T-50: Type, Lettering, & Calligraphy, 1450-1830
11-15 June 2007 in Charlottesville
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: I did not read all the assigned books as I did not have timely access to them, but what I did read – Dowding [An Introduction to the History of Printing Types], Anderson [Calligraphy: the Art of Written Forms], and parts of Dreyfus [Into Print] – gave me a good idea of what to expect, and a good general background. I wish I had read Carter [View of Early Typography up to about 1600] in advance. 2: The bibliography that the instructor provided in class was most useful for self-directed reading; probably would be more beneficial to read Carter’s View than Updike’s Printing Types. 3: I was unable to get through the two I tried because of my lack of specialist background. 4: Very useful as background material. 5: The pre-course readings were very useful for giving a good basis, although most of the information was reintroduced in class. 6: Quite 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: The extensive bibliography is quite amazing; a one-stop shop! The handbook with its examples will be a useful way to recapture otherwise hard-to-access images. Both much appreciated. Would have liked to have known which books from the bibliography were in the classroom with us. 2: Yes; the workbook especially. 3: Incredibly valuable. 4: Excellent – will be heavily used next term! Helped solidify points raised in class. 5: The course material is very good for future reference. It contains information that will be good to have easily accessible, and in one place, as well as good images one can consult. 6: Extremely useful. 7: It is a great set of materials. JM is very generous with sharing his bibliography and providing written “chapter” overviews that were valuable in that they could be read the night before the next day’s lecture as a refresher for the pre-course readings.
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 lettering and handwriting MS era aspects, as I’m a calligrapher; but as a beginning-level printer and someone interested in the book arts, the relation of manuscript hands, carved letters, and copperplate writing to the development of type was also fascinating! 2: It provided a strong chronological survey of typography; especially helpful in raising an awareness for particular evolving features of letterforms and developing tastes. 3: The instructor unfailingly answered student questions, and would at times divert his thoughts at considerable length to do so. 4: Huge range of material, presented at a level appropriate to class background; lecturer most engaged, and helpful. He wears his knowledge easily; I never felt patronized. 5: The most interesting content to me was the early history and material as well as the technological demonstration. The intellectual level was appropriately high. 6: The history driving the evolution of type and typography. The intellectual level was superb. 7: It is obvious that JM is passionate about the subject material. He was very generous in sharing images that he had photographed for his own research purposes. We saw images from libraries, private collections – places that many of us just don’t have access to because of time, money, knowledge, introductions, etc.
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: I might have appreciated the SC trip more had it been made at the end of the week – many of the names and editions we hadn’t gotten to in detail yet by Wednesday evening. However, the breadth of items we were able to see up close was a huge plus. 2: It was useful to see examples of some of the more important/known practitioners, although brief. 3: It was, but it seemed rushed. I actually think that packets in the classroom would be a better use of time. We spent part of the last class (before being interrupted by this task) jointly reviewing some of the quiz packet, which was very helpful. 4: It was, though the amount of material of interest exceeded the time available to examine it. 5: Yes, the visit to special collections was very helpful in exposing students to actual type specimens, as opposed to slides. 6: Yes, totally. 7: Yes, the trip to SC was time very well spent outside the classroom. Ian Mortimer’s book [The Pouchée Initials] was a delight. Time spent in SC did get rushed, though.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: JM’s encyclopedic knowledge of anecdotes, art, religion, history, Western politics, &c., very much enriched his explanations of typographical and script development across the centuries. Great sense of context for someone with relatively little formal background in such matters. His command over, and access to the materials and literature on the field – and his ability to put together detailed slide-shows – was also hugely helpful. 2: The instructor. 3: The teacher: patient, humorous, indulgent, and relaxed. A genuine historical and cultural interest hath he. 4: JM’s manner: his genial personality, and open invitation to contact him with questions/observations following the course. The hugely helpful visuals, workbook, and extensive bibliography were most appreciated. 5: The well-rounded content of the course provided a great base knowledge of the subject that was very satisfying. 6: The mixed media format, and of course, JM’s devotion to his field of knowledge, his patience in answering our many questions. 7: JM and his illustrated lectures; the whole experience was great.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: SC visit towards end of week; less emphasis on post-1820s matter would have given us a little more time for “our” period. 2: More time working on actual identification of types as on the final day which resulted in generally good group discussion and directed viewing by the instructor – fun too! 3: The class quiz attributions were insufficiently detailed. 4: Two weeks long? Otherwise, very well done. Could it be held in
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: Perhaps a brief discussion on care and handling i.e., a few words from the instructor and/or staff at the beginning. 5: Handling was careful; no suggestions. 6: None.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or other evening lectures, were they worth attending?
1: I’ve heard a variation on TB’s Sunday evening lecture before, but Alice Prochaska and especially Michael Suarez’s lectures were quite enjoyable. A useful way to engender thought on various aspects of the many bibliographic/bibliophilic professions of those who come to RBS. 2: Absolutely; a great variety of presentations. 3: Yes. 4: I would like to have been given the opportunity to ask questions following lectures; all seemed rather rushed. 5: The evening activities allow students to get to know one another much better than just seeing each other in the classroom. Definitely worth doing. 6: Yes.
9) 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: Yes. My advice to someone taking this course would be to at least look at all the pre-course reading materials: each covers a different area of the field. Make time, during the course, to look over the days notes – they will help assimilate the (good) avalanche that comes at you every day. And then come back for part two the next time it is offered – it’s well worth it to get the whole picture! 2: Yes. 3: Yes; I wonder whether there would be any interest in having the instructor teach printing history of a particular century. I also wonder if it could fall with RBS’s purview to teach a history of numismatics, through the books of medals and coins that exist. 4: Yes; please ask JM to offer second half of the course! 5: RBS offers courses not really available anywhere else. Yes, I am very satisfied. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, very much so. Plan on taking Part I or II of this course; great class.
Number of respondents: 7
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
43% 29% 43% 29%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
0% 43% 43% 57%
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
57% 29% 14% 14%
There were 2 teachers (29%); 2 full-time students (29%); 1 antiquarian bookseller (14%); 1 book collector (14%); and 1 RBS staff member (14%).