J'Accuse

Antisemitism (prejudice or bias against Jewish people) has occurred throughout history. The Dreyfus Affair is considered a significant example of the institutional and widespread antisemitism that existed in France during the Third Republic.

A notable piece of antisemitic literature was La France Juvie, French for “Jewish France,” a 1,200-page manifesto written against the Jewish people of France by Edouard Drumont in 1886. Virulently antisemitic, this publication became a bestseller. Drumont made deeply racist claims and supported the oppression of Jewish people. His work was in large part an unfounded conspiracy theory, asserting that Jewish people controlled French commerce. He also caused religious division by renewing the established antisemitic trope that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Drumont was a founding member of the Antisemitic League of France, which organized riots during the Dreyfus Affair. Neither Drumont’s publications nor organizations were illegal at the time, reflecting social attitudes in France.

Zola addresses the role of rampant antisemitism in the Dreyfus Affair head on, writing that “the ‘dirty Jew’ obsession […] is the scourge of our time” (14). Zola, a liberal intellectual who openly discredited antisemitism, directly calls out the harmful tropes that Drumont and others were espousing in the press and across society. French Jewish people were depicted as inferior to non-Jewish French people, and the “dirty Jew” obsession that Zola exposes here refers not only to the harmful and false image of Jewish people as “racially unclean,” but also as disloyal to their country: This was the core allegation that Dreyfus faced.

Before and during the Dreyfus Affair, a number of antisemitic newspapers arose, which Zola makes reference to. In the conclusion, during his list of accusations against the parties he deems guilty, he writes, “I accuse the offices of the War Office of having used the press, particularly L’Éclair and L’Echo de Paris, to conduct an abominable campaign to mislead public opinion and cover up their own wrongdoing” (36). Zola outright names the newspapers that published antisemitic content and fomented anti-Dreyfusard sentiment. This highlights how antisemitism was so embedded in society that newspapers could publish racist content and hate speech without fear of consequence. Standing against this publicly, Zola calls out “odious anti-Semitism that, unchecked, will destroy the freedom-loving France of the Rights of Man” (26). Zola directly equates the morality and reputation of the French nation with its attitudes toward Jewish people. France, so newly established as a democracy rooted in Lockean principles, was fragile during this time period, and Zola worried that democracy and freedom would be in danger if various ideologies of hatred were to rise further.

The pervasiveness of antisemitism in 1890s France is also clear in Zola’s description of Lieutenant Colonel Picquart. Picquart was accused of fabricating evidence against Esterhazy in his attempt to prove Esterhazy’s guilt, as he believed Dreyfus to be innocent. Zola writes, “The best part of it is that Picquart was himself an anti-Semite. Yes!” (20). Antisemitism was so widespread throughout France that Picquart held antisemitic sentiments despite seeking to disprove the false accusations against Dreyfus. Here, Zola uses the weakness of antisemitic “argument” against Dreyfus’s detractors, showing that the evidence of his innocence is stronger than even the discrimination he faces.