91: Introduction to Illuminated Manuscripts [M-50]
15-19 August 2005
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: The readings are a must and will help greatly with understanding liturgical time and background. Familiarize yourself with Gothic lettering if you can! 3: Very valuable. 4: The pre-course readings, though quite comprehensive, were very useful. It gave us a flavor of the time. There was not much on the earlier periods, and that might be worth adding a reading or two. 5: The readings were very useful. If not done, the course would have been a lot less meaningful. Though I couldn’t get one, I will when I return home. 6: Very useful. 8: The pre-course readings were extremely helpful in preparation for the course. In fact, I think the course itself mostly cemented what I learned from the readings. 9: They helped tremendously. The reading list gave me a very good foundation for the course and enabled me to easily follow the information presented in class. 10: I acquired and read all of the course books, excepting the missal. The liturgical books could be dense but justify preparation. They will have greater utility for review after the conclusion of the class. 11: Very useful, though I only completed half. I read R.N. Swanson’s Religion and Devotion in Europe, c.1215-c.1515, which helped set the framework for the course. 12: I was accepted late, but plowed through as much of the reading as I could, adding in the evenings. The preparatory readings were quite good reads in addition to being good preparation. Michelle Brown’s Understanding Illuminated Manuscripts would be a good addition. 13: The readings were very helpful. It will be even more useful to re-visit them now that I have a richer context for the information. I wish I had read my missal more thoroughly.
2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: Yes -- the workbook provided is full of useful material and a bibliography that I will carry with me as I continue to work in Special Collections studies. 2: Yes, indeed! They were most appropriate and useful. 3: Extremely so. 4: The distributed materials were quite useful, particularly the summary of liturgy and book-of-hours information. 5: They were useful and will continue to be. Some of the material is not available anywhere else and is a summary of RW’s research tools/methods. 6: Yes, they were invaluable and will be extremely useful to me in the future. 7: Definitely. 8: The handbook used in the course is useful, but might be more so if it included some of the more common abbreviations found in rubrics. 9: Yes. 10: Yes, but the inclusion of a page of frequently encountered Latin abbreviations and of variant Gothic letterforms would be helpful. 11: Yes. 12: RW’s handbook, as well as the tables at the ends of book, were very helpful and will become handy places to start looking when questions concerning liturgical books or iconography come up. 13: 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: I have familiarity with printed rare books of hours, but never worked closely with illuminated manuscripts. This course has provided me with much-needed knowledge and a good introduction which I hope to continue and will broaden my skills with. 2: All the aspects are relevant to me, and the intellectual level was perfect. 3: Those aspects pertaining to High Gothic (i.e. those dealing with late c14 and early c15). 4: Our intellects were constantly being challenged, but no one was ever talked down to. It was a very helpful to have a survey of various periods early in the week, but the most interesting part to me was how the various manuscripts fit into the liturgical process, and how the books of hours were so often modified to fit particular needs and desires. 5: The daily deeper immersion into the topic via slides, exercises, display of manuscripts up to our exercise using books of hours from the Walters Art Museum (WAM) collection was a building-up process. The intellectual level was entirely appropriate -- luckily we had several class members with a good grasp of Latin, and they generously shared. I’m not so afraid of Latin anymore and realize it can be deciphered often. 6: The explanations of the liturgical year, the tips on how to determine use for the books of hours, and the explanations of the different books and their functions. The intellectual level was both challenging and appropriate. The instructor was kind. 7: The survey nature was both informative, interesting and useful for my purposes, and the intellectual level was perfect. 8: The course was most useful in teaching the organization and content of the various books as an aid to identifying and evaluating them. 9: The course as a whole was fascinating, and I plan to do further reading/study once I return home. The intellectual level of the course was challenging without causing frustration. 10: The liturgical aspects, less accessible than stylistic, are particularly helpful and enable a far fuller appreciation of the illuminations, their use and context. 11: Very relevant. I came to the class as a complete novice, so nothing was “old hat” or repetitive. It was definitely taught at my intellectual level, whatever that is. 12: The intellectual level was appropriate -- and I’m grateful to have had some previous exposure to Latin. I was particularly intrigued by our exercise in determining the “use” of a prayer/liturgical book. 13: The course was exactly what I expected in terms of content and will be very useful. The intellectual level was appropriate.
4) Was time devoted to studying original materials at the Walters Art Museum well spent?
1: Yes. The many opportunities to study facsimiles as well as looking at original manuscripts helped tremendously. We also cataloged our own book of hours and studied the medieval calendars, which were especially fascinating to work through as a class. 2: Yes, indeed! 3: Yes, completely. 4: There was absolutely no substitute for looking at the original materials. They are awe-inspiring, even 600 years later. The colors in the miniatures, the border decoration, even the modifications to the text cannot be conveyed adequately through reproductions. 5: Yes, the time was well-spent, though our first viewing was restricted because one book and many people required more time than we had. Later days and different methods of display worked much better. 6: Very well-spent. 7: Yes. 8: Yes. 9: Yes. RW filled the WAM class time with wonderful examples -- it really helped enforce the lecture sessions. 10: Definitely. 11: Very well-spent. I enjoyed the variety of speakers, and the alternation between hands-on and “show and tell.” 12: Absolutely! There are very few venues that can offer this kind of experience with manuscripts. That experience goes beyond the manuscripts themselves, and extends to handling, security, the interests of particular staff and anecdotes of scholarly use. 13: Absolutely!
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: The intense focus on the subject, which I miss in more mainstream university courses. The opportunity to work with original materials, and the knowledgeable instructor in a smaller, more intimate class setting. I enjoyed the pace and the materials. 2: I love the generous quality of RW’s teaching. He is deeply knowledgeable and as a student, you feel he wants to give us everything. He clearly organizes and prepares at length for his time with us. He is a superb teacher and buoys his students up. 3: The high level of organization and well thought-out pacing of the class were always aspects that stood out for me. But without a doubt, the opportunity to interact firsthand with manuscripts at such a fine collection was spectacular. So too, the opportunity to study this collection with a teacher so eminently qualified, not only as an outstanding, internationally recognized specialist of the field, but also one who is intimately acquainted with the holdings of this collection, made this experience remarkable. Thank you. 4: The various ways in which specific ideas were portrayed in the miniatures. Old and New Testament images, prefigurations, mirroring, and the very complexity of the religious experience. 5: RW had the course really well-planned and illustrated copiously with slides. He continually involved the class to translate texts, identify saints or scenes depicted. Understanding the Catholic services and purposes of each type of book was an eye opener. The highlight was of course working with a c15 book of hours with my partner to describe what was present via texts and images to arrive at a place of “use” for the manuscript and perhaps date. Reading the calendar was great, too! 6: The lesson spent using original materials learning how to determine the origin of a particular calendar in a book of hours and how to determine the use of a particular book of hours. 7: That the material taught and the manner of teaching it were practical in addition to theoretical. 8: It all fit together so well, I’m not sure I can say what was best. The readings were great, but would not have worked so well without the reinforcement they got from looking at slides and actual manuscripts. 9: Cataloging a book of hours; the lecture Monday night; and touring the Peabody Library and WAM rare book room. 10: The extraordinary capability and enthusiasm of the instructor. 11: A fascinating topic that was very well-presented. There is a true method and logic to RW’s teaching. So, I’d say besides the obvious fascinating topic, I liked the presentation the best. It was so well laid-out and presented. 12: The experience, competence and communicative abilities of all instructors proved, once again, that at RBS you can really take in a lot in five days. 13: It was a very coherent presentation/introduction of complex materials.
6) How could the course have been improved?
1: It is excellent, but at times I felt at some sessions too many pushed to see the materials at once, and some days were overly long. 2: Lengthen it! 3: I would have liked still more time handling the manuscripts. But clearly the opportunity itself was a rare one. It would have been helpful having access to a library during the interim. I would also like to suggested that a second session of this course be taught specializing in a specific regional style, set of manuscripts, and/or handling secular formats. I would be the first to enroll in any of the above, and it would give us an opportunity to expand upon the immense materials RW introduced to us. 4: If some way to help us learn a little more Latin could be devised, that would be helpful. The learning of only a few of the beginning phrases for various parts of the liturgy helped us navigate around the documents so much better. 5: Not a real problem, but going back and forth into a secure part of the museum was only a bit of a pain -- certainly not what some museums would require. Thanks, WAM. 6: Perhaps a little more time spent at the WAM with the original materials. 8: It would have been good to be able to spend more time with reference materials in WAM. Since we spent so little time there, and the time was full, we could not really look at these. 9: As someone who hasn’t studied Latin extensively, I do think adding a suggestion to get comfortable with Latin before attending this class would be a good idea. 10: In no meaningful way. 12: The handbook might improve with a list of common abbreviations and samples of a few bookhands. 13: I wish we had more time to work with the original materials and to compare and contrast images, borders, &c., but I realize that is very difficult.
7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by our host institutions. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?
1: In the museum tour, it was a bit too chaotic -- too many items on the table at once. The table at the Peabody Library was very shaky holding heavy incunables; people leaning on the table could have been a problem. RW always presented to the class seated around a table one at a time, which is a better way. 2: None. Our materials were well and carefully handled. 3: Protocol in handling books seemed quite careful. 4: I thought the handling of the manuscripts was done very professionally. Again, we weren’t treated as complete novices or inept, but we were taught to handle these manuscripts with respect. 5: They were well cared for and instructions were clear. 6: They were well cared for. 7: Maybe showing the students a little more about how to handle manuscripts carefully. 8: I think the instructors and curators were very attentive to the physical well-being of the materials. 9: Watching the staff/instructor as they handle things and following their lead/using common sense helped a lot. 10: Space and security were appropriate. No suggestions to offer. 12: I thought the manuscripts were handled very well -- and what is more, the rules were explained to participants so that they might absorb them better. 13: None. All was very clearly and professionally done.
8) If you attended the Sunday reception and/or Monday night lecture, were they worth attending?
1: Yes -- very pleasant, both. 2: I attended the Monday night [by Will Noel], which was thrilling, so yes -- it was worth it. 3: Yes, the Monday lecture was extremely informative and arresting. 4: Both were excellent -- the first to meet a few people, and the second to learn a bit about the complexities of working with manuscripts. 5: Yes. Getting to know people made this the friendliest RBS class I’ve ever attended. I think this was also because RW made an attempt to know everyone and called us all by name practically from day one. 7: Yes. 8: Yes. The reception and dinner gave us a head start on getting to know the instructor and fellow students. The lecture was very informative. 9: Very much so. 10: The Sunday reception provides a desirable informal access to staff and instructor. The Monday lecture was fascinating. 11: Yes. The Sunday reception was a pleasant way to get to know the teacher. I was very impressed at how hard all three teachers worked at trying to meet their students. It made me feel very welcome. The Monday night lecture was plain fun. 12: The Monday night lecture was fabulous. Will Noel is an excellent speaker. I missed the Sunday reception. 13: Yes.
9) If you attended the Tuesday and Wednesday evening tours of WAM and JHU’s Peabody Library, was the time profitably spent?
1: Yes, the Peabody especially. WAM was good, but too much at once in a small space. The Armenian manuscript was a highlight. 2: Yes! 3: Above all on the WAM -- the evening was a delight. I already had some familiarity with the Peabody, although it was a rare treat to see William Morris’s Kelmscott Chaucer. 4: The WAM tour was great, and WAM Curator Will Noel was very good in showing us lots of material and explaining it. The Peabody tour was interesting, but the examples of the collections were far fewer. 5: WAM was a pure delight -- WN brought out extra stuff and kept going. The Peabody was a little less rewarding, but I wanted to see the architecture and we did! 7-8: Yes. 9: It was among many of the high points of my week. 10: The Peabody Library is a fantastic space, and the tour enjoyable. The WAM tour was terrific, providing an opportunity to view extraordinary objects. 12: Both were quite interesting, particularly the tour of the WAM manuscript collection. 13: Absolutely! WAM was spectacular.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: Yes! The readings will help a lot, and RW is a superb teacher. The subject is most wonderful. Thank you! 2: Yes. I got my money’s worth and leave enriched by the course, now and in the future. 3: As was my experience in the previous year, I feel greatly privileged to have had this opportunity and know that this will forever alter my own scholarship and perspective. 4: Well worth it. People who sign up should come prepared to work all day, every day. The contacts I made were also particularly useful. 5: Of course; the selection of Baltimore was perfect. Please come back. 6: Yes. It was time very well-spent, using a fabulous collection, learning from an enthusiastic, knowledgeable and gracious instructor. 7: It is entirely worth the time. 8: Yes. I think the course is very worthwhile, and I would certainly recommend it. 9: Did I get my money’s worth? Several times over. I went to bed every night thinking it couldn’t possibly get better -- the next day, it did. 10: Absolutely! 11: Absolutely! And though I am not a manuscript librarian, curator or collector, I learned a lot about liturgical books and medieval religion that I can apply to my work with pre-1801 books. 12: Yes, it is a lot of money for someone with my income, but my institution helps enormously. They do this in part because I consistently report that the training is of high quality and so good value. 13: Very much so. Try to get a facsimile of a book of hours and do some of the reading with it to refer to and consult, perhaps.
Number of respondents: 13
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
46% 31% 23% 23%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
8% 54% 46% 54%
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 exchange home
46% 15% 31% 23%
There were three rare book librarians (23%), two general librarians with some rare book duties (15%), two full-time students (15%), two book collectors (15%), two students attending out of general interest (15%), one antiquarian bookseller (7%), and one conservator/binder/preservation librarian (7%).