Calligraphy versus Copperplate
There appear to be some confusion in the general public as to what is Calligraphy and what is Copperplate.
After reading this page you will be able to give a correct definition of both.
According to the Emeritus professor of Medieval Latin Philology from the University of Munich, Bernhard Bischoff, there are two fundamentally different techniques of writing, with some unavoidable overlap between the two: the CALLIGRAPHIC technique and the CURSIVE technique.
The calligraphic technique is almost exclusively reserved for bookhands, that is formal scripts used for formal writing such as books (hence the name book-hand or book-script) and other prestigious types of writings, whereas the cursive technique of writing, as the name implies, is reserved to everyday types of scripts. The origin of the word CURSIVE is to be found in the Latin verb of the third conjugation CURRO, which in its present infinitive tense becomes CURRERE, meaning to run. Thus if you said "currere alicui subsidio" you would have meant "to run to help someone", or quoting from a book of Cicero, the expression "currere stadium" would have meant "to take part in a running competition in a stadium". In the Middle Ages the word CURSIVUS was applied to cursive writing to differentiate it from the more formal and slow book-script. Hence cursive derives from cursivus and means informal writing which is intrinsically fast.
Taking these two points further, it can be said that the calligraphic script follows a canonical form of writing for each character shape, weight, size and order of execution, which in the calligraphic language is called ductus; this also implies that its execution is, of necessity, rather slow. The cursive script, on the other hand, being an everyday type of informal script, is substantially free from canonical rules and very much dependent on the person's handwriting style and the way that he or she has developed his or her handwriting style over time. Cursive is therefore a type of utilitarian script especially suitable for speedy writings.
Thus, is copperplate writing also a calligraphic script? The answer must be a definitive, yes! Why? Because a script is defined calligraphic if it follows a specif ductus, i.e. a specific order and sequence of execution in the formation of each letter. This is true for calligraphic scripts but also for cursive (copperplate) hands. The key differences being two:
In the type of nib used- flat broad edged for calligraphic and fine pointed and flexible for copperplate writing.
The effect of producing the change from thick to thin lines is done by rotation of the flat nib in calligraphic script, whereas in copperplate hands this effect is created by applying a different hand pressure on the nib itself, viz. applying pressure during a downstroke produces a thick line, and applying no pressure during an upstroke produces a thin line.
The following examples give an idea of the difference between calligraphic v. cursive type of writings.
This first example shows a calligraphic script developed by myself in the style of the Carolingian script for the miniscule letters and Roman Rustic script for the capital letters.
This second example shows another calligraphic script in the Gothic style and more commonly known as Old English script.
This third example shows a cursive script created to resemble the handwriting style of the French writer Mistral. This was therefore Mistral's utilitarian handwriting for everyday writings.
This final example shows another calligraphic script in the style of a cursive script but it actually is a calligraphic script because it follows precise rules of ductus, size, weight and shape of each character. This style is more commonly know as a Copperplate hand or script and this particular hand is called Edwardian Script.
N.B.: The examples shown in the above frame quote a standard Latin text which is often seen in PC software especially in connection with word-processing programs and font software. On a first reading of such text there appear to be some errors. In due course I plan to review the text which seems to be taken from a book by Cicero, De Finibus. The word "Lorem" in Latin does not exist unless it was meant to be "loram" the accusative of "lora - a cheap wine obtained from used grapes after the first fermentation". My first feeling is that the word should be "dolorem" as this would fit the context of the title of the book which deals with "dolore" (pain) within the context of the dichotomy of the good and the bad, bonorum and malorum, respectively. Other errors are present, such as "adipisicing" which looks like an anglicized invented form of "adipiscor"; eiusmod should be eiusmodi. elit also is wrong, etc. In other words, the text is full of errors.