The Truth about the Delegation in 1907
Léopold Leau, Founder and Joint Secretary of the Delegation
Léopold Leau, Founder and Joint Secretary of the Delegation
The Delegation for the Adoption of an International Auxiliary Language, which met in Paris in 1907, has ever since been the cause of much controversy in International Language circles. Proponents of other schemes, particularly Esperantists, have always chosen to exaggerate the problems concerning the conduct of the Delegation's members and the manner in which they eventually rejected the unreformed Esperanto and advised the setting up of a Permanent Commission to carry out reforms. This has unfortunately always tended to distract attention from the linguistic issues involved, this perhaps being the intention of the complainants.
The following article, from Progreso Vol. X No. 96 (4), August 1933, is a response from Prof. Léopold Leau, respected mathematician and joint secretary of the Delegation, to an attack by Ric Berger, a then proponent of another scheme, Occidental. I have translated it into English so that everyone can benefit from hearing the story first-hand from someone who actually took part in the Delegation, and was therefore best-placed to know what actually happened. For another account by a distinguished and respected member of the Delegation, see the article by Otto Jespersen.
Translator's comments in square brackets [ ], footnotes indicated by round brackets ( ).
| La Vereso pri la Delegitaro en 1907 | The Truth about the Delegation in 1907 |
|---|---|
| Sub ica titulo, So. Ric Berger publikigis en la revuo COSMOGLOTTA Nr. 85 artiklo dedikit al 25ma aniversario dil existo di Ido. Olua esenco es la sequanta: | Under this title, Mr. Ric Berger published in the review COSMOGLOTTA No. 85 an article dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the existence of Ido. The essence of it is the following: |
| 1) Ne esas vera, ke Ido kreesis da Komitato sustenata per 310
firmi e
1250 profesori dil tota mondo. Ta linguo es la rezultajo di selekto facita
ne dal Komitato ipsa (qua principe selektis Espo!) ma dal Permananta
Komisitaro institucita dal aludita Komitato. Ica distingo ne facesas dal
Idisti. (Sic! la red). 2) La lasta decido pri la linguo selektenda facesis da nur 4 membri di ta Komisitaro, nome Sri Couturat, De Beaufront, Jespersen e Leau. Or (ni citas textope): De ta 4 personi, 2 esis l'autori di Ido, sen ke la publiko savis lo (li esis do samtempe judiciisti e judiciati, quo es interdiktita dal legi!) La triesma, So. Jespersen es nun ja regretinta la decidi dil Couturat-epoko e la quaresma, Prof. Leau, l'intim amiko di So. Couturat esis nekapabla, ne votar quale ilca. 3) Konseque la judiko de 1907 ne povas servar kom eskudo kontre Occidental, tante plu, ke tatempe la questiono pri L.I. tote ne esis matura. La skolo naturalista tatempe ne ja esis trovinta sua stabileso e regulozeso, quan ol atingis kelka yari plu tarde. 4) Esante la sola persono, qua studiis l'arkivi dil Delegitaro, me sole savas, quale la kozi eventis. Me do publikigos la dokumenti sekreta existanta pri ta epoko e l'idisti ya ne povas negar ke li es en mea manui. So. De Beaufront publike reprochis a me, ne retrodonir li a Sno. Couturat. Or, quo garantias a me, ke, se me agus tale, ula Idisto interestita ne pose desaparigos kelki ek ta dokumenti e tale falsigos komplete mea laboro historiografiala, fondita sur ta dokumenti? 5) Konkluzo: La sola solvuro es, donar ta dokumenti ad institucuro neutra, qua garantios oficale la konservo di ta dokumenti precoza por la historio. Me es pronta, aceptar irga tarelata racionoza konsilo. |
1) It is not true that Ido was created by a Committee supported by 310
firms
and 1250 professors from the whole world. That language is the result of
a selection made not by the Committee itself (which in principle selected
Espo [Esperanto]!) but by the Permanent Commission instituted by the
Committee aluded to. This distinction is not made by Idists. (Sic! Ed.).
2) The final decision on the language to be selected was made by only 4 members of that Commission, namely Messrs Couturat, De Beaufront, Jespersen and Leau. Now (we cite text for text): Of those 4 people, 2 were the authors of Ido, without the public knowing (they were at the same time judges and those being judged, which is prohibited by the laws!) The third, Mr. Jespersen has now already regretted the decisions of the Couturat era and the fourth, Prof. Leau, the intimate friend of Mr. Couturat was incapable of not voting the same way as him. 3) In consequence the judgement of 1907 cannot serve as a prejudgement against Occidental, all the more because at that time the question of an I.L. [International Language] was absolutely not mature. The naturalistic school had then not yet found its stability and regularity, which it attained some years later. 4) Being the only person who has studied the archives of the Delegation, I alone know how things happened. I will therefore publish the existing secret documents on that era and the Idists can indeed not deny that they are in my hands. Mr. De Beaufront publicly reproached me for not having given them back to Mrs. Couturat. Well, what guarantees to me that, if I did that, some interested Idist would not then cause some of those documents to disappear and thus completely falsify my historiographical work, based on those documents? 5) Conclusion: The only solution is to give those documents to a neutral institution, which will officially guarantee the conservation of those precious documents for history. I am ready to accept any rational advice in this respect. |
| Sincere konfesita, ni preferus povar okupar ni pri inicii qui
unigas l'adheranti dil diversa sistemi mondlinguala, vice entamar polemiki
kun amiki ek l'adversa kampeyi. Ma l'artiklo da R. Berger kontenas aserti
tante regretinda, ke me ne povas lasar li sen respondo. Yen ol, repliko po aserto: |
Speaking sincerely, we would prefer to occupy ourselves with
initiatives which unite the adherents of the various systems of
world-language, rather than enter into polemics with friends from the
opposing camps. But the article by R. Berger contains assertions so
regrettable, that I cannot let them go without response. Here it is, reply for assertion: |
| 1) A. La delegiti dil 310 societi adherint a la Delegitaro
(sustenata per 1250 membri dil Akademii o dil Universitati) elektis la
komitato. B. Pos 17 prestudio-kunsidi la komitato votis plura rezolvi, specale ici: a) Ol nominis unanime la membri dil permananta komisitaro «di qua l'unesma devo esos parstudiar e determinar detale la linguo selektota ». b) Ol deklaris, ke nula ek la projeti submisit ad olua exameno, povos aceptesar bloke e sen modifiki. c) Unanime «La Komitato decidis adoptar principe Esperanto, pro lua relativa perfekteso e pro la divers e mult aplikaji exekutita per ol, kondicione ke ula modifiki esez efektigita da la Permananta Komisitaro en la direciono fixigita per la projeto Ido, probante interkonsentar kun la Komitato Lingual esperantista» (1). |
1) A. The delegates of the 310 societies which adhered to the
Delegation (supported by 1250 members of Academies or Universities)
elected the committee. B. After 17 sessions of initial study the committee decided by vote several resolutions: a)It nominated unanimously the members of the permanent commission "of which the first duty will be to thoroughly study and determine in detail the language which will be selected". b) It declared that none of the projects submitted to its examination could be accepted in toto and without modifications. c) Unanimously "The Committee decided to in principle adopt Esperanto, because of its relative perfection and because of the many and varied applications made of it, on the condition that modifications be effected by the Permanent Commission in the direction fixed by the project Ido, and attempting to find agreement with the Esperantist Language Committee" (1). |
| 2) Ye la 18ma Januaro 1908, la chefi esperantista refuzis interkonsento kun la Delegitaro. De lore, la devo dil Permananta Komisitaro esis laborar ipsa (2). | 2) On the 18th of January 1908, the Esperanto chiefs refused to agree with the Delegation. From that time, the duty of the Permanant Commission was the work itself (2). |
| La membri di ta komisitaro esis Sri. W. Ostwald, prezidanto, Baudouin de Courtenay, Jespersen, Couturat e Leau. | The members of that commission were Messrs W. Ostwald, president, Baudouin de Courtenay, Jespersen, Couturat and Leau. |
| Intence la sekretarii Couturat e Leau esis nominita da la Komitato. Depos sep yari, li studiis la problemo di la L. I. ed interkonkordis en la generala konkluzi: lia opinioni reformista esis konocata (Historio di la linguo universala; Raporto pri la nuna stando di la L. I.). Intence «la Komitato decidis adjuntar So. de Beaufront a la Permananta Komisitaro, pro lua kompetenteso specala ». | Intentionally the secretaries Couturat and Leau were nominated by the Committee. For seven years they had studied the problem of I. L. [International Language] and agreed in their general conclusions: their reformist opinions were known (History of the universal language; Report on the current state of I. L.). Intentionally "the Committee decided to add Mr. de Beaufront to the Permanent Commission, because of his special competence". |
| Pluse, kun plena konoco e por la realigo di lua projeti, la Komitato esis do elektinta omna du ciencisti qui vidigis lia klar e profunda komprenado di reformi parfinenda en Esperanto: Couturat, qua kompozabis la «Studiuro pri la derivado en Esperanto» e partoprenis maestrale la diskuti en la Komitato; So. de Beaufront, di qua l'expozi esis grande prizata en ta kunsidi, same kam ilua rolo preponderanta pri la difuzo e la regulizo di Espo esis konocata da singlu. | Further, with full knowledge and for the realisation of its projects, the Committee had therefore elected both scientists who made seen their clear and profound understanding of reforms to be thoroughly finished in Esperanto: Couturat, who had composed the "Study on the derivation in Esperanto" and took part masterfully in the Committee's discussions; Mr. de Beaufront, whose expositions were greatly appreciated in those sittings, as much as his pre-eminent role in the diffusion and regularization of Espo was known by all. |
| Certe, la membri dil P. K. esis elektita, ne por judikar, ne por decidar pri la linguo selektenda, ma por exekutar detale pri la decidi ja adoptita dal Komitato. | Certainly the members of the P. K. [Permanent Commission] had been elected, not to judge, not to decide on the language to be selected, but to execute in detail the decisions already adopted by the Committee. |
| Pos sat longa diskuti per korespondo, en qui partoprenis omna membri, on votis pri la diskutita punti (3). Ye ca voto, Sri. Baudouin de Courtenay ed Ostwald abstenis, ma la tota komisitaro konkordis por fondar jurnalo PROGRESO por la diskutado di la lingual questioni e pro ke vortolibri e gramatiki esabis kompozat e l'Uniono di l'Amiki di la L. I. fondat, ol kredis sua tasko kom satisfacita ed, en Februaro 1909, deklaris su dissolvita (4). Poke pose, So. W. Ostwald esis elektata kom membro dil Akademio e honorprezidanto dil Direktanta Komitato dil Uniono. | After long enough discussions through correspondence, in which took part all members, we voted on the discussed points (3). At that vote, Messrs Baudouin de Courtenay and Ostwald abstained, but the whole commission agreed to found a journal PROGRESO for the discussion of the language questions and because dictionaries and grammars had been composed and the Union of Friends of the I. L. founded, it believed its task to be completed and, in February 1909, declared itself dissolved (4). Shortly afterwards, Mr. Ostwald was elected member of the Academy and honorary president of the Directing Committee of the Union. |
| La tendenci di la skolo naturalist esis konocata; la Komitato esis studiinta Universal, Idiom Neutral, Proyekt de Neutral reformed, Novilatin, projeto da So. André Blondel. Evidente, la komitato deziris, kun materiaro internaciona, linguo autonoma, reguloz e simpla, rezultajo ne obtenebla de principo di naturaleso, pro ke la lingui natural es nek reguloza, nek simpla; la maxim ciencoz esforci es nekapabla unionar kontredicanta koncepti. | The tendencies of the naturalistic school were known; the Committee had studied Universal, Idiom Neutral, Proyekt de Neutral reformed, Novilatin, the project by Mr. André Blondel. Evidently, the committee wanted, with the stock of international material, an autonomous language, regular and simple, a result not obtainable from the principle of naturalness, because the natural languages are neither regular nor simple; the most scientific efforts are incapable of uniting contradictory concepts. |
| 4 e 5) La dokumenti oficala dil Delegitaro esas publikigita; la
diskuti en la Komitato ne esis stenografata. A la kritiko iterita da So.
Berger pri la «sekreteso», Couturat respondis (5): «Pri la projeti prizentita (grandanombre) a la komitato, li ne apartenas a la komitato, ma a lia autori: kelki ek li esas manuskribita, do tote privata komunikaji, di qua lia autori es tote mastri. La Komitato do havas nek la devo, nek la yuro publikigar li, ma l'autori ipsa havos sempre ta yuro e libereso, kande li volos. La Komitato devis publikigar nur sua labori e decidi, t. e. la linguo adoptita e ton ol facis maxim larje de plura monati. Fine, ol admisas en ica revuo la publika diskutado di la linguo e konseque ol laboras de nun sub la okuli e la kontrolo dil publiko, e kun sua konstanta kunlaborado.» |
4 and 5) The official documents of the Delegation have been published;
the discussions in the Committee were not recorded. To the criticism
repeated by Mr. Berger about "secrecy", Couturat responded (5): "Concerning the projects presented (in large number) to the commitee, they do not belong to the committee, but to their authors: some of them were handwritten, so totally private communications, over which their authors are absolutely the masters. The Committee therefore has neither the duty, nor the right to publish them, but the authors themselves will always have that right and freedom, when they wish. The Committee had the duty to publish only its work and decisions, that is, the language adopted, and that it has done most widely for several months. Finally, it allows in this review [Progreso] the public discussion of the language and consequently it works from now under the eyes and control of the public, and with its constant collaboration." |
| Pri la korespondado densa skribita ye ta epoko, ol, oportune selektita, posibligas sendubite rikomencar l'olima e senfina diskutachi (de Esperantisti), ma esus necesa havar tempo perdenda, se on partoprenas oli. | Concerning the dense correspondence written in that era, it would, carefully selected, without doubt make it possible to restart the former neverending awful discussions (from Esperantists), but it would be necessary to have time to lose if one were to partake in them. |
| Quale So. R. posedas l'arkivi di la Delegitaro, me ne savas e konseque me ne povas judikar quala esas lua yuro o lua devo. | How Mr. R. [B. ?] came to possess the archives of the Delegation, I do not know, and consequently I cannot judge what is his right or his duty. |
| L. LEAU. | L. LEAU. |
| (1) Videz la «raporto pri la laboradi di la Komitato»,
da la sekretarii. (2) Videz «Quale la Esperantisti naracas la historio», da Couturat. «Progreso», l'unesma numeri, specale No. 12. (3) Me ne savas, quale So. R. Berger konceptas la ciencala honesteso, ma me opinionas superflua defensar la mea ye ta okaziono. (4) Progreso No. 12 e 13. (5) Progreso No. 8, pag. 468. |
(1) See the "report on the work of the Committee", by the secretaries.
(2) See "How the Esperantists tell the history", by Couturat. "Progreso", the first issues, especially No. 12. (3) I do not know how Mr. R. Berger conceives scientific honesty, but I think it superfluous to defend mine on that occasion. (4) Progreso No. 12 and 13. (5) Progreso No. 8, page 468. |