J’accuse by Emile Zola

Emile Zola was a French novelist, playwright and journalist born in Paris in 1840. His father died in 1847 and his widowed mother had planned for Zola to have a law career but he failed his examination. In the build up to his breakthrough as a writer, he worked as a clerk in a shipping firm, and then in the sales department for Louis Hachette, a French publisher. Zola also wrote literary and art reviews for newspapers.

During his early years as a writer, Zola wrote several short stories and essays, four plays and three novels. Hachette fired him in 1865 after he published a sordid autobiographical novel called La Confession de Claude which met with poor appreciation from the general public and caught attention from the Public Prosecutor.

Zola went on to write a twenty-novel cycle called Le Rougon-Macquart subtitled a Natural and Social History of a family during the Second Empire. It follows the life of a fictional family living during the second French Empire between 1852 and 1870 and is an example of French Naturalism. As a naturalist writer, Zola was highly interested in science and especially the problem of heredity, the passing of traits to offspring, and evolution. The series traces the environmental influences of violence, alcohol and prostitution.

From 1877 onwards, Zola published more novels part of his twenty-volume series which established him as a successful author. He was an important contributor to the development of theatrical naturalism and a major figure in the political liberalization of France.
In 1898, Emile Zola risked his career when his article ‘J’Accuse’ was published on the 13^th January on the front page of the Paris Daily L’Aurore. The article was published in the form of an open letter to the President. Zola wrote the controversial story following a case known as the Dreyfus affair. He knew he was putting his career and more at risk as he says in his letter ‘Since they dared, I too will dare.’ This sentence itself, I believe portrays Zola’s point of fairness because if they had the right to start this affair he had the right to publish this letter. Zola highly expresses his opinions and throughout the letter he uses the word ‘truth’ to stress the importance of religious freedom, justice and fairness that was being ignored.  

The Dreyfus affair was a political scandal in the 1890’s. A Jewish artillery officer in the French Army, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, was convicted for treason in November 1894 after the French intelligence discovered papers containing military secrets in a wastebasket in an office in the German embassy left there by someone from the French army. Anti-Semitism and the fact Dreyfus was highly intelligent led senior officers to suspect him even though there was no direct evidence. Dreyfus was innocent but found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment at Devil’s Island where he was put in solitary confinement.

Although French Army officer Georges Picquart came across evidence that suggested Dreyfus was innocent, and that another officer, Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, was guilty. However, rather than freeing Dreyfus, the decision was made between the French army to protect Esterhazy and ensure the original verdict was not overturned. The army’s reason was “What difference does this make if a Jew dies on Devil’s Island.” Esterhazy was coached how to lie in court and was confident he would not be found guilty. French officer, Hubert-Joseph Henry forged documents that made it seem that Dreyfus was guilty and then had Picquart assigned duty in Africa. Before leaving, Picquart told some of Dreyfus’s supporters what he knew. It was announced in the Senate that Dreyfus was innocent and Esterhazy was guilty but the right-wing government refused new evidence to be allowed and Esterhazy was tried and acquitted. Picquart was sentenced to 60 days in prison. In his letter, Zola says ‘A council of war, under order, has just dared to acquit Esterhazy, a great blow to all truth, all justice.’ He uses strong words to express his passion he has for fairness, freedom and justice.

The Dreyfus affair completely divided France between the reactionary army and church, and the more liberal commercial society. The political right declared the Dreyfus case to be a conspiracy of Jews.

After Zola’s letter was published it formed a major turning-point in the affair. The government offered Dreyfus a pardon which he accepted and in 1906, Dreyfus was completely exonerated by the Supreme Court. Zola said, “The truth is on the march, and nothing shall stop it.”

Zola throughout his letter is very passionate in Dreyfus’ defence as he imagines Dreyfus suffering, in his words, ‘the most dreadful of tortures for a crime it did not commit.’

In his opening paragraphs, Zola addresses the President and describes him as honest and he is convinced the president is unaware Dreyfus’ innocence. It seems he is almost using sweet talk because he wants the President with great power, to gain his trust and support Dreyfus.

Zola goes on to list politicians and military personnel who he held responsible for the anti-Semitic conviction. He believes commander Du Paty de Clam was the first to accuse Dreyfus and believes he put Dreyfus through a ‘torturing insanity.’ Zola purposely uses passion and emotion throughout his letter that I felt effectively gave vivid images of Dreyfus’ experience. In his letter he is fighting to clear Dreyfus’ name and wants to make, not only the President, but the public reading it, feel appalled towards those who were involved in his conviction. He compares the torture of Dreyfus and the torture of those who knew the truth yet weren’t able to free an innocent man.

He also describes how this miscarriage of justice not only affects one man and his supporters but also women and children. Dreyfus’ wife was terrorized and put in danger by commander Du Paty De Clam. Zola is also trying to stress that wives and children are also involved in Dreyfus’ conviction and are in danger because they are loved by men who without any care can sleep at night knowing that at innocent man is suffering. Zola was considering the rights of everyone and was trying to use children and women to convince the President that this controversial story will cause conflict amongst all of France, dividing the country and affecting everyone.

Zola turns his attention to Picquart, and praises him for his honesty. He thinks that Picquart, who was the only honest man who did his duty, became the victim of ridicule and punishment. He’s trying to portray that all the honest men who were doing no wrong were being punished which to me and many people, is cruel and doesn’t make sense.

When concluding his letter, Zola effectively lists those he accuses individually, he effectively makes the names noticed and his points clear with his reasons identified.

His letter is clearly defamatory and Zola was brought to trial for criminal libel on 7^th February 1898
and was convicted on the 23^rd February, sentenced and removed from the Legion of Honor. But rather than go to jail, Zola fled to England.

He says in his letter, he has no hatred for the people he accuses which suggests that he does not want to appear judgemental however this seems contradictory as his letter clearly shows emotion and passion throughout. But the main purpose of the letter is to restore justice and to rightly free an innocent man and to punish those who are guilty.