3-7 November 2008

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Wonderful; completely relevant and highly useful. 2: Very useful. 3: They were very helpful, and not too extensive, so easy to complete. 4: Very useful. AD assigned a very manageable amount of reading, all of which was relevant as preparation for the class. There was not too much restating of the reading material in class, either. 5: Very useful. 6: The readings filled in gaps which the course did not cover. 7: Yes. 8: Somewhat repetitive, but served as a good introduction; the course was better for having done them. 9: Very useful. 10: The pre-course readings were 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: Absolutely. This class was a masterpiece of organization and pacing. 2: Yes, in particular the bibliography. 3: Very useful, and I look forward to using them when I return home. 4: I have not yet gone through every section, but many aspects which we used in class I will refer to again at home. 5: Yes, useful during class, and shall also be useful for future work. 6: The booklet looks to be very useful for future reference, was disappointed by the lack of a syllabus and thus structure for the course. 7: Yes. 8: The workbook could be in a more intuitive order, but it has been, and will be an extremely helpful text. 9: Yes. 10: The materials were fantastic. I will probably draw from them for the rest of my career, both in teaching and researching.

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: In my view this was a perfect class ideally suited to all participants. The intellectual content exceeded my highest expectations. 2: Handling MSS. 3: Yes – appropriate intellectual level. The codicological analysis and description writing were the most helpful for my work. 4: The intellectual level was just fine. I had hoped for more discussion of bookbinding structures, but since we got to handle the MSS, I was able to observe them independently. 5: The intellectual level was appropriate. The course content, and the opportunity to practice description with medieval MSS – with feedback from AD – has been immensely valuable. 6: The intellectual level was appropriate, but assumed prior knowledge of descriptive bibliography. I was most interested in historical trends. 7: The quantitative approach to MS study, and theoretical considerations about how to analyze books versus other written documents. 8: The entire course was relevant. The class level, considering the diversity of the students, was ideal. I would be interested in an advanced course on MS codicology. 9: The bibliography of codicology and the historical context of medieval MS production were of the greatest relevance to me. Yes. 10: Every aspect of the course was 100% relevant to my purposes. The intellectual level was fine.

4) Was time devoted to studying original materials at WAM or JHU well spent?

1: Absolutely. Working with the MSS themselves exemplified the theoretical insights that AD so carefully laid out. Masterful and intensive preparation. 2: Both WAM and JHU offered wonderful materials and knowledgeable, helpful staff. 3: Yes! Your eye can be trained only by constantly seeing the MSS themselves. William Noel was incredibly generous with WAM’s MSS. 4: The time with the materials was a rare opportunity. It is a wonderful way to be exposed to techniques in a short period of time . . . priceless. 5: Yes; being able to work with the MSS was exceptional. 6: I sort of had the impression there was too much time devoted to gushing over MSS, too little to critical work. 7: Yes. 8: Definitely. WAM has some wonderful items. 9: Very much so. 10: Extremely. We used every second allowed to study the MSS.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: AD and my classmates; working with original materials at the Walters and JHU; educational experience; vault tour by WN; emphasis on scholarship. 2: Exposure to great materials and a great mind. AD shared his extensive experience and expert conclusions. You can read his books and articles, but you can’t ask them questions. 3: Seeing all those MSS, and being able to page through them myself. 4: All of it. 5: The combination of a great instructor and a great collection. 6: The little insights from AD, and small details. 7: The comparative analysis of a group of MSS, and the technical aspects of MS production. 8: I can’t identify any one aspect; the course was wonderful. 9: The thoroughness of the instructor’s knowledge of MSS, and his ability to present the material in an interesting way. 10: AD, and working with original documents.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: This course has obviously received rigorous attention; I see absolutely no deficiencies. 2: Making it a whole semester, although I understand why it is not. 3: A bit more order to the content, or even receiving a syllabus on the first day. 4: By being longer. 6: More structure, so that students could organize all they were being told. 7: Any article that served as an example of how to apply AD’s ideas, e.g., the article in the Gumbert Festschrift. 8: It could have been better organized, but this was hardly a significant problem. 9: I don’t know. 10: More MSS.

7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by our host institutions. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?

1: None. 2: Perhaps a short demonstration every morning as a reminder. 3: Most everyone was very careful. 4: None. However, many who work or have worked with MSS were frustrated by some of the restrictions. 7: No. 8: It was fine; not being able to lift up a MS was somewhat irritating – perhaps this could be allowed beginning on the third day after we are acclimatized. 9: More space at the tables, so that student writing materials do not have to compete for space with the MSS. 10: None. The items seem to have been handled respectfully and safely.

8) If you attended the Sunday reception and/or Monday night lecture, were they worth attending?

1: Absolutely essential; fascinating adjuncts and essential for getting to know classmates. 2: The Sunday reception was worth it to get to know the interesting colleagues I now know all over the country. The Monday night lecture [by William Noel] was fascinating (especially for those of us who haven’t heard it.) 3: The Monday lecture by WN was excellent; what an engaging speaker he is! 4: Yes. 5: Yes. The Monday lecture was fascinating! 6: The Monday night lecture was very interesting and relevant. 7: Yes. 8: The Monday lecture was better than the Sunday reception. 9: The Monday night lecture was one of the best talks I have ever heard. 10: Most definitely.

9) If you attended the Tuesday evening tour of JHU’s Peabody Library, was the time profitably spent?

1: Yes, most definitely. The tour was exceptionally engaging; the books fascinating. 2: Fascinating materials; Earle Havens and his staff member were both welcoming. 3: N/A; but the Wednesday tour at WAM was fabulous! 4: That was better than I expected; the facilities tour was nice, but the time in Special Collections was very interesting. 7-8: Yes. 9: Very much so. 10: Most definitely.

10) 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: One of the best academic experiences of my life, and I am grateful to TB and AD for such an exceptional opportunity. The entire experience was brilliantly conceived and executed. Bravo! I hope to take many more courses. 2: Money well spent. 3: Oh yes! I loved this group – it was very useful hearing the varied perspectives of scholars and librarians, and this combination of personalities really made for a wonderful overall RBS experience. 4: Yes. RBS is always worth the money and time. I encourage others to take a course they are interested in ASAP, since they are not always being repeated with the same instructor. 5: Yes. 6: No. Felt that I received too little information in a disorganized manner; most of what I learned was by asking specific questions. 7: Yes. 8: Yes. However, the deadlines for scholarships are problematic, and I am led to understand that some people applied after them, and applications were still accepted. This is unfortunate for those of us who did not send in late applications; if true! [It’s not; the RBS Scholarship Committee adhered quite strictly to the application deadlines it set. -Ed.] 9: Definitely. Brush-up your Latin! 10: Of course! I’m very thankful for this experience, and that RBS provided a scholarship for someone like me to attend. I would recommend this program to anyone interested.

Number of respondents: 10

Percentages

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

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

60% 50% 30% 40%

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

30% 20% 50% 60%

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

10% 30% 20% 0%

There were 3 rare book librarians (30%); 2 teachers (20%); 2 conservators (20%); 1 general librarian with some rare book duties (10%); 1 scholar (10%); and 1 full-time student (10%)