Script Vs Cursive

[brokenclay]

Might be a good idea to look at a variety of school scripts. Your age and where you went to school will provide a guess as to what sort of cursive you may have been taught in school.

 

Lots of examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_script

 

 

[A Smug Dill]

Lots of examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_script

 

Very useful reference, especially since it isn't country-centric in the overview. Thanks!

[ParramattaPaul]

Rosemary Sassoon's book, Handwriting in the Twentieth Century, is an excellent reference about what was and is taught globally. Her other books offer instruction and some background information worth exploring also.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Handwriting-Twentieth-Century-Rosemary-Sassoon/dp/1841501786/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=rosemary+sassoon+handwriting+in+the+20th+century&qid=1603840800&sr=8-4

Edited October 27, 2020 by ParramattaPaul

[sansenri]

Interesting thanks, pity Italy is not mentioned.

As you can see from the alphabet I posted, with Corsivo Italiano, besides being mostly upright and not slanted, the main differences are also in the capital letters, notably D, B, P, R, H and few others

[Mysterious Mose]

Might be a good idea to look at a variety of school scripts. Your age and where you went to school will provide a guess as to what sort of cursive you may have been taught in school.

 

Lots of examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_script

 

 

I was taught writing by hand in the early 50's. According to this wikipedia article, the Palmer method was used then. I was taught in a New York City Public School, so I don't think they would have used any unconventional method.

[Mercian]

this below is perhaps the most widely used "script" in Italy (by correct definition )

it's cursive, it's called Corsivo Italiano (or also often Corsivo Tondo)

and is possibly a type of Roundhand? typically letters are not slanted

 

cursive with slanted letters is called Corsivo Inglese (English cursive)...

 

That last statement is fascinating - after all, we in England call cursive with slanted letters ‘Italic’ (cursive in the Italian style).

[txomsy]

Wow! This should keep me busy for a while.

 

Engrosser's script is out because I want to use nibs that write the same width regardless of direction. Copperplate - English Round Hand has too many flourishes.

 

I want to write so as to express my ideas. I don't want to spend a lot of time embellishing the letters. That's calligraphy, which I'm not interested in now. I want to focus on the letters.

In the end it is about the shape of the letters. You do not need width variation necessarily. That is, you can just take the shapes of the letters and connections and, instead of "drawing" them as described in the manuals, write them continuously as they look using a ballpoint if you wish. They will still look readable and elegant, only they will lack the line variation.

 

Actually, I think people who like these scripts do exactly that: when consciously writing, slowly draw the letters, when taking notes, just write all connected in a continuous trait (only stopping to go back to "dot your i's and cross your t's") without any care for line variation, with a light hand to write fast.

 

As a matter of fact, those styles were developed and intended to be written everyday, as fast and often with as few pen rises as possible. It was when they were drawn for illustration of books for showing off (and enticing customers) that the "calligraphic" version developed, and then that became popular for its looks.... etc.

 

I've seen textbooks on calligraphy/writing (19th-20th centuries) argue heavily about different writing styles, vertical or slanted, english or italic, and, interestingly, flex vs. italic nibs. Defenders of italic nibs used to say you'd get line variation without intentionality, which allowed you to concentrate in writing instead of letter shape, achieving more "cursiveness" (speed of writing) without sacrificing character (variation and "perceived beauty"). The point, as you see was often more on "cursiveness" and readability than on letter shapes. Which is what you want.

 

So, just pick any style you like and go with it. Do it with flat edged or pointed pen, flexible or not, ballpoint, felt-tip, ..., it doesn't matter. What does is spacing and consistency of the letters (to ease reading) and uniformity.

Edited October 28, 2020 by txomsy

[sansenri]

 

That last statement is fascinating - after all, we in England call cursive with slanted letters ‘Italic’ (cursive in the Italian style).

you are quite right, obviously in old Europe all these thing sort of mingle back to the origins of western writing with the Fenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, etc.

I think what we here call Corsivo Inglese probably corresponds to Copperplate.

as it is known the British took some forms of Italian and also French writing and simplified the signs (although maintaining elegance) so that this writing could be used easily for business and commerce with good readability.

[ParramattaPaul]

you are quite right, obviously in old Europe all these thing sort of mingle back to the origins of western writing with the Fenicians, the Greeks, the Romans, etc.

I think what we here call Corsivo Inglese probably corresponds to Copperplate.

as it is known the British took some forms of Italian and also French writing and simplified the signs (although maintaining elegance) so that this writing could be used easily for business and commerce with good readability.

The BBC show about handwriting makes the point that using the Roman alphabet allowed the use of the Gutenberg and evolved printing presses and the introduction of paper, a Chinese invention, by the Moors allowed the vast technological and academic growth of post-medieval Western Europe.

[brokenclay]

I found this resource from Pelikan (yes! fountain pens!) for German school script fonts (and some other goofy stuff): https://www.pelikan.com/pulse/Pulsar/de_DE.CMS.displayCMS.209793./schriften (in German; the US version of the website only has the hieroglyph font).

[Mysterious Mose]

Here is a sample of my writing.

 

Specifications: Sheaffer Prelude pen with M nib, Montblanc Mystery Black ink, Rhodia A4 80g/m^2 blank paper.

It looks like I’m using my version of Palmer method font (script? Typeface?).

 

I see the following problems: I seem to be drifting upwards as a write along a line. My “x” and “j” have problems in that I lift the pen up in the middle of these letters. I cross the “x” and dot the “j”. I don’t have that problem with “i” or “t”. I leave gaps inside letters, especially Capitals.

 

I intend to use lined or dot-grid paper. That should limit the drifting upward and should help with positioning. I’ll try to write deliberately and address the above-mentioned problems. I also want to work with a book.

 

Does this look like Palmer? Any suggestions on improving my handwriting? Can you recommend books?

 

 

[txomsy]

Can't see the picture any more, but...

Once you have some control of the form, it may be time to move on and become your own master. I've often seen lots of advice on paper, pen, hand, body position, movement... only to see it later proposed differently by a different master in a different book. It is not just the style demanding a different technique, but I think rather that it is the master adapting the styles he learnt to his own taste and idiosincracy.

What I mean...

If you tend to drift while writing, why not try to change the slant of the paper sheet to accommodate it. Your drift means that for you there is a preferred writing direction, so why not adapt the paper position (which is trivial) instead of your comfort?

A different issue may be that sometimes one starts straight and then moves away from the (ideal?) baseline. This is easier to correct by staying away from the paper: many prefer to look closely at their writing to heed detail, but then lose the big picture. Staying a bit farther will give it to you and unconsciously you will automatically correct the drift. You'll also see less detail, but as I said, once you have basic control, you can pay less attention to shape and more to the picture. It is still advisable to go back over the text later to spot defects needing correction.

I like uniformity in shapes and lines... but when I see "modern calligraphy", which keeps constant none, I feel that maybe it is not that important if the ensemble looks good. Again the large picture. But then, here, YMMV.

[Mysterious Mose]

1 hour ago, txomsy said:

Can't see the picture any more, but...

Once you have some control of the form, it may be time to move on and become your own master. I've often seen lots of advice on paper, pen, hand, body position, movement... only to see it later proposed differently by a different master in a different book. It is not just the style demanding a different technique, but I think rather that it is the master adapting the styles he learnt to his own taste and idiosincracy.

What I mean...

If you tend to drift while writing, why not try to change the slant of the paper sheet to accommodate it. Your drift means that for you there is a preferred writing direction, so why not adapt the paper position (which is trivial) instead of your comfort?

A different issue may be that sometimes one starts straight and then moves away from the (ideal?) baseline. This is easier to correct by staying away from the paper: many prefer to look closely at their writing to heed detail, but then lose the big picture. Staying a bit farther will give it to you and unconsciously you will automatically correct the drift. You'll also see less detail, but as I said, once you have basic control, you can pay less attention to shape and more to the picture. It is still advisable to go back over the text later to spot defects needing correction.

I like uniformity in shapes and lines... but when I see "modern calligraphy", which keeps constant none, I feel that maybe it is not that important if the ensemble looks good. Again the large picture. But then, here, YMMV.

Txomsy, thanks for your response.

 

Here are samples of my writing.  These are pangrams, alternatives to "The quick brown fox... ."

 

I've come a long way since starting this thread.  I've bought and am working through Michael Sull, American Cursive Handwriting, Brenna Jordan, The Lost Art of Handwriting and Austin Palmer, The Palmer Method of Business Writing.  I'm also using about a dozen books I downloaded from IAMPETH.  I even spoke with Michael Sull.  He advised me that American Cursive Handwriting and The Art of Cursive Penmanship are pretty much the same except for format.  He also said my penmanship is pretty good.  It's legible.

 

The main thing I've found is that my hand\arm position could use improvement.  I've been writing leaning on the side of my right hand wrist.  I'm working on gliding on the nails of my last two fingers, keeping my wrist off the table, and leaning on my forearm.  I can see that this change will improve my writing flexibility.

 

I've submitted some writing samples to the other forum under the penname kaliuzhkin.  "A thread written entirely in fountain pen"

[Mysterious Mose]

P.S. The most frustrating aspect of using different penmanship resources is that they differ in letter size and spacing.  Palmer uses 1/9" spacing, Sull uses 1/8" and 1/16", and Jordan uses 4mm.  I hafta use different stock of paper for each of them.

[Mysterious Mose]

1 hour ago, Mysterious Mose said:

P.S. The most frustrating aspect of using different penmanship resources is that they differ in letter size and spacing.  Palmer uses 1/9" spacing, Sull uses 1/8" and 1/16", and Jordan uses 4mm.  I hafta use different stock of paper for each of them.

Correction: It's Spencer, not Palmer, who uses 1/9" spacing.

[txomsy]

I'm not an expert or teacher or calligrapher or whatnot... so take anything I say with a cartload (and not just a grain) of salt, and in so doing, remember that so much salt may be actually harmful.

 

It looks to me like you tend to be more prone to vertical writing. Personally, I find -and don't ask me why- that slanted writing is faster for me (though arguably it should be the opposite) yet my letter shapes "flow" better in vertical. What I want to say is that -in my ignorant's opinion- we (WARNING: heresy ahead!) are not all born equal and have each different preferences, and what works for one may not work for others, and even more, that one may prefer (and enjoy) disparately different styles.

 

So, setting aside that I wholeheartedly applaud your interest in improving, I would say, do not try to stick to any one specific (or more than one) style, do not be afraid to mix them if that looks (or feels) better for you as long as you perceive it as an improvement (in readability, aesthetics, comfort, whatever...). Do not discard vertical or slanted writing without trying both. Who said you cannot use, say "Spencerian shading" (I mean the thin/thick play) vertically?

 

Or backwards slanted for that, if you like it more? Around here, when I was young, it was usual that men would slant forwards (top to the right) and women backwards (top to the left). When I started looking at the books by the masters of yonder I found they would provide samples of any (backward, vertical or forward slanted) indistinctly. Thus, you can write slanted in any direction, inclination, whatever, if you like it best...

 

For me, the baseline is that it is not really about a given shape or using/following any one canonical script, but about readability and aesthetics (which each one will value differently). And if it is going to be subjective in the end, then why not aim for something you like and are comfortable with?

 

But remember: I am NOT any expert to guide by.

[Pointyscratchy]

I've been using Mr Sulls book.I've had a few goes over the last few years.The alphabet i use is a lot like the Italian one shown above.I actually had a psychological problem, I didn't like my handwriting so I didn't like myself.My writing has improved and I'm pleased.

 

Your point txmoy about not being an expert etc well ditto all that qualification.But I did find what thought were a few faults with Mr Sulls script.My s's were better than his- his lower case t's do not go as high as an l or any of the other ascenders and he didn't say why- his m's are lopsided with the second arch being lower.Are these bad habits that have crept in?- or my ignorance of handwriting grammar?

 

In his CV he was the top handwriting at Hallmark cards for a long time, as well as being President Reagans personal advisor on all things handwriting.He was taught by masters and did all he could/can to promote cursive.I loved his book-paid full price off amazon- so I do not mean to carp or, if he happens to read this, insult.

[arcfide]

28 minutes ago, Pointyscratchy said:

I've been using Mr Sulls book.I've had a few goes over the last few years.The alphabet i use is a lot like the Italian one shown above.I actually had a psychological problem, I didn't like my handwriting so I didn't like myself.My writing has improved and I'm pleased.

 

Your point txmoy about not being an expert etc well ditto all that qualification.But I did find what thought were a few faults with Mr Sulls script.My s's were better than his- his lower case t's do not go as high as an l or any of the other ascenders and he didn't say why- his m's are lopsided with the second arch being lower.Are these bad habits that have crept in?- or my ignorance of handwriting grammar?

 

In his CV he was the top handwriting at Hallmark cards for a long time, as well as being President Reagans personal advisor on all things handwriting.He was taught by masters and did all he could/can to promote cursive.I loved his book-paid full price off amazon- so I do not mean to carp or, if he happens to read this, insult.

 

I think I can help clarify a few things there. 

 

Modern cursive scripts have a tendency, on the whole, to be based around simplification of the rules of letter forms, in an effort to reduce teaching time. One of the ways that they do this is by simplifying the rules for ascenders and descenders, and sometimes by exaggerating or otherwise changing some of the more "derived" script forms, such as s, r, or f. 

 

All of our current modern handwriting can trace its original roots and lineage back to the Italian writing renaissance that eventually became the Chancery Italic script. You can read Arrighi's original 1522 treatise on something close to this hand. It is to my knowledge the oldest handwriting manual for the Latin script. 

 

In this earlier form, based on even older forms and movements, we find the motions for how we currently do the miniscule letters, including a, s, t, and so on. A few strokes have changed in modern times. Apropos to your comments above, in this early Italic form, there were multiple different descenders and ascenders, particularly in height. The lower case t used to be written very, very short, only just enough to not be confused with a c. Additionally, the ascenders for h, l, k, and so forth, were all written much higher, higher even than the capital letters. 

 

If you look carefully at many modern fonts, you will see that the lowercase t is still rendered shorter than the ascenders for other letters like l and k. See bdfhklt . 

 

The English roundhand forms introduced a stronger unification of the general shapes of many descenders and ascenders, but it generally keeps the short t. 

 

Spencerian expanded and simplified the capital letters of roundhand, which were somewhat more ornate and traditional, by introducing a number of sweeping forms and a slightly different take on shading. However, Spencerian retained the long ascenders and descenders, with short t's that were characteristic of forms all the way back to Arrighi. 

 

Around this time, Ornamental penmanship became very popular, and many different variations of letter forms were found, especially for capital letters. One of the forms that became more popular over time for its ease of writing and the speed with which it could be written was the capital M with sloping arches. 

 

By the time Palmer came on the scene and popularized one of a few different varieties of monoline cursive, The sloping M was already very popular and had the benefits of an excellent rhythm. It was taken up as one of the standard forms and survived through the reformations of penmanship that endured after this. Palmer also retained the short t with long ascenders in other letters, but Zaner-Bloser around that time was beginning to introduce a trend that would dominate after Palmer fell away as the dominate form. 

 

Zaner-Bloser introduced a script that began to shorten the ascenders and descenders, thus in fact increasing the x-height of the letters. This trend has increased over time, with most modern alphabets, especially those designed for screen reading or to be easily taught and read, having very high x-heights, but relatively short ascenders and descenders. This is true of modern Zaner-Bloser, D'Nealian, Getty-Dubay, Briem, Smithhand, and the German and Russian scripts as well as the English vertical writing and other forms of English cursive. 

 

When ascenders were much longer in running cursive hands, such as Spencerian or Roundhand, the loops in the forms enabled a graceful trail of the pen up to avoid the nib catching, to avoid ink globs, and to empower the very long, straight downstroke that was desired. The lowercase t, if extended so high as an l, for instance, would either have had to be looped in order to keep the pen on the page and avoid nib catches and globs, or it would have been relatively hard to write without accident in a straight up and down form. If written looped like an l, and at the same height, the single cross would have been little consolation for readability. However, when kept shorter than an l, it could be written without a loop with less chance of error. You'll also note that Spencerian and other traditional forms have a shade on the lowercase t, even if they don't on some other shorter letters. 

 

So, having the t shorter than l and other looped ascenders helped in readability, and was also historically accurate with respect to the Italic hands. 

 

But then we got writing implements such as upturned steel dip pens and round, ballpointed dip pens, as well as ballpoint fountain pens and what we now think of as the ballpoint pen. We also began reducing the size of the ascenders significantly. All of these were much more reliable at writing single monolines in all directions versus the more traditional quills or needlepointed nibs. As the business needs demanded increased speed of writing, the writing adapted to the technology to be more efficient. 

 

In this case, with shorter ascenders, the loops are no longer necessary, especially with modern tools, as you can write them well without needing the loops, but many scripts still retain the loops. What this allowed, though, was for educators to extend the height of the t up to the same height as the rest of the ascenders, with the l looped, and the t crossed. They also brought the capital letters to the same height as the ascenders. This created a single unified "top line" where previously there would have been 3 top lines: long ascender, capital, and t line. This made it easier to teach as the number of rules to remember about the letters was reduced. 

 

In the modern Italic revival found in programs such as Getty-Dubay or Briem, the choice has been to shorten the ascenders even more, and remove the loops, but in exchange for this, return to the original shortened t of Arrighi's Italic forms. This creates a very clean form without the loops that is highly legible and compact at all sizes, but requires that you are using modern monoline or edged pen tools capable of writing these lines well, or slow down.

 

Other modern penman like Sull have revived the Palmer-esque and Spencerian monoline forms, extending the ascenders and descenders to grant a little more grace to the forms, while reintroducing the shortened t, which is more practical when you have longer looped ascenders. Sull also reintroduces the subtly heightened r and s forms, which is traditional for American Cursive. 

 

I hope this clarifies a little bit why Sull is doing what he's doing! The short of it is that he's not making mistakes about his letter forms, but he's making subtle and careful nods to the traditional American forms, preserving an aspect of traditional letter forms which has been dropped in some modern American cursive scripts. 

[Pointyscratchy]

Brilliant reply.Astonishing depth of knowledge Arcfid,thanks. I feel like a mouse that squeaked and got a lions roar back in reply- but in a good way.My compliments on your erudition.

[OleJuul]

Here is Western Canada I learnt the MacLean Method of Writing in the early 60s. Interestingly we didn't use the words "cursive" or "script" in school here in those days. The applicable words were "writing" or "printing".