Italic vs. italic

[Celeste]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Hi everyone
I've read a certain number of times (chez Morison, Bringhurst, etc.) that there were two main styles of Renaissance italics, the Aldine style and the later “fully formed” kind demonstrated by Arrighi, Tagliente and Palatino. Bringhurst in particular complains of the lack of good digital versions of the Aldine model, since many twentieth-century revivals (even those using Alde/Griffo roman models, like Monotype Bembo or Monotype Poliphilus) were released with italic versions based on the later style.
I have two questions here :
1. How does one differentiate the Aldine kind of italic type from the Arrighi et al. style ?
2. Has the situation changed since 1992 (when Bringhurst made the above complaint) and are there now good digital versions of the Aldine italic out there ?
Thank you very much.

[William Berkson]

Adobe Jenson's italic is said to be based on Arrighi. It's one of the best as far as being both beautiful and readable, I think.

[Celeste]

I agree with you on Adobe Jenson’s beautiful italic, William — but I also hoped someone would be able to answer my two questions.

[James Arboghast]

Scans from Nesbitt's History and Technique of Lettering:

Arrighi's italic, visibly superior to that cut by Griffo for Aldus Manuzio. Arrighi perfected his design by penmanship and had the medalist Lauticio di Bartolomeo dei Rotelli cut the punches.

 

Italic cut by Francesco Griffo de Bologna

Also try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_western_typography

Bye, Jimi still holidaying on the Ivory Coast.

j a m e s

[William Berkson]

>I also hoped someone would be able to answer my two questions.

So do I.

I have not studied the renaissance writing masters, nor the successive italics. I have read, but not carefully, what Harry Carter says about them in "A View of Early Typography." I haven't seen anywhere the kind of detailed analysis of italics such as Tracy does for Romans in "Letters of Credit".

It would be great if someone could give a brief explanation of the differences, with some insight on the differences in concept.

James's examples are useful, but I would like a lot more analysis of what the two were doing.

One important point is mentioned by Harry Carter: the model most widely used, that coming from Garamond and Granjon, shows influence of both the Aldine italics and the italics of Arrighi.

[Nick Shinn]

Arrighi’s italic, visibly superior to that cut by Griffo

That's assuming they had the same goal, and Arrighi just did a better job.
But is that really what's going on?
From these two samples, it appears that Griffo is trying to capture the quality of writing, with plenty of ligatures and lots of bounce, whereas Arrighi is after a slick upscale formality, with a high-tech look of mechanical regularity.

[James Arboghast]

That was my assumption--that the two men had much the same goal. Like all assumptions, that's not cut and dried. We don't know that they had the same goal. By 'visibly superior" I'm hedging at the preconception we in our time take for granted; that a text typeface design is meant to be slick and tightly integrated. That's just my view.

Altho Alexander Nesbitt notes that Stanley Morison thought Arrighi's italic was "...a much better design..." he goes on to say, "The later design (Arrighi's) avoided almost all ligatures; used a slightly taller capital; and was really worked worked out in the type medium---it was not a copy of the pen letter. This is an elegant letter, with long ascenders and descenders; in this elegance it has the effect of the written style."

So Nick's view, "...it appears that Griffo is trying to capture the quality of writing, with plenty of ligatures and lots of bounce..." seems a fair assumption.

For Wikipedia I had to write about the Griffo italic from a neutral viewpoint: The "Aldino" italic type, commissioned by Manutius and cut by Franceso Griffo in 1499, was a closely-spaced condensed type. Griffo's punches are a delicate translation of the Italian cursive hand, featuring letters of irregular slant angle and uneven height and vertical position, with some connected pairs (ligatures), and unslanted small roman capitals the height of the lower case t. The fame of Aldus Manutius and his editions made the Griffo italic widely copied and influential, although it was not the finest of the pioneer italics.

"...not the finest of the pioneer italics." only just meets Wikipedia's requirement for neutral point of view. By "finest" I meant the Griffo was not as refined as the Arrighi.

j a m e s

[Miss Tiffany]

They also were designing to fit in small books used to travel. During that day entire books were done using the italic. (IIRC)

[William Berkson]

Thanks Nick, nice insight on the difference in goals between the two designers. An interesting thing to me would be what Garamond and Granjon took from Griffo and from Arrighi.

[typerror]

Nick

If I am not mistaken... was not La Operina intended to be a copy book?

To quote Ludovico, “I have endeavored to study these recently discovered letters and convey them to print... they approach handwriting as much as it was in my ability to compose.... excuse me inasmuch as the printed word cannot in everything reproduce the living handwriting... hope that you yourself will be able to attain your goal by the copying of my hand.”

I am not sure that he was after slick but rather a conveyance of the spirit of the Cancellaresca Corsiva.

Michael

[typerror]

The type however varied greatly. Notice the transition from the branching to the stem on the right sides of the m, n, h. They are almost Textus precissus in nature (they have a terminal angle alien to “Italic (45 degree pen angle).” Plus... notice the compression of forms in the book... If that is the slick some are referring to then I understand, but the “Genesis,” La Operina, was in no way slick but rather homey. Sorry homey! :)

Before I hang myself, you must disassociate the book from the type!

Does this make sense?

Michael

[ebensorkin]

The problem with Nesbitt's book is that his images are his drawings. Inevitably he put's his own spin on the images. Seeing the real thing & then Nesbitt's image makes you laugh. It's not that he did a poor job. It's that it just isn't good enough. The truth is I am not so hot on his text either.

And of course there is Cresci ( Thanks James Mosley! )

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/888/2073/1600/Essemplare%201560%203%2...

Some of it isn't usable to my way of looking at it. But some of it is wonderful.

[J.Montalbano]

Bringhurst in particular complains

But this is essentially what Bringhurst does regarding most modern typography. It is a mystery why anyone pays much attention to his ramblings.

[James Arboghast]

@Eben: "The problem with Nesbitt’s book is that his images are his drawings. Inevitably he put’s his own spin on the images. Seeing the real thing & then Nesbitt’s image makes you laugh. It’s not that he did a poor job. It’s that it just isn’t good enough. The truth is I am not so hot on his text either."

Some of the images in the History and Technique are Nesbitt's own drawings, and some are not. The images of the Griffo and Arrighi italic types are authentic. Sure he puts his own spin on them, but so does everybody else who writes about aesthetics. His writing is pedantic and condescending, but then so is Bringhurst's. Seeing the real thing & then Nesbitt’s image makes Eben laugh. The point is, his images are accurate enuff to tell basic truths. The spirit, not the letter, my friend, is what counts.

@terminaldesign
Yepp. I don't understand why so many typophiles regard his book as "the bible". As long as they insist on calling Elements that, uninformed followers of fashion will tend to swallow suit.

Nick Shinn---I would like nothing more than to see you write a successor to both Elements and Nesbitt's book. You're preeminent, qualified, a good wordsmith. Put me down for a copy of the first edition.

j a m e s

[Nick Shinn]

Thanks for the props James. I have been working on a type book intermittently (a history, not a style guide), but making OpenType fonts keeps getting in the way.
I did put a brief style guide together in 2001, piggy-backing work that Rod MacDonald had done for the Type Club of Toronto.
http://www.shinntype.com/Writing/DigginIt.pdf
I added a section on "Expert Fonts" (this was shortly before OpenType) that is now completely obsolete.
For the cause of fine typography, and in lieu of another style guide to rival Bringhurst, it would be nice to see a general compendium of OpenType fonts and features. Perhaps someone is working on that right now, but it would be a stretch for a writer/designer or publisher to produce.
How about Scott Citron's Effective Typography with Adobe Creative Suite 3?

Based on his Typophile posts, Charles Ellertson would make a promising style guide author :-)

[Dunwich Type]

@Nick: The impression I get is that anyone really qualified to put that book together is probably spending most of his time trying to build Opentype fonts.

[James Arboghast]

Nick: "I have been working on a type book intermittently (a history, not a style guide), but making OpenType fonts keeps getting in the way."

The first bit is really good news. The second bit---"Misery's the river of the world, Misery's the river of the world, Everybody row, Ev-ry-bod-y row!" -- words by Tom Waits.

Thanks for all the other snippets and news. It's all news to me. That's because I'm primarily a stylist, busy hatching new ideas and not paying a lot of attention to old ones.

JamesP---probably the companion/successor to Elements will be wiki-authored. The problem with most wikis is they're too open. That History of Western Type I wrote for Wikipedia is compromised by WP's insistence on paraphrasing published sources only. I had little choice but to parrot existing "reliables".

If we set up a wiki dedicated to producing a new typography style guide with two basic editorial stipulations: 1) Only practicing typographers, type designers and students of type can contribute, 2) Original research (read: writing) is encouraged, if not the main goal. By degrees, in between making opentype fonts, with many of us working on it, maybe it can be done that way. Wikimedia software is free. Just add hosting resources, stir gently.

j a m e s

[William Berkson]

Bringhurst's Elements is a wonderful book, but it reflects his classical tastes in type, and it leaves out a lot of issues in graphic design, and type for other purposes than books.

I treasure it for what it is, and don't lament it what it's not. I don't think it's a sin and a crime for anyone to say something I don't agree with!

Mitchell & Wightman's "Book Typography" is in some ways more complete and useful on its subject than Bringhurst.

I too am looking forward to Nick's history of type & graphic design!

[ebensorkin]

James don't get me wrong, I think Nesbitt probably had very good reasons for doing what he did. Dover editions are often the same way - a piece of line art is made because the photo they have isn't clean or clear enough ( or for whatever reason ). But the fact remains that in type design especially the little unintended liberties do matter. And it's not the middle of the 20th c. anymore. In fact looking again I would have to say that even the stuff that is supposedly straight from the source is too monkeyed with. I am not saying "don't anyone buy the book". I am saying as a visual reference it is a deeply flawed.

This BTW has nothing to do with his aesthetic ideas. I am also not suggesting that the images were altered to fit his ideas - even if it is possible. I haven't dug into it deeply enough to have an opinion about that.

In terms of the text : Pedantic and condescending I can deal with. And actually he refrains from the all to common "casual honest" but overly opinionated and intellectually squishy prose style common books from the period to a degree which is very gratifying. I would say the text is a decent overview but maybe it wouldn't be my 1st choice.

[ebensorkin]

Also, maybe somebody should take a stab at the question Celeste asked above

2. Has the situation changed since 1992 (when Bringhurst made the above complaint) and are there now good digital versions of the Aldine italic out there ?

[James Arboghast]

William: "I don’t think it’s a sin and a crime for anyone to say something I don’t agree with!"

Neither do I, and I don't think anybody else here is suggesting the same.

Eben: "I am saying as a visual reference it is a deeply flawed."

I don't agreee it's that bad. You could be accused of hyperbole. But if you think it's so flawed you could put some of your scanned samples of printed books to good use by publishing them, not with Flickr, but in print.

"Also, maybe somebody should take a stab at the question Celeste asked above"

Apparently nobody here knows the answer.

j a m e s

[ebensorkin]

I am not sure why print is so much better than flickr when it comes to showing these kinds of images. The one is searchable and the other is not. Also publishing of the kind you mean would take a publisher willing to pay the Libraries their fees. And a publisher. Did you have one in mind? Still, maybe it will happen one day. I wouldn' mind at all. Especially if I could take *really* good images.

The thing about this "hyperbole" of mine is that if you are trying to study this kind of thing as a type designer your needs are different than a person who want a survey of the big ideas - a sort of 100 level class kind of thing. To say that it's no good for the survey might possibly be hyperbole. To say that it falls far short for a type designer is simply accurate. Feel free to claim otherwise but that's definitely what I think.

In the mean time have some Hypnerotomachia!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebensorkin/sets/72157604825884265/

Apparently nobody here knows the answer.

Quite! Or hasn't taken the time to work it out yet. I wonder if Stephen or Yves would be good at answering this.

[James Arboghast]

"I don’t think it’s a sin and a crime for anyone to say something I don’t agree with!"

Where did you get that from? Reading between the lines? I only said "pedantic and condescending". Terminaldesign said, "...a mystery why anyone pays much attention to his ramblings." No mention of sin or crime.

Edit: Someone posted a recent thread in General Discussions titled "I hate Microsoft Word". I stenuously avoid the word "hate" because it's poisonous.

j a m e s

[James Arboghast]

"I am not sure why print is so much better than flickr when it comes to showing these kinds of images. The one is searchable and the other is not."

What about the much higher resolution of print compared to the computer screen? Does that count? We're talking about type samples. You yourself insist that detail is paramount.

Also context. Flickr is a free image hosting service that offers very limited ways of adding context---users can label their images and add notes and comments, which spectators read on low resolution computer screens. That seems like a poor context for type samples. Companion text printed in a book would be much more comfortable to read, and a more relevant context for the subject of type.

About hyperbole---oh forget it. You obviously don't understand what I mean.

Edit: "Feel free to claim otherwise but that’s definitely what I think."

This is a discussion thread and I am not prepared to sit here bickering.

j a m e s

[Thomas Phinney]

For those folk who are unimpressed with Bringhurst's Elements of Typographic Style, please suggest an alternative of comparable breadth and depth. If there isn't one (I can't think of one myself), consider writing it.

Cheers,

T