Should I include small caps etc. in an authentic italic font revival?

Nick Shinn · February 6

The typeface in question had no italic small caps or, for that matter, italic numerals or superiors, etc.

However, the roman, which I am also reviving, did have such things, which I will include in that font.

I will be putting roman numerals in the italic font, and various other upright characters such as parentheses—for the standard complement of the basic encoding—but would it also be appropriate to duplicate the roman small caps there too? And even the superiors?

John Hudson · February 6

Think about it in terms of font behaviour when the user applies italic style to text including those glyph styles. Does it make more sense for smallcaps to fall back to regular italic upper- or lowercase letters, or for them to remain smallcaps but not italicised. My inclination would be the latter.

Super- or subscript is more obviously a text formatting feature that needs to be retained, and I would say that the formatting takes precedence over the letter style, so including roman superiors in the italic font makes more sense than falling back to full size letters or numerals.

Does this historic type contain italic uppercase letters? If so, I would say that the lack of italic smallcaps is not something inherent to the design—as it would be in an italic type with roman caps à la Aldine—, but simply something omitted, possibly for economic reasons.

In general, I question the whole notion of reviving a typeface from a previous typographic era if it isn’t adapted to the needs of current typography.

Nick Shinn · February 6

However, this is “original instruments” typography (or as close as digital can get) for creating a reasonably authentic historical effect, in which anachronism—i.e. “the needs of current typography” is avoided, or at least made difficult.

Or you might say that one of the current needs is to create an authentic historical effect, off the shelf, without having to think too much about it.

For the typeface I’m reviving, italic small caps was never a thing, the norm was to to use roman small caps as the emphasis style within an italic text block. In fact, the italic capitals were not designed for all-cap setting.

Perhaps the issue boils down to what happens should the user apply or experience the Small Caps feature—in the absence of true italic small caps, will they get faux glyphs, scaled down from the italic capitals, or proper, but upright, small caps?

**

Yes, roman superiors is a good idea, I will include those.

Cristóbal Henestrosa · February 7

In my experience, most users are not attracted to such historical veracity. If they select a text with roman small caps and convert them to italic, they want italic small caps, not an explanation about why you kept the roman small caps in the italic font. Same for upright parenthesis and superiors, although those are less noticeable (or more acceptable).

Without knowing the details, I’d rather go for two italics: one for the normal user and one other for the connaisseur. Actually, I took that approach for my Espinosa Nova: it includes a typical italic, but also an alternative italic, called Aldine, where the uppercase, small caps and some other glyphs are upright.* Not surprisingly, this Aldine italic is seldom used: aside for type historians and alike, most people tend to think it is a plain mistake to mix upright uppercase and italic lowercase. It’s just too weird for them.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5019405/uploads/editor/jz/2skr22apy9fn.png

* Of course, it might be done with an stylistic set too, so the average user gets his typical italic, but the connaisseur gets the upright small caps if he explicitly asks for them.

Nick Shinn · February 7

Thanks for your comments, which have helped clarify the issue for me.

Much as I’m tempted to stick with the authenticity theme, I realize that there would be a problem with the Caps with Small Caps setting, requiring the inclusion of roman caps in the italic font, a bit too weird.

I suppose I could still include the roman small caps in the italic All Small Caps (c2sc) feature, but that would be too confusing when coupled with the possibility of faux italics in the Small Caps feature.

Therefore, I’m leaning towards no small caps in the italic font, and adding a separate Small Caps version of the typeface, which won’t overload the menu, as there is only one weight. That way, users will have a simple menu choice: Regular, Italic or Small Caps. (As well as the Small Caps feature in the Regular font, for the connaisseur.)

John Hudson · February 7

That way, users will have a simple menu choice: Regular, Italic or Small Caps. (As well as the Small Caps feature in the Regular font.)

The latter is the problem though: user can turn on the smallcaps feature in the roman font, but then switch to the italic font, thereby losing the smallcap formatting. So maybe the both the most historically authentic and cleanest technical solution in this case is not to include smallcaps in either the roman or italic fonts, and only in the separate SC font?

Nick Shinn · February 7

…thereby losing the smallcap formatting.

That’s not what happens with the latest InDesign, at least, in which the OpenType menu “Small Caps” changes to faux italic small caps, when that feature is not available in the italic font.

(For InDesign CS5.5, the same process brings up All Caps.)

John Butler · February 8

Nick, are there both Roman and Italic weights, and are there any additional weights such as bold with corresponding bold italics?

I have often toyed with “overloading” letterspaced regular weight small caps into style-linked bold or bold italic for text fonts with no bold weights. Or bold italic: small caps are so much more useful than bold italic, even when there is a proper bold. This scenario makes less and less sense with all-new designs that have a weight axis from the beginning, but it’s a way to shoehorn features into applications that can’t access OpenType features. This method could work similarly for lining figures, Aldine* italics, or whatever other features could benefit from being accessible in non-OT applications.

I realize technological progress purists would find such kludges an unholy mockery of everything they stand for, or at least mildly irritating. But PowerPoint will outlive all of us.

I swear we’ve had this discussion before: what was the first instance of italic small caps? Was it Zapf Renaissance in 1986, or something else earlier?

*Funny, I started writing this reply before Mr Henestrosa mentioned Aldine italics. I’ve been a fan of those since Poetica.

Nick Shinn · February 8

No John, there is no bold, that came two hundred years after my source!

(Despite being such a purist, I am retconning, if that is the correct term, a few characters, such as capital Eszett, which I can’t resist designing.)

I do appreciate what John and Cristóbal have to say about broad present-day functionality, but there are plenty of neat and comprehensive revivals already. I’m targeting the undead niche.

**

Yes, I looked into this topic in a previous Typedrawers post, and here is something I found:

Linotype specimen, 1958.
Faces with Bold Italic Small Caps:

Cloister
Garamond Bold No.3
Caslon No.3
Bodoni
Memphis

Scott-Martin Kosofsky · February 8

I find italic small caps supremely useful for setting subheads or sub-subheads, for various uses in extended blocks of italic texts, and for such things as authors’ names in rubrics. But those are requirements of scholarly literature and not necessary for fonts that aren’t likely to be used for such purposes. Small caps are often the most handsome letters; so too are well-designed italic small caps. Mark van Bronkhorst’s Verdigris Italic is a favorite example. The model for his italic was François Guyot, who never made italic small caps. (It’s usually held that the first example of italic small caps was made by J.M. Fleischman in 1762—see attached.)

Nick, I’m curious as to your model. According to Harry Carter, the first “true-in-the-font small caps were made Simon de Colines and Robert Estienne in 1526, though there are some not-very-convincing claims made for some others, including Johannes Philippus de Lignamine in Sicily, in 1470, and Aldus's uses of short caps, though these may have been other fonts.

Will you tell us?

Scott-Martin Kosofsky · February 8

For anyone interested in the general topic of the history of small caps, here's a article worth perusing: https://works.hcommons.org/records/f1wzt-01t73

Nick Shinn · February 9

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5019405/uploads/editor/u0/6qpw3i44e45x.jpg

Εἰκὼν Βασιλική, The Pourtraicture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitudes and Sufferings, 1658.

A work of royalist propaganda published shortly after the King’s execution by the republican government in England. The types are Garalde, likely from the Netherlands, where the book may even have been printed.

Joshua Langman · February 9

As a book typographer, there have certainly been times when I've considered using roman small caps in an italic context, both for historical flavor and because they are very attractive. To me, italic small caps suggest contemporary typography (even if this is not strictly accurate), and I would avoid them whenever a sense of history is appropriate. Because capitals do not generally adopt a more cursive form in italic, italic caps and small caps can feel a little awkward, ungainly, or artificial. I use them only when they are really necessary, e.g., for an abbreviation that is also a title. I would welcome a text face that included roman small caps in italic, and I am always happy when designers include roman delimiters, superscripts, and symbols in italic. (I have pointed out before that when superscripts indicate notes, the scholarly convention is that they always appear in roman, regardless of context. So at least for this kind of work, italic superior figures are of very little use.)

Matthew Smith · February 9

From a design perspective, I echo Joshua’s comments in that I too am quite fond of mixing roman small caps with italics.

I did quite a bit of that on the mini site I designed for DJR’s Warbler.

That being said, this was an intentional design decision on my part. DJR’s font do include italic small caps, but all of the styling was applied manually.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5019405/uploads/editor/az/fdac2a7kb712.jpg

Scott-Martin Kosofsky · February 9

Nick, thanks for the sample. It looks like the sort of pinched Elzevir types that Updike treated so derisively. He wasn't just being prejudiced; this style had a sort of cheapskate quality in which characters that were narrow to begin with were purposely cast with minimal side bearings. What's really cheap is the treatment of the roman characters with descenders. Note how the lowercase roman "p" and "g" were cast above the baseline and x-height lines so they could squeeze as many lines as possible on the page.

It makes me wonder why one might wish to reproduce such a type. Speaking to your mention of "original instruments," I'm reminded of a little battle that raged in the 1980s involving the size of J.S. Bach's choirs. In one camp were a few conductors who insisted on the choir having only one voice to a part, citing as evidence a document Bach wrote to the Leipzig town fathers, stating that he had been forced to suffer with such emaciated forces, even though his contract stipulated that they would cover the cost of having no fewer than three to a part at all times. But just because it was "authentic," why would anyone wish to enshrine this poverty of circumstances when we know it was deplorable to the composer?

Reproducing this type, warts and all, seems to me to be a similar situation. You might take a look at Fred Smeijers's Custodia types, which are based in similar models, but allowed to fulfill their best potential. For what it's worth, Fred added italic small caps.

Nick Shinn · February 10

I hardly think the human voice enters into any discussion of “original instruments,” except as castrato.

I am indeed copying a fair amount of “warts and all,” which I consider features, not bugs.

It makes me wonder why one might wish to reproduce such a type.

“…there are enough good types already … the need is for poor types that can be used!”
—Oswald B. Cooper

Joshua Langman · February 10

Not that I think I was misunderstood, but just to forestall any misunderstanding: when I mentioned historical flavor above, I meant basically Renaissance-era history. I'm certainly aware that italic caps and small caps were used extensively in the Neoclassical and Romantic eras, as well as in nineteenth-century job printing. But when I think of Renaissance and early baroque typography, I do often think of the pleasing contrast between upright caps and italic lowercase — whether closely intermixed, as in Aldus, or not. Regardless, the current norm of stylistic "completionism" in font families can seem a bit bland as a default. Font families in which the choice of designed styles seems to be fundamentally part of the conceptual framework — as in Cristobál's excellent work — invite a different kind of interest and perhaps more deliberate use.

Craig Eliason · February 10

In types from the leaden days, how often are what we read as small caps made from...

...actual small caps separately punch-cut for a type size?

...simply the regular caps from a smaller point size, with spacing material on all sides to align the letters and "track them out"?

...the matrices of the regular caps from a smaller point size, cast on a larger body for ease of composition?

Option 1 offers the opportunity to get the subtleties of weight and proportion right, but requires far more effort to produce. Option 2 makes composition more fiddly, but production (and storage) are more efficient. Option 3 is simpler to compose like option 1, but simpler to engrave like option 2.

Couldn't Nick's pic be an image of small-cap typography, but not of small-cap types?

Joshua Langman · February 10

And what might it suggest that there was apparently no small-cap J available?

Nick Shinn · February 10

That is a style used for “Majesty” in small caps, throughout the book.
So either there was no capital J in the font (or not enough of them), or there was an issue with the descender of the letter, or they just liked the look of the roman j.

Joshua Langman · February 11

Perhaps the small caps are from an older font that lacked the J character? In which case I might have expected to see an I in its place. There's certainly a lot of drama in just this one page — you've got Murther (of the ONELY KING!), ſacrilegious wickedneſs and curſes, and even, for the sake of erudition, a nice use of "ingeminate." I hope your typeface will be similarly eventful.

Nick Shinn · February 11

Count on it.

John Butler · February 11

Heh, dig the flaccid question mark.

Nick Shinn · February 11

Lost its head and still makes sense—the same cannot be said for an exclamation mark!

Should I include small caps etc. in an authentic italic font revival?

Comments

Categories