Keith Tam

62

Calligraphic tendencies in the development of

sanserif types in the twentieth century

Abstract
Dissertation submitted in Sanserif typefaces are often perceived as something inextricably linked
partial fulfillment of the to ideals of Swiss modernism. They are also often thought of as some-
requirements for the
thing as far as one can get from calligraphic writing. Yet, throughout
Master of Arts in Typeface
Design, University of the twentieth century and especially in the past decade or so, the design
Reading, 2002 of sanserif typefaces have been consistently inspired by calligraphic
writing. This dissertation hence explores the relationship between calli-
graphic writing and the formal developments of sanserif typefaces in the
twentieth century. Although type design is an inherently different dis-
cipline from writing, conventions of calligraphic writing did and still do
impose certain important characteristics on the design of typefaces that
modern readers expect. This paper traces and analyzes the formal devel-
opments of sanserif typefaces through the use of written forms. It gives
a historical account of the development of sanserif typefaces by charting
six distinct phases of sanserif designs that were in some ways informed
by calligraphic writing:

• Humanist sanserifs: Britain 1900s

• Geometric sanserifs: 1920s–30s
• Contrast sanserifs: 1920s–50s
• Sanserif as a book type: 1960s–80s
• Neo-humanist sanserifs: 1990s

Three primary ways to create calligraphic writing, namely the broadnib

pen, flexible pointed pen and monoline pen are studied and linages
drawn to how designers imitate or subvert the conventions of these tools.
These studies are put into historical perspective and links made to the
contexts of use. The focus of this dissertation is on typefaces that are
generally known as ‘humanist sans’; grotesques and neo-grotesques are
not included in the discussions.
 1

Calligraphic tendencies in the development of sanserif types in the twentieth century Keith Tam

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master of Arts in Typeface Design, University of Reading, 2002
2

Calligraphic tendencies in the development

of sanserif types in the twentieth century

keith chi-hang tam

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Master of Arts in Typeface Design,
University of Reading, 2002

Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to thank my parents who have
made everything in my life possible. Secondly, I would
like to thank all my colleagues of the ma typeface design
course – Filip, Michail, Nathalie, Sara and Victor – for their
friendship and support throughout the past ten months
at the University of Reading – it has been a tremendous
experience, and would not have been the same without
you all. Thanks are also due to all my friends at Childs
Hall – you know who you are, Chimes – who have always
been there for me. You have been and still are great family
members. Last but certainly not least, I would like to thank
my teacher at the Emily Carr Institute in Vancouver, Sharon
Romero, who have given me much guidance on typography
and creativity, and provided many hours of enlightening
conversations about typography and much more.
keith, 2 september 2002

Colophon
Continuous text set in itc Charter (designed by Matthew
Carter) with captions in Bitstream Gothic 720. Typeset in
Adobe InDesign 2.0 on the Macintosh.
 3

Contents

5 Introduction
7 Principles of written forms related to type design
Calligraphic writing: broadnib, flexible pointed and monoline pens
Skeletal forms of letters
Built-up letters
Two ways of making sanserif letterforms
Criteria for assessing the influence of calligraphic writing
11 Prologue: Nineteenth century
Background
William Caslon iv: the first sanserif printing type
Industrial Grotesques: 1830 onwards
15 Humanist sanserifs: Britain, early 1990s
Edward Johnston: Railway Sanserif
Eric Gill: Gill Sans
25 Geometric Sanserifs: 1920s–30s
Paul Renner: Futura
W A Dwiggins: Metro
Frederic Goudy: Goudy Sans
33 Contrast sanserifs: 1920s–50s
R H Middleton: Steller
Warren Chappell: Lydian
A M Cassandre: Peignot
Hermann Zapf: Optima, the new Roman
39 Sanserif as a book type: 1960s–80s
Hans Eduard Meier: Syntax, an ‘oldstyle’ sanserif
Bernd Möllenstädt: Formata
Convergence of the sanserif and the serif
Charles Bigelow & Chris Holmes: Lucida
Sumner Stone: Stone
Ronald Arnhold: Legacy
47 Neo-humanist sanserifs: 1990s
Erik Spiekermann: Meta
Martin Majoor: Scala Sans
Fred Smeijers: Quadraat Sans
Luc(as) de Groot: Thesis Sans
Bo Linnemann: Via
53 Conclusion
55 Bibliography
60 Illustration Sources
4
5

Introduction

There is perhaps no better typeface that epitomizes the notion of sanser-

ifs than Helvetica. Designed by Max Miedinger in 1956 and released by
the German foundry D. Stempel ag in 1961, Helvetica was made one of
the most ubiquitous typefaces of the past half-century by the pervasive
influence of Modernism, and in particular the Swiss ‘International Style’
of typography. Sanserifs, more specifically neo-grotesques such as Hel-
vetica, became synonymous with modernity. Consequently, there exist a
common misconception that sanserif letterforms are something as far as
one can get from calligraphic writing, while it is widely known that the
development of serifed roman typefaces was greatly influenced by cal-
ligraphy. In fact, Neo-grotesques only afford a narrow view of the large
diversity of sanserif typefaces that were inspired by a multitude of his-
torical or ahistorical sources. Contrary to the common presumption that
sanserif letterforms must evoke modernism, quite a number of sanserif
typefaces designed in the past century were in fact also designed along
calligraphic lines. In the past decade or so, sanserif typefaces inspired by
calligraphic writing seem to be on the increase.
This dissertation will discuss the calligraphic tendencies of the de-
velopment of sanserif typefaces. Inasmuch as typography is defined as
‘mechanized writing’, it must first be acknowledged that type design is an
inherently different discipline from writing. Yet, the conventions of cal-
ligraphic writing did and still do impose certain important characteristics
on the design of typefaces that modern readers expect. Hence this paper
will trace and examine the formal developments of sanserif typefaces by
describing and providing explanations for their forms through written
forms. A chronological account of the development of sanserif typefaces
– with an emphasis on the twentieth century developments – will form
the basis of this dissertation. The principles of the three typical western
writing tools – namely the broadnib pen, the flexible pointed pen and the
monoline pen – will be explored. These studies will be put into histori-
cal perspective and links will be made to the contexts of use. The focus
of this dissertation will be on typefaces that are generally known as ‘hu-
manist sans’; grotesques and neo-grotesques will not be dealt with here.
 6

Sanserif defined
It seems desirable to first clarify what the term sanserif is meant and how
sanserif typefaces are classified. As Ole Lund points out in his paper De-
scription and differentiation of sanserif typefaces, the term ‘sanserif’ seems
to imply something rather negative, something that is lacking, ‘as if the
starting point necessarily has to be a letterform with serifs’.1 Walter Tracy
on the other hand finds merit in this term but still finds it somewhat
problematic. ‘The term sans-serif, coined by Vincent Figgins in 1832, is at
least accurate, even though it expresses a negative characteristic. “Lin-
eal”, recently recommended in Britain, is a little more descriptive, but it
has not become popular’.2
That brings us to the question of monolinearity. In his paper, Lund
focuses solely on monolinear sanserif typefaces, while Walter Tracy also
only classifies strictly monoline typefaces as sanserifs in Letters of credit.
The term ‘sanserif’ might therefore be somewhat of a misnomer: it not
only denotes letterforms that do not have serifs, but more importantly
it also denotes typefaces that do not have apparent thick-thin modula-
tions. This preoccupation with monolinearity was particularly strong in
the early part of the twentieth century. Edward Johnston’s railway type
is a classic example in this regard. Although Johnston was determined to
make a ‘block’ alphabet based on the humanist calligraphic tradition, he
did not attempt to replicate the thick-thin modulations of the broadnib
calligraphic pen.
There are also grey areas in the categorization of sanserif typefaces.
Faces such as Optima and Pascal might not be classified as sanserif type-
faces according to certain classification systems, because they have small
residual or ‘flare’ serifs.3 Lund also points out in his paper that ‘most clas-
sification systems for typefaces do not allow for differentiation among
sanserif typefaces’.4
It can be seen that the term sanserif is rather problematic. Nonetheless
the term sanserif will be adhered to for its literal as well as its generally
1 Lund: Description and
accepted meaning – that is, the noticeable absence of serifs in the letter-
differentiation of sanserif
typefaces p.5 forms. This dissertation will thus include all forms of typefaces without
2 Tracy: Letters of credit p.85 serifs, whether monolinear or with thick and thin modulations. The pri-
3 For example, the British ority is given to the absence of serifs here, not apparent monolinearity.
Standard 2961 system
of 1967 did not classify
Optima or Pascal as ‘Lineale’
(sanserif) typefaces, but
were instead grouped into
the ‘Glyphic’ category.
Lund p.15
4 Lund p.12
 7

Principles of written forms related to type design

Calligraphic writing
It is obvious that writing naturally predates typography, or the mecha-
nization of writing. Writing with a broadnib pen, which produces logi-
cal and somewhat mechanical lines with thick and thin transitions,
forms the basis – as well as the mainstream – of western calligraphy 1.
Gerrit Noordzij, who has written extensively on the theory of calligraphy,
uses the term ‘translation contrast’ to describe broad-pen writing in his
book The stroke of the pen. Translation contrast formed the foundation
1 Translation contrast, for the development of oldstyle roman typefaces such as Garamond.
broadnib pen held at a
constant angle. Contrast These oldstyle roman typefaces were originally derived from humanis-
governed by the width of tic roman and italic writing, though the italic underwent some changes
the pen.
when it was regularized to harmonize with the roman as an ancillary
type. Italics are not simply characterized by the slopes, but by a variation
on their essential forms. For example, the a and the g are often single-
story and there are upstokes – it is cursive 2. Though the more formal
italic hands do not have upstrokes – what Noordzij calls ‘hybrids’ 3.

2 Comparison of Roman
(only downstrokes) and italic
(with upstroke)
3 Cursive and hybridized
cursive italic forms

Another stream of calligraphic writing, done with a flexible pointed

pen, was first practiced by the Italian writing master G F Cresci during
the sixteenth century as a variation on the chancery italic theme and
later used as a commercial hand. Varying the pressure on the flexible
pen nib produces the thick and thin transitions 4. The upstrokes are thin
while the downstrokes are thick. This is what Noordzij calls ‘expansion
contrast’. The expansion principle then formed the theoretical base for
transitional and subsequently the Modern romans such as the types by
Firmin Didot.

4 Expansion contrast, using

a flexible, pointed nib.
Thicks and thins produced
by varying the pressure
exerted on the pen.
 8

The most elemental form of writing is done with the simplest of tools.
The conceptual idea behind all forms of calligraphic writing is their skel-
etal forms. This could be elaborated to mean monoline writing – writing
done with a pen producing lines of consistent thickness, typified by the
modern ‘ballpoint’ pen 5. It is therefore a neutral tool that gives the con-
cept of the letters proportions, the ‘bare bones’ of the letterforms.
5 Monoline lettering. No
thick-thin transitions.
Skeletal forms of letters
Regardless of what tools we use to execute our letterforms, the skeletal
forms are letters at their most basic. Before one commits pen to paper,
a basic understanding of those letters as archetypal forms, or notional
skeletal forms, must exist in the writer’s mind. Edward Johnston writes
in his calligraphy manual Writing & Illuminating, & Lettering, ‘[t]he es-
sential or structural forms […] are the simplest forms which preserve
the characteristic structure, distinctiveness, and proportions of each
individual letter’.1 He continues, ‘[t]he letter-craftsman must have a clear
idea of the skeletons of his letters’.2 He then follows with two illustrations
demonstrating a method of determining the essential form of a capital
B 6. Johnston stresses that distinctiveness and legibility will suffer if any
features are exaggerated unnecessarily. But he also points out that it is
quite permissible in ornamental letterforms. In order to keep within the
bounds of typographic conventions and readers’ expectations when they
read a text, it is essential to keep these notional skeletal forms in mind
and not deviate too much from them. The novelty forms of the B in the il-
lustration show letterforms that are frequently found in display typefaces,
not typefaces for the setting of continuous text. The structure of humanis-
tic writing forms the basis for the proportions of our typefaces:

6 Edward Johnston’s method

[...] an underlying feature of the pen-written humanistic forms that seems
of determining the essential even more basic than shading and serifs is the essential linear form of the
form of a capital B and his
demonstration of its different letter. Imagine the forms traced out by a single point on the edge of the
variations. edged-pen (e.g., the midpoint). These are the essential forms of the given
alphabet.3

1 Johnston: Writing & Built-up letters

Illuminating, & Lettering Built-up letters is what we have to contend with when designing type.
p.239
But built-up letterforms existed long before printing type and were in-
2 Ibid.
tegral to the domain of lettering. Noordzij writes, ‘[i]n built-up letters
3 Stone: ‘Hans Eduard Meier’s
Syntax-Antiqua’ p.22
there is no characteristic relationship between the tool and the shape of
4 Noordzij: The stroke of the the letter’.4 Build-up letters have the ability to imitate and override the
pen p.7 traditional conventions of calligraphic writing.
 9

Two ways of making sanserif letterforms

There might be two ways of making sanserif letterforms at the beginning
of their history. One useful way to understand the making of the sanserif
letterforms is by writing the notional skeletal forms of the letters with a
monoline tool. Since the skeletal forms of the letters are letterforms at
their most basic, it was almost natural that the history of writing began
that way. Ancient Greek writing was done with blunt reeds before it be-
came more ‘sophisticated’ and written with a broadnib during Roman
times. The monoline mode of writing is therefore arguably central to the
beginning of the sanserif letterforms. Simple sanserif letterforms are cre-
ated by adding even weighting to the skeletal forms.
Another way of acquiring sanserif letterforms is by ‘knocking serifs
off’, so to speak. Indeed, the very term ‘sanserif’ suggests this method.
The first ‘grotesque’ letterforms were indeed derived from the ‘fat faces’
(a development from the idiom of writing with a flexible pointed pen),
by their sheer proportions (the widths of the letters are more condensed
and equalized. Serifed letterforms, typified by writing with a broadnib
and later flexible pointed pen, seems to be a rather long-winded diver-
sion to take to arrive at the sanserif letterforms. However, sanserif letters
can also be created by directly using a broadnib pen – serifs are not a
requirement when writing with a broad-nib pen. Figure 7 illustrates the
degree to which the beginning and ending of the broadnib calligraphic
stroke could be varied. It could be seen that the oblique cant of the
7 Variations of stroke
endings possible when broadnib pen could be exposed or hidden.
writing with a broadnib pen.
The following diagram summarizes conceptually the decisions to take
for the making of sanserif letterforms. However, we have complete free-
dom to mix and match when designing typefaces, and more often than
not typefaces are hybrids of two or more elements, and it would be likely
that the calligraphic notions we are describing here are subverted.

essential skeletal form?

PROPORTIONS Humanist Didone

WEIGHTING SYSTEM Monoline broadnib flexible Monoline broadnib flexible

pointed pointed
pen pen
10

Criteria for assessing the influence of calligraphic writing

When assessing the calligraphic influence of sanserif typefaces, the fol-
lowing criteria are to be considered:

Proportions. Whether the capitals are constructed along Roman propor-

tions or are similar widths, or a mix of both. Whether the lowercase are
constructed in accordance with the proportions of calligraphic scripts
– in particular the humanist bookhand – or condensed/expanded.

Whether the strokes are monoline (even width) or modulated (with thick-
thin transitions. This can be explained in terms of what writing tool the
designer was trying to imitate.

Angles of stress or axis of contrast. Whether the axis of contrast is oblique

(reminiscent of humanistic writing), vertical (modern romans) or a mix-
ture of both (transitional).

Accompanying italics. Whether the accompanying italics are suggestive of

cursive forms (for example Chancery italic), simply skewed romans, or
hybrids (semi-cursive).

Terminals. Whether the terminals are angled, orthogonal, horizontal/

vertical, or a combination of these. The terminals might suggest the kind
of writing tool that the designers are attempting to imitate or rid from.
 11

Prologue: Nineteenth century sanserifs

Background
Although sanserif letterforms existed long before the invention of print-
ing, the history of sanserif letterforms as printing types did not begin
until the Industrial Revolution in England. At the dawn of nineteenth
century, something quite unprecedented happened in the typographic
world – something that came to be known as non-linear reading. The
rapid growth of the manufacturing industry and the bustling economy
was propelled by the Industrial Revolution that began in the latter part
of the previous century. This facilitated the emergence of two new forms
of typographic communication – the poster and the handbill. Tradi-
tional book typefaces such as Baskerville and Caslon were initially used
for these, but were quickly proofed to be inadequate to cope with the
increasingly fierce competition. New forms of typefaces were clearly
needed to grab the attention of viewers on the street. One obvious solu-
tion to this communication problem was to make the type as bold as pos-
sible. ‘[…] the need for bold type related to what might be described as
the growth of non-linearity in graphic design’,1 writes Michael Twyman.
Three main varieties of display typefaces subsequently emerged during
the first two decades of the nineteenth century. They were, in order of
appearance the fat faces, sanserifs (more generally known as grotesques
or antiques) and slab-serifs (widely known as egyptians or antiques). Of
these three groups of display typefaces the sanserif, has been the most
enduring, which eventually found its way to becoming the icon of Mod-
ernism in graphic design.

William Caslon iv: the first sanserif printing type

The first sanserif printing type was one that was confusingly known as
‘Egyptian’, appeared in an 1816 specimen of the English typefounder Wil-
liam Caslon iv 8. It was a font of medium weight capital letters that was
only made in a single size of about twenty-eight point. This description
seems contradictory to the growing needs of bold type described in the
previous paragraph. ‘It is, in fact, a type of very little value to a jobbing
printer’,2 writes Tracy. It is not surprising that this type was not used
1 Twyman: ‘The bold idea’
p.112 by many. Both Mosley and Tracy speculate that it was made to a sup-
2 Tracy p.86 plied design for a special order. Tracy adds that it was just ‘happened
3 Ibid. to be ahead of its time’.3 Many an author would like to have us believe
 12

8 William Caslon IV’s Two

Lines English Egyptian,
appeared in 1816 along
with other more decorative
display type.

that Caslon’s first sanserif type was the immediate descendant of the next
sanserif creation fourteen years later – Vincent Figgin’s ‘sans-serif’ from
c1830 10. However, it seems obvious that Caslon’s ‘Egyptian’ bears no direct
genealogical relationship to the later ‘grotesques’.
Nevertheless, Caslon’s sanserif was quite an innovation at the time for a
printing type. It was the first roman printing type that was entirely mono-
linear1 and without serifs. These two distinguishing characteristics formed
the mainstream of what sanserif typefaces came into being.
There are many speculations as to where this isolated example of sanserif
type came from. One of which would be that it was derived from ancient
Greek inscriptions 6. They both share similar proportions (the Roman
9 Ancient Greek inscription.
A dedication of the Palaestra
Naukratis, c3rd Century BC

1 According to Mosley, capitals were direct descendants of these) and are both monoline. Another
William Caslon cut a speculation would be that it came from early nineteenth century experi-
monoline, unserifed
Etruscan type c1745 and
mental inscriptional lettering on medals,2 or even signwriting. James Mos-
a stressed but unserifed ley points out in his The Nymph and the Grot, although the sanserif letter
Greek was probably cut in did not manifest itself as a printing type until 1816, sanserifs were already
the seventeenth century in
England. pp.18–19 in wide use in the domain of lettering during the first decade of the nine-
2 See Gray: Sanserif and teenth century,3 and that the term ‘Egyptian’ was a widely accepted term
other experimental inscribed denoting sanserif letters in the signwriting trade.4
lettering of the early
Renaissance
3 Mosley: The Nymph and the
Grot p.10
4 Mosley p.38
 13

Industrial Grotesques: 1830 onwards

In 1930, Figgins released his first capitals-only sanserif type. This type
bears no relationships to Caslon’s ‘Egyptian’ and the lineage to antiquity
was completely wiped out. It was clearly a type that had a rather dif-
ferent mission: a type destined to join force with the fat faces and the
slab-serifs to grab attention. Unlike Caslon’s type, Figgins sanserif had
thicks and thins, and the most distinguishing feature is the widths of the
letters – they follow the proportions of modern romans. Geoffrey Dowd-
ing writes, ‘[…] most of the early sans serifs were titlings, with letters
of monotonously uniform width, this trait, of course, deriving from the
“modern” face’.1
10 Vincent Figgins’s Two-line
great primer Sans-serif, 1830.

11 First sanserif lowercase,

William Thorowgood, 1834.

However, A F Johnson claims that the sanserifs were created by knock-

ing off the serifs from the egyptians (slab-serifs).2 When compared, it is
not difficult to see that these early sanserifs were derived from the fat
face, a direct descendent of the Modern roman face. Some of these san-
serifs were very condensed 11, in order to fit as much information into
a space as possible. As a result, circles became two vertical strokes with
rounded tops and bottoms. Eric Gill criticized this approach and was
demonstrating a more legible alternative in his An essay on typography 12.
1 Dowding: An introduction to
the history of printing types
p.179
2 Johnson: Type designs p.159
 14

12 Eric Gill’s demonstration

of how to make grotesques
more legible.
Left ‘a reduced copy of a
“John Bull” poster. It shows
how the desire to arrest
attention by making the
letters as black as possible
defeats the object of the
poster, i.e. quick legibility.
For from a short distance the
letters are indistinguishable.’
Right ‘shows a poster
letter designed to give
the maximum blackness
compatible with quick
legibility and a rational
differentiation between the
letters, e.g. the D & O.’

This type of sanserifs dominated the market for the rest of the century.
They fulfilled their function perfectly and eventually drove out the fat
faces and the slab-serifs. However, they were nothing more than what
they were intended to do – to attract viewers’ (as opposed to readers)
attentions at display sizes and to pack as much information as possible
within a limited amount of space. This function, arguably, could only
have been achieved by forsaking calligraphic conventions. Hence the
development of the grotesques took a course of its own, and it is hence
omitted here.
 15

Humanist sanserifs: Britain, early 1900s

As discussed in the previous chapter, apart from the slight lineage of

antiquated inscriptions in the first sanserif type and the rather negligible
trace of flexible pointed pen calligraphy found in the subsequent gro-
tesques, the force of calligraphic writing was virtually dormant on the
development of printing types, sanserif or otherwise, for the rest of the
nineteenth century. It wasn’t until the advent of the twentieth century
when humanist writing began to have any influence at all on the devel-
opment of sanserif types.

At the dawn of the twentieth century, Britain saw the Arts and Crafts
movement, headed by such figures as William Morris and John Ruskin.
Living in a world rife with mass-produced goods and commercial vulgar-
ity in twentieth century Britain, Morris and Ruskin yearned for the sim-
plicity of life and immaculate craftsmanship of the Middle Ages. Kelm-
scott Press, set up by Morris five years before his death, printed beauti-
fully decorated books with types designed by Morris, breathed an air
of freshness over the what was considered by some declining aesthetic
quality of commercial printing at the time.

Edward Johnston: Railway Sanserif

A master calligrapher who followed the idiom of the Arts and Crafts
movement, Edward Johnston was responsible for the revival of calligra-
phy in Britain, and had raised its status from a craft to an art form. His
influential instructional manual on the subject, Writing & Illuminating,
& Lettering, first published in 1906 has served as a standard calligraphy
textbook for over a century. In his book he advocates the ‘qualities of
good writing’ including readableness, beauty and character.
Although not considered even by himself as a type designer and resist-
ed the idea of mechanical production, he did cause a phenomenal effect
on the development of printing type, notably the sanserif. He undertook
Frank Pick’s commission to design an ‘alphabet’ for the exclusive use of
the London Underground system for its station nameplates and posters.
1 Howes: Johnston’s
Underground Type p.26 Part of Pick’s brief was to create a type that would be authentic and also
A quote from Priscilla ‘belong unmistakably to the twentieth century’.1 The final type fitted this
Johnston’s Edward Johnston
brief completely no doubt, and its effect was profound; for it was John-
1959.
2 Twyman: Printing 1770–1970
ston who was responsible for popularizing the sanserif letterform in the
p.75 twentieth century.2 Johnston’s design was in many ways a groundbreak-
16

13 ‘Johnston Sans, 1916. This synopsis, made from the

original artwork, shows Johnston Sans exactly as designed.’
 17

13 William Caslon IV’s

‘Egyptian’ and Johnston
Sans’s capitals compared.

ing one. Eric Gill was quoted in Colin Banks’s book London’s Handwrit-
ing, ‘It was a revolutionary thing... it redeemed the whole business of
sans serif from its nineteenth century corruption’.1
Johnston’s capitals are remarkably similar to the first sanserif type by
Caslon iv, although Johnston’s are more refined 13. He based his capitals
on classical Roman proportions. Johnston was advocating the use of the
proportions of Roman capitals for calligraphy in his Writing & illuminat-
ing, & lettering:

The Roman Alphabet is the foundation of all our alphabets […]. And since
the full development of their monumental forms about 2000 years ago,
the Roman Capitals have held the supreme place among letters for read-
ableness and beauty. They are the best forms for the grandest and most
important inscriptions, and, in regard to lettering generally, a very good
rule to follow is: When in doubt, use Roman Capitals.2

14 Alphabet from the Trajan

Column inscription in Rome,
c144 AD. Drawn from a
photograph by Eric Gill.

1 Banks: London’s
Handwriting p.14
2 Johnston p.233
18

15 ‘Slanted-pen’ small-letters, by Edward Johnston

‘I. Foundational Hand: an excellent formal hand for MS.
II. Italic Hand: a rapid and practical hand for modern MSS.
III. Roman-Small-Letter Hand: suitable for modern MSS.’
 19

Johnston goes on to suggest his readers to study the Trajan Column

inscription 14, and should ‘endeavour to embody its virtues in a built-up
pen form for use in [manuscripts]’.1 The proportions he proposes are
summarized as follows:

16 Proportions of Roman
capitals according to
Edward Johnston

However, when he drew his sanserif type for the Underground, he chose
to make the E, the F and the L – which should be narrow letters – slightly
wider. This overriding of traditional calligraphic forms could be at-
tributed to Johnston’s admiration of the Caslon Old face type 17. Harry
Carter writes: ‘It [Johnston’s sanserif] is a member of the old-face family
of types. Based on Roman inscriptional models, the essential form of the
letters is the same as Jenson’s or Caslon’s: only the fashion of them has
been dictated by function’.2

17 Capitals of Caslon Old

face. ‘[C]ast from the original
punches cut up William
Caslon about 1720. This type
is one of the best in modern
use. It should be remembered
that the originals of all “lower
case” forms of type were
For his lowercase, it was only natural that Johnston began from the
pen forms resembling the humanist Bookhand that he had been studying and so fervently an ad-
foundation hand [...].’
vocate of 15. This point of departure was unique in the history of the
sanserif.
Although the structural forms of Johnston’s letters were based on
humanistic proportions, he translated these forms into a monoline type
with the aid of geometry. The basis for the lowercase is a perfectly circu-
lar o, with other letters using segments of this circle, for example the c,
n, m, etc. One of the most distinct calligraphic derivations is the hooked
lowercase l, which provides a clear distinction between the uppercase I
and the numeral 1.
1 Johnston p.233
2 Carter, Harry: ‘Sanserif
types’ pp.41–42
 20

Johnston explored several alternative forms of letters in the early

drawing stage of the typeface. He was attempting to translate his rather
ornate calligraphic forms into monoline ‘block-letters’ 18. He also experi-
mented with a single-storey a. However they did not survive in the final
type, except the obviously calligraphic diamond-shaped dot above the i
and the j, the full-point and the tapered comma.
Johnston’s method of calculating the weight-to-height proportions
was quite unheard of in type design. As for his calligraphic work, he
measured the x- and cap-heights of his typeface with the number of stem
widths. The cap-height had a ratio of 1:7 while the x-height was 1:4, ex-
actly the same as his Foundational hand.
The terminals were reduced to simply horizontals and verticals, in or-
der to keep the counters open. This was an answer to Pick’s request in the
brief for the type to be ‘clear and open’ so that it remains legible under
dim lighting at the stations.
Although Johnston’s design won much acclaim, he worked in a crafts-
man-like fashion and failed to consider some essential aspects of type
18 Alternate forms Johnston
design. One of which was the direct translation of the ‘skeleton letters’
explored for his railway
sanserif type. without compensating for optical illusion. Walter Tracy, who consulted
on a new version of Johnston Sans in 1973 writes:

[…] he appears to have been unaware of some fundamental aspects of

letters designed for type. One of these is particular to sans-serif types…
the percept that in a “block letter” type the strokes should appear to be
of an even thickness, but should actually be modulated in thickness so
as to achieve proper balance between the parts of a letter and between
one letter and the next. In the Johnston type, however, the strokes are of
uniform thickness.1

Tracy also criticized Johnston’s method of measuring the height for

the type with the number of stem widths. He claims that while this meth-
od works well for calligraphic writing, it does not apply to type design.
Johnston’s calligraphic mannerisms were further criticized by Harling:
‘Edward Johnston’s design, a breakaway from the nineteenth-century
grotesques, was clean-cut but affected by one or two intrusive manner-
isms, particularly the lower-case l, and the diamond-shaped dots over i
and j were odd, to say the least’.2
Despite the shortcomings of Johnston Sans and its limited exposure as
1 Banks: London’s handwriting
p.30
a private type, its innovations nonetheless provided a unique exemplar
2 Harling: The letter forms and for the development of later sanserif types. Until the arrival of Johnston
type designs of Eric Gill p.36 Sans, typographic critics and historians had often been quite disdainful
 21

to the nineteenth century grotesques. This was partly due to the almost
obscene boldness and narrowness of these typefaces but mostly because
of their disregard of the traditional proportions of roman letterforms.
One of these critics was Stanley Morison. Following the successful ex-
periment of Johnston’s sanserif type for the Underground Morison saw
merit in sanserif letters that are based on the proportions of humanist
calligraphic writing. He was convinced that even the utilitarian sanserif
could be made in a pleasing way, and consequently asked Eric Gill to de-
sign a sanserif typeface for the Monotype Corporation.

Eric Gill: Gill Sans

Eric Gill was a prolific craftsman and a student and friend of Johnston.
His Gill Sans, designed for Monotype, owes much to Johnston Sans,
but its influence in the design world was much greater than that of
Johnston’s. Unlike Johnston, who was clearly a craftsman, Gill was also
interested in designing letters for machine reproduction – type design
and typography. His book An essay on typography has been influential in
the field of typography. In it, Gill acknowledges the historical precedence
of Johnston Sans but writes that his own Gill Sans was an improvement
upon Johnston Sans. Granted, he did rectified many problems found in
Johnston Sans. He took a more sober and rational approach and tried to
undo much the of calligraphic mannerism without loosing the humanis-
tic roots.
Gill built on Johnston’s established monoline forms but made some es-
sential adjustments to them to make the type appearing to be monolinear
instead of strictly monolinear. The joints where a curve meets a vertical
stem were slightly modulated to prevent them from becoming too dark.
This feature was also found in the nineteenth century grotesques. The
diamond dots were replaced by the simpler round dots, eliminating the
trace of the broadnib pen. Gill also experimented with a geometrical ap-
proach, drawing letters on a fine graph paper with compass and straight-
19 Eric Gill’s drawing on
graph paper showing the edge 19.
geometric construction of Gill originally had the idea of having obliquely cut terminals for the
several capital letters.
ascenders and descenders, an explicitly calligraphic feature attempting
to show the cant of the broadnib pen. This idea was abandoned when the
Monotype Corporation took over the drawings (comparison, 20 & 21). His
original drawing of the a was quite restrained and was rather similar to
Johnston’s, but the final version shows a much more calligraphic form:
it has a finial. The b, d, p and q in his original drawings were unique in
that the bowls join directly to the stems. This trait is indeed calligraphic,
but the logic of the pen would only allow it to happen in the b in calli-
22

20 Eric Gill’s original drawing of Gill Sans.

21 Monotype Gill Sans as released.

 23

graphic writing. Gill was attempting to undo his calligraphic influence by

overriding the conventions of the pen. He sought to standardize certain
features of his letterforms by through a modular approach. However
Monotype followed a more conventional route in the final version. Most
digital cuts of Gill Sans have followed this version, but the recent release
of Monotype Gill Sans has brought back many of Gill’s original ideas.
Gill also drew an italic, which was the first sanserif italic that referred
to humanist italic writing as a model 22. The forms of Gill’s italic was nat-

22 Monotype Gill Sans italic.

urally condensed, akin to its written counterpart: whereas the roman o is
based on a perfect circle, the italic is based on an oval. The inclination is
slight, with primarily semi-cursive forms. It is fairly apparent that John-
ston’s calligraphic influence is at work here. The joints in the letters a b d
h m n and q do not show the upstrokes commonly found in cursive italic
writing. The branching in b h m and n are high while the lower joints of a

d and q are low. This reflects Johnston’s rather formal italic hand without
23 An example of Edward
Johnston’s italic hand. upstrokes which is less cursive 23. Curiously, though, the p is excessively
cursive. While the a is single-storey, closely following the conventional
forms of the script, the g in the final version is double-storey. In the early
stages of its development, Gill’s italic showed more exuberance and some
the capitals even had entry strokes protruding in the top left corners 24.
These were obviously eliminated in the final version.
The release of Gill Sans onto the market in 1929 was rather untimely. Fu-
tura, a geometric sanserif designed by Paul Renner and released by the
German foundry Bauer, had already been on the market for two years
and gained immense success on the continent. Harling writes, ‘[…] in
its final form Gill Sans proved superior to all others available to printers
 24

and typographers who might be interested in having a sans serif type

that was not a dehumanized, wholly mechanistic alphabet’.1 That was
perhaps true in Britain, but regrettably the tastes of the continental and
North American markets proved to be otherwise. The aesthetics of the
machine was greatly revered at that time. The release of Renner’s Fu-
tura, coupled with the release of Jan Tschichold’s hugely successful book
Die neue typographie (The new typography) in the following year, quickly
ignited the spark of Modernism in typography, and had attracted many
keen followers.

24 An early drawing of the

capitals for Gill Sans italic.

1 Harling p.44
 25

Geometric Sanserifs: 1920s–30s

In his seminal Die neue typographie, published in 1928, Tschichold strong-

ly advocated the use of sanserif typefaces: ‘[…] it must be laid down that
sanserif is absolutely and always better’.1 However, he was rather critical
towards sanserifs that were inspired by humanist writing: ‘[t]here is no
doubt that the sanserif types available today are not yet wholly satisfac-
tory as all-purpose faces. The essential characteristics of this type have
not been fully worked out: the lower-case letters especially are still too
like their “humanistic” counterparts’.2 This is clearly a condemnation
of faces such as Gill Sans. He continues, ‘Paul Renner’s Futura makes a
significant step in the right direction’.3 Nothing could have provided bet-
ter publicity for the Futura type than the author of the handbook of the
Modernist movement.
Renner certainly wasn’t the first designer to pursue the geometrical
sanserif idea, but the effect of his Futura was indeed the most pervasive.
The success of the humanistic sanserifs of Johnston and Gill in Britain
prompted some German designers to explore new directions for their
sanserif designs. By that time Germany already had the tradition of de-
veloping grotesk sanserifs for text use, most notably Akzidenz Grotesk,
released by the Berthold Foundry in 1898. Instead of directly adopting
the humanist sanserif idea, German designers were evidently more in-
terested in the fact that both Johnston and Gill’s types were drawn by
geometric means.4 Jakob Erbar’s Erbar (1922–1926) 25 and Rudolf Koch’s
Kabel (1926–29), released by the Klingspor foundry as Cable) 26 are
two examples.

25 Erbar, by Jakob Erbar.

26 Klingspor Cable,
by Rudolf Koch.

1 Tschichold: The new

typography p.74
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Some authors do classify
Johnston Sans and Gill Sans
as geometric sanserifs, for
example Alexander Lawson.
26

27 Futura, as released by the Bauer foundry.

28 Early drawings of Paul Renner’s Futura, showing

some unconventional geometric letterforms and old style
numerals.
 27

Paul Renner: Futura

Renner was an advocate of the abolition of Fraktur in Germany when he
was commissioned to design Futura. ‘Renner’s answer to the question
“gothic or roman?” seemed to be a characteristically German yearning
for a “third way” – a revitalization of grotesk (sanserif), to make it some
kind of elemental, universal form of roman’.1 Kinross writes, ‘to prefer
roman over blackletter was to be modern, and, especially after 1918, to
prefer sanserif roman letters to those with serifs was to be more modern
still’.2 Jakob Hegner, a publisher and printer who commissioned Futura,
thought that only a painter who did not have the prejudice of a calligra-
pher could do the job.3 Renner was believed to be the perfect candidiate
for the task as he was a painter of modern landscapes.
Renner clearly followed the proportions of classical Roman inscrip-
tions for his capitals. This was a resolute departure from the German
‘grotesk’ typefaces such as Akzidenz Grotesk. However, they were re-
markably close to the capitals of Johnston Sans. Renner denied this and
claimed that Johnston’s capitals were closer to the ‘grotesks’.4 Indeed,
the Germans were impressed by the innovation of Johnston’s railway
sanserif.5 Renner himself never visited London at that time and he
claimed that he had never seen Johnston’s type. However, the German
translation of Johnston’s book Writing & illuminating, & lettering was
published in 1910 and his examples of skeleton letters already found their
way into monoline handwriting models (the ‘print script’) for school
children 29.6

29 ‘Sütterlin-Schrift, a model
for children’s handwriting in
use in Germany in the early
1920s.’

1 Burke: Paul Renner p.86

2 Kinross p.75
3 Paraphrased from Kinross
p.86
4 Burke p.96
5 Carter, H: ‘Sanserif types’
p.42
6 Burke p.95
 28

Contrary to what Renner did for his uppercase, Renner wanted to

‘start from zero’ for his lowercase.1 He thought that the lowercase would
bind better with the capitals if it shares the same static forms rather than
dynamic,2 despite the fact that he intended the type to be for text use. It
is curious however to note that in 1931 he had thought of the opposite,
that type designs should imitate the conventional tools, for instance the
broadnib pen. He suggested that the tool used to produce the type must
be subordinated to the broadnib pen.3

The task of the reproductive arts consists of rendering the ‘tool-language’

of the original as faithfully as possible: it must allow the contrast affected
by the movement of the brush or pen to be perceived as logical…
But the production of entirely strange alphabets, in which the European
writing tool, the broad pen, must inevitably be exchanged for another, is
as useless an effect as inventing a new language, if this other tool is not
subordinated to the broad pen as a means of reproduction.4

His view in the 1920s of rejecting pen-made forms was more in line
with the ideals of Herbert Bayer’s typographic experiments at the
Bauhaus. Renner’s rejection of pen-made forms seemed to have resulted
in the lack of dynamic flow, but he himself thought that the geometric
principles behind the construction of the letters would cohere them
together: ‘It is not little marks, rather it is the “spiritual bond” that binds
30 A strictly geometric
monoline p and a visually
the many individual marks into a unity of form’.5 However, the results
balanced, optically still resembled the monoline ‘print script’ shown earlier. Unlike Johnston
monolinear p.
Sans, Renner skillfully resolved the awkward darkness when a stem
joins a bowl. He pointed out that two concentric circle would not join
well with a vertical stem. He writes that ‘anyone who wants to create a
constructive script for the human eye, cannot achieve it with elemental
geometric construction 30.6
1 Burke p.97 Despite this view in 1913, Renner did ‘invent a new language’ so to
2 Ibid. speak during his design process for Futura. His strict application of ge-
3 Ibid. ometry resulted in letterforms that were more novel than functional 28.
4 Quote from ‘Buchgewerbe Burke points out that the foundry probably opted for the more conven-
und Bildende Kunst’ (1913)
tional forms so that the sales would not be affected.
pp.72–4. From Burke p.97
5 Quote from ‘Futura: die
Schrift unsrer Zeit’ (1928a)
pp.4–5, from Burke p.98.
6 Quote from ‘Das
Formproblem der Druck-
schrift’ (1930c) p.32, from
Burke p.100.
 29

Whereas Gill Sans enjoyed immense success in Britain, it did not do

well on the continent or in the United States. ‘Gill Sans meant nothing
to American typographers, and very little to European ones’.1 Monotype
was eventually forced to remedy this by providing ‘alternate’ versions of
several letters of Gill Sans in order to satisfy the tastes of these overseas
markets. The result was nothing more than a close imitation of Futura 31.

31 Monotype’s alternate
version of Gill Sans.

W A Dwiggins: Metro
After the arrival of the Modernist era in graphic design, the idea of a
sanserif informed by humanist calligraphic writing had scarcely any
place in the typographic world. William Addison Dwiggins, a type de-
signer in the United States, had been persistently interested in design-
ing a humanist sanserif for Linotype. Experimental No.63, as dubbed by
Dwiggins, was to be a sanserif type with perceivable contrast of thicks

32 Drawing of Dwiggin’s
unpublished Experimental
No.63, a humanist sanserif
with thick-thin contrast,
1929. and thins 32. It had a vertical axis, which reflected Dwiggin’s calligraphic
lettering using a flexible pointed pen, but it also shows traits from
broadnib pen writing. This idea was eventually shelved, but it did give a
glimpse of the future possibilities of sanserifs – a type fit for continuous
reading that is informed by the structural quality as well as stroke modu-
lation of calligraphic writing. The trend of the market led him to design
a geometric sanserif Metro (1929–30) instead 33. Although Metro is clas-
sified as a geometric sanserif, though it does show some of Dwiggins’s
idiosyncrasies and his calligraphic tendencies. Sebastian Carter writes:
‘It is an interesting rather than a successful type, with a lower case which
is too idiosyncratic for the generation of constructed sans-serifs to which
1 Tracy p.95
it belonged, and not convincing enough to establish its own tradition’.2
2 Carter, Sebastian: Twentieth Indeed, it is a sanserif type that sits somewhere between a humanist and
century type designers p.67 a geometric.
 30

The capitals of Metro are similar to those of Johnston’s, Gill’s and

Renner’s, except that they are wider. The lowercase on the other hand
shows traces of calligraphy, most notably the tapering of the top curve
of the f and the tail of the j and t. The capital J also has a descending tail
which is also tapered. The terminals on the vertical stems are also cut
at an oblique angle. The z also has a thin diagonal stroke, following the
logic of the broadnib pen.1 The a and g are both double-storey, following
the humanist tradition, though alternate single-storey forms were also
provided. However, the alternate forms were generally used. The low-
ercase is quite wide – its widths are in fact very normal for the humanist
calligraphic hand. Metro also possesses subtle but noticeable thick and
thin modulations compared to sanserif types prior to it.

33 W A Dwiggin’s Metro.

1 Although the broadnib pen

would generally produce a
thin stroke for the diagonal
of the z, most typefaces,
whether with or without
serifs, have thick diagonal
strokes.
 31

Frederic Goudy: Goudy Sans

Although not at all a geometric, another American sanserif type worthy
of note designed during this period is Goudy Sans. Designed by Frederic
Goudy (1929–30), it was one of the earliest sanserif designs to break
away from both the grotesque and the geometric model. It is based on
the principles of written forms rather than constructed ones, contrary to
even the most calligraphic Johnston Sans and Gill Sans in that era. Per-
haps this is hardly surprising: Goudy was initially quite resistant towards
the idea of making a sanserif but in the end reluctantly took on the job.
According to Robert Bringhurst, Goudy Sans is the ‘spiritual father’
of a few contemporary sanserifs, such as Erik Spiekermann’s Meta and
Officina.1 However, it is not a sanserif in the full sense – there are small
residual serifs. It is a monoline design based on the proportions of the
humanist bookhand, though instead of an o based on a perfect circle, an
oval was used hence the letters are condensed overall. Oddly, the upper-
case has a few very idiosyncratic and ornate characters, and italic capi-
tals are even more exuberant. The italic lowercase is also distinctly cur-
sive. There are exiting finials on the a d h i j k l m n and entry strokes on
m n p u v w and x, fully exhibiting the cursive quality of the calligraphic
forms. The terminals of Goudy Sans are horizontally cut at the baseline
and oblique at the x-height and ascender line.
Although Goudy Sans has not been a popular typeface, it was none-
theless a milestone in the development of calligraphically informed san-
serifs. However, other type designers did not pick up its ideas until the
1980s, as we shall see later.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
UVWXY&Z
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
UVWXY&Z
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
1 Bringhurst p.242 34 The digital URW version of Goudy Sans.
32

The sanserifs that have been examined so far are all monolinear. Al-
though most of them do have subtle modulations, they are nothing more
than visual adjustments that made the letters to appear to be monoline.
These thick-thin modulations have little to do with the logic of the broad-
nib pen. Monolinearity was still considered a prerequisite of sanserif
types. Meanwhile however, a number of designers also began to create
sanserif types that more faithfully reflect broadnib or flexible-pen cal-
ligraphic writing, in both construction and stylistic terms. All of them
were prolific and diverse designers, who were perhaps not bound by the
dogmas of Modernistic design. Whether these were considered sanserifs
at the time is debatable, and they were certainly geared towards adver-
tising and display copy rather than for any extended amounts of text,
with the exception of Optima. The term ‘contrast sanserifs’ is used here,
following Gerrit Noordzij’s classification in the Scangraphic type cata-
logues (1990).
 33

Contrast sanserifs: 1920s–50s

Jakob Erbar’s Feder-Grotesk (1919) was perhaps the first sanserif de-
sign to incorporate perceivable thick and thin transitions 35.1 Erbar did
practice calligraphy, and attended a course taught by one of Johnston’s
pupils, Anna Simons. Feder-Grotesk was clearly a type informed by cal-
ligraphy, but not calligraphy in the broadnib tradition as Walter Tracy
claims.2 It is a type with a high stroke contrast and its axis is clearly
35 Feder-Grotesk, vertical – following the principle of ‘expansion contrast’. The type was
by Jakob Erbar.
only available in capitals and was not widely used. Another capitals-only
contrast sanserif at the time was Offenbach designed by the German cal-
ligrapher Rudolf Koch, who was a contemporary of Edward Johnston. It
was designed for use with Koch’s Gothic lowercase.

36 Robert Hunter
Middleton’s Steller.

The first twentieth-century sanserif designed in the United States was

Steller 36, designed by a Scottish-born American designer Robert Hunter
Middleton in 1929. It was one of the first sanserifs to incorporate the
thick-thin transitions found in calligraphy. While Steller might seem a
simple calligraphic typeface, it in fact incorporates qualities from a few
sources. Steller is a typeface with moderate thick and thin contrast and a
vertical stress. All the strokes are tapered towards the middle and slightly
swelled at their endings. All of the vertical stems for the descenders and
at the baseline are cut horizontally. Although the type has a vertical
stress, which is derived from the logics of the flexible pointed pen, the
1 Tracy p.95
2 Tracy writes: ‘Its main and
terminals in i j m n p and r are evocative of broadnib calligraphy – they
secondary strokes were are oblique. The dots on the i and the j are also derived from the broad-
visibly different in thickness, nib pen. The k v w x and y on the other hand are reminiscent of monoline
because the type was meant
to reflect the action of a lapidary letters from antiquity – the diagonal have terminals that are at
broad-pen…’ p.92 right angles with the strokes.
 34

American designer Warren Chappell designed Lydian in 1938 39, which

was an immense success in the field of advertising typography. Lydian
is a contrast sanserif with an oblique stress. The contrast is high, with
explicitly pen-made forms. The italic of Lydian is a cursive that is almost
vertical, but there is also a bold cursive version, which is script-like, but
it could hardly be called a sanserif. Lydian’s curves are slightly angular,
giving a hint of gothic influence, reminiscent of Rudolf Koch’s calligraphy
– Koch was Chappell’s teacher.

37 Lydian, designed by
Warren Chappell.

A number of other contrast sanserifs were also designed along the same
line between the 1930s and 40s. But there is also a slightly different take
on these contrast sanserifs – a unicase designed by A M Cassandre called
Peignot in 1937 40. Peignot is a sanserif typeface with a vertical stress and
38 Colonia, 1938 high contrast. Although this is reminiscent of the ‘expansion contrast’
principle, it is a type that is far removed from the idiom of calligraphy.
The lowercase, except b d and f are in fact small capitals, though some
are with ascenders and descenders. However, its capitals are an ‘attempt
to revive the original form of the roman alphabet’.1 Peignot’s capitals are
indeed quite inscriptional, though with some letters slightly widened.
‘Cassandre believed he had drawn a purer form of the alphabet which
bore the “essential character” of roman letters’.2 This experiment was
39 Radiant, 1940.
quite akin to Herbert Bayer’s universal alphabet. Despite its eccentrici-
ties, Cassandre’s intention was to make Peignot a text face. It was howev-
er not widely adopted for such use, and the foundry Deberny & Peignot
later released a version called Touraine with a conventional lowercase 41.

The 1950s saw the introduction of two immensely successful and influen-
tial neo-grotesque sanserif types – Helvetica (1956) and Univers (1958).
1 Berry [Link].: The encyclopedia
They continued the tradition of the nineteenth century industrial gro-
of type faces p.224
2 Blackwell: 20th century type:
tesques but were severely rationalized and were made into large type sys-
remix p.64 tems. Their lineage with calligraphic writing is rather remote as they are
 35

primarily static, symmetrical designs without thick and thin contrast and
lack humanistic proportions. Therefore they do not warrant an account
here. Despite the fact that these neo-grotesques virtually took over the
type market from the 1950s, there was still room for other innovations in
sanserif designs to take place in the mean time.

40 Peignot, designed by
A M Cassandre

41 Deberny & Peignot’s

Touraine.
 36

42 ‘Optima Roman, The

foundry proof sheet of the
36pt. with corrections and
notes for the casting. S.
Stempel AG, Frankfurt 1958’

43 Optima and its oblique,

from an undated specimen
published by the D. Stempel
AG Typefoundry.
 37

Hermann Zapf: Optima, the new Roman

With the introduction of the Optima typeface designed by Hermann Zapf
in 1958, another historical source is brought to the fore. The inspiration
for Optima was drawn from the serifless lettering on a Florentine inscrip-
tion when Zapf visited Italy. The fifteenth century was an ‘experimental’
period for roman inscriptional lettering according to Nicolete Gray. It
was a transitional period between the Gothic and the Roman, and that
period of exploration yielded many unique styles of letterforms. The
inspiration for Optima might have well been one of these 44. These in-
scriptions show essentially roman letterforms without serifs but with
thick-thin transitions. The axis of contrast is clearly vertical, produced
by either writing with a flat brush held at a 0° angle (i.e. completely
horizontal) or built-up with a thin, pointed writing tool. These fifteenth
century experimental letters did not have the ‘ideal’ proportions as found
on Trajan Column.

44 ‘Epitaph of the anti-

pope John XXIII. Tomb by
Donatello and Michelozzo
(1422–7) in the Baptistry,
Florence.’

Optima is a sanserif type that is exclusively based on the principles of

the flexible pointed pen. The axis of contrast is vertical, and the contrast
of thick and thin is very high. Yet the inherent proportions of the lower-
case is unquestionably humanistic (based on the Golden Section), and
the capitals closely follow the proportions of the Trajan Column inscrip-
tions. Although Optima was designed as a text face and is obviously calli-
graphic, it is still an extremely static and rationalized face. Moreover, Op-
tima’s italic is simply a sloped roman. Sebastian Carter writes: ‘A serifless
italic defies imagination, so in common with most sans-serifs a sloped
version was produced to accompany the roman’.1 The terminals for the
vertical stems are horizontal except the top of the t, and the curved
strokes are cut at a slightly oblique angle. All strokes are subtly tapered
and waisted. ‘The taper of the stroke derives from unserifed Greek in-
scriptions and the unserifed roman inscriptions of Renaissance Florence,
1 Carter, S p.152 but in other respects the architecture of Optima is Neoclassical’.1 It was
 38

said to be an extension of the development of transitional roman book

types such as Baskerville, dispensing with the serifs without altering its
essential characteristics.2
Optima was a typeface that defies standard type categorization. Zapf
would have liked to name the typeface Neu Antiqua, meaning ‘new Ro-
man’ due to the fact that the typeface closely resembles roman letter-
forms. Zapf also called it ‘serifless roman’ in order to distinguish it from
other monoline sanserifs.3

Another contrast sanserif along a similar line to Zapf’s Optima was José
Mendoza’s Pascal, designed in 1960 45. ‘It is a sort of country cousin to
Optima’,4 writes Carter. Like Optima, it is a sanserif type with a high
thick-thin contrast. It is a more condensed type compared to Optima and
perhaps a little less refined. The widths of the capitals were made even.
Unlike Optima, its has a humanist stress – its axis of contrast is oblique.
The lowercase g is single-storey. An semi-cursive, almost chancery italic
was also drawn but was never released.5

45 Pascal, designed by
José Mendoza.

1 Bringhurst p.246
2 Carter, S p.152
3 Carter, S p.151
4 Carter, S p.160
5 Mendoza’s original
drawings for Pascal
italic can be found at the
University of Amsterdam
library.
 39

Sanserif as a book type 1960s–80s

There have always been attempts to design sanserif types that are suit-
able for the setting long texts. It wasn’t until the arrival of Syntax,
designed by Hans Eduard Meier in 1968, when the dynamic nature of
humanist calligraphic writing – arguably the most important element in
a type for continuous reading – is truly integrated into a monolinear san-
serif type. Meier seriously rethought the nature of the sanserif as a type
fit for comfortable continuous reading and formed an exemplary founda-
tion for subsequent sanserif designs.

46 Hans Eduard Mier’s Hans Eduard Meier: Syntax, an ‘oldstyle’ sanserif

Syntax.
In 1970, Stempel’s art director Erik Schulz-Anker wrote a detailed study
of Meier’s Syntax type. Schulz-Anker begins by acknowledging that there
were two ‘extreme poles of an organic development’. They were namely
the Garaldes and the Didones. He states that most sanserif typefaces
follow the Didone principle, which gives letterforms that are static in
nature. On the other hand, Syntax follows the Garalde model – which
is a direct descendant of humanistic writing – giving the type a dynamic
flow, making it very legible. It is a type that is indicative of the motions
of writing, which gives its dynamic character. However, the emphasis
that Meier put on the making of Syntax was not the thick-thin transi-
tions found in calligraphic writing, but the essential skeletal forms of the
letters. The type ‘synthesizes the linear structure and dynamic duct’.1
Erik Schulz-Anker states that characteristics such as serifs and thick-
thin transitions only have ‘at best a subordinate stylistic function’.2 The
inward structure – in Syntax’s case the essential humanist skeletal forms
– is what really determines its style. Sumner Stone adds, ‘it seems natural
to expect that if one uses as essential forms the skeletons of written let-
ters, e.g., humanistic ones, then the letterforms produced from them by
1 Schulz-Anker: ‘Syntax- whatever weighting system will retain some of the essential characteris-
Antiqua, a sans serif on a
tics of the original letters’.3 While the strokes remain monoline and serifs
new basis’ p.50
2 Ibid.
absent, it unquestionably belongs to the grouping of Garalde typefaces in
3 Stone: ‘Hans Eduard Meier’s terms of its construction.
Syntax-Antiqua’ p.22
 40

The terminals of Syntax are cut at right angles to the strokes, which
help leading one letter to the next. Meier writes: ‘Static characters are
designed on the basis of a geometrical system. The beginnings and ends
of strokes lead back into the character itself and do not join up to the
neighboring characters’.1 Coupled with the slight forward slant of the
letters, the type gives a strong horizontal flow that greatly facilitates the
ease of reading.
Schulz-Anker argues the letters in Syntax are easier to differentiate
from each other than ‘static’ sanserifs like Helvetica, owing to the fact
that Helvetica’s letters were deliberately made to resemble each other 47.
‘A distinct differentiation among the individual letters, on the other
hand, is one of the main characteristics and determinants of a dynamic
type face’.2

47 Clockwise from top left:

Bodoni, Sabon, Helvetica
and Syntax.

One of the most important details in the Syntax typeface is the con-
struction of the arches and joints. Schulz-Anker compares the letter m
in Bodoni, Helvetica, Sabon and Syntax 48. While the counters of both
Bodoni and Helvetica are rounded and symmetrical, both Sabon and

48 Comparison of Garaldes
and Didones and their
respective sanserif forms.

1 Quoted by Sumner Stone,

p.23
2 Schulz-Anker p.52
 41

Syntax have arches that start at an obtuse angle and are asymmetrical.
The joints for Sabon and Syntax are much more incisive and dynamic,
showing the distinctive properties of calligraphic writing. Meier states:

In the old face and Syntax the arches start from the stems and form angles
with them. They swing lightly upwards and after making a narrow-radius
curve as they enter the second stem. The dynamism of a curve written
with a pen is still perceptible. The arch is asymmetrical in form. In modern
face and sans serif types an almost symmetrical arch is used to join the two
uprights. The point where the arch leaves the stem is no longer empha-
sized. The motion of writing is no longer implicit.1

Schulz-Anker writes that the capitals of Syntax were directly derived

from early Roman lapidary letters that were purely linear in structure,
without serifs and monolinear. This is apparent in the terminals that are
at right angles to the main strokes. Similar to the Roman inscriptional
letters, the widths of the capitals vary.

49 Capitals of Bodoni,
Helvetica, Sabon and Syntax
compared.

Surprisingly, Syntax’s italic is not a true italic. It is rather a hybrid

that included only several cursive letters, namely the b c d p and q. The a
retains the double-storey form even in the italic. Furthermore, only the
regular weight is provided with an accompanying italic variant.

50 Digital URW Syntax italic.

abcdefghijklmnopq
rstuvwxyz
1 Stone: ‘The Stone family of
typefaces’ p137
 42

51 Formata, designed by
Bernd Möllenstädt.

Bernd Möllenstädt: Formata

Formata, designed in 1980, is another sanserif designed as a text face.
It is based on humanistic proportions and somewhat follows the thick-
thin transitions of the broadnib pen, though its contrast is quite low.
‘It was designed as a contrast to the usual linear, artificial rigidity and
uniformity of Grotesque and to achieve an ideal reader-friendliness by its
warm and flow’.1 The typeface has no straight lines at all – all strokes are
waisted with endings expanded and capped corners. Stroke endings are
all cut at a slight angle, which is distinctly calligraphic. Formata’s italic
is not simply a sloped roman – it is a true italic, though it ‘is a moderate
italic which fits well with the rest of the family and in upright text’.2
Formata is perhaps reminiscent of one of Hermann Zapf’s unpublished
humanist sanserif, Magnus Sans, designed between 1956 and 1958 for
English Linotype. A trial size was cut but was never manufactured. The
project was cancelled in 1960 following the release of Univers.

52 Magnus Sans, an
unpublished design by
Hermann Zapf.

1 Klein, et al: Type &

typographers p.76
2 Klein, et al p.77
 43

Convergence of the sanserif and the serif

‘The idea of designing a serif and sans serif typeface as part of the same
family seems to have originated with Jan Van Krimpen, who designed
a sans serif version of Romulus in the 1920s’,1 writes Sumner Stone.
However, the work was stopped rather too prematurely to have made an
impact.2 Two years after Futura, the Stempel foundry issued a slab-serif
by the name of Memphis. It was the first of the many twentieth century
slab-serif revivals that adopted the geometric idiom based on a monolin-
ear design. It was very much in the spirit of Renner’s Futura. In fact
Alexander Lawson simply states that these revivals ‘consisted of the addi-
tion of serifs to the Futura model’.3 itc Avant Garde, a geometric sanserif
designed by Herb Lubalin in 1970 had an accompanying slab-serif Luba-
lin Graph by the same designer four years later. However, their overtly
geometric constructions are devoid of any influence of calligraphic writ-
ing – they are wholly static in appearance. The convergence of the serifed
and sanserif types meant that the calligraphic roots of the serif types be-
came more important as source material for the design of sanserif types.

53 Demos & Praxis, and

Demos italic & Flora
designed by Gerard Unger.

1 Stone: ‘The Stone family of Gerard Unger’s Demos and Praxis, designed in 1976 were designed to
typefaces’ p.137
function as serifed and sanserif members of a related family. It was the
2 ‘For the sans serif, punches
were cut in the 12 point first attempt at integrating the traditionally two different ‘genres’ of
size and matrices struck in types at the outset. Both Demos and Praxis share the same structure,
the Enschedé foundry, but
which is loosely based on humanist proportions. Though the g is single-
specimen settings of the
four weights make it clear storey. While Demos is a modulated serif type appear to have been writ-
that the work stopped at an ten with a shallow pen-angle, Praxis is visually monolinear. Demos’s
early stage of development.’
Tracy: ‘The types of Jan van
italic variant is a semi-cursive and slightly condensed. In 1984, Unger
Krimpen’ p.37 designed Flora, either to be used on its own or as a companion to Praxis.
3 Lawson p.318 It was possibly the first sanserif typeface to approximate chancery italic
 44

writing.1 ‘In it the sans-serif form comes as close to a true cursive as is

possible’.2 However, it has a vertical axis of stress, and only has a slant of
2.5°. The branching in h m n p and r are very low, almost starting at the
baseline, and a and g have the conventional, single-storey forms. The
Demos/Praxis/Flora family of typefaces was designed to function well
under the degradation of the crt typesetting process.

54 Lucida Serif and Sans

with respective italics

Charles Bigelow and Kris Holmes designed the Lucida family of typefaces
for Adobe in 1985. It was a family of type designed to withstand the low
resolution output of the original 300 dpi Apple LaserWriters. It has a serif
and a corresponding sanserif variant. Lucida Sans follow the structure of
the serifed version closely, though it has a lower contrast than the serifed
one. They are both based on humanist proportions. While the serifed
version has a double-storey g, the sanserif has a single-storey one. The
thick-thin transitions closely follow the logics of the broadnib pen, except
perhaps at the lower joints of the b and p and the upper joints of the d g
and q. This is in fact quite common amongst sanserif faces – it is to stan-
dardize the joints with a single module instead of two. Robert Bringhurst
highly praises Lucida Sans and dubbed it as ‘one of the best sanserifs for
ordinary text’.3 He also writes that Lucida Sans ‘has a poise, simplicity
and energy that many serifed text faces lack.

1 Bringhurst p.240
2 Carter, S p.175
3 Bringhurst p.243
 45

55 Sumner Stone’s
Stone family: Serif, Sans
and Informal with their
respective italics.

As the type director for Adobe, Sumner Stone designed the

Stone family, the first original Postscript typeface for Adobe
in 1987. It is a type family that consists of three stylistic vari-
ants: a serif, a sanserif and an informal. The sanserif mem-
ber of the Stone family, though its essential form is based
on humanistic writing, has a variable axis of contrast. While
the lowercase g is double-storey for the serif version, both
Stone Sans and Stone Informal have single-storey ones. The
capitals are based on Renaissance roman inscriptions. While
most of the terminals are horizontally cut, some of them are
at right angles to the stems, giving a rather lapidary qual-
ity reminiscent of Greek sanserif inscriptions. The italic is a
semi-cursive but does not reflect the essential structure of
the chancery italic form.
 46

Ronald Arnholm designed the itc Legacy family of type in 1992, and it
was in many ways a unique sanserif design. While its serifed version is
clearly a relatively faithful reinterpretation of Nicholas Jenson’s roman
type in the fifteenth century, the sanserif version is an unserifed version
of it – a first attempt at making an unserifed version of Jenson’s type.1
Like the serifed version, the sanserif also has a distinctly oblique angle
of stress, and the logics of the broadnib pen are dutifully replicated. It
retains many dynamic features of the humanist hand and its calligraphic
flow, and has a relatively high contrast compared to most sanserif types.
Instead of following the Chancery model, the italic for Legacy Sans fol-
lows the form of the Garamond’s gros romain.2 It was clearly an effort to
make a sanserif suitable for continuous text setting.

56 ITC Legacy Serif and

Sans, with respective italics.

1 Bringhurst p.243
2 Ibid.
 47

Neo-humanist sanserifs: 1990s

The integration of the sanserif and the serif within a single family of type
not only means that sanserif types are moving ever closer to their serifed
counterparts; it more importantly shows that both kinds of typefaces are
in fact moving towards a middle ground. Many sanserif typefaces de-
signed in the 1990s were attempts to marry the two in compromising but
complimentary ways. While many sanserifs of the 1990s were obviously
humanistic, there are also quite a few hybrids, combining proportions
and forms derived from broadnib and flexible point calligraphy. Most of
these type families designed in the 1990s also have oldstyle figures, small
capitals and invariably true italics. Most of them are based on humanist
proportions, and have a large range of weights, making them serviceable
types for both text and display settings.

57 Erik Spiekermann’s Meta.

Erik Spiekermann: Meta
The FontFont series of original typefaces licensed by FontShop Interna-
tional has been a major proponent of contemporary sanserif types since
its founding in 1990, many of which were inspired by humanistic calli-
graphic writing. One of the first and most successful was Meta, designed
by Erik Spiekermann and released in 1991. It was an extremely popular
type and was dubbed ‘Helvetica of the nineties’ by Spiekermann himself.
Unlike Helvetica, its lowercase has a fundamentally humanistic construc-
tion, though all the letters are much condensed in order to make it more
economical for space – it was originally intended for the setting of forms.
Its proportions are extremely similar to that of Goudy Sans’s. Most ter-
minals on the main strokes are canted, reminiscent of the broadnib pen
held at an oblique angle and are slightly curved, giving the impression
of entry and exit strokes. The terminal on the ascender of the d however
 48

is cut at a reversed angle. Akin to Johnston’s railway sanserif type, the

lowercase l has a tail, not merely reflecting humanistic writing, but also
facilitating recognizability. The widths of the uppercase are drastically
equalized however. Meta’s italic is semi-cursive, which has no evidence
of upstrokes.

58 Scala Sans with its italic,

designed by Martin Majoor.

Martin Majoor: Scala Sans

Another commercially successful neo-humanist sanserif designed in the
nineties is Martin Majoor’s Scala Sans (1994). It is another sanserif that
was designed by closely following an existing serif, forming a hybrid
family. While both Scala’s serifed and sanserif versions are based on
explicitly humanistic proportions, Scala Sans is slightly narrower than
its serifed counterpart, in order to accommodate the change of rhythm
when the serifs are absent.1 The branching on the letters h m n p and r
are low, akin to the structure of the italic. The italic on the other hand is
not very condensed. These were ways to bring the forms of the two vari-
ants closer together. It has been used successfully as a text type.

59 Quadraat Sans with its

italic by Fred Smeijers.

Fred Smeijers: Quadraat Sans

Quadraat Sans (1997–98), designed by Dutch type designer Fred
Smeijers is perhaps one of the most calligraphically informed sanserif
designs. Like many sanserifs designed in the 1990s, Quadraat Sans was
1 Bringhurst p.248 designed as a companion to Smeijers Quadraat Serif. At first glace,
 49

Quadraat Sans is an extremely uneven and unsettling typeface. This ar-

guably sprang from the calligraphic influence of the typeface. Quadraat
Sans has the qualities of a display typeface but at the same time suitable
for the setting of longer texts. The terminals are mostly cut at an oblique
angle, except those on the baseline. The face shows abrupt turns in the
curves within some counters, emphasizing the oblique stress of the face
and indicating the strokes of the broadnib pen. The letter-widths of the
italic are markedly condensed, with particularly abrupt turns in the
curves, which reflect conventional forms of the chancery italic hand.

Luc(as) de Groot: Thesis Sans

Although Thesis Sans (1994) is a design clearly based on humanistic
broadnib calligraphy and its proportions, its arches are symmetrical
and its counters rounded. This attributes to the introduction of italic
60 Thesis Sans and Thesis characteristics in the roman letters.1 Yet the type has a very subtle hint
Antiqua, designed by
Luc(as) de Groot. of a humanistic (oblique) axis of contrast – though Thesis Sans is a low
contrast typeface. The logics of the thick and thin transitions are unques-
tionably humanistic – there is no evidence where the mechanics of the
broadnib pen are compromised. The accompanying italic shares more or
less the same characteristics as the roman, with very similar character
widths, though it is still decisively based on Chancery italic forms. Most
of the letters show the presence of upstrokes (rounded counters and low
branching). The Thesis family comprises not only the sanserif, but also a
slab-serif, a ‘semi-serif’ and an ‘antiqua’, and they were all designed with
the same principles of construction in mind. It could be seen here that de
1 from Luc(as) de
Groot’s web site Groot was attempting to unify not only the serif with the sanserif but also
[Link] the roman and the italic forms.
 50

61 Via Sign, designed for the

Danish Railway (DSB) by
Bo Linnemann.

62 The text version of Via.

 51

Bo Linnemann: Via
In 1999, the Danish railway system (dsb) introduced a new corporate
typeface, Via, designed by Bo Linnemann of the Danish design studio
Kontrapunkt, used for the system’s signage and printed literature. Via
was designed as a successor of the modified version of Helvetica that was
used previously. Legibility was improved over Helvetica by ‘giving the
letters longer up- and downstrokes, open forms, blunt angles and non-
parallel lines’.1 The most distinctive letter of the typeface is the lowercase
g, which has an abruptly cut off lower bowl. There is a text version with
a downplayed single-storey g, so that it does not disrupt the rhythm for
continuous reading 62. This feature was found on the design prior to
the Helvetica design (pre 1972). Via was an attempt to ‘combine histori-
cal traditions from the old dsb signs with Danish typography culture’.2
Interestingly, Linnemann writes that Futura and Gill Sans represented a
‘Germanic and a British approach to functionalism’ – ‘constructionalistic’
and ‘humanistic’ respectively, and during the 70s ‘the Brits and the Danes
both renounced their humanistic traditions. With Via, we now feel that
we have made amends’.3
Via’s lowercase is based on the proportions of the humanistic
bookhand, while its capitals were derived from Renaissance roman in-
scriptions. The overall stress of Via is oblique, but its vertical at times, for
example in the o. The thick-thin transitions of Via clearly follow the log-
ics of the broadnib pen, except for the o.
The most clearly calligraphic feature of Via is the arches of the h m n
p and r and the joints. The joints at the bottom right of the a and the top
left of the m n p and r reflect the entry strokes (exit stoke for the a) when
these letters are written with a broadnib pen. These ‘entry strokes’ are al-
most gothic like. When curves approach these joints, the thick-thin tran-
sitions are very obviously calligraphic. These curves have a very dynamic
calligraphic flow. It is an extremely lively and highly legible typeface.

1 Linnemann: Design Denmark

p.12
2 Linnemann p.13
3 Ibid.
52
 53

Conclusion

This dissertation has examined the calligraphic tendencies in the devel-

opment of a branch of type that was purported to be a deviation from
the norm – display typography. The sanserif began its life as almost the
opposite of book typography and for some, of good taste. After over a
century’s development, the sanserif has now been partially assimilated
into mainstream typography, even for the setting of extended amounts of
text. The influence of calligraphy arguably promoted this evolution. It is
perhaps seen in this dissertation that one tool does not drive out another
so easily, not even after five hundred years. Yet the flexibility in our cur-
rent tools for making type – the computer and the bezier curves – offer us
immense flexibility to either imitate or override or combine freely all the
tools that we have had in the past. Calligraphic writing, whether done
with a broadnib pen or flexible pointed pen, can offer type designers
new possibilities: the characteristic strokes that they produce could be
reinterpreted and renewed by our new tools in numerous kinds of ways.
Moreover, calligraphy, when used as a basis for designing new types
gives grounding to the letterforms so that they do not deviate too much
from the readers’ expectations, hindering the objective communication
of textual information.

In the twentieth century, designers have generally eschewed the broad-

edged pen for doing their preliminary drawings, preferring instead pencil,
pointed brush, ballpoint pen, felt-tip pens, ruling pens, and other tools.
(Designers like Rudolf Koch, Frederic Warde, F.H.E. Schneidler, Hermann
Zapf, and G.G. Lange, who have drawn typefaces that are closely based on
penwritten forms, may be exceptions to this rule.) Yet all the departures
of the past five hundred years have produced relatively small changes, at
least for text typefaces. The remnants of the underlying rhythmical struc-
ture of written letterforms are still with us in modern letterform design,
fundamentally influencing the personality of alphabet styles.1

Should we imitate or to defy calligraphic tradition? Type designers

have been asking this question ever since the beginning of typography,
and it is still as germane as it was over five hundred years ago. Gerrit
Noordzij’s approach to typography from a graphological point of view
1 Stone: ‘Hans Eduard Meier’s might seem a laudable attempt to bring typeface design closer to its
Syntax-Antiqua’ p.14 historical predecessor – writing. But it is perhaps seen in this dissertation
54

that no matter how much evidence of calligraphic forms exists in a

typeface, there are undoubtedly many other features of calligraphy that
would have to be disposed of in order to make it work as a typeface.
A certain degree of standardization has to be exercised. The question
perhaps is not whether to imitate or to defy the calligraphic tradition, but
one that asks how be rational without sacrificing rhythm and humanity.
The key, it seems, is to maintain a tension between the two choices in
order to address new challenges in type design.
 55

Bibliography

Banks, Colin
London’s Handwriting: the development of Edward Johnston’s Underground
railway block-letter
London: London Transport Museum 1994

Berry, W Turner, A F Johnson & W P Jaspert

The encyclopaedia of type faces
London: Blandford Press 1958

Blackwell, Lewis
20th century type: remix
Corte Madera: Gingko Press 1998

Bringhurst, Robert
The elements of typographic style
Second edition
Vancouver: Hartley & Marks 1997

Burke, Christopher
Paul Renner: the art of typography
New York: Princeton Architectural Press 1998

Carter, Harry
‘Sanserif types’
Simon, Oliver, ed.: The Curwen Press Miscellany
London: Soncino Press 1931

Carter, Sebastian
Twentieth century type designers
London: Lund Humphries 2002

Dowding, Geoffrey
An introduction to the history of printing types
London: Wace & Company Ltd. 1961

Gill, Eric
An essay on typography
Fifth edition
London: Lund Humphries 2001

Gray, Nicolete
Sanserif and other experimental inscribed lettering of the early Renaissance

Harling, Robert
The letter forms and type designs of Eric Gill
New York: The Typophiles 1978

Howes, Justin
Johnston’s Underground type
Middlesex: Capital Transport Publishing 2000
 56

Johnston, Edward
Writing & illuminating, & lettering
London: Adam & Charles Black 1983

Kinross, Robin
Modern typography: an essay in critical history
London: Hyphen Press 1992

Klein, Manfred, Yvonne Schwemer-Scheddin and Erik Spiekermann

T+T type+typographers
London: Architecture Design and Technology 1991

Lawson, Alexander
Anatomy of a typeface
Boston: Godine 1990

Linnemann, Bo
‘Typography with identity’
Design Denmark 3:1999

Lund, Ole
Description and differentiation of sans serif typefaces
University of Reading: unpublished PgDip dissertation 1993

Mosley, James
The Nymph and the Grot: the revival of the sanserif letter
London: Friends of the St Bride Printing Library 1999

Noordzij, Gerrit
The stroke of the pen: fundamental aspects of western writing
The Hague: Koninklijke Akademie 1982

Schulz-Anker, Erik
‘Syntax-Antiqua, a sanserif on a new basis’
Gebrauchsgraphik no.8, 1970 pp.49–56

Stone, Sumner
‘Hans Eduard Meier’s Syntax-Antiqua’
Bigelow, Charles, Hayden Duensing & Linnea Gentry, eds
Fine print on type: the best of Fine print magazine on type and typography
San Francisco: Bedford Arts 1988 pp.22–25

‘The Stone family of typefaces’

Bigelow, Charles, Hayden Duensing & Linnea Gentry, eds
Fine print on type: the best of Fine print magazine on type and typography
San Francisco: Bedford Arts 1988 pp.136–139

Tracy, Walter
Letters of credit: a view of type design
London: Gordon Fraser 1986

‘The types of Jan van Krimpen’

Bigelow, Charles, Hayden Duensing & Linnea Gentry, eds
Fine print on type: the best of Fine print magazine on type and typography
San Francisco: Bedford Arts 1988 pp.37–45
 57

Tschichold, Jan
The new typography: a handbook for modern designers
Translated by Ruari McLean
Berkeley: University of California Press 1995

Twyman, Michael
‘The bold idea: the use of bold-looking types in the nineteenth century’
Journal of the Printing Historical Society No.22 1993

Printing 1770–1970: an illustrated history of its development and

uses in England
London: The British Library 1998

Sources Consulted

Biggs, John R
Letter-forms & Lettering: Towards and understanding of the shapes of letters
Dorset: Blandford Press 1977

Camp, Ann
Pen Lettering
Third edition
Leicester: Dryad Press 1971

Catich, Edward
The origin of the serif
Second edition
Iowa: St Ambrose University 1991

Chapman, Sara
The small letter g
University of Reading: unpublished BA dissertation 1989

Chappell, Warren & Robert Bringhurst

A short history of the printed word
Second edition
Vancouver: Hartley & Marks 1999

Daines, Mike
‘The sans serif and the Swiss style’
Baseline 14, 1991, pp.20–29

Fairbank, Alfred
A book of scripts
Middlesex: Penguin Books 1949

Fink, Joanne
The Speedball textbook: a comprehensive guide to pen and brush lettering
22nd Edition
usa: Hunt Manufacturing Co. 1991

Gray, Nicolete
Nineteenth century ornamented typefaces
London: Faber and Faber 1976
 58

Gray, Nicolete
Lettering on buildings
London: The Architectural Press 1960

Haley, Allan
Hot designers making cool fonts
Massachusetts: Rockport Publishers 1998

Handover, P M
‘Letters without serifs’
Motif 6, 1961, pp.66–81

Harvey, Michael
Lettering design: form & skill in the design & use of letters
London: The Bodley Head 1975

Hutchings, R S
Western heritage of type design: a treasury of currently available typefaces
demonstrating the historical development and diversification of form of
printed letters.
London: Cory, Adams & Mackay 1963

Johnston, Edward
Manuscript & inscription letters: for schools & classes & for the use of craftsmen
Facsimile edition, originally published in 1911.
New York: Pentalic Corporation

Lawson, Alexander & Dwight Agner

Printing types: an introduction
Boston: Beacon Press 1990

Luna, Paul
Understanding type for desktop publishing
London: Blueprint 1992

McMurtrie, Douglas C
Modern Typography and Layout
Chicago: Eyncourt Press 1929

Megaw, Denis
‘20th Century Sans Serif Types’
Typography 7, 1938 p.31

Meggs, Philip B
A history of graphic design
Second Edition
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold 1992

The Monotype Recorder

Commemorating the exhibition held at Monotype House of Lettering and Type
Designs by Eric Gill, vol. 41, no. 3, 1958

Nash, John R & Gerald Fleuss

Practical calligraphy
London: Hamlyn Publishing 1992
 59

Noordzij, Gerrit
Letterletter:an inconsistent collection of tentative theories that do not claim any
other authority than that of common sense
Vancouver: Hartley & Marks 2000

Roberts, Raymond
Typographic design
London: Ernest Benn 1966

Smeijers, Fred
Counterpunch: making type in the sixteenth century, designing typefaces now
London: Hyphen Press 1996

Stone, Sumner
On Stone: the art and use of typography on the personal computer
San Francisco: Bedford Arts, Publishers 1991

Sutton, James & Alan Bartram

An atlas of typeforms
1988 edition
Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions 1988

Zapf, Hermann
Hermann Zapf & his design philosophy
Chicago: Society of Typographic Arts 1987
 60

Illustration Sources

1 Made by the author. 26 From an undated type specimen

2 Noordzij: Letterletter, p.9 published by the Klingspor foundry.

3 Noordzij: The stroke of the pen, p.33 27 Megaw, p.34

4 Noordzij: The stroke of the pen, p.10 28 Ibid.

5 Fink: The Speedball textbook, p.14 29 Burke: Paul Renner, p.94

6 Johnston: Writing & illuminating, & 30 Burke, p.100

lettering, pp.240–241 31 Tracy: Letters of credit p.95
7 Fink, p.19 32 Lawson: Anatomy of a typeface,
8 Dowding: History of Printing Types, p.331
p.178 33 Carter, S p.67
9 Biggs: Letter-forms & Lettering, p.35 34 urw Goudy Sans, digital type.
10 Dowding, p.180 35 Tracy, p.92
11 Sutton & Bartram: An atlas of 36 Carter, S, p.120
typeforms, p.105 37 Berry, et al: The encyclopaedia of
12 Gill: An essay on typography, type faces, p.216
pp.42–43 38 Berry, et al, p.210
13 Howes: Johnston’s Underground 39 Berry, et al, p.225
type, p.39 40 From an undated type catalogue
14 Johnston: Manuscript & inscription published by Deberny & Peignot.
letters, Plate 12 41 Ibid.
15 Johnston: Manuscript & inscription 42 Zapf: Hermann Zapf & his design
letters, Plate 6 philosophy, p.195
16 Johnston: Writing & illuminating, & 43 From an undated specimen leaflet
lettering, p.233 of Optima, published by the D.
17 Johnston: Manuscript & inscription Stempel ag Typefoundry.
letters, Plate 11 44 Grey: Sanserif and other
18 Howes, p.35 experimental inscribed lettering of
the early Renaissance, p.7
19 The Monotype Recorder vol. 41, no. 3,
Cover. 45 Hutchings: Western heritage of type
design, p.96
20 Photograph from original at St
Bride Printing Library. 46 Schulz-Anker: ‘Syntax-Antiqua, a
sanserif on a new basis’, p.49
21 Megaw: ‘20th Century Sans Serif
Types’, p.31 47 Schulz-Anker, p.53

22 Carter, S: Twentieth century type 48 Schulz-Anker, p.51

designers, p.77 49 Schulz-Anker, p.55
23 Johnston: Manuscript & inscription 50 urw Syntax italic, digital type.
letters. Plate 6. 51 Klein, et al: T+T type+typographers
24 The Monotype Recorder, p.15 p.77 and samples from Adobe Type
25 Megaw, p.35 on Call unlockable cd.
52 Zapf, p.128
 61

53 Image from pdf specimens

downloaded from the Linotype web
site [Link]
54 Samples from Adobe Type on Call
unlockable cd.
55 Stone: On Stone, p.21
56 Samples from Adobe Type on Call
unlockable cd.
57 FontFont Catalogue 2002, p.61
58 Reproduced from a sample printout.
59 Ibid.
60 LucasFonts Catalog, April 2000,
pp.32, 44
61 From printed literature published
by the dsb.
62 Ibid.