Editing Neo-Latin (section)

==Extent and characteristics==
===Time period===
[[Classics|Classicists]] use the term "Neo-Latin" to describe the [[Latin]] that developed in [[Renaissance]] Italy as a result of renewed interest in classical civilization in the 14th and 15th centuries.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/neo-latin |title=What is Neo-Latin? |access-date=8 October 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161009191707/http://www.mml.cam.ac.uk/neo-latin |archive-date=9 October 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Knight 2015 13–26"/>{{efn|Particular academic studies may however refer to subsets of the time period. See {{harvnb|Knight|2016}}.}} Scientific nomenclatures sometimes prefer the term "New Latin", to show where their terms were coined in the same period.

Neo-Latin describes the use of the Latin language for any purpose, scientific or literary, during and after the Renaissance. The beginning of the period cannot be precisely identified. The spread of secular education, the acceptance of [[humanities|humanistic]] literary norms, and the wide availability of Latin texts following the invention of [[printing]], mark the transition to a new era of scholarship at the end of the 15th century, but there was no simple, decisive break with medieval traditions.<ref>{{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|p=2}}</ref> Rather, there was a process of change in education, a choice of literary and stylistic models, and a move away from medieval techniques of language formation and argumentation.<ref>Black, Robert ''School'' {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=223–9}}</ref>

The end of the Neo-Latin period is likewise indeterminate, but Latin as a regular vehicle of communicating ideas became rare following the dissolution of the [[Holy Roman Empire]] and after the [[Congress of Vienna]], where French replaced Latin as the language of diplomacy. By 1900, Latin survived primarily in [[international scientific vocabulary]] and [[taxonomy (biology)|taxonomy]], or more actively, in the upper echelons of the [[Catholic Church]]. The term "Neo-Latin" came into use during the 1800s among [[linguistics|linguists]] and [[scientist]]s.<ref>{{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=1–2}}</ref>

Neo-Latin can be said to be the current style of Latin writing, but different periods in its evolution can be seen. Neo-Latin writings were seen as less relevant and deserving of less attention than Classical Latin during the 1800s, as Classical models were asserted as the prime focus for study. Productive use of Latin for most purposes ended in the early 1800s.

=== Character of Neo-Latin writing ===
While Latin remained an actively used language, the process of emulating Classical models did not become complete.<ref>See Sidwell, Keith ''Classical Latin – Medieval Latin – Neo Latin''; and Black, Robert ''School'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=13–26}} and pp. 217–231</ref> For instance, Catholic traditions preserved some features of medieval Latin, given the continued influence of some aspects of medieval theology.<ref>Harris, Jason ''Catholicism'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=313–328}}</ref> In secular texts, such as scientific, legal and philosophical works, neologisms continued to be needed, so while Neo-Latin authors might choose new formulations, they might also continue to use customary medieval forms, but in either case, could not aim for a purified Classical Latin vocabulary.<ref>Sidwell, Keith ''Classical Latin-Medieval Latin-Neo Latin'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=13–26}}</ref> Recent study tends to identify a style of Latin that was closer to Classical Latin in grammar, sometimes influenced by vernaculars in syntax especially in more everyday writing, but eclectic in choice of vocabulary and generation of new words.<ref name="Waquet 2001 124–127">{{harvnb|Waquet|2001|pp=124–127}}</ref>

Some authors including [[C. S. Lewis]] have criticised the Neo-Latin and classicising nature of humanistic Latin teaching for creating a dynamic for purification and ossification of Latin, and thus its decline from a more productive medieval background.<ref>Haskell, Yasmin ''Neo-Latin Poets and their Pagan Familiars'', p. 19 in {{harvnb||Moul|2017}}</ref>  Modern Neo-Latin scholars tend to reject this, as for instance word formation and even medieval uses continued; but some see a kernel of truth, in that the standards of Latin were set very high, making it hard to achieve the necessary confidence to use Latin.<ref>{{harvnb|Leonhardt|2009|p=229}}</ref> In any case, other factors are certainly at play, particularly the widening of education and its needs to address many more practical areas of knowledge, many of which were being written about for national audiences in the vernacular.<ref>{{harvnb|Tunberg|2012|pp=91–93}}</ref>

===Corpus===
The exact size of the Neo-Latin corpus is currently incalculable, but dwarfs that of Latin in all other periods combined. Material includes personal, unpublished, bureaucratic, educational, and academic output such as notes and theses.<ref>{{harvnb|Demo|2022|p=3}}</ref> Given the extent of potential records, even regarding printed works, there is extensive basic work to be done in cataloguing what is available, as well as in digitisation and translation of important works.<ref>{{harvnb|Hofmann|2017|p=521}}</ref>

===Geographical spread===
[[File:Hondius - Nova Europae Descriptio 1619.jpg|thumb|[[Jodocus Hondius]]' map ''Nova Europae Descriptio'' of 1619, printed during the peak of Neo-Latin's productive heights]] 
Neo-Latin was, at least in its early days, an international language used throughout Catholic and Protestant Europe, as well as in the colonies of the major European powers. This area consisted of most of Europe, including [[Central Europe]] and [[Scandinavia]]; its southern border was the [[Mediterranean]] Sea, with the division more or less corresponding to the modern eastern borders of [[Finland]],<ref>Ström, Annika and Zeeberg, Peter ''Scandinavia'', in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=493–508}}</ref> the [[Baltic state]]s, [[Poland]], [[Slovakia]], [[Hungary]] and [[Croatian Latin literature|Croatia]].<ref>Neagu, Cristina ''East-Central Europe'', in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=509–524}}</ref>

[[Russia]]'s acquisition of [[Kyiv]] in the later 17th century introduced the study of Latin to Russia. Russia relied on Latin for some time as a vehicle to exchange scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, the use of Latin in Orthodox eastern Europe did not reach pervasive levels due to their strong cultural links to the cultural heritage of [[Ancient Greece]] and [[Byzantium]], as well as [[Greek language|Greek]] and [[Old Church Slavonic]] languages.{{sfn|Leonhardt|2009|p=264}}

Latin was taught extensively in the [[United States of America|USA]], during the colonial period on the European model of Latin medium education, but was among the first to allow this monopoly to recede. Both Latin and the Classics were very influential nevertheless, and supported an active Latin literature, especially in poetry.<ref>Cottier, Jean-Francois, Westra, Haijo and Gallucci, John ''North America'', in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=541–556}}</ref>

Latin played a strong role in education and writing in early colonial Mexico, Brazil and in other parts of Catholic Americas.<ref>Laird, Andrew, ''Colonial Spanish America and Brazil'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=525–540}}</ref> Catholicism also brought Latin to India, China and Japan.<ref>Golvers, Noël, ''Asia'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=557–573}}</ref>