This paper aims to show that Thomas Aquinas had a strong interest in the use of philological methods, in order to make sense of a text, even though he did not have any proper understading of the scientific philological approach. In his various commentaries on the Bible and on philosophical texts, Aquinas sometimes discussed variant readings of a passage (I demonstrate, however, that these discussions relied on other commentaries, which were available to him) ; Thomas more often discussed the various Latin translations of a text, and he sometimes chose the most adequate translation (it is perhaps significant that this attitude is not present in his commentaries on the Bible). He shows an interest in the history of language, since he dwells on the etymologies of the key words of a passage, and raises questions concerning the authorship of some of the texts which he commented upon. These strong interests, which guided Aquinas’s commentaries, are certainly worth being noted in an ideal prehistory of philology, since Thomas was highly influential as a commentator of both Aristotle and the Bible in Renaissance and later scholarship.
Renouantur studia, et homines perueniunt ad opiniones ueras quae prius fuerant. Alcuni aspetti dell’attività filologica di Tommaso d’Aquino
Gili Luca
2012-01-01
Abstract
This paper aims to show that Thomas Aquinas had a strong interest in the use of philological methods, in order to make sense of a text, even though he did not have any proper understading of the scientific philological approach. In his various commentaries on the Bible and on philosophical texts, Aquinas sometimes discussed variant readings of a passage (I demonstrate, however, that these discussions relied on other commentaries, which were available to him) ; Thomas more often discussed the various Latin translations of a text, and he sometimes chose the most adequate translation (it is perhaps significant that this attitude is not present in his commentaries on the Bible). He shows an interest in the history of language, since he dwells on the etymologies of the key words of a passage, and raises questions concerning the authorship of some of the texts which he commented upon. These strong interests, which guided Aquinas’s commentaries, are certainly worth being noted in an ideal prehistory of philology, since Thomas was highly influential as a commentator of both Aristotle and the Bible in Renaissance and later scholarship.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
