Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1
If we could justify the assertion that Papadiamantis’s otherworldliness
is a fair palate of his indulging in profound lyrical reveries about human
nature, we should have attended closely to his linguistic medium for their
respective description; in a modern Greek state being especially
tantalized by the so-called “Language Question”[1], Papadiamantis’s case
should have gained a particular attention under serious remarks relevant
to it, such as that “in the spheres of poetry and fiction, the search for a
written language has historically been in essence a search for
precedents”[2], not to mention the major issue of relating to the History
of Classical Scholarship. Therefore, for Alexandros Papadiamantis (1851-
1911), one of the most compendious diachronic Greek authors, who
occupies a unique and legendary status as a writer of prose-fiction in our
literature, the demanding challenge to underline his attitude towards the
linguistic debate aims to develop discussion of a particular dimension of
his work which earlier critics have already acknowledged but not
sufficiently elaborated on.
2
demoticism, a language closer to the spoken standard, who produced
neologisms. Those writing in katharevousa[4], i.e. using variable
linguistic features of vocabulary, grammar and syntax based on Ancient
Greek (a modified form of Atticistic Greek) and feeling themselves as the
rightful inheritors of the classical world, and thus proclaiming their Greek
national identity as closely linked to language, “αφού γλώσσα και
θρησκεία είναι τα κυριώτερα γνωρίσµατα έθνους” [290. 23][5], couldn’t
avoid the accusation of exploiting an artificial and inexisting language
that was invented by indigenous scholars “αφόρητος δε µάλιστα τοις
αλλοφύλοις ελληνισταίς”[6]. Thus, rehearsing the disseminated in the
Greek-speaking world arguments of the expatriate classical scholar
Adam. Korais, whose model prevailed as the official written language, it
seemed inadequate to interact with the reality of Greek language
controversy, i.e. the embattled contours and the consequences of the
“Language Question”, resulting in the diglossia[7] institutionalized as a
formal division within written usage[8]. So, this substitute for socio-
political action within modern Greek bourgeois class[9], was one facet of
scientific retrogression, nationalism and irredentism, while “the debate
itself can now be interpreted as a symptom of what is often called a
‘reification’ or ‘objectivization’ of language, developed to an unusually
high degree”[10] and since it has been disputed that the elite language
declines and also compromises with the vernacular causing a fusion from
which the standard language is born[11]. The literary position of
Papadiamantis offers us –and here lies the noble desideratum of our
view– the chance not to re-examine the “Language Question” but to
approach its essence and simultaneously appraise the way he managed to
reverse it by reclaiming the entire history of the Greek language and
regaining access to the wide range of a literary language along with its
diversity, his preferences among ecclesiastical tradition and sterile
scholasticism being neither repeatable nor completely translatable.
3
δε, όχι µία, αλλά περισσότεραι ελληνικαί γλώσσαι συγχρόνως έχουν
επινοηθή· άλλη µάς έρχεται από το Παρίσι, και άλλη επιδηµεί
ενθρονισµένη εδώ, εις τας Αθήνας· και όλαι λαλούµεναι, γραφόµεναι,
και αναγινωσκόµεναι ανά Ελλάδα πάσαν και την άγλωσσον, ηχούσιν ως
‘σύµµικτον είδος καποφώλιον τέρας’ ” [288. 10-15].
4
18]. His ironic mood must not be interpreted as an acrimonious attack on
his opponents, but rather be seen as product of his dramatic agony. The
contradiction between the reality and the phenomena motivates his irony,
while this ironical reductio ad absurdum advances to the expressis verbis
revealing of the genuine literary intention. Then, he hurls the modified
ironic oppositions with unequalled acumen, thus combining stylistic
scholarship with Christian eschatological viewing[15].
5
katharevousa with many demotic elements (perhaps the most individual
style), which he used in narration; and a more archaizing katharevousa, a
kind of traditional prose language inherited from the earlier generation,
which he reserved for his lyrical digressions. Papadiamantis was
introduced as an author of high quality representing katharevousa, “so
that a respected puristic tradition has established itself. Papadiamantis
was a particularly important actor in this because of his great popularity,
his stories being serialized and read aloud in village cafés”[17]. For
instance, K. Chatzopoulos characterized Papadiamantis’s katharevousa as
pedantic, A. Terzakis as problematic, M. M. Papaïoannou as inert
survival of the past and P. Moullas as a language undisciplined dressed in
her puristic garment, whilst T. Agras and O. Elytis regarded it a language
with a history through the centuries, hoarded up from multiple cultural
layers, and Z. Lorentzatos along with N. B. Tomadakis a language which
denies its submission to the monochrome of the one or another
expression. Ar. Nikolaïdis considered Papadiamantis’s work from a
linguistic aspect to be a self-evident overstepping of the linguistic debate
between demotic and katharevousa[18]. In the opinion of the majority of
scholars Papadiamantis’s katharevousa should be considered Byzantine
or, at least, sacerdotal.
Still the problem remained: What was such an author trying to do, e.g.
when he applied his lyric confession in the “Rosy Shores”, pouring deep
suffering, tender longing and transcendent eroticism lingering in him?
Cherishing the vivid tradition of Mount Athos, he chose a language that
could grant him the pathway from prose to poetry, and, in other words, its
supersubstantial prosperity[19]. To surpass the theoretical question
between the form of written language (katharevousa vs demotic)
Papadiamantis needed to possess an infinitesimal literary creature which
would incorporate in morphological, typological and syntactical features
the previous generations of poetical experience and literary devoutness.
With detailed correlations between Homeric and Papadiamantical
“language” as inseminating matrices of sublime style, we can trace the
homogeneity and harmony in the tradition that Papadiamantis’s language
suggests: an almost “Homeric” katharevousa (with several meaningful
allusions to the classics and the Homeric models to which it may aspire),
hieratic, biblical and, above all, anagogical, which would express
perfectly every nostalgic whispering of lyric feelings. In declaring the
admirable style of hymnography (: “Και κατά την έννοιαν και κατά την
γλώσσαν τα ανωτέρω παρατεθέντα αποσπάσµατα, αδιστάκτως φρονώ,
ότι είναι εκ των ωραιοτέρων λεκτικών καλλιτεχνηµάτων πάσης εποχής,
και το λέγω χάριν εκείνων εκ των ηµετέρων, όσοι εκ προκαταλήψεως
νοµίζουσιν, ότι δεν εγράφοντο Ελληνικά κατά τον Ζ΄ και Η΄ αιώνα,
6
υποθέτοντες καλοκαγάθως, ότι τα παρ' ηµών των σηµερινών γραφόµενα
είναι ελληνικά, και ότι θ' αναγνωσθώσι ποτέ ως Ελληνικά υπό των
επιγιγνοµένων” [135. 22-28], composed in a superlative and sublime
language (“Εν γλώσση αλλοία ή η συνήθης” [152. 22]) he simply warned
us that his language had to override any mundane barrier, in order to
testify verbal conducts from another sphere: “Μικρολόγος σχολαστικότης
αδυνατεί να αισθανθή και να εκτιµήση την παιδικήν και αγγελικήν
απλότητα των θείων ρηµάτων, την αγνοούσαν το κακόν, ή την
περιφρονούσαν τούτο. Άλλως το µεγαλείον της ποιήσεως της ανατολικής
είναι άλλο, και οι τρόποι, αι µεταφοραί και εικόνες της γλώσσης των
Ιερών Γραφών δεν θα γίνωσι ποτέ νεωτερικαί ούτε δυτικαί” [220. 9-14].
That is why he couldn't but agree with Longinus writing about sublimity
in an elevated style (whereas he seems not only to be representing the
style indicatively but also to be expressing sublimity by embodying it in
his own words[20]). Therefore, Papadiamantical language knows no
simple opposition between archaism and innovation, since the innovative
tendencies extend mainly to the manipulation of archaisms for literary
effect[21]; as a modus loquendi it forms a suggestive symbolism that can
mutually integrate the world of ancient myth into his portrayal of
contemporary reality, in the sanctity of divine eros.
7
language problems and attests an uncompromising attitude towards
language itself.
e) We should let our language take its own natural course, without
external interferences owing to foreign standards, since language is a
living organism and, so, cannot be suffocated: “ Όπως έν ζωντανόν σώµα
δεν δύναται να ζήση δι' ενέσεων, τρόπον τινά, από κόνιν αρχαίων
σκελετών και µνηµείων, άλλο τόσον δεν δύναται να ζήση, ειµή µόνον
κακήν και νοσηράν ζωήν, τρεφόµενον µε τουρσιά και µε κονσέρβας
ευρωπαϊκάς” [296. 10-13], because “τας γλώσσας τας νεωτέρας έπρεπε
να τας έχη σύµπλους, χωρίς να ρυµουλκήται από καµµίαν εξ αυτών”
[296. 26-27]. Therefore, we cannot tolerate loaning and imitation of
8
outlandish linguistic models or modernisms but only as a necessary evil.
Unfortunately, “Έχει πολλάς ανάγκας και αδυναµίας η γλώσσα. Έχει την
δεσπόζουσαν ανάγκην και την αδυναµίαν του νεωτερισµού. Φοβερά είναι
του ξενισµού η επίδρασις. Είναι αναγκαιότατον κακόν, το οποίον ποτέ
δεν απείργεται” [296. 13-16].
9
[1] On this topic see A. E. Megas, Ιστορία του γλωσσικού ζητήµατος,
Μέρος Α΄. Αιώνες γλωσσικών αλλοιώσεων (300 π.Χ.-1750 µ.Χ.), and
Μέρος Β΄. Αιώνες γλωσσικών συζητήσεων (1750-1926), Athens 1925 and
1927 (repr. 1997), P. Bien, Kazantzakis and the Linguistic Revolution in
Greek Language, Princeton 1972, B. Joseph, “Language, Power and
Freedom in Greek Society”, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10 (1992),
pp. 1-120, R. Beaton, An Introduction to Modern Greek Literature,
Oxford 1994, pp. 296 ff., S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language,
Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50-250, Oxford 1996, pp.
35-40, P. D. Mastrodimitris, Εισαγωγή στη Νεοελληνική Φιλολογία, 7th
ed., Athens 2005, pp. 53-71.
10
[13] «Πώς γράφεται η ιστορία», Νέα Εστία 24 (1938), p. 1634.
[14] «Γνώµες του Παπαδιαµάντη για τους συγχρόνους του», Νέα Εστία
(Αφιέρωµα στον Παπαδιαµάντη), 355 (Christmas of 1941), p. 113.
11