You are making a good point.
Cursive writing quality did deteriorate. The only question for me is when.
I wonder if letters contained in sealed envelopes tended to have less careful handwriting than those open, such as in the case of post cards, or semi-open, as might be the case with stampless covers like this:
Someone could indeed make a study of this.
I’ve read a lot of handwritten records from 19th century Norway, in addition to some ministers having horrible handwriting, some use crap ink or crap pens. And these were highly educated men writing official birth, marriage and burial records.
Selection bias. Why would would you post antique chickenscratches online?
Do you have time in your busy day to indicate whom you are accusing of selection bias? Me, or Google, or whom? And a definition of “antique chickenscratches” would be helpful, since you’re implying that I posted them online…
Apologies for my terseness. Postcards that are preserved, then collected, then have the writing side scanned and put on the internet, are not a random sample of old timey handwriting. At each step there there’d be some bias towards the aesthetically pleasing.
“antique chickenscratches” would be the type of old timey handwriting not present in the not so random sample your google search presents
“The purfuit of happineff”
?
The importance of daily practice can’t be repeated enough. My own handwriting deteriorated significantly after I took typing class. I’ve forgotten how to do most of my capital letters and print them. My lower case letters are still script.
Letter writing used to be an important part of daily life. I can recall my grandmother sitting up late at night writing friends and relatives. She had fairly good handwriting and very legible. A lot better than mine ever was.
FTFY: “The purſuit of happineſs” 
All your “S’s” look like “F’s”.
Yeah, well, it’s in, it’s very in.
yes, I understand someone has pointed this out, but that is only their opinion.
In my opinion I think otherwise.
I believe the curriculum in the 18th century would of taken handwriting very seriously and spent a lot of time practicing it, mastering it, drills, homework etc
today we do not, today and the 20th century we took typing classes, computer classes, cursive and of course basically printing, a long with SOOO many other subjects to take up the class time. in the 18th century the subjects on offer were limited to todays standards so in my opinion handwriting , reading would of been given more hours a week compared to today,homework would of been given, writing drills, spelling, memorization etc.
so in my opinion, a 13 year old child who is educated from the 18th century to a child today who is educated, I believe the 18th century child would of far superior artistic handwriting than a child today would not have even mastered cursive, and would just be printing in his own style.
compare to the 18th century copperplate style or Italian style of the 18th century that writing looks better than todays writing.
even a child could tell you the 18th century writing style looks prettier than the writing of today.
sure documents from the 18th century or 17th century which are still around today, documents which were written by professional writers of course look amazing, but that’s not the point here, the point is.
in the 18th century curriculum the style of writing taught to the children of that time was copperplate, Flourishing Alphabet,The Italian Hand and Round Hand.
those styles are far superior to todays printing.
so a child in school in the 18th century from 6 or 7 years till 13 or 14 would be learning that style! and that style is superior to todays style
so YES, the writing pr the 18 century educated people was better than today’s writing from our educated people.
printing vs copperhand.
copperhand wins.
yes, I understand someone has pointed this out, but that is only their opinion.
In my opinion I think otherwise.
I believe the curriculum in the 18th century would of taken handwriting very seriously and spent a lot of time practicing it, mastering it, drills and homework etc
Today we do not, today and the 20th century we took typing classes, computer classes, cursive and of course basic printing, a long with SOOO many other subjects to take up the class time.
In the 18th century the subjects on offer were limited to today’s standards so in my opinion handwriting and reading would of been given more hours a week compared to today. Homework would of been given such as writing drills, spelling and memorization etc.
so in my opinion, a 13 year old child who was educated from the 18th century to a child today who is educated, I believe the 18th century child would of had far superior artistic handwriting than a child today.
A child today would not have even mastered cursive, and would just be printing in his own style.
Compare to the 18th century copperplate style or Italian style of the 18th century that writing looks better than today’s writing.
Even a child could tell you the 18th century writing style looks prettier than the writing of today.
sure documents from the 18th century or 17th century which are still around today, documents which were written by professional writers of course look amazing, but that’s not the point here, the point is.
In the 18th century curriculum the style of writing taught to the children of that time was copperplate, Flourishing Alphabet,The Italian Hand and Round Hand.
those styles are far superior to today’s printing.
so a child in school in the 18th century from 6 or 7 years till 13 or 14 would be learning that style! and that style is superior to today’s style
so YES, the writing in the 18 century educated people was better than today’s writing from our educated people.
printing vs copperhand.
copperhand wins.
back then there were less distractions for children also.
no internet, no sports, no games,. no street lights, so children were home before dark, and once in the house doing their studies!
there would of been more importance placed on the childs studies compared to day due to less distractions and the victorian way of raising children.
so, the average 13 year old child who went to school in the 18th century to the child today who goes to school
the 18th century school child would of had far superior hand writing than today’s child.
Much of the “bad” older handwriting discussed was found in diaries, marginal notes & preliminary versions. That is, things not meant to be read by others.
Those who really wanted Matilda to know they were thinking fondly of her while enjoying the vistas of Ausable Chasm would probably manage to write a few legible lines on the back of the postcard. Nowadays, they’d Tweet her & attach a photo…
–Ron Chernow had access to George Washington’s papers for his excellent biography. GW (& his contemporaries) used a fair number of abbreviations in less formal correspondence–a bit like text speak. Washington’s writing isn’t hard to decipher. But he was hardly “average”…
(While decrying the lowered standards of modern education, one ought to avoid phrases like “would of.” And proper use of caps & smalls is today’s version of having a legible hand.)
I went to Catholic school, we were only allowed to write with shaffer pens which are like fountain pens. I had ver decent hand writing until I started using a ball point. If I pick up a shaffer type pen even today my handwriting is decent, I cannot even read my own writing with a ball point.
Though he’s quite a bit earlier than the 18th century, Thomas Aquinas was notorious among his contemporaries, and among modern-day medievalists, for his illegible handwriting. Here’s a sample autograph, and an article on his penmanship and writing process which begins,
Practice. I used to have really good handwriting. It’s still good, but I have noticed a deterioration with the advent of e-mail and such.
He used ALLCAPS/SMALLcaps on purpose, based on 18c conventions. If it was a draft, it wasn’t supposed to be perfectly lined up.
