Timothy Barrett and John Bidwell

History of European & American Papermaking

14-18 June 2010

1. How useful were the pre-course readings? (Leave blank if you applied and were accepted late for the course, and thus did not get the list in time.)

1: The pre-course reading was helpful, even if Dard Hunter's research glosses over, or sometimes is unable to anticipate and address, more complicated aspects of the history. 2: Very useful. 3: The Dard Hunter book gave a good overview of the craft and brief history. 4: Very useful and pertinent. 5: Very useful and relevant. 6: Very useful—introduced vocabularies, timelines; could forgo a few if you ran out of time and you wouldn't feel lost. 7: Helpful overview that usefully touched on many topics of the course. 8: Quite useful, but with papermaking it was vital (for me) to see it in action with someone to explain the steps. 9: Dard Hunter was especially valuable as background to the course. 10: Useful. It gave a foundation/reminder of many of the subjects. The Dard Hunter book was a bit tedious at times, though the pictures/etchings were quite lovely.

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! I expect to refer to the time line in the workbook, as well as the other information contained in it. 2: The workbook will continue to be a resource after class. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, very appropriate information for both the class and later. 5: Very useful—the included photocopies of various information and the bibliography are invaluable. I will consult them in my work. 6: Very useful—illustrated concepts with graphs and diagrams—they'll be great memory aids. Fabulous bibliographies. 7-8: Yes. 9: Very much so: the workbook has excellent charts, tables, illustrations, and citations that I will continue to use. 10: Yes.

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 intellectual level was just right. Of greatest interest were standards and cutoff points for dating and identifying paper, as well as the historical survey, which clarified (and sometimes connected) the history as delivered in Hunter's book (pre-course reading). 2: Handmade European paper. 3: My greatest interest came to be the watermarks, and dating primary materials of reference to these watermarks. Most useful! 4: Paper history and bibliography. Level was very appropriate. 5: The section on the paper trade in eighteenth-century America and England. The intellectual level was definitely appropriate. 6: Good match of history of papermaking with hands-on practical skills—raised more questions in context than either one alone. 7: All angles were useful. Discussing features of paper provided insight difficult to acquire by simply reading about them. 8: Methods of papermaking and their practice in Europe and North America for identification and authentication of rare books and manuscripts. 9: I enjoyed the emphasis on historical changes combined with the continuing traditions of papermaking. Intellectual level was well-pitched. Training in how to understand and recognize paper types was very welcome. 10: It reconnected me to the evidentiary value of paper as object. It also dispelled or clarified some myths about paper degradation.

4. What did you like best about the course?

1: I most enjoyed the interaction of JB and TB as teachers; they both are dynamic, engaging and learned, and even more, they are extremely receptive to fielding questions from a variety of angles (e.g., academic/scholarly, preservation/conservation, &c.). I also enjoyed the watermark test—it was most useful. 2: The variety of activities and papermaking watermark analysis, slide, videos—historical and practical knowledge. 3: JB and TB of course! Their knowledge, enthusiasm, and generosity in sharing both made the course totally enjoyable. 4: The instructors were excellent and very engaging; their thorough knowledge was inspiring. 5: The instructors. Both JB and TB are extremely knowledgeable about the topic, convey the information clearly, and share their information and knowledge. And they both tell great stories! 6: The instructors! Full of passion, generous with knowledge, organized and committed to the field. 7: Multiple angles of approach in lectures; opportunity for questions; understanding that came by performing some of the processes of papermaking. 8: The yin and yang of the two instructors simply made this course one of the best of this institution. 9: The deep knowledge and expertise of the instructors was fantastic. I loved the interplay of their perspectives on papermaking. The march through history and the great stories along the way. 10: 1) The hands-on papermaking—to get a sense of the steps/skill level required to make high quality paper increased my appreciation of the process even more. 2) The variety of perspectives of both instructors and students and their passion!

5. Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information and skills that the course was intended to convey?

1: Yes—the course met my expectations and even exceeded them. 2: Yes. 3: Absolutely. 4: Yes. 5: Yes! I now know where to look for further information to help me with my projects. 6: Beyond successful—I want to go make paper! 7-8: Yes. 9: Absolutely: this course was a thrilling crash-course in the history of papermaking. I can't imagine it being done better. I enjoyed every movie and learned a lot. 10: Yes.

6. Did you learn what the course description/advertisements indicated you would learn?

1-5: Yes. 6: Yes. I didn't realize we'd have so much hands-on time—great surprise! 7-9: Yes. 10: Yes. Actually getting the opportunity to make paper was a delightful treat—it was not clear in the course description that that would be happening.

7. Did you learn what you wanted to learn in the course?

1-3: Yes. 4: Yes. And then some. 5: Yes. 6: Yes, much more confidence approaching paper identification and understanding papermaking roles within local economies. 7: Yes, but more importantly, some ways of figuring out answers to additional questions. 8: Yes. 9: Yes. It was a rare and valuable opportunity to have access to the experts and ask questions. 10: Yes. As much as one could learn in one week.

8. How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?

1: I'll use this information to date materials in the collection where I work, to purchase new materials for the collection, to work in concert with conservators, and to teach from the collection. 2: In teaching and for my own research. 3: Will help in identifying papers in several bindings I have. 4: With collections development and management decisions and with bibliographical issues. 5: I will use the skills to pursue my research in the importation of paper to America in the eighteenth century (pre- and post-revolution). 6: (As a conservator)—more nuanced approaches to treatments—awareness of what sizing might or might not have been included; effects of fiber length on resulting paper quality; focus concern on specific time periods when assessing collections. 7: In academic teaching and research. 8: To identify and authenticate rare books and manuscripts in my employer's collections. 9: Through my own scholarship record to c19 printing, and book history—and also in my classes. 10: I think it will refine some of my selection considerations for treatment. It will influence how I present information on paper to a broader audience.

9. How could the course have been improved? If you have a suggestion for a new course (and—equally important—a person who could teach it), please contact the RBS Program Director.

1: I'd like a little more hands-on time with examples already labeled/identified early on in the week. I would have liked more time to study the examples for the final test. 2: The course wasn't always linear and chronological, which was fine, but I sometimes lost track as to whether we were discussing the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, or eighteenth century. 3: More time with reference materials for watermarks. I could have used a whole afternoon on this topic alone. 5: No need for improvement. 6: 1) Number pages in workbook—maybe even [add a] table of contents, if there's time. 2) Visit to UVA conservation lab for fiber analysis? 8: Perhaps an additional period for watermark history, literature, and identification. The introduction and exercise we received in this course seemed rushed to me. 9: No suggestions—I wouldn't change a thing.

10. 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?

1-4: Yes. 5: SC—yes, it was nice putting the information in context with items in the collection. 6: Well spent, though I was itching to feel some of the items in SC! 7: Yes—to see important books and paper in SC, and to make paper ourselves. 8: Yes. 9: Yes—I saw things that I play to revisit in SC, and really enjoyed our papermaking sessions in Ruffin Hall. 10: Field trip to make paper definitely worth it. SC field trip time might have been better spent working on paper identification exercise.

11. 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: Handling was excellent. 4: Provide students with handling guidelines and let them engage the SC materials, we are for the most part already trained to do so! [NB: Anywhere between two and three hundred RBS students visit UVA SC every year where they routinely view the same materials in their classes. Based on the resulting wear to rare materials in UVA SC, RBS and UVA were advised by experts to discontinue group handling. Please note that RBS students may individually handle items in the SC Reading Room−mgt.] 5: Yes, of course. 6: Brief verbal reminder at beginning about appropriate handling. Great to have Nouvir system for watermarks/paper identification. 7: I'm thankful that we were allowed to touch most materials (the only way to examine features we were here to study). 8: No, classroom handling was what it should be for the materials used. 9: None.

12. If you attended the optional evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers' Night) were they worth attending?

1: Yes. I particularly enjoyed DVM's talk on Monday evening. 3: Yes. I missed having the Sunday evening dinner all together in the lounge. I realize money savings are important, but I think in past years, the group dinner has fostered a great sense of community, and given you more opportunity to meet others interested in different fields. I did not care for the "divide up and go to restaurants" approach this year. I felt we lost a good bit of camaraderie with the new approach. 4-5: Yes. 6: Nice to have the options to relax; very much liked the speakers—they offered windows on related fields I've yet to explore. Now I have starting points. 7: Lectures—yes. I wouldn't have missed the Monday lecture! 9: I was extremely glad to hear DVM's Monday lecture; an excellent event. 10: RBS Forum—yes!

13. Did you get your (or your institution's) money's worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?

1: RBS is a fabulous opportunity not only to learn from experts in the field and to handle great examples, but also to learn from other students who themselves are knowledgeable and distinguished. I found this dynamic particularly exciting in the class, and I hope to continue the conversation with my colleagues. 2-3: Yes. 5: Absolutely. 6: Absolutely—cram packed with digestible information and reliable sources for future study/research. Great mix of participants to learn more about interrelated fields and hear how they address specific collection challenges. 7: Yes. 8: Yes and I hope to return. 9: I recommend this course to our humanities faculty with an interest in the Anglo-American world from the fifteenth century forward. It is essential and a lot of fun! 10: Yes! This has been a breath of fresh air for me and came at a time in the year when reconnecting with the collections was needed. Thank you!

Number of respondents: 10

PERCENTAGES

Leave

Institution gave me leave

75%

I took vacation time

5%

N/A: self-employed, retired or had the summers off

20%

Tuition

Institution paid tuition

55%

I paid tuition myself

15%

N/A: Self-employed, retired or scholarship

30%

Housing

Institution paid housing

30%

I paid for my own housing

30%

N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home

40%

Travel

Institution paid travel

20%

I paid my own travel

30%

N/A: lived nearby

50%

There was one rare book librarian (10%), one archivist/manuscript librarian (10%), one respondent equally a rare book librarian and an archivist/manuscript librarian (10%), two professors (20%), three conservators/binders/preservation librarians (30%), one book collector (10%), and one admin/curator in an educational institute (10%).