by Laura Lai/Review
On
March 2nd, 2020 I posted on this blog a comment on the César Prix
for the Best Director Award for the movie ‘An Officer and a Spy’, a historical
movie on the longest and most known judicial error in the history of France –
the Dreyfus Affair. This affair became public when the French naturalist
writer, Emile Zola (1840-1902), wrote a public letter to the French President,
Felix Faure denouncing this injustice. I used the opportunity raised by this
movie, to make a review to the letter written by Zola to the President of the
Republic (you can read the letter in French, here).
In order to understand the letter, here is a bit of the
political and historical context. Alfred Dreyfus was a person born in a rich
family, in Alsace, a region that he left when it was taken by the Germans. He
went to Paris and served as an officer in the French army. He was accused by
the army of traison/spying for the Germans and convicted to a life sentence
(deportation). The first trial splitted the society into ‘dreyfusists’, who
were definding the truth and the justice and the ‘anti-dreyfusists’, definding
the army, the Republic and gathering right extremists. Other acting forces were
the Catholic Church, most often said to have been on the army and the Republic
side and a royalist group ‘Action Française’ fighting against the republicans. A
colononel Picquard was sure of Dreyfus’s innocence, but he had difficulities in
reopening the case for a second trial. It is in this context, when in 1898,
Emile Zola wrote his letter to the President and this affair became public. The
detail, which most probably counted the most in the affair and in the trail,
was the fact that Alfred Dreyfus was a Jew.
The
letter of Emile Zola to the President Felix Faure is a typical letter written
by a writer. I mean, long. By the use of the words ‘justice’ and ‘truth’ all
along the letter, Zola is placing himself and his oppion on the ‘dreyfusists’
side. However, it is by the end of the letter that he explained more at length
the reasons that pushed him to this moral action:
‘I
don’t have but one passion that of light, in the name of humanity, that
suffered so much and that has the right to happiness. My enthusiastic protest
is the scream of my soul.’[1] (my translation)
Emile
Zola was here in the same line of ideas with the Founding Fathers of the U.S.
Constitution declaring that every person is endowed by our Creator with certain
inalienable rights, amongh which the pursuit to happiness. Anyway, the second
reason that pushed him to this civic duty and moral action was ‘to hasten the
explosion of truth and justice’[2] (my translation) –
most probably very much aware of the public impact his letter will have.
This letter speaks of ‘injustice’, ‘crazyness’,
of ‘civic crime’, ‘judicial error’, ‘lack of motif’ and it speaks of a ‘villain
enquiry that makes guilty people innocent and innocent people guilty’[3] (my translation). He
reminds that the ‘truth is simple’: on the one side, are those guilty, meaning
a series of generals and commenders of the French army that Zola publicly
accused of being the main responsible and complice to this ‘civic crime’; and
on the other side, those unguilty – those who would give their lives for truth
and justice. To these, Zola added two more people: Dreyfus and Picquard that he
describes as ‘two victims, two courageous men, two simple hearts, that left
others play God, while it was actually the devil acting’[4] (my translation). Zola
refused to believe in any of the forteen accusations brought to Dreyfus and he
explained at length the reasons why he did not believe, he also did not believe
in the existence of a ‘secret paper’ that the accusation said to have against
Dreyfus ‘a secret paper, an overwhelming one, a paper that can be shown, that
legitimizes everything, to which we all should take a bow to…’ (my
translation).[5]
And he described the crimes he thought Dreyfus was guilty of, as found by the
court (that Zola calls a ‘nid of low intrigues, gossips and delapidation’[6]) as follows:
‘Dreyfus
knows several languages, it’s a crime; no compromising paper was found at his
place, it’s a crime; sometimes he goes to his country of origin, it’s a crime;
he’s hard working and he’s preoccupied to know everything, it’s a crime; he’s
not confused, it’s a crime; he’s confused, it’s a crime.’[7] (my translation)
Therefore,
Alfred Dreyfus was an officer and an intellectual, or an officer with
intellectual preoccupations! Somehow – but don’t ask me how, because I cannot
understand myself logically and I cannot explain logically – that’s a crime in
front of a ‘mediocre’ society or among ‘mediocre’ people. Those accusing him
and sentencing him to life sentence were generals and commanders, but this does
not mean intellectuals. It may ultimately mean ‘professionals’ but not ‘intellectuals’.
Dreyfus himself was a professional officer, but in comparison to the others, he
was also an intellectual. This was something he worked for, was passionate
about that the others might have wanted, but they were aware they would never
have. This something could not be taken away from Dreyfus, so his life had to
be taken away by the mediocre through a life sentence.
However, in which concerns the ‘professionals’, all along
history the possibilities for a person to become a general, a commander or
high-ranking professional have been very diverse, sometimes subjective and not
necessarily intellectual. Thefore, a group of ‘professionals’ – it does not
matter how they got there – knew and fealt the intellectual superiority of
Dreyfus. And on top of it, he was a Jew. It means – but don’t ask me how
because I don’t understand myself logically, but the mediocre do and act
accordingly – Alfred Dreyfus did not deserve anything, but to be sentenced and
deported for life. In plain English, some ‘professionals’ wanted Dreyfus to be
a traitor and they all acted in complicity so that he looks like a traitor,
made a trail and sentenced him because – as Zola said – they were playing God,
when actually the devil was acting. Some mediocre like to play God. It seems to
compensate for their lack of intellectual power.
The mediocre were not able to acknowledge the contribution of
an intellectual officer to the French society, they were afraid for their own
social position and general/commender jobs. I believe the progress of any
society comes with the free circulation of ideas and from open competition
rather than from pre-selelcted mediocre belonging to a cast or another thinking
that this belonging justifies them to think that they are more deserving than
others, although in their mediocrity they are scared of free competition and
they prefer to sentence and deport somebody for life, in order to put aside any
intellectual threat to their status and jobs. Emile Zola denounced at that time
the consequences such injustice may have on the French society[8] and he defined what he
thought a true ‘crime’ was:
‘It’s
a crime to have accused of agitating France, those who want it generous and a
leader among free and just nations (…). It’s a crime to manipulate the public
opinion (…). It’s a crime to poison the ordinary and the humble people (…).
It’s a crime to exploit patriotism for hate purposes, and finally it’s a crime to
make from a sabre a modern god, while all human science is at the work of the
next achievement of truth and justice’ (my translation). [9]
To
sum up, Emile Zola brought a numbers of pointed accusations to a series of top
generals and commenders of the French army, he also pointed that the wrong
persons were held responsible, he accused of manipulation, of misuse of partriotism
and put all his faith in truth and justice. He also accused the President of
the Republic for ignoring the case, for ‘being a prisoner of the Constitution
and of his entourage’, although Zola addressed his letter to the ‘first
magistrate of the country’. He denounced the judicial errors and the
consequences on France and rethorically asked the President ‘do you understand
that?’
Emile Zola reached his purpose of
‘outspeaking, in order not to be a complice’ to this injustice. The case was
reopened. Unfortunately, Emile Zola died in 1902 and did not live to see the
end of the trail and the rehabilitation of Alfred Dreyfus. He knew he would be
judged of defamation according to a 1881 French law and he exiled himself. I
belive that one year of exile in exchange of the working out of a several
years-long judicial error, and the giving back of the life and the freedom of
an innocent man is a bargain I would have done, too, if I were such a writer,
with such a public impact. It’s worth it as the taste of truth and justice is
equal to nothing better!
[1]
‘Je n’ai qu’une passion, celle de la lumière, au nom de l’humanité qui a
tant souffert et qui a droit au bonheur. Ma protestation enflammée n’est que le
cri de mon âme’.
[2]
‘…pour hâter l’explosion de la
vérité et de la justice.’
[3] ‘une
enquête scélérate d’où les coquins sortent transfigurés et les honnêtes gens
salis.’
[4]
‘Il y a deux victimes, deux braves gens, deux coeurs simples, qui ont
laissé faire Dieu, tandis que le diable agissait.’
[5] ‘…d’une
pièce secrète, accablante, la pièce qu’on ne peut montrer, qui légitime tout,
devant laquelle nous devons nous incliner, le bon Dieu invisible et
inconnaissable ! Je la nie, cette pièce, je la nie de toute ma puissance!
[6] ‘Et quel
nid de basses intrigues, de commérages et de dilapidations, est devenu cet
asile sacré, où se décide le sort de la patrie!’
[7] ‘Dreyfus
sait plusieurs langues, crime ; on n’a trouvé chez lui aucun papier
compromettant, crime ; il va parfois dans son pays d’origine, crime ; il est
laborieux, il a le souci de tout savoir, crime ; il ne se trouble pas, crime ;
il se trouble, crime.’
[8] He was warning that with this kind of attitude the French
society can die and decompose itself (‘When a society reaches this point, it
falls in a decomposition stage’ (my translation of ‘Quand une société en est là, elle tombe en décomposition’).
[9]
‘C’est un crime d’avoir accusé de troubler la France ceux qui la veulent
généreuse, à la tête des nations libres et justes (…). C’est un crime d’égarer
l’opinion (…). C’est un crime d’empoisonner les petits et les humbles (…).
C’est un crime que d’exploiter le patriotisme pour des oeuvres de haine, et
c’est un crime, enfin, que de faire du sabre le dieu moderne, lorsque toute la
science humaine est au travail pour l’oeuvre prochaine de vérité et de
justice.’
No comments:
Post a Comment