Most of what I know about Medieval philosophy has to do with Thomas Aquinas, was philosophy and theology that closely tied or was he a rare but well known individual?

As a Latin and manuscript specialist, I was wondering if I could get your take on an idea I've been pondering about teaching Latin.

What if instead of starting from Classical, understanding its formal patterns, then if one is so inclined, moving onto Medieval and its particular styles, what if the teaching of Latin started from pre-Renaissance medieval Latin (with its wider usage of prepositions and greater influence from germanic languages) and moved backward to classical Latin?

Basically, learn the Latin form that is "closest" (due to a variety of influences) to modern english/romance languages, and work backward to the more rigid original form?

This arose mostly because I was thinking about how most people acquire second languages in functional situations, which isn't from paradigms and exacting grammar logic, but learning "incorrect but understandable" versions of a language first, that are slowly corrected over time. I was wondering if this process could be replicated in a backward time approach to Latin.

Or do you have any particular thoughts on how the teaching of Latin could be done better?

I fear I shall have to leave to eat my dinner now. I'll pass by later perhaps to see if there are other questions. Thanks to everyone for such excellent and imaginative questions! I really enjoyed my time here.

Have you ever read Dr. Copernicus by John Banville? How do you feel about narrative historiography? How historically accurate do you think it is?

Translating manuscripts sounds very interesting to me. How do you find/who provides the manuscripts to be translated and how long does an average one take to translate (per page or the whole work)? Is it just you or a whole team? What are the biggest pitfalls you run across?

Also, what is your favorite anecdote or story to tell that has come from one of the translations you have done? (Or anything else interesting that you have run across in your professional career)

I apologize for not having any in depth questions for you; I'm not terribly familiar with the subject.

Thank you for writing a book on Ockham that I will try to make sense of. Reading the primary texts has left me moderately confused.

• If you had to trace a path from the ontology of late scholasticism (read: nominalism) to Kant, would there be any way to explain this to a layman? Would such an explanation even be useful or relevant?

• Would Ockham have had any interaction with the Platonism of the likes of Ficino?

• What kind of influence would you say Ockham's stream of philosophy had on the renaissance humanists? Would it be any at all or would they have dismissed him as a pedantic scholastic?

You can interview one person of influence during the middle ages to try and clear up some of your own personal theories; Who do you interview, and what do you hope to bring clarification to? (for simplicities sake, you can understand eachother without a translator).

How prevalent was the notion of the great chain of being in European philosophical thought during the medieval period, and what kinds of standards were used to determine rank-ordering within it? Did those standards vary significantly, either regionally or over time?

I am afraid I am a layman in terms of fourteenth-century ecclesiastical thought, but perhaps you could explain Ockham's theories regarding the distinction between divine and secular rule and what impact this had on the discourse of power between the lay and ecclesiatical elites in the fourteenth- and fifteenth-centuries?

Thanks for giving up your time to join us and I look foward to your response.

Did medieval philosophy really 'stop' with Occam and his imediate successors, IE, did it stop introducing new ideas? If so, why? If not, why aren't 15th century philosophers better known?

Do you think that all the research you've done has given you a perspective on the world most will never encounter?

Edit: after reading you're answers so far I realize an answering his would be a waste of your time

What is the most surprising response you've recieved from an individual during one of your conferences?

Is it difficult to translate original documents into modern English (And modern thought)? How do you know how to interpret such intangible ideas from a culture that is not your own in languages that are also not native?

Can you talk a bit about the substance of what drew charges of heresy against Ockham at the papacy of John XXII in Avignon? Both the theological and political basis. And then how was his rehabilitation effected under Innocent IV shortly thereafter?

How did christian theologians deal with Jewish comments of jesus?

Seems like I am late to the party, but I would be very glad for any answer on these questions:

1. Could the term "consideratio" be understood as a terminus technicus in medieval philosophy? Bernhard de Clairvaux wrote a treatise "De consideratione", Aquinas gives a lengthy definition in the Summa and I was wondering, since it is (nowadays at least) also a colloquial term.

2. Leibniz wrote a treatise called "Principles of Nature and Grace". It was common sense in early modern debates that there are "principles of nature", but except Leibniz (and only in the title of this work), almost no one seems to talk about "principles of grace". Even the expression "principium gratiae" seems to be almost absent from philosophical and theological debates prior of 1700 (as far as Google tells me). It seems to me that one possible explanation would be that, in scholastic and early modern philosophy, grace is distributed by individual decisions (primary and secondary will of God etc.), but never by principles?

3. I also found that Leibniz distinguishes between the causa, executio and decretum of the Divine will or rather the dispensation of grace. There surely are some scholastic predecessors for this, but so far I have been unable to locate them. Could you help me out with this?

4. Are there any medieval predecessors of philosophical anthropology and if so, could you recommend me a good introduction?

Any help is highly appreciated! I am looking forward to read your book!