M-20: Introduction to Codicology
9-13 October 2006 Baltimore
1) How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Very useful, although the syllabus was small. It wouldn’t hurt to read more of Derolez’s paleography texts. 2: Pre-course readings were very helpful, but one would not have needed to read them before coming. 3: Very useful! But I misunderstood them and read the entire books rather than the recommended chapters! I would also request that you place more emphasis on Latin and less on other readings. Most of that was covered in class. 4: Very useful -- could have included a note to review or gain information about Books of Hours. 5: Very useful -- I came to class ready to hit the ground running. 6: Very well selected and useful, especially Shailor and Derolez. 7: Readings were relevant and useful -- they provided a good background for the work we did.
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: The class course pack is very useful and will be a good reference source for continued study. 2: The course materials distributed were well-planned and useful both for the class and for later. 3: Yes. 4: We didn’t have a daily outline which would have been helpful. 5: Very much so. 6: Absolutely. 7: Yes -- useful in class as well as for later reverence. Having them bound together was helpful.
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: Learning AD’s methodology was the best for my further course work. The amount of work and the intellectual content level were both appropriate. 2: It was all very relevant to my work and my research. It was very much what I expected. 3: Structure of books - folia, quires, etc - most relevant! Illumination and iconography - most interesting! 4: Intellectual level appropriate. Perhaps a half-day session on each of the scripts. 5: Actual analysis of Walters MSS was both interesting and relevant. 6: The workshop parts of the course where actual MSS were used for instruction. 7: Understanding how books were laid out and planned, learning a bit about paleography. Intellectual level was appropriate.
4) Was time devoted to studying original materials at WAM well spent?
1: Yes -- very important. The examination of materials was a highlight and integral part of this course. 2: Yes, we spent much time using original materials and were able to learn much from them. 3: Absolutely. 4: Absolutely! Extremely valuable. 5: Definitely. 6: Without a doubt. 7: Absolutely! The best! And the time at JHU was helpful as well.
5) What did you like best about the course?
1: AD’s systematic approach to the material and his simultaneously serious yet entertaining teaching style. 2: The ability to see principles illustrated by recourse to the original materials in WAM. 3: The hands-on experience and the incredible instructor! 4: Studying original materials. Access to both instructor’s and other students’ knowledge and expertise. 5: AD and the books. 6: Learning from such a distinguished scholar. 7: Having the privilege of watching AD leaf through a manuscript and describe what he was seeing.
6) How could the course have been improved?
2: There is more to cover, but not enough time to cover more. 3: Make it two weeks! :) No way I can think of. 4: Need a projector set up that will show all of the slide in focus at one time. 7: Nothing comes to mind...
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?
2: I think we were very careful in handling the materials. I was never concerned. 3: None. 4: We had to repeatedly load and unload our rolling treasure box -- perhaps a lock on the door instead? 5: Quick orientation on how to handle, and clear procedures for distribution and return of materials. 7: Everything seemed appropriate.
8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?
1: Yes, both were great. 2: The Sunday reception was good for meeting the other participants. The Monday lecture could have been better. I would rather hear something substantive than an intro to a collection. 3: Definitely. 4: Sunday reception is a nice intro; I had heard most of John’s comments last year during a Peabody tour. 5: Yes. 6: It is a nice way to meet the people you will be engaging with in class for the rest of the week. 7: Yes. Both were enjoyable.
9) If you attended the Tuesday and Wednesday evening tours of WAM and JHU’s Peabody Library, was the time profitably spent?
1: The WAM tour was incredibly generous and interesting. 2: I did not go to the Peabody. The WAM visit was great! 3: Wednesday’s tour was interesting but somewhat rushed and jumbled. Could have spent more time on fewer items, perhaps, but still enjoyable. 4: WAM was wonderful; perhaps a tour of Evergreen House? 6: Absolutely, I am so glad these were included. 7: N/A.
10) Did you get your money’s worth? Any final thoughts?
1: I always get “my” money’s worth at RBS, but this course was one of the best I’ve taken. If I were to take this course again, I would do more reading in advance -- not because it’s necessary but because there’s so much material to cover. 2: It was a great experience! 3: Most certainly. Highly recommended. Study your Latin first! 4: Very definitely! 5: Definitely worth my time. Will highly recommend the course to other art historians. 6: Yes. Read as much as you can about the city in which you will be studying and strategize about what you would like to do there in the evenings and during breaks 7: N/A.
Number of respondents: 7
Percentages
Leave Tuition Housing Travel
Institution Institution Institution Institution
gave me leave paid tuition paid housing paid travel
71% 43% 29% 29%
I took vaca- I paid tui- I paid for my I paid my own
tion time tion myself own housing travel
14% 29% 29% 29%
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
14% 29% 43% 43%
There were two rare book librarians (29%), two full-time students (29%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (14%), one teacher/professor (14%), and one conservator (14%).