# What template is this document?

The title appears to be in, maybe, Adobe Cason Pro

-
It's clearly not TeX, as the article was published in 1974. –  egreg May 11 '12 at 22:51
@egreg, time machine maybe? –  Ali Mehrizi May 11 '12 at 23:32
full document: suppes-corpus.stanford.edu/techreports/IMSSS_245.pdf –  JohnReed May 12 '12 at 6:29
Adobe Caslon Pro looks like a good option to imitate the font in this document. Some of the letters look a bit different (e.g. compare the apex of the glyph for "A") but it is close. –  JohnReed May 12 '12 at 6:49

No idea about the font, but here's a reasonable facsimile of their style (got done with a math comprehensive exam today, and this is how I relax, I guess):

\documentclass[9pt]{extarticle} % for 9pt font
\usepackage[ % for odd page size and margins
paperwidth=5.88in,paperheight=8.60in,
textwidth=3.89in,textheight=6.7in]{geometry} % 860px x 588px image, 389px wide textblock

\fancypagestyle{plain}{%
\fancyhf{} % clear all header and footer fields
\fancyfoot[L]{%
}
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0pt}}

\makeatletter % define title block format
\renewcommand{\maketitle}{
\pagestyle{plain}
\vspace*{\baselineskip}
\begin{center}
\MakeUppercase{\small\@author}

\vspace*{3\baselineskip}

\MakeUppercase{\@title}
\end{center} \vskip-\baselineskip
}
\makeatother

\usepackage{titlesec} % define section format
\titleformat{\section}[hang]{\scshape}{\thesection. }{0pt}{\centering}[]

\title{Aristotle's Concept of Matter and Its Relation to Modern Concepts of Matter}
\author{Patrick Suppes}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\section{Introduction}

In this paper I want to analyze in some detail Aristotle's concept of
matter. I do so not simply as a matter of historical scholarship, but in
the interest of defending the correctness both scientifically and
philosophically of what I would call the central doctrine. The elusiveness
of Aristotle's detailed remarks on the concept of matter is notorious, and
I shall not take it as my task to attempt to square my account with every
passage that can be cited in the major works. I shall give references where
they are obvious and appropriate. In some cases I shall assert features of
his doctrine that I think are features of his concept of matter that are
pretty generally accepted.

I also am not concerned to defend the details of all his explicit beliefs.
For example, what he has to say about the sun and the earth and the nature
of circular motion is clearly false in detail. I am sure that if he had
been presented modern astronomical evidence, especially astrophysical
evidence about the swirling chaos of low density matter in outer space, he
would have changed his views. Errors in detail of this kind seem to me to
be of no importance. The basic doctrine, it seems to me, is correct.
Moreover, I want to claim that it is correct in a strong sense; it can be
used as a basis for interpreting the results of modern science. Defenders
of Aristotle's concept of matter have been too defensive about the place
of his concept in modern physics. I shall at the end of the paper attempt
to put the case as strongly as I can for the correctness of Aristotle's
view in the light of the best current knowledge about the nature of matter,
as that term is ordinarily used by physicists. I am of course not suggesting
that modern physicists talk about Aristotle or use in any obvious way an
Aristotelian concept of matter. I do want to argue that they would often be
better off if the did. Certain tendencies of research might indeed be
improved if more heed were paid to Aristotle's doctrine than to the atomic
theory we all tend so naturally and naively to accept.
\end{document}

-
That's exactly what I wanted, thanks! –  alexy13 May 12 '12 at 9:45
Now that you have the PDF posted, and if you wanted it to be more accurate, you can adjust the paper size, margins, font size, etc. –  Mike Renfro May 12 '12 at 14:42

The font is Times, I'm afraid.

-
But a proper version, with real small caps. –  Paul Stanley May 15 '12 at 7:54