164 TUGboat, Volume 39 (2018), No. 3

Editorial comments first issue; the second part, covering the growth of the TEX user and developer community, will appear Barbara Beeton early next year in the second topical issue. Passings: In addition to the published proceedings, the Patricia Monohon discussions and several ancillary interviews have been (30 May 1941–6 April 2018) recorded and transcribed. This material is (or will Vytas Statulevicius (†July 2018) be, when ready) posted online at https://history. computer.org/annals/dtp/. What I’ve read so far Patricia Monohon was a long-time member of TUG, is fascinating. The history “extras” by and about the and served on the board from 1997 through 2002. Seybolds, father (John) and son (Jonathan), reveal More importantly, she was responsible for moving how much easier we have it now that computers are the TUG office from Providence to San Francisco so much larger and faster. in 1993, and remained in charge of the office until I’ve been privileged to be involved at the AMS 1997. During that period she was instrumental in in efforts to bring the Society’s publications from selecting the sites for the annual meetings in Santa traditional typesetting to full composition by com- Barbara (1994) and San Francisco (1997). Patricia puter, and many of the names that appear in these also proposed the site for the 2003 meeting on the recollections are familiar to me — I’ve even worked Big Island, Hawaii, and served on the organizing in various contexts with some of them. (For example, committee. I remember the day I first heard the term “WYSI- Dr. Statulevicius was president of the Lithua- WYG”, written on a blackboard in big, bold letters, nian T X users group. He attended a number of E at a meeting of the Graphic Computer Communica- TUG meetings along with colleagues from VT X, a E tions Association in Philadelphia. Even then, the service organization that readies LAT X manuscripts E approach desired by the industry was “structural” for publication for numerous book and journal pub- and content-driven, not based solely on appearance.) lishers. So, in this way, TEX is not a typical desktop word processor, but it is still personally accessible publish- TEX and the history of desktop publishing ing, and thus a worthy member of this assemblage. I’ve never quite thought of TEX as a prime example of desktop publishing. However, it’s quite true that Open season for lectures on typography TEX makes first-class typography available to anyone This fall has been filled with events celebrating font willing to expend the effort to learn how to use it design, typography, and typographers. I was pleased properly. And it’s also true that TEX is fully func- to attend three such events in Providence and the tional on one’s desktop — thus a suitable candidate Boston area that turned out to be more closely re- for an overview of the topic. lated than one might have expected from their an- This was a pertinent question when the IEEE nouncements. joined with the Computer History Museum in Menlo Park, California, in staging a two-day meeting on the Daniel Berkeley Updike and the Janson font History of Desktop Publishing in May 2017. Partici- August 25 was the occasion for a lecture at the pants in the meeting representing TEX included Don Museum of Printing in Haverhill, Massachusetts Knuth, Chuck Bigelow, and Dave Walden; Dave’s (https://museumofprinting.org/). prior status as historian and editor of anecdotes for Daniel Berkeley Updike is best known as the the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing was founder and proprietor of the Merrymount Press instrumental in having TEX considered for inclusion. in Boston. This press was one of the (if not the) The success of the meeting was sufficient to war- most distinguished U.S. scholarly printing offices in rant a two-issue record in the Annals; the first of the late nineteenth – early twentieth century. John these two issues has just been published. (The TOC Kristensen of Firefly Press (a small “fine press”) told can be found at https://www.computer.org/csdl/ the story of Updike’s printing of the authorized 1928 magazine/an/2018/03.) revision of The Book of Common Prayer using the The relevant record of TEX’s history in this Janson font. context is the subject of a two-part article by Dave, Updike, a scholar and historian as well as a Karl Berry, and myself. The first part, entitled “TEX: printer, chose a typeface from the seventeenth cen- A branch in desktop publishing evolution, Part 1”, tury, contemporary with earlier editions of the Prayer- covers the development and adoption of TEX until book. The typeface was one attributed (mistakenly) it was cut loose from Stanford, and appears in the to Anton Janson, and given his name. It had recently TUGboat, Volume 39 (2018), No. 3 165

been revived and was available from the Stempel talk about the period of Dwiggins’ life during which type foundry (in Germany), cast from the original he worked with many of the paper mills in Mas- matrices. However, not all the sizes needed for the sachusetts, producing advertising and promotional Prayerbook were available, so Updike — in contrast materials aimed at printers, the principal users of to all his earlier projects, which used type from the the paper products. original foundries — chose to duplicate the type, cre- Dwiggins’ approach was not a “hard sell”, but ating new matrices from original types where they provided information that would assist printers in existed, and having additional matrices made for the making best use of each type of paper. Among the “missing” 18-point, interpolated from the existing techniques he recommended were the use of line cuts sizes. rather than halftones to present illustrations; the The Janson matrices made for the Merrymount contemporary technology did not render halftones Press are now in the possession of Firefly Press, and cleanly, whereas line cuts were capable of producing Kristensen characterizes himself as “the world’s last sharp, attractive images. Other recommendations D. B. Updike ‘wannabe’ ”. included matching fonts and paper to the intended Kristensen’s talk also covered other fonts used, final product and audience. What he provided was and works issued, by the Merrymount Press, as well a toolbox, not a recipe. An attractive broadside in as Updike’s relations with other printers and institu- fact unfolded to display the image of a functional tions of the period. A comparison with the works de- carpenter’s toolkit, inviting the viewer to choose the signed by Bruce Rogers recognized the sheer beauty best tools for the job. of Rogers’ title pages and text, but pointed out that In a related comment, Dwiggins voiced the opin- they were not easy to read, whereas Updike designed ion that the lowercase of available sans serif fonts was books that were not only beautiful, but meant to be simply dreadful. On hearing that opinion, Linotype read and used, an absolute requirement for works asked “can you do better?” Rising to the challenge, such as the Prayerbook. (An attendee at the lecture Dwiggins produced designs that were indeed superior had experience conducting services from the Prayer- to anything already available; as a result, Linotype book, and confirmed that it is indeed eminently suited put him on retainer, accepting unseen anything that for that use.) Dwiggins produced that was applicable to their line. When the Merrymount Press ceased operation, A quite broad selection of examples of Dwiggins’ its holdings were distributed to several sites, mostly work was on display, to be handled and inspected outside Massachusetts — to keep them away from directly. This gave a wider appreciation of the work Harvard. (It wasn’t explained why Updike was ad- than can be obtained from images in a book, no amant about this.) The bulk of the fonts, most matter how carefully produced. matrices, and other materials were relocated to the Huntington Library in San Marino, California. The The Updike prize for student font designers matrices for the Mountjoye () font went to the Special Collections at the Providence Public Library Bancroft Library at Berkeley. The matrices for the is the home of an extensive typography collection Janson font passed through several hands, ending that grew from a legacy of Daniel Berkeley Updike’s up with Firefly Press. The matrices for two fonts correspondence and books on the subject, and is (Merrymount and Montallegro) created for the Press, named in his honor. Since 2014, when a prize for along with much historical material, specimen sheets, student type design was launched with a lecture and related papers were donated to Special Collec- by Matthew Carter [1], a ceremony has been held tions at the Providence Public Library, where they every year [2, 3, 4] to recognize the finalists and became the foundation of the D. B. Updike Collec- winner of the prize, accompanied by a talk by a tion. Updike was a native Rhode Islander, and his current practitioner of font design [5]. This year’s legacy is now a resource for aspiring type designers, celebration was held on October 24, and the speaker as reported in other TUGboat issues, as well as later was Victoria Rushton. in this column. Rushton is an illustration graduate of the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD). W. A. Dwiggins — Making orders During her undergraduate studies, she discov- A review of the book by Bruce Kennett — W. A. ered that, more than anything else, she liked to Dwiggins: A life in design — appeared in the previ- include words in her drawings. After graduation, she ous issue of TUGboat (https://tug.org/TUGboat/ determined that font design was much more suited to tb39-2/tb122reviews-kennett.pdf). On October her interests and undertook training at Font Bureau 13, Kennett appeared at the Museum of Printing to to design typefaces. Three of her typefaces have been 166 TUGboat, Volume 39 (2018), No. 3

released commercially [6], and she accepts custom A runner-up was “Updike Nouvel” by Annibel lettering commissions. The style of her work tends Braden. This was based on a sign-painter’s guide, toward script styles rather than typefaces intended which shows only uppercase letters that appear to solely for the setting of text. be incised rather than printed. The example of the Rushton’s talk was the story of her personal new typeface in contrast appears to be raised, three- journey into typeface design. It concentrated on dimensional, and is multi-layered, shaded, and gold- three “unreleased” typefaces, and the inspirations colored. The “Glyphs” tool was used in its creation. for their creation. A question and answer session followed the pre- The first typeface was a swirly, romantic script, sentations, moderated by Matthew Bird, a member created in the aftermath of a breakup. of the RISD industrial design faculty. In addition The second face was based on her sister Ce- to discussing sources of inspiration, topics included cilie’s handwriting. Cecilie is a fabric artist, and the the importance of choosing an appropriate name typeface was originally used for all the text on her for a font (it should not already be in use), and web pages, as shown in slides accompanying the talk. whether the participants intend to make font design However, even though the pages still mention the a full-time career (probably not). font [7], the only remaining evidence online is the logotype in the top right corner. A “brand” new font The third face was based on a handwritten letter A font constructed entirely from logos representing by Oswald (“Oz”) Cooper, a type designer, letter- well-known brands is highlighted at https://www. ing artist, and graphic designer active during the engadget.com/2018/09/01/corporate-logo-font- early 20th century. Cooper is known largely for typeface-digital-studio/. Most of the letters bold display typefaces, many of which were based look familiar, but I failed at the attempt to identify on his handwriting. The typeface created by Rush- them all. Can you do better? ton accentuated various features of Cooper’s script, in particular the rounded terminals, resulting in a References quirky but pleasing informal appearance that worked [1] Updike prize for student type design and talk surprisingly well for text. by Matthew Carter, TUGboat 35:1 (2014), 3–4, After Rushton’s talk the results of the student tug.org/TUGboat/tb35-1/tb109beet.pdf competition were presented. Four designs were cho- [2] First annual Updike Prize and talk by Tobias sen for recognition, although only three of the par- Frere-Jones, TUGboat 36:1 (2015), 4–5, ticipants were in attendance; the typeface created tug.org/TUGboat/tb36-1/tb112beet.pdf by the fourth was not shown. [3] Second annual Updike Prize for student type Top honors were awarded to the “Frisk” family design and talk by Fiona Ross, TUGboat 37:3 of fonts by Gene Hua. The family consists of numer- (2016), 257–258, ous weights in both upright and italic forms. His tug.org/TUGboat/tb37-3/tb117beet.pdf inspiration was the content of old playbills. While [4] Type designer Nina St¨ossingerspeaks at 3rd suitable for text composition, the impression left by annual Updike Prize event. TUGboat 39:1 (2018), the design is lively rather than sober. (One of the 19, judges did characterize the italic form as “frisky”.) tug.org/TUGboat/tb39-1/tb121walden- In addition to other prizes, the award included a updike.pdf trophy — a composing stick (with the winner’s name [5] Announcement of the Updike Prize. on a plate on its side), which was a source of conster- https://www.provlib.org/research- nation to all the student competitors: what is this collections/historical-collections/updike- thing, and what is it used for? prize-student-type-design/ In second place was the “Altar” font created by [6] Three fonts by Victoria Rushton. Stephanie Winarto. This text face was inspired by https://victoriarushton.typenetwork.com/ an Episcopal altar book set in the Merrymount font [7] Cecilie Rushton’s web page. designed for Updike’s Merrymount press. (The book https://cecilierushton.com/ is reminiscent of productions by , with highly decorative marginal graphics.) The new face  Barbara Beeton is characterized by diamond-shaped elements, with https://tug.org/TUGboat the dots on “i”s set in red in the example of its use. tugboat (at) tug dot org