The causes and the political and social consequences of the Dreyfus Affair in France

 After the defeat of 1870, France was determined to improve itself and showed a deep will for revenge.  

 The most spectacular reform concerned the Army, which became of great national interest. However, it was an army with a professional structure inherited from the preceding regimes, where the aristocracy and the royalists were over dominant. The institution had complete independence in recruitment and control. The officers had no opinion of the non-professional soldiers.

   However, despite this, the army was gradually forced into more democratic and modern methods. The officers, better trained, left the Polytechnique School (“postards”) or Sainte Barbe which also included the few Jewish pupils.

Polytechniciens began to compete successfully with the pupils of Saint Cyr.

The army multiplied the diplomatic, strategy and armament missions.

To protect France, it developed a counter-espionage service: "THE STATISTICS SECTION".   It was Lieutenant Colonel Jean Sandherr, ex Saint Cyr, Alsatian and anti-Semite, who directed the Section from 1891. He was assisted by Commandant Joseph Henry.

Before the Dreyfus Affair, there were several spy scandals such as the arrest of the Boutonnet archivist in August 1890.

  In Paris, the Section set up a system of interception of the correspondence of Lieutenant Colonel Maximilien Von Schwartzkoppen as well as a plan to recover his papers. Madame Bastian, a cleaner at the German Embassy, gave the contents of the waste baskets of the Military Attaché to an officer of the Section, in a vault of the Sainte Clotilde church.

 From the beginning of 1894, the Section inquired into the exchange of documents under the “directions” for the defences of Nice and the Meuse, carried out by an agent that Schwartzkoppen and his close friend the Italian military attaché Panizzardi called “Dubois”. An essential letter seized in this file referred to “cette canaille de D”. It was used towards proving the guilt of Dreyfus, whose name started with the same initial.

This file also contained documents with fake evidences with the aim of destroying Dreyfus.

 The anti-Semitism of Colonel Sandherr was not an individual case, but characteristic of the Army and a prominent section of the French Society.

 It was around 1890 that anti-Semitism began to be spread across France and through the French officer class, aided by the press and in particular, the articles of Edouard Drumont in his newspaper “La Libre Parole” and in his book “La France Juive” (1886). This spread of anti-Semitism was accompanied by a parallel increase in clericalism. The promotion of some brilliant Jewish officers concentrated publicly expressed resentments. Duels multiplied within the Army. Press campaigns increasingly provoked violent reactions against the Jews in the army, such as the series of articles in “La Libre Parole” published from May 23, 1892, and the anti-Semitic caricatures of the Chapuzot soldier by a collaborator of Drumont. Captain Armand Mayer, an Alsatian Jew and Polytechnicien, was killed in a duel by the Marquis de Morès, an officer close to Drumont.    

For these French Jewish officers, the army represented the excellence of the Republic and the supreme way to serve the Republic. They saw themselves as truly French.

For another Alsatian young man (of Mulhouse), Alfred Dreyfus, graduate of the Polytechnique school, to enter the army was also an act of patriotism. During the 1890s, the proportion of Jewish officers clearly increased. The “Grandes écoles”, on which the modernization of the army rested, made it possible for the Jews to be integrated into the nation while arriving through their own merit to the top of the Republican State.

 The anti-Semitism in the army was of military origin, but it was also a significant anti-Semitic phenomenon of republican French society. The actual hatred of the Jews increased and certain social classes lent themselves to the impassioned 1200 pages of Drumond’s “La France Juive”; on the horrors of Judaism. 150.000 copies sold in 1886.  

Drumont’s book was well documented; it described the genesis of modern Anti-Semitism developed from traditional Anti-Semitism, racism, the occult, Christian anti-Judaism and economic anti-Semitism. In 1894, Bernard Lazare, a young man from Nîmes, a Jewish historian, a graduate from “L’école pratique des hautes études”, a talented publicity agent and non-violent anarchist, wrote “the anti-Semitism, its history and its causes” describing the social and historical impact of the French anti-Semitism at the end of the XIXth century.

THE HISTORIC CHRONOLGY OF THE AFFAIR.

On December 19th, 1894, the trial of Alfred Dreyfus opened. The government Commissioner, the Commandant Brisset asked for it to be held “in camera”. Maitre Demange acted for the defence of Alfred Dreyfus. On the 21st of December , Commandant Henry, of the secret service declared to the court that a "honourable" witness had asserted in March, 1894 and repeated in June, that there was a traitor in the “Etat Major”: «the traitor  there he is!»  Henry explained indicating Dreyfus.

 On December 22nd, 1894, after a hearing with a 3 hours plea by Maître Demange, 7 judges were deliberating. They were then acquainted with a secret file, including new details, some distorted, and others inaccurately dated, the most significant being the letter referring to “cette canaille de D”. These documents, authenticated by the Minister and the Director of Information, convinced the judges who, unanimously, declared Dreyfus guilty. The accused and his defence lawyer remained in ignorance of the secret file.

After his transfer to Devil’s Island, the Dreyfusard party was born. On the 17th of January,

1895 Félix Faure was elected President of the Republic. He was a nationalist and a convinced anti-Dreyfusard.

At the end of February 1895, Matthieu Dreyfus, Alfred’s brother, gave the journalist Bernard Lazare the first of the documents which led to the acquittal of the Captain.

On the 1st of July 1895, Lieutenant Colonel George Picquard was named as leader of the Statistic Section in succession to Sandherr.

At the end of March 1896, a telegram (le “petit bleu”) sent by von Schwartzkoppen to the French Commandant Esterhazy was seized by the service of Statistics.

 In July of the same year, Picquard, by reopening the “secret file” established against Dreyfus during the 1894 trial, noticed the resemblance between the hand-writing in the “bordereau” and that of Esterhazy.

After a personal inquiry, the injustice appeared clearly to him in August. He vainly tried to convince his superiors, Generals de Boisdeffre and Gonse.

In June 1897, Picquard told his childhood friend, the lawyer Louis Leblois, of his conviction of the innocence of Dreyfus and the guilt of Esterhazy.

In July, Leblois visited Scheurer-Kestner and showed him Picquard’s secret report.

In October, the French President Félix Faure received Scheurer-Kestner, who declared to him his conviction of Dreyfus’ innocence.

On the 15th of November, 1897 Matthieu Dreyfus sent to the War Minister, the General Block a complaint against the Commandant Esterhazy whom he accused formally of being the author of the “bordereau”.

An inquiry on Esterhazy opened under the direction of the General de Pellieux, who concluded his report « in all honesty, Esterhazy seems to be correct … Picquard seems guilty …»

At the end of November, 1897, Zola published an article which ended with these words: « truth is on the march, and nothing will stop it. »

On January 13th, 1898, Picquard was condemned to 60 days detention in a fortress, and Scheurer-Kestner was not re-elected as a vice president. On the same day, “L’Aurore” published Emile Zola's open letter to the President of the Republic for which Clemenceau had found a brilliant title: «J’accuse».

On the 8th of August, 1899, after the demand for a retrial, there opened a second lawsuit against Dreyfus at Rennes’ secondary school. On September 9th, Dreyfus was accused of “intelligence with the enemy” with extenuating circumstances, and condemned to 10 years in prison. On the 19th of September, at the request of Waldeck-Rousseau, and with the support of the Dreyfus family, the President of the Republic, Loubet, the pardon of Alfred Dreyfus.

On the 12th of July 1906, the “Court de Cassation” dismissed the verdict of Rennes. Dreyfus was rehabilitated. He was reinstated in the army as a Major and raised to the dignity Officer of the “légion d’honneur”

On July 11th, 1935, Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Dreyfus died.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE AFFAIR.

POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES:

The first Dreyfusard party finally widened. Several years passed by following the lawsuit of 1894. Intellectuals, judges, finally Jaurès, worked on the leaders of the Republic, encouraging them to be true to their responsibilities, showing themselves faithful to the ideals of its founding fathers. With the Universal Exhibition approach (1900), it was important for the reputation of France.  

On the political scene, the Affair had resounding consequences.

The "progressive" parliamentary majority forged in the elections of 1893, confirmed in those of 1898, exploded over the Affair. Its disappearance in 1899 led to a renewal of the political forces around the Republican Left and in the application in 1900 of a Dreyfusienne policy: republicanize France and fight against the nationalism revealed by the Dreyfus affair.

Waldeck-Rousseau did not succeed in rehabilitating Dreyfus but he did resolve the Nationalist party crisis, which threatened the political stability of the society and the national unity.

After the Affair ended with the reinstatement of Dreyfus, Waldeck-Rousseau indirectly attacked the Anti-Dreyfusards. He fought against nationalism by strengthening the State: the civil servants having revealed their incompetence were subjected to transfers or retirements. Waldeck-Rousseau observed the links between the religious groups, and the fanatic Anti-Dreyfusards and reduced the social influence of the Church.

The renewal of the fight in favour of secularism was the direct consequence of the Affair: there was a return to the anticlericalism of Ferry and Gambetta. From 1902, a lot of religious establishments were closed and there soon came a complete separation of the Church and the State. Religious emblems were removed from all public buildings and, in 1906, the year when the Affair closed; the confiscation of its possessions provoked the revolt of the Catholic world. The republican guards assaulted the barricaded churches. The Catholic people were incited by the “Action Française”, which took up the torch of complete nationalism.

The Affair brought to life to the confrontation between the two Frances. The nationalist catholic wanted to fight against the rationalist, populist and Jewish Republic. There were no concessions on either side.

Once the threat that arose from the Affair was removed, the catholic awakening confronted the republican anticlericalism with all its force. This shock crossed the history of modern France. Later, under Vichy, when the Nationalists of the Right finally achieved power, enthusiastically implementing the Drumont’s programme by expelling all Dreyfusards of the State, another report was drawn up at the same time.

It is shocking to see how a part of the republican elite lent its support in this record of violence.

The lesson of the Affair is also there. If the Republic was in danger, it was also because number of number of its servants, at the end of the century, as under Vichy, was not truly faithful to it.

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES.

The Affair aroused the commitment of the artists and most renowned intellectuals of the time. Many people on one hand joined the Anti-Dreyfusard camp. Degas, Cézanne, Albert Sorel, and Jules Vernes set themselves beside the nationalists. Others, including Pissarro, Monet, Anatole France and Zola supported the cause of the captain.

The Affair divided French society. It is true that the influence of the press exacerbated this tension, which crossed the classes and the families.

In January, 1899, on the initiative of Maurice Barrès was born «La ligue de la patrie Française » which collected approximately 500 000 members and which supported a press capable of getting  2 000 000 readers. This nationalist league would very logically be followed by the Action Française, the nationalist Anti-Semitic model at the end of the century.

 The Anti-Dreyfusard majority of the press was driven by Anti-Dreyfusard militancy or by social conformity. By filling the governmental silences, it gave to its million daily readers a violent but direct access to the state apparatus, obliging the latter to become aware of society as a whole. The press had become a force. It exercised for the first time a redoubtable power with unpredictable effects. Photography was put in the service of different propagandas. Thanks to technical progress, photos were made to record conviction. It was also the golden age of the caricature; the biggest artists seized this means of expression. Numerous games were sold: Matthieu Dreyfus’ nose, with scaffolds in miniature of the guillotine of the Captain, various competitive games with fake conclusions. The most unexpected objects, ranges in pipes or in cigarette’s papers, were also of use as support to this propaganda. Business flourished.

It is owing to the Affair that the press became “The organ of the consciousness of the masses”. The new journalism was born of the investigation, which would serve in the future of standing against the intimidation of institutions. In Zola’s commitment who tried to prove that the established authorities had forged a judicial document, it set out to guarantee a truly democratic regime.

The League of the Human Rights arose from the Dreyfus Affair at the beginning of February 1898. It was officially adopted on the 4th of June 1898. It elaborated a programme of reform: the separation of Church and State, a reform of the welfare services, the abolition of customs police and the Defence controls, the adoption of an established civil service. Ludovic Trarieux, lawyer and retired Justice Minister was convinced that the trial of autumn, 1894 had not observed the most elementary human rights. It was in defence of the Right that Trarieux created the “Ligue”

The members, who wanted to demonstrate of the Captain’s innocence, had the will to fight “the defamations and the threats”; they wanted to assert the equal rights of all citizens. The fight against Anti-Semitism joined the wider cause of the unity of homeland and the rights of man.

There is also no doubt that the Affair marked the entrance of intellectuals into the political and social life of France and their capacity to play a specific role in it.

The historians played a creditable role in the Affair. They entered on the public scene as savants, commenting the indictment of Dreyfus that was unscientific grounds. The historians finally took part in the Affair because the opened practise of their knowledge and the feeling of belonging to an intellectual community endowed them with a consciousness of citizenship. The French society of the Dreyfus Affair was a society in full transition. The elementary schools took on the character of what we call “the Ferry school”: the model was established and it remained one of the bases of French society, until 1950s. The training of the elites also changed their nature and structure, especially at the higher level: The sciences developed (Institut Pasteur) and new sciences; the social sciences, entered the universities at the highest intellectual level.

The Dreyfus Affair revealed a need for the emancipation of the working classes and the availability of opportunities to rise in society. Behind the political unity, it was necessary to create a social unity, bringing intellectuals and the working class more closely together or, at least, to lessen the differences between them.

The Zionism movement is connected with the Dreyfusisme. Born before the Affair, the idea of gathering all the Jews in a single country receives a decisive support and even Bernard Lazare adhered to it temporarily. However, though the movement aroused a real philanthropic interest, French Jews, like Captain Dreyfus, were still determined to remain faithful to French republican Judaism. Finally, the Affair flared because of the prejudice in the public left society with a heritage of freedom and aspirations.

CONCLUSION

It was the first time in the history of humanity that a man gave his name to an almost comparable event, in duration (1894-1906) and intensity, to the French Revolution. It was one of the most famous events of history, the one that still exists in most contemporary memory. “His name rang in the whole universe” wrote Jean-Louis Lévy. The Affair unmistakably marked the entrance to an age of individualism, which the Dreyfusard combat transformed into democratic principles. It showed that a struggle for justice could assert itself against the State, that a democratic justice could express itself in favour of a man who represented those values.

 The Dreyfus Affair revealed the importance of the relation between the State and the citizen to develop the Republic. This relationship was reflected in its most prominent institutions; the Army, the Law and the Church which were fundamental in the Affair.

If the Affair was effectively born from a republican crisis, Anti-Semitism already very firmly fixed in the French public mind by Drumont’s articles, burst out during and after the Affair and it is terrible to record of a possible link between the Dreyfus affair and the destruction of the Jews in Europe (the Holocaust). “To the memory of Madeleine Lévy, Alfred Dreyfus’ grand daughter, who carried out her French patriotic duty, as did her grand father, and who died at Auschwitz, in 1944, aged 22”. Regrettably the Dreyfus Affair did not inoculate France against anti-Semitism. The totalitarian Extreme Right was to a significant extent influenced by the Affair.

The centenary of 1994, which commemorated the lawsuit against Dreyfus, was an event that surely called for people acknowledgment. The impact was considerable in France as well as abroad. Yet neither the French government nor the parliament wanted to take part in the memorial ceremony. The image of France abroad was itself down-graded, as if the country where we had fought for a Jew and for a justice was incapable of honouring a memory. It will be necessary to wait for the centenary of 1998 for “J’accuse” so that Jacques Chirac, French President, to send a fulsome letter Dreyfus’ and Zola’s descendants.

The centenary of Dreyfus rehabilitation by the Court of Cassation (1906-2006) represents a challenge for the historians as much as for the authorities. It was a question of commemorating at the same moment the victory of Justice in a country which had never placed at the top of its political scale of values the law and the truth, and the courage of a man who stood up against the ruthless determination of the local authorities to destroy him.

---