Retrospectively, Zamenhofs strategy looks like the masterwork of a bril- liant tactician. Aware that he had entered a contest where positive feedback mechanisms were working for the incumbent, Zamenhof urged his poten- tial followers to learn and use the language as soon and as much as possible, and no matter the prospects of Esperanto vis-a-vis Volapuk. This strategy activated the "quasi-irreversibility of investment factors," to use Davis's terms, that can best create a hard core of loyalists.8 Just as a skilled QWERTY user is not likely to shift to a different keyboard absent certainty about the new keyboard's ultimate success, a skilled Esperantist would be equally disinclined to forgo his initial investment in the language, either by shifting to another project or pursuing radical reforms. Also, Zamenhof's open invitation to par- ticipate and offer feedback, his withdrawal of any personal rights, and his in- sistence that the language was a common property further increased its appeal. His subtle indication that Esperanto could also serve political goals could only help him enlarge and diversify the movement base by attracting yet another interest group, even if this strategy would later cause tensions. Although he was asking his followers for their feedback, Zamenhof was more concerned about their willingness to learn and use the language than their potential criticisms.
Zamenhofs work plan, though, is better explained not as the product of a farsighted strategist but by his democratic convictions and his ideas about how languages work. He elaborated these beliefs in the Dua Libro, or second textbook, and its supplement (Aldono al la Dua Libro), published in 1888. They were the first books printed entirely in Esperanto and are critical to under- standing Zamenhofs mutually reinforcing ideas about politics and language. According to him, languages are not autonomous, self-contained systems that can live independently of their speakers. Languages do not have lives of their own. Rather, they can only exist and possibly change and evolve through con- tinuous interactions among speakers. It is always possible to arbitrarily ar- range the blueprint of a new language, as he did, but this does not mean that the language has been brought to life. For a language to exist there has to be a community of speakers that creatively uses it to produce meaning and set in motion its ongoing evolution. This explains why Zamenhof preferred to portray himself as the "initiator" rather than the "creator" of Esperanto.9 A language, Zamenhof writes, is a democratic, self-governing cultural product, where only the communicative needs and literary skills of its speakers can affect its future course.10 A language, thus, cannot be governed. It develops "step by step," not through a formal decision-making process but as the by- product of an ongoing process of imitation and creativity, of incorporation of new words or conventions and the obliteration of old ones.[2] According to him, formal decision-making bodies are unnecessary for a language to sus- tain itself and develop, as the history of languages demonstrates. It is the com- munity of speakers, not an ad hoc organization that ensures the consistency and future of a language.
Things are a little bit different with artificial languages, however. Artifi- cial users might think that this or that rule is better and request a procedure to settle the issue. But such a request would violate the very essence of an ar- tificial language since, although non-natural, it is still a language: the byprod- uct of an ongoing communicative interaction and not a series of formal, authoritative decisions. Thus, if not for the language itself, it is for the need to prevent discordance that those demands have to be attended. Discord and disagreement about usage would best be dealt with through democratic pro- cedures, Zamenhof felt. These procedures reflect the communal nature of a language, and are also more likely to help build a shared commitment to its foundations, or fundamento. Further support for democratic procedures comes from the idea that right and proper decisions about the language and its foundations are not necessarily those that come from linguists. As Zamen- hof also made clear, he was not a trained linguist, but a person "with no mer- its, and unknown to the world":
Since languages attain consistency and evolve by adapting to their speak- ers' communication needs, intuitively right and proper decisions are more likely to come from speakers than from theoretical arguments advanced by linguists, professionals, or dilettantes. Hence Zamenhofs call to learn and use the language: to better capture its inner nature and make informed, em- pirical, democratic decisions when and if the time came for improvements.
Zamenhofs strategic recipe, advanced in his Dua Libro and reasserted throughout his life, was straightforward: one should let Esperanto "live, grow, and progress according to the same rules that apply to any other language."13 The blueprints of this language, already set up in the Unua Libro, should serve as the foundations of this undertaking. If necessary, these could be changed according to the opinion of its community of speakers. But to avoid possible mistakes and obtain informed opinions, Esperantists should, first of all, de- velop as much familiarity with the language as possible, which required the production of original work and translations.
And this should be done as if there were no other contestants in sight. There was a battle of artificial languages, no question about it, and Zamen- hof commonly referred to Esperantists as batalantoj, or combatants. This bat- tle, however, was not so much against other language projects as against the temptation to introduce reforms rashly, and against the indifference of the general public. Ni laboru kaj esperu! "Let us work and have hope!" was Za- menhofs rallying call.14
"The Menacing Thunderstorm of Reforms": First Esperantists and First Crises
It might seem that Esperanto entered the artificial language contest late, and at the wrong time. But the opposite is true: Had Zamenhof published his Unua Libro in 1885, as he intended, we would probably not be speaking about Es- peranto today. In 1888, a window of opportunity opened, and Zamenhof hap- pened to be there. That year, the splinter Volapukist club of Nuremberg was looking for an alternative. They could not credibly adopt any of the other pre- vious language projects that they had severely criticized, so they chose the next in line, and that happened to be Esperanto.
Had Zamenhof been able to publish his first textbook when he intended, most probably he would have shared the same destiny as the authors of Spe- lin or Pasilingua. In 1888, fortune was on Zamenhof's side.
Critical for the Nuremberg Volapukist club's shift to Esperanto was its president, the journalist and teacher of Judaism Leopold Einstein (1833-1890). Einstein was probably the Volapukist with the most profound knowledge of old and contemporary artificial language projects. Among others, he corre- sponded with Bauer and Lott, whose proposals he had also discarded. In 1888, Einstein read the Unua Libro and saw in it the perfect substitute for Volapuk. That same year he published La lingvo internacia als beste Losung des internationalen Weltspracheproblems (The lingvo internacia as the best solution to the world language problem) and managed to sway the Nurem- berg club to Zamenhof's side. As he saw it, Volapuk was hopeless. Not even "the most resourceful and careful reparations and patchery can ever make [the Volapuk house] habitable."1 Einstein was taken with Esperanto not only because of the problems he saw in Volapuk. Equally important seemed to be Zamenhofs unassuming character, as opposed to Schleyer's authoritarian- ism and "mystical obfuscation."2 Notwithstanding his "ceaseless . . . bragging" about his love of humanity, Schleyer had not refrained from including in his dictionary words such as judeln and Judelei? When Einstein shifted to Zamenhofs project, he was rather sick. He died in 1890. By then, he had be- come close friends with Zamenhof, who, hearing of his death, acknowl- edged his friend's fearless defense of Esperanto, no matter the "abuse" he had to endure in his last years from his former fellow Volapukists.4