Covering ground or covering up

Introduction

As professors of typography and graphic design we share a mutual fascination with archaic letterforms. For the past ten years we have focused much of our research on locating, categorizing and documenting unusual graphic characteristics of sixteenth through nineteenth century incised letterforms, taken from stone grave markers and edifices in the British Isles. While considerable published references on British gravestones already exist, the vast majority is focused upon content or context, rather than toward the design characteristics or the graphic tendencies of the inscriptions. In particular, there seems to be a lack of attention oriented toward a comparison of these markers with concurrent developments in the medium of typography.

For the purpose of our discussion we will distinguish between letterforms and typography, using the former to describe letters as drawn or cut—as opposed to type, which we will reserve for reference to the printed page.

A parallel universe

While the evolution of typographic conventions grew steadily with the development of the printed page during these four centuries, there remained a parallel but almost entirely separate universe of letterform design in stone. Typically, gravestones are seen to have lagged far behind the graphic trends and technological influences of their day—although those trends drove the printed page of the same era with considerable force.

Date 1685. No standards evident, haphazard use of upper and lowercases, random use of italics, etc.

Such was the nature of the rural gravestone trade. This vocation was dominated by local traditions in matters of bereavement, commemoration and worship. Tradesmen typically spent their entire lives isolated in the village or county where they were born, were trained by senior craftsmen, often of the same family; who had in turn spent their lifetime in the same situation. It was a vocation that required minimal literacy and tended to focus on passing along essential technical expertise as well as mannerisms and attitudes concerning style and quality. After all, it fell upon the stonecutter to wrestle more than a few handsome and meaningful strokes from the cold slab at hand.

Date 1709. Overall design ranged left; bullets or midpoints are used to separate word spaces along the horizontal; many letterforms run tangent producing opportunities for ligatures, i.e., Ligature ‘HE’ in word ‘THE’.

However, the John Baskervilles of the craft were rare. As many grave stone carvers were as likely as not to be illiterate, these individuals were probably quite reliant on the instruction of their client(s) for specific wording, phrasing and spelling. Few gravestones exemplify the best of either communicative letterform design or a sense of overall planning or design, yet many reveal extremes of judgment, including touches of creative genius as well as enormous gaps of communicative prowess. As a result of these creative judgments, many contrivances and creative letterform idiosyncrasies emerged from the ground up rather than from convention downward.

Date 1595. Incorrect or archaic spelling of words ‘HEARE’, ‘BODIE’, ‘WIFE’, ‘JHON’, ‘ESQUIER’, ‘CHRISTOFER’, ‘HOU’; superscript ‘S’ placed where spelling was incorrect in word ‘HODDEN’ (Hodsden); incomplete stem to the ‘D’.

Images

The presentation examines a range of hand cut, stone letterforms that have been selected for their intriguing design characteristics within the context of their era and their application in stone. Most of the examples shown were created either before or in spite of the influence of popular typographical fonts that evolved during the same period. As such, tombstone letterforms typically portray a somewhat more ‘antiquated’ or ‘primitive’ appearance than would be typical with printed examples of concurrent typography.

Date 1776. An amazing but curious epitaph that runs as one long passage, although most likely executed by multiple hands.

These stone examples however, are not always limited to archaic attitudes and methods. Since the dating of these inscriptions is quite solid, certain examples represent some notably forward-looking styles and mannerisms such as some beautiful, but curiously proportioned sans-serif letterforms from the sixteenth century.

Date 1686. Early sans serif; downward stroke of letterforms ‘N’ and ‘M’ unusually thin; dramatically expanded width of letterforms ‘M’ and ‘H’.

Highly refined character proportion (including relative scale, weight and spacing both vertical and horizontal) are lacking on most gravestones of the era investigated. A fact so apparent that one is easily transfixed by the earnest, yet apparently ‘awkward’ organization and stylistic variance found on single markers. In spite of the absence of these unifying design refinements the results often offer more than a few inspirational quirks as well as some refreshing graphic candor.

Date 1627. Numeral ‘6’ appears to have been rolled forward on its side to fit within the tight vertical space; midpoints used for word spacing along the horizontal.

Some intriguing stylistic variations on nearly forgotten archaic ligatures, letterforms, abbreviations, and ancient ‘dingbats’ or glyphs have been selected to demonstrate either their communicative or not-so communicative attributes.

Date 1615. Typical bone or skeletal inspired letterform used. Although typically used as a symbol for death, this or the cleaver could reflect the trade or occupation of the individual.

Other selections include some almighty errors, brought about by a variety of circumstances, which range from predictably inconsistent spellings, to a lack of communicative skills, to mistakes related to changes in the western calendar.

The tombstone and the design of the printed page

While the typographic domain of hot metal was the most predominant force in printing, the intaglio process of letterform engraving had begun to realize considerable stylistic favor as early as the seventeenth century as a method for printing expressive letterforms. The cursive letter style was already a well-established component of the tombstone trade, but as a rule lacked the sophistication often revealed on the printed page (fig. 8). Whatever the case, until the nineteenth century, handsomely proportioned script found on the engraved page only rarely appears on the rural gravestone.

Date 1714. Fleurons used within individual letterforms; unusual mix of fonts, haphazard use of large and small caps with lowercase styles; crossbar styles on ‘E’ and ‘F’; ligature ‘FI’; irregular word and letter spacing.

By the early nineteenth century in England, many of the characteristics that would typify Victorian typographic design in print, had evolved in one of two directions – either the setting of horizontal lines of type in hot metal or the alternative freely drawn style made available by Senefelder’s recent invention of the lithographic process.

Stone carvers located in more densely populated areas tended to follow a path similar to that of the typographer of the same era, which included the establishment of an overall approach to compositional (design) parameters in one’s work. This influence of the printed page, with its varied typographical options, and its sense of proportion and unity, had little effect in the rural gravestone trade. It would seem that the village tradesman was probably not pressed by his clientele toward such trends, and was thus permitted to follow his own vocational sensibilities along with local tradition. The typically fragmented design method employed allowed him considerable flexibility and didn’t interfere with production (or for that matter, post-production) alterations. In the world of the rural tradesman there was little motivation to put any sustained notion of graphic experimentation into practice.

Date 1695. Crude letterforms elegantly placed on stone with large border surround; Use of points over uppercase letterforms ‘I’ and ‘J’; Similarity of letterform ‘J’ in the word ‘JUNE’ and numeral ‘1’ in ‘1695’, are these elements of confusion or consistency?

Perhaps too, some justification for the rural carving trade’s more conservative style could be made in considering stone as a somewhat awkward medium for creating letterforms, especially when compared to proving type on paper. It seems that in stone, the need for a thoroughly adhered to plan for a one-of-a-kind design would rarely justify the time and effort spent to produce it.

For the printed page, tremendous typographic innovation and advancement had been realized in Great Britain during the three hundred years following the sixteenth century. Building upon the tradition of significant handwritten manuscripts produced during the Middle Ages, wondrous technical advancements and aesthetic refinements established the foundations of typographic achievement during this epoch of the printed page. For today’s student of type however, the archaic gravestone’s influence on the march of typography is not considered to have been a part of the story.

Overview

It may be worthwhile to recall that since earliest times, incised designs in a variety of media (particularly stone), have foretold of the potential for freely manipulating letterforms, glyphs, and space for the purpose of communication. Whereas, it is during a relatively recent portion of our past, through the medieval manuscript, the Gutenberg Bible and the introduction of lithography that the typographic page has evolved.

The universe of stone carving never abated during this era of change, although its expressive portent, though entirely steady, has only yielded its contribution to those willing to look beyond the basics of design history and typographic legend. Only occasionally appreciated for the graphic characteristics with which it presents its message, the tombstone has never ceased to convey some of man’s most individualistic contributions to the graphic arts.

Date 1707. Although the stone is well worn, the design appears to have been purposely organized to maximize the effect of compactness and strength with all bold letterforms positioned to be tangent or overlapping; archaic letterform ‘I’ being substituted for J in word ‘Janry’, also the numeral ‘1’ in the date ‘1707’ appearing more like a modern ‘J’; archaic word usage, ‘Ye’, used with the only lowercase superscript ‘e’; superscript abbreviation ‘RY’ used for word ‘Janry’ (January), superscript ligature ‘TH’ used above the numeral ‘5’, also a superscript ‘6’ over the numeral ‘7’ forming another ligature. Does this communicate the 15th or 16th of January, or is the year intended to suggest the new year of 1707? Did Dorothy Raine fall ill in the old year of 1706, or was she 76 when she died? Is this a breach of communication or does it intentionally represent a mystery?

The best of these stones provide stunning characteristics and forward-looking refinements. An examination of only a handful of these amazing examples may reveal sufficient evidence to propose that more than a few punchcutters found considerable reference and quite likely borrowed some now familiar typographical forms from their archaic stone forebears.

For today’s vastly resourced designers, further examination of these stone blocks still hold considerable potential to positively impact our modern graphic sensibilities and typographical richness. We hope this presentation enhances the interest in these often forgotten examples in stone. We wish you all, in the near future the opportunity for a successful ramble through the lichen!

Lynne Joddrell Baggett spent five years in London as a graphic designer before moving to the US where she has taught at three universities and now serves as Associate Professor of Art, in the Graphic Design area at Louisiana State University. Lynne has received several grants and fellowships for her research with incised typographical letterforms and maintains an art and design studio in Mississippi with her husband, William, who also shares her enthusiasm for typography as an art form.