tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post114228588170005573..comments2024-03-20T16:30:09.690-05:00Comments on The Fifth Column: NonfictionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-1142527087583332152006-03-16T10:38:00.000-06:002006-03-16T10:38:00.000-06:00p.s. I also meant to add that "da Vinci" is techni...p.s. I also meant to add that "da Vinci" is technically part of his name. In fact...<BR/><BR/>"...his full name was 'Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci,' which means "Leonardo, son of Piero, from Vinci". Leonardo himself simply signed his works "Leonardo" or "Io, Leonardo" ("I, Leonardo"). Presumably he did not use his father's name because he was an illegitimate child"<BR/><BR/>The fact that he simply signed his work Leonardo doesn't mean he had no surname, but rather indicates his celebrity status.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16676493074041568312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-1142526798073145972006-03-16T10:33:00.000-06:002006-03-16T10:33:00.000-06:00Good article Steve, but I have one small criticism...Good article Steve, but I have one small criticism and a question.<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><EM>"Indeed, she couldn’t even get Leonardo’s name right (no art historian calls him ‘da Vinci’, since that refers to the geographical region he comes from, it is not properly part of his name)."</EM><BR/><BR/>I don't think it's fair to say that "no art historian" calls him "da Vinci". I have art friends who have heard him referred to in that way even before <EM>The Da Vinci Code</EM> came out. It's also not true that you won't find a cross listing in art history books under "da Vinci". Perhaps it'd be better simply to say that throughout history, he has always been <EM>primarily</EM> known as Leonardo, and not as "da Vinci."<BR/><BR/>Also, I was wondering, should we technically never refer to St. Thomas Aquinas as simply "Aquinas"? Isn't it a similar situation, for doesn't "Aquinas" simply refer to where the saint was from (or the area his father was duke of)?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16676493074041568312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5774317.post-1142387789394965662006-03-14T19:56:00.000-06:002006-03-14T19:56:00.000-06:00"Inordinate redundancy" - LOL! I am SO using that..."Inordinate redundancy" - LOL! I am SO using that!<BR/><BR/>Unless it's copywritten.Doogiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012332023931166256noreply@blogger.com