In the attempt of imitating the typeset of some classic paper in the Philosophical Transactions (see e.g. Maxwell, Donkin, or Boole), I got stack when I had to find an integral sign that is close to that used in such papers.

I know that I can use Old Standard for the font (at least the italic font seems Old Standard, even though the upright font seems different, maybe Baskerville or similar) and I believe I can find some very close “Sigma” in GFS fonts to imitate the summation sign, but the integral sign seems to be very different from any integral sign I have come across in LaTeX.

Any suggestion?

  • 1
    Probably the Russian integral? tex.stackexchange.com/questions/170028/integral-sign-int
    – Tolaso
    Feb 25, 2018 at 13:05
  • It's that kind of integral sign, i.e. “vertical” rather than “slanted.” However, what makes that integral sign nice (in my opinion) is that the “body” of the symbol has variable width—larger in the central part and increasingly thinner moving away from the center. The integral sign that you linked is (I believe) a rotation of the traditional integral sign in TeX (small version, as it would appear e.g. inline or as an exponent), but lacks the nice features of the ones used in the nineteenth century in those publications. Feb 25, 2018 at 13:48
  • The Arial Unicode integral sign is very close: fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/222b/index.htm Feb 25, 2018 at 14:10


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .