Latin as a Literary Language

A work of prose by the French royal librarian Guillaume Bude (1467-1540) presents a good example of

The impact of classical Latin rhetoric on Renaissance humanistic writing, in both its content and its form. His De philologia (On philology, 1532) pretended to be a dialogue of table talk between the king and the author, but in Latin rather than French. In lofty language and sonorous phrases, Bude convinced the king of the power of eloquence, using Homer as one of his models. He compared humanistic Renaissance writers

Literature and Language

To the demigod Hercules, stating that they deserve honor for their country as well as for themselves. At the same time, by using rhetorical figures of speech such as those taught from the classical Rhetorica ad Herrenium (Rhetoric for Herennius, ascribed to Cicero during the Renaissance), and by displaying his facility in literary Latin, Bude assured his own status as a man of letters. Numerous learned writers during the 15th and 16th centuries truly believed that only Latin would prevail as a literary language. Other writers, some of whom were unskilled in Latin, continued to use the vernacular. Many noted authors, such as Rabelais and Ludovico Ariosto (1474-1533), were equally comfortable writing in either Latin or their native tongue. Latin verse and orations in Latin were showcases for writers displaying their dexterity in the language of Cicero and Catullus. One of the most popular Latin poets was the Dutch writer Johannes Secundus (1511-36), who composed odes, elegies, and epigrams in Latin and received recognition from the Holy Roman Emperor. His love poems Basia (Kisses) were translated into several languages.

For the Renaissance, the question was, Which Latin should be used? Lorenzo Valla (1407-57) promoted a conservative yet flexible approach to Latin usage in the preface to his grammar, Elegantiarum linguae latinae libri sex (Six books on the glories of the Latin language, written in 1440, published 1471). Adhering to Latin as the only appropriate language for the liberal arts, Valla explained that scholars were relearning the classical language, whose rules were partly lost with the fall of the Roman Empire. The ongoing debate between Scholastics and humanists focused on three points. Renaissance Scholastics, especially theologians, resisted change, feared that pagan classical texts could corrupt Christian readers, and opposed sophisticated literary language. They preferred simple language to express pious thoughts. A dialogue by Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), for example, represented the critics of humanism describing Horace, Virgil, and Ovid as monstrous figures. This controversy was exacerbated by the circumstance that humanists were competing with Scholastics for teaching positions in the major universities. Moreover, contemporary writers influenced by the language and style of pagan texts threatened the status quo. Although this debate was similar in some ways to the ancient contrasts between philosophy and rhetoric, the Christian component of the arguments against humanistic rhetoric introduced an element of extremism into the dialectic, especially during the Reformation.

From our modern point of view, both sides of the argument had their merits, and the compromises in Latin usage suggested by Valla prevailed during the 16th century. As the dogmatic extremism of Reformation theologians, such as relegating classical authors to the depths of hell, failed to impress learned individuals of the 16th century, the strict Ciceronianism of the 15th century alienated many contemporary writers. Radical humanists of the 15th century sought to purge Latin of any modern words, with rather silly effects in their Neo-Latin literature; for example, nun became Vestal Virgin and violin became lyre. Largely because the Jesuit colleges favored a moderate form of Ciceronian Latin, in which reasonable neologisms could be inserted, that strain of Neo-Latin proliferated in European intellectual circles. From Italy NeoLatin literature spread to northern and eastern Europe, Britain, and finally Scandinavia and Denmark. The main advantage of Latin literature was that it could be read by the educated classes throughout Europe. In addition, it placed the writer within a prestigious tradition of classical authors. Neo-Latin literature was a driving force in European culture until the 17 th century, when writers in the vernacular were confidently achieving the same effects in their neoclassical compositions.