Microsoft Word llz-bio-En doc
Yüklə 297,54 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
|
part of this
common idea, which I call Hillelism. (Mi estas Homo 115-116)
41
The project's strategic goal was the unification of humanity, but the tactical objective was the creation of a neutrally human population, whose members would be separated from each other by geographical and political boundaries, but not by their languages or their religions. Zamenhof's concept had taken shape under the influence of Russian spiritual Zionism, which rejected the need for a separate Jewish state and argued that having the cultural centre of Judaism in Palestine would be sufficient. Zamenhof adapted this ideology to his doctrine in the following way: [...] the Hillelists will proceed in the following manner: they will choose a specific city in neutral Switzerland, which will become forever the spiritual centre for all Hillelists in the world. In that city there will be a permanent central committee of Hillelists; it will also house the central Hillelist temple, in which every human being will be able to serve the mysterious Moral Force that rules the world [...] Of course, only a neutrally human language and morals will reign in the Hillelist temple. (Mi estas Homo 118) According to Zamenhof's plan, the first Hillelist sect was to be exclusively Jewish, but the success of the Boulogne congress changed his plan, so that he intended to announce at the second Universal Congress of Esperanto (in Geneva, 1906) that the first Hillelist group was to be made up of Esperantists. Because of the increasing tension of the revolutionary situation in Russia, however, Zamenhof decided to publish his ideas before the Geneva congress took place. In the January 1906 issue of Ruslanda Esperantisto (Russian Esperantist), he published his doctrine anonymously under the title Beliefs of Hillelism (Dogmoj de Hilelismo) with parallel Russian and Esperanto texts. The foreword makes it clear that 1) Hillelism was a response to a particular, concrete situation in Russia; 2) it presented that situation not as a class struggle, but as an ethnic, religious and linguistic conflict; 3) it was too closely associated with Esperanto. Following the foreword, Zamenhof defined the essence and goal of Hillelism and the twelve beliefs of the Hillelist's Declaration. The lay version of Hillelism, aimed at Russians and Esperantists, is very different from the 1901 project, which had the same name but was intended specifically for Jews. The earlier project had been a purified version of the Hebrew religion. The new project was another thing entirely: Hillelism is a doctrine that, without tearing a person away from his native country, or language, or religion, gives him the possibility of avoiding all untruths or contradictions in the principles of his national religion, and of communicating with people of all languages and religions on a neutrally human basis, according to principles of mutual brotherhood, equality and
42
justice. [...] Hillelists hope that, through constant mutual communication based on a neutral language and on neutral religious principles and customs, humanity will some day be united as one neutrally human people. (Mi estas Homo 130) The first four beliefs are the most general and most clearly reflect Hillelism’s basic principles: 1.
I am a human being, and for me only purely human ideals exist. I consider any ethnic or national ideals to be nothing but group egotism and hatred for others. These ethnic and national ideals are destined to disappear sooner or later and I must hasten their disappearance in so far as I am able. 2.
I believe that all peoples are equal and I judge each individual on his personal value and actions, not on his origin. I consider any offensive action or persecution directed towards a person simply because he was born into a different ethnicity with a different language or religion from mine to be an act of barbarism. 3.
I believe that every country belongs, not to this or that people, but to all its inhabitants, with full and equal rights, regardless of their language or religion. The mixing of national interests with those of this or that people, language or religion I see as a remnant of the barbaric times when only might was right. 4.
I believe that, in their family life, all people have a full, natural and indisputable right to speak whatever language or dialect and to practise whichever religion they please, but that when communicating with people of different origins, they should, in so far as it is possible, use a neutrally human language and live according to the principles of a neutrally human religion. I regard as an act of barbarism any attempt by a person to impose his language or religion on others. Zamenhof then explained the differences between a “sovereign state” (regno), a “country” (lando) and a “fatherland” (patrujo), and urged the use of only geographically neutral names for countries, such as Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, etc. Names of countries formed from the name of their majority ethnic group should be changed. Thus, he suggested the use of “Parisian State” (Parizregno) instead of France (Francio), “Petersburg State” (Peterburgregno) instead of Russia, and “Warsawland” (Varsovilando) instead of Poland, because the nationalistic and ethnic basis of the traditional country names-- Francs, Russians, Poles -- would discriminate against all
43
other inhabitants of those countries. In these sovereign states and countries with neutral names, no single group of people would impose their language and religion on their fellow inhabitants, and communication between groups would be through a neutrally human language. Festivals would not celebrate ethnicity or religion, but only common humanity or citizenship. In the sovereign states there would be no ethnic groups, only individuals and citizens. The ninth belief recommends that the Hillelist language, in other words, Esperanto, be used and that the mother tongue be called, not the national, but the family language. The tenth belief outlines the religious principles of Hillelism: •
rules the world and whose essence I have the right to interpret for myself as my wisdom and feelings dictate. •
would have them do unto you, and always listen to the voice of your conscience”. Everything else is tradition or custom introduced by human beings. •
Because the essence of every traditional religion is the same, and they are differentiated only by traditions and customs, the diverse religious customs of each Hillelist are to give way to common, neutrally human customs. The eleventh belief relates to the Hillelist temples, where Hillelists from various religions are to gather in order to develop a “philosophically pure, but at the same time beautiful, poetic, warm and life-governing religion that will be common to all humans and that parents can transmit to their children without pretense.” Nothing is known of the reaction of non-Esperantists to Zamenhof's project, but the Esperantists rejected it. Non-Jews disliked its Talmudic name. Atheists found it too religious. It seemed heretical to those with religious faith. Those engaged in class conflict judged it politically misguided. Outsiders did not understand the particular Russian circumstances. Zamenhof realized that he had given the doctrine too Jewish a name and that his foreword was oriented too much towards the Russian situation. Consequently, in March there appeared in Petersburg the booklet entitled Homaranism (literally: Humanityism). He emphasized in the new foreword that, whereas Hillelism had affected only one group of people, homaranism affected all peoples and religions. The name and the foreword had changed, but the difference between the January and the March projects was nearly all terminological: instead of Hillelists, it was now a question of homaranists, or “members of the human race”, and instead of “Petersburg State” (Petersburgregno), it was now “Petersburgland” (Petersburgio).
44
Nothing positive appeared in the Esperantist press, but there were two critical commentaries, one from a Lithuanian Roman Catholic priest, Alexander Dambrauskas, and one by Louis de Beaufront. Javal and Sebert also rejected homaranism and advised Zamenhof to hide the fact that he was its author, for fear of causing a schism in the Esperanto movement. 16
launch the first homaranist community there. However, Javal and Sebert, to whom Zamenhof had sent the text of his congress speech for approval, persuaded him not to read the second part of the speech, in which he identified the “internal idea” of Esperanto with homaranism. Zamenhof gave in. Almost no one knew that Zamenhof had read just the beginning of his speech in Geneva. For this reason, the “internal idea”, mentioned in the first part of the speech, but presented in detail in the second part, later received conflicting interpretations. Zamenhof realized that, despite the euphoria at the Boulogne congress, the Esperantists were not prepared to accept homaranism and “to reunite humanity”. Indeed, even Javal and Michaux, his two closest Esperantist collaborators, tried to persuade him not to link Esperanto with any religious doctrine. For some time, therefore, he avoided any public mention of homaranism and preferred instead to speak of the vague “internal idea”, which was, in a sense, a surrogate for homaranism. Born, brought up and educated in multicultural Russia, Zamenhof failed to realize that in Germany, France and many other Western-European countries multilingualism barely existed and that religion no longer played its earlier role. Because he concentrated too strongly on language and religion, he barely took note of the existence of the political, economic and psychological factors.
Yüklə 297,54 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|