[argentier]

Chesterton described Aquinas as looking quite like Chesterton. Judging by the name at least half a millenium separates Myron Shibley from Aquinas.

Can't it just be a myth, as it seems to hang on a single anecdote?

For comparison, the medievals thought that Ovid's name, Publius Ovidius Naso, was because he had a good nose for sniffing out the truth.

[masswerk]

Of course, this is by no means historic evidence, it's more an example of the common notion of his appearance – and, admittedly, a rather extreme one.

(And, as already mentioned, Umberto Eco kind of made fun of the semblance.)

Regarding Ovid's name, I think, there was kind of a joy in circular evidence, more for aesthetic reasons than others. Compare, "artifex generale nomen vocatur quod artem faciat" (Isidore), or the notion that the lion indeed obscures its tracks by wiping its path by its wagging tail, because the lion is thus the example of Christianity preserving its secrets from its pagan enemies. There's a medieval joy, even satisfaction, in closures and folds, like this.

[taurknaut]

> Chesterton described Aquinas as looking quite like Chesterton.

I was unaware that Chesterton met Aquinas! He must have been quite old at that point.

I can't imagine anything that Chesterton could add to this conversation. He's reading the same texts the rest of us are. TBH this pretty much sums up his entire career.

[michaelsbradley]

Tastes differ, certainly.

Have you read any of Chesterton’s novels, e.g. The Man Who Was Thursday?

[taurknaut]

Yes, he's an amazing writer regardless of his target. I primarily think of his christian apologetic work, though, hence why I was teasing his obsession with western (and particularly christian) text.

I love Chesterton. I was just ribbing him. It's not terribly difficult.