Hi annaliz,
William Caslon is regarded by many to be the greatest of the English typographers.
?In the 18th century, English printing was at a low ebb and was
dependent on Holland for its types. Caslon changed all this and
stopped the importation of Dutch type. Thus, Caslon heralded a turning
point for English type-founding.?
?William Caslon?
http://www.identifont.com/show?2AI
?Caslon started work as apprentice to a London gunsmith, and set up
his own business in 1716 engraving gunlocks and bookbinding tools. In
1720 William Bowyer the elder took him to see the respected James
foundry, and subsequently helped Caslon set up as a type founder
himself. His great reputation stems largely from his specimen of 1734,
showing types that were (and often still are) reckoned to be superior
to the Dutch types that inspired them. Indeed, his success meant the
English reliance on Dutch types came to an end.?
?William Caslon I - myfonts.com?
http://www.myfonts.com/person/caslon-i/william/
Caslon's one-page specimen sheet of typefaces can be viewed here:
http://wally.rit.edu/cary/cc_db/18th_century/5.jpeg
The myfonts.com page referenced above provides Boston typographer
Daniel Updike's explanation of the success of Caslon's types:
?While he modelled his letters on Dutch types, they were much better;
for he introduced into his fonts a quality of interest, a variety of
design, and a delicacy of modelling, which few Dutch types possessed.
Dutch fonts were monotonous, but Caslon?s fonts were not so. His
letters when analyzed, especially in the smaller sizes, are not
perfect individually; but in their mass their effect is agreeable.
That is, I think, their secret: a perfection of the whole, derived
from harmonious but not necessarily perfect individual letterforms.?
Here are enlarged versions of type cut by Caslon between 1716 and 1728:
?Type - Caslon?
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/bytype/typefaces/caslon/
You can certainly see the individual imperfections referred to above,
but see how smooth a block of Caslon's type looks at the bottom of the
following page:
?William Caslon - an empire of typefounding?
http://www.happysnowman.com/desbib/type/caslon.html
Caslon's typefaces were popular for Colonial American printing, and
continue to have regular revivals to this day.
?His typefaces were used for most important printed works from c.1740
to c.1800. One such example is the first printed version of the United
States Declaration of Independence.?
AllRefer Encyclopedia - William Caslon
http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/C/Caslon-W.html
Caslon's typefaces have been adapted for modern phototypesetting and
are widely available. Here's just one example:
?Caslon Old Face Family Tree?
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/caslon-old-face/familytree.html
So, Caslon's impact on typography was to end the English reliance on
Dutch types, and the typeface was ensured ongoing fame from its use in
the Declaration of Independence.
I trust this provides the information you need. Please let me know via
the clarification function if there is any further information about
William Caslon that you need.
Google search strategy:
"william caslon" typographer
://www.google.com/search?q=%22william+caslon%22+typographer
Regards,
eiffel-ga |
Clarification of Answer by
eiffel-ga
on
11 Apr 2004 12:48 PDT
Hi annaliz,
Differences between typefaces are pretty subtle, and unless you're a
typographer you might have to take the word of the critics when it
comes to evaluating the quality of different types.
But you may find this page interesting:
"Letraset Type Gallery - The Birth and Development of the Alphabet"
http://www.letraset.com/uk/info/type_gallery/alphabet.asp
Scroll down to Claude Garamond's Aldine Roman typeface. It's
functional and readable enough, but see how the spacing tends to look
a little "clumpy". See also how the density of the strokes
(typographers call this the "color" of the text) varies throughout the
paragraph, making it look a little "splotchy".
Now look at the next entry - Dutch typographer Van Dyck's version of
Aldine Roman. See how clean the spacing is, and how uniform the
density of the strokes has become? This is the precision and skill for
which the Dutch typographers were noted.
The next entry after that is Caslon Old Face. Firstly note how
readable the text is. It's also clean - Caslon has not lost any of the
precision of the Dutch. But what Caslon has added is subtle variation,
providing interest and variety to the letter shapes. It's not "in your
face" stuff, but tiny nuances.
Look, for example, at Caslon's uppercase "C" and compare it with the
uppercase "C" in the earlier example from Van Dyck and the later
example from Bodoni. The others make the top and bottom curves of the
"C" extend the same distance to the right; Caslon makes the bottom
curve shorter. In isolation we might consider this to look strange,
but look at the word "Caslon" and see how the shorter bottom part of
the "C" enables the rest of the word ("aslon") to snuggle up to the
"C" to make a nicely typeset word.
In a page I quoted in the main answer
http://www.myfonts.com/person/caslon-i/william/
it says "Dutch fonts were monotonous, but Caslon?s fonts were not so"
and we can see this in the first enlarged sample here:
http://www.happysnowman.com/desbib/type/caslon.html
Look at the serifs (the squared off ends of the vertical strokes) and
see how they differ: some are rigidly straight, some are curved and
some are hooked. Note also the angular section at the top of the "t",
and the slight deviation from the horizontal in the cross-bar of the
"e" (particularly at the right-hand side). In the hands of an
unskilled designer these quirks would make a jumble, yet in Caslon's
hands the overall result was pleasing to the eye.
Perhaps we could summarize the situation like this: 17th century
English types were of low quality; 17th century Dutch types were of
high quality but mechanical in style, and Caslon's early-18th century
faces were of high quality, highly readable and also stylish.
Regards,
eiffel-ga
|
,
0 Comments
)
