1)How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: Very interesting, but they were never addressed in class. (I'd have been fine if I hadn't read them.) It would be good if we were building on our reading. 2: Good. I would have liked more suggestions for reading about script. 3: Useful - not technical, but a good introduction. 4: Useful and interesting, since they provided a historical framework. 5: Very. 6: The de Hamel was especially useful. 7: Very useful: they were well written surveys. 8: Great overview. 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: A weak point - the weakest point. There was no syllabus. The course reader doesn't make sense by itself; without my glasses, will be of minimal use to me later. 2: Yes, useful and appropriate. Given enough time, I hope to use the material in the future. 3: Yes - great bibliography, well annotated in class; good review of other readings. 4: Yes, a few more captions in the syllabus would have been nice. I expect to use it as a reference. 5-6: Yes. 7: AD's workbook was invaluable for laying out the course and providing a basis for further work. 8: Yes. I am very glad to have the bibliography (which was also useful in identifying authors we discussed). Also, the various diagrams were a big help during the discussion and saved a lot of time drawing, etc. 3)Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: Yes. 2: Yes, first rate, challenging, the instructor was an expert on the subject. 3: Absolutely - challenging, but surmountable. 4: Yes, very stimulating. 5: Yes - outstanding. 6-7: Yes. 8: It was fairly and appropriately pitched. Many of the class already had significant background, and for those of us, the great benefit was in hearing AD speculate, interpret on the fly, think out loud. 4)If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1: The field trip [to the Folger and LC] was great - but I'd prefer less (or no) time at the Folger and all at LC. The physical arrangements for looking at the manuscripts were awkward and uncomfortable. Perhaps - with proper training - we could be allowed to look at each manuscript in small groups? We'd learn much more that way. 2: Very much so. I wish we could have spent more time on this, especially with the collections at the Library of Congress. 3: Terrific - the visit to the Library of Congress was spectacular; and it was fun to watch three members of the Folger staff taking notes as AD talked! 4: Yes, the trip to Washington was very good. Time on the road was shorter than I'd expected. A little less time at the Folger and a little more at LC would have been better. 5: Yes. 6: The six hours in Washington fulfilled their purpose. Also, the timing of the visit (fourth day) was optimal, since we could put into practice the skills we had acquire during the first three days. 7: Fabulous, especially the Library of Congress. Mark Dimunation was not only helpful but knowledgeable and very enthusiastic. To see real, whole manuscripts was irreplaceable - and what manuscripts! 8: Reasonably. We had a nice trip to DC. The emphasis there, especially at LC, was on high spots, which can't be helped, but it shifted the emphasis of the day from purer codicology toward connoisseurship/esthetics. 5)Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations? 1: I don't remember the course description. 3: Yes. It was more user-friendly than I had expected, yet extraordinarily informative and challenging. 4-7: Yes. 8: Pretty well. I thought it would be pitched a little higher than it was. 6)What did you like best about the course? 1: The hands-on work with manuscripts and transcription; sorting through the manuscript fragments on the last day was wonderful! AD's charm. It took a while to grow on me, but I was seduced! 2: Various aspects that were quite new to me, primarily the manuscript as physical object. 3: AD's command of his field. I enjoyed his low-key and charming presentation of difficult concepts. A most enjoyable experience. 4: The combination of theory, methodology, and hands-on. 5: The incredible expertise of our instructor. The enthusiasm (and erudition) of my fellow students. 6: AD's global approach to codicology and his overall enthusiasm and pedagogical insight. 7: Listening to AD discuss the manuscript fragments and leaves. 8: AD's organization and mastery of the material and his constant insights into new questions that could be examined through codicological investigation. 7)How could the course have been improved? 1: I really felt the need for a syllabus. I needed to know up front what the structure of the whole course was. Going day to day without knowing what the plan was was very frustrating. This isn't to say that AD was disorganized - he wasn't. He always knew what he was going to do next, but didn't tell us. It may be that he knows the structure of the course so well that it doesn't occur to him that we don't, and that we might need to know it, not to feel adrift. Are there no manuscripts we could work on here at UVa? I can't believe that. 3: I can't think of a way - I feel we came a long way as a class. 5: No way. 6: To give the student a chance to make hands-on descriptions of actual codices and not just fragments. 7: It couldn't have been improved. 8: Although we worked in class, I would not have minded working outside class a couple of times if materials could have been made available - for example, census of format could have been done outside if catalogs were available. 8)We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the BAP's 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: Fine. Fun teaching collection. Longer rulers. 4: I think we handled things pretty responsibly and the hands-on aspect is very important. 5: None. 7: It was so wonderful that we were allowed to work with the fragments. They brought the course into focus in a practical way. 8: I would have preferred stricter observance of rules against beverages and non-pencil writing materials in our room, where both old material and reference works were present. 9)Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class, eg Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner and videos, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, etc. 1: I was too "booked out" to do any of the activities. Dinner was good on Sunday. 2: Videos were excellent. The evening lectures were well worth attending, particularly Richard Wendorf's presentation. 4: Sunday dinner and the videos were fine. Evening lectures varied in the level of interest, but what I find interesting will bore someone else, and vice versa. 5: The videos were not of particular interest. 6: Sunday night dinner: very useful for meeting with your future classmates. 7: Tour and dinner Sunday night were great. The videos were not particularly good. Bookseller Night was a lot of fun. 10)Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth? 1: Yes. 2: Yes, for someone interested, I would highly recommend it: an instructor who is tops in his field, good slides and materials to work with. 3: Absolutely - I strongly recommend it for anyone working with manuscripts. 4: Bring colored pencils (red, blue, green, purple, yellow). Yes, I got my money's worth. 5: It's very expensive - I will not be able to do this any time soon - but I am very glad that I could come once. 6: Certainly! 7: This course was absolutely delightful. The students ranged from art historians to Latinists, and we all agreed that it was both worthwhile and non-threatening. Number of respondents: 8 PERCENTAGES Leave Tuition Housing Travel Institution gave me leave 25% Institution paid tuition 63% Institution paid housing 50% Institution paid travel 50% I took vacation time 25% I paid tuition myself 37% I paid for my own housing 37% I paid for my own travel 37% N/A: Self-employed, retired, or had time off 50% N/A: Self-employed, retired, or exchange 0% N/A: Stayed with friends or lived at home 13% N/A: Lived nearby 13% There were eight students: three (37%) teacher/professors, two (25%) archivist/manuscript librarians, one (13%) general librarian with no rare book duties, one (13%) rare book librarian, and one (13%) full-time student (research fellow).

[an error occurred while processing this directive]