22. History of European and American Papermaking

17-21 July 1995

Papermaking from its introduction in Europe to the Industrial Revolution, emphasizing changes in technology and the economics of the trade. Questions of labor and management, the identification and description of paper in early books and MSS, and the revival of hand-papermaking in the c20. The course will include several laboratory sessions in which students will produce a series of Oriental and Western paper specimens related to the lecture sessions.

1. How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Useful for background and familiarity with terms. 2: Very good range and depth ... enjoyable, too. 3: While the readings gave good background to topics, it would have been useful to have had more technical information on paper formation. 4: Very. 5: The readings included the standard texts in paper history. The instructors were able to point out errors and perhaps omissions in texts, for example the strengths and weaknesses of Dard Hunter's books. 6: They were very useful. The list was a good length -- not so long as to be intimidating. The items were all readable and interesting and not difficult, for the most part, to obtain. 7: A very useful pre-(over)view; enjoyed the read. 8: They were good and informative. Basically, a nice suggested reading list. 9: Great. Dard Hunter was a good foundation. 10: Very. 11: The pre-course readings provided a great background and base for the participants to approach the subject. I felt they were very helpful, filling in the gaps of my own background in the subject. 12: They were helpful -- and interesting. Well chosen, I think. And not so long a list as to be overwhelming! 13: Very.

2. Did your instructors prepare properly and sufficiently to teach THIS course?

1: Yes. 2: Yes. Yes. 3: Class handouts should be better organized, with citations on sources. They were terrific as teachers and very well prepared with knowledge and techniques that surpassed my expectations of the course. 4: Yes. 5: Yes. It is apparent that this subject is their PASSION. 6: Yes, although some of the handouts -- especially the tables -- were a little obscure. 7: Yes. Yes. 8: Both instructors were well prepared and did an excellent job teaching the course. The syllabus and class materials were appropriate. 9-10: Yes. Yes. 11: Yes -- the course was extremely well prepared, organized, and presented. 12: Yes. 13: You bet!

3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1-2: Yes. 3: It was both rewarding and challenging to absorb -- recommended to anyone interested in books or printing. 4-8: Yes. 9: Yes. Amazingly so, since we had such a wide range of backgrounds represented in the class. 10-12: Yes. 13: Absolutely.

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

1: As usual at RBS, this exceeded my expectations. My expectations were very high for this course, but -- before we actually did it -- I would have said our making several samples of paper wouldn't have been possible in this format. 2: Yes. 3: As stated above, the course exceeded my expectations from both the course descriptions and what might be possible in a one-week course. 4: Yes, though I had hoped for more time on the possibilities and limitations ofidentifying historical papers by time and place. Perhaps a systematic exposition would have made the identification quiz less frustrating. 5: I was pleased by the amount of hands-on papermaking. 6-8: Yes. 9: Yes. Yes -- exceeded expectations, particularly with actual paper making. 10: Yes, yes. 11: Yes, it corresponded to the description and exceeded my expectations, which were very high. 12-13: Yes.

5. What did you like best about the course?

1: Three things, all best: 1) So many disparate separate bits of information finally connect; 2) Making paper; 3) Fitting the developmental history into the economic history in such a ``human'' way. 2: Hearing about research, not yet published, which our instructors have undertaken. 3: The making of paper samples that illustrated the lectures. 5: Making paper. 6: Hands-on papermaking. Exploration of the day-to-day workings of mills. 7: The interaction with both instructors. 8: I liked the enthusiasm and inspirational qualities of both instructors. They are extremely knowledgeable, communicate well, and are open to questions. Kudos to TB and JB. 9: Making paper. It was a great experience making me realize a huge mill isn't necessary. It can be done in the backyard! 10: JB is a great storyteller, quite entertaining in lectures, very knowledgeable. TB is a master papermaker at peace with his craft, also very knowledgeable. 11: I really liked the interaction of the instructors and how well they presented their information and complemented each other while approaching the subject from different directions. The lectures and hands-on segments complemented each other wonderfully to get a lot of unexpected insight into the topic. 12: The balance between lectures and hands-on. 13: The lab alternating with historical information (which was great, especially about labor relations!).

6. How could the course have been improved?

1: TB and JB will probably think of something for the next course, but I can't see where it could have been improved. 2: Perhaps a little more hands-on identifying of paper samples as to time and place of the maker. 3: A) Explanation/list of basic paper, mold, and related topics to insure everyone is on an equal plane at the start of the course. B) Better designed handouts. 6: The instructors' proposal to visit a paper mill is a good one. 7: I would have enjoyed having more time on c19-20. 8: I would like a little more identification of papers. The idea of doing this in a more organized homework situation is a good one. In this way it might be modelled on Terry Belanger's lab sessions in the courses he teaches. 9: Better organized handouts. 10: Possible field trip. Better lab facility. Possible evening lab addition. 11: I don't believe this course could be improved -- it is great. 12: More time looking at historical examples, and discussing the characteristics of the various periods so we could see and feel the difference. 13: 1) Another quiz on paper dating, perhaps? Once doesn't give enough of a sense. 2) Perhaps a visit to a mill? 3) Perhaps even more on the state of the industry today. 4) Thoughts on conservation?

7. Any final thoughts?

1: Fourteen was a good size -- the group was diverse, but connected. 3: This course should be a must for everyone concerned with or interested in books or printing. The basis of all book arts is paper. 5: Perhaps there needs to be more about paper chemistry. 7: I would certainly recommend this course to anyone asking about it. 10: Don't wait -- if it's offered, take it. 12: It was great -- enjoyed every minute. 13: Do it! Be willing to ask questions springing from your interest, as you will inevitably learn from classmates who do the same. You won't believe how may different aspects there are to paper!

Number of respondents: 13

PERCENTAGES