H-80: The Stationers’ Company and the London Book Trade to 1830

16-20 July 2007 in Charlottesville

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Readings were very helpful. [Cyprian] Blagden’s The Stationers’ Company was tough going, but in retrospect I have to admit a lot of it sunk in and was helpful for other readings, and for the class. It’s a book you are glad to have read rather than to actually read. The others were all excellent, relevant, &c. 2: Very helpful, but nonetheless, difficult. 3: Useful. I already had questions when I got here; the course cleared them up. 4: Very, though I confess I didn’t get far through Blagden’s The Stationers’ Company. [Peter] Blayney’s The Stationers’ Company before the Charter and the “Isaacs” volume were particularly informative and fun to read. 5: Useful. 6: Considering the lack of books on the subject, the assigned text worked just fine as a foundation to the class lectures and discussions. 7: They were somewhat helpful. The teachers knew that the only full-length study of the Stationers’ company would baffle us, and, though they explained why they assigned it, I still felt that my time could’ve been better spent on other scholars’ work. I also wish we had read more c17 and c18 accounts of the Stationers’ company to give us a better sense of how they were received and perceived.

2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1: Yes! The course book is a real treasure, as is MT’s database. 2: The course packet was very useful; rather necessary. 3: Very useful; will share with colleagues. 4: Very much so – the use of MT’s database and all the slides meant we got into much more detail than we would have without visual aids. 5: Yes. Now that there are page numbers, the next step is a table of contents. 6: Very useful. 7: Yes, the packet was very useful, especially with the reproductions of the various Acts and Charters. I know that the currency converter chart at the end will be of great use in the future.

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: I really enjoyed my brief encounter with the microfilm archive; it has whetted my enthusiasm for volunteering to help MT and contribute to his database. The intellectual level – including contributions from fellow students – was excellent. The instructors were good about explaining things we didn’t know without getting bogged down on basics. 2: I really enjoyed studying some of the people in-depth; as well, understanding the hierarchy and ruling within the company was fascinating. 3: This course gives a very good foundation to the history of printing and publishing in London and England. 4: MT and IG are wonderfully entertaining! Not only that, but I have never met two people more knowledgeable about the English book trade – I will be putting much of what I learned to work on the job and in my research. 5: The whole thing, really. I have much greater knowledge about how the Stationers’ Company worked and how that affected the British book trade. 6: I was mostly interested in the “London Book Trade” as opposed to only “Stationers’ Company,” – but was happy to learn about the Stationers’ company as well. 7: I have a better understanding of the nature and development of the English book trade. At times, I felt that we got unproductively stuck on the particulars of the Stationers’ company and lost sight of the importance (or not) of the issues at hand.

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: For my project I used microfilm in the Alderman periodicals department – time very well spent. 2: We spent an afternoon period viewing the printing press which was informative. 3: We went to look at type and presses; had already done that in previous courses. 4: Yes! The projects part of the class was particularly informative and worthwhile. 6: N/A. 7: Yes, I enjoyed Monday afternoon’s printing lab.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: Interaction with MT and IG, and classmates; exposure to MT’s amazing database. 2: The knowledge of the professors was inspiring; listening to them teach and engaging in class discussions was very thought-provoking. 3: The instructors; very knowledgeable. They shared and complemented each other. 4: IG and MT – it was an honor to be asked to take the course, and I feel very privileged to now consider IG and MT good friends, and I look forward to future exchanges. 5: The instructors. They are both knowledgeable, and I very much enjoyed their relaxed styles. 6: The instructors’ wealth of knowledge – I really knew I was learning from the best. 7: Getting to know MT and IG.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: More time! 2: Perhaps an additional book for the pre-course reading could be an overview of England at this time – it could help give a bit more of a general perspective. 3: Doing a project would have been easier with a laptop. The divider between our class and the one next door did not muffle sound enough. 4: The divider between the two classrooms in Harrison-Small at times did not provide enough sound-proofing. 5: Perhaps a little more direction for the student projects? 6: Ultimately, I’d like to see a London book trade class to 1830, with the Stationers’ company material comprising one or two days; but perhaps that’s just another course entirely. 7: Less focus on the Stationers’ company, and more on the book trade as a whole, especially in the 18th century.

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: I witnessed no problems (but I heard about a coffee spill when I was at microfilm.) 2: We handled the materials well in our classroom. The usual good sense of keeping food and drink away from the collections should always apply. 3: No drinks on table. 6: N/A. 7: The room divider was not enough; I could hear the other class almost all the time.

8) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?

1: Yes. James Green’s talk was excellent. Ian Willison was a little too institutional in focus for my taste, but always interesting. 2: The Sunday evening dinner and opening welcome was a nice way to set the tone for the week ahead. Monday night’s lecture [by JG] on Benjamin Franklin as a job printer was terrific; the [Big D] exhibit afterwards was priceless. 3: I attended Sunday and Monday night lectures: length of time, subject matter, and lectures themselves were great. It is always good hearing about RBS. JG was fascinating. 4: Absolutely – both JG and IW gave wonderful talks of the right tone and length. It was great to get caught up with the activities of the RBS on Sunday evening. 5: Sunday night, yes. Monday night, very much: JG is a wonderful speaker; the lecture was informative and based on solid research. 6: N/A. 7: The Monday evening lecture was a pleasure; I had a tough time hearing/understanding/following the Wednesday evening lecture.

9) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?

1: Yes. Come well rested, but understand you will be run ragged. Virginia is hillier than central Illinois – pace yourself when walking anywhere. 2: Of course! This course was wonderfully detailed, and in-depth for this period that I am so inspired to learn more. MT’s database can keep us intrigued for much research to come. 3: Absolutely, but, bring a laptop. 4: Absolutely! 5: Yes. 6: Absolutely. 7: Yes, I got my money’s worth, and yes, I do recommend the course. I found the essays in [the books edited by Robin] Myers the most helpful in preparing.

Number of respondents: 7

Percentages

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

Institution Institution Institution Institution

gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel

71% 43% 86% 86%

I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own

tion time tion myself own housing travel

29% 14% 14% 14%

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

0% 43% 0% 0%

There were 4 rare book librarians (57%); 1 conservator (14%); 1 full-time student (14%); and 1 retired (14%).