Talk:Ciceronianism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Official" language

@Rick Jelliffe: Here is what the cited source says: Pietro Bembo, who established Ciceronian Lat. as the official code of the Roman church in the mid-16th c. Eric W. Cochrane, Italy 1530–1630, p. 23, employs similar language: His Ciceronian Latin ... was adopted as the official language of the Roman Church. How would you reword? Srnec (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like "established" or "was adopted" because 1) it sounds like a formal policy (in which case, what is the Vatican document that specifies it?) and 2) it either was not successful or only happened in some regards.

I really question both sources, as they don't seem to know what Ciceronian Latin meant at the time: it meant, among other things, restricting yourself to the the Ciceronian vocabulary. (Erasmus' scoffing book on this gave examples of the ramifications: using "Jupiter" instead of "Deus", not being able to use the term Trinity etc.) Ecclesiastical Latin had many words that were not Ciceronian, therefore Ciceronian Latin was not officially adopted. QED.

Bembo is not mentioned in the Ecclesiastical Latin article. The most that the original article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (which would be excited about such a thing) limits itself to "began to find a place":

"With the Renaissance, men's minds became more difficult to satisfy, readers of cultured taste could not tolerate a language so foreign to the genius of the classical Latinity that had been revived. It became necessary even for renowned theologians like Melchior Cano in the preface to his "Loci Theologici", to raise their voices against the demands of their readers as well as against the carelessness and obscurity of former theologians. It may be laid down that about this time classic correctness began to find a place in theological as well as in liturgical Latin." [1]

So better is Bembo "promoted a more Ciceronian style for official papal documents" fits in with other sources and the limits of his authority better: Bembo certainly promoted Cicero's style as a model for prose including church prose: [2] Bembo was a papal Latin Secretary for 7 years and so could certainly write and influence others. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified your promoted a more Ciceronian style for official papal documents to establishing a Ciceronian style for official papal documents and changed the article. I think "establishing ... a style" does not imply a formal policy. Thoughts? Srnec (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]