The Theory and Practice of Handwriting/Chapter 1
MANUAL OF HANDWRITING
CHAPTER I
WRITING AS IT NOW IS
There are more writers, or shall we say scribblers, in the world at the present moment than at any previous period of its history. But it would appear from all accounts that as the exponents of caligraphy have multiplied, the quality of the writing has deteriorated.
To fully describe and depict writing as it is the wide world over in our civilised age, would require a volume of itself. Suffice it in this chapter to furnish an amount of description, testimony or evidence and illustration, as shall adequately exhibit the existing condition of things in the writing world.
At the beginning of this century the art of penmanship was comparatively little practised. Education being in a sadly neglected condition, there were few facilities for teaching it. Schools—i.e. good schools—were few and far between, trained teachers were unknown, headline copy books had not been dreamt of—copy slips were scarce and difficult to get, and teachers for the most part had to rely solely on their own caligraphic ability, whilst as a natural sequence good writers remained in a mournfully small minority and the numbers of bad writers yearly increased. Gradually however as people woke up to a realisation of the state of affairs specially with reference to the masses and their ignorance of "Reading, Writing and Counting," more attention was directed to these subjects and the headline copy book was one of the innovations which merged into life. These copy-books have grown and increased to an alarming extent during the past forty years. We say alarming, for the wisdom of having such a variety of antagonistic styles is much to be questioned. One has merely to look through the vast number of (headline) copy books in existence to be struck with the anomalies with which they abound. Every compiler or writer–and there is a material difference between the two–of a series of copy books naturally thinks and advertises his own peculiar production to be the best. But that each should be superior to all the others is impossible, and which amongst them is entitled to lay claim to superiority it is hopeless to attempt to determine.
We present for inspection (Figs. 3 to 6) specimens of eight large hand copies and eleven small-hand headlines taken from some of the popular series of copy books now in the market. Glancing at the selection made (p. 4) who would not be bewildered at the contrasts presented? And this is only a selection; yet it is seen that in no one respect do they all agree save in the most objectionable respect of all (as we shall show further on) viz. Slope. They are without exception off the vertical or perpendicular, but the degrees of divergence from the Upright, or the angles of Slope, are only limited by the number of specimens and hardly that. With regard to their several characteristics it will be noted that generally they nearly all differ in the fundamental principles of construction, angle of slope, and style: some are heavy, stumpy and round, others light, flowing and almost angular: some very large others minutely small: some nearly upright others nearly horizontal: some open and wide almost square in their curves others close compact and oval: some with plain simple capitals others with elaborate and ornate capitals: some commencing with an extremely large and heavy hand as in the word “Permutation” others commencing with a smaller but still heavier hand as in the word “Whitsuntide.”
In the books lying before us, and from certain of which these illustrations are severally taken, it is observed that some grade the letters according to system others according to caprice or not at all: many advance by small steps others by wide and long gradations and so on, no two series possessing any features in common.
Now if Handwriting can be reduced to a rational or scientific system this infinite diversity is not only undesirable it is pernicious and unsound. For granted that one style can be formulated and projected which is absolutely superior to all others in construction, angle, &c., then unless that style be universally inculcated, an unfortunate section of the community is being taught to write a style which, according as it deviates from the acknowledged standard, is to that extent objectionable and inferior.
And this hypothesis—viz. of a standard system of penmanship—is not chimerical, it is logical and practical. Whilst however the present custom obtains, and in our schools every teacher exercises his own independent and uninstructed mind, teaching from any one of the multifarious headline Copy books that may strike his fancy or what is far worse from his own peculiar style and the black-board, what wonder if the caligraphy of the age is the laughing-stock of the age! What wonder that our “scribblers” abound in their countless hosts and that our "writers" exist only in their isolated units by contrast! In the absence of any harmony or uniformity in the essential elements and principles of the so-called systems of writing now in vogue who can expect the grand result to be anything but a "mixed medley," a promiscuous jumble of caligraphic contradictions and contortions?
And passing from the schoolroom where such an anomalous and chaotic state of things prevails into the world outside, this is exactly what meets us. We can only describe the penmanship of the present age as a dreary waste of slightly variegated illegibility relieved here and there at long intervals by welcome exceptions of readable writing. In view of what reaches one continually by the post we may denounce the writing that obtains now-a-days as miserably poor and painfully illegible. The mistakes that are made, the money that is lost, the time that is wasted, the peace of mind that is disturbed, the annoyance and delays that are caused by undecipherable sprawls might make the angels weep, and 
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
notwithstanding, except a few inarticulate and individual grumblings, little in the way of protest is made against what every one admits to be a public and national disgrace. Our prevailing handwriting may claim the ambiguous and questionable merit that it can be made to mean anything but it is no less accurately described as Scribble of every conceivable Size, Shape and Slope.
The Press, the Commercial World, and Official Circles are happily beginning to realise the position, as evidence the following extract from the City Press (25th Nov. 1891).
“How is it that of late years the art of caligraphy has declined amongst us to an almost alarming extent? Not so long since everyone–save geniuses, who were allowed a free hand–could write clearly and legibly, the reading of correspondence being as a consequence a far more agreeable occupation than it unfortunately is at the present moment. Now it is quite an exception to come across a letter that even with a certain amount of leniency can be said to be written at all legibly or distinctly. Indeed, by far the greater part of a busy man’s correspondence consists of hurried scrawls which have to be actually spelled out word by word. Commercial houses are already beginning to experience a difficulty in finding, as clerks, young fellows who can write a decent hand. Mr. Tritton, who may be taken as a typical man of commerce, told a Mansion House meeting the other day that fully 90 per cent. of the young men who applied to him for situations wrote with a slovenliness that was altogether inexcusable. The public, it seems to me, have the remedy in their own hands to a certain extent. If they follow the advice of Sir James Whitehead, and put on one side for future consideration all letters which cannot be deciphered except with difficulty, their correspondents, without a doubt, will soon realise that in writing illegibly they only injure themselves. The result will naturally be that they will cease to pen the wretched scrawls that in the past they have dignified with the name of correspondence. The present carelessness in the matter of handwriting is in a great measure the fault of our schoolmasters, who, I have reason to believe, no longer consider caligraphy as one of the subjects that their pupils should be taught. Perhaps they will alter their minds now that, on the authority of Mr. Tritton, they learn that young fellows otherwise eligible often lose situations because of their wretched penmanship.”
Other City merchants gave similar evidence and state that very often they have to throw nineteen out of every twenty applications into the waste paper basket.
But Great Britain is not alone in this sad dilemma. The “Detroit Free Press” declared a short time ago that not one person in a hundred wrote a legible signature and the same authority informed its readers that Prince Bismark was so impressed with the necessity for a reform that he fulminated an order that all persons should write their names legibly. The demand for a sweeping reformation in regard to our handwriting can no longer be disregarded. Of course the cry has ever been “What is the cause of this deterioration”? “Where is the root of the malady”? This question will occupy our attention in a subsequent chapter. Meanwhile our ears are assailed on every side with the one trumpet-call coming alike from every class and department of the community “Give us Good Writers for we cannot get them, and cannot do without them.”
It may be accepted then as a demonstrated fact that the writing of the age is unsatisfactory, illegible and essentially bad.
That there is abundant need for reform amongst our teachers as to the teaching of writing no one can deny. I would refer the reader to Appendix I. (fig. 61), page 141. The three books there illustrated are typical of hundreds of cases where children in the school are allowed to write page after page and Book after Book of such pitiful scrawl without a solitary mark of direction, correction or disapproval. Can such teachers have the slightest apprehension or conception of what writing really is or ought to be? Did they ever see the writing at all or look at a single line of the work from the first page to the last?
In charity we must answer for them in the negative.