Part 15 (1/2)

He began to learn English at a comparatively advanced stage of his education, and the simplicity of its grammar and syntax was a revelation to him. It had a powerful influence in helping him to frame his grammar, which underwent a new transformation. Specimens of the language as Zamenhof used to speak it with his school and student friends show a wide divergence from its present form. He seems to have had cruel disappointments, and was disillusioned by the falling away of youthful comrades who had promised to fight the battles of the language they practised with enthusiasm at school. During long years of depression work at the language seems to have been almost his one resource. Its absolute simplicity is deceptive as to the immense labour it must have cost a single man to work it out. This is only fully to be appreciated by one who has some knowledge of former attempts. Zamenhof himself admits that, if he had known earlier of the existence of Volapuk, he would never have had the courage to continue his task, though he was conscious of the superiority of his own solution. When, after long hesitation, he made up his mind to try his luck and give his language to the world, Volapuk was strong, but already involved in internal strife.

Zamenhof's book appeared first in Russian, and the same year (1887) French and German editions appeared at Warsaw. The first instruction book in English appeared in the following year. The only name on the t.i.tle-page is ”St. J.,” and it pa.s.sed quite unnoticed.

Progress was at first very slow. The first Esperanto society was founded in St. Petersburg, 1892, under the name of _La Espero_. As early as 1889 the pioneer Esperanto newspaper, _La Esperantisto_[1] conducted chiefly by Russians and circulated mainly in Russia, began to appear in Nuremberg, where there was already a distinguished Volapuk club, afterwards converted to Esperanto. Since then Nuremberg has continued to be a centre of light in the movement for an international language.

The other pioneer newspapers were _L'Espirantiste_, founded in 1898 at Epernay by the Marquis de Beaufront, and _La Lumo_ of Montreal.

[1]Afterwards prohibited in Russia, owing to the collaboration of Count Tolstoi, and transferred to Upsala under the name _Lingvo Internacia_. Since 1902 it has been published in Paris.

In Germany in the early days of Esperanto the great apostles were Einstein and Trompeter, and it was owing to the liberality of the latter that the Nuremberg venture was rendered possible.

Somewhat later began in France the activity of the greatest and most fervent of all the apostles of Esperanto, the Marquis de Beaufront.

By an extraordinary coincidence he had ready for the press a grammar and complete dictionary of a language of his own, named _Adjuvanto_.

When he became acquainted with Esperanto, he recognized that it was in certain points superior to his own language, though the two were remarkably similar. He suppressed his own scheme altogether, and threw himself heart and soul into the work of spreading Esperanto. In a series of grammars, commentaries, and dictionaries he expounded the language and made it accessible to numbers who, without his energy and zeal, would never have been interested in it. Among other well-known French leaders are General Sebert, of the French Inst.i.tute, M. Boirac, Rector of the Dijon University, and M. Gaston Moch, editor of the _Independance Belge_.

In England the pioneer was Mr. Joseph Rhodes, who, with Mr. Ellis, founded the first English group at Keighley in November 1902.[1]

Just a year later appeared the first English Esperanto journal, _The Esperantist_, edited by Mr. H. Bolingbroke Mudie, London. Since 1905 it has been incorporated with _The British Esperantist_, the official organ of the British Esperanto a.s.sociation. The a.s.sociation was founded in October 1904.

[1]The foundation of the London Esperanto Club took place at practically the same time, and the club became the headquarters of the movement in Great Britain.

The first international congress was held at Boulogne in August 1905. It was organized almost entirely by the president of the local group, M.

Michaux, a leading barrister and brilliant lecturer and propagandist. It was an immense success, and inaugurated a series of annual congresses, which are doing great work in disseminating the idea of international language. The second was held in Geneva, August 1906; and the third will be held at Cambridge, August 10-17, 1907. It is unnecessary to describe the congresses here, as an account has been given in an early chapter (see pp. 9-12 and 14-15 [Part I, Chapter III]).

Within the last three or four years Esperanto has spread all over the world, and fresh societies and newspapers are springing up on every side. Since the convincing demonstration afforded by the Geneva Congress, Switzerland is beginning to take the movement seriously. Many cla.s.ses and lectures have been held, and the university is also now lending its aid. In the present year (1907) an International Esperantist Scientific Office has been founded in Geneva, with M. Rene de Saussure as director, and amongst the members of the auxiliary committee are seventeen professors and eight privat-docents (lecturers) of the Geneva University.

Its object is to secure the recognition of Esperanto for scientific purposes, and to practically facilitate its use. To this end the office carries on the work of collecting technical vocabularies of Esperanto, with the aid of all scientists whose a.s.sistance it may receive. This is perhaps the most practical step yet taken towards the standardization of technical terms, which is so badly needed in all branches of science.

A universal language offers the best solution of the vexed question, because it starts with a clean sheet. Once a term has been admitted, by the competent committee for a particular branch of science, into the technical Esperanto vocabulary of that science, it becomes universal, because it has no pre-existent rivals; and its universal recognition in the auxiliary language will react upon writers' usage in their own language.

The Geneva office will also aid in editing scientific Esperantist reviews; and the chief existing one, the _Internacia Scienca Revuo_, will henceforth be published in Geneva instead of in Paris, as. .h.i.therto.

The two princ.i.p.al objects of the Esperantist Scientific a.s.sociation are:

1. Scientists should always use Esperanto during their international congresses.

2. Scientific periodicals should accept articles written in Esperanto (as they now do in the case of English, French, German, and Italian), and should publish in Esperanto a brief summary of every article written in a national language.

A few weeks after the Geneva Congress there was a controversy on the subject of Esperanto between two of the best known and most widely read Swiss and French newspapers-the Paris _Figaro_ and the _Journal de Geneve_. The respective champions were the Comte d'Haussonville, of the Academie Francaise, and M. de Saussure, a member of a highly distinguished Swiss scientific family; and the matter caused a good deal of interest on the Continent. France was, in this case, reactionary and _ancien regime_: the smaller Republic backed Esperanto and progress.

M. de Saussure brought forward facts, and the count served up the old arguments about Esperanto being unpatriotic and the prejudice it would inflict upon literature. The whole thing was a good ill.u.s.tration of a fact that is already becoming prominent in the history of the auxiliary language movement-the scientists are much more favourable than the literary men. As regards educational reform, the conservative att.i.tude of the cla.s.sicists is well known, though there are many exceptions, especially among real teachers. But it is somewhat remarkable that, when the proposed reform deals with language, those whose business it is to know about languages should not take the trouble to examine the scheme properly, before giving an opinion one way or the other.

As this question of the att.i.tude of literary men has, and will have, a vital bearing upon the prospects of international language, and consequently upon its history, this is perhaps the place to remove a misunderstanding. A distinguished literary man objected to the foregoing pa.s.sage as a stricture upon men of letters. His point was: ”_Of course_ literary men care less for Esperanto than scientific men do: it _must_ be so, because they _need_ it less.” Now this is quite true: there is little doubt that to-day science is, perhaps inevitably, more cosmopolitan than letters, whatever people may say about ”the world-wide republic of letters.” But it does not meet the point. Esperantists do not _complain_ because men of letters are not interested in Esperanto.

They have their own interests and occupations, and n.o.body would be so absurd as to make it a grievance that they will not submit to have thrust upon them a language for which they have no taste or use. What Esperantists do very strongly object to is that some literary men lend the weight of their name and position to irresponsible criticism. Let them take or leave Esperanto as seems good to them. Their _responsible_ opinions, _based upon due study of the question_, are always eagerly welcomed. But do not let them misrepresent Esperanto to the public, thereby unfairly prejudicing its judgment. Such action is unworthy of serious men. When a man puts forward criticisms of Esperanto based upon elementary errors of fact, or complains that Esperantists will not listen to reason because they ignore proposals for change, which have long ago been threshed out and found wanting, or are obviously unpractical, he is merely showing that he has not studied the question.

A fair a.n.a.logy would be the case of a chemist or engineer who had recently begun to dabble in Greek in his spare moments, and who should undertake to emend the text of Sophocles. His suggestions would show that he knew no Greek, that he had never heard of Sir Richard Jebb, and that he was ignorant of all the results of scientific textual criticism.

But here comes in the difference. Such a critic would be laughed out of court, and told to mind his own business, or else learn Greek before he undertook to emend it. But as international language is a novelty to most people, it is thought that any one can make, mend, or criticise it. It is not, like Greek, yet recognized as a serious subject, and therefore irresponsible criticism is too apt to be taken at its face value, merely on the _ipse dixit_ of the critic, especially if he happens to be an influential man in some other line. n.o.body bothers about his qualifications in international language; n.o.body either knows or cares whether he has any claim to be heard on the subject at all.

The fact is that international language now has a considerable history behind it. A large amount of experience has been ama.s.sed, and is now available for any one who is willing and competent to go into the question. But, in order to do fruitful work in this field, it is just as necessary as in any other to be properly equipped, and to know where others have left off, before you begin.