the pupil will sit in an easy, convenient posture, and be able to write with the greatest possible expedition. Besides, by leaning on the left arm, all the movements will acquire greater precession.

^

p 48 of "Practical Penmanship"

 

I think one of the major things which changed, in America, between Jenkins and Hill was the emphasis on movement, especially arm movement to the eventual (in theory) exclusion of finger movement. In the late 18th century, Jenkins emphasises knowledge of form (quoted above) as the most important thing, along with correct finger movement, but by the late 19th century:

Movement is the true foundation upon which to build, if a rapid practical style of writing is desired, and, as the muscular is the only movement adapted to business writing, as well as the best movement for nearly every style of ornamental writing [...] muscular movement as applied to writing is the movement of the muscles of the arm from the shoulder to the wrist while keeping the position of the arm just forward of the elbow stationary on the desk : the fingers, while not being held rigidly remain passive

^

Austin Norman Palmer, "Palmer's Guide To Business Writing", 1894

^

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/gdc/scd0001/2006/20060809007pa/20060809007pa.pdf

 

In addition, I checked American Penmanship 1800 to 1850 and it has an appendix on John Jenkins which mentions that Jenkins received endorsements for his teaching and books from from John Adams, second president of the United States, amongst other American luminaries of the day. The original price for his book, when first published in 1792, was three shillings or two shillings and sixpence if you bought 12+ copies.

 

Enoch Noyes (whose book appears on IAMPETH) was a successful penman and teacher who was well known throughout New England. In 1829, both he and Benjamin Franklin Foster applied for the job of writing master at the Albany Female Academy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Academy_for_Girls

 

Noyes asked for a salary of $600 per year but Foster undercut him by asking for $400 and got the job. At that time, Foster was only 26 years old and just starting his career as a penman and teacher, whereas Noyes was well established with books published in Boston.

 

Benjamin Franklin Foster went on to be very successful and he died in 1857 having sold over 2 million copybooks and was known in America, England and France as a teacher of book-keeping and penmanship. He may have been born in the state of Maine.

 

  On 2/21/2013 at 2:53 PM, caliken said:

You seem to be able to dig up an answer to virtually any question that arises on the subject of lettering, which is most impressive. Have you taken up residence at the British Library?

 

Seriously, thanks for taking the time to research and for the clarification.

 

Ken

 

Thanks. It's all down to scanned in books made available on the internet, some old books purchased through in the internet and photocopies from the Bodlian library.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Columba Livia

[Penne Stilografiche]

It's kinda sad that I've been holding my pen wrong for all these years...

[Mickey]

  On 2/21/2013 at 8:03 AM, caliken said:

There is, however, one major difference between the two methods.

 

Jenkins -

 

"Let the hand be turned over to the left.......in this position, resting the hand on the inside of the wrist and the ends of the third and fourth fingers."

 

 

Hill -

 

"Rest the arm lightly upon the elbow and forearm, and the hand upon the two lower fingers....the hand is squarely on the palm and not rolled to one side. The wrist is free from the desk...."

 

 

The emboldened emphasis, is mine.

 

Jenkins' method (1813) was pre-Spencerian.

Could this change, 75 years later, in the Hill method, be a result of the emergence of Spencerian Script?

 

Ken

 

Pardon me if I'm a little tardy with this, but while reviewing the thread, it struck me that the two positions described above are virtually identical, not in conflict at all. If we rewrite the Jenkins to read

 

"Let the hand be turned over to the left.......in this position, ...the inside of the wrist and the ends of the third and fourth fingers brushing the page."

and the Hill to

 

"Rest the arm lightly upon the elbow and forearm, and the hand upon the two lower fingers....the hand is squarely on the palm and not rolled to one side. The heel of the hand not resting on the desk...."

 

Note, with the elbow and forearm already on the desk, it is nearly impossible to put the nib, the last two fingers, AND the wrist on the desk at the same time with a conventional grip. The original statement therefore does not make good physiological sense if interpreted literally.

 

So, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of 'wrist' is. If Jenkins really meant the base of the thumb, rather than the inside of the wrist, and Hill is mostly concerned that palm be parallel to the desk and heel of the hand not be anchored to the desk, they are recommending the exact same hand position.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Mickey