「#1408. インク壺語論争」 ([2013-03-05-1]) ，「#1410. インク壺語批判と本来語回帰」 ([2013-03-07-1]) などの記事で，初期近代英語の大量語彙借用の反動としての言語純粋主義 (purism) に触れた．確かに純粋主義者として Sir John Cheke (1514--57), Roger Ascham (1515?--68), Sir Thomas Chaloner, Thomas Wilson (1528?--81) などの個性の名前が挙がるが，Görlach (163--64) は，英国ルネサンスにおける反動的純粋主義については過大評価されてきたという見解を示している．彼らとて必要な語彙は借用せざるを得ず，実際に借用したのであり，あくまでラテン語やギリシア語の語彙の無駄な借用や濫用を戒めたのである，と．少々長いが，おもしろい議論なので，そのまま引用しよう．
Purism, understood as resistance to foreign words and as awareness of the possibilities of the vernacular, presupposes a certain level of standardization of, and confidence in, the native tongue. It is no surprise that puristic tendencies are unrecorded before the end of the Middle Ages --- wherever native expressions were coined to replace foreign terms, they served a different purpose to help the uneducated understand better, especially sermons and biblical paraphrase. Tyndale's striving for the proper English expression was still motivated by the desire to enable the ploughboy to understand more of the Bible than the learned bishops.
A puristic reaction was, then, provoked by fashionable eloquence, as is evident from aspects of fifteenth-century aureate diction and sixteenth-century inkhornism . . . . The humanists had rediscovered a classical form of Latin instituted by Roman writers who fought against Greek technical terms as well as fashionable Hellenization, but who could not do without terminologies for the disciplines dominated by Greek traditions. Ascham, Wilson and Cheke (all counted among the 'purists' in a loose application of the term) behaved exactly as Cicero had done: they wrote in the vernacular (no obvious choice around 1530--50), avoided fashionable loanwords and fanciful, rare expressions, but did not object to the borrowing of necessary terms.
Cheke was as inconsistent a 'purist' as he was a reformer of EModE spelling . . . . On the one hand, he went further than most of his contemporaries in his efforts to preserve the English language "vnmixt and vnmangeled" . . ., but on the other hand he also borrowed beyond what was necessary and what his own tenets seemed to allow. (The problem of untranslatable terms, as in his renderings of biblical antiquities, was solved by marginal explanations.) The practice (and historical ineffectiveness) of other 'purists', too, who attempted translations of Latin terminologies --- Golding for medicine, Lever for philosophy and Puttenham for rhetoric . . . --- demonstrates that there was no such rigorous puristic movement in sixteenth-century England as there was in many other countries during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The purists' position and their influence on EModE has often been exaggerated; it is more to the point to speak of "different degrees of Latinity" . . . .
Görlach の見解は，通説とは異なる独自の指摘であり，斬新だ．中英語期のフランス借用語批判や，日本語における明治期のチンプン漢語及び戦後のカタカナ語の流入との関係で指摘される言語純粋主義も，この視点から見直してみるのもおもしろいだろう (see 「#2147. 中英語期のフランス借用語批判」 ([2015-03-14-1])，「#1630. インク壺語，カタカナ語，チンプン漢語」 ([2013-10-13-1])，「#1999. Chuo Online の記事「カタカナ語の氾濫問題を立体的に視る」」 ([2014-10-17-1])）．
・ Görlach, Manfred. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: CUP, 1991.