11. The Company of Stationers to 1637

10-14 July 1995

1 How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: PB's own writing is infinitely more interesting, but yes, of course the assigned readings are basics. 2: Very useful, but in the sense that they illustrated how erroneous some accepted ``truths'' can be. 3: Gave me the background history I sorely lacked. 4: The course readings were very useful, especially as PB spent a bit of time revising traditional information. 5: Very useful and necessary. 6: Essential (I didn't get through them all, and much of the course was devoted to where the readings were wrong). 7: Very useful; aptly chosen; just the right number to provide background for the first meetings and the texts were integrated into the classes. 8: The pre-course readings were tremendously helpful, although imperfectly understood by me. Everything was made clear, however, once the course reached the material covered by the readings. It would have been considerably more difficult to benefit from the course, or, indeed to follow it, without the pre-course readings.

Did your instructor prepare properly and sufficiently to teach THIS course?

1: The bibliography was particularly useful. 2: Yes -- handouts and course ``reserve'' were well tailored for subject matter under review. 3: Unbelievably -- the amount of original research is nothing short of stunning, delivered with impeccable organization. 4: The instructor seemed better prepared than he said he was. The course held together well. The materials were useful in class and a few should be useful in the future. 5: Yes. The course essentially relies on PB's research and rewriting of the early history of the Stationer's Company. His knowledge and enthusiasm were enjoyable. 6: Absolutely prepared. 7: PB was very well prepared. The course materials were relevant and were/will be useful in my future researches. He was responsive to questions and made every effort to include my interests. 8: PB was very well prepared for the course. The syllabus and materials distributed were carefully prepared and extremely useful. I expect that I shall have reason to consult these and my notes after I return to my job.

2 Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: Yes. 2: The scholarship displayed by PB was of the highest quality. The information he has at his fingertips is simply not available anywhere else. Students in this course were most privileged to learn about his various findings first hand. 3-6: Yes. 7: Yes, PB knew his audience. He was thoughtful in his responses and a good listener. He helped us see (& enjoy) the connections in the course content. 8: Yes! I shall need more time to digest the incredible amount of information I have gained.

3 Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description? Did the course in general meet your expectations?

1: Yes. This course exceeded my expectations. I already knew that PB was the expert in his field, and I already knew that his writing is clear, unpretentious, and ``generous'' (ie, intelligible to non-experts). What I hadn't expected was how generous, uncondescending, & well-organized he was. That's a really rare combination in a scholar of his caliber. I am really grateful, and I know that my work is going to take a giant leap forward. Thank you, PB! PS: I've already found all kinds of small errors in my own writings on related subjects, and that's exciting. (It means I've learned something!) 2: Not exactly. The wealth of detail provided by the instructor was such that we did not reach 1637as intended. This should be changed for future courses. 3: Yes, it exceeded my expectations. 4: Yes, although we spent more time on the earlier years of the period. 5-6: Yes. 7: Yes. In fact, the course exceeded my expectations. 8: The course has exceeded my expectations. PB has shared with us an unprecedented amount of original material. I can only say that I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to participate in this course.

4 What did you like best about the course?

1: The instructor's lectures were for me by far the most valuable part of the course. 2: I liked the combination of topnotch scholarship within a congenial atmosphere. The instructor is especially gifted in his research and teaching talents, he has the ability to turn even the driest corporate charter into an amusing experience. 3: PB, one of the most charming instructors I've ever worked with. I also appreciated the opportunity to delve into serials research with an expert guide close to hand. I felt that critiques, both of the materials & of PB's own method, were warmly encouraged. 4: The people, both the instructor and my classmates. We got along very well. 5: Two sessions were excerpts from previous papers prepared by the instructor. These were a good break from regular classes and very enjoyable. 6: PB never seemed at a loss, either for material or for answers to questions. As often at RBS, no one else could have done it so well. So much detail was available that the historical figures acquired something like a human dimension. Also, PB was very accessible outside of class. The research project was slightly onerous, but nothing else would have gotten us into the primary sources so well. 7: The topic; the instructor's preparation, enthusiasm, and knowledge, and the relevance of the content to my research. The group was a nice mix of people and we were all compatible. I appreciated the time that PB spent with us alone and in informal groups around breaks & after class. 8: PB's original work and enthusiasm were most appreciated. The class size, eight, also helped by allowing an informality in the exchange of ideas and opinions. The mix was a very good one.

5 How could the course have been improved?

1: 1) Keep presentations to 10 minutes maximum. 2) Force students to get into the microfilms, even for a very easy, very little project. In terms of course content, I would like still more of an attempt to set the microhistory of the Stationers Company against a larger political, cultural, historical background, but in general I am very satisfied. 3: I might have announced the format and presence of the research presentations so that we might have been able to assemble some materials in advance. 4: I would like a bit of hands-on work or the occasional breaking up of the lectures with other forms of information. 5: This is more heavily a lecture course than previous courses I have taken at RBS. I don't think the subject can be approached in any other way, but it does mean that there is a greater emphasis on listening as opposed to doing or interacting. 6: The thread of narrative or argument tended to get lost in announcements that so-and-so was wrong on this point or that, and here's how we know. It's great to have this, but it requires a stronger organization to the presentation to keep one oriented. But complexity is what it's all about, I suppose. Some contact with physical bibliography would have leavened things. Perhaps RBS could think of some way to take advantage of this aspect of PB's expertise. 7: While the student presentations were a good part of the course, it may be helpful in the future to let participants know about them & send them a topic list (or some other sort of advance notice) so if one has relevant information it could be brought. It should be noted that PB gave us adequate time to prepare, had a reference shelf of books readily available, was available for questions and assistance, and was considerate of our needs and interests. 8: I cannot imagine how the course itself could be improved. However, I should like to see an additional course, eventually, covering the period past the Star Chamber Decree of 1637.

6 Assess the quality/enjoyability of the general evening lectures you attended.

1: Very entertaining, but not really grappling with any new intellectual issues.... 3: The Huttners -A. 6: De Hamel: enjoyable, though could have been more technical. Huttners: wanted more on the bindings, less on text. Belanger: I don't envy the burden of having to come up with different witticisms each year. He does well at keeping enough variety in the standard presentation to keep me coming back. 7: Good. 8: Okay!

7 Any final thoughts?

1: Arrive early, stay late. 3: I think that the three sessions of lecture/discussion & one session of research (3:30-5pm) work brilliantly. 5: This is a lecture course and that means that it can be more intellectually stimulating and perhaps sooner becomes more intellectually exhausting than other courses. 6: Do the reading. Secretary hand never came up -- more important to have a general background in the history of the period. 7: The course is lecture-driven; there was an individual/group project; read the readings, as they are used in the lectures. 8: The requirement of knowledge of secretary hand was unnecessary. The lectures were intense. The individual projects were very helpful and great fun! Read the pre-course readings and continue to go back to them during the progress of the course.

Number of respondents: 8

Percentages