Trudy Gold
Dreyfus: Split Society and the Jews

Trudy Gold - Dreyfus: Split Society and the Jews

- Good evening, everyone, and welcome to yet another session on Dreyfus. Because as you understand, it is one of the most complicated and most important cases. It was the case that completely split and rocked France. And it hit every walk of life. Those of you who go to Paris, if ever you go down to the flea markets, you see so many front covers of magazines. In fact, there was one magazine cover I saw of a salon where a woman was lying on a couch and sort of look on and she said, “I’m so bored with L’ Affair Dreyfus.” And the point is, don’t forget how it split. It split between the conservative Catholic Monarchists and those who believed in the Republic, and at the centre was a Jew. And on the subject of antisemitism, I know I’ve been getting quite a few emails. And of course we have the “Shine a Light” series, and we’re very, very grateful that that is happening. But on the subject of antisemitism, I’m getting a lot of emails talking about antisemitism on the left, antisemitism on the right, and want to know where Israel fits into it and the whole Palestinian issue. Suffice to say, in January after we have finished France; so in February now, we are going to turn to Germany. But Wendy and I have decided that I’m going to actually run two sessions on the history of it. So we’re going to go all the way back to pre-Christian times, so that I’m going to pull out all the various threads for you. I hope that will be useful. But let me go on now with the Dreyfus affair. And please, can we have the first slide, Judi? Right, were there any before that, my darling? Have I got Dreyfus on Devil’s Island?

• [Judi] Yes, you asked me to to carry over the last three from the last presentations.

• Okay, sorry, can you go on? Sorry, can you go on first?

• [Judi] Do you want to start here then?

• Yes, yes, please. I’ll go on straight to Dreyfus. Select, yeah. Here you have a portrait of Dreyfus on Devil’s Island. And as you can see, it’s in the “Le Petit Journal”. And back here I have about 10 of these kind of covers. It’s an absolute obsession. Now, if you remember from last week, evidence had come to light back in 1896, Dreyfus’ brother never gave up. And there was a whole body of opinion that began to see that it was an army coverup. And it was left to Colonel Picquart, who I spoke of last week, who was Head of Counterintelligence to bring it to the attention of the army. What happened was the real culprit was Esterhazy, and he’s brought to trial and then he’s again acquitted. And not only that, it’s at his trial that more evidence against Dreyfus is accused and later is brought. And of course, later on it’s proved to be a forgery from Colonel Henry. Now, there’s so much going on that by 1898 we’re going to see that the conviction is going to be squashed by the Supreme Court, and they are going to insist on a separate trial. So can you go on please, Judi? And here you see the very, very famous article by Emile Zola, one of the most important of the writers in France, his letter in “L'aurore”, the paper that was at the time owned by Clemenceau, later President of the Republic.

I cannot overemphasise to you just how many there were on the left. You were either on the left and for justice; or on the right and for the army. Nobody in France… It wasn’t something that passed people by. I don’t know if Patrick’s… I think Patrick’s about to lecture on this, but when he deals with the Impressionists, some of them were totally pro-Dreyfus, others were completely anti-Dreyfus. And I’m going to leave it to Patrick to tell you because I don’t want to kind of skewer your love of art. Some of the greatest of the Impressionists tragically were totally anti-Dreyfus. Now, I’m going to talk a little about Emile Zola. So can we go onto his picture? I think I’ve got it in this presentation as well. Haven’t I, Judi? Yes, here you have the great Emile Zola. Because I think it’s important to also… If we look a bit at his biography, we’re going to get a picture of all the nuances, even Zola, who’s going to be such a champion of the pro-Dreyfusards. He also had his negativity about the Jews. And don’t forget that this period, there are under… think about it, there are under 100,000 Jews living in France out of a population of 38 million. Two thirds of them are in Paris. The majority of them, of course, are in what we would call high profile trades and professions. But now you are beginning to see Eastern European Jews coming in to add to the Jews who’ve come in from Alsace.

So there’s a lot of foreign Jews, in inverted commas, in a country that where many people could not cope with difference. And I think it’s also important to remember what France was like at the time. The massive industrialization process. The poverty in the countryside. The poverty of many of the workers in Paris. Think about some of the writings. And in fact, Dreyfus Affair is one manifestation. In the work of Zola, he’s going to deal with many of the social issues. Now, he’d been born in Aix-en-Provence, that wonderful city. He’s brought back to Paris where he lives very close to a childhood friend, Paul Cezanne, a great friend of his throughout his life. Although he goes to law school, he’s determined on a literary career, and his novels are set in Haussmann’s changing Paris. Look, he’s born in 1840. Don’t forget how many changes of government there are, from monarchy to republic. And now we are in the period of the third republic. Of course, the building of the great boulevards, the Haussmann boulevards, the building of the great, many of those wonderful buildings like the Opera House. The beauty of Paris against the squalor. Think of Toulouse-Lautrec, and how he would spend much of his time in the brothels. And of course, he became an addict to absinthe. So if you look at some of his novels, he writes about the influence of alcohol, prostitution. He is really the major figure of the intellectual left. And the term intellectual was actually coined at this time. If you look at his novel, “Germinal,” it’s the harsh, realistic account of the life of the coal miners in Northern France. “La Bete humaine”, sexuality and psychosis. “The Earth”, which is about his very strange relationship with Cezanne. In L'Assommoir, poverty and alcoholism in working class Paris. , one of his first novels, the negative criticism of an unhappily married woman and sexuality, her imprisonment. Many women at this time, of course lived… If we’re talking about the lives of the poor in Paris, you’ve also got to think about the role of women in Paris.

It took a long time for women to get the vote. And in , again, it’s about the great department stores, but how they exploit women. “Nana”, his great novel about the grand , insatiable pleasure-seeking women. And ironically, something like a quarter of the grand in Paris was born Jewish. Now, he risks his whole career over “J'accuse”, because in the article, he does blame the government and the army for using antisemitism to deflect from their incompetence and their reactionary policies. Now, as a result of that, of course there’s a libel trial, he has to flee to London where he stays for over a year. And this is what he writes: “Is France still the France of the Revolution and the declaration of the rights of man? The France which gave the world liberty and it was supposed to give it justice.” Let me repeat this, because this is the France that so many young people fell in love with. “Is this the France, still the France of the revolution and the declaration of the rights of man? The France gave to the world liberty and was supposed to give it justice.” Never forget, in the ‘30s, how many young Americans, young Brits, flooded to Paris despite the polarisation of society, because it was still the country of the rights of man. He accused the army of knowing that Estherhazy was the real culprit. So he’s sued for libel, he’s given a fine, he flees to England. Now, I also want to tell you that there were several Jewish characters in his books. It’s not an easy picture. For example, he’s well aware that how many Jews are on the . In his novel, “Eugène Rougon”, is an unscrupulous banker. He’s a railway contractor and Iron Master. He is the son of a Jewish banker. Nana, it’s Steiner who has amassed millions, and he becomes totally dissipated, and is really the slave of Nana. In , again, a novel on the . various Jewish characters; they’re bankers, they’re speculators.

His last novel “Verite”, ironically transfer the theme of the military to the world of teaching. This is a very sympathetic novel. A French Provincial School Master, Simon, whose brother’s David Jewish characters. And the villains in that are the priesthood. So it appears that the Dreyfus affair made him think far more hardly about the Jews. Now, I’m going to read you a couple of his articles in “Le Figaro”. This is 1896. “For some years I’ve been following with increasing surprise and disgust the campaign which some people in France are waging against the Jews.” So remember, he’s already had some rather controversial characters. This seems to be monstrous, by which I mean foreign to all common sense. He, after all, in the end, is a creature of the enlightenment. “To all common sense, truth and justice. Something blind which will carry it back several centuries, which would end in the worst of abominations, religious persecution.” He deals in this article, of course, with anti-Semitism and not with Dreyfus in particular. This is another article in which he talks about Jewish stereotypes. He said the stereotypes that Jews are “cranny, crafty, loving money, even if they are true.” He said, “They are the results of hundreds of years of our mindless persecutions.” And this is what he says, which I think many of you will argue with. “The Jews such as they are today are our work; 1800 years of idiotic persecution, contrasted the advanced Hebrew concept of unity of man with the racist, primitive insistence on racial conflict.” Later on, when the affair is really finished not to his satisfaction, but is vindicated. He said, “Truth is on the march.”

And he reiterated his belief in the conspiracy of army officers. And he says this, “The Jews have been insulted, beaten, and laden with injustice and violence, whilst non-Jewish neighbours have contemptuously abandoned the field of commerce to them and bestowed on them the label of users and traffickers.” You see, this is one of the problems, that because of the rather strange history of the Jews, the fact that they weren’t allowed into so many trades and professions, they do plunge into the modern world. They’re very good at modernity. And in fact, this criticism is taken on by the Zionists. What on earth do you think the move back to working the land was about? To inverted commas, prove that Jews could fill every niche in society. There is a book that writes. He writes out , it’s all about this. Personally, I think that’s very, very unfair because the minute Jews are allowed into every walk of life, they go into every walk of life and never forget the poverty of Eastern Europe. So even those who seem to be positive towards the Jew, in my view, they still, even the great Zola, they take on this negativity. But I must say that towards the end of his life, he was intending to visit Palestine to actually… He’s decided to write a novel on Zionism. He died actually of carbon monoxide poisoning. What happened to him was that he was sitting in his study working, he always worked a certain amount of time every day. And chimney sweeps came, and evidently they blocked the chimney.

Now, many pro Dreyfusards actually believed that Zola himself was murdered by the anti-Dreyfusards. Now, I’m going to read to you what one of the, I think one of the greatest Jewish thinkers of today, Adam Gopnick, said about the Dreyfus affair. “In the shadow of the Eiffel Tower.” Think of the great exhibition of 1900, “An assimilated Jew who had mastered the bureaucratic system, of ambition and , not Kafka’s world? Was it the epoch of progress or the epoch of reactionarism?” Now, can we turn to the next slide? Because what I’m going to give you is a few biographies of important characters who take sides. And here you have the very famous Georges Clemenceau, later president of the Republic. And at that time, the publisher of L'aurore. Now, interesting man, pro-Dreyfus side. He was born of a Huguenot mother and a physician father. In many ways, a man of the enlightenment. And it was the Huguenots who often had great sympathy for the Jews. And when we get to the war years in France, you’re going to see that so many of those who rescued Jews were in fact of Huguenot extraction. Was it because they were used to being persecuted? Was it because they themselves were outsiders? And of course, when we look at the wars in France, it’s going to be very, very, very controversial; because of course, France holds itself out as the great story of the resistance. But of course, was collaborationist. So when I say to you, these elements that are present today, present in , present at this period, I don’t think France knows which way it’s going to turn.

This polarisation of politics. Patrick tells me that… And I mean obviously he spends much of his time in France, and it’s not just what you read in the press. It’s talking to Patrick about people he meets. I mean, for example, he has a neighbour who believes that because Macron worked for the Rothchilds, he is part of the Rothchild conspiracy to take over the world in inverted commas. But going back to Clemenceau, with his Huguenot background, he had a terrible hatred of Catholicism. Think about the right, think about Pius the IX, the extraordinary Papal index. This is the man who is very much, he’s going to grow up in a enlightenment background. He studies medicine, he comes to Paris, he becomes a writer. And of course, he’s there for the reign of Napoleon the III, which he absolutely loathed, although he graduated as a doctor, he founds literary magazines. He flees France after the royalist crackdown, he goes to live in America. And he’s in America after the American Civil War. He sets up a medical practise, but he’s part of the literary salons of Paris. Don’t forget that these characters, intellectuality was so important amongst these circles in France, the right and to the left. So he’s writing for a Parisian newspaper. He’s very much interested in the working of American democracy. He marries an American woman and had three children, and they go back to France.

And it’s fascinating, his attitude to women, even though he had many mistresses, his wife took a lover, his American wife took a lover, the children’s tutor. And as a result of that, he had her sent to jail for indecency. He sent her back to America, third class steamer and took custody of the children. So he goes back to Paris after the 1870 defeat at the hands of the Germans. And he works in the 18th After the fall of the Commune, he’s elected to the Paris Municipal Council. He becomes a member of the Chamber of Deputies and the leader of the radical section. He wanted an amnesty for the communist. So isn’t this interesting? This is a man who fights for social justice, but his attitude to women is incredibly… well, you could use your own words for it. In 1880, he has a paper “La Justice”. It becomes the principle radical left wing paper in Paris. And then of course he owns and edits L'aurore and publishes “J'accuse”. And he was leading the campaign to revisit the Dreyfus affair. And also his great theme was the separation of church and state. And in 1906, his minister of the interior, of course the church and state is going to separate in 1905. But once he’s in power, he takes a very tough stand against the strikers, and he’s prime minister in 1906. He publishes a pamphlet against women’s suffrage. And this is what he said, “If women were given the vote, France would return to the Middle Ages.”

He later on, of course, and we’ll be coming back to Clemenceau many times, he is part of the with Britain, and of course his prime minister again in 1917, and is there of course for Versailles. So Clemenceau very much one of those who are in favour of Dreyfus. Can we go on please? There you have Estherhazy, the real problem of the trial that who I talked about last time. He was guilty. And as I said to you, he finishes up running a boarding house on the British seaside and was a notorious antisemite. He was a Hungarian aristocrat. One of those characters very popular with his officers but a complete scoundrel. Can we go on please? Now, this is interesting. And why have I bought G.K. Chesterton into the argument? Because I want to explain to you just how powerful the Dreyfus affair was in terms of Britain. In fact, Queen Victoria had telegraphed her Lord Chief Justice, Lord Russell, who’d been at the second trial, which I’m going to talk about in a minute, to protest. Two of the most important British writers of the time were completely pro-Dreyfus. Who were the foremost important writers at that time? Chesterton, George Bernard Shaw, Belloc, and the other one, and H.G. Wells. H.G. Wells, very much on the very much liberal, very pro-Dreyfus. Chesterton and Belloc, very, very anti-Dreyfus. And of course, Chesterton, he is the author of the famous Father Brown Stories, which are running on British television at the moment. Again, he converted to Catholicism from high church Anglicanism. He was St. Paul’s School… Those of you who live in England, one of the most important schools in London. He was an artist. He engages in public debates. From the 1930s, he gives radio talks. He’s the first president of the detectives club of mystery writers.

Pius the XI, another conservative pope invested him as a night commander. Chesterton society wants him Beatified, this Catholic who they want him be Beatified. He’s an easy writer to love, according to those who love his writings. He’s got writings, he’s got a style. He said, “My country, right or wrong.” And he didn’t like that… He said, it’s like saying my mother, right or wrong. He’s very difficult to defend. He wrote an essay every week. He was very much the voice against the war. He hated imperialism, he hated socialism. He wanted a smaller state. He wanted to go back to when life was much slower. He was a virulent antisemite. He got much of it from his brother who was a journalist and also from his anti-Dreyfus close friend, Hiliare Belloc. And of course, he mistrusted all Jews. And of course that was of literary tradition in England, through from Kipling to T.S. Elliott who adored him. And after World War I, he’s going to be obsessed with the Jewish problem. He said he was very anti the Jews of Palestine. He said all Arabs regard Jews as parasite that feed on a community by a thousand methods of financial intrigues. He said, put the Jews on trial. He absolved Henry Ford, the ghastly antisemite who wrote, of course, the eternal Jew. And this is what he said about America, Henry Ford’s America. “The people of the plains have found the Jewish problem explicitly as they much have struck oil.” He said, “They are foreigners who are not allowed to be called foreigners.” He said, “I will only tolerate Jews in England if they wear Arab costume.” Later on he spoke about Hitler, but he was a violent antisemite. And as I said, very close to Hilaire Belloc. Can we go on please?

There you see Queen Victoria, who was very pro-Dreyfus. Remember her daughter Vicky, who was the empress of Germany for a hundred days, she was also very pro-Jewish. During the period of anti-Semitism in Germany, her daughter went to synagogue. She was been a great admirer of Mendelssohn, and she loathed the anti-Dreyfusards. So it splits England. That’s why I wanted to bring it to your attention. Can we go on please? Can we talk a little bit now about Hilaire Belloc? He was a Franco English writer and historian. As I said, he was a bit of an adventurer. He was one of the great heroes of England. He had a very Catholic background. Oxford, he was a naturalised Brit, but did keep French citizenship. He became president of the Oxford Union. He was a very disputatious. He was very close to G.K. Chesterton. They called them Chester-Belloc. That’s what George Bernard Shaw referred to them as. They were so very close. He also campaigned against suffrage. He was chair of the Oxford Debating Society. I wanted to give you people who were incredibly clever. I want, once and for all, for us all to take on that antisemitism is a disease of the clever. It’s a disease of the right, it’s a disease of the left. And it is an eternal disease. It’s a 2000 year old disease. And the question is, is it incurable? And that’s something I’m going to refer to in a lot of depth when I actually attempt to address the whole issue for you in a series of lectures next academic year.

So he was a brilliant athlete. He had it all on one level. He’s the athlete, he’s the kind that he’s the adventurer. He very much attacked H.G. Wells, one of England’s other great writers who was pro-Dreyfus. Attacked him for a book he wrote, “The Outline of History” because he was secular. In fact, Stephen Fry reads his poetry. If you want to read these characters, they are great canons of English literature. He wrote cautionary tales for Children. As I said to you, I cannot emphasise, he’s one of the big four of Edwardian letters. Even Wells adored him as a writer. He wrote history books. He wrote the history of Louis the XIV. He’s an ardent exponent of orthodoxy, of Catholicism, and of the monarchy. He was a critic of so many elements of modernity. And this is where it comes from. The Jew is about modernity. Modernity is evil. They want to go back to a more pure world in inverted commas. And this is where you have the terrible tragedy of the Jew. The Jew who thinks he’s British. The Jew who thinks he’s French, pushing modernity, thinking they’re giving everything to the state, and basically are loved by some. It’s not a blanket hatred, remember. The Jews gave so much to the modern world. But this is a quote from Belloc. An extract from an article he wrote on the Jews. “The continued presence of the Jewish nation intermixed with other nations alien to it, presents a permanent problem of the gravest character.

The Catholic church is the conservator for an age old European tradition. And that tradition will never compromise with the fiction that a Jew can be other than a Jew. Whenever the Catholic church has power, and in proportion to its power, the Jewish problem will be recognised to the full.” Later on he did condemn Marxism. And this is… One of the important journalists of the time writing about Belloc. “When the conspiracy against Dreyfus was exposed, his voice rose like a hurricane in defence of the anti-Dreyfusards When Congo horrors shook the world, he braved the storm on behalf of Leopold of Belgium.” Of course, Leopold of Belgium, one of the most evil colonialists of all time, 11 million Africans were murdered. “And the Catholic against anything that threatened the conservative Catholic church.” So what I wanted to show you is that two of the greatest English writers who had huge following; they were Oxford men, they were extraordinarily powerful in their own right; they mixed with the English aristocracy. These are the characters who took the side of the anti-Dreyfusards. Can we go on please, Judi?

Here you see Count Albert de Mun. Now, important that we have a look at this man. He was a French aristocrat. And he was the son of a marquee and a brother of the Duke. He was close to René de La Tour du Pin, who I’m going to talk about in a minute. He championed the Catholic Workers Club. This is another angle on the Dreyfus affair, you see. He believes he’s got to protect the ordinary workers from the evil of modernity. So he’s a royalist, he’s a Catholic candidate, he’s a leader of the anti-Republican party. Now, he is awarded the order of St. Gregory by Pious the XI. He was a committed antisemite. He very much believed in the Jewish conspiracy and was a member of the Académie Française. Important. Can we go on please, Judi? Now here you see Anatole France, another story. He’s to the left. Another member of the Académie Française. Don’t forget, the 40 immortels, the organisation set up in time. An incredibly important organisation. That was the sign that you had made it as a great figure in French society. He’s a poet, he’s a journalist, he’s a novelist. And probably the model for literary idol. So he is sort of adored by the liberal left. Of course, he won the Nobel Prize in 1921, and one of his most important later works “Penguin Island”, satirises human nature. He gave special attention to the Dreyfus affair. And he prophesied that the world was in for a dystopian future. Violently anti-Catholic. In 1922, all his works were placed on the Papal Index.

Two years before he died, he said, “This is regarded as a distinction.” You know, the Papal Index was not abolished until 1966. Can we go on please? Here you see Jean-Baptiste Billot. He was the general who was accused by Dreyfus, by Zola of being part of it all. He’d had a famous military career. He’d won the . He participated in the Mexican adventure. Louis Napoleon had persuaded the younger brother of Franz Joseph, the Hapsburg ruler, who didn’t have a throne, to be become the king of Mexico. And he was involved in that Mexican adventure. He was asked to become the leader for Maximilian of his state for war, the Secretary of State for war. He refused after the Franco-Prussian war, which broke so many of these characters. They believed in the honour of France. He becomes part of the assembly in 1871. Many, many decorations. He’s the Minister of War during the Dreyfus affair. And he is implicated by Dreyfus that he actually had proof of Dreyfus’ innocence. So these are the characters. And you need to see how important they are in French society. Can we go on please, Judi? Here you see the antisemitic riots at the time. Now, this is not a phoney . You know, there’s been a great spark; I really shouldn’t mention current politics today, but of course, you can imagine what the British press is doing to the Prince Harry-Meghan’s story.

Now, this has been very, very carefully checked. These are antisemitic riots in May 1898. Very much stirred up by, don’t forget our friend Edouard Drumont, La Libre Parole. Now just look how the Dreyfus home was absolutely stormed. This is after the Chamber of Justice has said that he is innocent. The antisemitic riots, they go on and on and on. And there were over a thousand riots in different cities. You’ve got to understand that France is gripped by it. Can we go on please, Judi? This is very important. On May, 1898, 54-year old Edouard Drumont won the seat in Algeria. The riot spread to Algeria. This is the antisemite who created “La Libre Parole”. and also the man who’d written “Jewish France”, in which he said that the Jews control half the capital of France. Now, he stood for Algiers. And the colonials in Algiers, they were a hotbed of anti-Jewish feeling. And he wins with a crushing majority who had the right to vote. These are the colonialists of 11,557 votes against 2,328. One of the four victorious right-wing candidates in the city who had all campaigned on an antisemitic platform. This is in Algiers. You remember that it was in Algiers, but Crimea had managed to give the Jews of Algeria the right to La Patrie. He was carried shoulder high by an emotional crowd, joyful at the dramatic breakthrough of Drumont’s popular ethnic nationalism. But his victory went against the national trend.

Overall, the national results uttered in a period of war dominated by moderate republicans, radicals and socialists who embarked on an anticlerical programme that climaxed with a separation of church and state. This is important, because in the end, the Dreyfusards are going to win. Can we go on, Judi? Here you see, this is a poster in Saint-Etienne, calling on the people to come out in favour of the anti-Dreyfusards. “Imitate your brothers of Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Toulouse. Join with them against the underhand attacks being made on the nation.” There are riots, anti-Jewish riots, a thousand of them from city to city to city. A Jewish population, never forget, of under 100,000. This is terrifying. Can you go on please? Here you see Colonel Henry. Remember he is the one who had forged the extra documents to try and prove that Dreyfus had been guilty. He commits suicide for the honour of the France of the army. He did the right thing. He committed suicide. How can Dreyfus possibly be a real Frenchman? He didn’t kill himself for the honour of the army. Can we go on please, Judi? And here you see Charles Maurras. We’re going to hear a lot more of this individual. A very, very dangerous, I think, sinister character. He is born and he is going to be the creator of something that’s going to become very important after the first World War, Action Française.

He’s born in a family. Father dies, he’s brought up by his mother and his grandmother. It’s a very monarchist Catholic family. Very, very smart. Wealthy family. Publishes his first article aged 18. He loses his faith and he meets the a very interesting, also terribly antisemitic writer, who I’ve already mentioned to you, a man called Maurice Barra. Maurice Barra was also a member of the Académie Française, and wrote very many antisemitic tracks. I’m trying to find one for you. Would you hold on one minute? It’s an important one. Oh dear. You can sometimes be… Oh yes, sorry. This is Maurice Barra. “The Jews do not have a country in the sense that we understand it. For us, LA Patrie is our soul and our ancestors, the land of our dead. For them, it is the place where their self-interest is best preserved. Their intellectuals thus arrive at the famous definition, La Patrie as an idea, but which idea? That is which is most useful to them. For example, the idea that all men are brothers, that nationality is a prejudice to be destroyed. You will not deny that the Jew is a different being.” And this is the man who has huge influence on Charles Maurras, who’s going to be very, very important in the post First World War world and in the world, in terms of he’s going to gather huge support. So the divided society. Can a jew be a Frenchman? France is absolutely riven. So he becomes involved in politics at the time of the Dreyfus affair. He writes and endorses Colonel Henry’s forgery.

And he considers that any defence of Dreyfus weakens the army. And he said Dreyfus should be sacrificed on the altar of national interest. Let me repeat this. Dreyfus should be sacrificed on the altar of natural interest. He vilified what he called the Jewish republic. He said, “I believe in state antisemitism.” He founded the review Action Française and becomes, as I said, he is the man in the movement. He has wide support. And in 1905, he wrote bites, both for the “Figaro” and for paper. After the separation of church and state, because the liberals do win and they do manage to separate church and state. He found something called Camelots du Roi, a monarchist league. And he goes through for political action through extra parliamentary leagues pro… He joins up with the pro Catholics. Although he loses his faith, he joins up with them. He has the same interest. He doesn’t believe in the liberal state. He believes in monarchy. He believes in the army. He is a totalitarianism. And later on, he’s going to call, in 1925, he’s going to call for the murder of a man called Abraham Schrameck, who was the Jewish interior minister in a left wing coalition government. I must also point out to you, because you must see the balance, that France had three Jewish prime ministers. And there were many Jewish ministers. There was the liberal left, although there was antisemitism on the left, because there was this tradition that Jews had created capitalism, which tragically you can find it in you can find it .

And also, of course, in that notorious self-hating Jew, Karl Marx. He becomes a member of the Académie Française in 1938, although there was opposition. He’s going to be arrested after the liberation of Paris. And he calls it Dreyfus’ revenge. He was never thrown out of the Académie Française. His seat was actually vacanted, as they say. Can we go on please, Judi? Here we see another anti-Dreyfusard, Marquis de La Tour du Pin. He came from a long line of aristocrats. One of his ancestors had fought on crusade with Louis the IX, who I talked about a few weeks ago. Very Catholic, very royalist, very paternalistic. He went to the , served in the second empire, served in the Crimean war, taken prisoner during the Franco-Prussian war, and was in the surrender of Mets. He was worried about the unrest of the commune. Of course there was a Communard revolution in Paris, and he was very paternalistic. He wanted to work to keep the working classes Catholic in France. And he organised workers clubs. And by 1881, working with Albert de Mun, they had 50,000 members. Now, I was talking to William last night, and he’s already discussed this with you. Catholicism did begin to fail a little in France. Important to remember. And you have these aristocrats, these Catholic aristocrats, in a paternalistic way trying to give Catholicism back to the people.

In 1887, he becomes the military attache to Austria-Hungary. He’s very much influenced by Austrian social Catholicism. He admired Karl Lueger, the antisemitic mayor of Vienna. He met Leo the XIII in 1892. He discussed social capitalism, and he becomes very friendly with Charles Maurras and becomes a very much in favour of Action Française. He helped the movement. He dies in Switzerland. He wanted to go back to mediaeval times. He wanted to take France back to the mediaeval guilds. He wanted to deal with all the moral and spiritual problems facing the workers, not just social ones. He loathed liberalism and socialism. He saw them as products of the enlightenment, which he considered totally evil and totally anti-French. Should we go on please? Here we see Marqui de La… Can we go on please, Judi? This is what he wrote. “We are a kingdom of Christ. If the Deicide nation comes near, the only reason can be to give the Judas kiss.” Isn’t it interesting? The Deicide nation. I really believe, and probably I shouldn’t say this without a lot of explanation, but I’m going to try and give you that explanation in the new year. If the Deicide nation comes near, think about it. goes for, and so does This is the major plank, they believe, that led to the show-er. Of course, there is another ten factors at least. But it’s very important. “The only reason can be to give the Judas kiss. This Jewish people of ancient culture, experienced at every kind of bargain, skillful at arousing covetous feelings. Is it not possible to distinguish what was really the Jews work from that of the Calvinists,” we also hated, “Like Rousseau,” we hated. “So clearly did they walk together under a banner that of the rights of man and the citizen.” They hate the rights of man and the citizen.

This is extraordinary. Can you go on please, Judi? Thank you. Here we have George Vacher de Lapouge. A great friend of the other one. He was a French anthropologist. He was a theoretician of genetics and racism. He taught anthropology at Montpelier University. He believed the German Francs were the upper class, and the real upper class of French society. The were the ancestors of the peasantry. You’ve got to understand, in a period that’s so ridden, these kind of characters go back to that time in history when they were great. 19th century is a series of great discontents. This is not rational. When were we great? When that German tribe, the Francs conquered. Race to him was synonymous with social class. He described the Jew as the only competitor to the Aryan. He proposed a totalitarian state that would strictly enforce eugenics. Now, the anthropologist, G.K. Gunther who was important German race theorist was his disciple, and he sponsored him at the University of Jena. This man wanted to replace liberty, equality, fraternity, with determinism, inequality, and selection. That any Frenchman who rejected his views were influenced by the power of the Jews. Now Gunther, his disciple, taught at Jena, Berlin and Freiberg, and he had the chair of racial theory at Jena He joins the Nazi party in 1932, the only racial theorist to join it before it took power. And of course, you see the importance of these characters. This is going to be swallowed whole by the Nazi party. Okay, now can we go on please, Judi?

• [Judi] We have done all our slides, Trudy.

• Oh goodness. I thought… I’m going to have to read what he wrote. I thought I’d made a slide. I apologise, everyone. “The conquest of France is taking place at this very moment. To have made this conquest without fan fire, without a battle, without shedding a drop of blood; to have made it without any other weapons, that the millions of French people, and the laws of this country; that exploit is more remarkable than that of Alexandre or Caesar.” This is what he said about the Jews. Let me read it again. I’m sorry I should have put it on the screen. I apologise, Judi. “The conquest of France is taking place at this very moment.” Of course, it’s the Jews. “To have made this conquest without fan fire, without a battle, without shedding a drop of blood; to have made it without any other weapons, that the millions of French people, and the laws of the country that exploit it more remarkably; than that of Alexander and Caesar. He wrote that in 1899. However, they failed. Dreyfus, there is a second trial in Rennes. In Rennes, Dreyfus is again found guilty, but it’s overturned. The Rennes trial, what happens is: they still sentence him to 10 years, but because of hard labour, because of extenuating circumstances, and the , but he is not pardoned until 1906. People like Zola, they wanted him to stick the fight. But the poor man, he was broken. And you know what happened to Dreyfus?

He came back to France. The republic had won. Jean Juarez, who I’m going to talk about, he becomes the very important for politician, and later president of France. If he hadn’t been assassinated, maybe the first World war wouldn’t have happened, which I’ll be talking about him next time. But what happens is that poor Dreyfus, to him and to the Jews, they’ve been vindicated. What happens to Dreyfus? He rejoins the French army and he is in the first World War. He dies in 1935. But what I’m trying to say to you, even though on one level, Dreyfus was finally pardoned and exonerated, finally exonerated, the forces that controlled all of the hatred against him didn’t go away. So that is my contention: that France is the France of the two forces. And next week I will be dealing more with this. And then to try and lighten things over the festive period, the session I’m going to give you on the 29th, I’ve decided to look at the film "Casablanca”, because it is a war film, and because we can’t stay in the darkness all the time. And there are many, many other intervening events.

So I know this is quite difficult to take, but I personally believe that knowledge does set you free. And I know many of you have got a great deal of knowledge. And I think it’s important that we actually,, particularly in a time of rising antisemitism, that we look the beast square in the face. And please don’t forget that there are many other factors today, particularly the state of Israel. Now, a question you have to ask yourselves. Remember, it was the Dreyfus affair, more than anything else, that propelled Zionism, that propelled into Zionism. Oh yes, I know there was settlement there, et cetera. But he was the political man. He was the journalist who understood publicity, who understood it all. And it was the Dreyfus affair. It was him being at the box, the journalist box when Dreyfus is dishonoured. Can you imagine? It was like he was the European, he adored France, he’d adored Vienna. He saw the antisemitism. And that’s what sort of pushed him towards the creation of the Jewish state. If it had been left to him though, there would’ve been an opera house to rival that of Paris that performed “Tannhauser”. So on that note, Judi, let’s have a look at the questions, darling.

Q&A and Comments:

This is from Adrian, Shalom from Tel Aviv. It’s still warm with cold, cool nights.

Shelly’s telling us this is the sick day without any sunshine in Chicago.

Rochelle, Bright Sunshine in Toronto.

And Peter Brie, I believe Estherhazy spent his last years in where he’s buried in the local church. Yes, indeed, Peter. Camille Pissarro was pro-Dreyfus. He spent a lot of his time in England, by the way. And sending stuff to Peter.

I’m sorry. Yes, Francious. Clemenceau prime minister. I misspelt. I mis-said. Yes. Thank you. What would I do without you lot? If I get it wrong, you can always tell me and you can push it further.

That’s interesting. Yes, he devised the title , “J'accuse” for the Zola article. What an incredible title.

Q: How would I evaluate the film “An Officer and a Spy”?

A: Do you know, I haven’t seen it. I’ve read the book. I went to hear Robert Harris. I’ve seen so many different films on Dreyfus, I believe it’s a good film. Look, the most interesting for me is actually the early one on the life of Emil Zola, which starred Paul Muni. It’s a brilliant film, but the word Jew isn’t mentioned. It is fictional. It is a wonderful read.

Jonathan is is echoing in that. Yes, and I was lucky that I went just before lockdown. I heard him interviewed at Jewish Book Week. It’s a very, very interesting interview. The photo of Chesterton reminds me of Boris Johnson.

Q: Hi Susan. Lovely to hear from you. Could you please show the photo of the J'accuse article?

A: I did, didn’t I, Sarita? Oh, thank you. There you got it. Thank you. Thank you, Jude.

Yeah, sorry, Trudy. You’re incorrectly untrue to describe Chesterton as a violent anti… Yes, I’m going to be coming back to him. He did in the end hate Hitler.

But his early days, James… I’m sorry, James. His early stuff at the time of the Dreyfus affair, and afterwards, it’s awful. It really is. I’m sorry. I’m going to argue with that. Later on, he did speak out against Belloc. And you need to work out why he was a Zionist. It’s a very difficult… You know, we’ve got a real problem here because so many people love their work. He’s brilliant. So is Chesterton. But that’s one of the problems. I had a very interesting conversation with Anita about music. She said music is neither good nor bad. It’s music. Maybe you can say the same thing about literature. Is literature good literature or bad literature? And is on television quite soon. Readings from T.S. Elliot, a notorious antisemite. Are we going to say that we can’t listen to anyone if they’re antisemitic? I don’t believe that. It’s complicated. It’s always complicated.

This is Belloc was reputed to be the perpetrator of the pun. When I’m gone, I trust it will be said his sins were scarlet, but his books were red. That is so clever. That’s one of our problems, isn’t it? What was the Papal index, Margaret? It was the banned books of the Catholic church.

There you go, Vicki. Thank you. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum. List of prohibitive books with a list of publications deemed heretical or contrary to morality by the sacred congregation of the index. Catholics were forbidden to read it. Thank you, Vicky. As I said, I keep on telling you how much I learn and love lockdown. But let’s be careful. We’ve got to be careful about just throwing all this trouble at the Catholics. Please don’t forget that…

Q: Have you ever read the Harem that was issued by the in the Spanish and Portuguese synagogue against Spinoza?

A: There is intolerance everywhere, and in each group. I’m not speaking out particularly in favour of any one group or the other. What’s that wonderful quote of Tom Lehrer? I hate intolerance. If only there were more Tom Lehrer’s. It might be worthwhile to discuss 19th century views on race, people like Houston Stuart Chamberlain.

Unfortunately, Mitzi, I already have. I dealt with Houston Stuart Chamberlain when I looked at Vienna. But I will be coming back because we are going back. Next term, we are going to spend about three months on Germany. All of us. That means William, myself, Patrick, David. And bringing in some of our guest lecturers as well. There will be other lecturers on other subjects of course. But what the team liked to do is to run a core.

Maurice, I talked a lot about Dreyfus last week.

This is Alison, many people supported Dreyfus. I remember learning in detail in school, and was very moved that he was actually freedom pardoned. But he had suffered. Yes, he suffered absolutely dreadfully. What I’m trying to give you is how France was divided. And one of the reasons I wanted to concentrate on some of the individuals is that they were members of the Académie Française.

Yes, Pissarro was Jewish, Shelly. “Officer and Spy” is not released in UK because of Polanski. Thank you for that, Michael. Now, I believe you can get it in Canada. I know somebody sent it to me from France, but I couldn’t play it ‘cause the lineage was different.

Q: Can we discuss Charles de Gaulle?

A: It won’t be me, but I believe William would definitely be discussing Charles de Gaulle.

This is Rhonda from Toronto. Have a wonderful, safe, well-deserved holiday. And Judi is typing an answer.

Will James Patterson get in touch with me? I think we need to have a debate on all of this. Maybe I overstated. I’ve got to think that through. Anyway, all of you, I wish you all well in this very, very, very dark time. And we have another lecture tonight, don’t we, Jude?

• [Judi] Yes, we have Jeremy Rosen in an hour.

• Yes. And please don’t forget that… And don’t forget that Jeremy will be talking about, next week, he’s going to be doing a session for Hanukkah on the Hellenes, which will be fascinating.

• [Judi] Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you, Trudy. And see you soon.

• [Trudy] God bless, everyone.