Richard Noble & David Gants

G-10: Introduction to Descriptive Bibliography

30 July - 3 Aug 2007 in Charlottesville


Lab Instructors

Julia Blakely, Gerald Cloud, Vernica Downey, Haven Hawley, David Whitesell


Printer in Residence

Haven Hawley

Curator of the Course Museums

Melissa Mead


1)    How useful were the pre-course readings? How successful was the advance use of the videotape, The Anatomy of a Book: Format, as a teaching tool?


1. Readings: imperative. Video: very helpful. 2. All readings were useful – however, a simplified, condensed version of Bowers’ Principles would have been more helpful. The video was great: folding the sheets helps to understand. 3. The video was excellent, very useful, and humorous. Reading essential – beyond belief; you cannot do the course without it. 4. I had seen The Anatomy of a Book: Format video before, so I did not see it as particularly helpful the second time around. If I had not seen it or had not had any background with book format, it would have been helpful. Bowers is of particular importance to read early; Gaskell [New Introduction to Bibliography] was good to have an idea of, and TB’s article [“Descriptive Bibliography”] a fantastic start point. 6. Pre-course readings are absolutely essential. It is not a matter of being useful, but rather that they are the course. Important to know for prospective students. The videotape was very helpful. 7. Excellent reading; TB’s article was a great thing to read first. Perhaps select from Gaskell rather than requiring the whole thing. Video was pretty simple, I didn’t feel I needed it. 8. Pre-course readings were essential – more so than for other RBS classes I’ve taken. The video was not essential, but I’m glad to have it to use as a teaching tool. 9. Very! – both the reading and video are extremely important, as you won’t understand anything if you haven’t done them. 10. It is very important to read through and understand ALL of the required readings. When reading Bowers, read through once ignoring the notes, then read it through once again taking the notes into account. 11. Yes, in some ways most especially TB’s article and the videotape and exercises as preliminary to reading Gaskell and Bowers. 12. They were all helpful, and they should all be consumed before arriving in Charlottesville. The DVD (both short documentaries) was very helpful, and I could tell some of those in the group who hadn’t watched it. 13. Pre-course readings and DVD were essential to understanding. 14. Bowers and Gaskell were essential. I had been using them as reference for years, but had never read both in their entirety. I viewed a library copy of the tape – it was basic information. 15. Bowers and Gaskell both essential. DVD was useful, but not imperative. I wish I’d saved my $75 and watched the DVD here. Be sure to read all of Gaskell and Bowers! 16. Bowers and Gaskell were extremely useful. 17. Videotape should be listed first, before the two required texts. It’s possible to overlook on reading list. 18. Pre-course readings were very helpful – they made more sense after a few lectures. 19. The pre-course readings are essential. I think that watching the video before reading Gaskell and Bowers is very helpful. 20. All of the pre-course reading: Bowers, Gaskell, TB’s [“Descriptive Bibliography”], the Anatomy, tended to repeat and reinforce each other. As a novice, I found this helpful. 21. The reading was essential. I only watched the videotape when I arrived here, but had seen the transcript. It was helpful to visualize the techniques. 22. I thought the DVD was extremely useful for breaking the ice of what I was getting into before I arrived. The focus on printing processes in The Making of a Renaissance Book and TB’s Anatomy are useful for visualizing how it is, and will be done – necessary viewing in tandem with Gaskell and Bowers. Gaskell and Bowers: indispensable. Bowers is overly long and cryptic, but obviously necessary for students to know what they are getting into.  23. Pre-course readings were extremely useful, particularly Bowers’ Principles, chapters 5, 7 and 12. There were moments when it would have been helpful to be more familiar with chapter 6 as well. The videotape was extremely useful for me as well – particularly in the first couple of days. I found myself consulting the script of it in doing my collations. 24. They’re absolutely necessary. The videotape is a good place to begin – fold up all those sheets! – and Gaskell is a good read. Bowers is the meat of the course. 25. The pre-course readings were challenging, but essential. I read each quickly once, and a second time slower. The video was well done, but not necessary for my learning style. The paper for practice was great. 26.  All essential. I’d propose this order: watch The Making of a Renaissance Book; Read Gaskell through discussion of format; read TB’s article; watch The Anatomy; read Bowers’ chapters 5 and 7; and continue in Gaskell; finish Gaskell; then read Bowers’ chapter 12.


2)    Were the course syllabus, exit reading list, and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?


1. They will be very useful references in the future. 2. Yes. 3. Absolutely. So much fantastic information; was like receiving a gift. 4. In my current employment situation, the exit reading list will not be useful, though for my own personal use, I would like to peruse it when I have time at home. 6. The exit list in particular is splendid. 7. Yes, yes, yes. Whoever wrote the Bowers index in the workbook is my hero. 8. Yes – without doubt. The reading lists are a valuable “fringe benefit” of course attendance. 9. Yes. 10. It would seem so, though I won’t know for certain until I investigate them further. 11. Yes. 12. Yes, but it would have been nice to have a table of contents for the materials in the binder, or tabs for quick reference. Also, it was annoying that the pages in the Museums packet were not numbered sequentially. 13. Syllabus, reading materials, and other materials were very useful. I will read the exit reading list when I return home (no time to do it here). 14. The exit reading list and the Bowers Index are invaluable. 15. Extremely useful. 16. The readings will come in handy down the road. I will keep these lists at work. 18. I believe it will be. 19. The exit reading list will be very useful to me, and I can use it to recommend sources to patrons studying book history. 20. They have been useful, and I expect to refer to them in the future. 21. Yes, indeed. It would be good if the exit reading lists for other courses are also made available to students – to tempt us to do more courses. There was a mention of some of these lists becoming available online. 22. Absolutely. Important reference tools! 23. The amount of material distributed comprises, it seems to me, an enormously valuable set of resources that represents hours upon hours (and years) of labor to have produced. I very much appreciate having them, and I’m sure they will prove useful to me for years to come. 24. The exit reading list is something I’ll return to for years to come. 25. I expect that all the materials will be extremely useful. There is much to learn, and guidance is good. 26. Very much so. The one inch binder was a bit clumsy, though.


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. Understanding format and improving/perfecting collating skill were my goals, and they were met. The intellectual level was very, but appropriately, high. 2. Understanding how to write/communicate in bibliographical terms; to communicate on paper what I see in a book. 3. Intellectual level appropriate, very high. Lectures interesting – Museums were the best. 4. The intellectual level was appropriate for me. I loved having the hands-on experience with the books, as just discussing and reading would not have made the concepts any clearer to me. 6. The entire course is relevant; level appropriate. 7. Everything was valuable. I really liked the way RN and DG balanced one another in lecture. They have productively different perspectives. 8. Actual hands-on work with the books, and the time taken in the labs to explore misunderstandings. Museum lectures were also good. 9. Loved collation and binding; had trouble with imposition – maybe a bit more of a visual explanation? Yes. 10. The most relevant aspect of the course for my purposes was the homework/lab, though I enjoyed our class discussions much more. 11. The intersection of learning in hard physical terms, the materials and techniques of book production in the hand-press period, and learning the vocabulary and grammar of descriptive bibliography. 12. They were all interesting. Regarding relevance – time will tell. Intellectual level – yes, appropriate. 13. Everything. Intellectual level was appropriate. 14. Intellectual level – most appropriate. Relevance to my work – a better understanding of why what I do is important. 15. Good intellectual level, and the entire course was of extreme interest and relevance.  17. The lecture on Friday afternoon was hard to follow. 18. Signatures. 19. I am very interested in the historical context in which books were printed, so discussing examples and trends was very useful for me. The intellectual level seemed appropriate. 20. Actually examining, analyzing, and describing individual books in a guided setting. This was done at an appropriate level of difficulty. The lectures were helpful in placing the lab tasks in context, but were less helpful than labs. 21. Applying Bowers’ Principles, the lab sessions and Museums, and the printing demonstration. 22. Hands-on use of the printing press; handling the hand mold, the type, the plates. Seeing a stereotype plate. Most objects and materials that I have only read about. Open Museum was fabulous. Yes. 23. The intellectual level of the course was appropriate, although at times I felt that the lectures were pitched a bit too high, or rather were too involved in what appeared not to be central to the activity of bibliographic description. Or rather, the connections between these general and somewhat serpentine discourses, and their activity could have been made clearer. 24. This course is a great introduction to the physical characteristics of books, especially 16th - 18th centuries. Without the readings, I would have been at sea, but with them, everything is pretty straightforward (albeit, complex). 25. I think the Museum and homework were essential. It is good to be able to see the materials that we are talking about. I especially liked how broad the Museum topics were. My lab experience was also exceptionally good, the instructor was very appropriate in the degree to which he pushed us to work. 26. The intellectual level was as rigorous as I expected, and hoped for. Of greatest interest was the opportunity to apply Bowers’ method to real books.


4)    To what extent did the Desbib Museums and their catalogs contribute to the success of the course? How could they have been improved?


1. Museums were a surprise – a pleasant and valuable one. More time with them would be helpful. 2. Desbib Museums are essential to the course; they aid in understanding and offer a nice change of pace. 3. Museums were integral. My favorite part; really brought everything discussed to life. 4. I think the Desbib catalog Museum was a bit confusing: having never used any catalogs of the sort before, I wasn’t sure how to find anything in them. I think focusing on a few specific exhibits[?] (per person) would have been better and given me a greater idea of what was going on – there was a great deal of rush to get through the other Museums; perhaps fewer exhibits.? 5. They were very good at giving examples of how to apply Bowers. I would have liked to have the Museums prior to homework sessions. 6. The Museums are one of the best perks. Only one suggestion – please make clear on day one (Monday) that they can be accessed after hours (that you are not limited to the particular period) – too much material for 1.5 hours. 7. The Museums were wonderful, and clarified a lot. The printing Museum was the best for me – most informative and, well, fun! I really liked the staff presentations Thursday. 8. I was very impressed with all the work that went into the Museums – and the chance to sit down with each object/book/station. Especially liked the Museum texts that asked us to try to find something/identify something else. 9. They were great illustrations. 11. In principle, they were great, but I think they might benefit from being slightly less rich. Monday especially was a bit bewildering. 12. They were fantastic. See above about pagination. Also, I wish I had been told to review the Museum offerings before I arrived, so I would know specifically what to expect. 13. The Desbib Museums were well organized, and they gave me a hands-on experience with many of the book production tools I had never encountered before. 14. The Museums were interesting and informative, especially the Vocabulary Museum and the Bibliographical Examples Museum. I wish I had more time for those two. 15. Very helpful to my overall understanding. It’s great to see concrete examples of everything discussed in lectures. Hands-on nature of Museums is great! 17. They were wonderfully useful. To improve – make access, especially to the Vocabulary Museum, available for a greater length of time; seriously cut short lectures on reference on Thursday; two is enough. 18. It was nice to be able to see the different things we discussed in class in real life. 19. They helped enormously. Not only were they fun, but they really helped me understand how presses work, and how printers made decisions about format, paper, type, &c. 20. They were useful, but less focused than labs – so they tended to be less memorable. I think they will be useful to refer back to later on. 21. Excellent descriptions, and good range of material. Perhaps two shorter sessions or end Museum [earlier], rather than one 1.5 hour slot. By 3 pm in the day I was fairly tired and did not move quickly. 22. This course obviously caters to the expertise of the staff, however; the American/British aspects seem to overshadow the business of Continental Europe. Mexico had the first printing press in North America, however; what could be expanded on with this? 23. The Museums were fabulous. 24. The Museums on paper and printing were especially good. The Museum of descriptive bibliographies could easily be expanded to include works without accompanying examples. More orthodox Bowers in action. 25. Both were essential. 26. First three Museums (vocabulary, paper, printing) – very important, and highly applicable to labs and homework. Desbib + Examples – not so much; it might be a step beyond what we [illegible].


5)    How successful were your format-and-collation labs? How effective was your lab instructor in conveying the material to be covered? How could the labs have been improved?


Julia Blakely: 1. Labs were spot on. I think some of the conclusions would be nearly impossible for novice bibliographers to come to, but useful issues were raised. Cooler space to work would have been helpful. 2. Very successful. Good number of books; it’s intense, but necessary to grasp all the possibilities. Our lab instructor was able to answer all our questions clearly. The only way to improve labs would be to lengthen the course and look at more books! 3. Lab instructor was excellent; time involved was essential. 4. JB was fantastic! Having never done such a thing before, I was concerned about understanding what I was doing. But she was so kind and helpful I did not worry about humiliating myself. I think Monday afternoon it would be extremely helpful to go through an entire collation before we do it on our own. 6. Fantastic. No better way to learn than by making mistakes; essential and important. The reading material (Bowers) can be particularly frustrating and cryptic, and it is easy to fool yourself into thinking you understand it until you sit down to do the homework. Gerald Cloud: 7. Very successful. A few of the books were too long – too much busy work counting, with not enough pedagogical pay-off. 8. Labs were excellent. The amount of material and level of difficulty were right for our group. GC set the tone early-on for collegial exploring of problems and mistakes; no one was made to feel stupid. Group size was ideal (don’t go bigger, because then you can’t examine books together). 9. They were perfect, and it was explained (the answers) very clearly. 10. I was not very successful in the format-and-collation labs, though my instructor was kind enough to suggest ways in which I might practice after returning home. 11. The labs were the best! 12. They were wonderful. Only two books were horrible. GC answered all of our questions. The catch-up session was great, but the possibility of more interaction with them would have been nice. Vernica M. Downey: 13. Very successful. VMD was thoughtful, helpful, and calm! No suggestions. 14. Very successful. I appreciated being part of a group where we all, students and instructor,  had a similar orientation (cataloging). 15. Lab sessions were very useful, but could have benefitted from a bit more structure. VMD was very helpful, and eager to help. 16. The labs were very useful. I was particularly grateful for the sheets providing the correct formulas. 17. There should be homework assigned on Thursday. I like book shopping, but it’s not what I came here to do. 18. Labs were very helpful. A time to ask questions. Haven Hawley: 19. I really enjoyed the labs and talking about how each member of the group had analyzed the books. It might be helpful briefly to go over an example of the upcoming assignment (i.e., pagination) so that we learned some of the basic RBS style up-front. 20. Very successful. Very effective. Not improvable. 21. A good selection of books, some 19th century publications which were of interest to me. We managed to cover all of the books, discussed mistakes, used the relevant books. Fewer books for homework? David Whitesell: 22. Very successful. DW was great as I have mentioned before. It was great to hear of his (and others’ work). I liked how every box seemed to carry one bear to really stump you. Well organized pedagogically speaking as well throughout the week. All pressure to get through the books was put on me (which is my preference). 23. The labs were really the centerpiece of the course for me. DW was very effective in conveying the material. His pedagogical method encouraged us to think through the problems thoroughly ourselves. He’s really an excellent teacher. 24. The homework and labs were key to the course. DW is terrific – smart, knowledgeable, encouraging. 25. My lab instructor was excellent, he forced us to reason out the problems and issues. I would have liked to have been assigned more books. 26. Very, very good – the reason to take the course. DW is a superb teacher – patient, genial, and lucid in his explanations, but also good at leading us to answers, not just telling them to us.


6)    What did you like best about the course?


1. I thought the whole thing was a perfect unity – hence no favorite part. 2. Having the opportunity to work hands-on with such a variety of books – to physically see all the possibilities and challenges bibliography presents. 3. Museums, homework (unbelievably). 4. Hands-down, the hands-on experience. 6. The Museums. 7. Doing the homework and ripping it apart in lab. I also liked that this is the one time I’ve been free to ignore the book’s content, and concentrate fully on its form. I liked the insane intensity, because I was prepared for it by the course description, and knew it would only be one week. 8. Enjoyed it all, but labs and homework were outstanding. 9. The labs! 10. The instructors were very knowledgeable and personable. They made a very difficult subject interesting and accessible. 11. The charismatic personae of RN and DG, the kindness of all, and the variety of activities. One can only admire the efficiency of the operation. 12. Lab time and Museum. 13. Homework assignments and labs. 14. Homework, lab, lectures, Museums – in that order. 15. Getting to see and conceive of books in an entirely new and non-textual way. 17. The labs and Museums, and the lectures on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday mornings. 18. The labs. 19. I liked the collegiality of the students and instructors. The homework was long, but very useful. It was great to use real books – so much fun. 20. Examining, analyzing, and describing books. 21. The seriousness, the good structure, materials, and expertise. Working in a small group in a structured way. 22. Open Museum and demonstrations (printing press); Richard Kuhta’s lecture was a marvel! Coffee and break times were a great time to relax in between sessions to mingle and chat. 24. Homework and labs. 25. The hands-on experience. 26. Homework and labs – getting down and dirty with the books. Also, Monday – Wednesday labs. Melissa Mead is wonderful!


7)    How could the course as a whole have been improved?


1. A packet of reprints (David Foxon’s lecture, “Printers of the Mind,” &c.) would have been very helpful. 2. It’s great! 3. Homework (believably) could have had fewer books, say four each day. Time was so involved, that it took away from experiencing the other activities here, and hindered developing relationships by restricting time. 4. Perhaps a bit more interaction with the students during the lectures; it’s a hard time of the morning to sit so still for 1.5 hours. 5. I feel it would be helpful for the instructors to give a full demonstration of how to apply format, collation, pagination, &c., at the beginning of each day to steer us in the right direction. 6. Controversial – but consider students doing the homework on their own time, which would allow for an extra 1.5 hour session/lecture. 7. RN could transform Bowers into the perfect manual in a new edition (but then the planet would have to explode . . . so never mind). 8. Did wonder on some days whether we got through all the material in the lectures that course leaders intended (e.g., items on table not touched-on?). 9. Maybe a copy of the Bowers/Gaskell debate RN read to us at the end (Friday) to look at later (my brain is fried). 10. By providing a more structured, longer general overview of collation/pagination at the beginning. 11. Slightly (and I mean slightly) less homework. 12. The really long reviews RN read at the last lecture could have been given to us earlier in the week, and we could have discussed them on Friday. I almost nodded off because his voice was so pleasant to listen to. 13. No suggestions. 14. More time? There was so much material for only one week. I wish I had been able to spend some time for the evening activities. 15. Believe it or not, more homework! 17. Some guidance for reading Bowers (like the Index), before reading it. 18. Maybe just a little more discussion prior to the homework on what to except. 19. It would be useful to look at how we might use Desbib in our real life jobs. How can we take what we’ve learned back to our libraries? How do RB and DG use it in their day-to-day work? 20. Spend a bit more time in lab, somewhat less in lecture/Museum. Add a lab of contents description. 21. Lectures were a little too long – again, shorter periods would be easier as one’s concentration goes (especially as it was a little too warm in the Clemons open space). They raised interesting points and lead themes, but a closer reading of Bowers/Gaskell would be beneficial to prepare us for labs. 22. The last day’s open forum – reviewing the debates between Bowers, Gaskell, McKenzie, and Blaney seemed anti-climatic. Very interesting and useful to know what had happened, and where we can go from here. However, seemed to be needed for day one. Greater exposure of staff projects or current interests. 23. See comments in [question] number 3 above. Other than that, no other suggestions. 24. I found the final discussion about Bowers and McKenzie opened lots of questions – too bad there’s no more time. 25. More books, and experiences. 26. Lectures could be tighter, in a couple of ways: it would help to have a clear sense of each lecture’s focus (daily agenda, perhaps?); and RN and DG, though obviously knowledgeable and illuminating in their discussions, might leave too much room for digression and interruption. They could establish more of an order to their presentation, which currently play more like an informal chat, than a true pedagogical “lecture.”


8)    If you attended the Sunday and/or other lectures, were they worth attending?


1. Yes, a financial history of RBS, fascinating! 2. Yes. 3. Absolutely. 4. Sunday and Monday lectures were worth it. 6. Unable to make Sunday; others very much worth it. 7. Sunday lecture a nice starting point. Also got a lot out of TB’s talk at lunch Thursday. The Monday lecture was fabulous – a real treat, and applicable to my own work. 8. Yes – Sunday’s good for getting oriented and getting the group geared-up; enables a running start on Monday. 9. Only in the sense that I got my bearings, and met a few people. 10. More-or-less. 11. Yes. 12. Yes, especially the additional documentaries. 13. Yes, very worthwhile. 14. Haven Hawley’s printing demonstration was great! 15. Good for context. 17. No time. 18. The printing demonstration was very interesting, so was the Monday night lecture. 19. The Sunday lecture was a little aimless, but it was good to hear about the history of RBS. Monday night’s lecture about [The Trevelyon Miscellany of 1608] was really interesting. 21. Except for Monday night’s lecture (when I was quite busy with homework) I attended lectures, video nights, &c. They were of interest. 22. Yes. Sunday’s lecture was a great chance to ease into the workweek! 23. Sunday lecture was definitely worth attending, as were the films on video night. 24. Yes. 25. Yes, every lecture I attended was very germane. 26. Sunday: yes, TB in fine form. Monday: no.


9)    If you attended any of Museum Nights, was the time profitably spent?


1. N/A. 2. No time. 3. I was in homework! Except for Trevelyon! [Richard Kuhta’s Monday night lecture] 4. Did not attend, though I did attend the printing demonstration, which was incredible. 5. Yes. 6. Unable to (I didn’t realize we had access to the Museum after hours until mid-week). 7. N/A. 8. Did homework every night but Thursday. 9. Yes. 11. It took me too long to do the homework to feel I had the leisure to attend any (and I really wanted to see the printing demonstration). 12-13. N/A. 15. Doing homework. 19. I attended during class time, but not at night. 21. Did not get the chance to come back to the Museums after 5 pm, but good idea. 22. I spent most either sleeping, homework, or trying to wind down. Sorry. 23. N/A. 24. Didn’t attend. 25. Yes, everything makes more sense with hands-on experience. 26.


10)  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. Well worth it. Do the reading and do a practice collation on an appropriate book before you arrive. 2. Yes. Advice: be prepared to work long and hard. If that isn’t your style, take Desbib light. 3. Absolutely! I highly recommend it and will gladly pass the good word. 4. In my current job position I am concerned about the ability to continue my work with this – do I regret coming? Of course not! I believe my money was well spent. 5. Read Bowers thoroughly. The course is primarily focused on Bowers. 6. Absolutely. Advice: cannot stress enough the importance of reading Gaskell/Bowers before the course. 7. Definitely got my money’s worth! I would recommend students who need to stay in touch with work, or want to check email or otherwise maintain contact with the outside world should bring a laptop. The library shuts down at 10, and I did homework till 10 a couple of nights, and the breaks aren’t sufficient for “catch-up” on work email, &c. Bring a bedside lamp if you are staying in Brown. 8. Yes – advice: really do the reading in advance, even if it’s confusing at times. 9. Yes! Great class; come prepared to work hard! 10. Yes. 11. Yes. Not for the weak-willed or faint-of-heart. 12. Yes. To future students: beg, borrow, or steal the money to get down here. The supreme irony of me being able to afford to come here was that I had to sell three first edition (yes, edition) books from Baum’s Oz series on eBay. 13. Absolutely. Advice: do the pre-course readings, and watch the DVD. 14. Absolutely. A lot of preparation and work – but what a sense of accomplishment. Glad I did it. 15. Yes! 16. Yes. 17. On the whole, very happy and satisfied; well worth the money. 18. Yes. Thank you. 19. This course was definitely worth the time and money. Hope to be back soon! 20. It’s ok to hate Bowers. 21. It is a necessary background for rare books librarians, and I would highly recommend the course. 22. The course is very intense, and despite the focus on formulary collation, there are several other components of the course to spark the interests of historians, librarians, cataloguers, &c. UVa’s facilities (housing, campus) were a great backdrop.  23. Great course; highly recommended. 24. Absolutely. Desbib has a reputation for being akin to boot camp. It’s not, at least not if you love books and enjoy finding out what makes them tick. Thanks! 25. Yes. Get an extra job to save money to go if you cannot already afford to go. 26. Absolutely: I always do. Read Bowers and Gaskell, obviously, and don’t skip Gaskell’s discussion of 19-20th century book production. Watch The Making of a Renaissance Book on your DVD, especially if you’ve never seen a hand-press demonstration. If Gaskell is too technical at first, check out McKerrow. Plan to use the full 6.5 hours each night for homework. And: get plenty of sleep and/or coffee.


Number of respondents: 26


Leave                        Tuition                      Housing                    Travel

Institution                 Institution                 Institution                 Institution

gave me leave            paid tuition               paid housing              paid travel

46%                             38%                             35%                             35%

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

tion time                    tion myself                 own housing              travel

19%                             31%                             61%                             58%

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

35%                             31%                             4%                               7%


There were 9 rare book librarians (35%); 5 full-time students (19%); 4 general librarians with some rare book duties (15%); 2 teachers (7%); 2 book collectors (7%); 1 archivist (4%); 1 conservator (4%); 1 writer/editor (4%); and 1 digital works librarian (4%).