J'Accuse

J’Accuse was written by Émile Zola as an open letter, published on January 13, 1898, on the front page of the newspaper L’Aurore. Born in Paris in 1840, Zola was by this time a famous author and journalist, as well as a founding leader of the Naturalism movement. Zola addressed his letter to French President Felix Faure in response to the Dreyfus Affair, a political and social scandal in which Jewish French army soldier Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully accused of selling military secrets to the German embassy and convicted of treason via court martial. Zola touches on themes of Antisemitism in the French Third Republic, French Nationalism and Militarism, and France’s Place in Global Politics throughout the letter.

This guide refers to the Georgetown University online version of the text in English, translated by Dr. Jean-Max Guieu. Citations are for paragraphs in this translation.

Content Warning: The source material and this guide reference instances and themes of antisemitism.

Zola begins his letter with an address to President Faure, referring him by his title, “Mr. President,” and then flattering him, stating that Faure’s “star […] has shone so brightly until now” and that Faure is “radiant in the patriotic glory of our country’s alliance with Russia” (1-2). Zola follows the compliments with a warning, that the “filth” of the injustice of the Dreyfus Affair will cast a pall upon Faure’s presidency and the nation of France overall. He states that he must tell Faure the truth of the Dreyfus Affair, as he believes a man of Faure’s “integrity” must not know the facts of the case to allow the Dreyfus conviction to stand.

Zola begins laying out the facts of the case by naming Lt. Col. du Paty de Clam as the instigator and inventor of the false case against Dreyfus, stating that he was the one “spinning outlandish intrigues, stooping to the deceits of dime novels, complete with stolen documents, anonymous letters, meetings in deserted spots, mysterious women scurrying around at night, peddling damning evidence” (6). He also outlines that the bordereau, the note of alleged secrets that Dreyfus sold to the German Embassy, was “superficially analyzed” and passed through many hands at the War Office before handwriting samples were taken. Zola further explains how du Paty de Clam continued to “hypnotize” the others in the War Office of “mediocre intellect” to follow him in the accusations against Dreyfus, which led to his arrest and persecution at the hands of the army (9-10).

Zola turns to the court martial (the military trial) that Dreyfus was subject to, claiming that the trial was kept secret, yet rumors were allowed to fly about Dreyfus’s guilt without any factual basis. The truth was kept entirely from the public, with only the suggestion that there were 14 charges against Dreyfus and that 23 officers testified against him. Still, even though the bordereau was held as evidence against Dreyfus, Zola states that the handwriting experts could not agree on whether he wrote it; he refers to it as “trumped up,” invented by the “machinations” of du Paty de Clam (10-13).

After Zola finishes examining the facts of the Dreyfus court martial, he moves on to the case against Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, the man who Zola alleges was the real traitor selling secrets to the Germans. He claims that a Major Picquart came to possess a telegram sent to Esterhazy from “an agent of a foreign power” (16). Picquart brought this to his superiors and made an investigation of his own, in which he concluded that several generals in the War Office knew that Esterhazy was guilty and let Dreyfus suffer in the Devil’s Island penal colony anyway. Picquart pressed on and attempted to convince the generals to retry the case, but for his efforts he was sent on a dangerous mission to Tunisia, perhaps to eliminate him and the trouble he might cause. Despite evidence against Esterhazy, his odd and suspicious behavior, and many people believing him to be guilty, when he was brought before the court martial, the judges (whom Zola alleges were “handpicked”) rendered an “iniquitous verdict” and released him (19-24). Zola continues to suggest that this sets a worrying precedent for the power awarded to the military, particularly if they are allowed to convict an innocent man with no recourse from any other part of the government.

Zola goes on to argue that antisemitism played a role in Dreyfus’s conviction, alleging that most, if not all, of the men behind his conviction were antisemitic and cast Dreyfus in racist stereotypes of the “dirty Jew,” incapable of loyalty to his country. He similarly argues that the press peddled antisemitic stories about Dreyfus to dredge up support for Esterhazy and continue to push the false narrative of Dreyfus’s guilt. He states that both “truth and justice” have been trampled by the actions of the army in the Dreyfus case, and that President Faure must act to rectify the injustice if France is to flourish as a “freedom-loving” nation founded on the principles of justice and equality for all her citizens (25-28).

Zola concludes his letter with a list of his accusations, which starts with du Paty de Clam, whom Zola once again accuses of orchestrating the false allegations against Dreyfus. He also accuses several generals (Mercier, Billot, de Boisdeffre, and Gonse) of knowing of Esterhazy’s guilt and “concealing” the truth of Dreyfus’s innocence. He accuses General de Pellieux and Major Ravary of “conducting a fraudulent inquiry” and the three handwriting experts who examined the bordereau of submitting deceitful reports about Dreyfus having written it (34-35). He accuses the War Office of using the press to conceal the truth of the case and turn public opinion against Dreyfus (36). Lastly, he accuses the two court martials, the one that convicted Dreyfus and the one that acquitted Esterhazy, of “violating the law” with their respective outcomes (37).

Zola ends by acknowledging his understanding that he can be prosecuted for libel. He admits he does not know the men he is accusing but asserts that he knows of their guilt all the same. He urges to be “brought before a court of law” so that the truth of the entire affair may be disclosed (41). He signs his letter, “With my deepest respect, Mr. President,” once again appealing to the president with polite conventional form, as he did in his opening paragraphs (43).