Reflections
on The Dreyfus Affair
with
reference to “I accuse” (1958), “Prisoner of Honor” (1991)
and “J’accuse” / “An Officer and a Spy” (2019)
and
The Enlightenment Movement
The Dreyfus Affair might
have been a relatively straightforward case of detecting the actions and
identity of a spy among French military authorities and convicting him, but it developed
into a hugely complex, influential and divisive event that started in 1894 and
continued until 1906. I shall attempt to provide a cursory synopsis of what it
was about before discussing, briefly, three films on the subject and then
offering my own thoughts on these events and, as I see it, their correlation
with the Enlightenment Movement.
Having discovered, in
1894, the existence of a spy/informer in their midst, responsible for the sale of
sensitive information to the German Empire, the high command of the French Army
sought to act rapidly and quietly in identifying the culprit in order to avoid
embarrassment and any loss of confidence among the French people. As a result
of this pressure, a lack of professionalism and cultural and personal prejudice
against Jews, Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus was quickly accused and convicted
of high treason. Those in authority were sure they had their man but his
conviction was the result of scant and insubstantial investigation and evidence
combined with dubious courtroom proceedings.
The situation was
aggravated and misdeeds compounded when the newly appointed head of military
intelligence, Colonel Georges Picquart, gathered evidence that pointed to a
different suspect and therefore cast doubt on the conviction of Dreyfus, but
this was refuted and rejected by those who now sought to protect the army’s
reputation and status, as well as their own. However, Picquart’s belief in
truth and justice was such that he could not allow the innocent Dreyfus to be
sacrificed for the sake of the army’s standing and he, along with a number of
like-minded luminaries, including Emile Zola, persisted in pursuing the case,
leading to pain, challenge and conflict for all concerned, indeed virtually the
entire nation, until Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated in the army in 1906.
I first became acquainted
with the Dreyfus Affair when I heard reference made to Dreyfus in the film
“Papillon” in 1973. I read a couple of articles which gave me a rudimentary
knowledge of events and issues, but it was only when I saw “Prisoner of Honor”
several years later, and considered using it as an element of a study course
with pupils, that I realised the depth and scope of the issues raised, and I
connected these events to the principles of the Enlightenment Movement, at
least in my mind.
Since then, I have done
some further research and watched two more films on the subject – “I accuse!”,
made in 1958 by José Ferrer, and “J’accuse” or “An Officer and a Spy” made by
Roman Polansky in 2019. Each film, and I include “Prisoner of Honor” made by
Ken Russell in 1991, has much to recommend it and all three reveal similar
reasons for the miscarriage of justice at the hub of the affair.
“I accuse!” and “Prisoner
of Honor” both establish Major Ferdinand Esterhazy as the true spy from the
start and thus arouse indignation at the ill-founded arrest of Alfred Dreyfus.
The unveiling of evidence against Esterhazy and in favour of Dreyfus’s
innocence is told with an almost journalistic distance, as if offering
historical observation. Both are highly engaging and offer understanding
depictions of all the characters and their motivations, even those responsible
for Dreyfus’s incarceration, though there is never any doubt regarding the
injustice they are doing to Dreyfus.
“J’accuse” or “An Officer
and a Spy” is more of a detective thriller as we follow the trail Picquart
pursues and we share his doubts, questions and frustrations regarding the case
against Dreyfus and the authorities’ refusal to recognise the injustice that had
been done. We also share the consequences for Picquart as he puts truth,
justice and professionalism above orders and career. Sombre and intensely
realistic, “J’accuse” offers an authentic, clear-minded and involving account
of events.
It seems to me that this
affair is a tale of incompetence and a lack of professionalism, fuelled by
antisemitism, on the part of complacent and self-satisfied authorities consumed
by position and pride rather than responsibility and accountability.
The case was eventually
won by an insistence on the burden of proof and the principle of accountability
as opposed to faith in the judgement of the elite who governed. This was a
clear, if convoluted and lengthy victory for advocates of the principles of the
Enlightenment Movement of the eighteenth century, the repercussions of which
spread and reverberated throughout nineteenth century society and politics.
Very roughly, the
Enlightenment Movement questioned the necessary existence of God and God-given
morality, and therefore challenged the basis of the authority of those who
governed with a mix of political and religious power at that time. Decisions
and judgements were to be based on the concepts of reason, justice and equality
as opposed to personal or religious conviction, or commercial advantage, and
this Movement may be said to have influenced events such as the Mutiny on the
Bounty, the French Revolution, and the general move toward democracy and
accountability in the nineteenth century.
To me, the Dreyfus Affair
does much to encapsulate what the Enlightenment was all about. The authorities
wished to maintain the façade of the infallibility of the hierarchy, requiring
faith in the unchallenged judgement of the governing elite, principally to
maintain the trust and confidence of the people. However, the trust and the
confidence of the people are likely to be eroded by inattention to fairness,
justice and truth as, if these values are denied to any one individual in a
society, they may be denied to all.
The state is the totality
of the individuals who form it. If one such individual is sacrificed unjustly
for the benefit of the state, or its image, this damages the very foundations
of a state whose purpose is to protect, defend and nurture its component parts.
Such a principle should not be sacrificed to self-protection, ambition and
greed. Pride should be derived not from position and authority, but from the
way society treats its individual members.
In the case of the
Dreyfus Affair, recognition of the existence of objective truth was resisted in
favour of a stance that supported particular political and social viewpoints
and ambitions. It is, perhaps, a sad reflection on these modern times and human
nature that some of today’s politicians and so-called community leaders and
their followers persist in denying truth and facts, preferring to promote their
own distorted and inaccurate versions of events to advance their own ideology
and ambitions.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
