33. Book Production in 16th-Century France

24-28 July 1995

Of potential interest to scholars of literature and the book trade in the French Renaissance, this course will focus on printers in Paris and Lyon and will examine their relations with the writers whose works they produced. Writers may include Marot, Rabelais, Du Bellay, Ronsard, Montaigne and others according to the interests of the participants. The course will be conducted in French.

1. How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Very pertinent, but difficult to obtain on loan. 2: Very useful -- for this course and later use. 3: Very useful introduction to many areas; however, since not all students had done them, there were some gaps from time to time in the class's collective knowledge. 4: Very useful. 5: On target! 6: Useful, but perhaps a little heavy on the ``privilÜge'' system. Might have been better to require only the reading in Histoire du livre imprim[[Yacute]]. 7: Interesting and helpful. 8: Good background reading covering various aspects of course material. 10: Very useful and appropriate. 11: Extremely useful. It made it much easier for me to understand our discussions of the books.

2. Did your instructor prepare sufficiently to teach THIS course? Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful?

1: Yes -- the most important materials were the books themselves, chosen by JV-F for comment. 2: Notes will be particularly useful, as will the bibliography. JV-F is an excellent resource. 3: Yes. 4: Probably a good idea to distribute a list of specific topics and primary sources for daily discussion. 5: Rather loose format, loosely applied -- but JV-F's whole life has been the best preparation for the course. 6: Instructor has spent a lifetime preparing for this course and is a font of knowledge, which she shares generously. However, I would have preferred a much more structured approach. 7: She was very knowledgeable. Sometimes the course was a little disorganized -- it broke up into small group discussions, but often those discussions were very interesting as well. 8: Yes. 9: Nice workshop atmosphere that allowed team work. 10: The organization of the course presented a few problems; a course syllabus could have been helpful. 11: A syllabus might have been helpful, along with a list of unfamiliar names and dates. However, the bibliography we are compiling and the other handouts we received are and will be very useful.

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

1: Yes. What worked particularly well was the diversity of specialties -- each student had something special (and enlightening) to contribute. 2: Yes -- sustained and enhanced by the contributions of all participants. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. JV-F has exceptional command of the material and responds well to her students' questions. The French language format was fine. 5: Yes -- remarkable parallels among the interests of the group, even if some occasional problems with levels of specialized preparation/skill. 6: Instructor is omniscient, or nearly so! The participants were all extremely intelligent and articulate, and their contributions nicely plugged what could have been holes in a too freely-flowing format. 7: Hard to say. The students were from many different fields and at different levels. 8: Yes, definitely 9: See 2, above. 10: Absolutely. 11: Yes, it was very stimulating. JV-F is obviously quite knowledgeable and I enjoyed the comments of the other participants.

4. If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1: The majority of time was spent with Special Collections materials. 2: Yes -- type demonstration by James Mosley of particular interest. 3: Absolutely, the time in Special Collections was the best part. 4: All of our time was spent in Special Collections. 5: N/A. 6: Yes, absolutely. The Gordon Collection is sublime, and we saw many, many of its books. 7: Yes. 8: Absolutely; studying the Gordon Collection books with JV-F was a very valuable learning experience. 9: N/A. 10: NA. We basically spent the course using Special Collections material (ie, from the Gordon Collection) and this was definitely one of the best features of this course. 11: In general, we might have been more focused toward the end of each segment of the day. The time in Special Collections was crucial to our course and I do think that this time was well spent.

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

Lloyd-Jones, KennethRussell, Nicolas

1: Yes. Yes. 2: More or less. Perhaps less coherent organization than I would have liked, but this did allow for impressive participant contributions. 3: Yes. 4: See concluding note. 5: Broadly -- yes. Departures were made in light of special interests of group members. 6: Not really. I expected, and would have preferred, a course more devoted to the actual physical production of the book. (I am still trying to figure out how to identify the very small formats, eg 18mo, 24mo, 32mo). I had also hoped to do more specific work on lettrines and other ornamental material as a means of identifying editions. 7: Yes. 8: Yes, absolutely. In fact, it exceeded my expectations, covering the topics in the brochure description, but branching out further, according to the interests of the course participants. 9-11: Yes.

6. What did you like best about the course?

1: Both the inexhaustible knowledge of JV-F concerning the c16 book and the rich collections -- principally Gordon -- we inspected. 2: Access to Gordon Collection guided by JV-F's expertise. Convivial, collegial atmosphere. 3: Chance to apply general ideas through observation of the books. The participants' varying areas of expertise added a lot to the discussion. 4: JV-F, my classmates, the books. 5: Wonderful interaction between members focussed by incredible knowledge and intellectual generosity of JV-F. It was, literally, a seminar, and a real pleasure. 6: The give-and-take with all the participants (including the instructor) -- all extremely congenial, competent, interesting, and articulate. 7: I liked looking at the Gordon books; the things I learned about bibliography. 8: I very much appreciate the opportunity to learn from an expert in this field who so generously shared her knowledge of c16 book production with us. The combination of the instructor's knowledge and personality along with the course materials (Gordon Collection) made for an extremely satisfying experience. The diversity of fields of expertise represented by the other participants was also a very valuable factor in the success of this course. 9: Seeing the Gordon books. 10: JV-F's first-hand experience with the material and her personality; the group of people gathered as students; the sense of intellectual community this course generated. 11: The hands-on experience with the books, and the chance to learn how book production and literary studies complement each other.

7. How could the course have been improved?

1: For the students whose bibliographic skills were not (yet) at a high level, a few more basic photocopies would have helped (for homework). As the week went on, these skills developedquickly. 2: Perhaps a more structured approach. 3: Perhaps one 90-minute session (or even a simple half-hour) could be devoted to independent research into UVa holdings so that students would know what books of interest to them are available (done as early in the week as Monday afternoon). 4: See concluding note. 5: A different course might be envisaged -- techniques of bibliographical identification -- but as such. This one should be left alone. It worked fine. 6: Articulation of the overall plan for the five-day course. I, personally, would have preferred more structure and an approach based on printers or printing centers, rather than authors. 10: A bit more organization, ie, a tighter schedule of topics and books to be studied. But we know this was due in part to the separation of the material from the Gordon Collection into two locations. To start with technical information on the making in general of books -- we got this on the last day. 11: We could have better organized our time.

8. Any final thoughts?

3: Preparatory reading is essential, either from this year's reading list or other, introductory books (Gaskell, for example). 4: The close reliance on c16 books held here at UVa was both a strength and weakness. It was wonderful to see JV-F's immediate reaction to bibliographical problems put in such concrete terms. But the collection is a particular selection, and as such calls out for a clearly-articulated context of basic information on printers, printmaking, authors, and readers in c16 France. I thus suggest 1) detailed syllabus, with suggestions for additional readings in advance of the course; 2) clear expectation of student work and reports -- perhaps according to individual research interest or in small groups (choose books from UVa collection); 3) written presentation of bibliographical techniques, reading lists, &c. 5: Summary thoughts -- I feel doubly privileged 1) to have had JV-F share so much of her lifetime interest and knowledge with us, and 2) to have been nurtured by the younger people of the group. Excellent support from the staff, getting us books from the Gordon Collection, &c. A very fine week. Thank you. 9: Start classes at 9, not at 8:30 am? Mary McKinley put enormous effort into organizing and facilitating this course. She should be recognized, somehow. 10: No. 11: This course is fabulous. It was a wonderful class and its bilingual status was not a problem at all!

Number of respondents: 11

Percentages

Leave Tuition Housing Travel