In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the terms used to denote the Modern Greek language were diverse and subject to change. Filippos Iliou FRXQWHG PRUH WKDQ VHYHQW\ GLƨHUHQW IRUPXODWLRQV XVHG IRU WKH0RGHUQ *UHHN language during the period 1801-20 alone.3 Changes in the labels for the Modern Greek language went hand-in-hand with changes in the labels for the modern Greeks themselves. As long as the modern Greeks called themselves ̔Νΐ΍Γϟ (or more formally ̔Νΐ΅ϟΓ΍, ‘Romans’) and their spoken language ΕΝΐ΅ϟ΍Ύ΅, the term ̺ΏΏ΋ΑΉΖ (‘Hellenes’) could be reserved for ancient Greeks and ΉΏΏ΋Α΍ΎΣ (‘Hellenic’) for the ancient language. But things were not as simple as that. The phrase ΘΓȱ ΕΝΐ΅ϞΎϱΑȱ ·νΑΓΖ (‘Roman nation’) was commonly used in the eighteenth century to mean ‘the Greek nation’. (This is, of course, nation in the pre-nationalist sense, which distinguished the group primarily by religion and secondarily by ethnicity, but with no sense of the nation-state: one may compare the Ottoman term Rum-i millet and the term used in Italy at the time, QD]LRQH greca.) However, terms such as ‘΋ȱΎ΅Όдȱ΋ΐΣΖȱΉΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφȱ̇ ΍ΣΏΉΎΘΓΖ’ (‘our Hellenic dialect’) and ‘ΘΓȱΉΏΏ΋Α΍ΎϱΑȱ·νΑΓΖ’ (‘the Hellenic nation’) were also coming to be used by Greeks to refer to their own contemporary language and group identity.4 (̇΍ΣΏΉΎΘΓΖ continued to be used to mean ‘language’ from at least the seventeenth until the early nineteenth century.) Moreover, the terms ̔Νΐ΍Γϟȱ and ̺ΏΏ΋ΑΉΖ were used side by side with a third term, ̆Ε΅΍ΎΓϟ, which is as ancient as the term ̺ΏΏ΋ΑΉΖ itself and which was favoured especially by Greeks who had lived among Western Europeans and were accustomed to hearing themselves called Grecs, Greci, Greeks, and so on.5 It was used especially by Western-orientated enlighteners such as Adamandios Korais who wished to uncouple the modern Greeks from the Byzantines;6 for Korais, the term ‘Romios’ connoted the subjection of the Greeks to the contemptible ‘Greco-Roman emperors’ of Byzantium. It is notable that WKHVHQVHRIŚDQFLHQWśRUŚPRGHUQśGRHVQRWƩJXUHH[SOLFLWO\LQDQ\RIWKHVHWHUPV though terms such as ‘΋ȱΎ΅Όдȱ΋ΐΣΖȱ̇΍ΣΏΉΎΘΓΖ’ or ‘΋ȱ΋ΐΉΘνΕ΅ȱ̇΍ΣΏΉΎΘΓΖ’ (‘our dialect’) imply the language currently in use. It is only comparatively recently that Greeks have called themselves ̐ΉΓνΏΏ΋ΑΉΖ (New or Modern Hellenes) and their language ̐ΉΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍ΎΣ or ̐ΉΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφ (New or Modern Hellenic). The term ̐ΉΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφ for the modern language was originally a literal translation from European terms such as neugriechisch and neogreco. Even though Panagiotis Kodrikas used the term

‘νΓ΍ȱ ̺ΏΏ΋ΑΉΖ’ (sometimes in contrast to ‘Γ΍ȱ ̓΅Ώ΅΍Γϟ’) in 1818,7 the terms ̐ΉΓνΏΏ΋ΑΉΖ and ̐ΉΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφȱdid not catch on for some time, and they have not found universal acceptance even today. An exceptional early user of ̐ΉΓνΏΏ΋ΑΉΖ and ̐ΉΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍ΎϱΖ was Miltiadis (Panagiotis) 6RƩDQRSRXORVDIROORZHURIKorais, who in an attack on the vernacularist Ioannis Vilaras in 1815 criticized his use of the termsȱ̔Νΐ΅ϟΓ΍ and ΕΝΐ΅ϟ΍Ύ΅ and insisted on using ̐ΉΓνΏΏ΋ΑΉΖ, ̐ΉΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍ΎϱΑȱ ·νΑΓΖ and ΑΉΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφȱ·ΏЏΗΗ΅ for the modern Greeks, their ‘nation’ and their ‘language’, instead.8 Later, the grammarian Georgios Chrysovergis used the term ̐ΉΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφȱ·ΏЏΗΗ΅ to refer to the modern (archaized) written language, in contrast to the spoken, which he called ‘demotic’: ̇΋ΐΓΘ΍Ύφȱ·ΏЏΗΗ΅.9 The use of the terms ̄ΕΛ΅ϟ΅ȱ̈ΏΏ΋Α΍ΎΣ and ̄ΕΛ΅ϟ΅ȱ̈ΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφ is also comparatively recent. One of the earliest uses of the phrase ‘΅ΕΛ΅ϟ΅ȱΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφ’ (‘Ancient Greek’) that I know of is by Korais, who contrasted it simply with the ‘Η΋ΐΉΕ΍Αφ [·ΏЏΗΗ΅]’ (‘today’s [language]’).10 But even Korais did not use this formulation systematically, and, like ̐ΉΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφ, it was slow to catch on. In the period immediately preceding the foundation of the modern Greek state, educated Greeks seem to have been aware of three chief varieties of Greek, for which ,VKDOOXVHRXUPRGHUQWHUPVƩUVW$QFLHQW*UHHNLQFOXGLQJ&ODVVLFDO+HOOHQLVWLF koine and liturgical Greek); secondly, colloquial Modern Greek (the dialects and such common spoken varieties as may have existed); and, thirdly, formal Modern Greek (used especially by the Church hierarchy but also in a number of educational works). In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the term ‘ϾΚΓΖ’ (which in today’s Greek means ‘style’) was commonly used to refer to what we would call a particular language variety or register, whether Ancient Greek, or modern formal, or modern colloquial.11:KHQLWFDPHWRGHƩQLQJ0RGHUQ*UHHNHGXFDWHG Greeks disagreed as to which variety was the ‘true’ or ‘genuine’ modern language. It is instructive to look at the title pages of the many Greek books that explicitly indicate that they are written in what we call Modern Greek (the absence of such

an indication often implied that the book was written in archaic language). When the Cretan monk Agapios Landos (1641) published his best-selling manual of righteous living, ̄ΐ΅ΕΘΝΏЏΑȱΗΝΘ΋Εϟ΅ȱ(The Salvation of SinnersKHVSHFLƩHGRQ the title page that it was written ‘Ή΍ΖȱΎΓ΍ΑφΑ ΘΝΑȱ̆Ε΅΍ΎЏΑȱΈ΍ΣΏΉΎΘΓΑ’ (‘in the common dialect of the Greeks’), which signalled to the reader that the language of the book would be close to the spoken tongue. Unlike the more literary (that LVƩFWLRQDOZRUNVSURGXFHGE\&UHWDQVGXULQJWKHODVWGHFDGHVRI9HQHWLDQUXOH Agapios’ book is not written in local dialect.12 This indication is typical of the use of the adjective ‘ΎΓ΍Αφ’ in the seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries WRUHIHUWRDYDULHW\RI*UHHNWKDWLVQRWRQO\GHƩQLWHO\PRGHUQEXWLVUHDGDEOHE\ those with very little education, even though it uses some vocabulary and especially features of orthography and morphology that were based on conventions dating back at least to Hellenistic times.13 Another non-pejorative adjective that was used for everyday Modern Greek, besides ‘ΎΓ΍Αφ’, was ‘΅ΔΏφ’ (‘simple’). Again, while this adjective was used to distinguish Modern from Ancient Greek, it contains no explicit reference to modernity. A patriotic poem published by a Greek in Cambridge in 1823 bears a characteristic bilingual title: ̍΅ΑΣΕ΋ΖǰȱΔΓϟ΋ΐ΅ȱ΅ΔΏΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍ΎϱΑ. Canares, a Poem in Modern Greek by Nicholas Maniakes. Here we see clearly that the adjective ‘΅ΔΏΓΉΏΏ΋Α΍ΎϱΖ’ (literally ‘simple-Hellenic’) was considered to be the equivalent of ‘Modern Greek’; that is, when it came to the Greek language, ‘simple’ implied ‘modern’.14 Contrast the title used by Vamvas for his grammar in 1835; now that the modern Greek state had been founded, he was able to use the formulation ‘Η΋ΐΉΕ΍ΑφȱΉΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφȱ·ΏЏΗΗ΅’ (‘today’s Hellenic language’).15 In addition, there were pejorative terms for colloquial Modern Greek, the most prevalent of which was ‘ΛΙΈ΅ϟΓΖ’ (‘vulgar’),16 while the term ‘ΛΙΈ΅ϞΗΘ΅ϟ’ (‘vulgarists’) became the favoured term of opprobrium used by archaists and extreme purists such as Neofytos Doukas at the beginning of the nineteenth

century and Georgios Mistriotis at the beginning of the twentieth to refer to those people I prefer to call vernacularists: that is, those who argued that a version of the modern spoken language should be adopted as the standard written language.17 Greek writers of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were often confused about whether Ancient Greek and Modern Greek were one and the VDPH ODQJXDJHRU WZRGLƨHUHQW ODQJXDJHV$W WKHHQGRI WKHHLJKWHHQWKFHQWXU\ the vernacularist Dimitrios Katartzis insisted that, although the modern Greeks were the descendants of the ancients, Ancient Greek and Modern Greek were two GLVWLQFWODQJXDJHVEHFDXVHWKH\KDGGLƨHUHQWJUDPPDWLFDOV\VWHPV18 Romaic was derived from Hellenic yet distinct from it, wrote Katartzis, just as Italian, French, Spanish and Romanian were derived from Latin yet distinct from it.19 (I should point out that at this time the idea that the modern Greeks were descendants of the ancient Greeks was more an assumption than an assertion in the writings of Greek intellectuals.) Korais too tended to talk about Ancient Greek and Modern Greek DVGLƨHUHQWODQJXDJHVDQGDWOHDVWRQFHLQZHQWVRIDUDVWRUHIHUWR$QFLHQW Greek as a ‘foreign language’;20 but Korais’ views were much more complex than this, as we shall see. Those who were less favourably disposed towards the use of the spoken language for written purposes tended to claim that Greek was a single language from antiquity to the present day. In 1818 the conservative Kodrikas, for instance, talks about the ‘΅ΎΉΕ΅΍ϱΘ΋ΖśŚLQWHJULW\śLQHƨHFWXQLW\RIWKH*UHHNODQJXDJH21

Kodrikas’ worship of the Ancient Greek language was more than equal to Korais’: he calls it ‘΋ȱ ΓΙΕΣΑ΍ΓΖȱ ̈ΏΏ΋Α΍Ύφȱ ̆ΏЏΗΗ΅ǰȱ ΘΓȱ ΅ΕΛνΘΙΔΓΑȱ ΉΎΉϟΑΓȱ ΗϾΑΌΉΐ΅ȱ ΐ΍ΣΖȱΙΔΉΕΚΙΗ΍ΎφΖȱΉΔ΍ΑΓϟ΅Ζ’ (‘the celestial Hellenic Language, that archetypal composition of supernatural invention’).22 Kodrikas’ quarrel with Korais was articulated in terms of the allegation that the latter was presuming to ‘correct’ Modern Greek instead of simply adopting the language that had been inherited and moulded by generations of Greek princes and prelates. As a supporter of the self-styled aristocracy of the Phanariots, Kodrikas saw the vernacularists as being less of a threat than the mercantile bourgeoisie represented by Korais – hence his contemptuous dismissal of what he called the ‘Δ΅ΎΎΣΏ΍ΎΓΑȱϾΚΓΖ’ (‘grocers’ style’); in Kodrikas’ eyes the former merchant Korais was presumptuously attempting to wrest cultural and moral authority over the Greeks from the hands of the Patriarchate and the Phanariots. $QLQGLFDWLRQRIWKHGLƫFXOW\WKDW*UHHNVKDGLQFRQFHSWXDOL]LQJWKHOLQJXLVWLF changes caused by the passage of the millennia is the frequently expressed theory that contemporary colloquial Greek (Romaic) is a dialect of Hellenic in the same way that Attic, Doric, Aeolic and Ionic are. This implies that modern spoken Greek is somehow contemporaneous with what we nowadays call Ancient Greek. It further implies that Hellenic has never died out, and that the modern spoken language consists of a dialect that has existed since ancient times but didn’t happen to be recorded as such in the extant writings of the ancient Greeks. This idea became current among supporters of the vernacular at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Thus in the 1780s Dimitrios Katartzis regularly calls 5RPDLFŚDVL[WKGLDOHFWRI+HOOHQLFśWKHƩIWKEHLQJWKHkoine of Hellenistic times.23 Similarly, in their innovative book ̆ΉΝ·Ε΅Κϟ΅ȱ ΑΉΝΘΉΕ΍Ύφ (1791), Katartzis’ disciples Daniil Filippidis and Grigorios Konstantas describe the contemporary VSRNHQODQJXDJHDVŚWKHƩIWKGLDOHFWRI+HOOHQLFś24 An extension of this attitude is the so-called ‘Aeolodoric theory’ propounded by the jurist and poet Athanasios Christopoulos in his Grammar of the modern language LQLW LVVLJQLƩFDQWWKDWWKHERRNśVIXOOWLWOHUHIHUVWRDFRQWHPSRUDU\*UHHN language that nevertheless is not distinct from the ancient, and that it labels the modern Greeks as Hellenes.25 Using evidence of Ancient Greek dialects recorded in ancient texts, Christopoulos argued that ‘the present language of the Hellenes’ consists of a fusion of the ancient Aeolic and Doric dialects, and that therefore it is as ancient as the highly esteemed Attic. In fact, Christopoulos’ ancient linguistic

examples are chosen totally haphazardly and their similarity with modern forms is purely coincidental, but this did not prevent his theory from enjoying considerable SRSXODULW\ XQWLO LW ZDV GHƩQLWLYHO\ GHPROLVKHG E\ *1. Hatzidakis in the late nineteenth century.26 Christopoulos’ theory seems to me to be closely related to a *UHHNDWWLWXGHŘVWLOOZLGHVSUHDGWRGD\ŘWKDWPLVWDNHQO\LGHQWLƩHV$QFLHQW*UHHN as a whole with the Attic dialect.27