92: c15 Books in Print and Manuscript [H-25]
15-19 August 2005
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Useful, but there wasn’t much reference made to them during class. 2: Very useful. 3: The course readings were all very useful, both for the course and for future reference. 4: Extremely. I read all of it, plus some separately assigned material, though much of it was reinforced in class. 5: Useful as background. 6: They were useful. They may yet be more useful after the fact. I liked that there was some leniency in picking and choosing from the list, so that we might follow our own interests. 7: Somewhat. Maybe a bit of general (background) reading would have been good. It was mostly technical -- nitty-gritty-type stuff. Pick things that are actually available, and current (recent). 8: The readings were very useful to have a specific idea of what the professors work on in class. These readings will also be useful for the future when I apply them to work as a reference for readers and on my own research.
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: The handouts were very nice. No syllabus, but we had a general sense of where we were going. 2: Yes. 3: There was no course syllabus, partly because this is the first time is was offered, but it would be nice to have one the next time. Materials distributed in class were useful, and the digital photos were especially appreciated. (Not all materials were actually used in class.) 4: Not as much as the pre-course syllabus. 5: No syllabus (new course). The materials handed out in class were very useful. 6: The color print-outs were a great idea. I’m glad for the articles we received, though I have yet to read them. 7: No syllabus -- which would have been most helpful, would have given a framework/structure to the course, shaped expectations. The color photocopies are nice, other photocopies less so. A bibliography would have been most helpful (exit reading list), and a summary of incunable catalogs (Hain, Proctor, &c.). 8: Yes, the materials distributed were and will be useful. This material gives very relevant examples of the production of books and manuscripts in the c15.
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 influence on manuscript production by the printed book. The intellectual level was appropriate. 2: The intellectual level was appropriate, and all content was useful. 3: The intellectual level was perfect; it’s a great idea to have a “dual” printed book and manuscript course taught by two enthusiastic and knowledgeable experts. I enjoyed the intellectual jousting, as the instructors both appeared to be learning from each other. 4: I read too much of the bibliography, so the class was a bit slow at first. We did cover new ground though, and so PN’s theories on early type forms at the end were quite engrossing and current. I found these very useful for my own research. 5: Comparison of manuscript and printed materials was very useful, as was the method of noting similarities and differences rather than thinking of this as an evolution from manuscript to print. 6: Working directly with the books. I found the presentations of PN’s and WN’s particular projects particularly compelling case studies in how to apply these skills. 7: Manuscript production and book archaeology -- I can use this in teaching. A much better grasp on the overall field of manuscripts. The intellectual level was perfect. 8: The format and size of paper were of great interest, and also the page setup both in printed books and manuscripts. I believe the intellectual level of the course was appropriate.
4) Was time devoted to studying original materials at the Walters Art Museum well spent?
1: Yes, absolutely! 2: Absolutely! 3: Yes -- the chance to look at so many books in five days was wonderful. 4: Yes. We were in WAM’s rare book room [all week], which was brilliant, especially as WN could pull items at will. 5: Yes. Excellent materials shown, examined and analyzed. 6: Absolutely. We spent every class period in front of rare books, locked up in the room with them. 7: Absolutely! It was really nice to work so closely with original materials (something that doesn’t work nearly as well at UVa). 8: The time was very well-spent and in fact, a great amount of time was spent studying original materials, which made this class an excellent course overall.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: The interchange between the instructors, and original scholarship discussed by PN. 2: The books, the instructors and the content. 3: The chance to see so many books up close, the seminar format, and the instructors’ enthusiasm and knowledge. 4: Using the book room constantly was great. The readings were also wonderful. 5: The expertise of the instructors and their ability to play from each other the counterpoint of manuscript/print with regard to codicology. Following the paths their presentations/conversations took was very enlightening, as they were most flexible in allowing themselves to stray from their intended course where the deviation would be useful to us. 6: The accessibility of the books: that WN could run off and return with something relevant in hand. I liked very much the dynamic between PN and WN, their familiarity with the books at their disposal, and that tangents were explored when they proved interesting. 7: The opportunity to work so closely with such a fantastic collection and learn from it. The trip to Garrett was very fruitful. The opportunity to work side by side with manuscripts and incunables. The “va et vient” was very effective. 8: As I said above, observation and handling of original materials every day was a plus.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: More c15 manuscripts and specific information about how they differed from earlier manuscripts. 3: A syllabus would be very useful for both instructors and students. Slightly tighter organization would be better for most students (but I liked the informality). 4: More c15 manuscripts. Many of the functional elements were shown in earlier manuscripts that didn’t have much relevance. Generally, staying on topic more would be good. 5: I would prefer a syllabus, since I am more visual than auditory, and this could have provided a framework in advance. 6: I would love to have a bibliography, as it were. Many articles were referred to in the course of the class, many colleagues’ work cited; it would be useful to have some reference to take home so that I might explore further on my own. 7: Distribute a syllabus and relevant course packet. Much less time spent on PN’s personal research squabbles. Present his theories, say they’re controversial and move on. More on the book trade(s) -- both manuscript and print. The manuscript material went from Carolingian to humanist (not necessarily a bad thing), but maybe more on c15 manuscripts, and how they interacted with print. 8: A bit more planning ahead. This was the first time this course was taught, so I understand that it was difficult to know exactly what was going to happen next.
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: Handling was carefully controlled. 3: The classroom is fine. I enjoyed the trip to Evergreen House. 4: We barely handled the books; it would be difficult to improve. 5: Handling of materials was superb. 6: Everything was well cared for. 7: None -- well done. 8: I was not greatly concerned but sometimes there were too many books on a table.
8) If you attended the Sunday reception and/or Monday night lecture, were they worth attending?
1: The Monday night lecture [by Will Noel] was very interesting. 2: Yes. The lecture was very interesting. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, if you arrive on time and can meet the other students, especially in other sessions. 6: Yes. The lecture was fascinating. 8: Yes, very much worth it. The lecture on Archimedes was excellent, but a bit long.
9) If you attended the Tuesday and Wednesday evening tours of WAM and JHU’s Peabody Library, was the time profitably spent?
2: Yes. 3: The Tuesday night tour was really an extension of our course. (I did not go on the Peabody tour -- too tired.) 4: Yes, the visits were useful, but it would be better to tailor them more to our class -- we had meant to, but had visitors from the second class, who were not on the same wavelength, and it turned into more a generic treasure show. 6, 8: Yes.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
2: I definitely got my money’s worth! I would recommend this course to anyone interested in incunabula or the c15. 3: Yes. Please offer this course again!! 4: Yes. 5: Yes. An excellent course taught by superlative instructors. 6: Yes. 7: Oh yes (as usual). The course is recommended. It needs some tweaking, but definitely worthwhile. 8: It was a great course, and I will strongly recommend it to readers and colleagues.
Number of respondents: 8
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
88% 63% 50% 76%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 25% 12% 12%
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
12% 12% 38% 12%
There were six rare book librarians (76%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (12%), and one full-time student (12%).