13 - 17 Aug 2007 in Baltimore

1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Extremely useful. They were not frequently central to class discussions, but they formed an integral background. 3: Very useful, even though I did not read all, but four. 4: Very useful! They were directly relevant to class discussions, and helped me to get background information that I otherwise may not have known that was essential to the course. 5: I had already read them before, so I didn’t do most of them again; already familiar with the information. 6: Very beneficial and comprehensive; good and instructive reading list. 7: Interesting to explore ad lib., though not referenced in particular.

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: Absolutely. Some of PN’s “hand-made” charts will come in handy in the future. 2: Very much so – beautiful course pack with relevant and useful photographs, plates, syllabus, and index. 3: Yes, it will be placed in our reference library. 4: Yes. The notebook with the images were, and will be, extremely helpful because they leave us with the images of the books that we got to handle. 5: Yes, I will keep and use the binder. 6: Yes, very comprehensive. 7: Yes.

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: Yes, the level was just right. For me, the greatest interest was just watching – with awe – how much detail PN and WN could squeeze out of observing a book on the table in front of them. 2: The interaction between print and manuscript was fascinating. The intellectual level was perfect, and I left with many good ideas for research. 3: Yes, it was all interesting, but a lot of English words were difficult for a non-English speaker, but intellectually was it good or too good for me! 4: I really enjoyed the discussions of how the manuscript world and the print world are connected, and relate to each other. The intellectual level of the course was appropriate. 6: Of most interest was the intersection of early engravings inserted in incunables, but [this was] one of numerous parts valuable to me. [The] level at times could have been somewhat more intense. On the other hand, it was at a very high level. 7: The discussion of paper sizes, intersection of crafts, Gutenberg, and early printing types. Yes.

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: Yes, the Rosenwald Collection at the Library of Congress is well worth the visit. 2: The LC, the Peabody Library at Johns Hopkins, and of course the rare book and manuscript room at the Walters Art Museum were extraordinary. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. The visit to LC as well as the optional trip to the Peabody illustrated concepts in a way that we could not have done without seeing the texts. 5: The trip to the Rosenwald Collection, yes! 6: Yes, wonderful. 7: Yes, the trip to the LC was worth the trek in the rain!

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: See sentence two of number three above. 2: The way PN and WN played off each other, and WN’s superb knowledge of the collection. 3: Seeing great printed and manuscript works, and listening to the explanations, and differences. Also the discussion between PN and WN. 4: The ability to watch two masters in their respective fields passionately arguing concepts of great interest to me. 5: Excellent instructors and fabulous collection at the Walters Art Museum. 6: The access to cutting-edge information, the first-hand access to MSS and print materials, and most importantly, first-hand access to such distinguished experts. 7: The instructors, and interaction between PN and WN. Also, the access to the Walters Art Museum’s collections makes all the difference.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: Perhaps more time devoted to larger theoretical questions. We could put analytical bibliography into dialogue with “social bibliography” (e.g., McGann, McKenzie). A short consideration of such concerns would have added an intellectual stratum that would have appealed to me. 2: Further readings? Otherwise, it couldn’t be. 5: Would have liked more general/theoretical discussion of the “idea” of the book in the c15. 6: The structure and progression could be somewhat more tightly organized, especially with regard to the connection between print and MS. 7: An expanded bibliography, list of names/people mentioned in the course, and also perhaps a simple chronology of events.

7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by The Walters Art Museum. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?

1: This was handled just fine. 2: Very careful handling; everything was in good hands. 3: Pass the book around more; this makes you feel more included! 6: None. 7: N/A.

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

1: Yes. WN’s Monday lecture, and the Tuesday and Wednesday tours were fantastic. Alas, I was not able to attend the Sunday evening function. 2: WN’s Archimedes lecture was fascinating. 3: Yes. 4: Yes! 6: N/A. 7: 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, and I plan to return. If you are at all interested in: late medieval MSS; incunables, or the relationship between them, then you will learn a lot about methodology in this course. I am a MS person with little interest in printing, but this course is going to make me rethink a lot of that. 2: Take this course! You won’t regret it. 3: Very good course; keep it up and I will spread the word! 4: Yes. The education, experience, lectures, trips, and various services provided by RBS certainly made this course worth its price. I suggest reading, or at least skimming the advance readings in preparation for the course, as it greatly adds to the level of discussion possible. 5: Very well worth it, and the tools I learned will be very helpful in the future – even if I have to contact the instructors at a later date. 6: Yes. 7: Yes! The course is especially useful in reconsidering how to look at c15 books (and what to look for); also helpful in identifying areas for further research with experienced instructors.

Number of respondents: 7

Percentages

Leave Tuition Housing Travel

Institution Institution Institution Institution

gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel

29% 43% 0% 29%

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

tion time tion myself own housing travel

14% 43% 14% 43%

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% 14% 86% 29%

There were 4 full-time students (57%); 1 teacher (14%); 1 antiquarian bookseller (14%); and 1 RBS staff (14%).