Not so. It was the medieval Greek-literate monks who recovered or copied the manuscipts of the Greeks from the Arabs three or four hundred years earlier. Aquinas didn't know Greek (or Arabic), but enough of the monks did to get Aristotle to Aquinas in his day, and then Plato to, e.g., Ficino (who did know Greek, actually) a few hundred years later.
--- On Wed, 6/11/08, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] in which I'm accused of repressing the reptilian brain
> To: andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com, lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 3:11 AM
> Sure, but Greek (not a dead language BTW :) ) was not
> made into a subject of European interest by the
> acquisition of that knowledge. Aquinas, for instance,
> did not know Greek. It was Luther, largely, who is
> responsible for that awakening of interest.
>
> --- andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The main nations responsible for the rediscovery of
> > classical antiquity were the Arabs (duh). Italian
> > and French scholars would copy raid and steal
> > manuscripts preserved and extensively commented on
> > by the great Arab scholars like Averroes and
> > Avicenna, as we know them. This was centuries before
> > Luther. The classic work (fascinating reading) is
> > L.D. Reynolds, Scribes and Scholars, 3d ed,
> >
>
> Mataiotes mataioteton, eipen ho Ekklasiastes,
> mataiotes mataioteton, ta panta mataiotes.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk