Microsoft Word llz-bio-En doc

VIII. The Need for an International Language 

In Warsaw, Zamenhof moved into the house at 19 Dzika Street, located in a poor 

neighbourhood that had no oculist. He began accepting patients who could not afford to 

go to his more prestigious colleagues. He also made an effort to obscure the fact that he 

was the author of a constructed language, so that he would be viewed only as a doctor. 

Because his financial circumstances and his social position had been better in 

Grodna, he, in his own words, “almost went mad from despair”. He was forced again to 

accept money from his father-in-law every month, which he found painful each time. In 

addition to his reduced financial circumstances and his abandonment of the Esperanto 

movement, he was nostalgic for Grodna. After four years of living in the province of his 

birth, Zamenhof did not at first feel at home in Warsaw. 

Little by little, however, his income increased and his life settled down. The 

Zamenhof family's financial situation stabilized in the years 1901–1903, thanks to 

Zamenhof's daily labours and his preparation of the health certificates required by 

emigrants, and because of a lucrative contract with the French publishing house 

Hachette. The family's life became more settled and the couple decided to have another 

child. A second daughter, Lidia, was born on the 16

th

 of January, 1904. 

In the evenings, which he had previously devoted to editing and letter writing, 

Zamenhof was able to reflect quietly on the problems of the international language and 

on the fate of the Jews. At the turn of the century, he summed up his thoughts in an essay 

that he published under a pseudonym. Essence and Future of the Idea of an 

International Language is Zamenhof's longest text about language. It was first published 

in Esperanto (Esenco kaj estonteco de la ideo de lingvo internacia) in the Basic 

Anthology of the Esperanto Language (Fundamenta Krestomatio de la lingvo 

---

19 

 

Esperanto) in 1903. According to the note accompanying the title, it is “A report written 

by Mr. Unuel and read (in a slightly modified and shortened version) by Mr. L. de 

Beaufront at the congress of the French Association for the Advancement of Science 

(Paris, 1900).” Because Louis de Beaufront had publicly read the text, many attributed it 

to him. It was not until 1910, at the Universal Congress of Esperanto in Washington, 

D.C., that Zamenhof admitted in public that he was its author. The pseudonym “Unuel” 

(Esperanto for “one of”) was imitated from the Hebrew pseudonym Achad ha'Am (“One 

of the people”, according to Gen. 26:10), used by the Jewish social activist Asher Zvi 

Hirsch Ginsberg. 

The congress of the French Association for the Advancement of Science took place 

during the Paris World Exhibition in 1900. Many international associations met on that 

occasion and the language problems at the Paris exhibition served as a spur for 

introducing Esperanto into their discussions. This was true of associations concerned 

with modern languages, philosophy, mathematics, comparative history, chambers of 

commerce, social education, and sociology among other subjects. 

De Beaufront's French-language version of Essence and Future appeared in 1901 in 

the acts of the congress. A comparison with Zamenhof's text in the Basic Anthology 

reveals that several polemical and promotional passages are missing in the French 

version. Translations of the Esperanto text were later published in English, Bulgarian, 

Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Croatian, Russian, etc. 

In his introduction to the Esperanto version, Zamenhof ranks Esperanto among the 

ideas which, although very important for humanity, are met initially with distrust and 

hostility. He compared Esperanto to the discovery of America, the use of steam engines 

and the introduction of the alphabet. These comparisons show that he thought of 

Esperanto as a “technical invention”. 

In a logical style, spiced up with polemics, Zamenhof deals with the problem in 

detail according to five questions he posed for himself. According to his logic, 

everything that is useful and possible will necessarily be accepted through unrelenting 

efforts despite the opposition of naysayers. 

He explained that people will first come to understand that an international language 

is useful; then, they will realize that it is attainable; later, they will begin to work on it; 

and finally, it will gain acceptance either by society itself or by the decision of an 

international conference. When might this happen? In a year, in ten years, in a hundred 

years, or even in several hundred years, but sooner or later an international language will 

win acceptance. 

His conclusions were that, 

1.

 

The use of an international language would be hugely useful to humankind. 

2.

 

It is entirely possible to introduce the use of an international language. 

---

20 

 

3.

 

The use of an international language is inevitable sooner or later, however 

much the naysayers may fight against it. 

4.

 

Only an artificial language will ever be chosen as an international language. 

5.

 

No language other than Esperanto will ever be chosen as the international 

language. Either it will be left forever in its present form or changes will be 

made to it in the future. 

In retrospect, Zamenhof’s reasoning rested on a few premises widely shared at the 

time, but now clearly dated. He believed with his whole being that reason and scientific 

progress would reign in the twentieth century. However, the twentieth century brought 

about such triumphs of irrationality as two world wars, genocides, the Holocaust, Hitler, 

Stalin, Pol Pot, the rise and fall of communist ideology, and widespread disillusionment 

with the idea of a “bright future” for the majority of Earth's inhabitants. 

In Zamenhof's time, seven great powers -- Britain, France, Germany, Austria-

Hungary, Russia, The United States, and Japan – were rivals and allies of practically 

equal strength. This meant that the language problem at that time could hardly be solved 

with one of the great powers' languages. (Russian and Japanese were less important at 

that time than English, French and German, which, along with Latin, were considered 

essential to a good 19

th

-century education.) 

The emerging dominance of the United States changed the world order. What has 

been particularly worrisome for orthodox Esperantists is that the English language 

quickly met the criteria outlined in Zamenhof's first three conclusions and rendered his 

fourth and fifth conclusions null and void. Little by little, American English is becoming 

the primary functioning international language in diplomacy, communications, science, 

commerce, sport, youth culture, etc. Modern technology, especially computing, is spread 

around the world mainly through English. 

Esperanto remains a logical and easy-to-learn language, but people learn languages 

not for their lack of difficulty, but for their usefulness in professional and scientific 

work, for a more comfortable life, for recreational opportunities, and for cultural and 

intellectual enrichment. In these respects, Esperanto cannot compete with English. 

Nevertheless, Esperanto works and its users enjoy not so much the linguistic benefits 

emphasized by Unuel, as the benefits of a community of Esperanto speakers. Will 

today's Esperantists succeed in presenting the essence and future of their language in a 

manner more convincing than Zamenhof's theoretical presentation of more than a 

hundred years ago?