Ever wanted to read a Bede manuscript from the ninth century? I thought so. These palaeography exercises are among the cleverest things I've ever seen on the web and are ideal as an introduction to medieval maunscripts. I shall be working through them and expect my ability in this area to improve considerably as a result (from a very low starting point, mind you). The use of DHTML and Flash is really innovative and exactly the sort of useful rather than pointless idea that the web is crying out for. Congratulations to Dianne Tillotson for an outstanding website.

Astrology? Total horlix in my opinion but it was taken terribly seriously once upon a time. My research into early science frequently involves astrology and its detractors, so it is good to find that so many old texts are on the web. Not usually on academic sites but by the heirs to the astrological tradition. They still believe it works and have started using medieval and early modern texts to get back to basics.

Good sites on astrology including texts: Deborah Houlding's Skyscript and Robert Zoller's Medieval Astrology.

Another great web site! I'm not really in genealogy as the ancient Bedes live in well deserved obscurity but for one notable exception, but this site is a gold mine for doing medieval research in England. All the common sources of official data are covered, both the manuscripts and printed sources, not to mention links to other useful places including on-line palaeography courses. The site: Medieval Genealogy.

Some websites with useful information on finding and uses history sources:

How to find those elusive papal bulls

An index to the Rolls Series

Medieval philosophy from Paul Vincent Spade

A little known but excellent resource is Roger Pearce on Tertullian and other matters relating to the early fathers. This page, in particular includes English translations of lots of useful stuff which means I shall have to update my work on the Library of Alexandria to include it. Lots of other good resources on the site too about Eusebius, Tacitus and the other authorities that get quoted about early Christianity. Roger sets the record straight on a few common myths about Eusebius the forger etc.

I've been off history for a couple of weeks to get my breathe back and rest the brain. Returning to the grindstone now with my Masters dissertation to be handed in 30th September. A meeting with my supervisor about the proposed plan went pretty well but as they say about the best laid plans.... On footnotes, the best plan seems to be to put them in the status bar like this: [NOTE].

What is the best way to add footnotes to an essay on the web? Make a footnote a link like this (1) but you slip get back. Perhaps javascript can help. I am playing with using alerts which can be activated by clicking on a [NOTE] and made to go away again just as fast. I wonder if this works on Netscape as apparantly the javascript on the Great Library essay does not. I am using the alert method on an essay on Witch trials and then will try and put the big Alexandria essay on line as well.

My PhD subject looks like it will be on science around 1500 rather than the fourteenth century where my studies have been concentrated until now. This is quite exciting as it means I can also get involved in humanism and figures like St Thomas More and Erasmus. But it is a fact that renaissance history does seem to be a different kettle of fish to medieval studies although I think this is largely artificial. The idea that we can split history into these eras is pretty daft anyway especially since people seem to see renaissance man as somehow rational and like us, while medieval man was stuck in the dark ages. But the fact is that much of what we think of as 'medieval' like witch trials, the Inquisition, religious wars et al were far more in evidence in the renaissance and early modern period than the middle ages. The seventeenth century must rank as the most religious of them all (at least if you were a Christian). So, just as I am trying to use methods where ever I can find them, it is perhaps a good idea not to allow myself to be stuck as a 'medievalist' if that looks like excluding lots of other interesting stuff.

The notorious book, the Jesus Mysteries, has an amulet on the front that shows a crucified man and is labelled Bacchus. The authors claim this shows that Jesus was derived from Bacchus which we can of course discount. But the question remains, what is this amulet and why does it show a pagan god on a Christian symbol? I found the answer in Richard Kieckhefer's "Magic in the Middle Ages" (CUP) where he discusses these charms and shows illustrations of a couple from the British Museum. One features a picture of Jesus on the cross (but this time actually labelled as Jesus) with a woman at prayer at his foot. All very Christian, except that on the reverse are magical incantations. What is happening here is that any symbol believed to have supernatural power is being co-opted by magic users to try to use it for their own purposes. Pagans as well as Christians were deeply suspicious of this kind of thing and the charms and gems were not part of mainstream pagan religion (or even the mystery religions). So we find Christian and pagan symbols being mixed and matched to try and maximise the efficiency of the magic being attempted. The amulet on the cover of the Jesus Mysteries is an interesting example of this rather than the earth shattering piece of evidence the authors take it for. Besides, the British Museum's amulet labelled Jesus is earlier still (3rd century) and, as far as I know, the earliest representation of Jesus being crucified that we possess.

Back from skiiing which was very hard work as I am having great trouble turning right. Have to try again next year.

At least I got some reading done. The Lewis book was really helpful as it sought to explain the medieval workview. You need to have this in mind when reading old literature and also understand how it fitted together. The key point is that the way they saw the world was entirely rational in their own terms and consistent with what they knew. It actually made a lot more sense than the purposeless and blind universe of modern science. The book contained lots of useful stuff for putting Copernicus in context even though it is largely about literature.

Finally found out where the analogy of the net that can't catch small fish comes from: it isn't Wittgenstein but Arthur Eddington from the Philosophy of Physical Science (at least according to this week's TLS). I need to get an exact reference for my Dialogue on Natural Theology.