52: Introduction to Illuminated Manuscripts [M-50]
5-9 July 2004
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Very useful. 2: Very useful except for Stripping of the Alters (Duffy). 3: It might be pointed out that Time Sanctified is a must read. The Duffy book has much information, but is a very dry read. 4: They were very useful -- the instructor’s books and the de Hamel readings gave a good overview of the history of manuscript illumination for the period covered by the class. John Harper’s book was also helpful, if a bit hard going at times. 6: I did not read everything but browsed through all titles, which was a good preparation for the course. It gave the idea what the course could offer to me, and what I was expected to know already. 8: Very helpful.
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: Very useful. A separate bibliography would be helpful. 2: Yes. 3: The syllabus is excellent, and will be part of my reference library. It is invaluable! 4: Yes! RW’s handout is a thesaurus of information which would be very difficult to find elsewhere. 5: The course book supplied will become a standard reference tool for me. It was extremely well organized, well written, and includes references. 6: RW prepared and provided us with very useful handouts, which I will be able to use for further research and for my work. 7: They will be very helpful in the future. 8: I will take good care of my course packet. It is full of valuable information.
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 different uses and purposes of different types of liturgical books, and the determination of “use.” Intellectual level appropriate. 2: Yes. Books of Hours most relevant. 3: My greatest interest is in Books of Hours, but the other manuscript categories were definitely relevant. The intellectual level was high and challenging. 4: The entire course. Yes. 5: Beginning to understand the layout/purpose/vocabulary of these manuscripts was the most interesting and fundamentally important first step in their study. The course was appropriate for a wide range of intellectual expertise (from PhD classicists who attended to those without any experience reading these texts). 6: Most important for me was to learn about and understand liturgy and the different kinds of liturgical and lay books. The intellectual level was well adapted to our needs – a good mixture of lecture and application of new knowledge! 7: The explanation of the iconography and edification of the “puzzle” of the calendar were wonderful. Initially, I had thought there would have been greater content dealing with the production of the illuminated manuscript. However, I now realize that that would be very difficult to cover in a week. The information given provides the fundamentals for further investigation. 8: All aspects of the course were interesting and relevant for my purposes. The intellectual level of the course was appropriate.
4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?
[On Thursday, the course took an all-day field trip to the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore.] 1: Yes, very well spent. 2: Yes. 3: Absolutely. The trip was a wonderful experience. 4: Time was very well spent – almost every minute was used for instructional purposes. I only wish we could have stayed longer... 5: One of the fastest days of my life – a brilliant flash. The examples shown at the Walters were both dazzling and illuminating – in every sense of the word. 6: Very well spent! 7: If there were more hours in the day! The trip to the Walters Art Museum was great. I think that displaying the manuscripts with other objects gave me a greater appreciation of the whole. 8: Our trip to view manuscripts at UVa and the Walters Art Museum were remarkable. A rare experience.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: The instructor was knowledgeable and personable, and the lectures were informative and enjoyable. 2: Trip to Baltimore and seeing books, and RW’s excellent lectures. 3: Its organization and depth of coverage were superb! 4: The instructor is a tremendous plus – he has a lively and engaging lecture style, and obviously loves his work. Slides were well chosen, and the hands-on segments on the calendar and the Book of Hours (using facsimiles) were quite helpful. 5: Very approachable, fun, problem-solving approach to what can potentially be a very dense subject. 6: The field trip to Baltimore, where we not only were taught by RW, but also by more staff of the Walters. Looking at original illuminated manuscripts. 7: I truly enjoyed understanding how to “read” what was common reading material of the past. Coming from a non-Catholic background did not make it easy, but RW was able to explain historical and religious theories very well. 8: I enjoyed RW’s course design. We didn’t simply accumulate information, but integrated it as a whole. By the end of the course, we had the pleasure of bringing all of our knowledge to bear on each manuscript. One almost never sees such a prepared teacher. Not only did RW prepare detailed commentary on several hundred slides, he created exercises which allowed us to test our knowledge.
6) How could the course have been improved?
2: Baltimore – leave bags in van so we would have more time to see books. 3: Hardly! 4: Very little needs to be improved. 5: Frankly, I could have been improved before attending with some study of Latin and practice reading gothic handwriting. The course was wonderful. Perhaps a “cheat sheet” of gothic letterforms to help out those of use new to reading it. 6: I expected a very good course; it was even better! 7: I would like to see the introduction of the manufacturing of some of the texts discussed. However, I realize that would be quite difficult. 8: It could be held in a museum or library with a large manuscript collection. It would be tough to improve it.
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?
2-3: None. 6: All materials were safely handled. 7: None.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1-3: Yes. 5: Both. Monday’s lecture on Warren Chappell was fun (especially since my sister is a book designer/illustrator, too). Sunday’s discussion about the “Terry-centric” organization of RBS is very concerning. It needs a foundation. 6: Yes, they were. David Vander Muelen’s lecture was very good, and for me, a wonderful addition to the study of medieval illuminated books. 7: Yes, even though I did not have a great understanding of the topic, I found the lecture enjoyable. The lecture on Warren Chappell was well given. 8: I enjoyed TB’s remarks, but unfortunately I was not feeling up to the Monday night lecture.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
2-5: Yes. 6: Yes, they were. But they were not well enough advertised in the Vade Mecum. Therefore I missed the Museum Night on books/binding, which is one of my major interests. 7: Yes. The hands-on demonstrations were not only a learning experience, they were FUN! 8: Yes. Wonderful exhibits. Excellent staff.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Very much so. 2: Yes, no. 3: This is one of the best courses at RBS. It ranks with courses given by Nicholas Pickwoad, Mirjam Foot, James Mosley, and Sue Allen. I have not yet had Albert Derolez or John Bidwell as teachers. 4: It was extremely worthwhile: I strongly recommend the class. 6: Yes, I did. Come. Take a course. They are very good, a semester worth of knowledge, and provide you with all the most recent research. 7: More than my money’s (actually RBS’s) worth. I would recommend brushing up on Biblical lore prior to taking the course. 8: This was a rare educational experience. It is inspiring to see an expert like RW who teaches with such clarity, energy, and care.
Number of respondents: 8
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
37% 13% 25% 13%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 37% 75% 75%
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 exchange home
63% 50% 0% 12%
There were one rare book librarian (12%), one general librarian with no rare book duties (13%), one teacher/professor (13%), three conservator/binders (37%), and two book-collectors (25%).