B-10: Introduction to the History of Bookbinding
4-8 June 2007 in Charlottesville
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: As is the case with other RBS courses, the pre-class readings are essential for understanding the course content, especially since you begin looking at binding examples almost immediately. 2: The pre-course readings were very helpful, though with varying degrees of usefulness. Had the list been prioritized, indicating the 2-3 most important readings, or which readings to start with, that could have made preparation for the course easier. 3: Some readings were very useful and others too specialized. Once sentence annotations to each title (as found in the course syllabus bibliography), would have been helpful in determining the order of reading. Introductory texts such as: Pearson, English Bookbinding Styles 1450-1800, and Lock, Bookbinding Materials and Techniques, 1700-1920 could have been at the top of the list for beginners. Some other readings such as: Goldschmidt, Gothic and Renaissance Bookbindings, and Hobson, Renaissance Book Collecting, could be better appreciated after the course. 4: Good familiarization with terms and material to be covered. 5: I thought the readings were very good. I particularly like the David Pearson book, English Bookbinding Styles 1450-1800, and the article by Nicolas Pickwoad, “A Millennium of the Book.” 6: I took time to briefly look at all of the pre-course readings. While some of them I thought were a good introduction, at least for images, I felt that some of the readings were written from a standpoint that I should have already been familiar with all the scholarship on the subject, which I wasn’t. I used the books mainly as visual primers for the course. 7: The David Pearson book I found to be most helpful. Also Mirjam Foot, The History of Bookbinding as a Mirror of Society, and Nicholas Pickwoad. 8: Very helpful as background, and now they promise upon re-reading to be doubly edifying. 9: Very useful; very well chosen. 10: I found the pre-course readings very helpful. 11: Pearson was essential, and clear. All in all, yes, the readings were useful. Post-instruction, there are many I’d like to return to, now that I am better oriented.
2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: Yes. In particular, the reading list will be of great use professionally. 2: The course syllabus provided a nice review of what we went over in class, especially useful as it wasn’t possible to bring all the readings with me. Many aspects; timeline, guide for descriptions and reference list, should be very helpful after I return home. More images could be helpful. 3: Very useful and will be so in the future for consultation and to share with interested colleagues. 4: Yes, very useful; can use for quick reference, especially for terms. 5: I will continue to use the course syllabus for reference. The sections on websites and the timeline are much appreciated. 6: Yes, I believe so. Although the images in the syllabus I feel for the most part are too poor of quality to be useful. 7: Yes. I liked the timeline in the back. It also had nice illustrations, and the list of references will be very helpful (book and web). 8: Very helpful; JSvL knew what we needed and gave it in class and syllabus. 9: A particularly useful syllabus and course packet that will continue to be a resource for me in the future. 10: They were, and will continue to be useful. I will take [teaching assistant] Vince Golden’s suggestion to return to my library and start handling the types of materials and compare them to my notes. 11: Yes, both.
3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: The discussions of English and American binding styles were of the greatest relevance to me, professionally speaking, although I very much enjoyed the other course content as well. 2: For my purposes the early bindings from the C16 and C17 centuries were more relevant, though I found all of it interesting. All the students are from different backgrounds, but I felt the intellectual level and content was appropriate for such a mixed group. 3: Seeing (if not handling) the originals in Special Collections was more interactive, especially when asked to make guesses or comments about the bindings; Power Point presentations could display a wide and varied examples, but the sheer numbers of them made them seem to merge after a while, especially in the post-lunch sessions. 4: I was most interested in modern bookbindings, which were covered at the end of the class. The intellectual level of the course was perfect for me. 5: Discussions of structure and materials were most relevant to my work in conservation, although everything I learned will be helpful. Being able to see so many examples was fantastic. 6: I think the final activity of describing bindings was rather useful, as was looking and describing leather and decorative papers. Yes, I think the level of the course was appropriate, given it was an introductory course. 7: The historical aspect of the book, and being able to pick out certain styles. The intellectual level was appropriate. 8: The 15th - 18th century bindings were most relevant. As an introductory course, it must be broad, and it was. 9: The hands-on work with books, and very broad overview of bindings. The intellectual level was just right. 10: What I liked most was being able to see historical context compared to the development of the bookbinding styles. The intellectual level was appropriate to the course. 11: I discovered some new interests during the course of it. As for existing ones, probably the development of early book structures, and coming across formats I’d never encountered. The intellectual level was appropriate.
4) If your course left its classroom to visit Special Collections (SC) or to make other field trips away from your classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: The day we spent in SC was particularly useful; being able to see actual examples of bindings we had discussed. 2: We viewed many, many items in our trip to SC, and it was absolutely wonderful to see the originals. However, with the visit late in the week after even more slides, objects blurred together and might have been better appreciated while we were still “fresh.” 3: The visit to SC was a definite highlight. 4: Absolutely! I would have loved more SC time. 5: Yes. 6: Yes, I think the most valuable part of this course was time spent with original bindings. 7: Yes. 8: Absolutely. It really put the slides in context, and that was helpful and appreciated. 9: Yes; the examples were appropriate, and the trip was important for fleshing out and testing knowledge gained from the digital images. 10: Yes, the time in SC was very well managed. 11: Yes; wish there had been more, but I can’t imagine fitting it in.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: The visit to SC, along with the examples of publishers bindings we were able to look at. 2: JSvL. He is wonderful and charming, and is quite good about explaining different styles and techniques, mixing in his own stories from his studies and interactions with binders and dealers. I really enjoyed the chance to describe books, even if it was intimidating or I was off. More of this hands-on-time would be even better. 3: The instructor! The depth and breath of JSvL’s knowledge was astounding, yet he is very approachable, and full of self-deprecating humor and modesty. His enthusiasm and passion for his subject is infectious. 4: JSvL! His knowledge and enthusiasm made the week go quickly. I truly felt privileged to have his experience and knowledge at our beck-and-call. 5: The instructor was wonderful. He was fun and passionate about the subject. I think it was good to break up the day so that we did hands-on work during the later period. 6: I liked the final descriptions we did of bindings. I also think I gained the most from looking at original bindings. 7: I think going to SC. To see the books after all the lectures helped me to place them into a certain time frame and style. 8: JSvL’s sincere devotion to old books; ‘twas contagious! 9: The instructor himself: a wonderful and deeply knowledgeable man. 10: JSvL’s teaching style. I felt like I received a great deal of information in a short amount of time. JSvL is not an intimidating teacher, which I think is important. JSvL seemed to connect with the students in the class. 11: The instructor’s breadth of knowledge, and depth, and amiability.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: I would have enjoyed being able to see more actual examples, in addition to the digital images/slides. However, I realize what a logistical problem this would cause, given the limited time we had for the class. 2: I’m not certain. We spent so much time reviewing slides and objects at a fast pace, so that by the end of the week things blurred together. I’m not sure I’d really suggest sacrificing certain themes, but it’d help to spend more in-depth time with certain objects. 3: Fewer slides; I would have liked to concentrate on fewer examples, with more discussion. 4: Longer course! 5: It just needs to be longer. There’s too much to fit into a week long course. I would have liked even more information about decorated end papers. 6: I believe the time devoted to [the] slide lecture should have [been] parceled out among different days. I also believe it would have been beneficial to spend more time describing bindings ourselves, and possibly handing more of the books, as opposed to watching them be raised six feet away. 7: The course was well organized with good examples; not much to improve on! 8: Perhaps some time to look at the insides of the books; R. Payne bindings are nice, but interesting on incunables, too! 9: It was very fine as it was: perhaps making it a two-part course to go into more details, e.g. Coptic - 1700; 1700 to present? 10: No thoughts. 11: More time? Not an option, however!
7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by UVa’s Special Collections. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?
1: N/A 2: No concerns. 3: N/A 4: No suggestions. 6: I believe it would be beneficial for students to be trained in how to handle the books and then allowed to view and handle them as appropriate. 7: None 8: None. We’ve been taught well to handle carefully by JSvL’s and Vince Golden’s excellent example. 9: Everything was handled in an appropriate manner; but please, no more red-rot books for practice. I’m still trying to stop the itching nose and eyes! 10: No complaints; very pleased with my experience.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?
1: The evening lectures were, as usual, informative and entertaining. 2: Yes, the lecture was especially well-matched to the subject of our course. 3: Yes, enjoyed Museum Night, the lectures and the films. It got tiring towards the end, but still worth it. 4: Yes. 5: Study night was great. As a binder, I really enjoyed the display of Nicolas Pickwoad’s 18th century models: it was nice to be able to handle them, and really learn about structural details from his notes. 6: N/A 7: Yes, very much enjoyed Steve Beare’s lecture on Samuel Dodd Monday night; also enjoyed Vince Golden’s extra lecture at the end of the class. 8: I’d already seen Steve Beare’s lecture, but it was much better expanded. Truly a testament to the power of Rare Book School. 9: Absolutely! 10: I attended Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday night activities. Although I was a bit tired, Tuesday night was the best for me. 11: Yes, particularly relevant for this class, too (I’m speaking of Steve Beare’s Monday lecture.)
9) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking the course in a future year?
1: Be sure to do the preliminary readings — definitely got my money’s worth! 2: Yes. This was my first RBS course, which I hope will be followed by many others. 3: Yes, absolutely. 4: I got above and beyond my money’s worth. I would whole heartedly recommend this course to anyone interested in the history of bookbindings. My lack of beginning knowledge did not hamper me in the course. I felt like a sponge soaking up every bit of knowledge that I possibly could in the week’s time. 5: Great course. 6: Yes, I believe I gained a lot of information I will be able to apply in the future. 7: Yes. 8: Money’s worth: Absolutely! Advice: read all the texts twice, then again after the course. I will return. Many thanks. 9: It was free; but would have been worth every penny. 10: Yes, I go my money’s worth. This is my second time here and I was very pleased, and will try to attend another class in the future. 11: Yes.
Number of respondents: 11
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
81% 54% 72% 72%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
9% 9% 18% 27%
N/A: self- N/A: Self- N/A: stayed N/A: lived
employed, re- employed, with friends nearby
tired, or had retired, or or lived at
summers off scholarship home
9% 36% 9% 0%
There were: 3 rare book librarians (27%); 3 conservator/binder/preservation librarians (27%); 2 general librarians with some rare book duties (18%); 1 teacher/professor (9%); 1 antiquarian bookseller (9%); and 1 book collector (9%).