The Women
Behind Times New Roman: The Contribution of Type Drawing Offices
to Twentieth Century Type-Making
to Twentieth Century Type-Making
Alice Savoie
Abstract
The narrative behind the creation of Times New Roman, one of the most widely used typefaces in the western world, is well established and revolves around famous male figures of British typographic history. This article recognises the role played by the Monotype Type Drawing Office (TDO), and of its draughtswomen in particular, in the making of the typeface. While female figures are largely absent from type histories, this contribution emphasises the key role played by the women who worked on
adapting Stanley Morison’s original idea for Times New Roman into a fully working, extensive type family. Based on original archival material, it discusses the background of these women, their working conditions, and the nature of their contribution
to type-making. In a wider perspective, this article advocates a more inclusive and collaborative view of design history and of its narratives.
Revisiting neat
history
history
Few people are familiar with the name of Stanley Morison outside the typographic
sphere; yet many will have come across what is still considered today as his masterpiece:
Times New Roman. The typeface, which was for many years the default font on
widely used software such as Microsoft Word, was originally produced in 1931–2 for
The Times newspaper under Morison’s direction. The narrative of events that led to its creation and subsequent success is now well established: Morison acted as Typographical Adviser to the Monotype Corporation in London when, in 1929, he criticised many aspects of The Times’s typography. As a result, the newspaper’s management invited him to make a proposal for improvements, which led to the commission of a new typeface to be produced by the Monotype Corporation: ‘The Times’ New Roman’. The typeface first appeared in the newspaper on 3 October 1932, and, after a year of exclusive use by The Times, was released to the trade for widespread use.1 While the most simplistic versions of the narrative implied that Morison came up with the design entirely by himself, reliable sources have established that a draughtsman at The Times publicity department, named Victor Lardent, effectively produced the initial set of drawings for the typeface, following Morison’s lead. A debate still remains regarding the exact nature of Morison’s visual instructions: did he provide Lardent with a facsimile of a book printed by Christophe Plantin, or a page set in Granjon’s Gros Cicero?2 Or was it a specimen sheet of the hot-metal typeface named Plantin, produced by Monotype in 1913 as series 110? Neither do we know the nature of any written or verbal brief that passed between them. Regardless of the precise form of Morison’s original instructions, they led Lardent to produce a set of drawings that comprised 26 capital letters, 26 lowercase and 10 old-style numerals.3 Hence, this set of letters, drawn by Lardent under Morison’s direction, has been held as the original set of drawings for Times New Roman, a typeface which, through its versatility and ability to withstand successive technological changes, has possibly become the most widely known typeface in the world. While Lardent’s role in its making is now acknowledged, Morison remains generally credited as Times New Roman’s designer. Such a view of events fits nicely with what Martha Scotford has deemed neat history, that is ‘the simple packaging of one designer, explicit organizational context, one client, simple statements of intent, one design solution, a clearly defined audience…’.4 Scotford’s definition reflects our need for a clear and unambiguous narrative, one that usually calls for a monographic interpretation of events—despite such a view going against the collaborative nature of most design processes. Looking closely at the stages involved in the production of this particular typeface, it is obvious that its narrative is in fact messier than that (to quote loosely the other part of Scotford’s statement). In his book Stanley Morison, his typographic achievement, historian
James Moran hints at this by observing:
It is apparent that Lardent’s drawings and [Morison’s] own corrections were not sufficient to ensure the creation of a type-face which would meet his own requirements… he was not a specialist type-designer, and worked at least at two removes from the finished job—through Morison’s alterations and those made by the anonymous draughtsmen and craftsmen of the Monotype Corporation, whose skill was necessarily involved.5
A thorough investigation of the making of Times New Roman indeed requires a reinstatement of Monotype’s essential role in the successful completion of the types— and more specifically that of its draughts-women. These women, who comprised the majority of staff in the type drawing offices of major typefounding companies from the beginning of the twentieth century, have been largely overlooked in histories of typefounding to date. If we consider, as graphic design historian Teal Triggs advocated two decades ago, that ‘any historical narrative of graphic design must include an understanding of how women have been positioned within the institutional or patriarchal frameworks of design’,6 it becomes evident that these women merit attention as key contributors to the design process of such renowned typefaces as Times New Roman.
It is apparent that Lardent’s drawings and [Morison’s] own corrections were not sufficient to ensure the creation of a type-face which would meet his own requirements… he was not a specialist type-designer, and worked at least at two removes from the finished job—through Morison’s alterations and those made by the anonymous draughtsmen and craftsmen of the Monotype Corporation, whose skill was necessarily involved.5
A thorough investigation of the making of Times New Roman indeed requires a reinstatement of Monotype’s essential role in the successful completion of the types— and more specifically that of its draughts-women. These women, who comprised the majority of staff in the type drawing offices of major typefounding companies from the beginning of the twentieth century, have been largely overlooked in histories of typefounding to date. If we consider, as graphic design historian Teal Triggs advocated two decades ago, that ‘any historical narrative of graphic design must include an understanding of how women have been positioned within the institutional or patriarchal frameworks of design’,6 it becomes evident that these women merit attention as key contributors to the design process of such renowned typefaces as Times New Roman.
The role of the Type Drawing
Office: an essential component of
twentieth century type-making
The Type Drawing Office (TDO) of the Monotype Corporation was part of the Monotype
Works in Salfords, Surrey, for most of the twentieth century.7 Its role was to make all
the letter-drawings used in the production of hot metal typefaces for the Monotype
composing system.8 In this capacity, it sat alongside a number of other departments
such as the matrix factory and the machine-making department, and played an essential
role in supplying typefaces for the Monotype.9 Times New Roman appeared at a time that can be regarded as a golden age for
Monotype’s typographic development. Type historian Sebastian Carter writes:
At the beginning of the 1920s, [Monotype] was entering a period of achievement which has become legendary among type users. ... Over the next two decades, up to the beginning of the Second World War, Monotype not only vigorously continued the practice established with Imprint and Plantin of redesigning earlier faces for the new technology, but also pioneered a number of more historically faithful revivals of faces which had been lost for centuries. In tandem with this, the Corporation did not neglect the work of contemporary type designers, but commissioned a wide range of new designs, many of which are still in common use today.10
Many of the typefaces produced by Monotype throughout the 1920s and 1930s achieved considerable success in Britain and abroad, first in metal and later in phototypesetting and digital font formats: Monotype Garamond (released in 1922), Monotype Baskerville (1923), Perpetua, Gill Sans, Centaur, Bembo (all released in 1929), Times New Roman (1932), are still regarded today as some of the finest typographic achievements of twentieth century typography. Most of the revivals from earlier faces originated directly in the TDO and were adapted from prints of older metal types. In other cases, original artwork was supplied by an external source to Monotype. Thus drawings for Centaur were supplied by Bruce Rogers; Eric Gill produced the artwork for Perpetua and Gill Sans; and Lardent’s drawings for Times New Roman were handed over to Monotype by Morison. The TDO was then responsible for adapting the artwork to the requirements of the Monotype system. The task usually involved:
At the beginning of the 1920s, [Monotype] was entering a period of achievement which has become legendary among type users. ... Over the next two decades, up to the beginning of the Second World War, Monotype not only vigorously continued the practice established with Imprint and Plantin of redesigning earlier faces for the new technology, but also pioneered a number of more historically faithful revivals of faces which had been lost for centuries. In tandem with this, the Corporation did not neglect the work of contemporary type designers, but commissioned a wide range of new designs, many of which are still in common use today.10
Many of the typefaces produced by Monotype throughout the 1920s and 1930s achieved considerable success in Britain and abroad, first in metal and later in phototypesetting and digital font formats: Monotype Garamond (released in 1922), Monotype Baskerville (1923), Perpetua, Gill Sans, Centaur, Bembo (all released in 1929), Times New Roman (1932), are still regarded today as some of the finest typographic achievements of twentieth century typography. Most of the revivals from earlier faces originated directly in the TDO and were adapted from prints of older metal types. In other cases, original artwork was supplied by an external source to Monotype. Thus drawings for Centaur were supplied by Bruce Rogers; Eric Gill produced the artwork for Perpetua and Gill Sans; and Lardent’s drawings for Times New Roman were handed over to Monotype by Morison. The TDO was then responsible for adapting the artwork to the requirements of the Monotype system. The task usually involved:
- enlarging the letterforms to a standard size of ‘10- inch’,11 and producing reverse-reading drawings, in pencil outline, which were suitable for pattern and matrix production [fig.1];
- expanding the character set (to include punctuation, symbols, accented characters, etc.);
- extending the design to extra styles (such as bold and italic);
- adapting the drawings from their originally intended point size to produce larger and smaller sizes (‘optical scaling’);
- making wax patterns, which were used to produce copper patterns from which punches could be engraved.
Fig. 1. An employee of the Monotype TDO producing a 10-inch type drawing of capital letter R for Perpetua (original design by Eric Gill). Undated photograph (probably 1960s), Monotype Archives.
Notes
1
Various writers have discussed the origins of Times NewRoman, including: N. Barker, Stanley Morison, Macmillan, New York, 1972, pp. 283–302; J. Dreyfus, ‘The evolution of Times New Roman’, The Penrose Annual, a review of the graphic arts, vol. 66, pp. 165–174; A. Hutt, ‘Times Roman: a re-assessment’, The Journal of Typographic Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 259–70; J. Moran, Stanley Morison, his typographic achievements, Lund Humphries, London, 1971, pp. 123–38. Mike Parker, who acted as Linotype Mergenthaler director of typography between 1963–81, attempted to prove that the design was in fact originated by the American naval architect W. Starling Burgess. See M. Parker, ‘W. Starling Burgess, type designer?’, Printing History 31/32, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 52–87. See also H. Berliner, N. Barker, J. Rimmer & J. Dreyfus, ‘Starling Burgess, No Type Designer’, Printing History 37, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3–22.
2
The latter is the most plausible hypothesis, according to Barker, op. cit., p. 292. Morison claimed to have given Lardent sketches he had produced himself, but Moran considered the idea unlikely on the basis that ‘Morison could sketch a layout but was no draughtsman’. Moran, op.cit., p. 127.
3
The original artwork is believed to have been destroyed in the bombing of Monotype’s London office during the Second World War, alongside most correspondence relating to the development of the project; but the Lardent drawings were reproduced in S. Morison, Printing the Times since 1785, some account of the means of production and changes of dress of the newspaper, Printing House Square, London, 1953. Unfortunately the original scale of the drawings is not provided in the publication, nor the technique used by Lardent to execute the artwork (most likely black ink on paper).
4
M. Scotford, ‘Toward an expanded view of women in graphic design: messy history vs neat history,’ Visible Language, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 368–88.
5
Moran, op.cit., p. 130.
6
T. Triggs, ‘Graphic design’, Feminist visual culture, eds F. Carson & C. Pajaczkowska, Edinburgh University Press, 2000, pp. 151–2.
7
The company was known as the Lanston Monotype Corporation until 1931, when it became the MonotypeCorporation. For a detailed history of the company, see J. Slinn, S. Carter & R. Southall, History of the Monotype Corporation, eds A. Boag & C. Burke, Printing Historical Society/Vanbrugh Press, London/Woodstock, 2014.
8
‘Hot-metal’ refers to typesetting equipments, such as the Linotype and the Monotype machines, that involved the mechanical composition of texts for letterpress printing, and that used injected molten lead into so-called matrices for casting metal type.
9
The matrix factory was responsible for cutting punches, as well as producing and checking the matrices of typefaces that were sold alongside Monotype machines.
10
S. Carter, ‘The Morison years and beyond, 1923–1965’, The Monotype Recorder, one hundred years of type making, 1897–1997, New Series no. 10, pp. 14–25.
11
All letter-drawings at Monotype were produced at a typical overall character size of 10-inch, or 254 mm.
12
Archival evidence of the activity and contribution of the TDO to the production of Monotype faces survive in the company archives, as well as at the Type Archive in South London. This article draws on the following interviews with former Monotype staff: Ann Pillar interviewed by the author at the University of Reading, Berkshire, on 26 July 2016; Robin Nicholas and Graham Sheppard interviewedby the author and Prof. Fiona Ross in Salfords, Surrey, on 27 July 2016; David & Patricia Saunders interviewed by the author and Prof. Fiona Ross in Pwllheli, Wales, on 28 July 2018; Maureen Mitchell (née Clarke) in an email to Dr. Helena Lekka on 13 March 2019; Duncan Avery interviewed by the author and Dr. Helena Lekka at the Type Archive in London on 13 March 2019; Kumar Parminder Rajput interviewed by the author and Dr. Helena Lekka at the Type Archive in London on 13 March 2019; Richard Cooper interviewed by Dr. Helena Lekka in Horley, Surrey on 13 March 2019; transcripts of these interviews are stored in the Collections of the Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, University of Reading.
13
Very few texts have acknowledged in the past the contribution of the women of the TDO to Monotype’s achievements. See D. Saunders, ‘The Type Drawing Office’, The Monotype Recorder, New Series, no. 8, pp. 32–7; Saunders, ‘Two decades of change: 1965–1986’, The Monotype Recorder, one hundred years of type making, 1897–1997, New Series no. 10, 26–35.
Various writers have discussed the origins of Times NewRoman, including: N. Barker, Stanley Morison, Macmillan, New York, 1972, pp. 283–302; J. Dreyfus, ‘The evolution of Times New Roman’, The Penrose Annual, a review of the graphic arts, vol. 66, pp. 165–174; A. Hutt, ‘Times Roman: a re-assessment’, The Journal of Typographic Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 259–70; J. Moran, Stanley Morison, his typographic achievements, Lund Humphries, London, 1971, pp. 123–38. Mike Parker, who acted as Linotype Mergenthaler director of typography between 1963–81, attempted to prove that the design was in fact originated by the American naval architect W. Starling Burgess. See M. Parker, ‘W. Starling Burgess, type designer?’, Printing History 31/32, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 52–87. See also H. Berliner, N. Barker, J. Rimmer & J. Dreyfus, ‘Starling Burgess, No Type Designer’, Printing History 37, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3–22.
2
The latter is the most plausible hypothesis, according to Barker, op. cit., p. 292. Morison claimed to have given Lardent sketches he had produced himself, but Moran considered the idea unlikely on the basis that ‘Morison could sketch a layout but was no draughtsman’. Moran, op.cit., p. 127.
3
The original artwork is believed to have been destroyed in the bombing of Monotype’s London office during the Second World War, alongside most correspondence relating to the development of the project; but the Lardent drawings were reproduced in S. Morison, Printing the Times since 1785, some account of the means of production and changes of dress of the newspaper, Printing House Square, London, 1953. Unfortunately the original scale of the drawings is not provided in the publication, nor the technique used by Lardent to execute the artwork (most likely black ink on paper).
4
M. Scotford, ‘Toward an expanded view of women in graphic design: messy history vs neat history,’ Visible Language, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 368–88.
5
Moran, op.cit., p. 130.
6
T. Triggs, ‘Graphic design’, Feminist visual culture, eds F. Carson & C. Pajaczkowska, Edinburgh University Press, 2000, pp. 151–2.
7
The company was known as the Lanston Monotype Corporation until 1931, when it became the MonotypeCorporation. For a detailed history of the company, see J. Slinn, S. Carter & R. Southall, History of the Monotype Corporation, eds A. Boag & C. Burke, Printing Historical Society/Vanbrugh Press, London/Woodstock, 2014.
8
‘Hot-metal’ refers to typesetting equipments, such as the Linotype and the Monotype machines, that involved the mechanical composition of texts for letterpress printing, and that used injected molten lead into so-called matrices for casting metal type.
9
The matrix factory was responsible for cutting punches, as well as producing and checking the matrices of typefaces that were sold alongside Monotype machines.
10
S. Carter, ‘The Morison years and beyond, 1923–1965’, The Monotype Recorder, one hundred years of type making, 1897–1997, New Series no. 10, pp. 14–25.
11
All letter-drawings at Monotype were produced at a typical overall character size of 10-inch, or 254 mm.
12
Archival evidence of the activity and contribution of the TDO to the production of Monotype faces survive in the company archives, as well as at the Type Archive in South London. This article draws on the following interviews with former Monotype staff: Ann Pillar interviewed by the author at the University of Reading, Berkshire, on 26 July 2016; Robin Nicholas and Graham Sheppard interviewedby the author and Prof. Fiona Ross in Salfords, Surrey, on 27 July 2016; David & Patricia Saunders interviewed by the author and Prof. Fiona Ross in Pwllheli, Wales, on 28 July 2018; Maureen Mitchell (née Clarke) in an email to Dr. Helena Lekka on 13 March 2019; Duncan Avery interviewed by the author and Dr. Helena Lekka at the Type Archive in London on 13 March 2019; Kumar Parminder Rajput interviewed by the author and Dr. Helena Lekka at the Type Archive in London on 13 March 2019; Richard Cooper interviewed by Dr. Helena Lekka in Horley, Surrey on 13 March 2019; transcripts of these interviews are stored in the Collections of the Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, University of Reading.
13
Very few texts have acknowledged in the past the contribution of the women of the TDO to Monotype’s achievements. See D. Saunders, ‘The Type Drawing Office’, The Monotype Recorder, New Series, no. 8, pp. 32–7; Saunders, ‘Two decades of change: 1965–1986’, The Monotype Recorder, one hundred years of type making, 1897–1997, New Series no. 10, 26–35.
The women of the TDO
Until the late 1930s, TDO staff essentially worked under the guidance of the American Frank Hinman Pierpont, Monotype’s powerful and charismatic Works manager, and Fritz Max Steltzer, a German citizen who had been
hired by Pierpont to establish and supervise the TDO in 1899. While Pierpont’s background and contribution to the company’s early success have been well publicised,
Steltzer was much more self-effacing, and little is known about the early days of the TDO under his direction.14 There is little doubt, however, that both men were decisive in establishing the working methods used by the TDO for most of the twentieth century, as
well as the department’s culture.15
By 1910, the TDO was formally set up and employed four women, as recorded by
Steltzer in his work diary:
October 1. 1909 to September 30th 1910—During the year a room has been specially fitted as a Type Drawing Office with specially designed drawing boards & accessories, which we first occupied in May. There has been no increase in the staff which still numbers 4, namely: Mrs. Hodges, Miss Pritched, Miss Vincy, Miss Wilkins. Drawings made in year: 8,878.16
These women would have been the earliest employees to join the TDO, and we know that at least one of them, Dora Pritchett, still worked there in the late 1930s.17 Dora Caroline Pritchett was born in 1879 in Folkestone, Kent, and joined Monotype in 1908, aged 22. Dora lived with her mother Jane Louisa Pritchett (widowed) and seems to have remained single and childless throughout her career. She registered as ‘Type Draughts Woman’ in the 1911 census. By 1922–23 she was recorded as living in one of the few houses supplied by Monotype to its employees on Dunraven Avenue (first at no.17, later at no.24), and she was still with the company in 1937, when she would have been in her late fifties. It is worth noting that when Monotype celebrated its fortieth anniversary that year, Dora Pritchett was given a seat at the top table with the company’s most senior managers, indicating that she was a highly valued member of staff.18 Further information on early recruitment for the TDO is lacking, but surviving photographs and publicity films indicate that by 1926 the department consisted of at least six draughtswomen working alongside one man (in all likelihood, Steltzer) and that between the late 1920s and the 1930s staff amounted to 12–15 people, almost exclusively female.19 Surviving photographs of the period show women sitting in rows, facing their supervisor’s desk [fig.2]. Lights hung from the ceiling to ensure good lighting conditions, and frosted glass was fitted on the large windows to avoid any outside distraction. Whereas female staff working in the matrix factory wore a uniform of white gowns and caps, the TDO women were dressed stylishly, most of them in a blouse and cardigan. Women sitting at the front each held a pencil, and worked on what appear to be 10-inch drawings on raised rotating boards, with rulers, French curves and T-squares at hand. Behind them, other female staff took care of matrix-case arrangements and checked copper patterns under a microscope.20 Who were the women producing these drawings? How were they recruited, and what kind of career could they aspire to upon joining Monotype? And, more specifically, to what extent did these invisible hands contribute to the quality and the success of the company’s typefaces, such as Times New Roman? The TDO tended to recruit young women from the local area, who were hired as ‘drawing clerks’. An advertisement posted in the local newspaper The Surrey Mirror in 1935 shows that the company sought an ‘intelligent girl’ for its TDO, adding that ‘accuracy with figures [was] essential’.
October 1. 1909 to September 30th 1910—During the year a room has been specially fitted as a Type Drawing Office with specially designed drawing boards & accessories, which we first occupied in May. There has been no increase in the staff which still numbers 4, namely: Mrs. Hodges, Miss Pritched, Miss Vincy, Miss Wilkins. Drawings made in year: 8,878.16
These women would have been the earliest employees to join the TDO, and we know that at least one of them, Dora Pritchett, still worked there in the late 1930s.17 Dora Caroline Pritchett was born in 1879 in Folkestone, Kent, and joined Monotype in 1908, aged 22. Dora lived with her mother Jane Louisa Pritchett (widowed) and seems to have remained single and childless throughout her career. She registered as ‘Type Draughts Woman’ in the 1911 census. By 1922–23 she was recorded as living in one of the few houses supplied by Monotype to its employees on Dunraven Avenue (first at no.17, later at no.24), and she was still with the company in 1937, when she would have been in her late fifties. It is worth noting that when Monotype celebrated its fortieth anniversary that year, Dora Pritchett was given a seat at the top table with the company’s most senior managers, indicating that she was a highly valued member of staff.18 Further information on early recruitment for the TDO is lacking, but surviving photographs and publicity films indicate that by 1926 the department consisted of at least six draughtswomen working alongside one man (in all likelihood, Steltzer) and that between the late 1920s and the 1930s staff amounted to 12–15 people, almost exclusively female.19 Surviving photographs of the period show women sitting in rows, facing their supervisor’s desk [fig.2]. Lights hung from the ceiling to ensure good lighting conditions, and frosted glass was fitted on the large windows to avoid any outside distraction. Whereas female staff working in the matrix factory wore a uniform of white gowns and caps, the TDO women were dressed stylishly, most of them in a blouse and cardigan. Women sitting at the front each held a pencil, and worked on what appear to be 10-inch drawings on raised rotating boards, with rulers, French curves and T-squares at hand. Behind them, other female staff took care of matrix-case arrangements and checked copper patterns under a microscope.20 Who were the women producing these drawings? How were they recruited, and what kind of career could they aspire to upon joining Monotype? And, more specifically, to what extent did these invisible hands contribute to the quality and the success of the company’s typefaces, such as Times New Roman? The TDO tended to recruit young women from the local area, who were hired as ‘drawing clerks’. An advertisement posted in the local newspaper The Surrey Mirror in 1935 shows that the company sought an ‘intelligent girl’ for its TDO, adding that ‘accuracy with figures [was] essential’.
Fig. 2: View of the Monotype Type Drawing Office in Salfords, Surrey, ca. 1928. Monotype Archives.
Later advertisements emphasised that new recruits should
be no younger than 16 years of age, and had to be good at drawing and arithmetic. Hiring young women would have been standard practice for the period and it is estimated
that by 1931, three quarters of girls aged 15 to 20 were in full-time employment.21 By 1946, the Monotype Corporation further stated in its advertisements that the job involved ‘interesting work in a bright, pleasant atmosphere’.22 Interviews with former Monotype staff revealed that the women employed in the TDO were generally considered as being better educated than women working in the matrix factory—a large department that employed many female staff, who contributed to
producing, checking and sorting Monotype faces on a daily basis.23 Former TDO employee Maureen Mitchell remembers that ‘there was an unspoken distinction between
the TDO and the factory staff’.24 While the latter were recruited from secondary school
and essentially completed repetitive tasks, TDO staff typically joined the company after
attending grammar school. They had to be skilled and meticulous and were seen as
precision workers. Despite their perceived level of skills, Monotype’s decision to hire female drawing clerks was clearly driven by financial motives, as women could be paid lower wages than men.25 Precise data on salaries for the early 1930s is lacking, but archival material reveals that in 1919 average wages at the Monotype Works were significantly higher for men than for women.26 In 1936–37, two men working in the general drawing office were recorded as receiving a weekly pay of £5.5s. and £5.10s; while Miss Pooley, after ten years of service in the TDO, earned a salary of just over £2.27 The high turnover of female staff within the department underpinned the maintenance of low wages, as most young women worked for Monotype for a few years after leaving school and before marrying and raising children.28 Photographs from the 1920s and 1930s support the view that the TDO and the matrix factory were staffed principally by young female recruits [fig.3].29 Some did, nevertheless, pursue long careers at Monotype (such as Dora Pritchett), and were appointed to supervisory roles. By 1950 the TDO was
divided into four sections: the order & matrix-case-arrangement section, the drawing section, the charting section, and the wax-cutting section; and all four ‘Heads of section’
were long-standing TDO female staff.30 This reflects the wider situation of women in industry at the time, as underlined by sociologists Crompton & Sanderson:
Young unmarried women might ‘go out to work’ before taking on full household responsibilities, and the never-married might remain in paid employment for an extended period. They would, however, be considered unfortunate—as indeed they often were. The wages available to women would not, on the whole, enable them to be self-supporting, and women lacking male protection or inherited wealth have been driven to circumstances ranging from genteel poverty to prostitution.31
While wages were average for the period (and below average for most women working at Monotype compared to men), Monotype was perceived as a company that took good care of its employees, regardless of their gender. The Works employed a mix of unionised and non-unionised male and female staff, and regularly reviewed individual wages based on performance. A pension scheme was established in 1927. Long-standing employees were celebrated and rewarded; for example, the company provided housing for its most valuable staff. In 1937, after ten years of working for the Corporation, Jean Pooley (mentioned above) was granted a £10 loan on the security of her pension payment after running into financial difficulties while supporting her blind aunt.32 Maureen Mitchell recalled being brought flowers to her home by a staff officer when she was confined in bed after an accident that had happened outside her work hours. The company also provided plenty of opportunities to socialise with co-workers, and many Monotype employees met their future spouse on such occasions.
Young unmarried women might ‘go out to work’ before taking on full household responsibilities, and the never-married might remain in paid employment for an extended period. They would, however, be considered unfortunate—as indeed they often were. The wages available to women would not, on the whole, enable them to be self-supporting, and women lacking male protection or inherited wealth have been driven to circumstances ranging from genteel poverty to prostitution.31
While wages were average for the period (and below average for most women working at Monotype compared to men), Monotype was perceived as a company that took good care of its employees, regardless of their gender. The Works employed a mix of unionised and non-unionised male and female staff, and regularly reviewed individual wages based on performance. A pension scheme was established in 1927. Long-standing employees were celebrated and rewarded; for example, the company provided housing for its most valuable staff. In 1937, after ten years of working for the Corporation, Jean Pooley (mentioned above) was granted a £10 loan on the security of her pension payment after running into financial difficulties while supporting her blind aunt.32 Maureen Mitchell recalled being brought flowers to her home by a staff officer when she was confined in bed after an accident that had happened outside her work hours. The company also provided plenty of opportunities to socialise with co-workers, and many Monotype employees met their future spouse on such occasions.
Fig. 3: Group photograph of Monotype Matrix factory and Type Drawing Office staff, 1930s. Courtesy of St Bride Printing Library.
As the head of the drawing section, Dora Laing left a lasting mark on the TDO and on her colleagues [fig.4]. Born Dorothy Elizabeth Laing in London in 1906, she was the youngest of three daughters. She, likenDora Pritchett, lived with her widowed mother following the death of her father when she was only 11 years old.33 Laing joined Monotype in 1922, aged 16. By 1929 she lived with her mother in Reigate, near Salfords and she was recorded in the 1939 Register as a ‘Draughtwoman (Type Design)’. Dora remained single and childless throughout her career at Monotype, retiring around 1966, at the age of 60.34 According to colleagues who worked with her in the 1950s and 1960s, Dora could be a ‘martinet’ with younger recruits.35 But she was also fair to her colleagues and, according to David Saunders, Laing ‘handed on a knowledge and respect for the drawing work that became a lasting model’.36 By the
end of her career she sat in a separate office from the main TDO as part of a small team
of senior staff who held key company knowledge, thus highlighting the breadth of her
skills and her value to Monotype.37 Laing’s work diaries provide invaluable insight into the daily life of TDO members at the time Times New Roman was being produced.38 Every day, she logged her tasks: typefaces she worked on, letters she drew, instructions she received from Pierpont or Steltzer, etc. As TDO work was closely monitored, she also recorded the number of hours she spent on each task.39 In 1929, Laing worked for an average of 8 ½ hours every day, Monday to Friday, as well as 4 ½ hours on Saturdays. She was entitled to a break for Easter, about ten days of summer holiday, as well as five days at Christmas. Initial work on Times New Roman, series 327, was first entered in the TDO log cards on 8 April 1931.40 Two days later, Dora Laing recorded in her notebook having spent six hours on fixing measurements and sketching lowercase letters for the 9-point size of Times New Roman.41 She then spent another 4 ½ hours on the 9-point capital letters on Saturday 11 April, and a further half-day the following Monday: thus the long and painstaking process of turning Stanley Morison’s idea into a full-grown range of typefaces had started for the women of the TDO.
Fig. 4: Dora Laing drawing an Arabic character in the
Monotype TDO, ca. 1965. Courtesy of St Bride Printing Library.
Notes
14
S. Morris, ‘Monotype and Eric Gill: a study of the design and production of Gill’s hot-metal typefaces’, PhD thesis, University of Reading, 2015, p. 245.
15
It is evident from interviews with former employees, and surviving records, that the working methods that were established at the Monotype Works during the first part of the century remained in use after the Second World War.
16
Steltzer’s work diary, Monotype Archives, Salfords. Miss Pritched was probably Dora Caroline Pritchett, who had joined the Corporation in 1908.
17
Morris, op. cit., p. 247.
18
The Monotype Corporation, ‘The dinner in commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of the establishment of the Lanston Monotype Corporation Limited, 13 December 1897–Friday 17 December 1937, Connaught Rooms, Great Queen Street—Plan of tables’, consulted at St Bride Library, donated by Richard Cooper.
19
The only male employees appearing in photographs and films are one man (probably Steltzer) sitting at the front of the room in 1925, and three boys standing at the back (probably apprentices) around 1928. Observations based on a series of unsorted and undated photographs in the Monotype Archives; on photographic material donated to St Bride Library by R. Cooper; and on the 1925 film ‘A Monotype composing machine made’ produced by the Monotype Corporation.
20
In the Monotype system for casting type, matrices were arranged by character width in a matrix-case, which also conditioned the allocation of characters to keys on the Monotype keyboard.
21
P. Tinkler, ‘Girlhood in Transition? Preparing English Girls for Adulthood in a Reconstructed Britain’, When the War Was Over: Women, War and Peace in Europe, 1940–1956, eds C. Duchen and I. Bandhauer-Schöffman, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2000, pp. 59–70.
22
Advertisement by the Monotype Corporation in the Surrey Mirror, 22 March 1946 and 29 March 1946. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
23
Southall, op. cit., pp. 361–4. Full details on interviews are provided in footnote 12.
24
Maureen Mitchell (née Clarke) joined Monotype in 1956, aged 15. She stayed with the company for seven years. Mitchell in an email to Dr. Helena Lekka, 13 March 2019.
25
This was largely true in all industries. See for instance N. Swartz, ‘The trend in women’s wages’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, vol. 143, pp. 104–8.
26
Letter from F. Pierpont to H. Duncan, 29 Dec. 1919, Type Archives—Monotype Papers.
27
Letter from H. Buckle to W. Burch, 30 Dec. 1936 and H. Buckle to C. Sansom, 5 May 1937, Type Archives— Monotype Papers. By the mid 1960s, pay scales at entry level were similar for men and women who joined the TDO.
28
This, again, was highly usual for the period—Tinkler, op. cit., p. 61.
29
One woman, significantly older than her colleagues, appears twice on camera: probably Dora Pritchett. Observations based on a series of unsorted and undated photographs in the Monotype Archives, and photographic material donated to St Bride Library by R. Cooper.
30
Miss Beryl Morris, Miss Dora Laing, Mrs Emily MacMurray (née Payne) and Miss Winifred Pooley, respectively. Letter from C. Poore to J. Goulding, 5 October 1950, Monotype archives. The charting section was responsible for recording the dimensions of each character drawn in the TDO and providing measurements in a useable form for each stage of matrix manufacture. The wax-cutting section produced wax patterns, which were later used for making copper patterns.
31
R. Crompton & K. Sanderson, Gendered jobs and social change, Unwin Hyman, London, 1990, p. 1.
32
By then Miss Pooley received a wage of 11d. per hour. Letter from H. Buckle to C. Sansom, 5 May 1937, Type Archives—Monotype Papers.
33
Source: ancestry.com.
34
Dora Laing died seven years later in Torbay, Devon. Source: England & Wales Civil Registration Death Index.
35
Patricia Saunders interviewed on 28 July 2018.
36
Saunders, ‘Two decades of change: 1965–1986’, p. 30.
37
Robin Nicholas & Graham Sheppard interviewed on 27 July 2016. This nucleus of people, known as the Type Development Group, included Graham Sheppard and David Saunders.
38
D. Laing, work diary for December 1928–March 1932, and undated notebook entitled ‘How a fount is produced for Monotype use’, Monotype Archives.
39
As would have been common practice for many companies at the time, the TDO was regimented by a clear hierarchical protocol. It required for instance that TDO members clocked in and clocked out, and had to get all work produced checked and approved by the head of section. Similarly, TDO members were not allowed to sign any document sent to outside collaborators, as they had to be approved and signed off by a Manager. Robin Nicholas & Graham Sheppard interviewed on 27 July 2016.
40
All work undertaken on Monotype series was recorded on so-called ‘log cards’ which are kept in the Monotype Archives.
41
Dora Laing work diaries, Monotype Archives.
S. Morris, ‘Monotype and Eric Gill: a study of the design and production of Gill’s hot-metal typefaces’, PhD thesis, University of Reading, 2015, p. 245.
15
It is evident from interviews with former employees, and surviving records, that the working methods that were established at the Monotype Works during the first part of the century remained in use after the Second World War.
16
Steltzer’s work diary, Monotype Archives, Salfords. Miss Pritched was probably Dora Caroline Pritchett, who had joined the Corporation in 1908.
17
Morris, op. cit., p. 247.
18
The Monotype Corporation, ‘The dinner in commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of the establishment of the Lanston Monotype Corporation Limited, 13 December 1897–Friday 17 December 1937, Connaught Rooms, Great Queen Street—Plan of tables’, consulted at St Bride Library, donated by Richard Cooper.
19
The only male employees appearing in photographs and films are one man (probably Steltzer) sitting at the front of the room in 1925, and three boys standing at the back (probably apprentices) around 1928. Observations based on a series of unsorted and undated photographs in the Monotype Archives; on photographic material donated to St Bride Library by R. Cooper; and on the 1925 film ‘A Monotype composing machine made’ produced by the Monotype Corporation.
20
In the Monotype system for casting type, matrices were arranged by character width in a matrix-case, which also conditioned the allocation of characters to keys on the Monotype keyboard.
21
P. Tinkler, ‘Girlhood in Transition? Preparing English Girls for Adulthood in a Reconstructed Britain’, When the War Was Over: Women, War and Peace in Europe, 1940–1956, eds C. Duchen and I. Bandhauer-Schöffman, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 2000, pp. 59–70.
22
Advertisement by the Monotype Corporation in the Surrey Mirror, 22 March 1946 and 29 March 1946. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
23
Southall, op. cit., pp. 361–4. Full details on interviews are provided in footnote 12.
24
Maureen Mitchell (née Clarke) joined Monotype in 1956, aged 15. She stayed with the company for seven years. Mitchell in an email to Dr. Helena Lekka, 13 March 2019.
25
This was largely true in all industries. See for instance N. Swartz, ‘The trend in women’s wages’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, vol. 143, pp. 104–8.
26
Letter from F. Pierpont to H. Duncan, 29 Dec. 1919, Type Archives—Monotype Papers.
27
Letter from H. Buckle to W. Burch, 30 Dec. 1936 and H. Buckle to C. Sansom, 5 May 1937, Type Archives— Monotype Papers. By the mid 1960s, pay scales at entry level were similar for men and women who joined the TDO.
28
This, again, was highly usual for the period—Tinkler, op. cit., p. 61.
29
One woman, significantly older than her colleagues, appears twice on camera: probably Dora Pritchett. Observations based on a series of unsorted and undated photographs in the Monotype Archives, and photographic material donated to St Bride Library by R. Cooper.
30
Miss Beryl Morris, Miss Dora Laing, Mrs Emily MacMurray (née Payne) and Miss Winifred Pooley, respectively. Letter from C. Poore to J. Goulding, 5 October 1950, Monotype archives. The charting section was responsible for recording the dimensions of each character drawn in the TDO and providing measurements in a useable form for each stage of matrix manufacture. The wax-cutting section produced wax patterns, which were later used for making copper patterns.
31
R. Crompton & K. Sanderson, Gendered jobs and social change, Unwin Hyman, London, 1990, p. 1.
32
By then Miss Pooley received a wage of 11d. per hour. Letter from H. Buckle to C. Sansom, 5 May 1937, Type Archives—Monotype Papers.
33
Source: ancestry.com.
34
Dora Laing died seven years later in Torbay, Devon. Source: England & Wales Civil Registration Death Index.
35
Patricia Saunders interviewed on 28 July 2018.
36
Saunders, ‘Two decades of change: 1965–1986’, p. 30.
37
Robin Nicholas & Graham Sheppard interviewed on 27 July 2016. This nucleus of people, known as the Type Development Group, included Graham Sheppard and David Saunders.
38
D. Laing, work diary for December 1928–March 1932, and undated notebook entitled ‘How a fount is produced for Monotype use’, Monotype Archives.
39
As would have been common practice for many companies at the time, the TDO was regimented by a clear hierarchical protocol. It required for instance that TDO members clocked in and clocked out, and had to get all work produced checked and approved by the head of section. Similarly, TDO members were not allowed to sign any document sent to outside collaborators, as they had to be approved and signed off by a Manager. Robin Nicholas & Graham Sheppard interviewed on 27 July 2016.
40
All work undertaken on Monotype series was recorded on so-called ‘log cards’ which are kept in the Monotype Archives.
41
Dora Laing work diaries, Monotype Archives.
Making typefaces for hot-metal:
an iterative process by nature
an iterative process by nature
By the time the TDO received Morison’s instructions for the making of Times New
Roman, the working process established by Pierpont and Steltzer was firmly in place.
The Great Depression, while affecting British industries, does not seem to have impacted on Monotype’s type-making activity. If anything, the department produced a significantly larger number of drawings throughout the 1930s than in the previous decade.42 Such activity reflected the golden age which Monotype was entering, as emphasized by Judy Slinn:
It may seem paradoxical that in the 1930s, a period characterized by economic and political turbulence, by worldwide economic recession and high unemployment, the Monotype Corporation enjoyed what was perhaps its most serene and most successful decade of operations.43
In all likelihood, Stanley Morison supplied the TDO with Lardent’s drawings, which were used by the charting department as a basis to establish the measurements for the 10-inch drawings: a cap height, stem thickness, serif weight, length of ascenders and descenders, and heights for round and square letters. The drawings also had to take into account a number of constraints. Some were in part due to the Monotype system (for example, the machine’s 18 units for determining letter-widths required the TDO to devise a ‘matrix-case arrangement’ for each typeface before drawing could begin).44 and others to the physical consequences of engraving punches and striking matrices (such as allowance on the drawings for bevels and kerns). All these constraints required a deep and thorough understanding of the matrix-making process, and could not have been anticipated by Lardent when drafting his letters for Times New Roman. Morison himself indirectly acknowledged the skills of the TDO in Printing the Times since 1785:
The design of a new body type for use in a newspaper is not an easy matter. The preparation of such a design for mechanical composition involves a multitude of calculations forming the basis of the patterns that are used for the manufacture of the punches from which the matrices, in turn employed on the casting machines, are driven.45
It may seem paradoxical that in the 1930s, a period characterized by economic and political turbulence, by worldwide economic recession and high unemployment, the Monotype Corporation enjoyed what was perhaps its most serene and most successful decade of operations.43
In all likelihood, Stanley Morison supplied the TDO with Lardent’s drawings, which were used by the charting department as a basis to establish the measurements for the 10-inch drawings: a cap height, stem thickness, serif weight, length of ascenders and descenders, and heights for round and square letters. The drawings also had to take into account a number of constraints. Some were in part due to the Monotype system (for example, the machine’s 18 units for determining letter-widths required the TDO to devise a ‘matrix-case arrangement’ for each typeface before drawing could begin).44 and others to the physical consequences of engraving punches and striking matrices (such as allowance on the drawings for bevels and kerns). All these constraints required a deep and thorough understanding of the matrix-making process, and could not have been anticipated by Lardent when drafting his letters for Times New Roman. Morison himself indirectly acknowledged the skills of the TDO in Printing the Times since 1785:
The design of a new body type for use in a newspaper is not an easy matter. The preparation of such a design for mechanical composition involves a multitude of calculations forming the basis of the patterns that are used for the manufacture of the punches from which the matrices, in turn employed on the casting machines, are driven.45
Fig 5. 10-inch drawing for lowercase letters a and b, Times
New Roman series 327, 9-point. Monotype Archives, photograph Laura Bennetto.
Once planning for the typeface was approved, the submitted drawings could be enlarged to the customary 10-inch size, and letterforms were amended to ensure the best balance between the designer’s intention and
manufacturing practicability at the intended size [fig.5]. Following Laing’s records on the 9-point drawings for Times New Roman, a set of 92 drawings was produced and a first trial proof was issued to Morison on 24 April
1931.46 The proof featured all caps, lowercase, numerals and basic punctuation, implying that the punches were cut within two weeks of work beginning on the drawings. The typeface on Trial proof no. 1 is very close to
the original drawings reproduced in Printing The Times [fig.6]. While the overall spirit of the typeface is already present, a number of obvious issues are revealed by this first proof: the weight of characters is inconsistent, and a number of lowercase letters appear to be bouncing on the baseline.
Fig 6. Comparison of trial proofs no. 1 (top) and no.12 (bottom) for Times New Roman Series 327 9-point, April/October 1931.
Monotype Archives.
Some characters, such as lowercase k, seem too wide and cause spacing issues when set at
5-point. Amendments were made to the drawings, presumably following comments by Morison; new punches were cut of amended letter shapes, and matrices were struck again. A second proof of 9-point Times New Roman was produced on 1 June 1931, showing redesigned versions of A, C, G, L, M, T as well as f, g and k. Unfortunately, no written record has survived in the Monotype Archives of the correspondence between Morison and the Works on the development of Times New Roman. But typeface design being, by nature, an iterative process, and taking into account previous research on the development of other Monotype faces of the period, it can be assumed that subsequent weeks would have involved Steltzer and Pierpont going back and forth to Morison (mostly through written correspondence), instructing the TDO to produce new drawings, sending proofs, and acting on Morison’s comments to make further changes until final approval of the typeface. According to Morison himself, above 14,750 punches, including those corrected (a large number), were cut by the Monotype Corporation for the installation in Printing House Square’, many of which ‘were cut twice owing to imperfection, errors, or second thought, in design’.47 Type historian Nicolas Barker further observed:
In the weeks that followed [the initial trial proof] a number of letters were redesigned in the original 9-point and the 7-, 5 ½ - and 4-point that followed, some more than once. ... Several of the instructions are attributed to Pierpont… or reveal his interest in the progress of the design, which belies the assertion that Morison and he worked in mutual exclusion. What the records do not show is the close relationship in the development of new designs that subsisted between Morison and the head of the Type Drawing office, Fritz Max Steltzer.48
Twelve trial proofs were produced between April and October 1931 for the 9-point version of Times New Roman. Small caps as well as an italic counterpart were added to the roman in July 1931. In its final version (as reproduced in Monotype specimen sheets), Times New Roman’s serifs have been significantly thickened; some letters are wider (d, e, f) and others narrower (M);49 lowercase j and t, as well as C, G, J, P, S, are a different design from Lardent’s initial drawings. Overall the design is much more consistent and pleasing to the eye than its original trial proof.
In the weeks that followed [the initial trial proof] a number of letters were redesigned in the original 9-point and the 7-, 5 ½ - and 4-point that followed, some more than once. ... Several of the instructions are attributed to Pierpont… or reveal his interest in the progress of the design, which belies the assertion that Morison and he worked in mutual exclusion. What the records do not show is the close relationship in the development of new designs that subsisted between Morison and the head of the Type Drawing office, Fritz Max Steltzer.48
Twelve trial proofs were produced between April and October 1931 for the 9-point version of Times New Roman. Small caps as well as an italic counterpart were added to the roman in July 1931. In its final version (as reproduced in Monotype specimen sheets), Times New Roman’s serifs have been significantly thickened; some letters are wider (d, e, f) and others narrower (M);49 lowercase j and t, as well as C, G, J, P, S, are a different design from Lardent’s initial drawings. Overall the design is much more consistent and pleasing to the eye than its original trial proof.
Notes
42
Between September 1909 and October 1940 Steltzer reported in his diary the monthly number of drawings produced by the TDO, which provide a reliable clue of its activity. These records indicate a peak in TDO output in 1911–12, followed by a sheer drop throughout the First World War. Work slowly gained momentum throughout the 1920s until, by 1931, TDO’s output reached similar levels to those in 1911–12. Steltzer’s records show that the TDO produced on average 7,275 drawings/year between 1920 and 1928, against 12,682 drawings/year between 1929 and 1939. Steltzer’s diaries, Monotype Archives.
43
Slinn, op. cit., p. 73.
44
For more information on the Monotype unit-system, see R. Southall, Printer’s type in the twentieth century, The British Library/Oak Knoll Press, London, 2005, pp. 35–41.
45
Morison, op. cit., pp. 68–9.
46
Sources: notebook recording the number of drawings produced between Jan. 1930 and Feb. 1932, and trial proof no. 1 for Times New Roman 327–9-point, Monotype Archives. The first set of drawings produced for 9-point Times New Roman in April 1931 did not survive in the archives and was replaced by an updated version dated 2–3 July 1931.
47
Morison, op. cit., pp. 68–9.
48
Berliner, Barker, Rimmer & Dreyfus, op. cit., pp. 14–5.
49
These changes in character width may have been due to matrix-case arrangement constraints.
Between September 1909 and October 1940 Steltzer reported in his diary the monthly number of drawings produced by the TDO, which provide a reliable clue of its activity. These records indicate a peak in TDO output in 1911–12, followed by a sheer drop throughout the First World War. Work slowly gained momentum throughout the 1920s until, by 1931, TDO’s output reached similar levels to those in 1911–12. Steltzer’s records show that the TDO produced on average 7,275 drawings/year between 1920 and 1928, against 12,682 drawings/year between 1929 and 1939. Steltzer’s diaries, Monotype Archives.
43
Slinn, op. cit., p. 73.
44
For more information on the Monotype unit-system, see R. Southall, Printer’s type in the twentieth century, The British Library/Oak Knoll Press, London, 2005, pp. 35–41.
45
Morison, op. cit., pp. 68–9.
46
Sources: notebook recording the number of drawings produced between Jan. 1930 and Feb. 1932, and trial proof no. 1 for Times New Roman 327–9-point, Monotype Archives. The first set of drawings produced for 9-point Times New Roman in April 1931 did not survive in the archives and was replaced by an updated version dated 2–3 July 1931.
47
Morison, op. cit., pp. 68–9.
48
Berliner, Barker, Rimmer & Dreyfus, op. cit., pp. 14–5.
49
These changes in character width may have been due to matrix-case arrangement constraints.
The TDO: a technical or a creative entity?
Typeface development work was carried out collectively, as exemplified by the many
names that appear at the bottom of the drawings for 9-point Times New Roman [fig.7]:
[Enid] Banyard, M. O. Donnell, [Dora] Laing, H. Johnstone, M. Morris, [Daisy] Newman,
W. Pooley, [Dora] Pritchett, [Winnie] Warren. These are some of the women who actively
contributed to the making of the roman version of the typeface.50 Occasionally, one drawing clerk initially sketched letterforms while a second (usually less experienced)
finalised the design by inking the most important measurement lines.51 The working process at Monotype relied on industrial precision, and was strongly hierarchical.
Morison, Pierpont and Steltzer drove the project, carefully reviewing each stage of the design and providing TDO staff with precise instructions on further developments. These were passed on either verbally or in writing to the head of section, who would then distribute the work among drawing clerks depending on their abilities and experience. But what exactly were the skills required to work in the TDO? According to David Saunders, who supervised the TDO in the 1960s, being a drawing clerk required a logical mind, good drawing skills and an acute sense of proportions:
A certain type of intelligence was needed because they had to take other people’s
drawings and interpret those for the [Monotype] system. They must not alter them
significantly, they had to stick to somebody else’s concept but make it suitable for
letterpress printing first of all, which had all these things of ink spread and punch
striking and all the problems that all those processes cause. They didn’t have to be artists, they didn’t even have to know how to draw… As long as they had the intelligence to do that, then they really had the sort of mind that could look at a drawing and work out what to do with it, to do the necessary things.52
Saunders’ description aligns with the view expounded in The Monotype Recorder in
1956 that TDO staff had to make ‘the use of critical imagination’, and ‘a most perceptive
effort to interpret and realize the designer’s true intention’, as well as ‘a certain exercise of judgement—and a great deal of accumulated knowledge of type behaviour and the habits of the reading eye’.53 Nevertheless, as the great majority of the women who worked in the TDO were expected to leave the company upon getting married, they were not encouraged to develop their skills.
According to Patricia Saunders (née Mullett) who joined the TDO in 1951 aged 18, women ‘were not encouraged to know names or history of founts; it was all [series] numbers’.54 Their contribution was at best overlooked, and sometimes harshly criticised. In 1931, Eric Gill voiced his concerns about the TDO’s ability to interpret his artwork:
It is difficult enough for the designer to draw a letter ten or twenty times as large as the actual type will be and at the same time in right proportion; it requires very great experience and understanding. It is quite impossible for a set of more or less tame employees, even if the local art school has done its poor best for them, to know what a letter enlarged a hundred times will look like when reduced to the size of intended type.55
It is difficult enough for the designer to draw a letter ten or twenty times as large as the actual type will be and at the same time in right proportion; it requires very great experience and understanding. It is quite impossible for a set of more or less tame employees, even if the local art school has done its poor best for them, to know what a letter enlarged a hundred times will look like when reduced to the size of intended type.55
Fig 7. Signatures of drawing clerks on 10-inch drawings for Times New Roman, 1931. Monotype Archives, photograph Laura Bennetto.
Gill’s disdain for TDO employees is obvious from the words he chose to describe them.
One can understand why Gill, a skilled artist and craftsman, would have been frustrated
to see his artwork adapted to the constraints of the Monotype system by TDO staff, who would not have necessarily picked up the subtleties of his drawings. However, given Gill’s known thoughts on women’s work and education, there is little doubt that the predominance of young women within the Department tainted his view of the work being carried out.56 Beyond producing a basic set of letters based on external artwork, the TDO would also have been instructed to develop extra characters: numerals, punctuation signs, diacritics, etc. Close observation of the full extent of a Monotype character set reveals the vast amount of work involved in developing an original type design idea into a complete typeface. Moreover, the adaptation of the original 9-point Times New Roman to
various type sizes would have required extensive knowledge of the effect of optical
compensation on the texture of a text on the page. A comparison of the various point
sizes of series 327 shows that smaller composition sizes called for wider horizontal proportions, less contrast between thick and thin parts of letterforms, looser fitting as well as shorter ascenders and descenders57. The drawing clerks’ daily work also involved producing a large number of styles derived from the original Times New Roman, series 327. The full family included variants such as Bold (334), semi-Bold (421) and Book (627), all-cap titling versions (328, 329, 332), adaptations for small-ads setting (333, 335), a version with lighter caps for German typesetting (Series 727) as well as a specific version of Times for setting maths and chemical formulae (series 569), Greek and Cyrillic counterparts, and more. In total, 21 series derived from Times New Roman 327 were issued by Monotype, over a time period that extended well beyond Morison and Lardent’s initial collaboration.58 Some of these variants directly stemmed from Morison’s redesign of The Times, while others were commissioned by various customers following the release of the typeface to the general public. Historians have previously written about the inconsistencies and varying levels of quality between all the different Times series.59 As historian James Moran summed up, ‘under close scrutiny the Times Roman family does show signs of a lack of total control and imperfect conception’;60 and much information remains to be uncovered about the exact process underlying each series’ development. Yet there is no doubt that the making of such an extended family would have amounted to a great many man-hours devoted to type-making—or in this case, woman-hours. Subsequent to the design and production of the typeface, Beatrice Warde is yet another woman involved in Times New Roman’s story, who must be credited for doing a remarkable job at publicising the typeface as part of her role as the editor of The Monotype Recorder. Shelley Gruendler observed that ‘as a result of Monotype’s extensive publicity program founded and executed by Beatrice Warde, the company enjoys a disproportionate standing in the history of British typography in the present day’.61 Warde successfully uncovered Times New Roman to the public in a special edition of the magazine that featured an iconic montage on the cover, displaying The Times ‘Old Roman Type’ against its ‘New Roman Type’.62 Inside, the ‘epoch-making new face’ is introduced as ‘what is surely the most important typographic news of this decade’,63 and the editor ensured the commercial success of the typeface by inviting printers from all over Britain to pre-order it, despite it being reserved for the exclusive use of the newspaper for another year.
Notes
50
First names are in brackets if they were recovered from other archival sources and interviews.
51
In which case the drawing was annotated ‘sk: [name 1] fin: [name 2]’.
52
David Saunders interviewed on 28 July 2018.
53
The Monotype Corporation, ‘“Monotype” matrices in the making’, The Monotype Recorder, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1–14.
54
Patricia Saunders interviewed on 28 July 2018. Incidentally, Saunders did eventually build some solid interest, knowledge and skills that enabled her to become a key actor in the Monotype Design Studio in the 1980s. She eventually designed her own typefaces, and was publicly credited for her design work.
55
E. Gill, An essay on typography, fifth edn, originally published 1931, Lund Humphries, London, 1988, p. 79.
56
F. MacCarthy, Eric Gill, Faber and Faber, London, 1989. MacCarthy demonstrated how Gill ‘considered women were no good at abstract argument’ (p. 51), that he ‘did not believe in education for daughters’ (p. 153) and that ‘Gill’s view of male and female… was in some ways very set, authoritarian and traditionalist’ (p. 259).
57
‘Fitting’ refers to the white space allocated to the left and right of each letterform. ‘Ascenders’ and ‘descenders’ refer to the parts of letters that reach above and below the x-height.
58
Series 328, 329, 332, 333, 334, 335, 339, 345, 355, 360, 421, 427, 569, 627, 724, 725, 727, 827, 834, 927. Source: notebook listing all Monotype series, Monotype archives.
59
See for instance Hutt, op. cit., p. 266.
60
Moran, op. cit, p. 131.
61
S. Gruendler, ‘The life and work of Beatrice Warde’, PhD thesis, University of Reading, 2005, p. 133.
62
The Monotype Corporation, The Monotype Recorder vol. 21, no. 246, Front cover.
63
Ibid., p. 3.
64
P. Hudson, ‘Women and industrialization’, Women’s history: Britain 1850–1945 an introduction, ed. J. Purvis, UCL Press, 1995, London, p. 26.
65
See for instance the women who worked in the drawing studio at Deberny & Peignot in Paris (later International Photon Corporation) in A. Savoie, ‘International crosscurrents in typeface design, France, Britain and the USA in the phototypesetting era’, PhD thesis, University of Reading, 2014, pp. 333–337.
66
We know for instance that during the 1980s and early 1990s the Department of Typographic Developments at Linotype UK was exclusively staffed by women, who actively contributed to the design of many successful non-Latin typefaces. F. Ross, ‘The Linotype Non-Latin Collection, University of Reading’, Non-Latin typefaces, St Bride, London, 2008, pp. 34–6.
67
C. Buckley, ‘Made in patriarchy: toward a feminist analysis of women and design’, Design Issues, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 11.
68
C. Buckley, ‘Made in Patriarchy II: Researching (or Re-Searching) Women and Design’, Design Issues, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 28.
First names are in brackets if they were recovered from other archival sources and interviews.
51
In which case the drawing was annotated ‘sk: [name 1] fin: [name 2]’.
52
David Saunders interviewed on 28 July 2018.
53
The Monotype Corporation, ‘“Monotype” matrices in the making’, The Monotype Recorder, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1–14.
54
Patricia Saunders interviewed on 28 July 2018. Incidentally, Saunders did eventually build some solid interest, knowledge and skills that enabled her to become a key actor in the Monotype Design Studio in the 1980s. She eventually designed her own typefaces, and was publicly credited for her design work.
55
E. Gill, An essay on typography, fifth edn, originally published 1931, Lund Humphries, London, 1988, p. 79.
56
F. MacCarthy, Eric Gill, Faber and Faber, London, 1989. MacCarthy demonstrated how Gill ‘considered women were no good at abstract argument’ (p. 51), that he ‘did not believe in education for daughters’ (p. 153) and that ‘Gill’s view of male and female… was in some ways very set, authoritarian and traditionalist’ (p. 259).
57
‘Fitting’ refers to the white space allocated to the left and right of each letterform. ‘Ascenders’ and ‘descenders’ refer to the parts of letters that reach above and below the x-height.
58
Series 328, 329, 332, 333, 334, 335, 339, 345, 355, 360, 421, 427, 569, 627, 724, 725, 727, 827, 834, 927. Source: notebook listing all Monotype series, Monotype archives.
59
See for instance Hutt, op. cit., p. 266.
60
Moran, op. cit, p. 131.
61
S. Gruendler, ‘The life and work of Beatrice Warde’, PhD thesis, University of Reading, 2005, p. 133.
62
The Monotype Corporation, The Monotype Recorder vol. 21, no. 246, Front cover.
63
Ibid., p. 3.
64
P. Hudson, ‘Women and industrialization’, Women’s history: Britain 1850–1945 an introduction, ed. J. Purvis, UCL Press, 1995, London, p. 26.
65
See for instance the women who worked in the drawing studio at Deberny & Peignot in Paris (later International Photon Corporation) in A. Savoie, ‘International crosscurrents in typeface design, France, Britain and the USA in the phototypesetting era’, PhD thesis, University of Reading, 2014, pp. 333–337.
66
We know for instance that during the 1980s and early 1990s the Department of Typographic Developments at Linotype UK was exclusively staffed by women, who actively contributed to the design of many successful non-Latin typefaces. F. Ross, ‘The Linotype Non-Latin Collection, University of Reading’, Non-Latin typefaces, St Bride, London, 2008, pp. 34–6.
67
C. Buckley, ‘Made in patriarchy: toward a feminist analysis of women and design’, Design Issues, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 11.
68
C. Buckley, ‘Made in Patriarchy II: Researching (or Re-Searching) Women and Design’, Design Issues, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 28.
Conclusion
Why should we aim to (re)establish the TDO’s contribution to the making of Times
New Roman, and to type history? Because, as advocated by Pat Hudson, it is time ‘... to integrate women’s experience into mainstream accounts and, more importantly, to question the terms and points of reference of the established male-oriented historiography itself’.64 There is no doubt that Morison both originated and art-directed the design of Times New Roman; Lardent executed the initial drawings; Pierpont and Steltzer supervised the development of the work; Dora Pritchett and Dora Laing would have received their instructions; and the drawing clerks of the TDO turned these into meticulous 10-inch
drawings, producing as many amended versions of each letter as was deemed necessary to achieve a fully working, highly legible text typeface, available in a range of styles. Beatrice Warde contributed to its worldwide success through her marketing skills, and Times New Roman would not have come to life and come to be such a success without the work of all parties involved. Beyond the specific case of Times New Roman, the women of the Monotype TDO contributed to the creation of hundreds of typefaces throughout the twentieth century. Even after the company increased its intake of men from the 1950s onwards, women remained a significant portion of the workforce. Outside Monotype, initial research indicates that a number of type foundries across Europe employed women as part of departments that were alternatively known as drawing studios,65 or departments of typographic development.66 These women worked daily on developing and producing typefaces that were, eventually, almost always attributed to male designers. Design
historian Cheryl Buckley articulated the issue perfectly in her foundational text ‘Made
in Patriarchy’:
The centrality of the designer as the person who determines meaning in design is undermined by the complex nature of design development, production, and consumption, a process involving numerous people… The success or failure of a designer’s initial concept depends on the existence of agencies and organizations which can facilitate the development, manufacture, and retailing of a specific design for a distinct market. Design, then, is a collective process; its meaning can only be determined by an examination of the interaction of individuals, groups, and organizations within specific societal structures.67
Thirty-four years after Buckley published what has become a manifesto for feminist design writers, more books than ever have been published that aim to reinstate female names within the canon; yet Buckley recently reflected on her text to observe that research on the interaction between women and design remains to this day ‘uneven’ and that the topic has possibly slipped ‘to the margins of scholarship’.68 Large areas of design history, including typography, remain focused on the designer as the sole originator of the final product. Further research must be undertaken to challenge established narratives and to integrate women’s contribution to type history. This article is a testimony to the breadth of possibilities that still lie ahead for design historians, and anyone keen to finally acknowledge the collaborative nature of typeface design.
The centrality of the designer as the person who determines meaning in design is undermined by the complex nature of design development, production, and consumption, a process involving numerous people… The success or failure of a designer’s initial concept depends on the existence of agencies and organizations which can facilitate the development, manufacture, and retailing of a specific design for a distinct market. Design, then, is a collective process; its meaning can only be determined by an examination of the interaction of individuals, groups, and organizations within specific societal structures.67
Thirty-four years after Buckley published what has become a manifesto for feminist design writers, more books than ever have been published that aim to reinstate female names within the canon; yet Buckley recently reflected on her text to observe that research on the interaction between women and design remains to this day ‘uneven’ and that the topic has possibly slipped ‘to the margins of scholarship’.68 Large areas of design history, including typography, remain focused on the designer as the sole originator of the final product. Further research must be undertaken to challenge established narratives and to integrate women’s contribution to type history. This article is a testimony to the breadth of possibilities that still lie ahead for design historians, and anyone keen to finally acknowledge the collaborative nature of typeface design.
Basic Latin
Others
Type your text here...