Christopher Clarkson
B-40: Medieval & Early Renaissance Bookbinding Structures
17–21 June 2013
Detailed Course Evaluation
1) How useful were the pre-course readings? Did you do any additional preparations in advance of the course?
1: They were good background information but didn’t always come up in class. 2: Very helpful. 3: Fairly useful. 4: Readings specific to workshop topic were very appropriate. Background readings useful but some could be updated. 5: Shailor, Miner, and Clanchy very good—Shailor was invaluable for the course. Other books less helpful, or perhaps less applicable. 6: Very useful. They are foundation texts anyone interested in the topic should read. 7: General background in medieval history and technology was helpful. CC’s articles useful. Perhaps assigning Szirmai book as pre-reading would have been useful for non-conservators/binders. 8: Very good background reading, but all not absolutely necessary to understand course. 9: Good. 10: Excellent readings. 11: They were difficult to find and expensive to buy. Considering that, they were only somewhat useful. 12: “Nature of the Beast” and “Repair of Early Codices” I think most relevant. One could add a title or two—can’t think at the moment. Could list off CC’s publications as prior reading. I have them already and read most.
2) Were the course workbook and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: The workbook was a good resource to take with us. 2–4: Yes. 5: Yes! 6: Very useful. I’m appreciative of the extensive bibliography. 7: Yes, quite useful! Will certainly be used in the future. 8: Definitely useful. A few out-of-print articles or difficult to locate will be helpful addition. 9: Excellent. 10: Very useful workbook. 11: It would have been extremely beneficial to have the workbook well before the class so we could each bone up (no pun intended) on our respective weaknesses using the bibliography. 12: Yes to both. Might.
3) Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?
1: No. 2: Yes. Nicholas Pickwoad similar. 3: No. 4: This course is easily the equal of other RBS courses. 5: Both were excellent. The individual expertise combined with teaching from artifacts is why I come. This was great to learn from a working binder who is also a scholar. 6: This was my fourth course. All have been exceptional. 7: Yes. This class was just as excellent as the previous class I’d taken. 8–9: No. 10: Yes. This was excellent and equal to previous. 11: No. 12: This is my third. Each is a wonderful and magical experience—a rare chance to spend a week with the world’s experts and people that are usually a distance away.
4) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?
1: The discussions of binding styles and history were of most interest to me. I will use the information we discussed in conversation and teaching in the future. 2: All in general. 3: Everything. 4: Historical survey of bookbinding methods; greater understanding of the structure of medieval bindings. 5: Historical structure in relation to sympathetic conservation, understanding the evolution of forms. 6: All of it. 7: About 90 percent was relevant, but the last day when CC went over conservation issues/techniques was particularly insightful. 8: Definitely samples and use of collections to identify binding period and characteristics and of course the instructor’s extensive knowledge and experience. 9: Looking at collections with professor. 10: Technical details about binding structures, materials. The chance to examine bindings. 11: I loved the artwork examples showing types of codices, scrolls, tools, &c. Having Beinecke Rare Book Libraray collection MSS examined will further enhance my ability to caution patrons about their handling. 12: The conservation aspects touched upon and the ability to talk with the instructor. I’ve always wanted to take a class with CC. Also wonderful to see the Florence flood film and hear him speak on the experience.
5) Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information, knowledge, and skills that the course was intended to convey? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1–3: Yes. 4: Yes. Yes. 5: Yes! I felt the level fit that specified in the course description. 6: This course is best for advanced students, which everyone was, so we could happily delve deep into the subject. 7: Yes. Yes! 8: Yes! 9: Yes. 10: Yes. It could have been more in-depth, but instructor seemed concerned students weren’t familiar with background knowledge. 11: Yes and yes. 12: Yes, I think so. As with the other courses it feels like too much in too short a time, and yes, you have the sense you’d like to do more! I would like to take a hands-on workshop with CC.
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: Working with the Yale collections. I would have liked more examples in class. 2: Instructor’s analysis of the bindings. 3: Everything. 4: Enjoyed particularly instructor’s expertise and willingness to share his knowledge and experience across a wide variety of topics. 5: The actual hands-on experience of the instructor combined with historical background: he did not just know it, he’d done it. 6: Benefitting from learning directly from the master on the subject. 7: CC! Also listening to him as he examined books. 8: See number four. 9: Professor and looking at objects with professor. 10: The personal connections CC has with course content. Great insight and ideas and stories. Enjoyable! 11: Artwork examples, sense of humour, the examples and photographs. 12: The instructor, my classmates, being at Beinecke, staying at Saybrook (aka Hogwarts!). I really loved staying at Saybrook, though the bathrooms were awkward.
7) How could the course have been improved?
1: The first day prepared us for the subject of the class. Providing this information as pre-course readings would have got us to the subject of the course quicker. 2: Perhaps a hands-on aspect. 3: Not sure. 4: This was the first time for this course at the Beinecke and the collections and classrooms were not familiar to the instructor, which created a bit of a learning curve, especially on the first day. 5: May wish to incorporate separate times for people to photograph artifacts. 6: It might help CC out to have an assistant, like Vince Golden does for Jan Storm van Leeuwen, so he can concentrate on teaching and not have to worry about slides, notes, &c. Just to make life a little easier. 7: Perhaps we could have seen more books? Would have loved more time in classroom with CC. Shorter lunch, or skip the long lunch on Friday? Feels like we ran out of time. None of us wanted CC to stop talking! 8: More time for review of examples from the collections. Readings specifically about binding during this period would have been very helpful for pre-class assignment. 9: More time looking at actual rare book collection. 10: Less overview of development of codex in order to have more time on specifics of medieval books. 11: Having the workbook in advance; announcing name, date of each example when screen changes. 12: CC needs a dedicated helper as I mentioned in number four. He was quite aware that he was a bit disorganized and preparing for this class at a new venue where he didn’t know the books was a challenge.
8) Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1–10: Yes. 11: Yes. Additional targeted reading will help me understand concepts that were new to me and not explained in the reading. 12: Yes, largely and it helped to fill in the many gaps in my knowledge.
9) Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1–7: Yes. 8: Yes. I would have loved to have had more time to discuss implications for conservation of these kinds of materials. 9–11: Yes. 12: Yes. Would have liked to have more hands-on work. Would like to have spent more time with the books.
10) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?
1: I will use this information in assessing books for conservation and for the teaching of interns and students. 2: Direct application to judgment in conservation treatment and analysis. 3: Rare book conservation. 5: In my own conservation work, and my own historical studies. 6: Bookbinding is my area of specialty—can’t get enough. 7: This information can be directly applied to my work in rare book conservation. 8: I intend to apply the knowledge I have learned to aid in identifying important binding characteristics for cataloging and conservation. 9: For knowledge for teaching. 10: Will guide future research. Will share with my own students. 11: See number four. Deepen my knowledge and appreciation of medieval and early renaissance bookbinding structures. 12: I’m very interested in the practical knowledge we gained from the Friday pm section on conservation, about tools and techniques and CC’s thoughts on selecting materials, structures, and the philosophy of treatment specifications/decision making.
11) If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: N/A. 2–3: Yes. 4: N/A. 5: Yes. 6–11: N/A. 12: Went to Sterling Conservation Lab. Very informative. Would have liked more time to talk to conservators there.
12) If you attended the evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers’ Night) were they worth attending?
1: I enjoyed the evening activities. 2: Yes. 3: Sure. 4: Yes, both the lecture and Video Night were excellent and well worth attending. 5: Video Night—yes; lecture seemed thrown together. 6: Yes, absolutely. I especially enjoyed the chance to see the Zefferelli film. 7: Somewhat. 8: Yes. 9: I did not attend the lecture. Other two good. 10: Yes. 11: Especially the Zefferelli film on Florence floods, since our instructor helped with the clean-up. Extremely moving. 12: Both were fantastic and very relevant to our course.
13) 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?
3: Everything was fine. 4: Handling was generally good. It is difficult to strike the perfect balance between protecting the materials and allowing students to observe them. 5: See above re: separate photography times and areas. Otherwise, all participants in my class were respectful of materials and knew proper handling. Were also advised well by Yale staff. 6: No improvements could be made. 7: Some of the materials were in a rather fragile state, but they were all handled appropriately. 8: I think that participants in the course handled materials with great respect. Certainly larger tables and more space between participants during handling would make it easier. 9: No. 10: Some initial guidance and then a simple Yes or No regarding handling. There was a lot of sighing and huffing and puffing for no good reason. Material was being handled very carefully and expertly. 11: I wish every class handled the MSS with the care shown by this class. 12: There was some awkwardness in handling the books. Perhaps having all the books set out and give each student five minutes with each book, then doing musical chairs—we move, not the books.
14) Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?
1: Yes, and yes. 2: Yes, good value. 3: Yes, and yes. 4: Yes. Yes, I would definitely recommend the course to others. 5: Yes. 6: Yes, and yes, emphatically. 7: Definitely! Yes. 8: Yes. Yes! 9: Yes. Yes. 10: Yes. 11: That’s for them to say. 12: Absolutely to both. I hope CC will be able to teach again.
15) Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year? (If you have further praise/concerns, please speak with Amanda Nelsen or Michael Suarez.)
3: It was well worth it. Almost a must for any conservator that deals with older material. I loved the class. 6: The whole experience was just superb, as always. Thank you! 9: Arrange accommodations closer to class for lecturers. 12: I can’t think anymore or write anymore. Many thanks.
Aggregate Statistics
Number of respondents: 12
Leave
Institution gave me leave: 12 (100%)
Tuition
Institution paid tuition: 8 (67%)
I paid tuition myself: 3 (25%)
N/A: self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 1 (8%)
Housing
Institution paid housing: 4 (34%)
I paid for my own housing: 4 (33%)
N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home: 4 (33%)
Travel
Institution paid travel: 4 (34%)
I paid my own travel: 4 (33%)
N/A: lived nearby: 4 (33%)
Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)
Cataloguer, MSS cataloguer: 1 (8%)
Conservator/binder/preservation librarian: 8 (68%)
Librarian with some rare book duties: 1 (8%)
Library assistant/clerk: 1 (8%)
University: full or associate professor: 1 (8%)
How did you hear about this course?
RBS website: 7 (58%)
Work colleague: 2 (18%)
Word of mouth: 1 (8%)
Social media: 1 (8%)
Work Announcement: 1 (8%)