The Theory and Practice of Handwriting/Chapter 4
CHAPTER IV
SIZE, THICKNESS, CONTINUITY, ETC., OF WRITING
Having determined the direction that our Writing shall take, it remains to settle such matters as the size, thickness, closeness, roundness and continuity (or otherwise) of the strokes, letters and words, with special and final reference to their shape or outline.
The Size
We are not here concerned so much as to the size of ordinary Script writing as with the size of the letters and words which those who are just learning to write in our schools shall be required to imitate. Individuality will ever assert itself in limiting the size of every day caligraphy, but it is a matter of no small importance whether beginners ought to commence with a very large bold style, heavy and unwieldy, or with a small light hand quite the reverse. The books afford us very little assistance; Manuals of method differ; Text books on handwriting vary or ignore the question altogether; and Copy Books are still more bewilderingly diversified. Who is to decide? Is it preferable to begin with the largest sizes and styles found in Fig. 3 (page 4) or with the smallest in Fig. 4 (p. 5)?
There is a startling contrast between the extremes, and the world is to believe that each specimen is the best, the orthodox one. Many are found who advocate the large heavy writing, their argument being that it stretches the muscles, imparts freedom and elasticity to the fingers, and secures a correspondingly desirable elegance and boldness to the style. The reply to this by those who prefer a much smaller size is, that by commencing with such a large hand for little fingers and afterwards gradually diminishing to small hand for fingers of a larger growth, not only is nature outraged, but the progress of the juveniles is seriously retarded in the elementary stages; and furthermore the mind is demoralised by the repeated but fruitless efforts to attain the unattainable, for the infantile fingers can never succeed in imitating the Copy, and it is not until years after, when a child's fingers have acquired both length and command of the pen, that he is, if indeed ever, able to reproduce with some degree of satisfaction the exceedingly difficult combination of hair lines, tapering curves, and long thick strokes of his elaborate Copy.
But again, such abnormally large-sized writing can only be produced by what is called the whole-arm movement, a movement which is now condemned by the great majority of authorities in Caligraphy, because of the wasteful expenditure of energy which it entails on the writer. And this whole-arm movement is next to impossible and impracticable with young children. Juveniles cannot write in a copy book as they would draw on a blackboard. Anything beyond a finger and thumb movement is to be deprecated with beginners and certainly with pupils at school, as it is a hopeless task to attempt it.
Passing therefore from these, what about the smallest size submitted in Fig. 4, p. 5? It can be successfully urged against this specimen that the size is too small for a child of tender years to appreciate, and that it is vain to expect anything like a bold free style from those who begin with such a diminutive size. A good medium hand is to be preferred to either extreme, and is productive of the best results.
It seems absurd to imagine that children just learning to write can use the pen with such dexterity as to produce even fair imitations of a word like "Permutation" or "Workmanship," and on the other hand such letters as those in the smallest size require such delicacy in their formation that they present almost equal obstacles. A fair medium size where the strokes and curves are bold enough to strike the eye and present an individuality of their own are more easily grasped or apprehended and are large enough to ensure freedom, and still small enough for the tiny fingers to manipulate without much effort.
Thickness.–With reference to the thickness of the downstrokes it may be asserted without hesitation that all heavy writing is to be condemned. On the sound principle that a child should be taught that which has to be utilised in after life, heavy or ponderously thick down strokes are ruled out of court, since the easiest quickest and best writing is that in which there is a minimum of distinction between the up and down lines.
Indeed it may be said that with the majority of writers no effort whatever is put forth to thicken the down strokes, what extra body there is in them being due to the facility with which the parts of the nib separate when tracing a down stroke with even the weight or normal pressure of the hand upon the pen. The best headlines then should have as little thickness as possible: of necessity the larger or longer the stroke the more body is naturally given to it to render it steady and even.
Let the aim be to secure a minimum of thickness since every additional degree of intensity only demands an extra and wasteful expenditure of force that speedily wearies, and a profusion of ink that frequently smudges or smears. A further reason in favour of thin or light as opposed to thick or heavy writing is found in the fact that only an insignificant–we might almost say fractional–percentage of pupils can ever hope to become proficient in writing the heavy style, it being remarkably difficult to accomplish. If partisans of the heavy downstrokes be yet unconvinced we can produce a still more potent reason against them and it is this, that of all things, thick writing is most conducive to Writer's Cramp. The more muscular force is exerted in the act of writing the sooner those muscles are fatigued and strained, and it is sell evident that thick writing expends or requires much more energy than thin. We confess our inability to discover where the virtue of thick writing lies; the light-stroke writers are quicker and better in their work; and the thin writing, or the caligraphy that consists of one almost uniform thickness, is quite as legible as any other Teachers should teach a free light style of writing, guarding their pupils against hard downstrokes, the result will then be better work and less labour.
Junction.–What must have often struck the reader as a serious anomaly in the prevailing styles or series of Headlines is the mode of joining the letters of a word together. The general rule has been to join all letters exactly in the middle and this rule necessitates the lifting of the pen at nearly every junction and frequently once or twice in the formation of a single letter. Now it may fairly be argued that, as Continuity in Writing is one of the pre-eminent elements of speed: a system of connection which involves the incessant lifting of the pen must be diametrically opposed to such continuity, and therefore absolutely inimical to a maximum of rapidity. Consequently the principle of joining both parts of letters and whole letters at the top and bottom is now fast superseding the central junction just referred to, and thus Continuity and the highest speed are both attained.
Even as early as the year 1815 a Writer on this subject (G. B. King) says in a note "Every word should be finished before removing the pen," he thus recognised the full value of the principle of Continuity for rapid writing. A wise teacher will not only cultivate this essential by and through the ordinary Copy Book, he will give the more advanced scholars frequent exercise in writing entire lines of words without lifting the pen, save to begin a fresh line. It cannot be too strongly impressed upon our teachers that the laws and rules which determine shape, size, direction and junction of strokes and letters are not fixed and immutable but arbitrary and conventional; that at any rate the caligraphy fantastic and ornate as it certainly was, of a past age must not dictate to us of the present: the exigencies of to-day must modify the writing of yesterday and determine what it is to be.
As an illustration of the pernicious effects of the non-continuous principle I would instance one letter received recently from a high Educational Authority. The address on the envelope consisted of nine words containing altogether forty-nine letters. The pen should have been lifted nine times; it was lifted not less than fifty-four times not including dots, crosses and punctuation. The letter contained seventy-seven words and exclusive of dots &c. the pen should have been lifted only seventy-seven times. Can it be credited that it was lifted from the paper Three hundred and Fifty times, and that it thus made three hundred and fifty separate strokes? Calculate, if it be possible, the labour involved in those hundreds of superfluous acts; and when it is added that the gentleman in question is a most voluminous writer and author and that his correspondence is immense the reader will be astonished to learn that he still survives in remarkably good health. But spite such rare and phenomenal exceptions as these Continuous writing is winning its way and rapidly becoming universal.
Compactness.–Writing in order to be clear and legible should not be too compact or closely written. A moderate space between the letters and between their several parts must be observed otherwise an undesirable indistinctness will ensue seriously detracting from the excellence of the penmanship. At the same time a series of Headlines should afford ample material for practice in both the open and close styles primarily the former as if the latter be indulged in too often a cramped style will be cultivated that will be very difficult to cure. The curves, hooks, links, crotchets and loops should all be bold and round not narrow or assimilating to what is known as Ladies' Angular hand. As to the general shape of the letters short loops, finals and simple capitals must obtain. Elaborate flourishes, ornate curves, graceful loops and elegant finals belong to the department of Ornamental Penmanship now nearly obsolete, they are altogether inappropriate to any system of plain Handwriting. The object of every teacher of writing should be to have each and every letter formed with the shortest line or lines possible, consistent with perfect shape and legibility, as not only will the labour of teaching and learning be thus reduced to the lowest possible but many other equally desirable results will be brought about.
When considering the shapes of letters it will be wise to specially examine a certain number of them about which ideas are both vague and various. For instance shall we have in a course of writing lessons or copies two kinds of l, h, b, k, and f? These letters being generally made in large hand without the loop but in small hand with it. Common sense replies Certainly not! Why should we? The rule is not consistently observed in the first place, for the lower loop letters remain unchanged, and the letter f is sometimes deprived of its upper loop and at other times of its lower. It is more easy and natural to make a loop, uniformity therefore
Fig. 23.
should rule the question and teach writers that shape of letter they will adopt in their future life and practice. How difficult too, if not impossible it is for young children to draw those tremendously long and rigidly right lines! How seldom they ever do it! Fig. 23 is an average specimen of the strokes which infantile fingers are supposed to make. In conclusion it should be noted that in actual script work neither the size nor the shape of the letters under consideration is ever required. Taking the small letters we observe that r has been the cause of much controversy. Shall it be the ordinary script form or the Roman type outline (see p. 95, Fig. 27)? To hear the several champions hold forth on the claims of their respective outlines one might imagine that there were numerous vital questions involved in the discussion, whilst in fact there is nothing but the most trivial of differences and the most imperceptible of advantages on either side. Both forms are good as initial, medial or final, and what the first or script form boasts of in the matter of speed–for it is undoubtedly more quickly made than its rival–is counteracted to a great extent by its inferiority as to legibility when in union with certain other letters. The very absence of any weighty reasons will we fear prolong the agitation to an indefinite extent if indeed it does not prevent entirely any positive and ultimate decision.
Two forms of e are also practised, the script and type outlines (see p. 95). There can be no hesitation here as to which is preferable. The reduced capital may be more ornate but it is neither so legible nor so rapidly written. It should consequently be discountenanced and discarded in favour of the ordinary and simple form which assimilates so perfectly in conjunction with every other letter of the alphabet.
Another letter to be noticed is s, and again the minimized capital or type form has been introduced as a rival to the script and more easily written outline. Of course it is a mere fanciful preference that would use the type s, which whilst it gives a certain artistic effect to the style retards the progress of the writer to a rather serious extent. We should pronounce unhesitatingly for the ordinary script form of the sibilant and we think we carry nine hundred and ninety-nine writers out of every thousand with us. Just a word "en passant" as to the large number of persons who are in the habit, unfortunately, of making a particular shape of letter the test of a System of Handwriting. Incredible as it might seem many teachers have denounced Upright Penmanship solely because some special pet form of capital or small letter was not found in the Series of Headlines of the Copybooks. Or on the other hand because some outline of a Capital Letter which was obnoxious to them had been introduced.
The small letter s which we have just examined has been the sole basis for a decision between Sloping and Vertical Writing. To judge any system of Handwriting by such insignificant tests is both irrational and unkind.
Another vexed question to which we might refer is the varying heights of the long letters. Shall there continue to be three or four sizes of these long letters, or shall there be only one? Common sense, science and consistency would say only one, and custom clenches the argument, for it will be found that in the current hand of our every-day life all the lengths reduce themselves to one almost universal height. When this is so, where is the necessity or advantage in teaching three different sizes? Certainly the labour of teaching would be diminished if only one height or length were maintained and that of itself would be a much needed and heartily welcomed relief. In theory and practice therefore one and only one height is recommended for all long and looped letters whether above or below the line. It may not, and it is to be feared will not, be easy to attain this as so many series of Headline Copy Books exist with diversified heights, but if future compilers of such books and teachers of writing would combine and co-operate there would be little difficulty in bringing about the desired reformation.
In recapitulation, to sum up the essentials of an ideal handwriting that shall fulfil the requirements of Hygiene, the demands of Caligraphic canons and the needs of a mixed community it has been proved that such writing must be Upright, Continuous, Simple and Plain, with short loops, and a minimum of thickness. If such a style and system be generally adopted and taught there will result a generation of writers wonderfully superior to the present generation of scribblers whose penmanship will be a credit instead of a disgrace to their country.
By minimum of thickness it must not be understood that the very thin hair lines, quite impossible of reproduction with a pen, are meant—as head lines should present an imitation or reproduction of actual pen writing. The very delicate engraver's work proves discouraging to the pupil because impossible of reproduction.