The Typothetae on Types.

Our American trade exchanges have given much space to the report of the fourth annual meeting of the Typothetæ of America, and rightly so. Probably nowhere else is there a body representing so fully the intelligent and progressive element in the Craft, and combining so great a knowledge of the history, theory, and practice of the art. According to its constitution, it is « organized for the purpose of developing a community of interest and fraternal spirit among master printers, and for the purpose of exchanging information, and assisting each other when necessary. It is voluntary' and not coercive. We do not propose to make arbitrary rates or rules of combination against the public, to fix or to regulate the wages of workmen. » As to the status of the leading men in the institution, the following names of president and vice-presidents present at the late meeting at Boston will give a sufficient idea: Theo DeVinne, A. McNally, G. D. Barraud, C. S. Morehouse, A. J. McCallum, and W. A. Shepard. In the long list of delegates also, there are names of world-wide repute. It was therefore only to be expected that the reports of discussions on the most important questions relating to the trade, by the best men in the Craft, would be full of interest and instruction; and such we find to be the case.

On each of the leading subjects committees were appointed, and their reports, among other matters, dealt with the uniformity of type-bodies; the apprenticeship system; international copyright, and a number of matters relating to the constitution and government of the Typothetæ.

As might have been supposed, Mr DeVinne was one of the committee to consider the subject of type-bodies, and doubtless drew up the lucid report. It is to the effect that most of the typefouudries in the United States are members of the Typefounders' Association, and are practically agreed in the maintenance of the point-system of type-bodies, introduced in 1878, and modified by general agreement in 1886. One prominent typefoundry, outside the Association, declines the point system altogether, and makes bodies to correspond only on special order. [This is doubtless the Bruce Foundry.] Twenty-four houses are enumerated that have agreed upon the system. The first attempt at uniformity began with the theory that the pica should be one-sixth of the American inch.^* This method of making a basis was not approved by the founders whose pica was less than one-sixth of an inch, and it was finally decided that the standard should be the pica of the MacKellar, Smiths, and Jordan Company. These conclusions were accepted reluctantly by those who had made pica of a larger body. They objected to the new standard as capriciously and unscientifically selected—not based on any regular fraction of the foot or meter. It was then found that 83 picas of the accepted body equalled 35 centimeters, and by altering the standard height it was made to conform in the proportion of 15 to 35 centimeters. The old standard of height was 11/12 or ·916-inch; the new is ·918-inch. Regarding irregularities of lining, it is reported that the varieties are such that any general reform in the existing types is hopeless. The expense would never be repaid. In the getting up of new faces the evil will be avoided as much as possible. In considering the standard, the Didot point, in common use on the Continent of Europe, was considered, but rejected as too large, and the point adopted was almost identical with that of Fournier (1737), the first inventor of the point system.^* The committee say: « Whether this new American system is the best that could have been devised; whether the new point should have been a fraction of a foot or of a meter; … whether the Bruce system of a geometrical progression of bodies instead of an arithmetical extension of lines, is not more scientifically accurate—all these may be questions of speculative interest, but they are not now of practical import. The American point system is here to stay, and we are to make the best of it. » Here we differ from Mr DeVinne, not as to his facts, but as to his anticipations. Fifteen years ago he regarded the general adoption of a point-system as hopeless; and we, with less opportunities of observation, held the same view. We had, before we knew of the Continental system, and before the reform was publicly advocated in America, a diagram of the whole point-system as now adopted, in manuscript, but regarded it as a theory which, owing to the vested interests, could never take form. Yet it has done so. We now look forward to an international system, and such we believe the arbitrary and unscientific Johnson-Foundry scheme can never become. The inch-system is gaining ground in England, and will, we believe, in time become universal.

As for the reducing of old American faces to line, probably the committee are right, and that never will come to pass. But we would note that the great Leipzig house of Schelter & Giesecke, besides casting their fonts both to German and American (؟English) point, have actually gone to the enormous labor and expense of re-adjusting the lining of all their job-letters, to bring them to a systematic scale. It may be thought that what a German house can do, an American could also; but there is this important difference. German, like English faces, are generally cut with deliberation and care, and, to use an Americanism, come to stay. American fonts, by the hundred, are engraved to satisfy a passing whim, or to outdo some grotesque form placed on the market by a rival. In a few years they are dead. To re-adjust the lining of scores of sets of matrices from which no fonts are ever likely to be again cast, would be an act, not of enterprise, but of folly. The fact that the manufacturers do not feel warranted in re-lining their fonts is an admission that the ephemeral nature of their designs is recognized by the founders themselves.

One of the most original and interesting suggestions is set forth in the following paragraph: « Your committee have been asked to consider the advantage of a distinct series of roman and italic, to be known as the Typothetæ series, matrices of which should be in every type-foundry. The object desired is to enable any printer to quickly get in any foundry sorts or additions to a font previously bought from another founder in another city. No doubt this arrangement would be of value to printers; but the difficulty of agreeing upon a common face, and of getting the co-operation of typefounders, are insuperable. The proposition does not meet with favor from the foundries. » There are obvious reasons why the founders oppose the scheme; which, could it be carried into effect, would be a greater boon to the trade than even the point-system. We cannot imagine a greater waste of energy and capital than in the continued multiplication of punches of the plain roman faces. Offices are filled with accumulations of useless type—some never laid in cases—not only because no standard face is recognized by the trade; but because founders themselves have none. A repeat order by number will often bring a font agreeing in nick and face so far as the caps and lower-case alphabets are concerned; but beyond this confusion. The italic may be of quite a different slope and general contour, the odd sorts differing, the figures of a different face. Body and nick agreeing,

^* All American writers on the point-system refer to the American inch. There may be such a standard; but we doubt it—the British inch is probably intended.

^* This was demonstrated in our series of articles on the subject in vol. i of Typo, where we showed that MacKellar's standard of 83 picas equalled 1000 Fournier points, 996 American points, and 992·2+ English points.

page 6the fonts are mixed before the difference is detected, and from that hour there is no more uniformity in the work turned out. The proposal is one of the best ever made in the trade; but, optimistic as we are in all that pertains to the future of the Craft, we fear that the vested interests of the foundries will defer its adoption until the millennium arrives.