J'Accuse

“Dare to tell the truth, as I have pledged to tell it, in full, since the normal channels of justice have failed to do so.”

Zola appoints himself as the voice of justice in the Dreyfus case. “The normal channels of justice” refer to the court martials that convicted Dreyfus and acquitted Esterhazy.

“And this is how the case proceeded, like some fifteenth century chronicle, shrouded in mystery, swamped in all manner of nasty twists and turns, all stemming from one trumped-up charge, that idiot bordereau.”

Using the allusion to the 15th century demonstrates how the court proceedings lack logic and reason, likening the Dreyfus court martial to a witch hunt or witch trial. Zola also furthers the point that the bordereau was invented to indict Dreyfus in a crime he did not commit.

“Having set it all in motion merely by carelessness and lack of intelligence, they seem at worst to have given in to the religious bias of their milieu and the prejudices of their class. In the end, they allowed stupidity to prevail.”

The “religious bias” and “prejudices” Zola refers to are antisemitism. Zola equates the surrendering to these beliefs to stupidity, further demonstrating his distaste for antisemitic beliefs.

“The public was astounded; rumors flew of the most horrible acts, the most monstrous deceptions, lies that were an affront to our history. The public, naturally, was taken in. No punishment could be too harsh. The people clamored for the traitor to be publicly stripped of his rank and demanded to see him writhing with remorse on his rock of infamy.”

Zola outlines the catastrophic impact of the false accusations and rumors about Dreyfus’s alleged treason. He once again appeals to the audience to consider how the future generations will look back upon this ordeal, as an “affront” to the historical standing of the Third Republic and France’s place in global politics.

“He knew several languages. A crime! He carried no compromising papers. A crime! He would occasionally visit his birthplace. A crime! He was hard-working, and strove to be well informed. A crime! He did not become confused. A crime! He became confused. A crime! And how childish the language is, how groundless the accusation!”

Zola utilizes irony and sarcasm to illustrate how ludicrous the claims made against Dreyfus were. In juxtaposing “a crime” with the listed normal behaviors, Zola further emphasizes the frivolity of the supposed evidence in the court martial that convicted Dreyfus. Dreyfus was innocent, and any investigation into the facts of the case would demonstrate that.

“The evidence of Dreyfus’s character, his affluence, the lack of motive and his continued affirmation of innocence combine to show that he is the victim of the lurid imagination of Major du Paty de Clam, the religious circles surrounding him, and the “dirty Jew” obsession that is the scourge of our time.”

Zola addresses the antisemitism of du Paty de Clam and French society at large that contributed to the conviction of Dreyfus. The image of the “dirty Jew” is the stand-in for antisemitic tropes that were popular during the Third Republic.

“How could anyone expect a court martial to undo what another court martial had done?”

This rhetorical question demonstrates the futility of another court martial to investigate Esterhazy’s guilt. A court martial wrongfully convicted Dreyfus, and Zola argues another court martial could not create justice out of injustice because the military system cannot be seen to overturn a previous ruling.

“But this is not about that army, whose dignity we are seeking, in our cry for justice. What is at stake is the sword, the master that will one day, perhaps, be forced upon us. Bow and scrape before that sword, that god? No!”

Zola addresses the issue of militarism. The image of the sword stands in for the army, whose total control over the case of Dreyfus Zola calls into question. He argues that if the army is allowed to get away with sending an innocent man to a penal colony, it sets a dangerous precedent for the power of the military moving forward.

“It is a crime that those people who wish to see a generous France take her place as leader of all the free and just nations are being accused of fomenting turmoil in the country, denounced by the very plotters who are conniving so shamelessly to foist this miscarriage of justice on the entire world.”

Zola explores the question of France’s place in global politics, as either a country among the “free and just nations,” or instead a country run by an antisemitic military with no regard for justice. He claims that the “plotters,” or the members of the military behind the framing of Dreyfus, put France’s global reputation at stake.

“Truth and justice, so ardently longed for! How terrible it is to see them trampled, unrecognized and ignored!”

Truth and justice are two key concepts that Zola uses to further his rhetorical argument, placing the Dreyfusard cause on the side of what is morally right, and the anti-Dreyfusard cause on the side of what is morally wrong. Zola is also personifying truth and justice and painting the image of the downtrodden and disregarded by French society, which also assists him in his argument.

“These military tribunals have, decidedly, a most singular idea of justice.”

The military tribunals failed to find true justice in the court martial of Alfred Dreyfus, the “singular” idea being whatever defends the army from scrutiny. Zola suggests that justice is less important to the members of the army and government that pushed forth Dreyfus’s conviction than the truth and a just verdict, demonstrating the militarism of France during this time that did not allow for any scrutiny of army affairs.

“In making these accusations I am aware that I am making myself liable to articles 30 and 31 of the July 29 1881 law on the press making libel a punishable offense. I expose myself to that risk voluntarily.”

Zola would shortly be arrested for libel for writing J’Accuse…!. He acknowledges he understands that risk and demonstrates an understanding of what is to come. In publicly declaring this, he allies himself with the convicted Dreyfus and demonstrates the strength of his conscience.

“My fiery protest is simply the cry of my very soul.”

Zola utilizes emotional language and pathos in this sentence to stir feelings of righteous indignation in his readership. With the image of his soul crying with “fire,” he encourages his readers to empathize with his anger at the injustice of the Dreyfus Affair.