Who knew? When Fordham University posted this sample of Thomas Aquinas’ handwriting on its page for today’s Natural Law Colloquium, it provided needed evidence for something that had been only conjecture up to now: the late mediaeval theologian’s writings were obviously transcribed for the printed page by pharmacists.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 1:41 PM
November 17th, 2010 | 2:50 pm | #1
What I’ve read is that he had two secretaries who took dictation from him. He was so voluminous in his output that one wasn’t enough.
November 17th, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #2
Is that supposed to be Latin? Seriously?
November 17th, 2010 | 5:23 pm | #3
When does the Thomist font come out? I’d get it.
November 17th, 2010 | 10:26 pm | #4
I think I read somewhere that there are fewer than five people in the world who actually can read his handwriting.
November 18th, 2010 | 4:27 am | #5
Thank God, for all of those wonderful Dominicians, who transcribed and translated, Aquinas’s Summa Contra Gentiles, and Summa Theologiae (as well as the rest of his some eight million words that he wrote!)
One must admire all of those, well versed in deciphering the paleolinguistics of the period. Their works are truely heroic. The Franciscians, have recently translated the works of William of Occam. Thomas Williams, has done wonderful work, vis a vis Duns Scotus. One must not only know latin, like the back of one’s hand, but the paleo versions of it.
November 22nd, 2010 | 8:37 pm | #6
I find it hard to accept the moniker “paleo-Latin” as a description of late medieval Latin, given how near the end of the regular use of the language this period was.
November 23rd, 2010 | 12:01 am | #7
I can’t read it, but it’s very pretty. It would make a great wall paper. =)
November 23rd, 2010 | 2:33 pm | #8
Thomas Aquinas’ handwriting actually was given a name by later medievals – it was called the ‘litterae unintelligibiles’ (I trust that no translation is necessary.)
November 25th, 2010 | 4:05 am | #9
I think that, a distinction should be made between the middle age latin, that Aquinas utilized, and his own atrocious handwriting! The latter, was, of course, the only thing atrocious about Aquinas!
Certainly, the middle age latin was different than the latin of early roman times. The better way to state things, is, one must be trained in latin paleography, in order to decipher the latin, of the middle ages, especially the abbreviated forms, often used in middle age latin texts(see THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO AQUINAS, edited by Norman Kretzman, and Eleanor Stump, 1992). The paleography, one must be proficient in, for middle age latin text, and abbreviated text, deciphering, is distinct from the paleo content, of the early roman latin period.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact