Page 275 - Beholding Liberty!

in the commercial and cultural centres of the Peloponnese, having an impact even on the local vernaculars, which did not develop the radical innovations, nor did they retain the archaisms of the peripheral regions.12
THE METALINGUISTIC VIEWS OF THE SCHOLARS
This composite sociolinguistic situation was a subject of great interest to the representatives of the Greek Enlightenment,13 leading to different and quite often contrasting metalinguistic view in relation to which linguistic form would be appropriate for the composition or/and translation of those handbooks that would contribute to the spread of education and the subsequent awakening of the Nation.
As towards the end of the 18th century, under the light of the sociopolitical conditions of modernity, the scholars of the diaspora, inspired by the ideals of Enlightenment and the imperative mandates of the French Revolution, visualize the creation of an independent Greek state, intense intellectual and ideological interac- tions take place, which could not but encompass the linguistic dispute, too.14
Proposals on the matter ranged from restoration of the Ancient Greek language and archaism (represented by Eugenios Voulgaris, Neophytos Doukas, Stephanos Kommitas et al.) to the prevalence of the plain, natural language (represented by intellectuals like Iosipos Moisiodakas, Dimitrios Katartzis, Grigorios Konstantas, Daniel Philippidis, Athanasios Psalidas, Ioannis Vilaras, Athanasios Christopoulos et al.).15
Among the supporters of the archaistic variety, the main arguments revolve around the inadequacy of the everyday language to convey the conceptual wealth of the intellectual achievements of the Enlightenment. Characteristically, Eugenios Voulgaris (1716-1806) deemed as inconceivable the use of the «vulgar» spo- ken language in textual kinds, such as philosophical discourse. In the preface of the publication of his work Logic (1766) he stated explicitly: «εκσυρικτέον άρα τα χυδαϊστί φιλοσοφείν επαγγελλόμενα βιβλιδάρια/ de- plorable therefore are those booklets professing to vulgarly philosophize». Furthermore, mixture of spoken varieties with loanwords constituted for the Archaists «contamination» and «alteration»: i.e., Nikiphoros Theotokis (1731-1800), in the preface of his theological work Κyriakodromion/Kυριακοδρόμιον (Moscow 1796), expressed his preference for a linguistic form free from foreign intrusions and words of the uned- ucated people, which he named «katharevousa (pure variety)», introducing, thus, a term that was meant to leave a lasting imprint on the Modern Greek linguisting affairs.16 The aforementioned argumentation clearly bears connotations of identity construction, as it reflects the ever increasing realisation that the connection to the ancient Greek (among others, linguistic) past, that was much admired in Europe, was emerging as a single and self-evident choice.
On the contrary, in the array of the spoken language followers feature scholars who thematize the need of a modernized language, which may be used as an instrument for the spread of the enlightening ideas. Indica- tively we cite the relevant views of Dimitrios Katartzis (ca. 1730-1807), who in his treatises refers to the lin- guisitc «habitus» of the natural speaker: «Η γλώσσα εφευρέθηκε για να κοινολογούμε τις ιδέες μας αναμεταξύ μας και για να καταλαβαίνουμε μ’ ευκολία ένας τον άλλον· αυτό λοιπόν δε γένεται σωστά και ορθά α δε λαλούμε ή α δεν ακούμε τη γλώσσα που έχουμ’ έξη κι οπού ’συνηθίσαμε να λαλούμε και ν’ ακούμ’ απ’ τα μικράτα μας· το οποίο σ’ εμάς είν’ η ρωμαίικια γλώσσα/Language was invented in order to communicate our ideas among us and understand with ease one another; this then is not done properly and correctly if we do not speak or hear the language we habitually speak and hear since our youth; which for us is the romaic language».17 With regard to the issue of the spoken language efficiency to respond to demanding text-types, such as that of scientific works, the need of its enrichment is stressed. As the anonymous writer of the Hellenic No- marchy/Eλληνική Νομαρχία remarks, «Ω, πόσον ταχύτερα και ευκολώτερα ήθελον φωτισθώσιν οι παίδες των Ελλήνων, αν αι παραδόσεις των επιστημών εγίνοντο εις την απλήν μας διάλεκτον. Άμποτε οι νέοι συγγραφείς να πλουτήσωσι και να τιμήσωσι την γλώσσαν μας με τα πονήματά των/ Oh! How much sooner and easier the
12. See, Horrocks 2006: 548.
13. See relatedly, Kitromilides 2007.
14. See, Frangoudaki 2001: 17, cf. Horrocks 2006: 588-589.
15. See, Diatsentos 2007.
16. See, Christodoulou 1999: 225.
17. In: Athini & Xourias 2015: 66.
At the same time, however, Katartzis, too, was asking
for the correction of the spoken language as to loans from foreign languages (Turkish, Albanian, Italian) and words that had no Greek etymological provenance. As Horrocks (2006: 591) notes, even the supporters of the low variety were spontaneously using in their writings the standard «academic» form of the written language of the period, in order to put forward their views.
The linguistic imprint of the National Regeneration 275