This time, reformers and conservatives were able to avoid an open con- frontation by delaying important decisions. They decided to establish a lan- guage academy to study reform proposals, following the example of the Academie Fran^aise. Seventeen reputed Volapukists from ten different coun- tries were elected to its governing board, among them Kerckhoffs, who was to preside. Expecting opposition from other Volapukists, Kerckhoffs accepted this position only after he was allowed to name seven other Volapukists of his choice to serve on the Volapuk Academy board. For international cohe- sion, the delegates also agreed to set up a World Organization of Volapukists, which would fund the Academy. Still, conservatives were able to shield Schleyer's position: he was given the right to veto the decisions of both the Academy and the World Organization.
But the World Organization never materialized. The initiative to estab- lish it came from the Munich club, inclined toward the reformists and, con- sequently, suspicious in Schleyer's eyes.5 In contrast, the Academy became operative as soon as the Second Congress was concluded. It lacked a physi- cal location, and its members worked by correspondence. The Academy de- liberations, published in Le Volapuk, made many people aware that approval of some of the proposals could change the language drastically. And although the Academy did not have an established procedure to sanction alterations, since its bylaws had to be approved in the next congress, its activities dis- tressed Schleyer and the conservatives.
Opposing internal views about the language were dramatically illustrated in 1888, a year before the Third Congress, when an open battle between Mu- nich reformists and conservatives caused a split into two vying, local Volapuk associations. In other cities in Germany and abroad, Volapuk clubs experi- enced similar conflicts. Some of these conflicts provoked defections, even among the most prominent Volapukists.
Julius Lott, a former leader of the movement in Austria, and Adolphe Nicolas, vice- president of the Association fran^aise pour la propagation du Volapŭk, launched two new languages: Mundolingue and Spokil, respec- tively.6 Other Volapŭkists took even more radical positions. Under the lead- ership of Leopold Einstein (no relation to Albert), members of the Volapŭk club of Nuremberg shocked the Volapŭk world by switching their allegiance to Lingvo Internacia, which was to become Esperanto.7 These skirmishes were sometimes played out in public exchanges, rife with scathing personal remarks and mutual accusations of treason. For example, Kniele did not hesitate to allude to Einstein's Jewishness in order to explain, as Kniele saw it, his duplicitous, treacherous, and hate-filled character.8 For his part, Schleyer summoned his followers in May 1888. He was afraid of losing con- trol of the movement and wanted to set the stage for the upcoming congress in Paris, Kerckhoffs's territory. The meeting's conclusion, published imme- diately in the official journal, Volapukabled zenodik, was a straightforward ipse dixit: "Any resolution of the Academy that has not been accepted by the Inventor is null, even if the whole of the membership united against the Inventor."9
The Third Congress, much "expected, [and] even dreaded [since] many feared that dissension and collision were inevitable," as the American Sprague pointed out,10 finally took place in mid-August 1889. By this time, and in spite of the defections of the former months, the Volapŭkist movement was at its peak, with 253 local clubs, 14 journals, and almost 900 certified teachers.11 Kerckhoffs was president of the congress, and Sprague acted as one of the two vice- presidents. The congress took place in the headquarters of the Societe d'encouragement pour l'industrie nationale, opposite the Abbey of Saint- Germain. It was the best attended ever. Also, and much to the satisfaction of the delegates, the official congress language was Volapŭk. If delegates used any other language, a translation into Volapŭk immediately followed. But notwithstanding their satisfaction, the delegates could not disguise the dif- ficult situation, and the need to prevent outright collision between reformists and conservatives. In order to satisfy both parties, the congress agreed that every resolution made by the Academy should be submitted to Schleyer's approval. If Schleyer did not approve, there would be further discussion and a second vote by the Academy. If it obtained two-thirds of the votes, then Schleyer's veto would be overturned. This resolution allowed Schleyer, who had refused to attend the congress, to keep his position as the most powerful member of the movement, while it simultaneously deprived him of his veto power.
But Schleyer found this compromise unacceptable.12 Although right be- fore the congress he had hinted to Sprague that he would accept the congresss decisions, he chose not to do so.13 He claimed Volapuk as his intellectual prop- erty, formally rejected the authority of the Academy, and established a new one, restricted to his most loyal supporters.14 Schleyer and the reformists parted ways, and Volapukists all over the world were forced to take sides. As an American Volapukist saw it:
The next few years are to decide the future of Volapuk, and espe- cially whether it is to have a future, or whether this magnificent world-wide structure, built with so much care and toil and expendi- ture of time, labor and money, shall be shattered by internal strife. . . . We should remember . . . the greatest political fabric the world has ever seen, the great Roman Empire [which,] torn by internecine strife, fell, and left no trace of its former greatness. . . . Let us trust that Volap uk will not meet a similar fate. Its enemies have been powerless to harm it. . . . Let it not be strangled in the house of its friends.15
Freed from Schleyer's rule, Kerckhoffs quickly put the Academy to work to give the language its final shape and to keep other projects, especially Es- peranto, from gaining ground. Immediately following the congress, he sent his reform proposals to Academy members and asked that they discuss them with the societies of their countries. But instead of clear answers, he received nine other reform proposals. Weary, he resigned in July 1890. The next year he lost his teaching job in the Ecole des hautes etudes commerciales, after criticizing the French Ministry of Educations administration of the modern languages exams. This forced him to move out of Paris to find a job. Kerck- hoffs was definitively lost for the movement. After his resignation, the Acad- emy had remained idle, since their members could not agree on a new director. Only in 1893 did they find a replacement: Waldemar Rosenberger, the leader of the movement in Moscow.
As soon as he took office, Rosenberger changed the decision-making pro- cess. Instead of asking Academy members to discuss the proposed reforms with rank-and-file Volapukists, he restricted the decision-making power to Academy members. This move deprived grassroots supporters of any influ- ence over the final shape of the language. But by that year, their number had shrunk considerably in any case. In February 1892, the general assembly of the local organization of Vienna, which published the influential Rund um die Welt, decided to discontinue all activities, after many other local clubs had already disbanded, their members disillusioned by the lack of tangible results from the Academy.16 They had volunteered to learn, teach, and expand an artificial language, and there was not much to do if the language remained under perpetual construction. Some of them returned to Schleyer's flock, and a few changed their allegiance to Esperanto, but most apparently gave up. For Schleyer, Kerckhoffs's defection and those of likeminded reformists was a relief, and he took it as an opportunity to purge discontents and tighten his con- trol on the remnants of the movement. The purge was easily achieved. He simply deleted the names of the troublemakers from the list of Volapukists published in the official journal. As he explained it, he could not conceive of any different course of action: "Christianity is better than my discovery, and there too there were conflicts. The apostles disputed about whom among them was best qualified. And then came Jesus who settled the quarrel."17