Editing Neo-Latin (section)

====Latin as a literary vehicle====
In this period, it was common for poets and authors to write in Latin, either in place of or in addition to their native language. Latin was a language for "high art" in an "eternal language", that authors supposed might outlast contemporary vernacular writings. It allowed for an international readership that shared the same Classical and recent Latin cultural reference points.

The literature did not stand apart from vernaculars, as naturally allusions and the same reference points could flow across language boundaries.<ref>Deniere, Tom, ''Neo-Latin literature and the Vernacular'' in {{harvnb|Moul|2017|pp=35–51}}</ref> However, these dynamics have become less well understood, as academics and other readers are not as familiar with the Latin works of the period, sometimes resulting in simplistic notions of competition and replacement of Latin over time. The actual processes were more complicated and are now a focus of Neo-Latin studies. For instance, stylistic borrowings flowed from Latin to the Dutch vernacular, where models were lacking in the latter.<ref>Thomas, Deneire '' Neo-Latin and Vernacular Poetics of Self-Fashioning in Dutch Occasional Poetry (1635–1640)'' in {{harvnb|Deneire|2014|pp=33–58}}</ref>

[[File:John Barclay (poet).jpg|thumb|The Scottish poet [[John Barclay (poet)|John Barclay]] is among the internationally influential Latin writers of the seventeenth century.]]

Outputs included novels, poems, plays and occasional pieces, stretching across genres analogous to those found in vernacular writings of the period, such as tragedy, comedy, satire, history and political advice.<ref>{{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=27–216}} See section one covering these and other genres</ref> [[Epistles|Epistolary]] (letter) writing containing poems and prose, designed for publication rather than purely receipt, had Classical antecedents and often contained strong elements of self-promotion.<ref>Papy, Jan, ''Leters'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=167–182}}</ref>

Some of these genres are harder for modern readers to evaluate; for instance many poems were written for specific occasions, such as appointments or institutional events. To modern audiences, such poetry appears contrived at its inception, so it is easy for the reader to assume a lack of pathos or skill.<ref>{{harvnb|Moul|2017|pp=7–8}}</ref>

At the time that many of these works were written, writers viewed their Latin output as perhaps we do high art; a particularly refined and lofty activity, for the most educated audiences. Moreover, there was a hope of greater, international recognition, and that the works written in the "Eternal language" of Latin would outlast writings in the vernacular.{{sfn|Riley|2016|pp=xii–xiii}}

Some very influential works written in Latin are not always commonly remembered, despite their ground-breaking nature. For example, ''[[Argenis]]'', by [[John Barclay (poet)|John Barclay]] was perhaps the first modern historical novel, and was popular across Europe.<ref>Riley, Mark, ''Fiction'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=183–198}}</ref>

Opinions vary about the achievements of this literary movement, and also the extent to which it reached its goal of being "classical" in style. Modern critics sometimes claim that the output of Neo-Latinists was largely derivative and imitative of Classical authors.  Latin authors themselves could recognise the dangers of imitation caused by the long training they were given in ingesting compositional techniques of Classical writers, and could struggle against it.<ref>See Haskell, Yasmin, ''Conjuring with the Classics: Neo Latin Poets and their familiars'', pp. 17–19 for an overview of these points and some arguments for and against originality in {{harvnb|Moul|2017|pp=17–34}}</ref> From another perspective, the "learned artifice" of Neo-Latin writing styles requires that we understand that "one of the most fundamental aspects of this artifice is imitation".<ref>[[Terence Tunberg|Tunberg, Terence]], in {{harvnb|Moul|2017|p=237}}</ref> Different approaches to imitation can be discerned, from attempting to adopt the style and manner of a specific author, especially of [[Cicero]], through to syntheses of Latin from good authors, as suggested by [[Poliziano|Angelo Poliziano]], taking elements from a range, to provide what Tunberg calls an "eclectic" style that was "new from the perspective of the whole creation".<ref>[[Terence Tunberg|Tunberg, Terence]], ''Approaching Neo-Latin Prose as Literature'' in {{harvnb|Moul|2017|pp=237–254}}</ref> The use of Latin exclusively as used by Cicero was [[Ciceronianus|heavily satirised by Erasmus]] who proposed a more flexible approach to Latin as a medium.<ref>Baker, Patrick, ''Historiography'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|p=161}}</ref><ref>Sidwell, Keith ''Classical Latin-Medieval Latin-Neo Latin'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=20–21}}</ref>

Other critics have claimed that the expressive abilities of writers could not truly reach the same heights as in their native language; such concerns were sometimes expressed by contemporaries especially as time went on and vernaculars became more established. On the other hand, this criticism at the very least ignores the early age and intensity with which Latin was acquired.{{citation needed|date=June 2023}}