On the other hand, France always had its share of strong supporters of Esperanto. Accordingly, after the war, and also because of the growing strength of the left, circumstances appeared favorable for Esperanto in the fight at the League of Nations. After Hanotaux's attack the friends of Esperanto did not give up but instead prepared themselves better. In September 1921, on the occasion of the Second Assembly, the pro- posal was again brought forward, on this occasion supported by the del- egates of Albania, Belgium, China, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Finland, India, Japan, Persia, Romania, South Africa and Venezuela.[183] This time there was a report from the deputy secretary-general Nitobe Inazo, of
Japan,[184] on his participation in the 13th World Congress of Esperanto in Prague.[185] His impressions were favorable: he noted that 'the congress participants were typical seriously minded and intelligent members of the middle class'[186] and he also gave sympathetic emphasis to the 'internal idea' of Esperanto. In the published part of his report, Nitobe, somewhat against his will ('I personally dislike to speak of the working population as a separate class') drew attention to the enthusiastic participation of working people in the Esperanto movement:
While the rich and the cultured enjoy belles lettres and scientific treatises in the original, the poor and the humble make of Esperanto a lingua franca for their exchange of views. Esperanto is thus becoming an engine of inter- national democracy and of strong combination. This interest of the masses must be taken account of in a rational and sympathetic spirit when making a study of this question of a common language.[187]
This time the Assembly supported the proposal for a survey. In January 1922 the secretary-general distributed a circular to member states invit- ing them to report on the state of Esperanto instruction in the schools.
While the report was being compiled, France, whose newly formed government of January 1922 was dominated by the right, intensified its campaign against Esperanto. The use of Esperanto was forbidden in meetings attended by French officials.[188] The French ambassador in Berne, Henry Allize, who regularly reported on activity in support of Esperanto at the League of Nations, informed his superiors in March 1922 that an 'international conference on the teaching of Esperanto in schools' was to take place in the Palais des Nations in Geneva. He regarded its program as 'dangerous':
By teaching children an artificial and neutral language without traditional connections and without national evocations, the goal is, according to Dr. Zamenhof himself, ' to create separation between language and fatherland, in the same way as religion and the state are separated. Esperanto is becoming [...] a fundamental enemy of the national languages [...]. It represents a mystique of revolutionary destruction.[189]
Allize drew particular attention to Edmond Privat, the principal defender of Esperanto in Geneva. Privat was not popular among French diplomats. Until the end of 1921 he was prohibited from entering France, and after that date he received a visa only with difficulty.[190] The principal reason was probably because Privat made himself unpopular with his wartime articles in Le Temps and LHumanite, in which he argued for Polish inde- pendence, and hence against the interests of Russia, an ally of France. On the present subject, Allize presented Privat as a person who, in contrast to the customary propaganda about the commercial utility of Esperanto, at least 'has the merit of fully unmasking the true nature of Esperanto, namely its service of the interests of communism and anti-patriotism'.[191]The conference took place in April 1922 and was a great success. Teachers from 28 countries and official delegates of 16 governments were in attendance; the opening plenary was addressed by the League's secretary-general, Eric Drummond. Shortly afterwards, the government in Paris launched a direct counter-offensive. On 3 June 1922, Leon Berard, the minister of public education, issued a circular in which he ordered that classrooms in French public schools should no longer be provided for courses in Esperanto. Berard drew attention to the 'dangers' attendant on the teaching of Esperanto; he saw a threat to education in the Latin cultures 'in the development of an artificial language seductive in its facility'. He continued:
The French language will always be the language of civilization and at the same time the best means for disseminating an incomparable literature and serving the expansion of French thought.
International organizations with headquarters in other countries are try- ing to develop relations among groups of Esperantists in various countries. [...] the goal of such propaganda is not so much simplifying linguistic relations among the peoples as suppressing the reason for the existence of national culture in child and adult alike. These groups are aiming at the Latin spirit and, particularly, the French genius.[192]
This decree was particularly encouraging to the enemies of Esperanto on the extreme right. Their attacks repeated much of what was already circulating before the war, but in the meantime their conspiracy theo- ries had been updated. One such anti-Jewish and anti-German author, presenting Esperanto as an instrument for foreign subversion, discov- ered that it was particularly attractive to 'propagandizers of the Bolshevik revolution for the annihilation of civilization, as in Russia'.1 01 For the Esperantists, Archdeacon concluded that Berard 'had declared total war on Esperanto'[193]—all this because, in his view, Esperanto might somewhat reduce the inferiority of the working classes and mollify international hatred. In their support, the Human Rights League reproached Berard for inflicting damage to the left through his decree. Berard defended him- self by asserting that international Esperanto congresses displayed 'hostil- ity to the French language'. He denied any political intent, although his arguments and those of his supporters proved the opposite.[194]
A few weeks after publication of Berard's circular severely limiting the activities of the French Esperantists, the League of Nations secretariat completed its report Esperanto as an InternationalAuxiliary Language.wi The report offered an extensive overview of the worldwide spread of Esperanto. Its conclusion noted that:
Language is a great force, and the League of Nations has every reason to watch with particular interest the progress of the Esperanto movement which, should it become more widespread, may one day lead to great results from the point of view of the moral unity of the world.[195]
At the Third Assembly in the autumn of1922, the Fifth Commission stud- ied this favorable report. The British Hellenist, Gilbert Murray, represent- ing South Africa, was among those expressing sympathy for Esperanto. But the French delegate, Georges Reynald, declared that he had received instructions to oppose any world language other than French. While Reynaud's arguments were relatively moderate, the Brazilian delegate, Raul do Rio Branco, in an extended speech, which he afterwards had printed and distributed privately,[196] inserted into the discussion ideological accu- sations of the crudest kind. He condemned Esperanto as a 'language of derelicts and communists, without traditions, without literature, without intellectual value', and asserted that in Brazil Esperanto was taught only in Sergipe, 'the least civilized' state in his country.[197]
After three days of discussion a compromise solution was achieved. The report was officially approved as a League document, but with the fifth part, containing conclusions and recommendations, deleted. The question of teaching the language in schools was transferred to the Commission for International Intellectual Collaboration.