Personal animosities rankled among these leaders, and more conspicu- ously between de Beaufront and Bourlet. Everyone knew that Bourlet and de
Beaufront were not on speaking terms, and the personal relationships among other leaders were not much better, largely stemming from problems around the Hachette publishing deal. Only after Zamenhofs direct intervention and Michaux's diplomatic maneuvering was it possible to set aside personal quar- rels and get everybody working for the congress.
To put an end to these quarrels, but also to personally detach himself from the movement in order to pursue his philosophical and political agenda more freely, Zamenhof suggested that the congress should approve an international formal organization to establish some order in the movement, act as the of- ficial representative of the Esperantists vis-a-vis national governments and international organizations, and deal with other contenders and potential de- mands for language reform. The Tutmonda Esperantista Ligo that Zamen- hof envisioned was going to be democratically governed. In his proposed bylaws, which he sent to the French leaders for discussion, he envisioned an annual convention or congress of Esperantists, which would elect a repre- sentative body. This body's decisions would only be provisional. Final, author- itative decisions regarding language and organizational matters could only be approved by the whole Esperanto community attending its annual con- gress. This scheme involved the definition of positions of formal authority within the movement, which proved thorny. Acting unilaterally, the French leaders rejected Zamenhof's plan, mutually afraid that some other rival would end up filling an important position.
As important as their personal rivalries were differences about the lan- guage and the movement, which made it impossible to agree on an organiza- tional template. Viewing Esperanto as similar to any other language, able to evolve endogenously, Cart was against any formal organization that would interfere in its natural development. On his side, and following the example of the International Peace Bureau established in 1892, Moch proposed a loose confederation of Esperanto groups that precluded any centralizing or author- itative body. More bureaucratically minded, de Beaufront advocated an in- ternational federation with national organizations as its pillars; Bourlet and Sebert had in mind a more centralized organization.16 If Zamenhof's goal be- hind the establishment of a permanent organization was to step back and transfer his authority to a formal body to pursue his own philosophical and political ideas, he attained the opposite result. The eventual rejection of his plan and open rivalries among the French Esperantists made more visible Za- menhofs position and informal authority in the Esperanto movement.
If not Zamenhof's projected Tutmonda Esperantista Ligo, the Boulogne Congress did accept the foundation of a Lingva Komitato, or Language Com- mittee. To a large extent, the Lingva Komitato was a replica of the Volapuk Academy. Like the latter, it was a large body entrusted to deal with language questions, and its members would work by correspondence. But unlike the Volapuk Academy, the Lingva Komitato did not have any power to enforce reforms. It could only make suggestions, provide advice to speakers, think about new words, and examine reform proposals. Zamenhofs bylaws of the Tutmonda Esperanto Ligo included stipulations on how reforms could be im- plemented. But since his organizational scheme was rejected, nobody really knew how Esperanto could be reformed, should anybody request it.
To let the language develop naturally, as Zamenhof thought both inevi- table and desirable, the congress agreed on a grammatical and lexical base- line, a starting point that would let the language evolve and adapt to speakers' needs. This was the Fundamento de Esperanto, a manuscript edited by Za- menhof and published by Hachette immediately before the congress.17 The Fundamento, which the congress decided to make netuŝebla (untouchable), was prescriptive, meant to function as an abbreviated literary corpus, ideally reflecting the substance and spirit of the language. Also, and at the insistence of Sebert, the congress accepted the establishment of a Central Office, privately financed by Sebert and Javal. This office did not have an official character, and had no decision-making power. It was designed to be a clearinghouse of sta- tistics and information. Finally, the congress agreed to set up a committee that would organize the next congress in Geneva.
"Bringing Together the Whole Human Race": Esperanto's Inner Idea
Planning his participation in the Boulogne Congress, Zamenhof sent a let- ter to Michaux, also of Jewish origin. In this letter, Zamenhof explained his worldview and Esperanto's role in it. As he told Michaux, it was precisely be- cause of his Jewishness that he had committed to the idea of "bringing to- gether the whole human race," and Esperanto was only an instrument toward the realization of that ideal.1 More troublesome for the assimilated and sec- ularized Michaux was Zamenhof's warning that he intended the congress to be a "heart-warming," quasi-religious experience, for which he would write and read a prayer.2 Busy as they were with the preparations of the congress, the French leaders did not pay much attention to this. But when they received Zamenhofs opening speech and the prayer he intended to read at the con- gress, they were shocked.
For some years, Zamenhof had been working on a philosophical and po- litical program and discussing it with fellow Jewish intellectuals. Basically, he elaborated the basic tenets of Reform Judaism, which, according to the prophets, claimed that the historical mission of the Jews was to bring forth the reunification of humanity. As Zamenhof explained, the solution to the Jewish question and, by extension, to ethnic hatred was to deethnicize all peo- ples by establishing a linguistic and religious common ground that could help individuals to recognize one anothers humanness: their standing as auton- omous moral agents rather than as carriers or instruments of a narrow na- tional or religious program. Though not included as such in his planned opening speech, these were the ideas that inspired Zamenhof.3
But in his planned speech, Zamenhofs invocation of a "spiritual Force," and his ambition to reunite the human race beyond all national and religious creeds, sounded to the ears of the French leaders like the words of a new Jew- ish messiah. They feared that if Zamenhof read his speech, the movement would be ridiculed and Esperanto would disappear. The night before the con- gress, they tried to convince Zamenhof to change his speech. In Warsaw, he was occasionally admonished by his Jewish friends. As a journalist and the owner of the daily Ha-Zefirah, Nahum Sokolow wrote to him: "Always the same Zamenhof. . . . We are in 1905—revolutions, military rule, political mur- ders, big changes in the world, and still you are sitting down in Dzika Street improving your international language, while funeral processions of Jewish victims are walking by your door."4
It was difficult for Zamenhof to accept that his new friends in Western Europe censored his idealism, too. He was almost brought to tears. But he decided not to change the spirit of his speech. He agreed only to omit the last verses of the prayer, the most religious or mystical to the French leaders' ears. When the congress opened and it was Zamenhofs turn to talk, he was re- ceived with thunderous applause, the waving of Esperanto flags, and cries of Vivu Zamenhof! (Long live Zamenhof). In his speech Zamenhof ignored any mention of the presumed utility of Esperanto for science and commerce. He had a more important message, and as the speech progressed, its emotional and religious tone grew stronger. He began talking about the new age that was announcing itself, not audibly, but "manifest for any sensitive soul." For many years, "prophets and poets dreamed of some distant and misty era when people could, once again, understand one another, and be united in one fam- ily; but this was just a dream. We talked about it, like some sweet fantasy, but . . . now for the first time, this thousand-year dream comes true. . . . In this Congress . . . we all feel like members of one nation and of one family; and for the first time in human history we, the members of the most different nations, stand next to each other not as strangers or rivals, but as brothers. . . . Today, within the hospitable walls of Boulogne-sur-Mer, we are meeting not Frenchmen with Englishmen, not Russians with Poles, but men with men."