Nicolas Barker

M-80: Introduction to European Handwriting

11-15 June 2007 in Charlottesville

 

1)    How useful were the pre-course readings?

 

1: Very useful; especially the sources on English handwriting provided on the preliminary list of seven titles, and particularly English Handwriting, 1400-1650: An Introductory Manual by Preston & Yeandle. 2: Not all that useful. They dealt largely with the printed letter; we studied writing. 4: Useful. 5: Readings were generally relevant. 6: Many of the readings were calligraphic example books with little or no text. By themselves, they would be merely entertaining, but were useful in conjunction with the other, textual assignments. 7: Since I had very little knowledge of the subject, the pre-course readings were an excellent introduction. 8: Useful. It might be well to specify that the class is devoted to “European handwriting 1500-1900", rather than “European handwriting”. This would allow concentration on the more relevant later material. 9: Very useful.

 

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. In particular, the German legal document that I transcribed in class will serve as a model for a Silesian MS of the same period that I am working on at home. 2: Class materials were first rate, appropriate for what was discussed, and ideal as class exercise. 3: We worked with original c15 – c19 documents which were returned to RBS. The material was very helpful indeed for a worthwhile experience. 4: I wish we were given handouts! There were none, except for the schedule of sessions. 5: Syllabus was skeletal. 6: The copies of manuscripts we were allowed to keep will greatly come in handy. 7-8: Yes. 9: N/A.

 

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: As above; absolutely. 2: Class exercises were of the greatest relevance. NB’s vast knowledge of the subject, and a great many other subjects, presented us with the highest level of intellectual content. 3: I picked the instructor rather than the course. NB is a font of knowledge about a lot of things that I am interested in. 4: The discussion of the earliest Italian writing manuals. Yes. 5: Nomenclature, evolution of handwriting. 6: The Germanic scripts were of the greatest interest to me. The level of conversation while high, was still comfortable, since everyone seemed to come to this class well prepared. 7: I rather enjoyed transcribing an historic document and am certain this will benefit my work. The course appears to be appropriate for beginners and advanced persons alike. 8: The chance to improve my ability to read old handwriting, to increase my general background in the field, and to get familiar with the jargon. 9: The individual projects worked out really well, thanks to NB. Great material from England and Italy (especially good). It is not easy to learn about and handle Italian manuscripts. NB was brilliant on all fronts.

 

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: Yes, though what we saw was mostly letters. We were hoping to see some MSS books, too. 2: The trip to Alderman Library SC to look at MSS was pretty much useless because it offers a ten second or so glance at a MS presented for your inspection; why not put some on temporary exhibit? That would offer a better chance to study the object. 3: Harrison-Small Special Collections – Yes. Alderman Library Reference Room – No. 4: Somewhat; the selection of materials that we viewed was unfocused. 5: I found SC visit contributed little beyond what was to be seen in the Study Collections in class. 6: I felt the material we were shown, while very interesting, was not exactly relevant to our subject. 7: Yes. 8: The visit to Alderman Library reference room was unnecessary. The visit to SC was not helpful; apparently there were problems in pulling the correct MSS. 9: SC material was a bit bland, I thought.

 

5)    What did you like best about the course?

 

1: NB tells the best stories of anybody I know. 2: NB’s wide knowledge of this subject, and anecdotes. 3: NB and fellow participants. 4: NB’s kindness and ability to tell a good story. 6: Having the chance to work with materials from such a wide range of dates and locations.7: NB’s presentation style and willingness to answer questions. 8: The instructor’s knowledge and sense of humor. 9: NB was amazingly great.

 

6)    How could the course have been improved?

 

1: Everything was perfect, except as noted in [question] four above. 2: Can’t think of any suggestions. 3: More time devoted to individual research projects. 4: The instructor could have been more organized and prepared, with much less “down-time” (when we flipped through books and manuscripts without clear guidance of what we were looking at). Handouts with examples of the different styles of handwriting would have been very useful. 5: Handouts could be provided with, insofar as possible, time lines, names of significant figures, bibliography. It would be useful to view more documents with an overhead viewer to point out salient characteristics of various writing styles e.g., secretarial, &c. This would help in allowing one to make a more informed assessment of an unknown item. 6: Stricter adherence to the schedule, timewise. 7: Perhaps a few less items to pass around the room as this held up the lecture. 9: Perhaps students could have assembled a glossary of terms? Perhaps a few [illegible] with each student to give suggestions for future research and study.

 

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 noted with great satisfaction the new notes on book hygiene on page sixteen of The Student’s Vade Mecum. I have nothing to add to those. 2: Tell students to wash hands after food, and female students not to use hand lotion. 3: The materials were excellent, but the files of documents had been disturbed since NB had organized them five years ago – this entailed some wasted time. 4: We were using pens (some of us), and drinking beverages while rare material was on the table, which felt wrong! 6: I would encourage the use of the overhead projector for delicate materials. Also, if instructors know how to use them, or are taught, they will be more likely to use them. 9: None.

 

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

 

1: N/A 2: Yes, even if the presentation of a subject is less than perfect e.g., Michael Suarez’s lecture, it is still worth listening to. 3: I attended Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday – all worthwhile. 4: Yes. 5: N/A. 6: Did not attend. 7: Yes. 8: Both lectures were good. 9: Somewhat, though the events could have been more entertaining: I thought that fewer refreshments each day and one more memorable [illegible].

 

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: I didn’t use my own money, but I do hope that I got [my institution’s] and Virginia’s money’s worth. This was one of the most rewarding of the many rewarding weeks I have spent at RBS. Many thanks! 2: Money’s worth, yes; worth taking the course even if you think it would not serve your particular purpose. 3: Yes. RBS is a great institution. I enjoyed meeting many of the participants, not just my own class. This was my first time at RBS. 4: Somewhat. The pace of the class was slow and haphazard, and we would often end up focusing on the contents of manuscripts rather than the handwriting. There was no paleographical instruction what­soever. 6: Yes. 9: Surely did. NB should be given an honorary doctorate from UVa, if you want my opinion. RBS is very fortunate that NB gives this course. I expected it to be excellent – but it was much better than excellent.

 

Number of respondents: 9

 

Percentages

 

Leave                        Tuition                      Housing                    Travel

Institution                 Institution                 Institution                 Institution

gave me leave            paid tuition               paid housing              paid travel

56%                             22%                             67%                             56%

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

tion time                    tion myself                 own housing              travel

0%                               33%                             33%                             44%

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

44%                             44%                             0%                               0%

 

There were 2 rare book librarians (22%); 2 archivist/manuscript librarians (22%); 1 professor (11%); 1 full-time student (11%); 1 conservator (11%); 1 book collector (11%); and 1 retired professional (11%).