The characters of writing have followed the genius of the barbarous
ages: they are well or ill formed, in proportion as the sciences have
flourished more or less. Antiquaries remark that the medals struck
during the consulship of Fabius Pictor, 250 years before Augustus, have
the letters better formed than those of the older date. Those of the
time of Augustus, and the following age, show characters of perfect
beauty. Those of Diocletian and Maximian are worse formed than those of
the Antonines; and again, those of the Justins and Justinians degenerate
into a Gothic taste. But it is not to medals only that these remarks are
applicable: we see the same inferiority of written characters generally
following in the train of barbarism and ignorance. During the first race
of the French kings, we find no writing which is not a mixture of Roman
and other characters. Under the empire of Charlemagne and of Louis le
Débonnaire, the characters returned almost to the same point of
perfection which distinguished them in the time of Augustus, but in the
following age there was a relapse to the former barbarism; so that for
four or five centuries we find only the Gothic characters in
manuscripts; for it is not worth while making an exception for short
periods which were somewhat more polished, and when there was less
inelegance in the formation of the letters.
The being _able to write_ has been taken by our statists as the best
evidence of the progress of education. Thus, twenty years ago, only 67
in every 100 men who married in England signed their names upon the
register, and 51 in every 100 women, and thirteen years later the
percentage was but 69·6 of the men and 56·1 of the women; but in the
last seven years, a period which probably shows in its marriages the
result chiefly of the education of the years 1840-45 or thereabouts, the
advance has been much greater, and the Registrar-General reports that in
1860 the proportion of men writing their names had risen to 74·5, and of
women to 63·8. In the whole twenty years the proportion of men who write
has risen from being only two-thirds to be three-fourths, and of women
from being a half to be nearly two-thirds, which may be expressed with
tolerable accuracy by saying that where four persons had to “make their
mark” then, only three do so now. This is for all England; but the rate
of progress has not been the same in every part of the kingdom.
In the reign of George III., when education had become more general, the
crosses of those who could not write lost the distinction and artistic
character of older times, and the large bold round-hand corresponds in
style with the buildings and furniture then in use. This writing,
although without much beauty, has, notwithstanding, the merit of
distinctness. In these railway times, with the exception of book-keepers
in banks and clerks in merchants’ offices, few seem to have time to trim
their letters. Few artists write a good hand. Physicians’ prescriptions
are often as difficult to decipher as ancient hieroglyphics; and it must
be confessed that writers for the press are not generally remarkable for
either the distinctness or beauty of their manuscript. As regards
artists, the practice of handling the brush and pencil is not favourable
to graceful penmanship; and in respect of the literary profession, it is
generally difficult for the pen to keep pace with the thoughts, to say
nothing of the fact, that time often presses.[84]
Short-Hand is of great antiquity; for Seneca tells us that in his time
reporting had been carried to such perfection, that a writer could keep
pace in his report with the most rapid speaker.
---------------------
Footnote 84:
Communicated to _The Builder_.
----------------------------