This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
This article provoked a vicious response from Drumont in La Libre Parole, attacking both Zola and Bernard Lazare. In the newspaper Le Voltaire (May–June) Lazare responded with a series of articles attacking Drumont and his antisemitic supporters. Drumont rebutted these attacks, and this war of words led to a duel between Drumont and Lazare on 18 June. There was no injury to either party. The same year the editor Stock published all Lazare’s articles during this four-week conflict in Contre l’antisémitisme, histoire d’une polémique (‘Against Antisemitism, the History of a Controversy’). A new edition of this booklet was published in 1983 (Paris: La Différence), which included Lazare’s testamentary will and Charles Péguy’s ‘Portrait of Bernard Lazare’. Zola’s article was later published in his book of collected articles on the Dreyfus Affair: La vérité en marche. See, in the 1969 edition, pp. 55–62. See English in Emile Zola. The Dreyfus Affair, J’Accuse and Other Writings, ed., A. Pagès, (ed.), trans. E. Levieux (Newhaven and London: Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 2–7.
The same day Lebon secretly ordered a double palisade to be built around the cabin of Dreyfus. (v. 12 Nov. 1896) See detailed description of the shackles in Whyte, The Accused, p. 88. See also Dreyfus’ own description, A. Dreyfus, Cinq années de ma vie (1982), pp. 167, 171.
This measure remained in force until 20 October 1896. Rennes, I, 250, Official report on Dreyfus’ stay on Devil’s Island. In spite of attempts to ease his pain by wrapping cloths around his legs, the shackles cut into his flesh. According to Pierre Dreyfus, ‘The feet of the prisoner were placed in these shackles which were held securely to the bed by the bar in such a way that it was impossible for the body itself to move. Riveted to his bed by chains stained with blood, tortured by vermin and torrid heat, racked by spiritual torment, Dreyfus felt that his suffering had passed the limits of human endurance and that he should die.’ A. and P. Dreyfus, The Dreyfus Case, The Man Alfred Dreyfus and his son Pierre Dreyfus, trans. D.C. McKay (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), p. 74.
A. Dreyfus, Cinq années de ma vie (1982), p. 164.
A. Dreyfus, Cinq années de ma vie (1982), pp. 166–7.
According to Reinach 3500 copies were distributed. From a study of the costs involved mentioned by Lazare, it may be concluded that Reinach’s estimate was far higher. Moreover, two print runs of this first pamphlet were made, identical in text – one more luxurious, containing 66 pages; another of lesser quality, containing only 24 pages (the text was thus much denser). B. Lazare, Une erreur judiciaire l’Affaire Dreyfus, ed. P. Oriol (Paris: Allia, 1993), pp. 75–6. (v. 16 Nov 1896)
Emphasis as in the original. B. Lazare, Une erreur judiciaire: La vérité sur l’Affaire Dreyfus (Bruxelles: Imprimerie Veuve Monnom, 1896), p. 24.
The Government rejected Lucie’s petition since it did not meet the criteria for review stipulated by Article 445 of the Criminal Code. This article listed the grounds on which a review could be considered as follows: if, after a murder conviction, there was clear evidence that the alleged victim was still alive; if another defendant was judged guilty of the same crime, and the two verdicts were irreconcilable; if a witness for the prosecution had been convicted of false testimony against the accused. However, a fourth condition added to Article 445 on 8 June 1895 stipulated that a review could also be considered if after a conviction a new fact or facts were established or documents unknown at the time of the conviction were discovered, proving the innocence of the person convicted. In rejecting Lucie’s petition the Government decided that even if the amendment was applicable to the Dreyfus case, it could not be invoked retrospectively to a verdict issued before the date of the amendment. (v. 12 July 1906, n. 58) On this aspect see B. Martin, ‘The Dreyfus Affair and the Corruption of the French Legal System’, in N.L. Kleeblatt (ed.) The Dreyfus Affair: Art, Truth and Justice (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 37–49.
Within a matter of weeks the new league had gained 450 supporters in Paris and the surrounding region. Its Paris committee included some of La Libre Parole’s principal antisemitic collaborators – Octave Biot, Adrien Papillaud, Raphaël Viau, André de Boisandré – as well as the antisemitic publisher Hayard. Branches were soon formed in various arrondissements of Paris as well as in the provinces (Bordeaux, Marseille, Toulouse, Rouen). By May 1897 the League numbered some 8000 members. S. Wilson, ‘The Ligue Antisémitique Française’, Wiener Library Bulletin 25 (London, 1972), pp. 33–9; Pierrard, Juifs et catholiques français, pp. 143–9.
Régis was arrested towards the end of 1897 and held for eight days on charges of insult and defamation. Despite this, the paper enjoyed immense success. Initially it had two editions a week, then three, as well as an illustrated supplement. By 1898 its circulation had reached 20,000. Wilson, Ideology and Experience, p. 230; P. Hebey, Alger 1898, La grande vague antijuive (Paris: Nil, 1996), p. 98.
A. Dreyfus, Cinq années de ma vie (1982), pp. 191–2. The complete regulations on the detention of Dreyfus are also published in 3ème Cass. III, 881–90. Also see Cinq années de ma vie (Paris: La Découverte, 1994), pp. 259 ff.
The Section de Statistique had secret funds supervised by Henry for remunerating its secret agents. Gribelin later stated that Henry had embezzled from secret funds, using fictitious payments to Val Carlos as a cover and that the total amount of money concealed by Henry and found after his death in August 1898 was 25,000 or 26,000 francs. Ehrhardt, A travers l’affaire Dreyfus Henry et Val Carlos, pp. 65–72. Rumours of such questionable financial practices are mentioned by Herzl (October 1898), to whom the Kaiser related that the King of Romania had told him that embezzlement was at the heart of the Dreyfus Affair; that money had been stolen from General Staff’s secret funds; Dreyfus had been offered a share of 20,000 francs but since he refused it he had to be removed. T. Herzl, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, ed. R. Patai, trans. H. Zohn, 5 vols (New York and London: Herzl Press & Thomas Toseloff, 1960), p. 731.
Copyright information
© 2008 George R. Whyte
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Whyte, G.R. (2008). Treachery: March 1896–16 October 1897. In: The Dreyfus Affair. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230584501_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230584501_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-20285-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-58450-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)