In the trivial-but-useful-in-the-long-run category, I reworked bits of the structure and design on all 4 of my core databases today, and they look both better and have some more sensible features, namely, they all now draw their list of sources from the same file, and in several cases where it made sense to do so, the list of sources is filtered to only include those with the relevant tag. There's no point including the random alchemy sources I nabbed from Winston's bibliography in a list they are very unlikely to have anything to contribute to.
I spent a while talking with my father about my project. It's always good to explain what my project is, especially when the other party understands what I'm talking about and - even better - has advice to offer. In his case, he thought he remembered a number of depictions of medieval scholars with clocks as part of the ambient decoration. Especially images of St. Augustine. This may or may not be true, but his first two tries at the images he was thinking of produced astrolabes, and astrolabes were both invented and commonplace well before any beginning of the Middle Ages. Still, it was useful to think about the "tools of science" as visually denoting learned men, especially since the first major breakthrough for the status of the crafts, according to the existing studies on the subject, was when Hugh of St. Victor first included crafts in his scheme of knowledge, as a parallel to the liberal arts. (The latter was the subject of my last MA thesis and has provided fun fodder for the few conference papers I've given/will be giving since.)
I've mostly finished the chapter in my Art 100 textbook on early Christian art. I'm much more critical of the text than I was when I first read it 8 years ago or thereabouts. Much of it reads like filler. The authors throws around highly technical terms or unnecessary latinisms, perhaps in the hope that someday they will look familiar to young art historians who keep up the trade. I'm not sure I've learned anything entirely new to me, but it's definitely helped to refresh my sense of history and art history, at least for the period it covered.
I briefly tried to pursue - with the in-house resources - just when exactly and where in the mid-fourteenth century the hourglass was invented. I couldn't remember much more detail than that. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica let me down. The OED could only say that the word 'hourglass' was first document in English use in 1515. I've vowed to write up small histories of all my major technological categories when I return to Toronto and have the resources handier. I really ought to know these things.
I shall also track down a copy of Writing Your Dissertation in 15 Minutes a Day, which haggisthesecond highly recommends. I'm eager for advice, especially from people other than the several overachievers in my year. I just can't work from 7am until 11pm the way at least one person in my year of the PhD can, and I am certainly not going to try burdening my schedule with 4 major conference papers in one year the way another member of my small group is. I admire them, I really do, but I have neither the attention span to work that many hours, nor the ability to require myself to write 4 major conference papers on top of a dissertation in one year. I'm aiming for 2 conference papers. C., being a diligent guilty conscience, inquires now and again when I'll be publishing my first paper. I still don't know, but need to pursue it sooner. I'm thinking I'll start with something feasible, like a book review.