PARK AND C E M ET E RY. 
Ill 
Best Types of Modern American Cross Tablets 
By ERNEST STEVENS LELAND 
One of the most interesting historic 
types of memorial is the Celtic cross- 
slab, and there are manj- fine modern 
adaptations of this ancient type oi 
memorial. The art of the Celt is 
so closely identified with his race 
and times, that we may naturall}' 
be moved to question the fitness of a 
Celtic monument on a modern cemetery 
plot. And indeed, when the designer, 
for want of imagination, has literally 
copied an ancient monument, there is 
some foundation for our uncertainty. 
It is to the skillful adaptor that art is 
most deeply indebted, for by the fruit 
of his labors the evolution of art has 
progressed. Ruskin has well said in 
his “Seven Lamps of Architecture’’: “It 
is no sign of deadness in a present art 
that it borrows or imitates, but only if 
it borrows without paying interest, or 
if it imitates without choice.” The at- 
tempts are legion in which men have 
sought to create a “new and distinctive 
art” unlike anything before ; but their 
names and their work are sunk' in 
oblivion. In defending the American 
architect, so often derided for “having 
no style of his own,” Talbot Hamlin in 
his “Enjoyment of Architecture” (Duf- 
field and Co.) has said, “In drawing in- 
spiration from these channels and in 
adopting forms developed in Europe, 
our architects committed no artistic 
sin ; they were merely following the 
same methods that the architects of all 
great ages have followed. Beauty is 
the architect’s aim and beauty is a qual- 
ity that knows neither race nor nation. 
The Cretan copied Egypt, the Hellene 
copied the Cretan, the Roman copied 
the Greek, the Renaissance copied the 
Roman, the modern architect copies 
them all.” And so it is and should be 
with the designer of memorials. For 
many years we have suffered a “style 
of our own” but thanks to progressive 
craftsmen and journals, we are turning 
our attention to all that is best in the 
past and we are steadily setting a stand- 
ard of memorial art which even the Old 
World may find instructive. 
The dominant note of all that is best 
in American memorial art is a refined 
simplicity. Our leading designers in all 
fields are persistently avoiding every- 
thing that approaches burdensome or- 
namentation. However elaborate a 
work may be, it will be found that the 
ensemble by virtue of its directness of 
purpose, unity and refinement, has ef- 
fected a result that is not over-wrought, 
complicated, confusing or “fancy.” This 
achievement is due no doubt to the great 
emphasis laid on the principles of de- 
JUDSON TABLET, HAMILTON, N. Y. 
sign and aesthetic composition in our 
art schools. There are innumerable 
books, a reading of which would pre- 
clude much that is bad in our field. The 
laws of good and bad effects have been 
quite clearly defined in these works and 
so interestingly have many of them 
been written that to study them is a 
pleasure. 
The “ensign and chosen symbol of 
Christianity,” the cross, is perhaps the 
most common adornment of our mem- 
orials, and the most thoughtlessly man- 
aged. We find it placed diagonally on 
the “cap” of a monument as if it had 
been dropped there, hit or miss. Again 
it is often found standing on the top of 
a large cap, totally out of proportion 
and relation to the rest of the composi- 
JENCKES TABLET, SWAN POINT 
CEMETERY, PROVIDENCE, R. I. 
tion, as if by afterthought it had been 
thought “nice” to add the cross. Surely 
if this cherished symbol of the Saviour's 
sacrifice is to be used, it demands a 
dominant position and one which im- 
plies that care has been used to make 
the other details sul^ser^’ient to it. With 
the exception of instances when the 
cross is used in the form of small lial- 
ancing ornaments, it should always be 
closely identified with the climax of the 
composition. When it is desired to give 
prominence to the cross in moderate 
priced memorials, there is no better 
form than the cross-slah, for here, 
whether it be in relief or incised, it 
dominates. If wisely designed, a beau- 
tiful, expressive and refined result is 
attained. The Celtic form of the cross- 
slab need not be treated with interlaced 
work or other elaboration, tho many 
highly effective motifs may be found 
which can be used at small outlay. 
The evolution of the familiar Celtic 
Cross from the rude “pillar-stone” 
stage, is a very interesting hypothesis, 
and while it is not claimed by au- 
thorities that the changes took place in 
chronological order, it may be helpful 
to brief!}' consider it. The so-called 
architectural shape, the earlier exam- 
ples being crudely decorated with a 
simple in vised cross on both the front 
and back. In place of the cross, the 
Sacred IMonogram (XP) is often used. 
The familiar cross and circle or nimbus 
was later adopted together with some 
elaboration, from which stage we grad- 
ually find the slali commencing to take 
definite form. This, the erect and re- 
cumbent cross slab, was later devel- 
oped into the “wheel-cross” by cutting 
away the stone around the nimbus or 
circle, which at that time completely en- 
closed the arms of the cross. The evo- 
lution of the free standing cross from, 
the latter stage is obvious, as the “cut- 
ting-away” process was simply applied 
to the whole slab, leaving the cross and 
circle alone. 
The extensive use of limestone in this 
country for Celtic crosses and slabs 
would seem to have ample precedent 
among ancient examples and the rea- 
sons which prompted the use of easy 
working stone in those days apply in 
our modern reproductions. There is, 
however, one other important reason 
for the use of limestone in recent Celtic 
monuments, and that is, the interesting 
discoloration which takes place, giving 
an air of antiquity to the work which 
is hard to attain in the granite. 
