5.0174 Rs: The Long Tall Medial S (3/68)
Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Fri, 21 Jun 91 16:38:40 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0174. Friday, 21 Jun 1991.
(1) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 13:51:49 PDT (11 lines)
From: cbf@athena.berkeley.edu (Charles Faulhaber)
Subject: Re: 5.0165 Qs: Medial S
(2) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 12:49:02 +0200 (43 lines)
From: ath@linkoping.telesoft.se (Anders Thulin)
Subject: Re: 5.0165 Medial S
(3) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 13:27:06 +0200 (14 lines)
From: ath@linkoping.telesoft.se (Anders Thulin)
Subject: Re: 5.0165 Medial S (Revisited)
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 13:51:49 PDT
From: cbf@athena.berkeley.edu (Charles Faulhaber)
Subject: Re: 5.0165 Qs: MS-DOS Hebrew Supplement; Medial S
The medial s, which those of us in Spanish generally call the
"tall s", is found well into the 18th century, but I would hesitate
to say how long. I just checked a pamphlet printed by the royal
printer Joaqui'n Ibarra en 1782 which does not use it.
Charles Faulhaber
UC Berkeley
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------53----
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 12:49:02 +0200
From: ath@linkoping.telesoft.se (Anders Thulin)
Subject: Re: 5.0165 Medial S
Alan D Corre <corre@convex.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
>Until early in the nineteenth century, languages using the Roman script,
>such as English, had a medial s which looks like an f with the front
>half of the crossbar missing. [ ... ] This
>character disappeared, apparently quite suddenly and universally.
> 1) in which language did the change start, and why?
According to D.B. Updike: Printing Types, ed 2, vol. 2, p. 229:
The abolition of the long s, it is popularly thought, we owe to the
London publisher John Bell, who in hos _British Theatre_, issued about
1775, discarded it. Franklin, writing in 1786, says that ``the Round
s begins to be the Mode and in nice printing the Long f is rejected
entirely.''
An 1860 type specimen from Miller & Richard for their Old Style
typeface shows the long s.
Some of the type faces shown in Christian Axel-Nilsson: Type Studies -
The Norstedt Collection of Matrices ... (Stockholm 1983) show some
fonts from the first part of the 18th century that have long s only in
the ss, si, and ssi ligatures.
A typeface (NS 112) showing the long s only in the st ligature is said
to be cut c. 1660! Rather curious - could it be a misprint for 1760?
William Morris appears to have done without the long forms altogether.
>3) was it purely a matter of fashion, or is it connected with
technological changes such as stereotyping and lithography?
Lithography was invented 1796, which is a bit too late.
It is likely that having only one form of s would increase the speed
of the typesetter.
Anders Thulin ath@linkoping.telesoft.se
Telesoft AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------24----
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 13:27:06 +0200
From: ath@linkoping.telesoft.se (Anders Thulin)
Subject: Re: 5.0165 Medial S (Revisited)
In my previous note on the medial s I overlooked a note that D.B.Updike
added to his Printing Types. He adds:
A statement that John Bell abolished the long s in his _British Theatre_
of 1775 is incorrect and should read, ``in his edition of Shakespeare
of 1785,'' as pointed out in Morison's _John Bell_, pages 105 and 118.
Anders Thulin ath@linkoping.telesoft.se
Telesoft AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden