Albert Derolez

Introduction to Western Codicology

January 2010

 

 

1)      How useful were the pre-course readings?

 

1: The pre-course readings were useful and complemented the material shown nicely. 2: Very useful, I'm sure, but I've had a lot of overlap. 3: Useful. 4: Pre-course readings were useful. 5: Absolutely key. If you have no background you would be totally lost without the readings. 6: Very, very helpful. Wish I'd read Bischoff and Derolez twice and taken better notes: so much information!

 

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: The course materials, especially the bibliography, will be very useful to me. 2: AD's course book will be priceless and extremely useful in future. 3: Yes—I plan to keep the notes we were given as a reference guide. 4: Course materials were and will be useful. 5: Yes, good materials—very appropriate—perhaps an additional one-page syllabus with what (in general) will happen each day. 6: I already owned two of the books (De Hamel and Shailor) and they're very helpful. If I continue working with manuscripts, I will definitely buy the other two.

 

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: The methods of production and dating were useful—I don't work with Italian MSS, so that is what I can most easily take back to my work in English. The level of the course was perfect for me. 2: This is directly relevant to my job and what I wanted to learn. It was just right. 3: Most useful was the study of the early MS as an object, specifically seeing what characteristics are important to study and record, as opposed to which are not. 4: Course was just about right. Perhaps doing one full MS description for each student would be useful, i.e., going though all elements of description rather than select elements.  5: In particular the statistical information showing the characteristics common to different parts of the world. Reference books AD introduced. Excellent. 6: The course was demanding: We saw dozens of manuscripts and examined them closely, learned about the history of codicology. But it was fantastic—the immersion made the things we were learning about really stick. I would not change anything. (I loved learning about things that can help date manuscripts.)

           

4)      What did you like best about the course?

 

1: The manuscripts, of course, and also AD. His knowledge made this a real learning experience. 2: AD's brilliance. 3: Handling original early MSS, being able to compare many examples of similar works side by side. 4: Range of materials presented. Instructor allowed us to direct the course of our questions, responded to our queries rather than dictate too much the programme. 5: AD's kindness and punctuality and excitement about his subject. Always willing to help—incredible knowledge of all the stuff—willingness to explain, assist, teach—&c. 6: Hands-on work with the Walters manuscripts. Wow. We really got to APPLY what we were learning.

                       

5)      How could the course have been improved?

 

1: I would have liked the items discussed in the lecture to be mapped to texts during discussion. 2: I don't think this is a good course for someone who has had little or no exposure to manuscripts. Most of the class had knowledge but some did not. 3: Perhaps more lectures on the history of MS production in different parts of Europe at different eras —instead, these titbits of history and geography we brought up as examples appeared. 5: Nothing major—just the coffee service could have been better, but I'd never complain to any prospective students—snacks are so insignificant. 6: Wouldn't change it: no suggestions for improvement. More manuscripts would have been too many—fewer, too few. The lectures were interesting and a nice rest between examining manuscripts.

           

6)      How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this class?

 

1: Evaluating and dating English manuscripts and archival work for my dissertation. Also I hope to incorporate it into a History of the Medical Book course. 2: I work with manuscripts all the time and will regularly or somewhat regularly use these skills. 3: I now know more about the MSS collection at my Institution, and I hope to be able to discuss and study them more. It should also help me purchase MSS for my library more competently. 4: Skills will be used doing MS analysis and inspection. Especially valuable was opportunity to handle and examine MSS that are outside my field and so would not otherwise be encountered. 5: Research work, writing thesis (possibly)—definitely for own scholarly research post-thesis. 6: Volunteering to assist in cataloging or digitizing manuscripts at my school library.    

           

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: I think the methods used at the Walters were excellent. 3: The security at the Peabody library was a bit lax—recommend they get another staff member to assist. 5: Can't think of any. 6: None: everything was handled carefully and respectfully. The wooden blocks the Walters uses are a very good system.

 

8)      If your course left the classroom for field trips, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?

 

1: Yes—the trip to the Peabody was most useful. 2: Yes. 3: Yes, though the Peabody's collection isn't as fabulous as the Walters; but that's good—we can't learn codicology with only the most beautiful examples of everything. Because the Peabody is just down the block, it was very convenient. 5: Yes. However sometimes it is weary to wait one hour before they start. Perhaps go right after class ends. Or do dinner together. 6: Yes. Manuscripts at the Peabody were interesting and differed from most of those we saw at the Walters.

                                               

9)      If you attended the Monday night lecture, was it worth attending?

 

1: Very much so! I intend to talk to my University's outreach director of the special collections library and my advisor about Fr Suarez's talk. 2: Naturally. 3: Yes—it was nice to meet and hear Michael Suarez. 4: Yes. Lecture was informative, interesting, and succinct. 5: The comments were most interesting. Dr Suarez is very knowledgeable—but I do wish he turn down the pedagogical "gesturing" a bit. It comes off as phony. 6: Yes! It was great: interesting and relevant to both classes.

 

10)       Did you get your or your institution's money's worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?

 

1: Yes, I did. I would suggest brushing up on your paleography prior to attending to get the most out of the discussion of scripts as a codiological tool. 2: Absolutely. I do think that in future it might be better for all students in this particular class to have the same background in the subject. Most did, but some didn't, and it took up some time to explain basic things, I think. 3: Yes—very much worth the cost. 4: Money well spent. Very condensed, but no foreseeable way of not doing the course this way. 5: Yes. Fabulous. Advice—go home and get a good night's sleep each night. Locate Sasha's and Donna's quickly!! Stay nearby—highly recommend the Peabody, Trent, &. 6: The reading is incredibly helpful—I found myself referring to AD's book at night after class. I think the more you know about manuscripts, the more you get from this class, but if you like them, you'll like this class.     

 

 

Number of respondents: 6

 

Percentages

 

Leave                         Tuition                     Housing                   Travel

 

Institution                  Institution                  Institution                  Institution

gave me leave            paid tuition                 paid housing              paid travel

 

50%                             50%                             33%                             50%

 

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

tion time                     tion myself                 own housing              travel

 

0%                               17%                             33%                             50%

 

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

 

50%                             33%                             34%                             0%

 

 

 

There were 2 rare book librarians (33%), 2 full-time students (33%), 2 teachers or professors, 1 of whom was also a student (34%).