Comment by masswerk | Hacker News Reader

Comment by masswerk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Isn't this reconstruction a bit on the slim side? Aquinas was reportedly, let's say, a man of portly presence.

I can't find a scholarly source on the matter, at the moment, but here are two quotes I found on the website of a nun[1] (no less, so probably written in good faith):

> St. Thomas was a huge heavy bull of a man, fat and slow and quiet; very mild and magnanimous but not very sociable; shy, even apart from the humility of holiness; and abstracted, even apart from his occasional and carefully concealed experiences of trance or ecstasy. (G.K. Chesterton)

> St. Thomas Aquinas was a compulsive over-eater who was not just fat but morbidly obese and physically grotesque. (Myron Shibley)

[1] http://asksistermarymartha.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-fat-was-...

(Fun fact, there's a reference to this in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, alluding to difficulties with the transport of the body over a staircase, which coincides with circumstances of G.K. Chesterton's passing, as described on that page.)

The article discusses this. The researchers admit they can't know for sure if they got that part right. On the other hand, standards for body size were very different 750 years ago than today, so that's certainly part of it. Legends tend to get more exaggerated over time, and the legend of Thomas Aquinas has had plenty of time for exaggeration to build up.

I'm aware of this. But the article gives no reason for this choice. It's rather a "well, couldn't it be" hypothetical, provided as a quote:

> “Now, it could be that on the whole we’re a lot larger now than even overweight medievals were, or that St. Thomas was never the portly friar described by his legend,” Father Aquinas quipped, adding, “Regardless, the stories of St. Thomas’ size are probably exaggerated.”

This is certainly in stark contrast to the centuries-long traditional notion of Aquinas' appearance, which may require some further detail why and how this choice was made. – I can see why the quoted father Aquinas should be excited by this "angelic" appearance, but this may be hardly sufficient to motivate a scientific choice. Personally, I can't see how the size of the skull (the sole evidence) should or could correlate with body mass.

It's crazy how standards for body size can change over even shorter time periods.

I was watching an old game show with Bob Barker and one of the competitions was for people to guess stats about the "average" man, and then run around Hollywood looking for a man who matched that description. So each competitor would guess the average age, height, number of kids, etc. One woman guessed that the average man weighed 180 pounds and Bob Barker mocked her mercilessly for thinking that the average man is such a fatso.

I was about 180lbs by the end of highschool, and I was one of the fattest kids in my class. Not to the point that I was given fat kid nicknames or openly mocked, but I was almost always the fattest kid in any given group. Picked last for teams in gym class, chuckled-at when trying to do pullups for the Presidential Physical Fitness Test.

Now I'm 260lbs and fat by any standard. What I wouldn't give to be 180lbs again.

Idk if you are serious about that, but if you are there is hope. For about $200/month (not going through insurance) it can be quite easy to not eat so much. I have been really shocked by how much my mind has been quieted by not being obsessed about food and never feeling deprived. Downside: you feel full all the time. Hims.com it’s super easy (no office visits no video conferencing) and fast. Not affiliated except as a happy customer (my wife is happy too.) you CAN out-eat it, but it’s far easier not to.

Yes, and people have gotten used to the new standard. I know many people who have lost weight, look great and have a healthy amount of body fat. People then say they are "too skinny", but they aren't by any standard measurement and are still heavier than most from 1980s or before. When like 75% of people are overweight, healthy weight people tend to look thin to people (I get these 'too skinny' comments myself occasionally: 5'10" male, 170lbs, ~13-14% bf).

Similarly, 70s Steve Wozniak was supposed to be kinda chubby, but people this millennium seeing those old photos are like "what? he's totally average?"

He looks semi-hench in the pic on this page with David Lee Roth: https://lamag.com/news/steve-wozniak-us-fest

During the Super Bowl they put up a stat about the size of the average lineman in SB 1 vs now. In SB1 they were 6’3” and about 248lbs (something like that). And now they are 6’6” and 330lbs.

That old OLine gets killed in P5 college football now.

I noticed that as well. Cool stat. And they aren't just big...a lot of them are scary fast. Having a guy like Tylan Grable (6'6, 310) or Tanor Bortolini (6'4, 305) running after you with a sub-5s 40 at the combine has to be terrifying.

When I was in college in the mid-80s, one of my fraternity brothers was a scholarship linebacker. A big, fast, strong man. He goes back every couple of years for the big 'meet the new players' event for those associated with the athletic association. He said that if he was that 18yo again in 2025, not only would he not be considered for a D1 scholarship, but he probably couldn't have made the practice squad of our D1 team. He'd be looking hopefully at someplace like Albany State or West Alabama for a scholarship.

How about 25000 years ago?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurine

This is close to home, geographically speaking (65km). ;-)

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.

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.

> 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.

Tastes differ, certainly.

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

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.

The idea that St. Thomas Aquinas was "portly" or even obese is likely an exaggeration that occurred over time due to overemphasis of certain aspects of his appearance. Early accounts depict him as being both very tall and strong having a big head, often with a build closer to a wrestler or football player than that of an obese man. As far as I can tell, St. Thomas was certainly an imposing figure but people have decided to engage in exaggerations based on some accounts of his appearance to the detriment of others.

For example, one of the earliest works covering St. Thomas' life was written by William de Tocco in the early 14th century, St. Thomas is described as "showing himself a robust and virile man" during manual labor. Contrary to the extremely exaggerated accusations of extreme gluttony by people like Shibley, William de Tocco emphasizes that the physical stature of St. Thomas was in accord with moderate and virtuous conduct which would preclude severe gluttony, "[I]t seems that God had fashioned his body as the noblest of instruments, which St. Thomas always held subservient to acts of virtue and which he never permitted to contravene the judgement of reason."

The iconographic tradition is also not uniform, with large variation across the centuries. I'll link some early depictions of St. Thomas Aquinas from the 14th and 15th century that don't match the "morbidly obese" claims:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Lippo_Me...

https://www.kressfoundation.org/kress-collection/artwork/498...

https://catholiceducation.org/en/culture/art/saint-thomas-aq...

https://catholicclassicalict.wordpress.com/wp-content/upload...

https://www.wikiart.org/en/fra-angelico/st-thomas-aquinas-14...

There is another source I recall reading recently that gave credence to the thinner depictions, but unfortunately I haven't been able to dig it up.

It might be added that Dominicans had the explicit calling to crown their preaching by leading virtuous lives marked by poverty. As an example of this, especially in the early days, Dominicans traveled a lot by foot as a form of austerity. This could certainly work with having a bit of a girth, but the full experience of 13th century Dominican life is hard to square with "morbid obesity" or being "physically grotesque". We also know that Aquinas was humble, spiritual and deeply motivated to join this new mendicant order specifically. He resisted all attempts of his noble family to steer him in other directions that would have been more prestigious in the eyes of the world. I also remember reading that Aquinas ate only once a day to devote himself more fully to his work (not sure where though).

> Early accounts depict him as being both very tall and strong having a big head

The article, on the other hand, makes a point that the skull is quite small… (which seems to be the principal argument for the rather slim reconstruction)

At this point, it's probably really more a case of iconography (which, for the most, features Aquinas as one of the most prominent portly men in history) than of actual history. But, I think, any concepts or notions guiding the reconstruction should have been provided, and I'm kind of missing these.

For example, one of the earliest works covering St. Thomas' life was written by William de Tocco in the early 14th century....The iconographic tradition is also not uniform, with large variation across the centuries.

Isn't that kinda the point, tho? de Tocco was writing, what, about 50 years after Aquinas passed, and while he certainly could have (probably had?) first hand sources of Aquinas life, my instinct is that even so these are the sorts of passages of time where objective fact becomes muddled with both nostalgia and agenda, if not outright politics & intrigue. And over extended time, like most notable historical figures, Aquinas is reframed to suit the narrative of the time. I mean, it's not like Livy saying "that thing that happened a couple of centuries ago? This is how it went down, no doubts.", but isn't the real answer "we don't know and probably never will" for most of these questions of minutia like 'how fat was he, really'?

N.B. - not intending to distract from your very informative post.

It’s been awhile since I saw reference to Sister Mary Martha.

SMM is (was — inactive for 10 years now) an online persona and it’s not clear if the blogger was actually a religious sister. The blog’s content seems intended mainly as entertainment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com