a Bulgarian student; for four weeks we were almost constantly together and became close friends. After the Congress we traveled and hiked through Finland and the new Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We stayed with hospitable Esperantists and made contact with many people in these countries. We talked about all kinds of problems in public and in personal life, always, of course, in Esperanto. For us this language was not a system of rules but simply a living language. After experiences of this kind, I cannot take very seriously the arguments of those who assert that an international auxiliary language might be suitable for business affairs and perhaps for natural science, but could not possibly serve
as an adequate means of communication in personal affairs I
have found that most of those who make these assertions have no practical experience with such a language.11
If not every Esperantist shared Carnap's motives or was as sociable as he was, the extent to which likeminded idealists joined the movement shows that Zamenhofs agenda had gained a hearing among the Esperantists, easily driven to transform a formal meeting into a memorable and emotionally charged experience.
The enthusiastic reception of his 1905 speech in Boulogne gave him new energies to popularize his ideas in Esperantujo. In anticipation of the Second Congress, to take place in Geneva, he sent a philosophical manuscript to Emile Javal, who was, like Michaux, an assimilated Jew. He asked Javal for comments and to distribute it among those who might have an interest in his ideas. Writ- ing to a fellow Jew, Zamenhof confided to Javal that Esperanto was only a frac- tion of a larger project, namely, the "unification of humanity in one fraternal family"—a project that, he made clear, is the "mission" or "raison d'etre" of the Jewish people.
As he explained it, his ideas were beyond common cosmopolitanism. He proposed an ethical and political program based on the assumption that state borders are arbitrary, and, consequently, that "every country belongs to ev-
erybody who lives there, no matter their language or religion It is the iden-
tification of the interest of one country with the interests of one religion or language group . . . which is the cause of most wars."12
Zamenhofs first intention was to make public his program at the next congress, which was going to take place in Geneva, as his private, non-official initiative. But again, Zamenhofs plans caused alarm, if not open hostility, among the French leaders, including Javal. Zamenhof was the most relevant Esperantist, and it would be practically impossible for public opinion to dis- tinguish between his personal ideas and Esperanto. For them, the movement should be completely neutral and avoid entanglements in any political de- bate. As de Beaufront put it: "Esperanto is not a political party, a religion, or a philosophical or social program, but only a pure language; only a language, which people will use for the most diverse and sometimes conflicting purposes."13
As had happened the previous year, before the opening of the Boulogne Congress, Zamenhof and the French leaders had to find common ground. After some doubts, Zamenhof was invited to the congress and allowed to give the opening speech on the condition that he did not detail his philosophical and political ideas. Although modified, Zamenhofs opening speech at the Second Esperanto Congress in Geneva was no less stirring than the one he had delivered in Boulogne. He rejected the official definition of "Esperantist" inserted in the Boulogne Declaration and phrased for the first time the con- cept of the "inner idea" of Esperanto, broadly defined as the pursuit of peace and mutual respect among ethnic and national groups. As he explained to the audience, there might be Esperantists who only see in the language
something of practical utility . . . an instrument for international comprehension, similar to the maritime signals, although more perfect. . . . If such Esperantists ever come to our congresses . . . they do not participate of our joy and enthusiasm, which might look to them naive and childish. But the Esperantists who are among us not through their heads, but with their hearts, they will always feel and recognize in Esperanto, above all, its inner idea. They will not be afraid when the world jeers at them and calls them utopian, and when the chauvinists attack their ideals as criminal. They will be proud to be called utopians. At every new congress, their love for the internal idea of Esperantism will be stronger, and little by little our annual congresses will be a constant celebration of humanity and of human brotherhood.14
Most probably, had Zamenhof been given the opportunity to associate Esperantism with the ideological scheme that he had been elaborating for the last years, which implied the establishment of a new ethical and religious so- ciety, he would have created a commotion.15 But he had not. Instead, he re- signed himself to advance broad appeals to human brotherhood, justice, peace, and mutual respect, and blend them in the handy and intentionally ill-defined motto of the "inner idea," which any Esperantist could interpret "in differ- ent forms and degree."16
It is impossible to prove that this idealism helped recruit more people to Esperantism, but it is relatively safe to say that at least it did not impede re- cruitment: Right after Boulogne and Geneva, membership increased.17 In 1906 a record number of more than 3,000 sent their names and addresses to the Adresaro. That same year there were 434 Esperanto groups around the world, 756 the following year, and close to 1,300 in 1908. And in the same period, the number of Esperanto periodicals increased from 18 to 59.
Significantly, the increasing number of periodicals mirrored the greater diversity of people and specialized interests in the movement: Catholics, Prot- estants, socialists, Monists, pacifists, vegetarians, excursionists, and even pho- tography aficionados and stamp collectors.18
But before we turn to the inhabitants of Esperantujo, we should pause and reflect on Zamenhof's strategies and accomplishments. In many respects, Za- menhof was the opposite of Schleyer. He also was a polyglot, but, contrary to Schleyer, he had learned many languages by being exposed to them. He be- lieved that a language was a constantly evolving, adaptive entity. For a lan- guage to exist and grow, it does not need to be fixed or codified in a printed grammar. Such was the case with Yiddish: spoken in its different varieties by millions of people, there were no Yiddish grammars or textbooks. Zamen- hof believed that for a language to exist we only need a community of speak- ers who can change and adapt it according to their communication needs. Hence, his insistence that, more important than disputes about this or that word or grammatical rule is the mastery of the language, to communicate with fellow speakers. Setting up a formal organization to discuss words or grammatical rules was an unnatural way to proceed. But since a language belongs to its users, a democratic organization had to be created if users re- quested it.
Thus, as was true of Schleyer, there was a close fit for Zamenhof between his conception of language and the strategy he used to spread Esperanto. Dif- ferences among the Esperantists before the Boulogne Congress made it im- possible to agree on an organizational template for the movement. But this was not a great source of concern for Zamenhof, since more important than any organization was the community of speakers. And he concentrated his energies on community building.
At this, he did not fail. An "imagined community" of people who shared a language did emerge. In its central core, this was a value-laden commu- nity, based on the inner idea. But since this inner idea could be interpreted in different ways and even rejected, the community of Esperantists was not a homogeneous one. Forged by the drastic social and political transforma- tions of the period, the community of the Esperantists was rife with diver- gent ideas about the possible applications of the language.