Cyrillic Printing Fonts of the Last Quarter XVI–First Half of the XVII Century and Their Influence for Modern Font Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern Ukrainian font design of publications is developing at a rapid pace and is increasingly striving to emphasize its identity and uniqueness. Today, typographers, calligraphers and typeface designers look for inspiration in the heritage of previous eras and first of all turn to handwritten letters and typeface heritage of the beginning of the 20th century and, first of all, to the font solutions of Ukrainian old prints. The relevance of consideration of the topic presented in the title lies in the fact, that in the absence of its own state for several previous centuries, Ukrainian art did not have full conditions for free development, the font industry, like others, was affected by russification during the 20th century was in the field of the Soviet canons of creation, therefore immersion in the past, namely in the heritage of old prints, can introduce novelty into font design. The aim of the work was to analyze the graphic features of Cyrillic fonts of Ukrainian old prints of the last quarter of the 16th–the first half of the 17th century on the examples of the letters of the Ostrozka, Striatynska, Kryloska, Kyiv-Pecherska printing houses, and the printing house of the Lviv Brotherhood and show their influence on modern fonts. Today, Ukrainian font design is experiencing a boom in its development. We were able to observe that it is gradually moving away from the influence of russian font culture, taking as a basis not only the handwritten forms of letters and fonts of the last century, but also the font heritage of old printing, which is the basis of this study, namely, the XVI–XVII centuries. The typefaces of five printing houses, that worked in the last quarter of the 16th and the first half of the 17th centuries, namely the Ostrozka, Striatynska, Kryloska, Kyiv-Pecherska and the Lviv Brotherhood printing houses, were analyzed, semi-statutory and cursive typefaces were studied. The main graphic forms for semi-statutes were Striatinsky and Ostroh semi-statutes, which had different approaches to the visualization of letters. Cursives in old prints were not distinguished by such diversity, but there were precedents of departure from one style. Successful and original font solutions of that time remain relevant for contemporaries and continue to influence the font business.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".