warrant a final statement of what should be required in the printing of their books. As the most usable approximate statement of what may properly be insisted on, and for the sake of uniformity, I quote here the requirements made by Shaw in his 'School Hygiene.' These requirements are none too stringent, except that sometimes some of the leading may well be sacrificed in favor of a type that is a little larger, for the third and forth grades especially.
"For the first year the size of the type should be at least 2.6 millimeters and the width of leading 4.5 mm."
"For the second and the third year, the letters should not be smaller than 2 mm. with a leading of 4 mm."
"For the fourth year the letters should be at least 1.8 mm. with leading 3.6 mm."
For some grades succeeding this the type should be kept well above the minimal requirements for adult readers.
Examinations of the school books in use in Germany, Russia, and other European countries, made at various times and places, have shown that usually from fifty to eighty-five per cent, of the books came short of hygienic requirements. American books are somewhat better, but include very many that are very bad. Even when the principal part of the book is in good type, there will often be large sections printed in a type so small as to be very injurious. The dictionaries and other books of reference have notoriously small print, and those with the smaller and poorer types should be mercilessly discriminated against. As Shaw rightly says, "Principals, teachers, and school superintendents should possess a millimeter measure and a magnifying glass and should subject every book presented for their examination to a test to determine whether the size of the letters and the width of the leading are of such dimensions as will not prove injurious to the eyes of children. If every book, no matter what its merits, were rejected if its type were too small, the makers of such books would very quickly bring out new editions with a proper size of type."
