205TF

Follow Us

font cover
font cover
font cover
font cover
font cover

TypefaceImmortel

DesignerClément Le Tulle-Neyret

Release 2021

Fonts In Use

Article

Specimen

Immortel, designed by Clément Le Tulle-Neyret, is a type family with four variants developed according to the Hippocratic theory of humors that explains these latter through the presence of one of the four principal fluids. Each one is the cause behind the development of a character trait: phlegm represents a lymphatic, sluggish, slow character (Immortel Infra); yellow bile, an angry and prideful character (Immortel Colera); blood, a jovial and warm character (Immortel Vena); and black bile provokes hopelessness and melancholy (Immortel Acedia).

This type family is envisaged like a human being, able to reveal different temperaments through the forms that it adopts. Each variant can be substituted for another without causing any change in the bulkiness of the text, as the metric system, which provides a structural link between the variants—set width, x-heights, the length of ascenders and descenders, height of capitals—is constant.

Typographically, each variant is inspired by the work of type designers, following the course of history:

  • Immortel Infra finds its source in the work of Robert Granjon, a typeface engraver from the 16th century;
  • Immortel Colera in the work of Jean Jannon, an engraver from the 17th century; 
  • Immortel Vena is influenced by the work of Jacques-François Rosart, an engraver from the 18th century;
  • Immortel Acedia takes its inspiration from the engraving Melencolia I by Albrecht Dürer (1514) and attempts a synthesis between two traces of a priori opposing tools, one made by the flat tip and the other by the narrow point. In this sense it is closer to a 21st century typeface. 

  Immortel Infra and Vena, variants intended to be used with running text, possess two italics: the first, called “Median”, slightly slanted, is ideal for composing long text; the second, called “Italic”, with its very sharp angle and ornate instrokes and terminals, is ideal for emphasis.

To best serve running text, the Infra and Vena variants possess two grades: this signifies that these two variants have two slightly different weights that conserve the same set width so as to have a more or less dark text color according to the page layout and/or the sensitivity of the user. Grade 2 can also be used to compose knocked out text on a dark background.

This type family began life in October 2016 in the Atelier national de recherche typographique (ANRT, Nancy – France). It development was pursued thanks to the support of the Centre national des arts plastiques (CNAP) in 2018.

16 Styles

Infra

Infra G1 Roman
Infra G1 Median
Infra G1 Italic
Infra G2 Roman
Infra G2 Median
Infra G2 Italic

Colera

Colera Roman
Colera Italic

Vena

Vena G1 Roman
Vena G1 Median
Vena G1 Italic
Vena G2 Roman
Vena G2 Median
Vena G2 Italic

Acedia

Acedia Roman
Acedia Italic

6 Variables

Infra

Infra Roman Variable
Infra Median Variable
Infra Italic Variable

Vena

Vena Roman Variable
Vena Median Variable
Vena Italic Variable
Phlegmatic The doctrine of the four humours. In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours. These humours corresponded, it was held, to the cosmic elements and to the divisions of time; they controlled the whole existence and behaviour of mankind, and, according to the manner in which they were combined, determined the character of the individual. “Sunt enim quattuor humores in homine, qui imitantur diversa elementa; crescunt in diversis temporibus, regnant in diversis aetatibus. Sanguis imitatur aerem, crescit in vere, regnat in pueritia. Cholera imitator ignem, crescit in aestate, regnat in adolescentia. Melancholia imitatur terram, crescit in autumno, regnat in maturitate. Phlegma imitatur aquam, crescit in hieme, regnat in senectute. Hi cum nec plus nec minus iusto exuberant, viget homo.” In these clear, terse sentences of an early medieval natural philosopher, we have the ancient doctrine of the Four Humours. This system was destined to dominate the whole trend of physiology and psychology almost until the present day; for what the “heterodox” schools of antiquity had opposed to humoral pathology was either forgotten or else merged into the orthodox doctrine by the second-century eclectics, especially Galen. In the same way Paracelsus’s objections went long unheard. This system can be accounted for only by the combination of three very ancient (and, in part at least, specifically Greek) principles: 1. The search for simple primary elements or qualities, to which the complex and apparently irrational structure of both macrocosm and microcosm could be directly traced. 2. The urge to find a numerical expression for this complex structure of bodily and spiritual existence. 3. The theory of harmony, symmetry, isonomy, or whatever other name men may have chosen to express that perfect proportion in parts, in materials, or in faculties, which Greek thought down to Plotinus always regarded as essential to any value, moral, aesthetic or hygienic. In seeking, then, to ascertain the origin of humoralism, we must go back to the Pythagoreans, not only because the veneration of number in general attained its highest expression in Pythagorean philosophy, but more particularly because the Pythagoreans regarded the number four as specially significant. They used to swear by four, “which holds the root and source of eternal nature”; and not only nature in general, but rational man in particular, seemed to them governed by four principles, located in the brain, the heart, the navel and the phallus respectively. Even the soul was later on envisaged as fourfold, enclosing intellect, understanding, opinion and perception. The Pythagoreans themselves did not evolve a doctrine of four humours, but they prepared the ground by postulating a series of tetradic categories (such as, for instance, those already mentioned; earth, air, fire and water; spring, summer, autumn and winter). In this system, once it was evolved, the four humours could easily be accommodated. Above all, they defined health as the equilibrium of different qualities, and sickness as the predominance of one—a concept truly decisive for humoralism proper. Alcmaeon of Croton, a Pythagorean doctor who lived about 500 B. C., declared that “equality of rights between the qualities moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest, preserved health, but the rule of one among them produces sickness”; and he condensed the notion of health into the formula “a well-balanced mixture of the qualities”. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. Phlegmatic
The doctrine of the four humours. In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours. These humours corresponded, it was held, to the cosmic elements and to the divisions of time; they controlled the whole existence and behaviour of mankind, and, according to the manner in which they were combined, determined the character of the individual. “Sunt enim quattuor humores in homine, qui imitantur diversa elementa; crescunt in diversis temporibus, regnant in diversis aetatibus. Sanguis imitatur aerem, crescit in vere, regnat in pueritia. Cholera imitator ignem, crescit in aestate, regnat in adolescentia. Melancholia imitatur terram, crescit in autumno, regnat in maturitate. Phlegma imitatur aquam, crescit in hieme, regnat in senectute. Hi cum nec plus nec minus iusto exuberant, viget homo.” In these clear, terse sentences of an early medieval natural philosopher, we have the ancient doctrine of the Four Humours. This system was destined to dominate the whole trend of physiology and psychology almost until the present day; for what the “heterodox” schools of antiquity had opposed to humoral pathology was either forgotten or else merged into the orthodox doctrine by the second-century eclectics, especially Galen. In the same way Paracelsus’s objections went long unheard. This system can be accounted for only by the combination of three very ancient (and, in part at least, specifically Greek) principles: 1. The search for simple primary elements or qualities, to which the complex and apparently irrational structure of both macrocosm and microcosm could be directly traced. 2. The urge to find a numerical expression for this complex structure of bodily and spiritual existence. 3. The theory of harmony, symmetry, isonomy, or whatever other name men may have chosen to express that perfect proportion in parts, in materials, or in faculties, which Greek thought down to Plotinus always regarded as essential to any value, moral, aesthetic or hygienic. In seeking, then, to ascertain the origin of humoralism, we must go back to the Pythagoreans, not only because the veneration of number in general attained its highest expression in Pythagorean philosophy, but more particularly because the Pythagoreans regarded the number four as specially significant. They used to swear by four, “which holds the root and source of eternal nature”; and not only nature in general, but rational man in particular, seemed to them governed by four principles, located in the brain, the heart, the navel and the phallus respectively. Even the soul was later on envisaged as fourfold, enclosing intellect, understanding, opinion and perception. The Pythagoreans themselves did not evolve a doctrine of four humours, but they prepared the ground by postulating a series of tetradic categories (such as, for instance, those already mentioned; earth, air, fire and water; spring, summer, autumn and winter). In this system, once it was evolved, the four humours could easily be accommodated. Above all, they defined health as the equilibrium of different qualities, and sickness as the predominance of one—a concept truly decisive for humoralism proper. Alcmaeon of Croton, a Pythagorean doctor who lived about 500 B. C., declared that “equality of rights between the qualities moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest, preserved health, but the rule of one among them produces sickness”; and he condensed the notion of health into the formula “a well-balanced mixture of the qualities”. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. The doctrine# of the four humours. In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours.Even the soul was later on envisaged as fourfold, enclosing intellect, understanding, opinion and perception. The Pythagoreans themselves did not evolve a doctrine of four humours, but they prepared the ground by postulating a series of tetradic categories (such as, for instance, those already mentioned; earth, air, fire and water; spring, summer, autumn and winter). In this system, once it was evolved, the four humours could easily be accommodated. Above all, they defined health as the equilibrium of different qualities, and sickness as the predominance of one—a concept truly decisive for humoralism proper. Alcmaeon of Croton, a Pythagorean doctor who lived about 500 B. C., declared that “equality of rights between the qualities moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest, preserved health, but the rule of one among them produces sickness”; and he condensed the notion of health into the formula “a well-balanced mixture of the qualities”. The doctrine
The “black bile” (atra bilis) In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours. These humours corresponded, it was held, to the cosmic elements and to the divisions of time; they controlled the whole existence and behaviour of mankind, and, according to the manner in which they were combined, determined the character of the individual. “Sunt enim quattuor humores in homine, qui imitantur diversa elementa; crescunt in diversis temporibus, regnant in diversis aetatibus. Sanguis imitatur aerem, crescit in vere, regnat in pueritia. Cholera imitator ignem, crescit in aestate, regnat in adolescentia. Melancholia imitatur terram, crescit in autumno, regnat in maturitate. Phlegma imitatur aquam, crescit in hieme, regnat in senectute. Hi cum nec plus nec minus iusto exuberant, viget homo.” In these clear, terse sentences of an early medieval natural philosopher, we have the ancient doctrine of the Four Humours. This system was destined to dominate the whole trend of physiology and psychology almost until the present day; for what the “heterodox” schools of antiquity had opposed to humoral pathology was either forgotten or else merged into the orthodox doctrine by the second-century eclectics, especially Galen. In the same way Paracelsus’s objections went long unheard. This system can be accounted for only by the combination of three very ancient (and, in part at least, specifically Greek) principles: 1. The search for simple primary elements or qualities, to which the complex and apparently irrational structure of both macrocosm and microcosm could be directly traced. 2. The urge to find a numerical expression for this complex structure of bodily and spiritual existence. 3. The theory of harmony, symmetry, isonomy, or whatever other name men may have chosen to express that perfect proportion in parts, in materials, or in faculties, which Greek thought down to Plotinus always regarded as essential to any value, moral, aesthetic or hygienic. In seeking, then, to ascertain the origin of humoralism, we must go back to the Pythagoreans, not only because the veneration of number in general attained its highest expression in Pythagorean philosophy, but more particularly because the Pythagoreans regarded the number four as specially significant. They used to swear by four, “which holds the root and source of eternal nature”; and not only nature in general, but rational man in particular, seemed to them governed by four principles, located in the brain, the heart, the navel and the phallus respectively. Even the soul was later on envisaged as fourfold, enclosing intellect, understanding, opinion and perception. The Pythagoreans themselves did not evolve a doctrine of four humours, but they prepared the ground by postulating a series of tetradic categories (such as, for instance, those already mentioned; earth, air, fire and water; spring, summer, autumn and winter). In this system, once it was evolved, the four humours could easily be accommodated. Above all, they defined health as the equilibrium of different qualities, and sickness as the predominance of one—a concept truly decisive for humoralism proper. Alcmaeon of Croton, a Pythagorean doctor who lived about 500 B. C., declared that “equality of rights between the qualities moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest, preserved health, but the rule of one among them produces sickness”; and he condensed the notion of health into the formula “a well-balanced mixture of the qualities”. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. The “black bile” (atra bilis)
Hippocratic Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours. These humours corresponded, it was held, to the cosmic elements and to the divisions of time; they controlled the whole existence and behaviour of mankind, and, according to the manner in which they were combined, determined the character of the individual. “Sunt enim quattuor humores in homine, qui imitantur diversa elementa; crescunt in diversis temporibus, regnant in diversis aetatibus. Sanguis imitatur aerem, crescit in vere, regnat in pueritia. Cholera imitator ignem, crescit in aestate, regnat in adolescentia. Melancholia imitatur terram, crescit in autumno, regnat in maturitate. Phlegma imitatur aquam, crescit in hieme, regnat in senectute. Hi cum nec plus nec minus iusto exuberant, viget homo.” In these clear, terse sentences of an early medieval natural philosopher, we have the ancient doctrine of the Four Humours. This system was destined to dominate the whole trend of physiology and psychology almost until the present day; for what the “heterodox” schools of antiquity had opposed to humoral pathology was either forgotten or else merged into the orthodox doctrine by the second-century eclectics, especially Galen. In the same way Paracelsus’s objections went long unheard. This system can be accounted for only by the combination of three very ancient (and, in part at least, specifically Greek) principles: 1. The search for simple primary elements or qualities, to which the complex and apparently irrational structure of both macrocosm and microcosm could be directly traced. 2. The urge to find a numerical expression for this complex structure of bodily and spiritual existence. 3. The theory of harmony, symmetry, isonomy, or whatever other name men may have chosen to express that perfect proportion in parts, in materials, or in faculties, which Greek thought down to Plotinus always regarded as essential to any value, moral, aesthetic or hygienic. In seeking, then, to ascertain the origin of humoralism, we must go back to the Pythagoreans, not only because the veneration of number in general attained its highest expression in Pythagorean philosophy, but more particularly because the Pythagoreans regarded the number four as specially significant. They used to swear by four, “which holds the root and source of eternal nature”; and not only nature in general, but rational man in particular, seemed to them governed by four principles, located in the brain, the heart, the navel and the phallus respectively. Even the soul was later on envisaged as fourfold, enclosing intellect, understanding, opinion and perception. The Pythagoreans themselves did not evolve a doctrine of four humours, but they prepared the ground by postulating a series of tetradic categories (such as, for instance, those already mentioned; earth, air, fire and water; spring, summer, autumn and winter). In this system, once it was evolved, the four humours could easily be accommodated. Above all, they defined health as the equilibrium of different qualities, and sickness as the predominance of one—a concept truly decisive for humoralism proper. Alcmaeon of Croton, a Pythagorean doctor who lived about 500 B. C., declared that “equality of rights between the qualities moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest, preserved health, but the rule of one among them produces sickness”; and he condensed the notion of health into the formula “a well-balanced mixture of the qualities”. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. Hippocratic
Enthousiaste The doctrine of the four humours. In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours. These humours corresponded, it was held, to the cosmic elements and to the divisions of time; they controlled the whole existence and behaviour of mankind, and, according to the manner in which they were combined, determined the character of the individual. “Sunt enim quattuor humores in homine, qui imitantur diversa elementa; crescunt in diversis temporibus, regnant in diversis aetatibus. Sanguis imitatur aerem, crescit in vere, regnat in pueritia. Cholera imitator ignem, crescit in aestate, regnat in adolescentia. Melancholia imitatur terram, crescit in autumno, regnat in maturitate. Phlegma imitatur aquam, crescit in hieme, regnat in senectute. Hi cum nec plus nec minus iusto exuberant, viget homo.” In these clear, terse sentences of an early medieval natural philosopher, we have the ancient doctrine of the Four Humours. This system was destined to dominate the whole trend of physiology and psychology almost until the present day; for what the “heterodox” schools of antiquity had opposed to humoral pathology was either forgotten or else merged into the orthodox doctrine by the second-century eclectics, especially Galen. In the same way Paracelsus’s objections went long unheard. This system can be accounted for only by the combination of three very ancient (and, in part at least, specifically Greek) principles: 1. The search for simple primary elements or qualities, to which the complex and apparently irrational structure of both macrocosm and microcosm could be directly traced. 2. The urge to find a numerical expression for this complex structure of bodily and spiritual existence. 3. The theory of harmony, symmetry, isonomy, or whatever other name men may have chosen to express that perfect proportion in parts, in materials, or in faculties, which Greek thought down to Plotinus always regarded as essential to any value, moral, aesthetic or hygienic. In seeking, then, to ascertain the origin of humoralism, we must go back to the Pythagoreans, not only because the veneration of number in general attained its highest expression in Pythagorean philosophy, but more particularly because the Pythagoreans regarded the number four as specially significant. They used to swear by four, “which holds the root and source of eternal nature”; and not only nature in general, but rational man in particular, seemed to them governed by four principles, located in the brain, the heart, the navel and the phallus respectively. Even the soul was later on envisaged as fourfold, enclosing intellect, understanding, opinion and perception. The Pythagoreans themselves did not evolve a doctrine of four humours, but they prepared the ground by postulating a series of tetradic categories (such as, for instance, those already mentioned; earth, air, fire and water; spring, summer, autumn and winter). In this system, once it was evolved, the four humours could easily be accommodated. Above all, they defined health as the equilibrium of different qualities, and sickness as the predominance of one—a concept truly decisive for humoralism proper. Alcmaeon of Croton, a Pythagorean doctor who lived about 500 B. C., declared that “equality of rights between the qualities moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest, preserved health, but the rule of one among them produces sickness”; and he condensed the notion of health into the formula “a well-balanced mixture of the qualities”. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. Enthousiaste# The doctrine of the four humours. In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours. These humours corresponded, it was held, to the cosmic elements and to the divisions of time; they controlled the whole existence and behaviour of mankind, and, according to the manner in which they were combined, determined the character of the individual. “Sunt enim quattuor humores in homine, qui imitantur diversa elementa; crescunt in diversis temporibus, regnant in diversis aetatibus. Sanguis imitatur aerem, crescit in vere, regnat in pueritia. Cholera imitator ignem, crescit in aestate, regnat in adolescentia. Melancholia imitatur terram, crescit in autumno, regnat in maturitate. Phlegma imitatur aquam, crescit in hieme, regnat in senectute. Hi cum nec plus nec minus iusto exuberant, viget homo.” In these clear, terse sentences of an early medieval natural philosopher, we have the ancient doctrine of the Four Humours. This system was destined to dominate the whole trend of physiology and psychology almost until the present day; for what the “heterodox” schools of antiquity had opposed to humoral pathology was either forgotten or else merged into the orthodox doctrine by the second-century eclectics, especially Galen. In the same way Paracelsus’s objections went long unheard. This system can be accounted for only by the combination of three very ancient (and, in part at least, specifically Greek) principles: 1. The search for simple primary elements or qualities, to which the complex and apparently irrational structure of both macrocosm and microcosm could be directly traced. 2. The urge to find a numerical expression for this complex structure of bodily and spiritual existence. 3. The theory of harmony, symmetry, isonomy, or whatever other name men may have chosen to express that perfect proportion in parts, in materials, or in faculties, which Greek thought down to Plotinus always regarded as essential to any value, moral, aesthetic or hygienic. In seeking, then, to ascertain the origin of humoralism, we must go back to the Pythagoreans, not only because the veneration of number in general attained its highest expression in Pythagorean philosophy, but more particularly because the Pythagoreans regarded the number four as specially significant. They used to swear by four, “which holds the root and source of eternal nature”; and not only nature in general, but rational man in particular, seemed to them governed by four principles, located in the brain, the heart, the navel and the phallus respectively. Even the soul was later on envisaged as fourfold, enclosing intellect, understanding, opinion and perception. The Pythagoreans themselves did not evolve a doctrine of four humours, but they prepared the ground by postulating a series of tetradic categories (such as, for instance, those already mentioned; earth, air, fire and water; spring, summer, autumn and winter). In this system, once it was evolved, the four humours could easily be accommodated. Above all, they defined health as the equilibrium of different qualities, and sickness as the predominance of one—a concept truly decisive for humoralism proper. Alcmaeon of Croton, a Pythagorean doctor who lived about 500 B. C., declared that “equality of rights between the qualities moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest, preserved health, but the rule of one among them produces sickness”; and he condensed the notion of health into the formula “a well-balanced mixture of the qualities”. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. Enthousiaste
The doctrine of the four humours. In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours. These humours corresponded, it was held, to the cosmic elements and to the divisions of time; they controlled the whole existence and behaviour of mankind, and, according to the manner in which they were combined, determined the character of the individual. “Sunt enim quattuor humores in homine, qui imitantur diversa elementa; crescunt in diversis temporibus, regnant in diversis aetatibus. Sanguis imitatur aerem, crescit in vere, regnat in pueritia. Cholera imitator ignem, crescit in aestate, regnat in adolescentia. Melancholia imitatur terram, crescit in autumno, regnat in maturitate. Phlegma imitatur aquam, crescit in hieme, regnat in senectute. Hi cum nec plus nec minus iusto exuberant, viget homo.” In these clear, terse sentences of an early medieval natural philosopher, we have the ancient doctrine of the Four Humours. This system was destined to dominate the whole trend of physiology and psychology almost until the present day; for what the “heterodox” schools of antiquity had opposed to humoral pathology was either forgotten or else merged into the orthodox doctrine by the second-century eclectics, especially Galen. In the same way Paracelsus’s objections went long unheard. This system can be accounted for only by the combination of three very ancient (and, in part at least, specifically Greek) principles: 1. The search for simple primary elements or qualities, to which the complex and apparently irrational structure of both macrocosm and microcosm could be directly traced. 2. The urge to find a numerical expression for this complex structure of bodily and spiritual existence. 3. The theory of harmony, symmetry, isonomy, or whatever other name men may have chosen to express that perfect proportion in parts, in materials, or in faculties, which Greek thought down to Plotinus always regarded as essential to any value, moral, aesthetic or hygienic. In seeking, then, to ascertain the origin of humoralism, we must go back to the Pythagoreans, not only because the veneration of number in general attained its highest expression in Pythagorean philosophy, but more particularly because the Pythagoreans regarded the number four as specially significant. They used to swear by four, “which holds the root and source of eternal nature”; and not only nature in general, but rational man in particular, seemed to them governed by four principles, located in the brain, the heart, the navel and the phallus respectively. Even the soul was later on envisaged as fourfold, enclosing intellect, understanding, opinion and perception. The Pythagoreans themselves did not evolve a doctrine of four humours, but they prepared the ground by postulating a series of tetradic categories (such as, for instance, those already mentioned; earth, air, fire and water; spring, summer, autumn and winter). In this system, once it was evolved, the four humours could easily be accommodated. Above all, they defined health as the equilibrium of different qualities, and sickness as the predominance of one—a concept truly decisive for humoralism proper. Alcmaeon of Croton, a Pythagorean doctor who lived about 500 B. C., declared that “equality of rights between the qualities moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest, preserved health, but the rule of one among them produces sickness”; and he condensed the notion of health into the formula “a well-balanced mixture of the qualities”. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. The doctrine# of the four humours. In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours. These humours corresponded, it was held, to the cosmic elements and to the divisions of time; they controlled the whole existence and behaviour of mankind, and, according to the manner in which they were combined, determined the character of the individual. “Sunt enim quattuor humores in homine, qui imitantur diversa elementa; crescunt in diversis temporibus, regnant in diversis aetatibus. Sanguis imitatur aerem, crescit in vere, regnat in pueritia. Cholera imitator ignem, crescit in aestate, regnat in adolescentia. Melancholia imitatur terram, crescit in autumno, regnat in maturitate. The doctrine
Melancholia imitatur In the order stated above—not necessarily following one another, but often existing side by side—these various meanings evolved in the course of a development covering more than two thousand years. Although new meanings emerged, old meanings did not give way to them; in short, it was a case not of decay and metamorphosis, but of parallel survival. The original basis of the different meanings was the quite literal conception of a concrete, visible and tangible part of the body, the “black bile” (atra bilis), which, together with the phlegm, the yellow (or “red”) bile, and the blood, constituted the Four Humours. These humours corresponded, it was held, to the cosmic elements and to the divisions of time; they controlled the whole existence and behaviour of mankind, and, according to the manner in which they were combined, determined the character of the individual. “Sunt enim quattuor humores in homine, qui imitantur diversa elementa; crescunt in diversis temporibus, regnant in diversis aetatibus. Sanguis imitatur aerem, crescit in vere, regnat in pueritia. Cholera imitator ignem, crescit in aestate, regnat in adolescentia. Melancholia imitatur terram, crescit in autumno, regnat in maturitate. Phlegma imitatur aquam, crescit in hieme, regnat in senectute. Hi cum nec plus nec minus iusto exuberant, viget homo.” In these clear, terse sentences of an early medieval natural philosopher, we have the ancient doctrine of the Four Humours. This system was destined to dominate the whole trend of physiology and psychology almost until the present day; for what the “heterodox” schools of antiquity had opposed to humoral pathology was either forgotten or else merged into the orthodox doctrine by the second-century eclectics, especially Galen. In the same way Paracelsus’s objections went long unheard. This system can be accounted for only by the combination of three very ancient (and, in part at least, specifically Greek) principles: 1. The search for simple primary elements or qualities, to which the complex and apparently irrational structure of both macrocosm and microcosm could be directly traced. 2. The urge to find a numerical expression for this complex structure of bodily and spiritual existence. 3. The theory of harmony, symmetry, isonomy, or whatever other name men may have chosen to express that perfect proportion in parts, in materials, or in faculties, which Greek thought down to Plotinus always regarded as essential to any value, moral, aesthetic or hygienic. In seeking, then, to ascertain the origin of humoralism, we must go back to the Pythagoreans, not only because the veneration of number in general attained its highest expression in Pythagorean philosophy, but more particularly because the Pythagoreans regarded the number four as specially significant. They used to swear by four, “which holds the root and source of eternal nature”; and not only nature in general, but rational man in particular, seemed to them governed by four principles, located in the brain, the heart, the navel and the phallus respectively. Even the soul was later on envisaged as fourfold, enclosing intellect, understanding, opinion and perception. The Pythagoreans themselves did not evolve a doctrine of four humours, but they prepared the ground by postulating a series of tetradic categories (such as, for instance, those already mentioned; earth, air, fire and water; spring, summer, autumn and winter). In this system, once it was evolved, the four humours could easily be accommodated. Above all, they defined health as the equilibrium of different qualities, and sickness as the predominance of one—a concept truly decisive for humoralism proper. Alcmaeon of Croton, a Pythagorean doctor who lived about 500 B. C., declared that “equality of rights between the qualities moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest, preserved health, but the rule of one among them produces sickness”; and he condensed the notion of health into the formula “a well-balanced mixture of the qualities”. Whereas Alcmaeon left indefinite the number and nature of the qualities whose isonomy constituted health (“moist, dry, cold, hot, bitter, sweet, and the rest”), Philolaus took a step forward towards humoralisrn by describing the number four as “the principle of health”. The emergence of a thoroughgoing doctrine of humoralism required, however, the fulfilment of three further conditions. First, the Pythagoreans had venerated four as being a perfect number. It was now also given a physical content; this was achieved when the Pythagorean number symbolism was transformed into a doctrine of the cosmic elements. Secondly, each of these four elements had to be interpreted in terms of a quality which established, as it were, an apparent link between the original elements and the corresponding components of the human body which could not, in their empirical actuality, be regarded as pure earth, pure water, and so on. Thirdly, certain real substances which appeared to correspond to those elements and qualities had to be found in the human body, for only then could the speculations of natural philosophy be reconciled with the empirical evidence of medicine and physiology. Melancholia imitatur

OpenType Features

On Capitals to Small Capitals
C2SC
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
On Contextual Alternates
CALT
Qp fî
On Case-Sensitive Forms
CASE
H¡¿·•//\/-–—(){}[]«»‹›@|¦¬
On Capital Spacing
CPSP
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
On Discretionary Ligatures
DLIG
Th tf ttf tt
On Denominators
DNOM
H0123456789
On Diagonal Fractions
FRAC
1/2 1/3 2/3 1/4 3/4 1/8 3/8 5/8 7/8
On Standard Ligatures
LIGA
fb ffb ff fh ffh fi ffi fj ffj fk ffk fl ffl fft ftt ft
On Lining Figures
LNUM
0123456789
On Numerators
NUMR
H0123456789
On Ordinals
ORDN
1abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz no nos No Nos No nos
On Lowercase to Small Capitals
SMCP
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
On Arrows
SS01
--W --E --S --N --NW --NE --SE --SW --NS --WE
On Ornemental ligatures
SS02
ct sp st
On Subscript
SUBS
Habcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz H0123456789 H−+=()-.,
On Superscript
SUPS
Habcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz H0123456789 H−+=()-.,
On Tabular Numbers
TNUM
0123456789
On Slashed Zero
ZERO
102 304 506 809

Character Map

Cap Height700
X Height490
Baseline0
Ascender950
Descender-250

2

Basic Latin
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
/
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
:
;
<
=
>
?
@
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
[
\
]
^
_
`
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
{
|
}
~
Latin-1 Supplement
 
¡
¢
£
¤
¥
¦
§
¨
©
ª
«
¬
­
®
¯
°
±
²
³
´
µ
·
¸
¹
º
»
¼
½
¾
¿
À
Á
Â
Ã
Ä
Å
Æ
Ç
È
É
Ê
Ë
Ì
Í
Î
Ï
Ð
Ñ
Ò
Ó
Ô
Õ
Ö
×
Ø
Ù
Ú
Û
Ü
Ý
Þ
ß
à
á
â
ã
ä
å
æ
ç
è
é
ê
ë
ì
í
î
ï
ð
ñ
ò
ó
ô
õ
ö
÷
ø
ù
ú
û
ü
ý
þ
ÿ
Latin Extended-A
Ā
ā
Ă
ă
Ą
ą
Ć
ć
Ĉ
ĉ
Ċ
ċ
Č
č
Ď
ď
Đ
đ
Ē
ē
Ĕ
ĕ
Ė
ė
Ę
ę
Ě
ě
Ĝ
ĝ
Ğ
ğ
Ġ
ġ
Ģ
ģ
Ĥ
ĥ
Ħ
ħ
Ĩ
ĩ
Ī
ī
Ĭ
ĭ
Į
į
İ
ı
IJ
ij
Ĵ
ĵ
Ķ
ķ
ĸ
Ĺ
ĺ
Ļ
ļ
Ľ
ľ
Ŀ
ŀ
Ł
ł
Ń
ń
Ņ
ņ
Ň
ň
Ŋ
ŋ
Ō
ō
Ŏ
ŏ
Ő
ő
Œ
œ
Ŕ
ŕ
Ŗ
ŗ
Ř
ř
Ś
ś
Ŝ
ŝ
Ş
ş
Š
š
Ţ
ţ
Ť
ť
Ŧ
ŧ
Ũ
ũ
Ū
ū
Ŭ
ŭ
Ů
ů
Ű
ű
Ų
ų
Ŵ
ŵ
Ŷ
ŷ
Ÿ
Ź
ź
Ż
ż
Ž
ž
Latin Extended-B
Ə
ƒ
DŽ
Dž
dž
Ǎ
ǎ
Ǐ
ǐ
Ǒ
ǒ
Ǔ
ǔ
Ǖ
ǖ
Ǘ
ǘ
Ǚ
ǚ
Ǜ
ǜ
Ǫ
ǫ
DZ
Dz
dz
Ǻ
ǻ
Ǽ
ǽ
Ǿ
ǿ
Ș
ș
Ț
ț
ȷ
IPA Extensions
ə
Spacing Modifier Letters
ˆ
ˇ
ˉ
˘
˙
˚
˛
˜
˝
Combining Diacritical Marks
̀
́
̂
̃
̄
̆
̇
̈
̊
̋
̌
̒
̦
̧
̨
̵
̶
̷
̸
Greek and Coptic
Δ
Ω
μ
π
Latin Extended Additional
Ḡ
ḡ
Ẁ
ẁ
Ẃ
ẃ
Ẅ
ẅ
ẞ
Ẽ
ẽ
Ỳ
ỳ
Ỹ
ỹ
General Punctuation
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
​
–
—
‘
’
‚
“
”
„
†
‡
•
…
‰
‹
›
⁄
Superscripts and Subscripts
⁰
⁴
⁵
⁶
⁷
⁸
⁹
Currency Symbols
€
Letterlike Symbols
№
℗
™
℮
Number Forms
⅓
⅔
⅛
⅜
⅝
⅞
Arrows
←
↑
→
↓
↔
↕
↖
↗
↘
↙
Mathematical Operators
∂
∅
∆
∏
∑
−
√
∞
∫
≈
≠
≤
≥
Geometric Shapes
■
▲
▶
▼
◀
◆
◊
●
Dingbats
❤
Alphabetic Presentation Forms
fi
fl

Supported Languages

▼

Immortel in Use