Antisemitism, p.25
Antisemitism,
p.25
[back]
* * *
53 Herzog, op. cit., under date of 1892 shows at length how the Rothschilds began to adapt themselves to the republic. Curiously enough the papal policy of coalitionism, which represents an attempt at rapprochement by the Catholic Church, dates from precisely the same year. It is therefore not impossible that the Rothschild line was influenced by the clergy. As for the loan of 500 million francs to Russia, Count Münster pertinently observed: “Speculation is dead in France. . . . The capitalists can find no way of negotiating their securities . . . and this will contribute to the success of the loan. . . . The big Jews believe that if they make money they will best be able to help their small-time brethren. The result is that, though the French market is glutted with Russian securities, Frenchmen are still giving good francs for bad roubles”; Herzog, ibid.
[back]
* * *
54 Cf. J. Reinach, op. cit, I, 471.
[back]
* * *
55 Cf. Herzog, op. cit., p. 212.
[back]
* * *
56 Cf. Max J. Kohler, “Some New Light on the Dreyfus Case,” in Studies in Jewish Bibliography and Related Subjects in Memory of A. S. Freidus, New York, 1929.
[back]
* * *
57 The Dreyfus family, for instance, summarily rejected the suggestion of Arthur Livy, the writer, and Lévy-Bruhl, the scholar, that they should circulate a petition of protest among all leading figures of public life. Instead they embarked on a series of personal approaches to any politician with whom they happened to have contact; cf. Dutrait-Crozon, op. cit., p. 51. See also Foucault, op. cit., p. 309: “At this distance, one may wonder at the fact that the French Jews, instead of working on the papers secretly, did not give adequate and open expression to their indignation.”
[back]
* * *
58 Cf. Herzog, op. cit., under date of December, 1894 and January, 1898. See also Charensol, op. cit., p. 79, and Charles Péguy, “Le Portrait de Bernard Lazare,” in Cahiers de la quinzaine, Series XI, No. 2 (1910).
[back]
* * *
59 Labori’s withdrawal, after Dreyfus’ family had hurriedly withdrawn the brief from him while the Rennes tribunal was still sitting, caused a major scandal. An exhaustive, if greatly exaggerated, account will be found in Frank, op. cit., p. 432. Labori’s own statement, which speaks eloquently for his nobility of character, appeared in La Grande Revue (February, 1900). After what had happened to his counsel and friend Zola at once broke relations with the Dreyfus family. As for Picquart, the Echo de Paris (November 30, 1901) reported that after Rennes he had nothing more to do with the Dreyfuses. Clemenceau in face of the fact that the whole of France, or even the whole world, grasped the real meaning of the trials better than the accused or his family, was more inclined to consider the incident humorous; cf. Weil, op. cit., pp. 307–8.
[back]
* * *
60 Cf. Clemenceau’s article, February 2, 1898, in op. cit. On the futility of trying to win the workers with antisemitic slogans and especially on the attempts of Léon Daudet, see the Royalist writer Dimier, Vingt ans d’Action Française, Paris, 1926.
[back]
* * *
61 Very characteristic in this respect are the various depictions of contemporary society in J. Reinach, op. cit., I, 233 ff.; Ill, 141: “Society hostesses fell in step with Guérin. Their language (which scarcely outran their thoughts) would have struck horror in the Amazon of Damohey . . .” Of special interest in this connection is an article by André Chevrillon, “Huit Jours á Rennes,” in La Grande Revue, February, 1900. He relates, inter alia, the following revealing incident: “A physician speaking to some friends of mine about Dreyfus, chanced to remark, ‘I’d like to torture him.’ ‘And I wish,’ rejoined one of the ladies, ‘that he were innocent. Then he’d suffer more.’”
[back]
* * *
62 The intellectuals include, strangely enough, Paul Valéry, who contributed three francs “non sans reflexion.”
[back]
* * *
63 J. Reinach, op. cit., I, 233.
[back]
* * *
64 A study of European superstition would probably show that Jews became objects of this typically nineteenth-century brand of superstition fairly late. They were preceded by the Rosicrucians, Templars, Jesuits, and Freemasons. The treatment of nineteenth-century history suffers greatly from the lack of such a study.
[back]
* * *
65 See “11 caso Dreyfus,” in Civiltà Cattolica (February 5, 1898).—Among the exceptions to the foregoing statement the most notable is the Jesuit Pierre Charles Louvain, who has denounced the “Protocols.”
[back]
* * *
66 Cf. Martin du Gard, Jean Barois, pp. 272 ff., and Daniel Halévy, in Cahiers de la quiniaine, Series XI, cahier 10, Paris, 1910.
[back]
* * *
67 Cf. Georges Sorel, La Revolution dreyfusienne, Paris, 1911, pp. 70–71.
[back]
* * *
68 To what extent the hands of members of Parliament were tied is shown by the case of Scheurer-Kestner, one of their better elements and vice-president of the senate. No sooner had he entered his protest against the trial than Libre Parole proclaimed the fact that his son-in-law bad been involved in the Panama scandal. See Herzog, op. cit., under date of November, 1897.
[back]
* * *
69 Cf. Brogan, op. cit., Book VII, ch. 1 : “The desire to let the matter rest was not uncommon among French Jews, especially among the richer French Jews.”
[back]
* * *
70 Immediately after he bad made his discoveries Picquart was banished to a dangerous post in Tunis. Thereupon he made bis will, exposed the whole business, and deposited a copy of the document with his lawyer. A few months later, when it was discovered that he was still alive, a deluge of mysterious letters came pouring in, compromising him and accusing him of complicity with (he “traitor” Dreyfus. He was treated like a gangster who bad threatened to “squeal.” When all this proved of no avail, he was arrested, drummed out of the army, and divested of his decorations, all of which be endured with quiet equanimity.
[back]
* * *
71 To this group, led by Charles Péguy, belonged the youthful Romain Rolland, Suarez, Georges Sorel, Daniel Halévy, and Bernard Lazare.
[back]
* * *
72 Cf. M. Barrés, Seines el doctrines du nationalisme, Paris, 1899.
[back]
* * *
73 See Yves Simon, op. cit., pp. 54–55.
[back]
* * *
74 The faculty rooms of Rennes University were wrecked after five professors had declared themselves in favor of a retrial. After the appearance of Zola’s first article Royalist students demonstrated outside the offices of Figaro, after which the paper desisted from further articles of the same type. The publisher of the pro-Dreyfus La Bataille was beaten up on the street. The judges of the Court of Cassation, which finally set aside the verdict of 1894, reported unanimously that they had been threatened with “unlawful assault.” Examples could be multiplied.
[back]
* * *
75 On January 18, 1898, antisemitic demonstrations took place at Bordeaux, Marseille, Clermont-Ferrant, Nantes. Rouen, and Lyon. On the following day student riots broke out in Rouen, Toulouse, and Nantes.
[back]
* * *
76 The crudest instance was that of the police prefect of Rennes, who advised Professor Victor Basch, when the latter’s house was stormed by a mob 2,000 strong, that he ought to hand in his resignation, as he could no longer guarantee his safety.
[back]
* * *
77 Cf. Bernanos, op. cit., p. 346.
[back]
* * *
78 For these theories see especially Charles Maurras, Au Signe de Flore; souvenirs de la vie politique; l’Afjaire Dreyfus et la fondation de l’Action Française, Paris, 1931; M. Barrés, op. cit.; Léon Daudet, Panorama de la Troisième République, Paris, 1936.
[back]
* * *
79 Cf. Clemenceau, “A la dérive,” in op. cit.
[back]
* * *
80 It was precisely this which so greatly disillusioned the champions of Dreyfus, especially the circle around Charles Péguy. This disturbing similarity between Dreyfusards and Anti-Dreyfusards is the subject matter of the instructive novel by Martin du Gard, Jean Barois, 1913.
[back]
* * *
81 Preface to Contre la Justice. 1900.
[back]
* * *
82 Clemenceau, in a speech before the Senate several years later; cf. Weil, op. cit., pp. 112–13.
[back]
* * *
83 See Herzog, op. cit., under date of October 10, 1898.
[back]
* * *
84 “K.V.T.,” op. cit., p. 608.
[back]
* * *
85 Gallifet, minister of war, wrote to Waldeck: “Let us not forget that the great majority of people in France are antisemitic. Our position would be, therefore, that on the one side we would have the entire army and the majority of Frenchmen, not to speak of the civil service and the senators;. . .” cf. J. Reinach, op. cit., V, 579.
[back]
* * *
86 The best known of such attempts is that of Déroulède who sought, while attending the funeral of President Paul Faure, in February, 1899, to incite General Roget to mutiny. The German ambassadors and chargés d’affaires in Paris reported such attempts every few months. The situation is well summed up by Barrés, op. cit., p. 4: “In Rennes we have found our battlefield. All we need is soldiers or, more precisely, generals—or, still more precisely, a general.” Only it was no accident that this general was non-existent
[back]
* * *
87 Brogan goes so far as to blame the Assumptionists for the entire clerical agitation.
[back]
* * *
88 “K.V.T.,” op. cit., p. 597.
[back]
* * *
89 “The initial stimulus in the Affair very probably came from London, where the Congo-Nile mission of 1896–1898 was causing some degree of disquietude”; thus Maurras in Action Française (Jùly 14, 1935). The Catholic press of London defended the Jesuits; see “The Jesuits and the Dreyfus Case,” in The Month, Vol. XVIII (1899).
[back]
* * *
90 Civiltà Cattolica, February 5, 1898.
[back]
* * *
91 See the particularly characteristic article of Rev. George McDermot, C.S.P., “Mr. Chamberlain’s Foreign Policy and the Dreyfus Case,” in the American monthly Catholic World, Vol. LXVII (September, 1898).
[back]
* * *
92 Cf. Lecanuet, op. cit., p. 188.
[back]
* * *
93 Cf. Rose A. Halperin, op. cit, pp. 59, 77 ff.
[back]
* * *
94 Bernard Lazare, Job’s Dungheap, New York, 1948, p. 97.
[back]
* * *
95 Cf. Fernand Labori, “Le mal politique et les partis,” in La Grande Revue (October-Decembcr, 1901): “From the moment at Rennes when the accused pleaded guilty and the defendant renounced recourse to a retrial in the hope of gaining a pardon, the Dreyfus case as a great, universal human issue was definitely closed.” In his article entitled “Le Spectacle du jour,” Clemenceau speaks of the Jews of Algiers “in whose behalf Rothschild will not voice the least protest.”
[back]
* * *
96 See Clemenceau’s articles entitled “Le Spectacle du jour,” “Et les Juifs!” “La Farce du syndicat,” and “Encore les juifs!” in L’Iniquité.
[back]
* * *
97 Cf. Zola’s letter dated September 13, 1899, in Correspondance: lettres à Maître Labori.
[back]
* * *
98 Cf. Herzog, op. cit., p. 97.
[back]
* * *
99 Lazare’s position in the Dreyfus Affair is best described by Charles Péguy, “Notre Jeunesse,” in Cahiers de la quinzaine, Paris, 1910. Regarding him as the true representative of Jewish interests, Péguy formulates Lazare’s demands as follows: “He was a partisan of the impartiality of the law. Impartiality of law in the Dreyfus case, impartial law in the case of the religious orders. This seems like a trifle; this can lead far. This led him to isolation in death.” (Translation quoted from Introduction to Lazare’s Job’s Dungheap.) Lazare was one of the first Dreyfusards to protest against the law governing congregations.
[back]
* * *
Hannah Arendt, Antisemitism
