What Form of Latin Did Spinoza Use and Why Does it Matter? part 1

As various Spinozists with an interest in medieval philosophy and theology, especially Scholasticism, publish articles about the links between Scholastic thinkers and Spinoza, one might be forgiven for thinking Spinoza was writing in scholastic Latin, a language form that was common in Catholic medieval universities. It's important not to confuse Medieval Latin with Scholastic Latin. The latter is a subset of Medieval Latin designed for the use of neo- Aristotelian Catholic theology and so called philosophy, for example, Aquinas and Suarez. For general purposes, such as documentation, for instance, the Magna Carta, Medieval Latin was used. 

Nevertheless, it's easy to conflate all academic Latin in the past with Scholastic Latin and assume that anything and everything academic was written in Scholastic Latin from the medieval period until much later, when Latin was eventually phased out as the universal language of academia and scholars all wrote in their own language. 

But this is not the case. 

Both forms of Latin, Medieval and Scholastic, went out of fashion by the 16th century (which is the Tudor and Elizabethan period in England and Scotland) and was replaced by neo-Latin which was already in existence since the 15th century. Scholastic Latin and Scholasticism only staggered on during the 16th and 17th century in very Catholic universities, and was reduced down to the Iberian peninsula. This is where the Catholic scholastic Francisco Suarez lived as a conversos Jew, who feared the same fate as his family,  even down to his relatives being burnt at the stake by the Catholic Inquisition. Hence, it was in this region of the world that the Spanish Priest and theologian Suarez became a leading figure in the Spanish School of Salamanca which became pivotal in the Second Scholastic period. 

Spinoza and his relatives had left the Iberian peninsula so fortunately didn't suffer the same fate.

There was the odd exception to this Iberian geographical remit of Scholasticism, albeit with major adjustments. The University of Leiden took an intellectual interest in Suarez. However, as a Protestant university, they needed to remove all the Catholic thought and dogma from Suarez's works, and therefore slimmed it down to examining his systematic approach to philosophy, using it as a vehicle to increase their own rigour and systemisation within their own new style of Early Modern philosophy. Even so, in the end, Cartesianism took over from their study of Suarez. 

This 16th century mainstream changeover period between Scholasticism and neo-Latin also enjoyed literary success in the form of Shakespeare and Sir Phillip Sidney. However, neither of these wrote in Latin. Although some 16th century poets and dramatists in England and Scotland did write in neo-Latin such as Legge, Grimald, Alabaster, and Buchanan. 

Over in Holland, Spinoza learnt Latin from Franciscus van den Enden (1602-1674) with whom he lived for a period of time. Enden was a 17th century, Dutch, neo-Latin poet and philosopher, amongst other professions. He was a Roman Catholic who preferred to use reason over religious authority. He has the badge of honour of being thrown out of the Jesuit Order! But that doesn't make him an heretic or an atheist, he was just a rational human being who believed in democracy, equality, liberty, and freedom refusing to go along with dogma. Like Spinoza, he was ahead of his time. 

The fact that Enden taught Spinoza Latin makes for hard evidence that Spinoza wrote in neo-Latin, not Scholastic Latin. Firstly, because that was the Latin everyone was using in the academic world, and the form used in both written and spoken Latin. To be understood in the Early Modern World it was necessary to write in neo-Latin. Secondly, the main and highest level of Latin education Spinoza received was from the neo-Latinist van den Enden.  Thirdly, had Spinoza written in medieval Latin, he would have been dismissed, in that century, as linguistically inept because the prevailing perception of Scholastic Latin in that era was that it is linguistically 'bad Latin'. Consequently, no one would have taken him seriously had he done so. Fourthly, Spinoza was also corresponding with scientists who wrote in neo-Latin. So neo-Latin was inescapable for Spinoza. 

Furthermore, 17th century poets were known to write in a style even closer to Classical Latin. So van Enden would have been even closer to Classical Latin. Poets were the gold standard for pure Latin. The purer the Latin, the closer it was to Classical Latin. Therefore, Spinoza's neo-Latin would be closer to Classical Latin as a result. This is due to the fact that Classical Latin was used primarily in elite circles, such as academia and official dealings in the world of politics, science, medicine, and diplomacy. 

By the 17th Century, neo-Latin took over as a language as well as a movement to specifically reject medieval thought and scholasticism and their 'bad Latin'. So the movement went back to Classical Latin which is a rigorous style of Latin. In contrast, Medieval Latin was seen as obscure and unclear. However, Classical Latin was seen as correcting this therefore they purified their Latin to its ancient form in order to communicate pellucidly and reach higher understanding and preciseness of meaning. So it would logically follow that Spinoza is very precise in his writings, particularly in the Ethics. 

Van den Enden is considered to have also been a huge philosophical influence on Spinoza, including his groundbreaking ideas on democracy and how an ideal state should look in practice. He practised what he preached. Enden went to Paris setting up a school to teach Latin but was caught plotting to turn Normandy into a republic and he came to a sticky end. Earlier, in 1662 Enden published his pamphlet on his vision of an ideal republic state in America which consisted of present day Delaware, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. At that time this area was a Dutch colony but not for very long.

This would have no doubt further influenced Spinoza's politics and, especially, his TP. 

The 17th century, unlike today, was about progress not regress and neo-Latin exemplified this new movement which wanted to distance itself from everything medieval. This is possibly why Spinoza was often critical of Maimonides, a medieval Jewish scholar, and would cross apply this critical stance to the Jewish Catholic thinker Suarez. 

This new movement introduced a new philosophy; a new politics; a new approach to religion; a new science free from religious / Vatican censorship. 

Out with the old: The medieval, feudal, Scholastic, book banning, censoring, divine kingship way of life.  

In with the new: The new way of life meant more democracy, more religious, scientific, academic, social and political freedoms, more toleration, more ability to explore ideas open-mindedly and develop science as your experiments or reasoning reveals to you, not merely peddling past accepted theories irrespective of new evidence to the contrary, for instance, heliocentrism.