Roger Gaskell

Roger Gaskell, assisted by Caroline Duroselle-Melish
I-40: The Illustrated Scientific Book to 1800
29 July–2 August 2013

Detailed Course Evaluation

1) How useful were the pre-course readings? Did you do any additional preparations in advance of the course?

1: Very useful, Kusukawa should probably be assigned as required reading. Overall, however I found the selections helpful in orienting terminology and knowledge of production processes. 2: The pre-course readings were essential to maintain the pace of the class. Griffiths is a helpful, easy read. If you’ve done DesBib there’s no reason to reread Gaskell. The course doesn’t do lots of contextualizing within a grand narrative so be sure to do that if you’re shaky on this picture. 3: Readings very useful and for the most part enjoyable. Not referred to much in class—maybe more brief connections would help. A couple of students seemed not to have done the readings and this slowed down class at times. 4: The pre-course readings were quite useful. 5: The required ones were useful. I would recommend moving at least one of the history of science texts from the optional to required, like Kusukawa. 6: The pre-course readings were extremely useful. Make sure to pay close attention to the Gaskell bibliography reading. 7: The pre-course readings focused predominately on process and I would have benefitted from more required reading in visual analysis. Otherwise, they were a good background. 8: Very useful. Very well chosen. I read several of RG’s catalogs to see how he had been describing images. 9: Very useful. I read all the required and all but one of the recommended—I could not obtain one publication. 10: Useful—did recommended reading. Gillian Rose’s book should be required advance reading. 11: Not very. Repetitive about some elements of book production and illustration. But very little about science books particularly. 12: I find the pre-course readings useful. I did not have time to do anything extra as I had a full workload this summer.

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: Yes. Bibliography at end of course workbook will be ESPECIALLY helpful. The texts listed there look fascinating. I also appreciated the online workbook CDM sent out, with convenient links to catalogue entries. 2: Very helpful. Great that they were provided online. I would have loved RG’s slides to be in the workbook as well. 3: Workbook was very clear and helpful, but I would have liked more in it or in handouts. Lectures were packed with information and having the slides to take notes on would be great (also to read in advance). Ditto some additional information on the books—a line or two about key features; artists’ names if these are important. 4: The course workbook was helpful, but course would have had more information. Over the course of the week we [illegible] for [illegible] of a number of RG’s slides, which were then provided. It would be great to have those in the workbook. It would also help to have more space for notes in the list of the books we viewed over the course of the week. 5: The workbook was an excellent tool during class, and I appreciated the full citations ( and space for note-taking next to them) for all materials we saw in class and visits. These and the bibliography will be very useful for future reference. 6: yes, I can’t wait to dive into the annotated bibliography. 7: The workbook should be useful, the bibliography especially. Notes and annotations associated with the items seen would be helpful too—but the lists of items on display were great. I’d like a list of items shown in slides as well. 8: They will be useful when I return home. I think they would be more useful if supplemented with some of the excellent content RG showed on his PowerPoint slides. The bibliography of books seen during the course should include artists’ names, when we know them. 9: I was particularly pleased with the detailed listing of material we examined. I will be consulting the reference soon—I have a paper in progress that can be aided by some of the titles. 10: Yes. 11: Yes. The “works consulted” section would be improved with notation of why that text was selected for investigation, and advanced reading list is superb. 12: Yes, very useful for further research.

3) Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?

1: N/A. 2: I have—the material in this course was more interesting to me. Class camaraderie was especially nice this week. The instructors were excellent. 3: Yes. On the whole this class was just as informative and rather more fun. Some of the first and second day into stuff on image and print processes was review from G-20. Review is always good, but the majority of the class seemed not to need so much background and a few needed more! Maybe a pre-class survey on experience to help calibrate? The make-up of the class was great—a mix of expert librarians and focused academics with varied but allied interests. It felt friendlier and more productively collegial than a prior class with come collectors and a wider range of librarian backgrounds and a few academics. 4: I have taken three other RBS classes, all of which I have enjoyed. This course was particularly appropriate for me in terms of its subject matter. 5: Yes. This was just as strong as other courses in its focus on observing and studying materials in person. I have appreciated how other courses had better integrated lectures in conjunction with book examinations, but as this is the first time for this course I am confident its parts will be better connected in the future. 6: No. 7: I have. Much of the course covered areas I had already covered in Book Illustration Processes and DesBib. I know that my fellow students may or may not have this background, but it made the class a bit repetitive. 8: It was certainly less difficult than DesBib. The comparable class I took was Provenance, which was a better class. However, we were guinea pigs. I think the class will cohere better when it is next offered. 9: This was my first course. 11–12: No.

4) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?

1: I’m interested especially in the things the course fulfilled the first things extremely well, and the third in a satisfactory manner. Firstly, the syntax of images in relation to given technological and social vocabulary. Secondly, the economy of place, production, and distribution (including “copying” journal, &c.). Thirdly, the impact of images in transmitting further knowledge across large culture divides. 2: Seeing lots of great books and having RG and CDM’s impressions. Tools for formal analysis. Greater familiarity with illustration processes as they relate to science in the period. 3: Interpreting images for function and context, in light of their form, their book, and other relevant books. Artistic and cultural context probably most important, but these must be founded on the formal and functional analysis RG is so good at instilling. 4: This class was topically extremely relevant to me. 5: The opportunities to see and discuss a variety of materials. 6: We did some really foundational work for moving between text, image, and materiality. I have a much clearer understanding of how production and materiality affect meaning and plan to apply this framework to my own work. 7: Visual analysis and, especially, the history of production, networks, and use of scientific texts. It was also valuable to see and page through so many important landmarks of printed illustrated scientific books. 8: The relationships among scientific books. I would have liked a bit more on networks, as demonstrated by specific books. The overview of illustration processes was excellent. The consideration of genre—what is a scientific book in a given period?—was also very good. 9: Use of illustration and visual information in science and the dissemination of science knowledge. 10: Formal and functional analysis of images. Wish the whole class had been about this. 11: I am most interested in reader reception and circulation of ideas and images. This was not as well-covered this week. 12: How visual practices evolved in scientific thinking across disciplines. We stopped just before science is the science we recognize today but the pre-history provides me with useful comparative facts.

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: Yes. Yes, provided that pre-course reading is thoroughly completed, and vocabulary memorized. 2: Yes! I was impressed with the tacit density of information. RG and CDM had clearly put great effort not only into selecting materials but also into organizing them in a way that provided very particular and interesting insights. 3: Yes—the process of analysis and thinking behind it were the heart of the course, and we all demonstrated in presentations and conversation on Friday that we learned it. For the the most part—review on first day and a half was a bit basic. 4: RG and CDM make a wonderful team. It was especially nice to be able to draw on their expertise during all the sessions where we were engaged in close examination of books. 5: Yes, the course did what it was meant to do. 6: Yes. We picked up new skills and methodologies each day (in some cases in each session). We all seemed to come in with different backgrounds and so while some things may have been redundant, I think on the whole, we needed everything. 7: This is a tough question to answer. About half of the class had book history and about half of the class had more subject knowledge, so I found that part of the material covered I already knew, which was a bit disappointing. When we discussed more about production, networks of publishers, authors, engravers, &c., and use and dissemination, it was much more interesting for me personally. (I would have liked more of that.) Discussion about the materials before seeing them worked best for me. 8: I think the course tried to stay at a high intellectual level while also teaching the basics of illustration processes and bibliography. This was a difficult balance to strike. The first half of the week (Monday–Wednesday) was more of a success than the second half. 9: I think so. The intellectual level was challenging but welcome—much like a graduate level course. I was quite happy everyone was expected to think and work as well as participate. 11: In the end, I did not acquire the observational skills and background history I had hoped to get about scientific illustration. 12: Yes, though I realized that, as time is short and so much has to be covered, it would be more useful, in the future to have a guide to help and our preparation before the course, so we can come with more thoughtful questions.

6) What did you like best about the course?

1: RG’s selection of material—the texts he chose were all fascinating specimens that efficiently illustrated points made during the morning’s discussions. This was especially true about Wednesday afternoon visit to Dibner. 2: Seeing lots of books! Field trip to D.C.! RG! CDM! 3: RG’s skill in analysis and excellent pedagogical instincts (start with poem, vary the activities, get us moving, show lots of stuff, give us a project). Moreover he and CDM are so knowledgeable and FUN! 4: Having the chance to handle so many books over the course of the week. 5: Chance to see and discuss a variety of scientific texts. 6: I am so pleased that we saw so many books. It would take many moths for me to call up these books individually from various rare book collections! 7: Discussions amongst students; seeing all the materials at SC and at the Dibner and Cullman Libraries. 8: Wonderful field trip to the Smithsonian, wonderful sessions in SC. RG and CDM and the librarians coordinated everything very well. 9: Seeing and handling the books. Being able to study and photograph printed images close up “and personal.” Also, the hands-on participation of working this letter press and the visit to the print studio. 10: SC sessions, analysis of images, field trip. 11: The instructor and assistant both were personable and certainly very knowledgeable. 12: Looking and dealing directly with the books.

7) How could the course have been improved?

1: It would have been nice to get a sense from those working on a research project how they might apply to their projects technologies of analysis learned. This might be incorporated into Friday presentations. 2: I really liked the case studies (Gaskell, Hooke, Aldrovandi)—I would have liked at least one per day. This first printing demonstration was unnecessary. I might have done the final presentations throughout the week in the SC so we could show our impressions with the object in front of us. 3: More handouts and/or workbook information. I thought the overall order, pace, and content was good, but maybe less book production basics at the beginning and maybe less lecturing (same information could be in discussion format?) at the end (when we’re tired from field trip!). 4: This course was the first time the class was offered, so there were some minor glitches in organization, but I am sure those will go away as the class gets taught again. 5: Add a mix of lesser known works into the mix of “landmarks” to show the variety of kinds of scientific texts for a broad range of audiences that were being produced and consumed. 6: Adding labels to the books would not only help simplify the viewing process but would also give me something to include in my photos so I know what’s what when I get home. 7: I think that the course description led me to expect a different class somewhat. I would have preferred not to have spent time on the letterpress demo and basics thereof and on the critical bibliography summary. I would have loved to dig more into production, networks, and use—but maybe that needs a full semester? 8: See question four. 9: A more comprehensive treatment of functional analysis.11: Less formal bibliography. More c18 works. The pre-readings to specific lectures—salience was an issue. Much less on printing demonstration. More repetition of slides when returned to lecture. 12: I think it would be more attractive to scholars dealing in the other periods interested in the conceptual content of the course to create some bridges between certain perceptions of the before and the current.

8) Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N

1–3: Yes. 4: Yes. Very much so. There was a good balance between the part of the class that was devoted to looking at the formal aspects of thinking about illustration within the world of bibliography and looking at all of these books within their historical context. 5: Yes. 6: Yes. I’m perhaps most surprised to be walking away with a whole new approach to looking at books as well as the information I expected to receive. 7: Maybe. Sort of not (see previous comments). 8: Yes. 9: Yes. I loved this course. I had no idea what it would be like or how I would be received as a non-librarian. Everything worked out beautifully. 10: No. 11: It was not in the end what I expected and hoped for, but the fault could be mine. 12: Kind of. I think I went more by the reading list.

9) Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N

1: Yes. At the same time, a good deal of the actual “learning” all really takes place once I go home and review. I’m still dealing with the amount of information packed into us this week. 2: Yes. 3: Yes, would have liked more on artists and craft networks and genealogy of images and tropes. 4: Yes. This class really made me think about how to use some of the materials in my own collection in different ways. I also discovered that there are books in my own collection I did not know were there (by comparing the book list to our holdings) so I will be able to explore those items more after I go back. 5: Yes. 6: Yes. 7: Maybe. Same as above—yes and no. I loved what I did learn; I just wanted more of it and less of other discussions. 8: Yes. I would have liked more on the general history of science in this period. An overview would be fine! The discussion of critical bibliography was not relevant to me. 9: Yes. I would have liked more discussion of the roll of observation in creating and reading images. 10: No. Would have liked more critical analysis, content analysis, &c. 11: No. 12: Yes.

10) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?

1: This is a question that I must continue to ponder for some time to come. The bridge between sciences of erudition and critical discourse needs to be formed individually, with care. That said, in a very immediate sense, I want to read up more on the circulation of “pirated” images, as this is relevant to my dissertation project. 2: I will use these skills in future teaching. RG’s capacious view of scientific illustration is also something I need to consider more deeply in my own research. 3: More structured analysis of images and their books and a sense of where to go to answer further questions. 4: I will certainly use what I learned in this course to enhance the teaching and outreach that I do with my collection. The course made me think about adding other kinds of books into some of the sessions that I teach. 5: My increased familiarity with the texts discussed will broaden my ability to assist researchers and will expand my teaching options when sharing materials with student groups. 7: I want to learn more about history of science materials in my library so that I can better serve the collections and the scholars who use them. I also have a personal interest in the history of certain scientific texts and this was a helpful introduction and opportunity to learn more about what to read for more. 8: I will use it for reference and curatorial work at my institution. I also hope to use it while researching my collection’s holdings. 9: What I have learned has sparked new ideas for a project I am currently working on as well as given me food for thought for a new project. 10: Teaching history of science to undergraduates or graduates with rare books; interpreting my collections for numerous audiences. 11: Firstly, teach part of an upper-level history course on early modern science. Secondly, better inform a chapter in manuscript or material culture of science. 12: I am interested in the scientific development of the diagram in the physical and mathematical sciences, and am interested with the sort of early idea of models and prototypes versus critical and authentic representation of the real. So this helps me extrapolate to what I do.

11) If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?

1: Very much so. However, due to traffic issues, I feel it would be worthwhile next time to stay overnight in D.C. rather than leaving at 6:30 am, only to arrive at 10 am. 2: Yes! It was completely exhausting, but so worthwhile. Amazing to be introduced to the archival and human resources at the Smithsonian and Dibner, neither of which I’d been to before. 3: Yes. It was great (especially in comparison to prior classes) to have activities to get us up and moving every day, early on. SC every day was great and good training for being efficient on the big trip to D.C. The rolling press demonstration was great and printing press useful to newbies. But twelve at a time takes a while, especially if some are old hands. Six and six works better? It helps us get and stay focused and friendly to be doing things together while moving around. The trip to D.C. was splendid—jam packed but a good balance, and worth every minute. 4: Our field trip to the Smithsonian and Dibner Libraries was a highlight of the week. The staff of both libraries were extremely generous with their time and allowed us to handle almost all of the books we saw. We also made three trips to SC, where we worked with a large number of books. 5: Yes, very well spent. 6: Absolutely! It was immensely valuable to see more books and to hear from librarians about the books they take care of. 7: Yes. We had a few visits to SC and a visit to the Dibner and Cullman Libraries. They were wonderfully useful, especially being able to handle and page through so many of the books. 8: Yes. But the drives were brutal. Perhaps offer this class in D.C. next time? Or consider an overnight there? 9: Yes! 10: Yes—though I wish we would have had longer to spend with each book: three minutes is only cursory—we had to leave it just as we were beginning to understand. 11: YES! Smithsonian trip should be extended. It was the highlight for me. 12: Yes, I like looking at the books, though I wish I could have had more time with books in the physical sciences.

12) If you attended the evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers’ Night) were they worth attending?

1: To a degree. I attended only the first lecture and Booksellers’ Night, having been on a fieldtrip for the Forum. It was not uninteresting, but certainly not life-changing. A good conversation with a classmate over dinner would have been more satisfying. 2: On Video Night, Linotype movie was remarkably good. Booksellers’ Night was a fun, social evening. 3: Yes. Paper museum was great! Too bad the field trips and RBS Forum conflicted. 4: I only attended the RBS Lecture this year. I did think it was worth attending. 5: I did not attend. 6: The lecture was a bit outside of my field and expertise and due to our late stay in D.C. we missed the Wednesday lecture which would have been more relevant. Booksellers’ Night seemed disorganized and I had hoped for it to be more of a group pouting than it turned out to be for me. 7: I attended the lecture, but only caught the second half, so it would be unfair to report. 9: Yes! 10: Yes! 12: I only got to go to the museum and visited one bookstore briefly. The museum is worth it.

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?

1: I’m not the right person to ask about this—after years in libraries, I’m still not sure if I’m handling rare materials correctly. 2: I thought things went well. I loved that RG allowed his c17 and c18 copper plates to be run through the press for a demonstration. 3: Everyone seemed very responsible and careful. 4: There were supports available for books. 6: None. 7: Make sure that students don’t rub hand lotion on their hands during class. 10: It was fine—a short handling demo Monday morning?

14) Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?

1: Yes. Unreservedly. 2: Absolutely. Absolutely. 3: Yes. Yes. 4: Yes. I would absolutely recommend the class to others. 5: Yes. Although it is a bit uneven in some ways, the professor was very interested in getting feedback as the week went on and I trust that it will be even better and more polished in the future. 6: Absolutely. It was an immense privilege to be able to look at books with RG and CDM. 7: I enjoyed the course and I think it has room for improvement to be better. More refinement will make it even better. 8: Yes, and yes. But know that this is not a History of Science course. It is a stage amalgam of useful parts. Overall very interesting and rewarding. This was a commonplace book of a class! 9: Yes, and yes. 11: No. It pains me to say it, but I regret the time and money I invested in the week. I would have a hard time recommending the course to a historian. 12: Yes to both questions.

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.)

1: One fails to relate the poverty of our knowledge concerning image production, until one takes this course (which, to be sure, deliberately raises many more questions than it answers). If you want to move away from the hegemony of type, take this course! 2: RG and CDM were a wonderful team with a nice dynamic. RG is very concerned with making sure people get what they want from the course. I’m sure that being specific about your goals in the application will mean that he can best accommodate your needs. 3: This was a great experience—lonely classmates, splendid instructors, so much information, well-structured and also inviting independent thinking. RG has great pedagogical instincts as well as (along with CDM) such expertise! The scheduling, handout, and workbook kinks will surely be smoothed out in future iterations. Thanks! 4: RG and CDM are both incredibly knowledgeable about this topic, which made being in this class a real pleasure. 5: I liked the structure of the homework assignments very much. I would have liked to have two rounds instead of one if it could be fit into the schedule. 6: RG’s a wonderful teacher. He is patient, open to differing opinions, and generous with his knowledge. CDM was a wonderful counterpart and I hope to see this team at work at RBS again. 7: The course may be better suited for people without much book history knowledge but with more experience in history of science, pre-1800. But this could change with more refinement. Perhaps the course should be co-taught by RG and CDM? 9: This was a great course. RG and CDM have obviously worked hard preparing it and teaching it. Can they do a Part II? 10: Once this one is refined maybe one on scientific illustration from lithography and beyond? 12: One should come with a better foundation of early modern intellectual history, history of science and also some general understanding on the history of bibliographic practices.

Aggregate Statistics

Number of respondents: 12

Leave

Institution gave me leave: 5 (42%)

I took vacation time: 1 (8%)

N/A: self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 6 (50%)

Tuition

Institution paid tuition: 5 (42%)

I paid tuition myself: 2 (16%)

N/A: self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 5 (42%)

Housing

Institution paid housing: 4 (33%)

I paid for my own housing: 4 (33%)

N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home: 4 (34%)

Travel

Institution paid travel: 2 (16%)

I paid my own travel: 5 (42%)

N/A: lived nearby: 5 (42%)

Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)

Ph.D. (humanities): 5 (42%)
Rare book librarian: 4 (34%)
College, assistant professor: 1 (8%)
University, assistant professor: 1 (8%)
Work in a museum or cultural institution: 1 (8%)

How did you hear about this course?

RBS website: 5 (42%)
Word of mouth: 2 (17%)
RBS faculty or staff recommendation: 2 (17%)
Science and Imagery blog announcement: 1 (8%)
Ex libris announcement: 1 (8%)
H–Net: 1 (8%)