|||
Partial translation by Thomas Sullivan, 2023.
(L. L. Zamenhof, ca. 1879)
The following is short translation of the central part of Dogmoj de Hilelismo, published anonymously but clearly written by L. L. Zamenhof, the designer of Esperanto, from the original as found on pages 316-321 of the Originala Verkaro (1926). This list of twelve doctrines exemplifies the middle phase of Zamenhof’s thought and his grapplings with modernity, language, and religion, part of in what would later become “Homaranismo”. Named after Hillel the Elder (c. 1st Century BCE), Zamenhof put together a critique of ethno-nationalism, theocracy, and the imposition of national languages. This went so far as to call for the creation of temples, dreaming of a worldwide network of Hillelists who could organise much as institutional religions do, and this text contains several (sometimes quite bold) theological statements. Historians of religion and philosophy will inevitably find much here paralleling other early 20th century advocates of religious perennialism. I recommend Zamenhof.info’s short biography of Zamenhof for understanding how Judaism formed Zamenhof’s thought and life.
Zamenhof’s later 1917, less religiously-inflected Deklaracio pri Homaranismo is already available online in English translated by Sean Johnson. However I hesitate to state that Homaranismo is simply a more mature form of Hilelismo, with clear differences (such as no call for Homaranismo temples to be built) showing that they are better understood philosophically as subtly distinct approaches to the same questions. For this reason, I think it is important to make the Hilelismo project available in English for those trying to understand the history of 20th century religion. There is a font of “Esperanto thought”, very broadly taken, that exists largely inside the language itself, something which can impede it taking part in global conversations on philosophy and religion. By bringing to light how Esperantists have thought about their language as a practice (of which Zamenhof is not the only to do so), misconceptions regarding the Esperanto project as a simple utopianism can be removed while the often quite subtle and powerful concepts can be brought into bigger philosophical conversations.
I have translated Zamenhof fairly literally, sometimes adjusting word order. Original Esperanto for core vocabulary or words that may be ambiguous are in [square brackets], and I give further information in footnotes for those who are interested.
The dogmas of Hillelism given in the following only have a basic meaning; the definitive text of these dogmas will only be fixed later, in the first common congress of the Hillelists.
Hillelism is a teaching which, not tearing the person away from his natural fatherland [patrujo], nor from his language, nor from his religion, gives to him the possibility to avoid every falsehood and objectionable speech in his own national-religious principles and to begin to communicate with people of all languages and religions on a human-neutral [neŭtrale-homa] foundation, on principles of reciprocal fraternity, equality, and justice.
The Hillelists hope that through constant reciprocal communication on the basis of a neutral language and neutral religious principles and social mores, humanity will at some point melt together [kunfandiĝos] into one human-neutral population, but this will occur little by little, unnoticed, and without any breakage.1
*Note: Hillelism received its name from the name of the ancient Palestinian sage Hillel, whose modified principle is accepted as the basis of the religion of the Hillelists. (Hillel was a contemporary of Jesus and died, as president of the Sanhedrin, around 10 years after him.)2
When one asks me who I am, what my national convictions, religious principles, and my goals and ideals are, I respond: “I am a Hillelist”. That means that I am a human, who guides myself by means of the following dogmas.
I am a human, and for me exists only purely humane ideals; all ethno-nationalist ideals and goals I regard only as group egoism and human hatred, which sooner or later must disappear and whose disappearance I must accelerate according to my ability.
I believe, that all peoples are equal and I judge each human only according to his personal value and deeds, but not according to his origin.3 All kinds of offences or persecutions of a human because of the fact that he was born into another race [gento]4, with another language or religion than me, I regard as barbarism.
I believe, that each country belongs not to this or that race, but with completely equal rights to each of its inhabitants, whatever language or religion they have; the intermixing of the interests of a country with the interests of this or that race, language, or religion, I regard as a remainder from the times of barbarism when there existed only the right of fist and sword.
I believe, that in their family life each person a full, natural, and indisputable right to speak what kind of language or dialect he wants and to confess what kind of religion he wants, but in beginning to communicate with humans of another origin he must, as far as is possible, use a human-neutral language and live according to principles of human-neutral religion. Any attempts by one person to intrude onto other people their language or religion, I regard as barbarism.
“My fatherland”5 I call that state [regno] in which I was born or in which I permanently reside. That part of the state in which I spent my childhood, or which is mainly populated by my ethnicity, can be held dearer to me than other parts, but to call a piece of my fatherland “mine”, or even more so a foreign state, because it is mostly populated or was once ruled by my ethnicity, I must never do, because that not only leads to constant conflict, but it would also be contrary to the moral law of a non-racial world [sengenteco de la tero]. If that part of the fatherland in which I live, because of its geographical character or through its social customs, is too differentiated from the other parts, then, to avoid misunderstandings, to the question of my fatherland, I can name separately that part of the state in which I live, but then I must name it my fatherland-country, in such a way that it is clear that I regard it not as my exclusive fatherland, but only as a part of my fatherland. However I must not name my whole fatherland, nor its separate parts, using the name of some race, but I must name them only by a geographically-neutral name, as is found in many new states; but if my state or country does not yet have a neutral name, I must always, at least in conversation with Hillelists, name my state and country with a Hillelist name, which consists of the name of its capital city and the addition of the ending “regno” [state], for the entire fatherland, and “lando” [country], for the name of its part.
Examples: Svisujo, Belgujo, Aŭstrujo, Kanado, Meksiko, Peruo; Peterburgregno, Parizregno; Algerio, Varsovilando.6
“Patriotism” or “service to the fatherland” I call only service to the good of all of my fellow citizens, whatever their origin, language, or religion; service especially to the ethnic interests, language or religion of those inhabitants who are a majority in the country, I must never call patriotism. In conformity with the principle, that one group of citizens [unuj regnanoj], even if they present in the country a huge majority, does not have a moral right to enforce their language or religion on the other citizens, I must continually endeavour so that in my country every ethnicity will have the right to found for its members schools and other institutions with their own language and their own religion, if they so desire this, but that in every public institution, not designed only for one ethnicity, is governed only by a human-neutral language and human-neutral or state festivals. For as long as this will not be possible to achieve, I must endeavour, that in my country should exist schools and other institutions with a human-neutral language for those citizens who do not want to or cannot use institutions [specifically] for this or that racial language; and of all battling between of languages or religions for control, I must keep myself away from, because it is only battling between one injustice and another.
I am aware, that in those countries where the inhabitants are more-or-less of one ethnicity, for a long period they will not understand the injustice of the rule of one language or religion above all others, and it [the country] will use all methods to battle against the equal rights of all languages and religions, and the defenders of those equal rights they will persecute and throw into the mud. But I will never become confused by this persecution, by remembering that I battle for absolute truth and justice, that no people can know what will become of it tomorrow, that equal rights for all languages and religions will abolish the cause of all wars and conflict between peoples, that every action against the slogan “the state for the citizens” [“la regno por la regnanoj”] and all forms of violence [perfortaĵo] by one group of citizens against another remain always acts of violence, even if it is done by a huge majority against a tiny minority, and that firm happiness of the human community [homaro] is possible only when for all peoples and countries exists equal and absolute justice, dependent not in location, nor on time, nor on strength, and when in every state there exists only people and citizens, and not races.
“My nation” I call the totality of all peoples, who live in my fatherland, of whatever ethnicity [deveno], language, or religion they are; but to my nation’s name I must always add the word “Hillelist”, in order to show that I include myself in my nation not in a chauvinistic sense. The group of all people, who have the same ethnicity [deveno] as me, I call my race [gento]. In conversation with Hillelists, I must avoid the confusing words “nation” [nacio] or “people” [popolo] and instead of them I must always use the precise Hillelist word “citizens” [regnanaro, group of those who live in one state] or “countrymen” [landanaro, group of those who live in one country]. But I must not refer to my fellow citizen or countrymen with the name of some race, I should always name them—at least in conversation with Hillelists—using the geographical-neutral game of my state or country. If my conversation partner desires to know not only which political-geographical group, but also which ethnographic [etnografia]7 group I am a part of, then I can separately name my race, language, religion, etc.
Examples: Sviso-hilelisto, Peterburgregna hilelisto, Varsovilanda hilelisto.8
“My language” I call that language, which I personally know best and most desire to speak, but to the name of this language I must always add the word “Hillelist”, to show that I do not regard my language as my idol9 and that my ideal is a human-neutral language. In every Hillelist meeting and, as far as possible, also in private communications between Hillelists, I must use the Hillelist language. In my family life I can use whichever language I desire, but I must not call it my national language, but only my family language. When one asks me about my national language, I must respond: “I do not believe in [konfesas] the existence of national languages, because every nation currently speaks with many languages; but my ethnic language is such: (name that language or dialect, which is spoken in my fatherland by the majority of my ethnicity, even if I myself would not totally possess the language).” Note: Because in the current moment there exists only one neutral language, namely Esperanto, therefore the Hillelists correctly accept it, however they reserve for themselves the right to change, at some point in the future, to another language, if one shows itself useful.
“My religion” I call that religion, in which I was born, or to which I am officially enrolled; but to its name I must always add the name “Hillelist”, to show that I confess it according to the religious principles of Hillelism, which consist of the following:
When in my city a Hillelist Temple is founded, I must visit it as often as possible, to meet there in fraternity with Hillelists of other religions, to work out together with them human-neutral customs and festivals and in that manner co-operate towards the little-by-little elaboration of a philosophically pure, but simultaneously beautiful, poetic and warm life-regulating communally-human religion, which parents can, without hypocrisy, pass on to their children. In the Hillelist Temple, I would hear the works of the great teachers of humanity on life and death and the relationship between our “self” to the universe and eternity, philosophical and ethical discussions, dignified and ennobling hymns, etc. This Temple must educate the youth to be fighters for truth, goodness, justice, and human fraternity, to instil in them love of honest work and a loathing for sophistry [frazisteco] and every ignoble vice; this temple must give spiritual rest to the elderly, consolation to the suffering, give the possibility of unburdening one’s conscience to those, whose conscience is burdened by something, etc. For as long as in my city such a Hillelist Temple does not exist, I must as often as possible meet for communal discussions with other Hillelists of my city, and if such people do not exist, I must communicate by letter with Hillelists of other cities.
“A Hillelist” I call every person, who subscribes to the “Declaration of a Hillelist” and who has begun writing to some people from the existing Hillelist Temples or circles.
Trans.: I translate “sen ia rompado” here literally as “without any breakage”, but I believe rompado here is implying Hillelism is to reach its goal without causing breakages within the social order.↩︎
Trans.: This is a footnote in the Original Verkaro, and is presented as formatted here.↩︎
Trans.: I translate deveno here as “origin” (e.g., see the title of Geraldo Mattos’ book La deveno de Esperanto (1987), which explores how Zamenhof created Esperanto). While Zamenhof sometimes uses other words to specify ethnicity or nationality, deveno here seems to imply all innate characteristics, although is often translated generally in this text as “race” or “ethnicity”.↩︎
Trans.: “Gens”, in the sense of a group of people descended from a particular ancestor, might be a slightly more accurate English translation of gento, however the Plena Ilustrita Vortaro defines gento broadly as a human group with a “myth of common origin”. I use “race” for gento generally throughout this text, and historical context for interested readers can be found elsewhere.↩︎
Trans.: The following sections are polemical definitions of religious and political terms. I add quotation marks around the term the section is concerned with for clarity, although Zamenhof does not include quotation marks.↩︎
Trans.: These are appropriate Hillelist names, according to Zamenhof, although it is written slightly confusingly as he combines already “neutral” names with examples of his Hillelist naming system. In order: Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, Canada, Mexico, Peru; Russia (Peterburg+regno), France (Paris+regno); Algeria, Poland (Warsaw+lando, presumably the area around Warsaw).↩︎
Trans.: A strange but poetic choice of term, not used elsewhere by Zamenhof, so translated here literally.↩︎
Trans: More examples of possible Hillelist names from Zamenhof. In order: Swiss-Hillelist, State of Peterburg-Hillelist, State of Warsaw-Hillelist. See Section 5 on state and country names.↩︎
Trans.: In the sense of “idol worship”.↩︎
Trans.: The “golden rule”, and the part of Hillelism most clearly inspired by Hillel the Elder. The Talmud records an episode where a gentile approaches Hillel and says he will convert to Judaism on the condition that Hillel can explain the entire Torah while standing on one foot, to which Hillel replies “That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study.” (Shabbat 31a, 6). To very literally translate Zamenhof’s phrasing: “Act with others in that way, which you desire that others do with you, and listen always to the voice of your conscience”. Zamenhof uses agu, “act”, unlike faru, “do”, which Zamenhof uses in his own translation of Leviticus 19:18, and is also used in the standard Esperanto Bible’s translation of Jesus’ versions of the golden rule in Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12. Faru is much more clearly translated as “do”, like in the common English idiom.↩︎
Trans.: A long and awkward sentence by Zamenhof, stating that the Hillelists should kunhelpi al tio, “help towards that”, but not clearly stating the “that”, but it is implied to be the general project of moving away from religious distinctions within the Hillelist community.↩︎
