Why was the Dreyfus Affair so bitterly divisive in France? The Dreyfus Affair began in 1894 with the unjust conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, a French Artillery Officer

Anti-Semitism was an issue which held close to the passions of many people at the time of the Affair. This was particularly true for those to the right of the political spectrum. This feeling was not, however, caused by the Affair. Anti-Semitism was already an underlying feeling possessed by those on the right. It was a natural extension of their Nationalistic views. Magraw believes that the Affair was a ‘race war’, but this is not a view held by all historians. Chapman would argue that anti-Semitism was not really the cause of the major division at all, but that it was merely an accessory that the political right could take advantage of in order to strengthen their argument of Nationalism. 

No other entity had more influence than the Press in intensifying these anti-Semitic feelings. Throughout the entire affair the Press were used by both the Dreyfusards and the anti-Dreyfusards. This was to gain support, both for and against Dreyfus and increase awareness of the Affair. The Affair first came into the public arena when it was leaked to the anti-Semitic newspaper ‘La Libre Parole’. From the very beginning of the affair there was lively press controversy, 80% of which was hostile towards Dreyfus.Anti-Semitic feelings were exploited, especially in ‘La Croix’, a Catholic newspaper, which was widely circulated and difficult to ignore.  The reasons why Dreyfus had allegedly committed treason were reported in the press. They wrote that it was because he needed the money. When it was made clear that Dreyfus was already rich, it was reported that this was because of the secrets which he had sold. It was then proved that he was rich before the affair, so it was reported that Dreyfus sold them because he hated the French. Fitch says that even though the majority of information printed was rumours, they were soon believed to be the truth. This highlights the susceptibility of the public to the “prejudiced distortions of the press.” It was not only anti-Dreyfusard sentiments that were fuelled through the press. Early in the case, an article written by Mercier, the minister of war, was printed in ‘La Figaro’. It said that Dreyfus was un-categorically guilty. Until now there had been little argument for Dreyfus, but this article produced a reaction. People began to say that it was wrong for a minister of war to say that Dreyfus was guilty before the trial had finished. The support for Dreyfus was increased even more following the publishing of an article by Emile Zola, a well known novelist. Zola, believing Dreyfus to be innocent, explained the case in simple terms and made the public aware that an innocent man was in prison. The article was titled ‘J’accuse’ and was later described as a “revolutionary act of incomparable power” which resulted in people taking sides. Chapman would argue that until 1897 the affair had been concentrated on two narrow groups; the people linked to Dreyfus who believed him to be innocent from the outset, his family for example, and the ministry of war, chief of staff and statistical section. He believes that had the Affair been confined to these groups, it would have been easily wound up, creating little division. What the press did was extend the number of people with an interest in the case so that it now included political and religious groups as well as public opinion. This complicated matters and allowed the case to be opened up to debate. Johnson believes that this would not, perhaps, create a problem in a country that had no divisive factors to begin with, as the press doesn’t play too important a role. However, in a country which already has underlying divisions, the press will have much more influence, helping to “re-kindle the dying embers of mutual antipathy.” 

The Army was at the centre of the debate over Dreyfus. Dreyfus was an army officer, allegedly attempting to pass military secrets to a foreign enemy. It was the Army who suspected, charged and convicted Dreyfus. It would also be the Army who would refuse Dreyfus’ retrial, even when they realised that he was innocent. The Army and France were seen by the Nationalists as interlocked. The Nationalists were able to use the Army as both a symbol of unity and a symbol of France. As it was the job of the Army to protect France, it was believed by those on the right that Dreyfus’ imprisonment was a necessity in order to protect the security of France. When Zola’s letter was published, and he accused the army of attempting to pervert the course of justice, doubts about the Army, which had been stagnant, were revived by those on the left of the political spectrum. The Nationalists believed that France needed a strong army that would act as its backbone. When the Dreyfusards discovered that it was unlikely that Dreyfus had written the forged documents, it highlighted a problem for the Army. They believed that if Dreyfus was acquitted, it would undermine the Army. This is because a number of highly ranked French officers gave evidence against Dreyfus at the trial. It was on the basis of this, as well as documents which were falsified by the army, that Dreyfus was convicted. Therefore to acquit Dreyfus, would essentially undermine the officers involved in the trial which in effect undermined the army. For this reason it was necessary to ensure that Dreyfus remained guilty. Those to the right believed that French society depended on this, because “while there could be society without justice, there was never any justice without society.”

 As it became more apparent that there had indeed been a miscarriage of justice, there was a growing belief, from the left, of a clerico-military plot, and a general feeling that they needed to “defend the republic.” In particular, following the publication of ‘J’accuse’ the army began to be attacked as an institution. Attacks on the Army had been seen before, but only on individuals, never in a way that “verged on anti-Militarism.”These Attacks on the army from the left were seen, by the right, as a threat. They began a counter attack in the “form of a dangerous nationalist movement.” 

 There was, however, an underlying factor that caused the Affair to be so divisive. Clemenceau wrote,

“The principle of civil society is right, benevolence, justice; the principle of military society is discipline, duty, obedience. The battle is between two.”

This highlights the underlying reason for division. Were the principles or liberty of an individual, more important than the national unity and security of a country? What began as a question of the guilt or innocence of a French military officer became a much deeper question. The Affair became symbol of the fight for “justice and individual rights” against “national honour and the honour of a country.”The question of Dreyfus as an individual was not really the question or division at all. Dreyfus became a symbol. To the anti-Dreyfusards, he was a symbol of the external Jewish traitor, part of an international syndicate to throw France into mayhem and discredit the Army. Dreyfus symbolized the need to protect France from external, ‘foreign’ threats. The Dreyfusards saw him as the symbol of a denial of justice and welcomed the opportunity to attack the Army. They used the Affair to question whether the Army was efficient, whether officers were capable, and whether the Army had loyalties to the republic, or whether it was an independent power within France. The Dreyfusards believed that if the Army could act independently and prevent the legal system from finding justice for “reasons of state,” then the individual had no liberty, or security. In the eyes of the Dreyfusards these were rights were a necessary part of the republic. 

Dreyfus re-divided France clearly again, at a time when it was becoming difficult to establish clear party lines.Dreyfus’ followers were clearly to the left of the political spectrum, and his opponents clearly to the right. Essentially the problem was that the right had a very different idea of what France should be to the left. Dreyfus acted as the symbolic “dividing sword”that pitched

“Reactionaries against republic, clericals against non Catholics, anti-clericals against church, military party against the parliamentarians and the revolutionary socialists against the army.”

Not all historians believe, however, that the Dreyfus Affair was actually bitterly divisive across the whole of France claiming that “it was mainly a Parisian scandal.” Fitch writes that the involvement of the press allowed men and women of the provinces to “become part of the crucial debates of the nation.” What some historians have argued is that in fact a large majority of French, especially peasants who lived in rural areas of France, remained “indifferent to the affair.” This was probably because the case dragged on for twelve years, which led to boredom for some, although many were uninterested from the start. In fact the affair was barely mentioned in the elections of 1898. Michael Burns believes that peasants, who constituted half of the French population were not affected by the affair, because they were “indifferent to the affair…[as] it failed to strike a relevant chord in villages and hamlets”.This was, perhaps, because the peasants were more concerned with the fall in crop prices and the increased cost of a loaf of bread, than with “abstract arguments over justice.” Moreover, Fitch tells us that where it did, perhaps, strike a chord, after reading about it the peasants merely “talked about it, joked about it [and] fought about it”. This fighting however was merely in a localized context “far from the view [and] far from the understanding of Government officers and other, largely urban, observers.”They merely dismissed it as a “soldiers’ and politicians’ quarrel.” This was because the question became too complicated, far beyond what they were able to understand.

It would be fair to say, perhaps, most historians would agree that regardless of whether the Affair created divisions in rural France or not, that the Affair was bitterly divisive amongst the educated classes. The reasons have been debated ever since.

Whilst there were factors such as anti-Semitism and anti-Militarism involved in the Dreyfus Affair, it was not essentially a question of whether Dreyfus was guilty or innocent. Dreyfus was ultimately a symbol, and as such highlighted many of the underlying divisions. The Affair was so divisive because it questioned of the rights of the individual in the republic. The left believed that the rights of an individual should be the states’ uttermost concern, and that it should not matter that by admitting a judicial error, the army’s honour, or the state system could be harmed.Without the possibility of injustices being corrected, the left believed that the state could not exist unfortunately the right disagreed believing that “while there could be society without justice, there was never any justice without society.”In England, there was a similar case involving a naval cadet. It had many of the same circumstances as the Dreyfus Affair. However, it was not such a divisive affair in England. This is because essentially there were no underlying divisions on how the state should be run, as there were in France. The Dreyfus Affair had touched a nerve amongst the already sensitive French population. What had started as a case of treason against a Jew, and originally represented the dangers of a foreigner, evolved into a far more divisive affair. It pitched the left against the right over traditional targets such as the church, army and aristocracy. Ultimately, it was not Dreyfus that the French were divided upon, but a Republican France.

Bibliography

R.D Anderson (1977) France 1870-1914 Politics and Society (Routledge & Kegan Paul)

D.W Brogan (1940) The Development of Modern France 1870-1939 (Hamish Hamilton)

J.P.T Bury (1949) France 1814-1940 (Methuen & Co LTD)

G Chapman (1956) The Dreyfus Case a Reassessment (New York: Reynal & Company)

N Fitch (1992) “Mass Culture, Mass Parliamentary Politics, and Modern Anti-Semitism: The Dreyfus Affair in Rural France” in The American Historical Review Vol. 97, No. 1  

D Johnson (1966) France and the Dreyfus Affair (Blandford Press)

R Magraw (1983) France 1815-1914 The Bourgeois Century (Oxford University Press)

N Stone (1988) Europe Transformed 1878-1919 (Fontana Press)

T Zeldin (1979) France 1848-1945 Politics and Anger (Oxford University Press)

---