"(3) The decision as to the choice of a language is to be referred in the first place to the International Association of Academies, but if the latter should refuse to consider the matter or come to no decision, to the committee of the Delegation.
"(4) Circulars are to be sent to learned, commercial, and legal societies requesting them to signify their approval of the above programme."
The success of this appeal was extraordinary. It was now evident for the first time how many thousands of people of all nations were enthusiastically in favour of the introduction of an international auxiliary language. The État de la Délégation, which the latter published yearly, included on October 1st, 1907, in the list of corporate bodies alone, the names of 310 clubs, societies, and congresses, not a few of which possessed a membership exceeding 1,000. It is interesting to rapidly pass in review the extremely varied character of the societies included therein. We find, for example, commercial schools, chambers of commerce, merchants' clubs, stenographers, the printing trade, correspondence bureaus, photographic clubs, associations of municipal and other officials, societies of shipping employés, legal clubs, pedagogic and religious societies, officers' clubs, institutes for the deaf and dumb and for the blind, sociological, medical, and health societies, peace clubs, political and graphological societies, touring, bicycle, and automobile clubs, sport clubs, bibliographic societies and library staffs, and finally all sorts of special scientific societies and congresses. Arranged according to nationality, we find representatives of France, England, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Spain, Greece, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Russia (including Poland), Roumania, Austria (including Bohemia and Hungary), Mexico, Peru, the Argentine, Algeria, Tunis, the United States, Chile, etc. There is also the "academic list," which contains the names of no less than 1,250 professors, belonging to 189 universities, technical high schools, and academies of science, and coming from 110 parts of the globe, extending as far as India and Japan. It may be stated without exaggeration that the programme of the Delegation found an enthusiastic response in all parts of the world and from people of nearly every occupation and profession, many persons and societies expressing themselves in favour of the introduction of an international auxiliary language on the condition that it should not be one of the living languages.
During the seven years of its existence the Delegation has carried out the duties entrusted to it in an exemplary manner, and has performed a gigantic amount of work. In May, 1907, the Delegation considered the time had come to lay the matter before the International Association of Academies. At that time the report was very wide-spread that the Association had altogether refused to consider the matter. In reality the Vienna Academy, as President of that year, decided to bring the question before the Association, but the latter declined to take the matter up (twelve votes to eight, one member not voting). At this point the Delegation had the right and the duty to speak out. It obtained an expression of opinion from the representatives of all the associated societies and clubs. The result of this was the formation of a working committee, consisting of sixteen members, almost entirely scholars and men of science of reputation and members of the different scientific academies. With the representatives of natural science and mathematics were associated philologists and linguists. The committee began to sit on October 15th, 1907, and, after eighteen sittings held in the Collège de France, arrived at a decision.
Before we enter into this matter more fully it will be desirable to give a brief sketch of the historical development of artificial language.
Anyone desiring to go more deeply into the history of this question (already three hundred years old) and the practical attempts at its realisation may be referred to the masterly work of L. Couturat and L. Leau, Histoire de la Langue Universelle (Paris, 1903). In what follows only a few of the most important points will be mentioned.
The oldest extant reference to the problem of an international language appears to be contained in the letter written by Descartes on November 20th, 1629, to his friend Mersenne. The great philosopher here explains the principles which convinced him that it would be possible to construct an artificial language which could be used as an international auxiliary language. As for Leibnitz, who was attracted throughout his whole life by this problem, his language projects have been recently investigated by L. Couturat by means of documents, many of which have never before been published (La Logique de Leibnitz and Opuscules et Fragments Inédits de Leibnitz). There may further be mentioned the Ars signorum Vulgo Charakter Universalis et Lingua Philosophica (London, 1661) of George Dalgarno, and the recently discovered memoir of an unknown author entitled Carpophorophili Novum inveniendæ Scripturæ Œcumenicæ Consilium (Leipzig, 1734). The last-mentioned system in particular strikes one as highly modern in principle.
It was only, however, at the end of the last century that the era of practical things began with the Volapük of Schleyer. The success of this language was very considerable. It possessed about thirty journals, published in the most different countries, even in Japan, and its literature has been estimated at from 300 to 400 works. The official lists published in 1889 contained the names of 255 local groups belonging to the "Universal Language Society," some of which possessed a very considerable membership. The teaching of the language was highly organised, there being 900 teachers, 200 head teachers, and 50 "professors." This great linguistic experiment was very instructive, and its significance cannot be underrated. Important conclusions concerning the theory and practice of artificial language can be drawn from it, and especially from a consideration of the circumstances which finally led to the downfall of Volapük. It turned out that this was due to the errors which Volapük itself contained, showing us that in these matters, as in others, practical experience is the best teacher. The fate of Volapük was sealed when its supporters, in the year 1889, made the experiment of organising a congress at which Volapük should be spoken. Although a few Volapükists succeeded in speaking the language, it was only too painfully evident that such a goal could not be reached with this system. Almost simultaneously with Volapük another artificial language had been invented. The Russian medical man Dr. Zamenhof published his system in 1887 under the pseudonym of "Doktoro Esperanto." But as Esperanto arrived while Volapük was at its zenith, it failed at first to attract general attention. It found, however, in France, an enthusiastic supporter in the Marquis de Beaufront, who had himself worked out an international language called "Adjuvanto." He gave this up as soon as he came to know about Esperanto, and founded the Société Française pour la Propagation de l'Esperanto and the journal L'Esperantiste (now in its tenth year). France soon became the centre of the new movement, and indeed almost the whole existence and magnitude of the Esperanto movement was due to the influence of this man. Since then Esperanto has extended to all countries. The Esperanto journals appear mostly in a bilingual form, the number of them being, as in the Volapük movement, about forty-five, whilst there exist a few journals and periodicals published exclusively in Esperanto. A special significance attaches to the international congresses organised by the Esperantists, at which only Esperanto is spoken. In 1905, at Boulogne-sur-Mer, there assembled 600 members, belonging to about fifteen different nationalities. The differences of pronunciation which, on account of certain peculiarities of construction in Esperanto, must necessarily appear amongst the Romance nationalities and the English, were not, we are told, sufficiently marked to prevent mutual comprehension. The second congress took place at Geneva in 1906. At the third congress, in Cambridge, in 1907, there were present about 1,400 members, whilst at the fourth congress, in Dresden, in 1908, there assembled also 1,400 members. Whatever opinion one may hold about these congresses, at which much confusion and misunderstanding, and indeed even much that was ridiculous, took place, they represent, without doubt, a great and remarkable philological experiment, and one which demonstrates the possibility of synthetically constructing a language that can be spoken. On the other hand, however, the Esperanto congresses showed, according to the concordant testimony of all persons of unbiassed opinion, that the Esperanto language in no wise represents the final solution of the problem. All farsighted leaders of the Esperanto movement have been for a long time the more fully conscious of this state of affairs the more profound their knowledge of the Esperanto language. Chief amongst them may be mentioned M. de Beaufront himself, who has come forward as one of the leaders of reform, a reform which in many important respects was recognised as necessary by Dr. Zamenhof himself in a series of interesting memoirs. The recommendations of Dr. Zamenhof were, however, rejected in 1894 by the so-called "Fundamentists" (157 votes to 107), who were supported by a few great publishing firms interested in the preservation of Esperanto. By reason of the fact that the Esperanto alphabet contains no fewer than six special letters to be found in no ordinary printing fount, the firms referred to possess the monopoly of the very considerable trade in this literature. The Fundamentists hold the view that, in spite of a few errors in the auxiliary language, its success can only be assured by absolute conservatism. They have, therefore, declared the grammar, together with the reading book and vocabulary, published by Zamenhof under the title of Fundamento de Esperanto, to be sacrosanct, and go so far in this matter as to revere as "correct" and "classical" Esperanto the infringements of his own rules, the grammatical errors, and even the misprints to be found in the Fundamento.
The idea of a powerful organisation has undoubtedly at first sight something very attractive about it. One must, however, not forget, even in the case of an international language, that no organisation in the world can arrest the progress of a necessary development. Every human contrivance and invention is subject to change, errors and deficiencies being corrected. Especially is a rational development inevitable in the case of things, such as an international language, which are subject to the control of our intelligence. Conversely it is not difficult to reply to the question, How is it then possible, when a system has once been chosen, to carry it out and preserve it? For there are two fundamental qualities which, happily for us, are apparent in the history of inventions, and each of which confers stability quite apart from any conventions, namely, a high degree of rational development based on the most profound knowledge and an extraordinary empirical perfection. As examples of the latter may be mentioned the notation of music, which since Guido d'Arezzo (born in 990), or at any rate since Johann Sebastian Bach, has not appreciably changed; the division of time into twenty-four hours and of the hour into sixty minutes, which is at least three hundred years old; the face, mechanism, and hands of a watch, which date, with unimportant changes, from the Renaissance; and, finally, the violin, which retains up to the present day the characteristic form which the ancient Italians gave it. Is it not wonderful that this strangely carved piece of wood must possess just that particular form in order to yield its harmonious tones?