Flourish Forum
General Categories => Copperplate, Engrosser's Script, Roundhand Calligraphy => Topic started by: Ken Fraser on August 08, 2016, 07:25:37 AM
-
The history of the writing styles, English Roundhand, also known as Copperplate
and its descendant American Engraver’s or Engrosser’s Script has been covered
in depth many times elsewhere. My purpose here, isn’t to go over old ground
yet again, but to attempt to demonstrate, with a couple of examples, some of the
differences between them as this still seems to be a subject of some confusion.
I decided that it would be best to write the same words in the two styles for direct
comparison. Also, they were written at the same x height and with the same
Esterbrook 357 nib in an oblique holder.
The example of English Roundhand here, is my attempt to simulate the lettering
in the 18th century “The Universal Penman”. The Engrosser’s Script example is
an attempt to copy the style of writing which can be found on the IAMPETH site.
The shaded downstrokes are wider in Engrosser’s Script and the ascender and
descender loops are much wider as is the lettering, overall. As a result this script
takes up markedly more horizontal space on the page.
Comparing the looped letters h in both examples highlights a major difference.
In Roundhand the downstroke is straight and evenly weighted from top to bottom
as soon as the turn has been completed.
In Engrosser’s Script, the downstroke tapers from top to bottom.
There are no tapered straight strokes in Copperplate.
Comparing the letters n.
In Engrosser’s Script, the upstroke hairline avoids touching the preceding shaded
downstroke. This is to avoid carry wet ink up into the hairline.
This practice isn’t followed in Copperplate where the hairline branches from the
shaded downstroke much higher than in Engrosser’s Script and emerges smoothly
with no break. This difference applies to all similar letters. There are, however,
examples of Copperplate where this separation of main stroke and hairline occurs,
but this is a deviation from the original style under discussion, here.
There are, of course, other differences but these are the main ones.
Engraver’s or Engrosser’s Script is sufficiently different to its progenitor, Copperplate
(English Roundhand) to warrant the difference in designations.
Engrosser’s Script is easiest found and studied on the IAMPETH site. There are
several excellent historic examples and the modern, extensive work on the subject
by Dr Joe Vitolo is a wonderful resource.
Copperplate is also covered to an extent on IAMPETH but the monumental “The
Universal Penman” produced in the 18th century, remains the best source for study.
As this lettering is intended as exemplars, it has been written slowly and carefully
and retouched where necessary.
(https://theflourishforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi226.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd289%2Fcaliken_2007%2FFlourishing%2520Penmanship%2520650.jpg&hash=18b2076e5e67094bf801dc279da5e379)
-
Thanks Ken! what are some of the differences between majuscules of Engrosser's & ER?
-
Thanks Ken! what are some of the differences between majuscules of Engrosser's & ER?
There are some differences between the two, but nothing of any great importance and both sets can be interchanged effectively IMO.
-
Thanks Ken! what are some of the differences between majuscules of Engrosser's & ER?
There are some differences between the two, but nothing of any great importance and both sets can be interchanged effectively IMO.
Interchanged much like the way Madarasz used Spencerian maj and Copperplate min? Hybrid evolutions are my favorites!
-
Interchanged much like the way Madarasz used Spencerian maj and Copperplate min? Hybrid evolutions are my favorites!
Here's my take on the Spencerian/Copperplate hybrid concept.
http://theflourishforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=2509.0
-
Beautiful script as always, Ken! But I would argue that what you've written in your Engrosser's Script example is actually a hybrid style somewhere between English Roundhand and Engrosser's, and much closer to the former.
Probably the most fundamental difference between Engrosser's and E.R. is that each stroke is executed in isolation, with the pen being lifted at both the headline and the baseline (some penmen would, on occasion, forego lifting at the headline, but I'm talking here about Engrosser's in its purest form). This tends to result in a much more regimented, repetitive structure to the script than the more free-flowing movements of E.R. From analysis of hundreds of exemplars, pen lifts are the defining characteristic of Engrosser's Script, without which it loses its distinct and unique character.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts! :)
-
Beautiful script as always, Ken! But I would argue that what you've written in your Engrosser's Script example is actually a hybrid style somewhere between English Roundhand and Engrosser's, and much closer to the former.
Probably the most fundamental difference between Engrosser's and E.R. is that each stroke is executed in isolation, with the pen being lifted at both the headline and the baseline (some penmen would, on occasion, forego lifting at the headline, but I'm talking here about Engrosser's in its purest form). This tends to result in a much more regimented, repetitive structure to the script than the more free-flowing movements of E.R. From analysis of hundreds of exemplars, pen lifts are the defining characteristic of Engrosser's Script, without which it loses its distinct and unique character.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts! :)
Thanks for your input, Andrew.
In writing or drawing any script, I am in favour of continuous strokes wherever possible, with pen lifts only when absolutely necessary. In this way, I am of the opinion that the natural flow of the lettering is maintained as much as possible.
I'd like to cite Dr Joe Vitolo's excellent and thorough analysis of Engrosser's script. He advocates a continuous, unbroken stroke when going from a shaded downstroke into a hairline upstroke.
I can see no advantage in constant, unnecessary stopping and starting when writing, thereby disrupting the flow.
My Engrosser's Script is based on many examples, and to my eye, is quite different from its progenitor, English Roundhand.
Ken
-
I can see no advantage in constant, unnecessary stopping and starting when writing, thereby disrupting the flow.
That's the significance of the lifts, it is not a matter of stopping and starting but a metronome with which the rhythm of the script is established. The benefit comes from the angular interior structure necessary to execute historic (Zanerian) Engrosser's Script. Though Joe's analysis is thorough, the Zanerian Manual remains the purest representation of Engrosser's Script as it was being taught and used in the early 20th century. As you likely know, the Zanerian manual advocates lifting at the baseline (Page 3, fig. 1).
You mention that your sample here is based on many samples, I'm curious if this may be a case of you studying from one penman, while Andrew and I are studying from another. What examples would you say are most indicative of the style that you've included here?
-
Andrew & David,
I bow to your more thorough knowledge of the origins of Engraver's Script.
I am self-taught in this, as in other scripts, and having read through the Zanerian instructions,
and having looked at various examples via IAMPETH, I settled on Joe Vitolo's version as being the most suitable for me to study.
Just a side note regarding Engraver's Script :-
I do think that it's unfortunate that, in the Zanerian instructions, no mention is made of its predecessor, English Roundhand. Although it's closely related to ER being descended from it ::), it's as though the style emerged one day, fully formed from thin air! :-\
Ken
-
I do think that it's unfortunate that, in the Zanerian instructions, no mention is made of its predecessor, English Roundhand. Although it's closely related to ER being descended from it ::), it's as though the style emerged one day, fully formed from thin air! :-\
It does seem that way from a modern perspective, doesn't it? It's more likely a case of something being left unsaid because it was too obvious to be worth mentioning though, I reckon. Roundhand was ubiquitous in the US prior to the emergence of a distinctive American handwriting, and there were certainly manuals (Carstairs', Jenkins' and Huntington's, for example) in circulation setting out the English style. In the penmanship literature of the mid and later 19th century one occasionally comes across references to "the old roundhand" with no further explanation, so it seems that it was still very familiar.
Incidentally, doesn't that "English" rankle, just a little? ;)
-
It does seem that way from a modern perspective, doesn't it? It's more likely a case of something being left unsaid because it was too obvious to be worth mentioning though, I reckon.
You could be right....but I doubt it! :-\
-
Incidentally, doesn't that "English" rankle, just a little? ;)
My father was Scottish and my mother was English, so as a half-breed I've no problem with the English...although I was born in Scotland!
In fact, I'm happy just to consider myself British. Life's much simpler that way! :)
Ken
-
In fact, I'm happy just to consider myself British. Life's much simpler that way! :)
Same here ... my family seems to have come from the borders anyway, back in the dim and distant, and probably weren't picky about whether they stole English or Scottish cattle. :)
-
In fact, I'm happy just to consider myself British. Life's much simpler that way! :)
Same here ... my family seems to have come from the borders anyway, back in the dim and distant, and probably weren't picky about whether they stole English or Scottish cattle. :)
As a fellow Brit, when and how did you first become interested in this essentially American deviation? I first became aware of it and started learning it, as recently as ten years ago.
As far as I know, this Script is virtually unknown outside the USA. In my collection of calligraphy books, I've never even seen it mentioned in passing, and it was only with the emergence of the internet that I learned of its existence! :o
-
I don't know that I'd call it a deviation - just another (rather brash) expression of the Roundhand aesthetic, surely?!
Anyway, it's not an interest of mine as such, but in the course of researching American handwriting in general it inevitably popped up ... I reckon I can probably identify it correctly nine times out of ten, but wouldn't go any further than that. My focus is entirely on Spencerian and OP as far as pointed pen goes: more deviancy. ;)
-
Love you examples as alway, @Ken Fraser !
Regarding the issue with the pen lifts, I found this in the New Zanerian Alphabets:
"Raise the pen often; as often as indicated. These plates were prepared for the purpose of revealing rather than concealing pen liftings and joinings. For that reason they appear broken and unfinished, but they tell the truths of execution." (page 6)
I think that means that the little gaps on the baseline and between parts of letters are for explanation – and not meant to be written like that.
I also think it does not matter how often one raises the pen – as long as the outcome is beautiful. As different as people are, as different their way and method to produce beautiful letters may be. There are also different ways to develop a rhythm in writing, @Masgrimes – I personally find the pen lifting on a downstroke only helpful when it's a stem (like the first downstroke on a "n"), but not in an oval or a compound curve (like the second downstroke in the "n"). Like Ken said, for me it also disrupts the flow and feels just weird and uncomfortable.
Regarding the use of the words Roundhand or Engrosser's Script … I find that Mr. Zaner uses them interchangeably, and he does say it has historical roots:
"Reviving interest in Round or Engrossing Script means that some things are good even if they are old. This style of writing attained a very high degree of perfection in beauty and skill in the sevententh century. During the first half of the present century it was superseded by our light-line, semi-commercial hand. But the latter proved too weak for true ornament and too difficult for practical purposes […]." (page 12)
"Roundhand is the highest art in the matter of script forms. […] No style is so widely admired by educated people as Roundhand. It has continued in use with but slight modifications for three centuries." (page 5)
So maybe we can all just settle on that these are variations … some people like the one form more, others prefer the other, or the style the Spanish calligrapher Valliciergo developed from Roundhand as his "Caligrafía inglesa". And there are so many other variations of Roundhand over the centuries, from French, German, Dutch, Italian etc. writig masters … I don't like to put one over the other as most pure or true. Except maybe that the Universal Penman laid the ground for all the later styles ;). Which does not mean that everybody has to like it the most.
Sorry for the rant ;D.
Maybe I finish with that quote by Zaner, which I probably like the most:
"Experiment. Do good work in your own way, learning as much as possible from this and other sources." (page 8 )
-
I don't like to put one over the other as most pure or true. [...] Which does not mean that everybody has to like it the most.
Now that's a statement I go along with entirely. Whereas:
"Roundhand is the highest art in the matter of script forms.
Pfft. That's all those old Italian guys told, then. >:(
-
"Roundhand is the highest art in the matter of script forms.
Pfft. That's all those old Italian guys told, then. >:(
I hope you know that I would never say something like that, @AndyT :)!!! I was just quoting to show what Zaner thought about Roundhand.
I don't like these sorts of exclusionary statements. We are talking about aesthetics here, and they are subjective. How boring if everyone thought the same kind of script the most beautiful. Also how boring if no scribe had ever changed the exemplar that was given to him by a teacher – we'd have but two or three scripts in Western Writing since Roman times ;).
-
I hope you know that I would never say something like that. :)!!!
Of course I do!
There's always room for a bit of good natured teasing, but the whole hierarchy of scripts thing is so 14th century. ;)
-
Reviving interest in Round or Engrossing Script means that some things are good even if they are old.
Nice of him to acknowledge that something might be good, even if its old!! :o
-
Reviving interest in Round or Engrossing Script means that some things are good even if they are old.
Nice of him to acknowledge that something might be good, even if its old!! :o
Hehe, isn't it?! I guess it's a good testimony of the spirit of the times – industrialization, discovery of the American West, things new and exiting ;) ...
-
Just a side note regarding Engraver's Script :-
I do think that it's unfortunate that, in the Zanerian instructions, no mention is made of its predecessor, English Roundhand. Although it's closely related to ER being descended from it ::), it's as though the style emerged one day, fully formed from thin air! :-\
Ken
Hey Ken!
Well, it's been several years since this thread was discussed, but I thought I'd follow up on it anyway. I'm just getting back into the forum. Please excuse my tardiness!
In regards to your statement quoted above: Both the first and second edition of the Zanerian Manual contain a plate from William Milnes' The Penman's Repository (1775) clearly establishing a pedigree for the Engrosser's Script as a derivation of its English counterpart. In my opinion, this is a full acknowledgment that the style had not 'emerged from thin air'.
p.12 The Zanerian Manual (1918)
In regards to Estafa's thoughts:
I think that means that the little gaps on the baseline and between parts of letters are for explanation – and not meant to be written like that.
I also think it does not matter how often one raises the pen – as long as the outcome is beautiful. As different as people are, as different their way and method to produce beautiful letters may be. There are also different ways to develop a rhythm in writing, @Masgrimes – I personally find the pen lifting on a downstroke only helpful when it's a stem (like the first downstroke on a "n"), but not in an oval or a compound curve (like the second downstroke in the "n"). Like Ken said, for me it also disrupts the flow and feels just weird and uncomfortable.
There certainly are different ways to develop rhythm while writing. Perhaps my previous statement is oversimplified. The benefit of lifting the pen is not to increase speed or comfort but to increase accuracy. My Engrosser's Script does not personally flow so much as it tumbles. Certain stroke combinations require less delay between lift and subsequent execution. The timing of stroke placement is not so much 1-1-1-1 as it might be 123--1234--123--1-12-123. Was this how historic penmen wrote? Likely not. Unfortunately the only instruction I know of that covers this type of theory is for practical writing.
I also think we should hesitate to utilize Zaner as a model for all things roundhand. The thinking/execution between Zaner's material and Lupfer's is significant enough that we should consider their words and plates distinctly. Vitolo (and indeed all of us that have stemmed from his influence) tends to write much more akin to Lupfer than we did to Zaner (Roundhand/ES, anyway.)
Considering your suggestion that the lifts are only visible in educational material, I can say from first-hand experience this is not the case. I have original specimens from Howe, Lupfer, Norder etc. that are all meant for professional reproduction or personal correspondence that all contain visible lifts. This was a hallmark of the style and a natural byproduct of the baseline lift.
For 'display' script (script to be prepared at size without reduction), these penmen would often retouch their materials prior to handing off to the engraver. This would include filling in small gaps at the baseline left as a result of the pen lifts.
Here are some clips of Lupfer's own words on these subjects.
https://i.imgur.com/UIvsRgn.png
https://i.imgur.com/4RkhVOY.png
That being said, I would no longer disqualify a non-lifted style from being deemed 'Engrosser's Script', I would simply call it a 'modernism'. Over the past few years, I have better formed my understanding of the baseline lift. It has three main benefits which are outlined simply as:
1.) The lift serves a role in the rhythm of creation and creates regular intervals for which shapes and lateral positioning can be evaluated and controlled.
2.) The lift serves to reduce the likelihood of nib turnover in which during a downstroke a fiber of the paper is captured between the tines and creates a line-quality issue upon the bottom turn.
3.) It protects and isolates the interior-angular-nature of ES, which Lupfer admittedly was not the largest proponent of, but we see clear as day in the more prolific Engrosser's Script penmen like Baird and Norder.
---
Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject. Hope you both have been enjoying your pursuits!
David