Editing Neo-Latin (section)

===Beginnings===
[[File:Hans Holbein d. J. - Erasmus - Louvre.jpg|thumb|upright|Erasmus stood at the forefront of the movement to reform Latin and learning.]] Neo-Latin began in Italy with the rise of [[Renaissance Latin]] and [[humanities|humanist]] reform of Latin education,<ref name="Knight 2015 224">Black, Robert ''School'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|p=224}}</ref> then brought to prominence in northern Europe by writers such as [[Erasmus]], [[Thomas More|More]], and [[John Colet|Colet]].

[[Medieval Latin]] had been the practical working language of the [[Roman Catholic Church]], and was taught throughout Europe to clerics through the medieval university system. It was a flexible language, with many neologisms. Changes in grammatical practices regarding syntax and other elements such as conjunctions had become established.<ref>Sidwell, Keith ''Classical Latin-Medieval Latin-Neo Latin'' in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=16–19}}</ref>

The [[Renaissance]] reinforced the position of Latin as a spoken and written language by the scholarship by the [[Renaissance Humanism|Renaissance Humanists]]. Although scholarship initially focused on Ancient Greek texts, [[Petrarch]] and others began to change their understanding of good style and their own usage of Latin as they explored the texts of the Classical Latin world. Skills of textual criticism evolved to create much more accurate versions of extant texts through the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and some important texts were rediscovered. Comprehensive versions of author's works were published by [[Isaac Casaubon]], [[Joseph Scaliger]] and others.<ref>''Latin Studies'' in {{harvnb|Bergin|Law|Speake|2004|p=272}}</ref> Nevertheless, despite the careful work of Petrarch, [[Politian]] and others, first the demand for manuscripts, and then the rush to bring works into print, led to the circulation of inaccurate copies for several centuries following.<ref>''Criticism, textual'' in {{harvnb|Bergin|Law|Speake|2004|p=272}}</ref>

As the humanist reformers sought both to purify Latin grammar and style, and to make Latin applicable to concerns beyond the ecclesiastical, they began to create a body of Latin literature outside the bounds of the Church. Nevertheless, studies and criticism of Biblical translations were a particular and important focus of early Humanism, in Italy and beyond.<ref>Taylor, Andrew, ''Biblical Humanism'', and Sacré, Dirk ''The Low Countries'', esp pp. 477–479, in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=295–312 and 477–489}}</ref>

Prominent Neo-Latin writers who were admired for their style in this early period included [[Giovanni Pontano|Pontano]], [[Petrarch]], [[Salutati]], [[Leonardo Bruni|Bruni]], [[Ficino]], [[Pico della Mirandola]] in Italy; the Spaniard [[Juan Luis Vives]]; and in northern Europe, the German [[Conrad Celtes|Celtis]].<ref name=":0"/>

In the late 1400s, some schools in the Low Countries were using the new Italian standards of Latin. Erasmus and other pupils promoted the new learning and Latin standards. The Low Countries established itself as a leading centre of humanism and Neo-Latin; Rotterdam and Leuven were especially well known for these intellectual currents.<ref>Sacré, Dirk ''The Low Countries'', esp pp. 477–479, in {{harvnb|Knight|Tilg|2015|pp=477–489}}</ref>

Neo-Latin developed in advance of and in parallel with vernacular languages, but not necessarily in direct competition with them.<ref>{{harvnb|Deneire|2014|pp=1–7}}</ref> Frequently the same people were codifying and promoting both Latin and vernacular languages, in a wider post-medieval process of linguistic standardisation.<ref>{{harvnb|Leonhardt|2009|pp=224–5}}</ref> However, Latin was the first language that was available, fully formed, widely taught and used internationally across a wide variety of subjects. As such, it can be seen as the first "modern European language".<ref>{{harvnb|Leonhardt|2009|p=226}}</ref>

It should also be noted that for Italian reformers of written Latin, there was no clear divide between Italian and Latin; the latter was seen by [[Petrarch]] for example as an artificial and literary version of the spoken language. While Italian in this period also begins to be used as a separate written language, it was not always seen as wholly separate from Latin.<ref>See Introduction, {{harvnb|Deneire|2014|pp=10–11}}</ref>