No. 32: The Use of Physical Evidence in Early Printed Books
29 July - 2 August 1996
|
No. 32: The Use of Physical Evidence in Early Printed Books 29 July - 2 August 1996 |
|
1. How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: Could have had more readings, but those suggested were useful. 2: Directly relevant and useful. 3: They were extremely useful, especially when supplemented by PN's words. 4: Was unable to obtain readings before arrival. Found the readings generally informative, but not crucial to the course. 5: Stevenson and Bradshaw were useful. The others were either too brief or too specialized to be of great help. 6: Very useful. Just enough mix of technical information and theory. Very readable. 7: Extremely useful, to the point, and enjoyable. They were the best written articles, as a group, that I've read for an RBS course (quite elegant).8: Very. However, not all the broad topics they addressed were covered in the course. 9: Quite useful. 10: Readings were useful. Some (c19 imprints) were very difficult to obtain via ILL. Instructor should not be bashful about including some of his own writings as part of the pre-course readings. 11: The reading list was of course difficult to accumulate, consisting as it did of pre-1950 imprints with a considerable number of c19 materials thrown in. For this kind of course, though, there really isn't much of an alternative. 12: Some items were so hard to find (ie, only through ILL) that I was discouraged from reading them. It would have been better to have a photocopied packet of selected articles. |
|
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: Useful, but would be improved by including citations for the workbook leaves, as applicable. 2: Yes, especially after I return home. 3: Yes. 4: Yes  lacked only a thorough bibliography of relevant works. 5: The course packet that was handed out contained important images and other information. There wasn't a syllabus in the course. Yes, the packet will be useful. 6: Yes 7: Undoubtedly. 8: Interesting, but desultory, and much of it not used in course. A few pages will be useful at home. 9: Yes and yes. 10: Yesuseful in class. Had several charts which I will use in the future. 11: Extremely useful, well-organized, and comprehensivethey will be a valuable resource for me in the future. 12: Yes, although more commentary would make them more useful after I return home. |
|
3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: Yes. 2: Yes. 3: Yes. He could have pushed us more, but that's no criticism. 4: Yes. 5: Yes, it was appropriate. 6: Yes. 7: Yes. But perhaps students should review Bowers, Gaskell, et al before the course so less time need be spent on that aspect. 8: It was pitched too low for my needs. 9: It was appropriate for me. 10: Definitely. 11: PN was understandably interested in pursuing this course on a level that warranted advance preparation. He very clearly warned us of what we needed to know, however, and the course proved to be of great value. For this topic, the intellectual level was indeed appropriate. 12: Yes, although I would have enjoyed more reflection on the significance of the various aspects of physical evidence in books. (Some of the debates over the best method of collation were not especially helpful. I would have preferred more discussion of the scholarly uses of collation.) |
|
4. 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: Yes. 2: Exactly corresponded. Expectations met. 3: Yes. 4: Course basically met the description. Personally would have liked more attention on bindings and type fonts, but realize that not all aspects of early book production could possibly be covered in one week. 5: In general, the ECD was met, although the emphasis was on description of incunables rather than the actual methods for uncovering and assessing evidence in early printed books. 6: Yes, although I would have preferred equal time for binding and provenance (equal to that spent on paper and type), obviously all courses in themselves, but all so important to the general topic of physical evidence of the early printed book. 7: Yes. 8: Much time at the beginning of the week was spent on terminology and semantics how to talk about discoveries rather than how to make and interpret them. Rather more theoretical than practical. The bits on the evolution of bibliographical thought were interesting, but took up more time than one would have expected. 9: Yes, largely. 10: From the course description I thought we might deal with some c16 books. However the course was limited to books printed before 1501. Expectations of quality and diversity of topics were exceeded. 11: Actually, no. About half this course would have been more appropriately titled "The Bibliography of Incunabula." As a result, the time actually learning about physical evidence (the stated description) was less than I expected. In retrospect, however, I can see the need to cover a lot of the topics we did, and the course was actually quite coherent in its organization. 12: 1) In general, yes. PN is superbly prepared and very approachable. 2) Not as well as I had hoped. Again, I would have appreciated more commentary on the uses of watermarks, rubrication, bindings, collations, provenance, etc., in scholarship. The question in great part remains, at least for me, How do I use this knowledge in my own research publications? |
|
5. What did you like best about the course? 1: Colloquial nature of the proceedings. 2: Instructor's involvement with the topic, reports of his own research, as well as his tolerance and acceptance of a broad range of questions. 3: Watching how PN approached specific problems. I will also have plenty to digest over the next few months/years. 4: Knowledgeable, personable instructor, patient with students' questions. Good cross-section of participants. 5: PN's experience as a bibliographer and his willingness to share his knowledge and experience with students. 6: Practical, specific information conveyed in relaxed atmosphere by overwhelmingly knowledgeable and inspirational instructor who showed only kindness and humility in his teaching. 7: PN. Learning about paper. Meeting the other students (very well selected!). 8: The last half-day going over features in the actual books interactively with the instructor. The value for me was proportional to the amount of hard information being exchanged per minute, and the amount of analysis of the examples with PN interacting. 9: PN is learned and knows books intimately. When he is direct, he can blast away layers of ignorance; when he wanders, we pick up a lot of material along the way. I also found that I learned a lot from my fellow students. 10: The tremendous knowledge base of the instructor and use of actual incunables to demonstrate important points in his lectures. 11: The ability to combine physical examination of books with the guidance and commentary of a master (PN). His guidance and mastery of the material were nothing short of outstanding. 12: The instructor's incomparable preparation, hands-on experience, and knowledge of incunables. |
|
6. How could the course have been improved? |
|
1: I would have benefited from more discussion of bindings, but overall I thought the course was excellent. 2: Cannot really say that it could be improved. 3: If anything, I would have liked to hear PN talk more. There were a few specific topics I might have liked to see covered in more detail, but given the diversity of interests in class, I doubt there would be any concurrence on what these particular topics should be. 4: Better pacing (occasionally class became mired in minute points). Clearer daily schedule to adhere to. Course had no field trip. A relevant exhibit in Special Collections might have been useful. [The course was held within Special Collections; hence PN's ability to use UVa incunables ad lib in class. -Ed.] 5: The instructor could have systematically presented in the first two days the most important aspects of different types of evidence and in the last three had students work closely with several different books. As it is, we worked with only one or two books each when I feel it would have been beneficial to have experience with others, in a workshop fashion. The instructor could then serve as a consultant. In other words, I would have appreciated an even more hands-on approach. Also, provide us with a bibliography of important reference works and source books. 6: Less Socratic, more lecture time divided more equally among topics covered. 7: PN could worry less about students' participation and please just lecture freely (no need for Socratic method). I would enjoy hearing him free associate about (or describe systematically) a larger group of books in the classroom. That is, perhaps a dozen or more books could be brought into the classroom for his comments on all aspects of physical evidence. 8: a) Provide a bibliography. b) Pick up the pace. c) Structure more logically. More solid instruction and guidance at the beginning, followed by examination of examples and exercises in description after we know what we're looking for, and why. Go over exercises immediately. d) Concentrate on practical strategies for research. 9: More lecturing. 10: By having the RBS leader not poison the instructor the evening meal prior to the last day! 11: The biggest weakness of the course was the relative lack of source material. If RBS wishes to offer a course on early printed books, then a sufficient amount of source material (incunables) needs to be assembled in advance. Eight items was not enough for the instructor to work with. 12: Tighter organization and clearer focus. |
|
7. Please comment at will 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, Bookseller Night, tour of the Etext Center or Electronic Classroom, printing demonstrations, evening lectures, &c. 1: I attended none course is intense and I need a break away from that venue. Evening programs have no appeal for me. 2: A pleasant, informative diversion after the greater amount of material during the day. 3: They were exactly what I had energy for at that time; they were very appropriate. 4: Generally informative and enjoyable. I doubt that they rate raves, but they are worth attending. 6: Good. Perfect length and location. 7: I attended TB's lecture, which was informative and of an appropriate length. 8: TB's is much improvedI would very much look forward to similar talks annually. The other two were enjoyable. 9: I enjoyed the one lecture I attended, but would have gone to others if they had been scheduled later. (I found I needed to walk or swim after class all day.) 10: TBnot as good as last year. 11: The quality of the lectures was quite variable. I enjoyed TB's address because of its relevance, but felt the focus of some of the other lectures was of a difficult nature. 12: I enjoyed both. |
|
8. Any final thoughts? 2: Be prepared for a wonderful experience. 3: Come prepared. 6: Do it! No one interested in this era of the book could possibly regret taking this course. 7: Do the reading. Read PN. Review your collational formulas. 10: The course could easily be expanded into two weeks. We did not have time to cover approximately 25% of the syllabus. 11: I do not regret for a minute any of the advance preparation I did for the course. It was a fair amount of work, but I am very happy with what I learned in the space of a week. The course was an immersion into the material, but one well worth undertaking. 12: Take TB's DesBib course first. |
|
Number of respondents: 12 |
|
|
|
*One student (8%) is unsure of professional leave. **One student (8%) is unsure of institutional funding. ***One student (8%) used frequent flyer credits. |
|
There were twelve students, six rare book librarians (50%), three teacher/professors (25%), two book collectors (17%), and one general librarian with some rare book duties (8%). |