[Published in Paschalis M. Kitromilides (ed.), Adamantios Korais and the European Enlightenment (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2010)] Korais and the Greek language question (revised 2 Oct. 2009) Peter Mackridge In her chapter in the present volume, Roxane Argyropoulos describes Korais as a Hellenist, a philologue,1 a physician and a political theorist; significantly, she does not call him a linguist or language reformer. In fact, Korais’ linguistic theory and practice were the weakest aspects of his work. Yet his example and his precept – in particular his view that only Ancient Greek words and forms are correct and pure, while modern deviations from this norm are the result of barbarization and corruption – have been highly influential in the development of the Greek written language. In this chapter I intend to place Korais within the history of the language controversy and to analyse and assess his attitudes towards the modern Greek language. The Greek linguistic situation before Korais The Greek language controversy started when writers of the Greek Enlightenment began to argue about which variety of Greek was most suitable for educational and scholarly writing. The controversy had two dimensions. The first was the dispute between those who believed that Ancient Greek alone was suitable for such writing and those who believed that Modern Greek was appropriate. The second was the disagreement among proponents of the written use of the modern language as to which variety of it should be used. In these disputes Korais was on the side of the modern language, but he believed that it needed to be corrected in order to be usable for educational and scholarly purposes.2 1 The so-called Petit Robert (Paul Robert, Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française (Paris, 1970)) defines philologue as ‘Spécialiste de l’étude grammaticale, linguistique des textes’. 2 Material in English on the Greek language question includes Peter Bien, Kazantzakis and the linguistic revolution in Greek literature (Princeton, 1972), p.13-146; Roderick Beaton, An introduction 1 Greek writers of the late eighteenth century used various different versions of Greek, ranging from the Classical Attic of the archaist Evgenios Voulgaris (17161806) at one extreme to the transcription of the spoken tongue by the vernacularist Dimitrios Katartzis (c. 1730-1807) at the other. Most writers, however, used an amalgam of features belonging to Ancient and Modern Greek, in terms of both vocabulary and grammar. They tended to impose most of the morphological rules of Ancient Greek (that is, declension and conjugation patterns) on to a mixture of ancient and modern vocabulary, while their syntax was generally modern and often influenced by the sentence structure of western European languages. The amalgam varied according to the educational level of the author and the aims of his writing, which included the expectations and educational level of his intended audience. Some writers bemoaned the ugly and chaotic character of this mixed language, which they sometimes termed ‘macaronic’ or mixovarvaros [mixed-barbarian], but most continued to write in it.3 The first Greek writer of the Enlightenment period who wrote about the need for ‘correcting’ Modern Greek was the teacher Iosipos Moisiodax. In his prologue to his translation of Lodovico Antonio Muratori’s book La filosofia morale esposta e proposta ai giovani, which he published in 1761, he wrote: ‘I first had to think in which yfos I should translate the work, that is, in the Hellenic or the common one’.4 At that time, the term yfos was commonly used to refer to language variety rather than style (which is what the word means in Greek today). Ancient Greek was known as ‘Hellenic’, while various terms were used to refer to Modern Greek, including ‘common language’, ‘common yfos’, ‘simple language’ or ‘simple yfos’; Greek authors seldom used the word ‘modern’ to refer to the language of their day. Moisiodax goes on to state that he chose to use ‘the simple yfos’. However, he calls for this language to be ‘corrected’ in order to reverse its ‘adulteration’ and to modern Greek literature (Oxford, 1994; revised ed., 1999), p.296-368; Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: a history of the language and its speakers (London, 1997), p.344-65; Peter Mackridge, Language and national identity in Greece, 1766-1976 (Oxford, 2009). 3 Macaronic writing was a kind of comic literature in vogue in Italy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in which vernacular Italian elements are mixed with classical Latin. 4 Iosipos Moisiodax, prologue to Ithiki philosophia [Moral philosophy] (Venice, 1761), quoted in Paschalis M. Kitromilides, Iospios Moisiodax: oi syntetagmenes tis valkanikis skepsis ton 18o aiona [Iospios Moisiodax: the co-ordinates of Balkan thought in the 18th century] (Athens, 1985), p.332. 2 In order to cure somewhat that roughness and unevenness. in 1803. 1827). Voulgaris’ preface is quoted by Konstantinos Sathas (Νeoellinikis philologias parartima: istoria tou zitimatos tis neoellinikis glossis [Appendix to Greek philology: history of the question of the Modern Greek language ] (Athens. because of the lack of necessary words and phrases. It is no coincidence that. Iospios Moisiodax . ii (Athens. p.xlvi. renferme la connaissance de toutes les sciences et de tous les arts. Voulgaris’ chief target was his own pupil Moisiodax. p. p. is insufferable and monstrous for those who know the old Hellenic. Korais implied that Voulgaris’ Logic and Theotokis’ Elements of physics. Théorie de la grammaire et de la langue grecque (Paris and London. he gradually replaced certain modern features with their ancient equivalents. Megas (Istoria tou glossikou zitimatos [History of the language question]. chez nous. and on the other.5 In his own writings.5) who first identified Voulgaris as ‘the instigator of the language controversy’.49. 1870). apply to works on non-scholarly subjects. I Logiki [Logic] (Leipzig. and this weakness and indigence. both published in 1766.6 Although he did not name him. E. On the one hand. marked the beginning of the regeneration of Greek culture (Coray. 1927). With reference to this passage from Voulgaris. 1766).12-13). one must 5 6 Kitromilides. Six years after the publication of Moisiodax’s translation of Muratori. speak. however. because of the admixture of foreign and barbaric words.’7 Voulgaris’ opposition to writing on ‘philosophy’ in the vulgar language did not. p. it is incapable of representing a relevant meaning. In a passage from a book published in 1770 he argues for a variety of language that foreshadows the linguistic theory and practice of Korais: One may reasonably add here the weakness and imperfection of our common Dialect. 7 C. Mémoire sur l'état actuel de la civilisation dans la Grèce (Paris. if it happens to be that of the streets such as the vulgar people have in use.146-7). it is impossible to listen to. Konstantinos Minoides Minas makes it clear that the term ‘philosophy’ covered a far wider range of discourse than it does nowadays: ‘Le mot philosophie. p. Minoide Mynas. 1803). but it seems to have been A.336. as the years went by. the Hellenes of today. Voulgaris initiated the Greek language controversy by arguing that in order to study philosophy it was necessary to know Ancient Greek and that ‘the worthless little books that profess to philosophize in vulgar language should be hissed off the stage’. Evgenios Voulgaris.‘barbarization’ and to render it more precise. p. 3 . The language that we. often resort to the more ancient language. and approaching the peculiarity of European languages in its syntax and yfos [style]. so that a middle language will be created. As we shall see. Such a Dialect is used for the most part by our educated men.. Voulgaris makes it clear that he encountered two difficulties in writing Modern Greek: first. first appeared in 1888 and was never republished (Emm. ‘Proima schediasmata tou Korai gia mia “Grammatiki tis 4 . N. Korais was an ‘enemy of systems’.d. 1770]). neither of these was published during his lifetime. This hostility extended to his views on the modern Greek language. less barbarizing and solecistic. a language that is more Hellenic as regards its words [vocabulary]. Frankiskos. almost a century later. yet more effective and fulfilling the need. He does not seem to have realized that these two factors are not necessarily related: the expressive weakness of the language is confused in his mind with its negative aesthetic aspect.8 Towards the end of this passage Voulgaris provides a description of what came.30*-1*. that he found it insufficiently expressive for abstract discourse. 9 A Grammar of the Greek language. introduction to Eisigisis tis Aftokratorikis Megaleiotitos Aikaterinis … [Decree of Her Imperial Highness Catherine…] (n. Yli gallo-graikikou lexikou [Material for a French-Greek dictionary] (Athens. second. The fact that Moisiodax progressively archaized his language with the aim of making it more expressive and precise shows that he shared the same confusion. nor did he ever publish a grammar or dictionary. 1994). He did not encapsulate his ideas in a single book. p. from which the newer has deviated and become corrupted. n. Korais too was not exempt from this confusion between the expressive and the aesthetic aspect of language. the only element missing from his description is katharevousa’s use of most of the features of Ancient Greek morphology. which Korais was working on in 1800. [Moscow. The nature and origins of Korais’ linguistic theory As Roxane Argyropoulos says in her chapter.9 The five-volume 8 Evgenios Voulgaris. Although he drafted a grammar of Modern Greek and began to compile a French-Greek dictionary. that he found the language ugly and. and this is what I have preferred to use for the present.p. to be called katharevousa. quoted by Alkis Angelou in his introduction to Adamantios Korais. préjugés in French). wrong-headed notions that are accepted without being based on empirical observation and without being subjected to the scrutiny of reason. that is. which were replaced by prolipseis (preconceptions. His expertise in textual criticism. There is a revealing passage in a private letter he sent to his friend Alexandros Vasileiou in 1804. After the Classical period. from which the Modern Greeks had lamentably fallen. p. he had been unable to include in his prologue to his edition of Heliodorus. which he treated as if it was a vast collection of manuscripts containing corrupt readings of Ancient Greek that required correction. by ‘morals’ he seems to mean beliefs and opinions about the world. they were consequently deprived of correct ideas. It is characteristic of the unsystematic nature of Korais’ work that the prefaces to the volumes of the Hellenic Library bear the title ‘Improvised reflections on Greek paideia [education/culture] and language’. 5 . beginning in 1804 with his edition of the Hellenistic novel Aethiopica by Heliodorus and continuing in the Precursor to the Hellenic Library (1805) and in the first six volumes of his series entitled Hellenic Library. in Diimero Korai [Two-day conference on Korais] (Athens. which involved the emendation of corrupt texts. published from 1807 to 1812. he said. he believed. published in the same year: Graikikis”’ [‘Korais’ early drafts for a “Grammar of Greek”’]. In his view the ancient Greeks had attained a peak of freedom and moral perfection. at a time when the Greeks were deprived of the arts and sciences.70-82). But his ideas on language were chiefly expounded in the prefaces to his editions of ancient Greek texts. 10 For more on Korais’ career as a textual critic see Vivi Perraky’s chapter in this volume. As a philologist. greatly influenced his attitude to the Modern Greek language. together with the behaviour that inevitably follows from them.10 His desire for the correction of the Modern Greek language seems to have stemmed from his desire for the correction of the Greeks’ ‘morals’. Although he does not define the term precisely. Korais was the first Greek of modern times to gain an international reputation as an editor of Classical texts. His draft Material for a French-Greek dictionary was published in 1881.collection of material entitled Atakta (1828-35) includes lists of about 8000 Modern Greek words with comments on their etymology and usage. laying out some ideas which. 1984). and again in 1994 (see note 8 above). […] [The legislator] therefore enacts the best possible laws. Finally. always have in mind that you are speaking and writing for a nation that is barbarized and more prone to follow the vulgarists and flatterers than to follow you. just as doctors prepare the impure body with potions that are either lighter or suitably emollient before they give it the cathartic. 6 . et qu’on veut sincèrement le bien de sa nation. its true friend. When the nation corrupts its morals. vol. nor can he give them. as Solon put it explicitly to those who criticized his laws. 180-81. there is the gradualistic attitude to the correction of language. Secondly there is the analogy between language and morals. the best laws. demands a related and similar cure. but that this is not feasible in practice. the last sentence quoted is in French in the original. not as a correction but as the preparation and introduction to the correction that is hoped for in the future. according to the Hippocratic rules. according to which the ‘cure’ is applied in stages. The ancient Greek language. it is not surprising to find such analogies in the work of a man whose formal academic training was in medicine. I shall say more about some of these points in the course of this chapter. ii (Athens.I think that the corruption of language is a disease related to the corruption of morals and. 11 Korais to Vasileiou. which alludes to his view that the ideal situation would be for the Greeks to write Ancient Greek. with a preparatory stage preceding the drastic one.11 There are several points to notice in this passage. 1966). the wise legislator who wishes to reform his fellow-citizens does not give them. Il faut un peu de ruse quand on a affaire à la canaille. 9 Aug. Thirdly. 1804. […] Adapt this whole theory to the corruption of the language. but ‘the best possible’. in this private letter Korais lays bare a Machiavellian strategy that is veiled in his published works: fearing that those who promote the use of the colloquial language in written use will enjoy greater popularity among ordinary Greeks than his linguistic reform programme. he plans to pre-empt their efforts by formulating his own proposals first. in particular. according to which Korais envisages a pathology of language. First there is the medical analogy. […] When you speak and write. in Allilographia. Korais was very much an educated European of his time in his reverence for ancient Greek language and civilization. Associated with this is the concept of the ‘best possible’ solution. ‘Small blame that Trojans and well-greaved Achaeans should long time suffer woes for such a woman’. while adulteration consisted of the presence of many words of foreign origin. Korais considered that the modern Greek nation. […] The acquisition of the Hellenic language is difficult […]. and that it was impossible to resurrect Ancient Greek. and children should be taught how to read with the use of modern rather than ancient words and phrases. with no reference to the original source. in contrast to the existing grammars of Ancient Greek aimed at 12 Adamantios Korais.14 He also argued insistently that Ancient Greek should be taught through the medium of the modern language. vol. together with its language. is even more applicable to the beauty of the Hellenic language. Impoverishment entailed the loss of many native vocabulary items.13 Nevertheless. We should read Ancient Greek but write in Modern Greek. which prevented complete and precise expression. 14 7 . i (Athens. It is a rare thing […] for someone to be enslaved like a bondsman to bodily pleasures if he has once drunk to the full the cup of that enchantress. Prolegomena…. but the reward for one’s labours is inexpressible pleasure. p. quoting the Iliad. 1938). he believed that the language spoken by a nation must be respected and preserved. he urged. The following passage is indicative of his view of the ancient language: The Hellenic language […] has a certain special charm. In particular. As far as the Greek language is concerned. 13 Quoted in Manolis Triantafyllidis.was for him a thing of supreme beauty and a rich instrument appropriate for the precise expression of the noblest achievements of the human mind. 1984). vol.239 [1807] and p.38-9 [1804]. had been barbarized by its subjection to foreign tyrants. Neoelliniki grammatiki: istoriki eisagogi [Modern Greek Korais. lines 156-57. he saw the loss of the infinitive as ‘the most frightful vulgarity of our language’.452. by means of which it softens the morals of the young but also makes them more modest and prudent.12 As we have seen. i. which Korais perceived as shameful stains on the face of a once noble language. Prolegomena….353-54 [1809]. and what the elderly Trojans said about beautiful Helen. this ‘barbarization’ took the form of impoverishment and adulteration. grammar: historical introduction] (Athens. p. book 3. the language of the Hellenes. p. and of certain grammatical categories such as the infinitive. Korais lived more than half of his life in the eighteenth century.17. In an anonymous article he wrote: ‘The resurrection of Hellas does not depend on the regaining of the ancient language. ‘the entire nation returns to its original barbarity’. For more on Korais’s belief in human perfectibility and on the relationship between civilization. decadence]. ‘It is not enough that we have thrown off the yoke of an iniquitous tyrant if we do not wash off the stains with which tyranny has contaminated our souls.xxiv. ‘“Logios Ermis”: athisavrista keimena 1813 -1815’ [‘“Logios Ermis”: uncollected texts 1813-1815’]. 23. Douka pros tous sofous tis Evropis epistolin [Response of a German to Doukas’ letter to the wise men of Europe] (‘Vernunftstadt’ [Paris] 1815). and his attitudes chiefly belonged to that century17 – though in fact Korais was more conservative in his linguistic views than the more conservative contributors to the French Encyclopédie. in Allilographia. 10 Jan.103-4. Th. p. which were written in the language they professed to teach. As Konstantinos Dimaras pointed out. vol. K.20 In his view. which cannot be carried out in an unusual language’. in Diimero Vincenzo Rotolo.’16 This attitude formed one of the bases of his linguistic theory. but on the resurrection of the arts and sciences. Atakta [Miscellany]. 8 . ii (Paris. 18 linguistic theory: ideological roots and psychological motivations’]. iv (Athens. Although he saw Modern Greek as a continuation of the ancient language. the ‘decline’ of the Greek language since ancient times was due to the ignorance and obscurantism that had prevailed in the Greek world since the end of the Classical 15 Narrenhasser [= Korais]. quoted in Aikaterini Koumarianou. p. he also conceived of it as a distinct language that characterized a distinct nation.19 Nevertheless. 1822.53. 19 20 Adamantios Korais. ‘I glossiki theoria tou Korai: ideologikes rizes kai psychologika kinitra’ [Korais’ Korai. Korais believed that the natural state of man (and of language) is barbarity.15 He constantly defended the use of the modern language in serious writing and accused those who insisted on using Ancient Greek of being obscurantists.327. p. Dimaras. in Diimero Korai . p. Apantisis Germanou tinos eis tin tou N. 1829). p. savagery and barbarity in his thought see the chapter by Roxane Argyropoulos in this volume. 1982). whose members he normally called Graikoi [Greeks] rather than Ellines [Hellenes].Greek pupils. 16 17 Korais to Peloponnesian notables. However. he wrote in a letter of 1822. O Eranistis 7 (1969). ‘O Korais kai i glossa: i theoria’ [‘Korais and language: the theory’]. despite his belief that the natural inclination of man (and of language) is towards parakmi [decline.18 Like many eighteenth-century thinkers. vol. he writes. he argued that men’s morals (like their language) are perfectible. When a nation’s civilization is killed off by slavery. 21 Linguists. thought and morals as existing in a complex reciprocal relationship: ‘language is the instrument by which the soul first forms its thoughts inwardly and then utters them’. language is a social institution. 22 23 Davies. is 21 Anna Morpurgo Davies.D.). vol. particularly in Germany. Concurrently there was a shift in emphasis from the study of vocabulary to the study of grammar. 24 Korais. p. and especially the study of grammatical criteria as the basis for the classification of languages. vol. p. p. This pair of terms (designating the concept or thought and its linguistic expression) appears to have been developed by the Stoic philosophers in the 1st century B. for Locke.C. i. particularly a concern with the relationship between language. thought and morals. 515 [1812]. Nineteenth-century linguistics.41. 9 . History of Linguistics. Korais is here referring to the ancient Greek idea that speech (prophorikos logos) is the outward representation of thought (endiathetos logos). results in the perversion of morals’. Korais. Nineteenth-century linguistics [Giulio Lepschy (ed.xxvi. Atakta. i. were not only becoming professionalized. vol.492-93. and the 1st century A. vol. Prolegomena….22 Korais shows no awareness of these new developments that were taking place during his time. vol. but they were eschewing philosophical speculation in favour of empirical data that showed not only the systematic structure of each individual language at a particular time. p. but also the historical development that had led to the present state of the language. He continued to hold a philosophical attitude to language that was characteristic of the eighteenth century. According to Bauman and Briggs. Prolegomena…. p. Korais frequently conceives of language.42 [1804].period. cf. iv] (London and New York. For Locke.23 Bad linguistic expression. ii. Locke sees rhetoric and poetry as the enemies of rationality. 1998). chiefly in consequence of the absence of self-government and democratic rule before and during the Roman conquest and the oriental despotism of the successive Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. ‘[p]oetry. In linguistics the nineteenth century marked the end of the era of the independent polymath and the beginning of specialization and teamwork. i. words correspond not to things but to ideas.61. which perverts the true meanings of words.504 [1812]. p. Prolegomena…. bad thinking and bad morals influence each other: ‘the barbarization of the language. conventional and man-made.24 In these views he was influenced by the writings of John Locke and Etienne de Condillac. i.simply referential redundancy’. 1762). whose poetry he saw as being of high educative value. 1760). Nineteenth-century linguistics.28 accordingly. 10 . Johann David Michaelis. For Condillac. as for Korais. Polities. to reform a language would be to contribute to the reform of the national character. et du langage sur les opinions. the soul of the nation is embodied and expressed in the language and songs of the folk.492) quotes the relevant passage from the French translation. Korais.). Beantwortung der Frage von dem Einfluss der Meinungen in die Sprache.xxi. p. tr. und der sprache in die Meinungen (Berlin. ‘Language philosophy as language ideology: John Locke and Johann Gottfried Herder’. 115. P. Condillac followed Locke. Given these ideas.’ he writes. which is precisely what Korais wanted to do with the Greeks. J. Regimes of Language: Ideologies. ii. Korais claims that those who are congenitally deaf are mostly imbeciles because they lack language. p. 26 27 Davies. or even abolishes it completely. was the chief or sole marker of Greek national identity. vol. le Guay de Prémontval (Bremen. rather than religion.34-35.26 Quoting Johann David Michaelis. and Oxford. Kroskity (ed.’27 Condillac and others in the eighteenth century believed that language influences national character as well as being influenced by it. It is in relation to this that he writes: ‘He who thinks badly speaks badly.139-204. Korais (Prolegomena…. although he made an exception for Homer. whose outlook was beginning to have a significant influence on the romantic nationalism that was developing in other European countries in Korais’ time. NM. it is not surprising that Korais’ implicit assumption was that language. but for him language not only influences thought but is the precondition for it. 2000). like rhetoric. B. For Herder. Herder valorized the emotional component of sensory experience and promoted the immediacy of oral poetry (which he characteristically called Naturpoesie) over the 25 Richard Bauman and Charles L.25 Korais shared this view somewhat. vol. Merian and A. ‘The language is the nation itself. Briggs. p. this is the opposite of the Darwinian view that language was produced by thought. poetry embodies the excesses of language. Nineteenth-Century Linguistics.292. 28 29 Davies. it is language that provides mental concepts.29 This is a very different view from the one proposed by Herder. Atakta. De l’influence des opinions sur le langage. and he who speaks badly prevents the mind from discovering the faculty of thinking. p. p. and Identities (Santa Fe. referring to passages in the Old and New Testament where the word ‘language’ is used to mean ‘nation’. in Paul V. In his introduction he claimed.30 Korais was decidedly a man of the Enlightenment. Fauriel (1772-1844) was a friend of Idéologues such as Destutt de Tracy and Cabanis. He seldom makes complimentary remarks about Greek writers who had lived during the previous two hundred years. Claude Fauriel. O Eranistis 11 (1974). that the language of the Greek songs is ‘une langue régulière et fixe. Korais made comparisons and contrasts between Ancient and Modern Greek without being sufficiently aware of the evolutionary processes that had led from one to the other. Korais and other Greek purists ignored the synchronic functional cohesiveness of the spoken language in favour of an imaginary diachronic cohesiveness. Alexis Politis.178 -83. albeit with some exaggeration. in his view. a poet ‘is the creator of a nation around him. It is as though the Greek people were no longer capable of expressing themselves coherently. p. This meant that he took a rational and utilitarian view of language and did not feel obliged to respect the language of the common people. who influenced Korais. nor did he show any interest in the Greek folk songs: he supplied Claude Fauriel with the texts of Greek folk songs collected by another Greek scholar. It is striking that Korais presented his ideas. The relationship between Korais’ political and linguistic views 30 31 32 Bauman and Briggs. Chants populaires de la Grèce moderne. virtually untouched by the romantic movement.264-95. 1824). ‘Language philosophy as language ideology’. the Greek nation had existed in a barbarized state until the recent beginning of its enlightenment. Although younger than Korais. He felt he was drawing his ideas directly from Classical Greece and enlightened Europe. For Herder. Moreover.cxxii-cxxiii. une et homogène’. i (Paris. his language and his nation as being new. p. Soon after the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence Fauriel published the first ever collection of Greek folk songs. from which linguistic relics must be salvaged. he shows them a world and has their souls in his hand to lead them’. and he deliberately avoided conveying a sense that he was following a tradition. 11 .written word.31 but it is likely that he passed on the manuscript to him without reading it. His radical break with tradition was one of the reasons why he alienated many other Greek intellectuals of his time. ‘Korais kai Fauriel’. Korais talks of the Greek language as being in ruins. Since. Korais felt that writers of the immediately preceding period had little of interest to say to him and his fellow-Greeks.32 By contrast. pp. In keeping with his belief in the reciprocal influence of language and morals. where he focuses on semantics rather than linguistic form. 1996). for before learning correct ideas. and they become miserably deprived of it.34 It is clear from this passage.As Kitromilides has written. Prolegomena…. for Korais ‘the reform of the language was an organic part of the more general effort at the cultural rebirth of the nation’.494-95 [1812]. Kitromilides. he must first sweep away all the rubbish that ignorance has piled up inside it. the investigation of words becomes yet more necessary. 34 12 . i. that Korais believed passionately in the power of language to liberate or enslave mankind. p. ‘simplification’ meant abandoning Ancient Greek as the medium for writing and teaching. Kitromilides goes on to talk about Korais’ simplification and purification of language. while ‘purification’ meant bringing Modern Greek closer to the ancient language. Neoellinikos diaphotismos [Modern Greek enlightenment] (Athens. This is impossible to achieve without the investigation and purification of language. Korais. […] On these meanings [of words] often depends the happiness or misery of men. In order to prepare his head to receive the good ones. p.398-401. […] Entire nations. not knowing the true meaning of liberty. However. vol. turning from men into ridiculous slaves. since as a man speaks. with the aim of improving the modern Greek language and teaching the Greeks to understand the value of liberty. so he thinks. democracy and civic virtue: When it is a question of a barbaric or barbarized nation. in his work on language he tended to confuse semantics with form. are also ignorant of its use. Korais waged a campaign on two fronts.33 Korais’ intervention in the language question was consistent with his belief in the need for and the efficacy of intervention in the affairs of a nation. the learner must unlearn those distorted ideas that he previously held. as opposed to abandoning it to a fate that had been ordained by its recent historical experiences. arguing that a word that is distorted or corrupt in its form must necessarily be 33 Paschalis M. By this he means the comparison of the two languages by means of juxtaposition. 17 Aug. in Allilographia.distorted and corrupt in its meaning. He urges teachers and their pupils to practise what he calls the parathesis or paravoli of Ancient Greek and Modern Greek.xviii.38 In practice. ii. vol. we should be ‘neither the tyrants of the vulgar nor the slaves of their vulgarity’. Korais. as it were. Korais’ linguistic compromise between Ancient and Modern Greek went together with the moderate nature of his political ideas: he saw language. p. The two concepts of correction and embellishment had already been mentioned as a pair in Korais. Prolegomena…. vol. Korais. p. ii. vol.129. i. This is the origin of his desire to ‘correct’ the modern Greek language by bringing its form closer to Ancient Greek. p. i. by rubbing and washing away the many unsightlinesses that have become attached to it as a result of the long misery of the Hellenic nation’. p. In order to convey his position. Prolegomena…. vol.50.41 [1804]. p. 1979) p. like democratic politics. 13 . In his ‘Improvised reflections’ Korais provided some examples of suggested dictionary definitions of Modern Greek words. Korais to Vasileiou. 1811. as being based on compromise between conflicting interests. in Allilographia.36 In language. including comments on definitions 35 36 Korais. as he expressed it elegantly in a private letter. 18 June 1804. the mesi odos and metakenosis.164. he famously used the analogy of parliamentary democracy: ‘language is one of the most inalienable possessions of the nation. with the purpose of helping pupils both to learn the ancient language and to ‘correct and embellish the modern living language spoken by living people. iii (Athens. vol. Korais carried out this comparison only on the level of vocabulary.35 He stated that he was equally against linguistic tyranny or oligarchy (the imposition of a particular variety of language by dictatorial decree) and linguistic demagogy or mob rule (the imposition by the common rabble of their vulgar. with democratic equality’.49 [1804]. incorrect speech). vol. The whole nation shares in this possession. Atakta. Prolegomena…. 37 38 Korais to Vasileiou. i.37 His linguistic precepts I will confine myself here to defining three of Korais’ concepts: parathesis. 40 Angelou rightly stresses that Korais’ approach is not historical but synchronic. consists largely of the comparison between two separate synchronic stages of the language. vol. i. and then typically goes on to say how the ancients used their version of this word. which would have examined the evolution of the form and meaning of a word over time. Korais would have liked to resurrect Ancient Greek. Furthermore. i. a year before the publication of his first public foray into the correction of Modern Greek: Regarding the restoration of the Hellenic dialect.39 These show what he means by parathesis when it comes to compiling a dictionary of the modern language.21*. Korais begins with the modern forms and meanings of the word in question. He includes examples of use (including proverbs and verse quotations. 28 May 1803. p.provided by earlier dictionaries. Yli gallo-graikikou lexikou.e. Korais to Vasileiou. but mostly phrases from everyday speech) to illustrate the meanings of the word. then. indeed.41 This statement reveals that. Instead. He defined the linguistic mesi odos in the following way: 39 40 41 Korais. it would certainly be desirable for the common language to be subjected to the same rules as the ancient one. the examination of the form and meaning of individual words in isolation from each other and from the grammar that governs their use blinds the investigator to the synchronic grammatical systems of both the ancient and the modern languages. 14 . introduction to Korais. Parathesis. in his heart of hearts. vol. Angelou. p. Alkis Angelou surmises that Korais must have kept notes from everyday conversations that provided him with examples. but this seems to me impossible. It should be stressed that such comparison is no substitute for a truly historical approach. he strove to walk what he called the mesi odos [middle way] between the language of the archaists and that of the vernacularists. in Allilographia. and he urged his compatriots to do the same. Korais wrote to Vasileiou in 1803. if only it had been feasible. ii. p.89. Prolegomena….330-41 [1809]. the ancient and the modern. i. and far from Hellenism [i. p. Iosipos Moisiodax. p. ii.e. The formation and transition of one language to another is inevitably accompanied by macaronism. p.What other course remains for the learned of the nation than the middle way. 1999). p. because it is likewise probable that the Platos and Isocrateses wrote in such a way as to be understood by the oarsmen?42 For Korais. 9 Oct. quoted in Vincenzo Rotolo. 1965). 1 May 1806. the middle way entailed the use of a mixture of ancient and modern linguistic features. A. far from vulgarism. p. including politics (as early as 1791). and I. It is significant that in the same year the archaist Neophytos Doukas too called himself a macaronist.5-7. ii. iii.162-63). and the relationship between philosophy and grammar. p. arguing similarly that ‘Macaronism is the gradual progress of the language towards its ancient perfection’ while a t the same time reviling the corrections proposed by Korais (Doukas. Indeed. Ekdoches neoterikotitas stin koinonia tou genous: Nikolaos Mavrokordatos. and vol. vol. in a letter written to Vasileiou in 1812 Korais responded as follows to the news that Konstantinos Koumas had placed him among the macaronists: He too.185-88). Adamantios Korais] (Thessaloniki. that is. 1804 and 5-12 Dec. 13 July 1812. When I ridiculed the macaronists. 1812). p. Iosipos Moisiodax. Korais used the term mesi odos with regard to other areas of human activity besides language. 1811 (in Allilographia. 498 [1812] (Miltos Pechlivanos. 3rd edn (Vienna. 15 . vol. not those who seek the correction of the language prudently and calmly.106-7). vol. in Allilographia. I meant those who macaronize deliberately and pretentiously. p. With regard to language.208. writing in Ancient Greek] and Hellenic macaronism. 201.322. the other passages are in two letters from Korais to Vasileiou. out of an idiotic revulsion towards the commonly spoken language. and in Prolegomena…. and all of us are more or less maraconists. in Allilographia. textual criticism. 43 Korais to Vasileiou. because it is probable that neither the Platos nor the Isocrateses wrote like the oarsmen of Athens. Koraìs e la questione della lingua in Grecia (Palermo. Grammatiki Terpsithea [Terpsithea grammar]. iii. vol.43 42 Korais to Vasileiou. Adamantios Korais [Versions of modernity in the society of the nation: Nikolaos Mavrokordatos. Prolegomena…. replacing milliounion45). many of which are still in everyday use in Greek today. he rejects words of non-Greek origin and shuns most of the phonological and morphological innovations that had taken place in the Greek language since antiquity. As for the vernacular features he avoids. Korais to Vasileiou. it could be said to refer to the pouring of modern European concepts into the shells of Ancient Greek morphemes. i. vol. iii. misallodoxia (intolerance. as in Ancient Greek. We shall say more about this below. 1 May 1804. the dual number. This is the basis of his linguistic coinages. p. 44 Korais first used this term (in the form metakenoma) in a private letter in 1811 (Korais. At the linguistic level. ii. ii. p. such as alexikeravnon (lightning-conductor.46 In the formation of these new words.44 a term that is hardly used in Greek today except with reference to his ideas. Allilographia. For more on Korais’s metakenosis see the chapter by Vivi Perraky in the present volume. p.561-62). literally ‘one hundred myriads’. This can be rendered in English as ‘decanting’.244.156-57. it is obvious that Korais’ ‘correction’ of spoken Greek was bound to be a contentious issue. the optative mood and the single-word future and perfect tenses. 45 46 Korais to Vasileiou. ekatommyrion (million. The most famous term that Korais invented to describe his cultural project was metakenosis. as in Modern Greek. mythistoriographos (novelist) and politismos (French civilisation). 16 . The practical consequences of Korais’s middle way can be exemplified by what he avoids.Given that ‘pretentiousness’ and ‘prudence’ were impossible to define objectively. literally. What Korais meant by it was the transfer of modern European thought into the Greek language and into the Greek consciousness in general. ‘hatred of other beliefs’). logokrisia (censorship). in Allilographia. It first appeared in his published works in 1814 (Korais . modern European concepts were successfully clothed in Ancient Greek dress. French paratonnerre). p. vol. rather than the genitive. that is. He avoids using ancient features such as the dative case. in Allilographia.153-55. 6 March 1805. vol. the emptying out of a substance from one container into another. vol. He also construes the preposition apo [from] with the accusative. p. or what we might nowadays call standardization): e.g. which those who have not carefully investigated the nature of the language seek to exile from it as being barbarous. vol. 1832).37 [1804]. Korais. like Locke. i. iv (Paris. Korais. Prolegomena…. Korais. Since ecclesiastical Greek was part of their everyday linguistic experience – albeit only at the level of passive comprehension – Korais was able to claim that. 17 . vol.329 [1809]. but he sometimes uses the term kanonismos (regulation. he was respecting the way it was actually used.48 According to Korais. i. iv. ix. vol. 48 49 50 51 52 Korais.339 [1809].The theory and practice of linguistic correction47 Korais sums up his concept of linguistic correction in the following way: I call the correction of language not only the transformation of various barbarously formed words and constructions. vol. Prolegomena…. i.ix. Atakta. Korais aimed to correct the abuses of thought by correcting the abuses of language. Atakta. p. p. Where the form has changed since ancient times. vol. Prolegomena…. p. vol. Atakta. Prolegomena…. i. Korais was usually content to use modern words in their 47 Korais normally uses the term diorthosis (correction). Korais characterizes the modern meaning as a katachrisis [misuse/abuse]. Korais.36 [1804]. p. even when he was ‘correcting’ their language according to the rules of Ancient Greek. vol. ii. but also the retention of many others. the Modern Greek ending (if it is different) is ‘barbarous’. the fact that the Bible was heard every day in church ‘has somewhat coloured the commonly spoken language’49 and was perhaps one of the reasons why the Greek language had not become totally barbarized. p. Whenever the meaning of a word in Modern Greek differs from its ancient meaning. the modern form is a diafthora [corruption].52 The moral overtones of these labels are obvious: linguistic ‘corruption’ accompanies the ‘distortion’ of moral character.51 Whereas the Ancient Greek ending of a word is ‘genuine’.50 The fact that the Greeks were familiar with archaic Greek from church services provided Korais and others with the excuse to archaize the modern spoken language. Korais. Nevertheless.xxx. ‘by scratching around. You will be surprised how in a short while your words and phrases have passed from the book into the mouths of the people. ‘beautification’ may simply be the addition of decorative features that are unnecessary for the direct communication of ideas. It is difficult to see how tinkering with these phrases in this way made their form more elegant and their meaning more precise. Correctness in language is not the same as beauty. but in the following ‘corrected’ version: ‘i ornitha skalizousa ekvale ta ommatia tis’.e. but gradually with the hand. Even though he believed that etymology is the key to the true meaning of a word. the hen put out her eyes’). whereas the genuine popular phrase is ‘gia ena kommati psomi’. sow Hellenic seeds in it. 1803. it is also difficult to see by what criteria he considered his versions to be more correct. In a letter he quotes the proverb. he was enough of a realist not to insist on applying this belief rigidly in practice. 18 . for peanuts). i.xxvi.54 literally meaning ‘for a piece of bread’ (i. Korais.53 Elsewhere he talks of buying something ‘dia kommation psomiou. p. Synekdimos ieratikos [Priest’s handbook] (Paris. he refused to write down any modern word that did not conform to an Ancient Greek pattern without first subjecting it to correction. as the proverb says’. Despite his defence of Modern Greek against the contempt in which it was held by the archaists. Prolegomena…. 71.51-52 [1804]. Korais’ piecemeal and gradualistic ‘correction’ of Modern Greek can be summed up in the following extract from his open ‘Letter to Alexandros Vasiliou’ (1804): Root out from the language the weeds of vulgarity. p. as long as they were restored to their ancient form. one after the other. in Allilographia. vol.55 Reactions to Korais’ linguistic theory and practice 53 54 55 Korais to Vasileiou.modern meanings. vol. Adamantios Korais. 23 Feb. but these too by the handful and not by the sackful. I will quote two colloquial proverbial expressions that Korais notes. ii. 1831). ‘i ornitha skalizontas evgale ta matia tis’ (literally. for very little expense. yet not all at once by the forkful. By way of example. Doukas was influenced by Condillac’s ideas about the mutual relation between language. a member of the Phanariot circle. accusing them of keeping the people in ignorance. conservatives and vernacularists. who. who had worked as secretary to both the Patriarch of 57 Pechlivanos. The chief of the archaists was the schoolteacher and cleric Neophytos Doukas (c. A romantic nationalist. The most vituperative reactions came from the first two groups. he strongly believed that education should be carried out. however. in the modern language. that. the very same year that Korais initiated his own publishing project.205 19 . Pechlivanos points out that Korais’ belief in the potential. began a massive publishing programme. Ekdoches neoterikotitas…p.57 Like Korais. gradual perfectibility of language contrasts with the belief held by archaists such as Doukas belief that absolute. whereas Korais did not. he even hoped that Greeks would eventually abandon their mother tongue and begin to speak Ancient Greek as their natural language. apart from the vernacularists. however. took these ideas to an extreme that Korais characteristically avoided. thought and morals. and he believed that this could only come about if they adopted Ancient Greek. ideal perfection had already been reached in ancient times. The chief of his conservative critics was Panagiotis Kodrikas (1762-1827). A pamphlet war was waged during the period 1808-15 between the supporters of Korais and Doukas. 1760-1845). Korais was critical of the archaists. It should be borne in mind. However. although Korais wanted every Greek to enjoy the advantages of learning Ancient Greek. Doukas believed equally strongly that only by learning to use Ancient Greek on a daily basis could Greeks commune with the spirit of Classical Greek civilization.Some Greek writers accepted and adopted Korais’ linguistic proposals almost immediately. including editions of Classical Athenian prose-writers with prefaces on Greek education. and learned books should be written. For this reason he insisted that grammars of Ancient Greek should be written in that language. as I have said. Doukas saw Ancient and Modern Greek as being essentially the same language. as luck would have it. all writers in Korais’ time somewhat archaized the grammar of the modern language when they wrote it. he looked forward to a time when the subjugated Graikoi would be reborn as free Hellenes. Furthermore. his proposals met with significant negative reactions. By contrast. in 1804. These came from three directions: archaists. Doukas. the archaist Doukas. as macaronic Latin adapts Italian or French words. Meleti tis koinis ellinikis dialektou [Study of the common Greek dialect].302-9. vol. which meant that Kodrikas was quite tolerant of the existing linguistic diversity. He had also worked in the Dragomanate of the Ottoman Fleet. In Korais’ eyes. p. adapting Modern Greek words to Ancient Greek forms. What he objected to was interference in the sociolinguistic situation in the form of ‘correction’ by what he called ‘self-appointed legislators’. 20 . and a pamphlet war between members of the Korais and Kodrikas camps continued until the outbreak of the War of Independence. entitled Study of the Common Greek Dialect. in so doing. Kodrikas published the only full-scale book devoted to the Greek language question before the War of Independence.Jerusalem in Constantinople and prince Michail Soutsos of Wallachia and Moldavia. it was inevitable that his response to such criticisms was almost equally violent. after the public dispute between Korais and Doukas had died down. called for reconciliation in the name of national unity. In 1818. 58 Panagiotis Kodrikas. i [and only] (Paris 1818). Korais’ language was macaronic. The language varieties used by these groups were numerous. he stayed on in the French capital as a translator and interpreter at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since Korais was ideologically opposed to any kind of aristocracy. The dispute between Korais and Kodrikas became so vituperative and divisive that in 1819. According to Kodrikas. Korais adulterated both Ancient and Modern Greek. ranging from the archaic to the colloquial. what enraged Kodrikas was that someone from a merchant background should presume to criticize the language used by what he termed ‘the leaders of the nation’. In it he defended what he considered to be the linguistic status quo. namely the variety of Greek used by the Orthodox hierarchy and the Phanariot nobility. shortly before the outbreak of the revolution. Kodrikas represented precisely the kind of Greek who was doing most harm to his nation by profiting from collaboration with its Ottoman oppressors and looking forward to taking power unelected once the Ottoman authority had been overthrown.58 It has rightly been pointed out that the actual varieties of the language written by Korais and Kodrikas only differ in small details. eventually serving as First Secretary of the Ottoman Embassy in Paris (1797-1802). After the Embassy closed down. who was no less of a true patriot than Korais. Poets such as Antonios Matesis (1794-1873) and Dionysios Solomos (1798-1857) attacked Korais using arguments similar to those of Kodrikas. It is not surprising that both Kodrikas and Matesis alleged that Korais’ language was 59 K. But in the dispute between Korais and Kodrikas the stakes were even higher. but a struggle between two worlds’. the other in the British-‘protected’ Ionian Islands during the 1820s. Such a radical project has hardly ever been proposed again since then. This removed the orthography of the modern language from the tradition of written Greek since antiquity. who were based in Yannina. one operating on the Greek mainland before the War of Independence. They abolished the diacritics (breathings and accents) and spelled every word exactly as it sounded. Th. because most of their writings were not published until many years later. Plato and Thucydides. ii: Adamantios Korais] (Athens 1996). Dimaras. but from the whole of the intervening written tradition. If successful. p. this project would have cut Modern Greek off not only from the ancient language.98. since it revolved round the nature of the relationship between the modern Greeks and the ancients. vol. which contained poems. The only fruit of this project to be published was Vilaras’ little book entitled The Romaic Language (Corfu 1814). which had aimed to preserve the ancient spelling irrespective of changes in pronunciation.The dispute between Korais and Doukas was important enough. translations of Anacreon. Istorika phrontismata. They exchanged letters with each other and with a number of other men living in various places. The proposals of the vernacularists in the Ionian Islands were less radical and therefore closer to the actual outcome of the Greek language controversy in the twentieth century. This group called for the use of an uncompromising transcription of colloquial spoken language into a phonetic version of the Greek alphabet. Dimaras has written that this dispute was ‘not a difference of opinion between two individuals. The leaders of the mainland group were the doctor Yannis Vilaras (1771-1823) and the teacher Athanasios Psalidas (1767-1829).59 What was at issue here was whether the Greeks would be governed democratically or oligarchically once their independence was won. 21 . There were two chief groups of vernacularists. The response from the vernacularists was less effective than those that emanated from the archaists and the conservatives. ii: Adamantios Korais [Historical interventions. and a brief account of the author’s orthographic system. or the Correction of the Romaic language (written in 1811 and first published in 1813) by the Phanariot Iakovos Rizos Neroulos (1778-1850). 63 Solomos. Matesis too attacked the linguistic innovations of ‘self-appointed legislators’. Despite the often emotive tone of the argument. The central character against whom the satire is directed is a pedant who is ridiculed by other members of his household for insisting on trying to speak in Korais’ ‘corrected’ language. ‘Pragmateia peri glossis’ [‘Treatise on language’]. The title of Neroulos’ comedy (meaning ‘the language of the ravens’) is the name of a secret language used by Greek children.20-1. Apanta. vol. In 1823 Solomos wrote a ‘Dialogue’ on the language question. p. Poiisis kai pezographia tis Eptanisou [Poetry and prose of the Ionian Islands] (Athens. This was the Korakistika. He concludes that only thoughts. 22 . iii: Prose and Italian]. in order to be ‘corrected’.60 Where Solomos and Matesis differed radically from Kodrikas was in their passionate romantic dedication to the cause of Greek liberty. can be base or noble. which remained unpublished until 1859. ed. p.17. Solomos argued that the creativity and nobility of the writer are manifested not in the forms of his words but in the way he puts the words together. 1953).only fit for grocers. in G.62 Solomos realized that this ridiculous macaronism was precisely what Korais’ correction consisted of: the dressing up of modern words in ancient clothes. iii. but it is also a pun on Korais’ surname. Dante’s ‘barbarous’ verse. 1955). since. it is significant that the young 60 Antonios Matesis. p. Zoras. Apanta. like Solomos. Thus. vol. Like Kodrikas. Solomos brilliantly and humorously demonstrated the futility of any attempt at the grammatical ‘correction’ of the vernacular by taking the first line of Dante’s Inferno and ‘translating’ it word for word by fitting the Italian vocabulary into Latin grammatical structures. he alleged. ‘Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita’. rather than words.63 Lastly one should mention a curious satirical comedy aimed at Korais’ proposals for linguistic correction. 62 Dionysios Solomos. iii: Peza kai italika [Complete works. vol. Linos Politis (Athens.325. and they were therefore as indignant as Kodrikas at Korais’ assertion that the modern language needed correcting. the ‘Dialogue’ is one of the most eloquent and intelligent defences of the use of vernacular Greek in poetry. Matesis belonged to the Ionian Island nobility who saw the traditional use of the vernacular in their local literature as quite acceptable and proper. should become ‘In medio cammini nostrae vitae’ – which is neither Latin nor Italian. set about making the written language progressively more archaic. Nevertheless. however. but the principle once established. He himself exercised this function with sensitivity and fair restraint. Michael Jeffreys writes: Korais is here claiming for some linguistic arbiter the right to correct the language as he wills. ‘Adamantios Korais: language and revolution’. 23 . p.). ii. many Greek writers. 1985). 53. 235. and common sense prevails.64 Once the War of Independence broke out in 1821. Very soon. Culture and nationalism in nineteenth-century eastern Europe (Columbus. This variety of Modern Greek went on to become the de facto official language of the Greek state. the 64 65 Dimaras. During dinner one evening. C. an enormous polysyllabic archaic compound word that the pedant has invented to denote cabbage salad (eladioxidioalatolachanokarykevma) gets stuck in his gullet and almost chokes him to death.65 Assessment In his history of the Greek language question.enlightened characters who seem to enjoy the author’s sympathy and support speak in the vernacular. including some of his erstwhile disciples. using very few archaic forms. Eade (ed. According to Sathas. Neroulos felt obliged to renounce his comedy as a frivolous jeu d'esprit which had been published without his knowledge. in Roland Sussex and J. Konstantinos Sathas wrote that Korais ‘drew almost all of the learned men of that time into implacable warfare against the purifying idiom’ of Nikiphoros Theotokis. Only when he is persuaded to utter the ‘vulgar’ word lachanosalata is he cured. hostilities in the language controversy died down. ignoring Korais’ moderation and good sense. Kodrikas was the winner in this contest: ‘after Greek independence. Commenting on a passage from Korais. it was inevitable that his successors would be much less restrained. Michael Jeffreys.153. Istorika phrontismata. within constraints which seem basically aesthetic. after Korais’ death in 1833. published in 1870. the cleric whose more archaic version of Modern Greek around 1800 was most to Sathas’ liking. and the pronouncements of the Greek revolutionary assemblies adopted a compromise variety of Greek that was not far distant from Korais’ language. Thereupon he recants his ideas. A. in apodeichnousi ‘they prove’. the basis of his choice is therefore aesthetic and stylistic at the expense of grammatical uniformity. a fair one: ‘Korais’ theories lack the organic unity of a sincerely meditated and matured argumentation’. and his language is a jumble of disparate linguistic features. Rotolo. vol.69 Even within a single word he was capable of mixing features of the ancient and modern language. Kitromilides agrees with Sathas that it was Kodrikas’ illiberal and undemocratic ideology that prevailed in Greece after the War of Independence. 1803. Rotolo concludes that it is impossible to reconstruct a linguistic system from Korais’ oeuvre. Rotolo continues. 23 Feb. Neoellinikos diaphotismos.Graikika of Korais was forgotten even by his former followers and allies’. 24 .71. Neoellinikis philologias parartima. in Allilographia. while the morphological suffix –ousi is ancient (or at least dialectal). p. ii.151-60. p. vol. Kitromilides.67 Vincenzo Rotolo’s verdict on Korais’ linguistic project is. which it uses even when the stem of a word preserves its ancient form.70 It is telling that the standard form of this verb today is apodeiknyoun. the stem -deichn.211. Korais. vol. On the contrary. Finally.is modern. For instance. 70 Korais to Vasileiou. Koraìs e la questione della lingua in Grecia . Korais told Vasileiou in a letter (27 Nov. This is because Standard Modern Greek has adopted the morphological system of the spoken language.66 Sathas uses the word Graikika sarcastically instead of Ellinika.68 The unsystematic nature of Korais’s linguistic practice is illustrated by the fact that in consecutive lines he may use two different forms for the same grammatical category. p. p. as in the third-person plural forms onomazousin ‘they name’ (with the ancient ending) and arpazoun ‘they snatch’ (with the modern one). p. Prolegomena…. Allilographia.115) that he uses the ending –oun as a variant when he has already used several verbs ending in –ousi. though he is far from sharing Sathas’ satisfaction with this outcome. ii. p. his project contains many oscillations and many contradictions. 1803. I think. but which eventually came to cover the whole of the Greek language.508. in which the stem is ancient but the suffix is modern – the opposite of what Korais proposed. In this way Standard 66 67 68 69 Sathas. i. the term that in Korais’ day had normally been used to denote Ancient Greek.495 [1812]. the same author criticizes Korais’ linguistic timidity and his insufficient confidence in the popular language. For ‘learned demotic’ see Iliou. Iliou claims that Korais’ language was a ‘learned demotic’.72 This is a linguistically indefensible view that completely overlooks Korais’ morphological archaizations. but by its grammar. in his desire to highlight Korais’ liberal and radical political ideas. [‘Ideological uses of Koraism in the twentieth century’]. 25 . ‘Ideologikes chriseis’. His linguistic gradualism encouraged succeeding generations to outdo him by taking the modern written language ever closer to Ancient Greek until. the linguistic pendulum swung to the other extreme with the uncompromising and utopian demoticist proposals of another would-be corrector of the Modern Greek language. it took almost another ninety years for the more realistic demoticists such as Manolis Triantafyllidis to convince the Greeks – officials and non-officials alike – that a variety of the vernacular that incorporates a limited number of essential grammatical features from katharevousa is the most appropriate vehicle for all written purposes. his language is chiefly distinguished from demotic by its morphology rather than by features such as sentence structure. p. 154.71 Before him. 72 Dimaras. Filippos Iliou devoted a major study to the way that Korais was used as a straw man by his opponents in the twentieth century. Dimaras too had written about Korais’ ‘external adherence to the letter of demotic’. Despite the fact that he was living in France and using the French language on a daily basis. Korais completely disregarded the French example by tampering with some of the most basic features of the vocabulary and the grammar. yet his linguistic legacy – a national written language (katharevousa) whose grammatical structure was both artificial and highly unstable because it was not based on the spoken language – was a confusing one. in 1888.Modern Greek acknowledges that a language is chiefly characterized not by its vocabulary. in Diimero Korai.143-207. Yannis Psycharis (18541929). Istorika phrontismata. After that. 71 Filippos Iliou. ii. However. ‘Ideologikes chriseis tou Koraismou ston eikosto aiona. There is no doubt that Korais left a positive legacy of political liberalism and civic virtue.34. enrichment and standardization that had been carried out in French since the sixteenth century. Neither Korais nor any of the other Greek purists ever explicitly contrasted their procedure with the process of elaboration. p. Kodrikas represented the feudal ruling class (and must therefore have been an archaist). 26 . 73 Rotolo rightly calls Kodrikas a linguistic conservative. Kitromilides and Anna Tabaki (ed. he was a faithful senior official in the Phanariot administration of Wallachia and a supporter of enlightened despotism. ‘The critical stance of Neophytos Doukas towards the social structure of the Danubian Principalities’. and his linguistic attitudes on the other was initiated by Kodrikas. Dimotikismos kai logiotatismos: koinoniologiki meleti tou glossikou zitimatos [Demoticism and pedantry: sociological study of the language question ] (Athens. Conversely.179-87. far from representing the working class. bourgeoisie and working class. It is clear that Korais’ language and his linguistic ideas need to be studied and analysed directly rather than through the distorting lens of his political ideology. who interpreted Korais’ idea that the nation shared its language with ‘democratic equality’ as implying the defence of mob rule in both the linguistic and the socio-political spheres. there was a gap between his political and linguistic ideas. 74 Giannis Kordatos. and his archaism was intended to be politically progressive and liberating.75 As for Katartzis. Ironically. freedom and equality. which seems to have originated from the Marxist historian Yannis Kordatos. while he erroneously labelled Katartzis as ‘left-wing’ because of his vernacularism. 57.). Doukas passionately believed in justice. Relations gréco-roumaines (Athens. p. 75 For Doukas’ socially progressive views see Neophytos Charilaou.Contrary to the received wisdom. p.73 while Korais represented the progressive bourgeoisie who overturned the Ottoman-Phanariot rulers in the War of Independence. 1974 [1st edn 1927]). there is no simple correlation in Greece between conservatism or radicalism in social attitudes and their apparent counterparts in linguistic matters.74 In fact. in Paschalis M. 2004). the mechanical equation between Korais’ social and political views on the one hand.41. According to this schema. In his Marxist zeal. p. A. Koraìs e la questione della lingua in Grecia. As far as Korais is concerned.119). Kordatos branded Doukas a ‘representative of feudalism’ on the grounds of his linguistic archaism. Kordatos wanted to fit the opposing camps in the language controversy into the tripartite schema of feudalists. not an archaist (Rotolo.