Émile Zola: “I Accuse”

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

Zola makes reference to a “bordereau,” a listing of documents. This list, found in a wastebasket in the German embassy, was the principal piece of evidence used to convict Dreyfus after handwriting experts attributed the list to him. Zola argues that Major Armand Mercier du Paty de Clam was responsible for concocting the charges of treason: “He was the one who 'invented' Dreyfus the traitor, the one who orchestrated the whole affair and made it his own.” The major, with the complicity of generals whom Zola names, carried out their “machinations” because of the “religious bias of their milieu and the prejudices of their class.” After discussing the flimsiness of the evidence against Dreyfus, Zola concludes “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 then turns to the issue of Major Esterhazy, noting that further investigation showed that the bordereau was in Esterhazy's handwriting. High-ranking officials in the French military knew this and thus knew that Dreyfus was innocent, yet they suppressed the evidence. The alternative would have been to admit the guilt of the entire French War Office in convicting Dreyfus. For this reason, the military hierarchy covered up its new findings, and the court-martial that tried Esterhazy delivered an “iniquitous verdict” in acquitting him. Zola responds: “And what a nest of vile intrigues, gossip, and destruction that sacred sanctuary that decides the nation's fate has become! We are horrified by the terrible light the Dreyfus affair has cast upon it all, this human sacrifice of an unfortunate man, a 'dirty Jew.'”

Zola summarizes his arguments by beginning a sequence of sentences with the words “I accuse.” He accuses Major du Paty de Clam of being “the diabolical creator of this miscarriage of justice.” He accuses various French generals of “complicity” and one of “having held in his hands absolute proof of Dreyfus's innocence and covering it up.” He accuses military investigators of a “villainous enquiry,” the handwriting experts of “submitting reports that were deceitful and fraudulent,” the War Office of an “abominable campaign to mislead the general public and cover up their own wrongdoing,” and the two courts-martial—the one that convicted Dreyfus and the other that acquitted Esterhazy—of “illegality.” Zola concludes by acknowledging that by publishing his letter, he runs the risk of being charged with libel. In a gesture of defiance, he ends his letter: “Let them dare, then, to bring me before a court of law and let the enquiry take place in broad daylight! I am waiting.”