81: Introduction to Codicology [M-20]
2-6 August 2004
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Reading Derolez and Bischoff were helpful; skimming de Hamel and Shailor was sufficient. 2: Useful for the basic vocabulary and background. Might also want to include D. Muzerelle’s Vocabulaire Codicologique, which is presently available online. 3: Bischoff and Shailor were very useful. De Hamel was interesting, but not as applicable to the course, though for those with no background in medieval MSS, it may have been a helpful introduction. 4: The readings were essentially introductory and not really necessary for anyone working in the field already. They certainly did not alter or improve my appreciation of the course. 5: Pre-course readings were quite helpful. Perhaps it may be suggested that a Latin dictionary would also be helpful. 6: Excellent. 7: Very valuable for understanding the general framework for discussion. 8: Very useful.
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: Yes. I was glad to receive all of the handouts, and AD provided us with all additional materials we requested. 2: Yes. 3: Yes. 4: The handouts were exceptional and will be most useful in my work as a rare book librarian. 5: All materials were quite appropriate, and I expect the materials will be very useful in the future. 6: Excellent. 7: Yes. The bibliography I received is thorough and extremely useful for my later work. I thought the materials were very well-organized. 8: Very useful. Will use in future.
3) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
1: Learning to look at many different codicological aspects separately (i.e. one at a time) was avery useful approach. It changed the way I look at MS. 2: Learning to use the reference materials and culling data from them to draw broader conclusions. 3: Yes. I found the examination of manuscripts the most useful for understanding the concepts. 4: The discussion of pricking and ruling was incredibly interesting, and it has given me new approaches for studying my institution’s collection. 5: Intellectual level was appropriate. Lectures were extremely informative with regard to my personal interests. 6: Specialized study of Gothic/Renaissance structures was just what I wanted – some better access to MSS here at RBS would be great. 7: The aspect dealing with how quire structure can reveal much about the original conception and construction of the manuscript was of great interest to my own dissertation research. 8: The hands-on aspects; counting, measuring, graphing; detailed discussion of bibliography which might be read in future.
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: It was wonderful to see AD in action. Also, the timing was excellent, because we had sufficient class time prior to the trip to learn what to look for. 2: Yes – it was very useful having time to go through MS with AD. 3: Yes, very much so. 4: The trip to the Library of Congress, the Folger, and the National Library of Medicine was fabulous. It was unfortunate that so much had to be crammed into so short a space of time. 5: Field trip was fascinating and well worth the very long ride. Perhaps a better restaurant could have been selected. A tapas bar is a poor choice for a large group. 6: A marathon! 7: Yes. 8: Yes – it was particularly helpful to be able to see the instructor drawing conclusions based on things such as quire structure, rulings, &c.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: Being exposed to AD’s wisdom and vast knowledge, and having the opportunity to get to know him. He is truly amazing! 2: The exercises we did in class, and the opportunity to view MSS with AD to see how he approaches his work. 3: The instructor. 4: The character of the instructor. I have rarely met someone so erudite and yet so humble and approachable. 5: AD!! 6: Opportunity to learn from this remarkable teacher. 7: I appreciated how there was both a very complete overview of sources, different aspects of the field of codicology, and diverse approaches, and yet at the same time the opportunity to examine some very insightful in-depth case studies in the material. It made the whole material much more meaningful and relevant. 8: Instructor – knowledgeable and charming.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: Only by making it two weeks! 2: Discussion of practical approaches to MS when doing a codicological study (i.e. whether he uses a checklist when initally investigating a MS, &c.). 3: I would have liked to have had the opportunity to work with actual MSS and to make a codicological analysis of at least one example. 4: By having greater student access to actual manuscripts. 5: It was perfect! 6: See [answer to question] number three above and seven below. 7: It would have been wonderful to have even more access to the manuscripts, although I felt there was a great deal of time spent with the manuscripts as it is.
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: Could use a boxtop from an archival box to pass around document which might be too delicate to handle. 4: If anything, our concerns would be the opposite. Given that many of us handle these documents on a daily basis, it seemed odd not to handle them at all except with the help of a graduate student. While the concerns are valid, they should be tempered with practicality. 5: None. 6: Of course U.Va’s Special Collections should be protected – but maybe RBS should seek a handful of pedagogical MSS that could be investigated in a more hands-on manner. 8: Materials well handled.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Sunday night was very interesting. 2: OK. 3: Yes, Monday night’s lecture was very interesting. 5: Yes. 6: Missed this week unfortunately – in general, the hard work of the day means an early bedtime. 7: Yes. It gave me a sense of the vision for future RBS programs, and lent insight into certain choices in focus of curriculum. 8: Yes.
9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?
1: I enjoyed the Paper Night, although I wish that there had been more variety in the options for the week (a movie night perhaps). 2: Very useful, especially Paper Night. 3: Yes. 5: Yes. 6: Missed Paper Night, enjoyed Printing and Binding Night. Handouts are good carry-aways for later reference. 8: Materials I had seen before; still nice to review.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Yes! It was one of the greatest experiences of my academic life. 2: Yes. 3: Yes. 4: Absolutely! I have learned more in one week with an expert that I could have in a year’s worth of reading scholarly texts. I would heartily recommend this course to my colleagues, and hope to return one day myself. 5: Yes. 6: Money’s worth? Absolutely! Can we have a course on descriptive bibliography to say 1700? On books in the history of science (or “scientific diagrams” to say 1750)? 7: I cannot more clearly state my thorough enjoyment of the program than to say that it has deeply affected the approach to methodology for my dissertation research. I realize that my work has been greatly impacted by the insight acquired. 8: Yes.
Number of respondents: 8
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
25% 25% 50% 50%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
12% 25% 50% 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 exchange home
63% 50% 0% 0%
There were three full-time students (39%), two rare book librarians (25%), one teacher/professor (12%), one antiquarian bookseller (12%), and one conservator (12%).