Studio: international art (5.1895)

The Making of Monograms

not be justified by reference to old authorities, that
are yet admissible, as for instance a common form
of M, which might be placed in the "a" group,
and one of A, which comes into the group " c."
Roughly speaking, " a" consists of letters that
depend on an upright thick stroke and slightly
curved subsidiary features; "b"of uprights com-
bined with distinct semicircular forms; "c" forms
based on the circle or ellipse; "d" forms that are
obviously akin but not quite easy to define; " e " in-
dependent letters not falling into the other groups.

By comparing these two alphabets, we shall see
that certain letters fall into entirely different groups ;
for instance, the E. andT., which are in group "a,"
of the Roman alphabet, and here in group " c."
If we used " lower case" letters, which it might
be affectation to employ in serious work, but not
too fantastic for a monogram, a new grouping
results.

Excepting the Roman section, this arbitrary
classification is not offered as a final arrangement,
but as a hasty sorting to explain the broad
principles of the factors which go to build up the
monogram.

This ordering of the alphabet in various classes
should govern the choice of the style of letters.
Because, as a reference to other alphabets will
show, the monogram depends largely for its success
on a series of contrasted lines.

By reference to these divisions, we shall see that
the most satisfactory monograms as a rule are
those which take each letter from a distinct group.
When designing in Roman types, if you select any
three from a single group, say E.F.H. for example,
you will need some ingenuity to obtain a pleasant
result. Whereas, the monogram T.A.M. (to take
another example at random) is infinitely more
readily interwoven, consisting as it does of one
from each group.

The chief difficulty in explaining this subject by
words alone, is the impossibility of reproducing
even a single set of two-letter monograms. For
this would mean over three hundred examples,
while for combinations of three or four letters a far
greater number would be required. Still a few
general rules may be given, which point the text of
the final argument, although the examples which
illustrate them cannot be set side by side for com-
parison.

(1) All monograms should be legible, each initial
perfect in itself, so that a tracing of that particular
unit would give a consistent letter.

(2) The shape of all letters used should be in
accordance with one style, no matter what license

be taken in the proportions of the various parts of
each letter.

(3) The initial of the surname should be ob-
viously the most important, either from its size or
by its placing.

(4) "Fancy" letters should be strictly sub-
ordinated to the decorative effect of the whole.

(5) The resultant monogram should be not
merely a fairly harmonious pattern in itself, but a
comely " spot " of decoration when viewed too far
off to distinguish its details.

If we take a very simple monogram—say A.T.—
we shall find that it is as easy to make it decorative
in Roman characters as in Mediaeval; nor, if
legibility is required, could anything be less com-
plex. The straight lines of Roman letters are
certainly far more harmonious when ornament is
added as a background or setting. In Fig. 5, we
find that five of the set employ variants of Roman
capitals ; yet nearly all of them—notably the G.W.,
E.S., and H.W.—would have been better had
they kept strictly to purer forms of the initials. A
more legitimate modification of the normal forms
of the letters distinguishes those in Fig. 8 ; the
D.O.Y. is an excellent simple treatment, the S.M.F.
is also good, although the F. is perhaps too
isolated. In the set (Fig. 6) of monograms based
on most orthodox models, there is considerable
decorative feeling, but the results are sometimes a
little enigmatical, and not easily read. The one in
the centre of the upper line is obviously "Mary,"
but the others are cryptic; still they are exceedingly
good of their sort. In the central device of
Fig. 1, "Studio" is cleverly arranged in letters
that are very slightly distorted. These few examples
are sufficient to show that Roman letters are quite
manageable, although the instances here given are
not numerous enough to prove the case up to the
hilt.

Still, if the text be a scanty one, some lessons
may be deduced from it. Note in Fig. 5, the use
of the G to embrace the W, as it were. It so
happens that this particular combination has
tempted me to a hundred experiments, and there-
fore without unduly criticising the example given,
I cannot avoid saying that the proportions of the
letters might be greatly improved; a of this

type would have balanced better, because it allows
the V forms to be planned at a less acute angle,

as their overlapping places the strokes nearer
together, and enables the G to embrace them
more pleasantly.

This monogram is a typical instance of easy

187