New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Create an account
Typophile RSS | More Feeds
do you know the font?
Paul Barnes logo
Something of his own, I'm sure.
... and none of his fonts are available on the retail market.
it probably started out as Galliard Italic
nice idea, anyway.
way to long for me.
Dear paul d hunt,
Surely you are joking? Looking at the terminals, Galliard is clearly based on a different period in Robert Granjon's illustrious career. For shame! You owe Paul Barnes an apology! This is an original work in progress by Mr. Barnes, called Muriel, and he has thus far refused to allow me to license it from him, although he has cruelly teased me with PDF specimens from time to time. It is outstanding.
Randolph T. Burke
Chill, Randolph, chill… I'm almost certain that thou also occasionally makest a mistake. ;^)
Plus I agree with Paul that it definitely looks like a heartline version of ITC Gaillard Italic, down to the alternate lowercase 'g' that's included in the Carter & Cone version. Well spotted, Paul. :^)
I would like to thank people for the kind words, but I would also to clear up some of the confusion and some inaccuracies
Matthew’s Galliard of course is a revival of two typefaces cut by Robert Granjon; his Ascendonica Romaine and his Ascendonica Cursive. Both appear in the printing of Plantin, and in part in his folio specimen of 1585; both were cut in 1570/1. He would have known the type well through the research he carried out with Harry Carter, Mike Parker and Henrick Vervliet. In the middle part of the last century both were recast from matrices, and smoke proofs were obtained from punches and appeared in several journals, the last being I believe in Typography Papers 3, 1998. This only shows the italic in Vervliet’s article on Granjon’s italics, which is built on the pioneering research of AF Johnson in the early 1940s. Matthew’s own article on Galliard ‘Galliard: A Revival of Types of Robert Granjon’ that appeared in Visible Language in 1985, 19.1 explains his method and reason.
Like Matthew before me, I have made a typeface that is a revival of these particular models. From original and facsimile source material at St Bride Library, I have made this hairline version (entitled Marian 1570), which is part of a series of revivals or interpretations of ‘classic’ faces; Garamond, Granjon, Van den Keere, Fleischmann, Fournier, Baskerville, Bodoni, Austin and Besley. Rightly or wrongly I have perhaps followed what I think is Granjons ‘line’ closer than Matthew. Though Galliard is a very accurate revival it differs in some details from the model; the lower case f, h, p, q and the proportions of ascender and descenders in the italic are obvious ones, which I have retained.
That I should choose this particular source is based not on the fact that Matthew has made Galliard, but I would think that both of us recognise that this roman and italic mark a change in the style of the ‘Renaissance’ style of roman and italic. Granjon’s career is marked by three key italic styles; his Petit Parangon of 1554 (basis for Adobe Garamond), his Italique Cicero droite of 1565 (his upright italic, of which both the Oxford University Press and the Plantin-Moretus have mats, and St Bride has in case) and this one; which Vervliet calls his ‘brilliant “Baroque” italics’. Vervliet describes a fourth style, which is his earliest, and he calls ‘hesitant and experimental’. Marian 1554 and 1565 deal with the other two styles (matched with the romans of Claude Garamond as Plantin would have done).
So I think perhaps the title is misleading and doesn’t give credit to Granjon; a truly astounding punch cutter and typedesign. Like Matthew I am standing on the shoulders of one of the giants; infact Marian is entirely standing on these shoulders. Marian 1570 like Galliard comes from the original inspiration. Marian 1570 is not derived from Galliard, just as Fenway, Mercury and Farnham all draw from Fleischmann not from DTL Fleischmann. The alternative lower case g is in the specimen of 1585 and various reproductions of the recast type, not just Matthew’s creation in the 70s.
thanks for the excellent background, Mr Barnes. and i will apologize for my poorly worded post above. i should have sited the similarity (as you have pointed out), and not implied that it was derived from Galliard. thanks for clearing all that up and giving us some history.
Mr Barnes (would Paul be OK?), thanks for jumping in.
A pleasure. Can someone perhaps change the headline to Marian?
Done. Welcome, Paul!