The pseudo-epigraphic phenomenon related to Thomas Aquinas is based on the creativity of a group of mostly unknown authors and a group of readers who identified these authors as Thomas Aquinas, either erroneously or consciously. The paper aims to analyze some aspects of this intersection between author and reader, both of whom are involved in the finished textual product. The need to assign different texts to Thomas Aquinas, which originated in different circumstances and moments, is a factor to be valued in depth: cases such as De humanitate Iesu Christi, a text with a quasimystical nature probably from the German area and dating back to the first decades of the 15th century, far from the authentic Thomasian production, lends itself to the investigation of the reasons for an attribution, its chronology and geography. A second step in this research is the coincidences between ancient lists and pseudoepigraphic attributions of texts: however weak, lists such as those drafted in 1319 or those of scholars such as Nicolas Trevet allow us to understand more or less from what point in time the Thomasian corpus began/continued to generate individual inauthentic titles. A third step in this investigation will be eventually a survey of the printed tradition of the works of authentic and pseudo Thomas Aquinas. The absence of many works from the ancient lists and their appearance in much later printed editions allows us to advance some hypotheses about the authors, their purposes, interests and respective chronologies (e.g., through the double printed and manuscript tradition), as well as pointing to some trails of investigation through the readers of these texts, who felt the need to read such works, producing a print of them, and attributing them to Thomas Aquinas, regardless of the mere content more or less consistent with the production of Thomas attested as authentic.