On Latin prose style in general, see Von Albrecht 2003, Norden 1898 and Von Nägelsbach 1905. On neo-Latin prose style see D’Amico 1984, Tunberg 2014. For information on the language of the earliest humanists see Rizzo 2002. For Ciceronianism see DellaNeva 2007, Tunberg 1997 and Sabbadini 1885. For the style of Lipsius and its influence see Deneire 2012. A fundamental starting point for the study of neo-Latin vocabulary is offered by Helander 2004. For prose rhythm in the late Middle Ages and early humanistic era see Lindholm 1963.

Scholarship on neo-Latin epistolography, overall, has tended to concentrate on the theoretical aspect of the genre, with Martín Baños 2005 as the most comprehensive survey to date. His bibliography is extremely valuable as a guide to the extensive secondary literature on Renaissance letter-writing as well as to editions of primary sources. Still useful, though, as general, concise introductions to humanist epistolography, are Clough 1976, Fumaroli 1978, and Henderson’s series of essays (1983a, 1983b, 1993, 2002, 2007). The volumes edited by Worstbrock (1983), Gerlo (1985), McConica (1989) and especially Van Houdt et al. (2002) contain important articles on individual writers and their letters. More recently, De Landtsheer (2014a and 2014b) and Papy (2015) have provided an overview of the style and content of the major humanist letter collections. Dedicatory letters and letters of recommendation are covered by Glomski 2007, Bossuyt et al. 2008, Waquet 2010b, and Verbeke and De Landtsheer 2014. In addition, the correspondence of prominent seventeenth-century intellectuals is discussed by Nellen 1993.

The number of Latin speeches and declamations from the Renaissance available in recent scholarly editions is very limited, so the frequent use of early modern editions is unavoidable. The bibliographical search for recent editions is not easy, since many lie hidden in journals or collections of essays (e.g. Agricola’s orations in Bertalot 1928, Spitz-Benjamin 1963, Mack 2000, Sottili 1997, Van der Laan 2003 and 2009, Walter 2004). Hence, thorough bibliographical research is an indispensable first step in reading Renaissance Latin speeches and declamations. For recent editions and studies, the Instrumentum Bibliographicum Neolatinum published yearly in Humanistica Lovaniensia is a mine of information. A few examples of separate editions of orations or declamations are Müllner 1899 (repr. 1970), Bembo 2003, Dolet 1992, Dorpius 1986, Poliziano 1986 and 2007, Scaliger 1999, Vives 1989–2012, Valla 1994, Valla 2007. Scott 1910 (repr. 1991) and Dellaneva and Duvick 2007 (in addition to Hallbauer 1726) offer a good access to the principal Renaissance source texts on imitation and style. For a critical evaluation of Renaissance Latin prose style Norden 1958: 732–809 is still a good starting point. For a history of Renaissance rhetoric see Mack 2011 and for a brief survey of both the theory and practice of eloquence during the Renaissance Van der Poel 2015.

Good modern editions are now available of a number of neo-Latin dialogues: see, for example, in the bilingual I Tatti Renaissance Library series, Bembo 2005, Brandolini 2009, Giraldi 2011, Pontano 2012, Giovio 2013, Filelfo 2013; also Filetico 1992, Celenza 1999, Gaisser 1999, Lipsius 2011 (though see Crab 2012 on the Latin text in this edition). Erasmus’ Colloquia and Ciceronianus are available in the Collected Works, published by Toronto University Press (1974–). In a few cases, English editions are available of texts found less readily in Latin; see for example, Bodin 2008. Critical monographs specifically on neo-Latin dialogue are lacking, though IJsewijn and Sacré 1998 offers a good short overview, and Tateo 1967 and Marsh 1980b survey fifteenth-century Italian production. Essays on individual texts and authors may be found in Geerts, Paternoster and Pignatti 2001 and in Heitsch and Vallée 2004. Kushner 2004 discusses the Latin and vernacular traditions of dialogues in sixteenth-century France.

Riley 2015 discusses Latin fiction as a whole (both longer and shorter forms), while Tunberg 2014 concentrates on the novel. The survey by Di Francia 1924–5, while dated, offers much useful information. For classical Latin fiction, see Hofmann 1999. Marcozzi 2004 provides a rich bibliography of Quattrocento novellas. On vernacular novellas, see Pabst 1967 and Auerbach 1971. On Piccolomini’s popular Historia, see Pirovano 2000 and 2002, and the edition in Piccolomini 2007.

For various surveys of longer neo-Latin prose fiction see IJsewijn and Sacré 1998: 241–57, Morrish Tunberg 2014 and Riley 2015. Tilg and Walser 2013 is the first edited volume dedicated to the subject and illustrates the variety and richness of the material. IJsewijn 1999 provides further information on the satirical novel. For a number of satirical novels also see De Smet 1996, although De Smet classifies them as Menippean satires. Kytzler 1982 gives a cursory account of utopian novels. The introductions of Fleming 1973 and Riley and Pritchard Huber 2004 are good starting points for studying the satirical and romantic novels.

For the history of Lucian in the early Renaissance (to the 1520s) see Marsh 1998, with chapters on the dialogue of the dead, on dialogues in heaven, the paradoxical encomium and the fantastic voyage. For symposium literature, Jeanneret 1991 is indispensable, augmented by Burke 1993, and Marsh 1987 on Alberti’s Intercenales. While IJsewijn 1976 is fundamental, the three most important studies of humanist Menippean satire are Blanchard 1995, taking a broad, theoretical approach to anti-systematic intellectual satire; De Smet 1996, taking a narrow approach to the politics of Menippean satires and, above all, to the history of the dream vision; and Kivistö 2009 on the traditions of paradoxography as they relate to the traditions of Roman satire as a healing genre. De Smet 1996: 247–50 offers an invaluable chronological listing of Menippean works from 1520 to 1761 (and beyond). Porter 2014c helps to disentangle Menippean satire from prose fiction; Morrish Tunberg 2014 considers utopian literature as a separate set of literary phenomena. For Menippean traditions immediately prior to the Renaissance, see Dronke 1994 and Relihan (forthcoming); for traditions immediately subsequent, Castrop 1983 and the opening chapters of Weinbrot 2005. What remains to be written is an account of the process of the successive anthologizations of humanist texts.

Rabasa et al. 2012 is the standard handbook. The overview in Völkel 2006: 195–249 is an excellent introduction and offers a manageable canon of authors. Readers without German should begin with Laureys 2014 and Baker 2015. Cochrane 1981 and Fubini 2003 are most significant for the beginnings of humanist historiography in Italy. Landfester 1972 and Grafton 2007 may serve as introductions to the artes historiae. The forgeries of Annius are explained by Stephens 1979 and Ligota 1987, their impact on European historiography and poetry is discussed by Stephens 2004 and Bizzocchi 1995. The best account of Flavio Biondo’s merits is given by Fubini 2003 and Pontari 2011. The papers collected in Helmrath et al. 2002 deal with the dissemination of methods and styles of history-writing from Italy to the rest of Europe. For anyone interested in Polydore Vergil, Hay 1952 is still indispensable. The route that leads from the humanist historians to the beginnings of historism is described by Muhlack 1991. Various aspects of early modern history writing are covered by the collected volumes edited by Di Stefano et al. 1992, Helmrath et al. 2009 and Rau and Studt 2010.