Steven Chabot

Michael of Rhodes Rediscovered: The Lost Book of a Medieval Mariner David McGee (Co-Director of the Michael of Rhodes Project, Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Burndy Library, MIT) University of Toronto, October 20, 2006

David McGee from the Burndy Library at MIT presented to us the manuscript of Michael of Rhodes, a unique look into the intellectual life of a fifteenth century commoner. Lost for 400 years, McGee exhibited the manuscript as the life’s experience of a common mariner who worked his way through the ranks from oarsman to the highest non-noble post in the Venetian fleet. And, in turn, that life explains some anomalies about the manuscript itself.

Filled with mathematical problems, tables of calendar dates, navigational calculations and ship schematics, the book contains much of the knowledge required to outfit and direct both individual ships and entire fleets. Curiously, however, the work lacks technical detail and contains errors in many places. McGee contends the work is not an instructional manual or a personal aid but was used to exhibit the seasoned mariner’s knowledge to the nobles, merchants, and important citizens of Venice. The highest posts in the Venetian fleet were won in highly contested elections and the manuscript was created to set Michael above similarly experienced Venetian citizens. The expense of such an undertaking illustrates the life-long zeal of a foreign commoner to insert himself into the highest positions of Venetian society.

Those attending were amazed by the condition of the manuscript, save for the final, well worn, page. Containing Michael’s illustration of St. Christopher bearing the Baby Jesus, it was often touched for luck on Michael’s long voyages around the known world.

§78 · October 30, 2006 · Books · (No comments) ·


Staincliffe, Paul (2004) Has cataloguing become too simple? : why it matters for cataloguers, catalogues and clients. New Zealand libraries 49(10).

I love that I have only taken a month of cataloguing and I can understand every single word in this paper. Not only that, but I found it really interesting. Maybe I am too Library 1.0?

Some great quotes:

Why is making a digital image of something already represented in the catalogue deemed a more worthy use of expertise, time and systems than adding to the catalogue items tdigitise, digitise.
AACR2 fails as a cataloguing code for the global environment. Although theoretically there will be consistency within the local catalogue, there cannot be in the global catalogue due to the use of options and varying interpretations. But right at the heart of the failure is 1.0D: “Base the choice of a level of description on the purpose of the catalogue or catalogues for which the entry is constructed”17 – a phrase unchanged from the 1978 second edition.

Now that we are moving to subject headings and leaving AACR2 behind everyone else in my class is ecstatic, while I think I am going to miss it and its soft and warm blanket of logical steps.

[How do we deal with the above inconsistency?] By dumbing down the resource description and the catalogue so that it accommodates the customer’s approach to information retrieval, by making our catalogues look and “feel” like a Web search engine when in fact they are far more powerful tools.
§76 · October 19, 2006 · Libraries · (No comments) ·