In fact, the French intellectuals were of an entirely different type from the quaintly idealistic Tolstoyan brethren. They had little in common with the physician Aleksandr Asnes, who in 1906 bitterly described him- self as one of the 'miserable Russian slaves', or with the Polish zoologist Benedykt Dybowski, once condemned to death for participating in the Russian rebellion of 1863-64,33 or the repeatedly arrested Jewish law- yer and writer Leo Belmont, a popular Esperanto orator,[59] or the young Czech worker and Esperanto pioneer Frantisek Vladimfr Lorenc, who in 1893 fled the persecution of the Austrian police by taking ship to Brazil,[60]or the Slovak Tolstoyan Albert Skarvan, against whose arrest for refus- ing military service in 1895 well-known personalities from all Europe protested.[61] Unlike the Slavs and Eastern European Jews, the French had no liking for sentimental speeches about human brotherhood, nor did they consider Esperanto an aid in the battle for national or social eman- cipation. They were people who recognized in Esperanto 'the legitimate fruit of their common faith in the progress of civilization and in the sovereignty of reason'.[62] On the basis of this conviction they succeeded in making the language respectable among members of the higher levels of West European society.
Historians of Esperanto have frequently emphasized the difference between the Russian and French points of view—between the idealistic pioneering spirit of the early days and the later emergence of more practical considerations. However accurate this may be as a general observation, it would be wrong to put too much emphasis on this contrast between east and west. We must remind ourselves that Zamenhof created not only a foundation for idealistic understanding but also a foundation for the prac- tical application of the language. He did not adhere only to the guiding principles he had formulated in 1887-88: in 1898, at the moment when Esperanto first began to attract the attention of the French and other west- ern Europeans, he wrote an essay which can only be described as an attempt at a theoretical justification for Esperanto's practical role.
In this document, entitled 'The Essence and Future of the Idea of an International Language', Zamenhof reassuringly points out that Esperanto should not be confused with a worldwide language: it neither negates nor seeks to destroy national languages. He seems to be distanc- ing himself from the most enthusiastic Esperantists by excluding the pos- sibility that humankind might somehow flow together to form a single people through Esperanto; on the contrary, such an outcome would occur only through 'changing people's convictions and opinions'. Stressing the important practical advantages of a neutral means of communication, Zamenhof even went so far as to declare that 'pursuit of an international language should not exclude even blind and hotheaded chauvinism'.[63]
In August 1900 de Beaufront read part of this treatise to the congress of the French Association for the Advancement of Science, held at the same time as the Universal Exhibition. At first people believed that de Beaufront had written it himself.2 9 In any event, we can consider this text, which was so influential on later learners of Esperanto, as expressing the shared opinion of Zamenhof and de Beaufront as to the most suitable way to advocate for Esperanto in France at the beginning of the twentieth century.
On the other hand, we should recognize that the opportunities for the practical use of Esperanto were for a long time so limited that even in western Europe the movement had to rely on the idealism of its mem- bers. Among the pioneers of Esperanto in the countries of western Europe there were many who would in no way subscribe to an all-encompassing concern for the practical profit to be derived from the language. Felix Moscheles, the first president of the London Esperanto Club, was a well- known figure in the pacifist movement, in his role as president of the International Arbitration and Peace Association. In Germany, the banker Georg Arnhold, one of the principal supporters of the German pacifist movement, also provided material help to Esperanto. And among the first Esperantists in France was Gaston Moch, who in 1894 retired from the army to devote himself to the cause of peace, democracy and human rights.
Even de Beaufront, generally regarded as a prototype of the purely practical Esperantist, declared himself 'a strong supporter of ideas of peace'. But all his activities were characterized by efforts to avoid, at all costs, the confusion of Esperanto with pacifism. To justify this point of view, he used the argument that Esperantists and pacifists are both gener- ally regarded 'as nai've utopians' and that if both marched hand-in-hand they would only 'double [...] the difficulties in the way of success'.[64]
If we look for reasons for the caution behind de Beaufront's warnings, we can find them in the still recent memory (to which he alluded) of the fate of the journal Esperantisto in 1895 and the tense political climate pre- vailing in France in the years when the Esperanto movement was taking its first steps. Beginning in 1894, the nation was sharply divided by the question of whether Alfred Dreyfus was a traitor or the innocent victim of anti-Jewish agitation. The Dreyfus affair split France into two camps: on the one hand the supporters of the army, the aristocracy and Catholicism, along with the conservative middle class, united in their opposition to the principles of the French Revolution and the claims of reason; and on the other hand the non-clericalists, the socialist workers and all who believed in democracy and human rights. Furthermore, the unjust condemnation of Dreyfus marked a turning point in the history of Jews living in western Europe: up to this point they had had faith in the idea of emancipation and integration within the larger society, but now they were forced to recognize that such assimilation was opposed by a newly ascendant anti- Semitism, which they had believed confined to Eastern Europe. Thus, for the journalist Theodor Herzl there could no longer be any other solution than the founding of a Jewish state, for whose establishment he called, under the direct impression of the Dreyfus affair, in 1896.[65]
De Beaufront launched his magazine LEsperantiste and founded the Society for the Dissemination of Esperanto in January 1898; in the same month, fanned by the well-known JAccuse of Emile Zola, the passions for Dreyfus grew stronger and stronger. Because the dispute over with- drawal of the verdict also polarized the French Esperantists,[66] they could find common ground only by an awareness that to advance Esperanto they needed to keep the language and the movement separate from politi- cal tensions. And de Beaufront was not alone in this belief. Also Moch, himself Jewish, who became active in the Drefusard Human Rights League, clearly argued in 1905 for the complete separation of pacifism and Esperanto, repeating arguments earlier used by de Beaufront.[67]
If, then, we wish to summarize the viewpoint of the French Esperantists, we must recognize not so much a lack of idealism[68] as a unifying conviction that the fragile movement would die if it did not maintain its 'complete neutrality on all questions on which people disagree'.[69] A good illustration of the degree to which this attitude contrasted with the more aggressive stance of the East European Esperantists was the debate in 1905 over the Worldwide Esperantist League. The League was Zamenhof's first effort to free himself from personal responsibility for Esperanto's future develop- ment. Two opposing views collided, one characterizing the French posi- tion and the other that of the Slavs. De Beaufront opposed the proposal to found an international organization, pointing to the wide differences in national traditions and the resulting risk of arousing the suspicion of governments, because the Esperantists had already been 'proclaimed a danger to our [national] languages and to popular patriotism'.[70] Kazimierz Bein,[71] of Poland, on the other hand, doubted 'that the governments of a few countries would persecute us', if an international league of Esperantists were founded. In his view, governments were capable of telling the dif- ference between green (the color of Esperanto) and red. 'Like the bull in the ring, they are frightened only by the color red.' Even if 'in a given country members of the league are persecuted', that should not detain the Esperantists from founding the league, said Bein, finally asking whether 'just because there are countries like prisons, we should all wear chains?'[72]In the summer of 1905, during the first congress of Esperantists, in Boulogne-sur-Mer, the project for a Worldwide League was voted down. Despite the enthusiasm among congress participants for the unique expe- rience of untrammeled communication of 'people with people', the idea of an international organization was still beyond reach—in part because of personal jealousies among the leading French Esperantists, but also because of their general preference for assigning the first responsibility for recruitment to activities within the individual countries, rather than unnecessarily provoking the authorities through a supranational organi- zation of Esperantists. On the other hand, to make a clear distinction between the language itself and anyone's personal ideals, and to guard it against the intrusion of outside ideologies, the congress approved the so- called Declaration on the Essence of Esperantism[73]—a document that for the most part remains valid for the organized Esperanto movement down to today. The Declaration described Esperantism as 'the effort to dis- seminate throughout the world the use of a neutral language' and firmly stated that 'All other ideas or hopes that a given Esperantist links with Esperantism are his purely private affair for which Esperantism is not responsible.' The Declaration said nothing about the service of Esperanto to world peace.[74]