42. European Bookbinding, 1500-1800

Nicholas Pickwoad
(Evaluation of RBS 1994 version of this course)

How bookbinding in the post-medieval period developed to meet the demands placed on it by the growth of printing: techniques and materials employed to meet these demands; the development of temporary bindings (eg pamphlets and publishers' bindings); the emergence of structures usually associated with volume production in the c19; the development of decoration; the dating of undecorated bindings; the identification of national and local binding styles.

1. How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Somewhat useful. 3: The readings were necessary to the course. Problem was the material was difficult to obtain. Perhaps some of the articles required could be copied and sent to students in advance. 4: Very helpful -- essential. 5: Pollard was a very good introduction. 6: Very useful, applicable, interesting; not difficult to locate. 7: Very useful, though perhaps the most useful pre-course experience was a two-hour visit to a hand bindery. Cockerell only made sense to me after I actually saw the tools of the trade and talked to a binder about their use. I brought no binding experience to this course. 8: Very helpful and I shall study them again with the insights I've gained. 9: Pre-course readings were extremely valuable as they indicated what the focus of the information in the course would be. 10: I didn't have time to read them (only scanned them briefly), but the class was so detailed and material so well explained that I didn't feel lost. 11: G. Pollard was essential. 12: They were a must to understand the course. 13: Readings were very useful. 15: Very useful. 16: Essential for me, with no bench experience. I've found Middleton almost unreadable, but this forced me to plow through, and it's all that's available.

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

1-2: Yes. 3: It would be impossible to be better prepared for a course. 4: Very well prepared. Would have liked to have a handout with a general outline of the course. 5: Better pre-planning and tighter organization of the information presented throughout the week would have improved the course. 6: Obviously well-qualified far beyond the needs of this course. 7: Yes. Best preparation possible. Handling and studying scads and scads of early books. 8: Yes, quite! 9: I don't know who else could teach this course. He seems to be constantly preparing for the next one. I felt I was getting very current information on bookbinding structure. 10: Yes, extremely well prepared -- so many slides. 11: Absolutely. 12: Yes on content, no on teaching methods. 13: He prepared excellently. 14: Clearly expert. Some synthesis of the multitude of scattered facts and slides would have helped. 15: Yes. 16: God, yes -- all his life.

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

1-2: Yes. 3: I finished the course with a base of knowledge much greater than anticipated. Very useful. 4: Very high. 5: Yes. 6: Yes, adjusted to fit by instructor when necessary. 7: Yes. 8: Very much so. 9: Yes. 10: Yes, NP is very good an conveying his enthusiasm for his subject and teaching his students how to look and what to look for. 11-12: Yes. 13: Absolutely. 15: Yes. 16: The velocity of information was rather high. Don't know if I'd change that or not.

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

1-2: Yes. 5-6: Yes. 7: Yes. It was interesting and helpful to see examples of the structure, decorations, etc., on the pieces themselves. Nonetheless, sometimes the slides were more effective for me than the actual pieces, since the photographs were enlarged and much easier to see. Also, the larger the group, the harder it is for one individual to see and study a piece. This was mitigated to some extent by the opportunity to study pieces individually after class: easy for the Book Arts Press examples, difficult for the Special Collections pieces because of scheduling difficulties. 8: Yes, although there was much crowding to view the books. Everyone jammed around a single table was a little much. 9: The visit to Special Collections was a high point, rounding out the experience of matching slides to physical items. 10: Yes, it was a chance to see NP out in the field, so to speak. 11: Yes. 12: Yes -- would have enjoyed more time in Special Collections and less classroom lecture. 13: Yes. We looked at many interesting and beautiful bindings reflecting issues discussed in the classroom. 15: The class time spent in Special Collections was extremely well spent. Instructor planned well ahead of time. 16: Yes.

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

1: Yes. The course was accurately described and met my expectations. 2: Generally. 3: Completely consistent with brochure description. The course was better than anticipated and is very useful to professional and novices alike. His presentation was geared to all levels of background knowledge. 4: Yes. 5: Yes./Yes. 6: Expected it to be great, and it was. 7: Yes. Yes. It exceeded them. I especially appreciated the inclusion of Eastern European Judaic materials from the Howard Collection in the discussion. 8: Yes, very much so. 9: Yes. 10: Far exceeded expectations -- challenging and inspiring. 11: Yes. The course exceeded my very high expectations. 12: I expected the course to be more like a seminar with give and take, rather than a series of 30 hours of lecture. 13: The course met and surpassed my expectations. 15: Yes. Yes. 16: Yes.

6. What did you like best about the course?

1: The instructor and his slides. 2: Well presented and organized. The many visuals. 3: The opportunity to see the slide example coupled with actual examples of books to teach binding principles. 4: A great deal of new information which is either not available elsewhere or is very scattered. Images were very helpful. Also, very good to spend afternoon looking at actual books. 5: Intensive amount of information regarding production and materials of books in this period. 6: Willingness of instructor to take questions and explain side issues. 7: The chance to see a wide variety of binding structures, and begin to develop skill in dating them and connecting them to particular geographic areas. The chance to talk with an experienced binder and binding historian (NP) about what we were seeing. 8: NP's knowledge and his willingness to share this with students. 9: I liked the density of the information. Given a short week, and needing more time to use this information, the quantity was important. I'm sure I'll be studying the notes for some time to come. 10: Being exposed to so many examples through NP's slides and seeing his examination of books in class. 11: The instructor teaching us to think for ourselves. The learning experience will last far beyond the course itself. 12: The slides and trip to Special Collections. 13: Being able to see a great variety of binding structures and to place them historically within political and cultural contexts. The way that the course was presented by NP was excellent. 14: The immense knowledge and enthusiasm of the instructor! 15: Instructor's approach of total immersion in the subject matter. The depth of the instructor's knowledge and expertise and his enthusiastic sharing and teaching skill. 16: One of the two or three most exciting classes I've ever taken. Completely changed my approach to evaluation of bindings. An essential corrective to the decoration-centered studies so far published. Slides were essential, and 800 were not too many. NP is distilling decades of observation into a week. The late evening Lawn sessions were a valuable supplement.

7. How could the course have been improved?

1: Not as much time spent on the bookbinding forms and data analysis. 2: More supportive printed materials, particularly chronologies of certain binding characteristics and their national tendencies (French, English, German, etc.). This would make it much easier to absorb the slides without worrying about copious note taking. 3: A greater selection of actual examples to study. 4: Some information a bit scattered, but generally very well presented. It can be difficult to keep up, depending on level of technical knowledge. 5: 1) More question and answer time, perhaps each day. 2) If possible, hands-on experience looking at bindings in the BAP collection. Also, make use of the BAP museum. 3) Handouts summarizing some of the information given in the course, for example, certain characteristics specific to country/region; chronological period; materials used. 4) Tighter structure and organization of the presentation of the information, especially because of the large amount of information presented. 6: Only more would have been better. 8: More thought to seating and physical layout would improve the situation; 16 stu- dents should be the maximum. 9: Hands-on model-making of quick, easy things like ties; playing with bits of leather or thread; tactile information. 10: It couldn't. 11: There is no way this course could have been improved. 12: More attention to teaching methods and synthesis of material rather than 30 hours of specifics thrown out. More time for questions and answers. There was too much material covered for the time allocated. 13: A chart would have been useful showing developments of binding techniques according to country -- a rough chart, at least, as the information was very varied regarding period and region. 14: The structure might be reconsidered, from a pedagogical point of view. For example, NP is apparently writing a major work on bindings. It would have helped if before the course he had given us printed summaries of some of the main points of the book, which the many slides apparently illustrate. This would have made the slides (212 on the last day alone!) stick in the mind better. I feel grateful for the opportunity of seeing them all -- but there is the danger of getting lost in detail. 15: 1) A brief syllabus handed out on the first day outlining the topics to be covered would have been helpful. 2) Seg- ment concentrated on the role of Special Collections in preserv- ing/repairing bindings. 16: The information presented is inherently not cut-and-dried. Generalizations are dangerous. However, a pre-course handout illustrating (possibly with time lines) broad national tendencies in each category (eg, lacked head-bands, skin type, edge coloring) would have given us a framework to accommodate the exceptions. NP sometimes made three important points and one minor one in a single sentence; it's a lot to get down and think about with the amount of preparation most of us had. Attempts to reduce the diffuseness might lead to falsification.

8. Any final thoughts?

1: I believe the course would be better, as it was in previous years, divided according to those with bench experience and those with none, that is, catalogers, librarians, collectors, etc., in one session, conservators in another. 4: Some level of technical knowledge very helpful -- even having done a few basic sewing structures and board attachments would help a lot. Readings are essential. 5: Be prepared to absorb an incredible amount of information. Be patient, take it home, and use it. 6: You can't afford to miss it. 7: Visit a hand press ahead of time if you have no bench experience as a hand binder, if at all possible! 10: Don't expect definitive answers, do expect a challenging and stimulating week and an urge to examine as many bindings as you can get your hands on as soon as possible. 11: This course is essential for anyone interested in the book trade during the hand press period. The highest recommendation possible. 12: Need to read supplementary materials in addition to core reading sources prior to class. 13: Do anything you can to take it! 15: An extremely valuable and enjoyable course. 16: Try to construct time lines of national binding structure styles beforehand, the more detailed the better.

Number of respondents: 16


Leave         Tuition        Housing        Travel

Institution   Institution    Institution    Institution
gave me leave paid tuition   paid housing   paid travel

63%           44%            44%            44%

I took vaca-  I paid tui-    I paid for my  I paid my own
tion time     tion myself    own housing    travel

6%            38%            50%            38%

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   exchange       home

25%           18%            6%             12%

Between jobs                 Another 
                             paid tuition

6%                           6%

Six students (38%) were rare book librarians; four students (25%) were conservator/binder/preservation librarians; two students (13%) had a non-professionally-related interest in the subject; one student (6% each) was a general librarian with unspecified rare book duties, a government publications librarian with some rare book duties, a printer, or worked in a museum in work not directly related to the library.