Type Sizes in the Eighteenth Century
by
Philip Gaskell
A 'point' system is used by English-speaking type-founders and
printers of the present day to measure the 'body-size' of a fount
of type, in which the point is a unit measuring approximately one
seventy-second of an inch. Points are not used to measure that part
of a 'sort' of type, raised in relief upon the rectangular body
which actually makes an impression on the paper, called the
'face';[1] and for this purpose it is
perhaps most convenient to use millimetres.
The face can be placed upon a particular size of body in two
different ways. One way, which is used to produce what may be
called 'text types', is to cast a fount which includes both upper
and lower-case sorts; this means that, in designing the face of
such a fount for a particular body-size, allowance must be made for
lower-case ascenders[2] and
descenders, which will project beyond the vertical dimensions of
the capital letters. The other sort of fount, usually called
'titling types', has no lower case, so that there need be no
provision for lower-case ascenders and descenders; which means that
the face of a capital letter can be almost as tall as the body on
which it is cast.[3] To take an
example of how this works out in practice, the face of the 72 point
capital 'A' of 'Gill Sans' text type in the current Monotype
specimen book (Monotype series 262) is 18 mm. high;
the 72 point capital 'A' of 'Gill Sans Titling' (Monotype series
231) has a face that is 24¼ mm. high; and the body-size in both
cases is 72 points, which is about 25¼ mm., or ·9962 in.
Before the point system was adopted in the English-speaking
countries during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, a
series of names was used to distinguish the various body-sizes most
commonly employed. A list of these names, together with the
body-size and face-size of the founts to which they refer, will be
found at the end of this note. Although this list, and what
follows, are based on an examination of eighteenth-century
typefounders' specimens, they will be found to apply, with only
occasional alteration, to typographical usage in Britain during the
sixteenth, seventeenth, and nineteenth centuries.
The practice of the eighteenth-century founders with regard to
the casting of text and titling faces on to the same size of body
was, with one serious exception, exactly similar to the modern
practice described above; it need only be remembered that they did
not usually differentiate between the two varieties in their
specimens. To take an example, Alexander Wilson and Sons' specimen
book of 1772[4] begins with a 'Five
Lines Pica' which turns out to be a titling type; in other words,
the face-size of these capital letters takes up nearly the whole of
the five lines of Pica named as the body-size. This fount is
followed by other titling sizes from Four Line Pica to Two Line
Small Pica, and they in turn by text sizes from Canon (which has a
Four Line Pica body) to Pearl. But now comes the exception.
Wilson's next specimen, the broadside of 1783,[5] appears to make nonsense of the
nomenclature hitherto employed by him. The Six Line Pica of this
sheet has capitals of titling size, the face being nearly six picas
high; but it also has a lower case. In the same specimen,
Five and Four Line Pica are displayed only by their lower case; but
measurement discloses that the distance from ascender line to base
line virtually fills the body named, leaving no room for
descenders.
I have taken Wilson as an example, but the same apparently
inconsistent nomenclature is to be found in the specimens of a
number of other eighteenth-century founders. Caslon's specimen book
of 1764[6] shows capitals of Five and
Four Line Pica which have capitals of titling size together with a
lower case; and Fry's book of 1788[7] does exactly the same. Nor was this
practice confined to the eighteenth century; the latest examples I
have come across are in Specimens of Wood Letter (H. W.
Caslon and
Co.,
c. 1899). Page 8 shows Six, Eight, and Twelve Line
Pica
Old Face founts which are titling types with lower case; and the
same system is used through the book for sizes up to Twenty Line
Pica.
There are two possible explanations of this anomaly. Since the
occurence of titling types with lower case was confined to the
larger sizes, it may be that they were not intended to be set
solid. If so, then the lower case could have been cast on the
body-size named, with projecting 'kerns' to accommodate the
descenders of g, j, p, q, and y. Against this it may be said that
kerns are a nuisance, both because they are easily broken and
because descender kerns necessitate leading;[8] and that they are difficult to
cast.[9] On the other hand, if kerns
are rejected, then we must suppose that the real body-size of a
titling fount with lower case called Six Line Pica was in fact
about eight picas, not six; that the body-size of such a Five Line
Pica was really six and three-quarter picas, and so on. Against
this may be set the facts that
the capitals of these queer founts can sometimes be found set solid
(when there are no lower-case sorts about), showing a true titling
body-size; and that this method would be more extravagant of type
metal than would casting with kerns. It is hard to decide which
method is the more likely.
Some confusion would be avoided if bibliographers, when they
speak of type-sizes by name, would agree to state plainly and
repeatedly whether they are referring to text or titling types. It
is, at any rate, quite essential to do so when there is any chance
of confusion arising from the occurence of the ambiguously named
types we have been discussing.
Notes on the Table
This table is based on measurements taken from ten
eighteenth-century specimens by Caslon, Wilson and Fry. The average
of these measurements is given, so that the table is unlikely to be
completely accurate with regard to the products of any one
foundry.[10] It will be noticed that
a few of the body-sizes are not quite the same as those given by Mr
J. C. Tarr in a letter to The Library;
[11] however, I am convinced that the
sizes
I give are more accurate than his as far as eighteenth century
founts are concerned, which, with few exceptions differed
remarkably little from each other in size. I imagine that Mr Tarr's
measurements were taken from type of other periods, which would
explain the slight discrepancy.
It will be seen that one or two text types have the same sized
capitals as some of the titling types (e.g., Two Line Great Primer
text and Two Line Pica titling), and these correspondences are
found even more frequently in the work of each individual founder.
Probably both sets of capitals were cast in matrices made from the
same punches. A similar technique seems to have been used to supply
founts with Small Capitals; the small caps of a given fount often
appear to originate from the punches of the capitals of the fount
two or three sizes smaller.
Notes
