What makes the book new is the
story being told through Georges Picquart, a stalwart French officer whose family
left Alsace after France lost the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. In the
mid-1990’s he is an ambitious 40 year old major, a career officer, looking to
become a general.
While devoted to the army he is
not a sycophant. Ordered to observe and report on the Drefyus trial he
questions the strength of the case. Special measures are undertaken by the army
through provision of a secret dossier to the court martial court to ensure
conviction. Picquart delivers the file to the judges. How the frame-up unravels
provides the plot.
As the historical story is well
known I will not venture into details. What I want to discuss is the conduct of
the legal proceedings.
The military of nations around the
world have zealously maintained separate judicial systems to try soldiers,
sailors and air force personnel charged with offences. As with most
organizations they believe they can best understand the evidence and the
procedures involved in the cases. Normally military cases are swifter to reach
trials than civil proceedings. While militaries are never going to cede jurisdiction
for military justice to civil courts the Dreyfus Affair shows the weaknesses
when a justice system is not independent.
In France of the late 19th
Century courts martial were public events. Having trials open to the public is
one of the fundamental guarantees that justice will be done as it is seen to be
done.
I appreciate some evidence in
proceedings against alleged spies must remain confidential form the public but,
if it cannot be tested by review and questioning from counsel for the defence,
it is prone to error.
With Dreyfus, the secret file
neither Dreyfus nor his lawyer saw at his trial, contained the pivotal evidence.
At the same time it proved totally unreliable when eventually it was carefully
scrutinized.
Once the army concluded its
“honour” would be besmirched if Dreyfus was acquitted all sense of justice was
lost. It is hard to admit mistakes. It is worse in affairs of national security
to seek a scapegoat.
Had that file been subject to the
same rigorous scrutiny that other evidence received it would have been clear
that there was a spy in the French army who was not Dreyfus. Even a basic
investigation would have revealed it was “Count” (the title is claimed not
real) Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy.
Once a wrongful conviction had
been obtained the army sought to cover up its misdeeds.
Reviews and re-trials were within
the French military systems. The command of the French army committed itself to
a lie to try to maintain its “honour” for a wrongful conviction and cover-up. No
military judicial system was going to find Dreyfus not guilty.
When the case was first
reviewed in civil courts they were caught by the principle that appellate
courts must accept findings of facts by lower courts if there is some evidence
to support them.
With military judges finding facts
against Dreyfus appeals were doomed.
Yet Picquart, who never liked
Dreyfus and had little regard for Jews, and other Dreyfusards, most famously
Emile Zola, and dedicated lawyers created a record that ultimately freed
Dreyfus when set out in French parliamentary proceedings.
Harris casts Picquart in the role
of reluctant sleuth who, while in command of the French “Statistical Section” (Secret
Service), to his surprise and dismay determines there was a miscarriage of
justice. Picquart is a genuine man of honour who is not prepared to acquiesce
to injustice. Equally important he places the security of the nation, finding
the real spy, above the “honour” of the army.
In an earlier non-fiction book, Selling Hitler, Harris vividly told the
story of how fake Hitler diaries were accepted as genuine because Stern magazine and historians wanted
them to be real.
In An Officer and a Gentleman he sets out how the French Army and its
judicial system accepted forged and other undependable evidence as it wanted
Dreyfus, a Jew, to be the spy.
Harris has written an excellent
book. He has a talent for turning historic events into good fiction. An Officer and a Spy reminds me of
how he created a good book, Enigma,
on the British breaking of German codes during WW II.
Based on my previous reading of a
non-fiction account of the Dreyfus Affair I believe and appreciate that Harris
was factual in his exploration of the events set out in An Officer and a Spy. He accepts the facts are strong enough on
their own rather than trying to sensationalize them further in his retelling. An Officer and a Spy is a very good
book. (Sept. 30/14)
Bill - This does sound like an interesting book. And I found your discussion of the legal aspects of the Dreyfus case very interesting too. It is hard I think to strike a balance between preserving confidential military information for security reasons, and ensuring that evidence used in a case undergoes appropriate scrutiny. As you say, if the evidence is not really examined, it's (sometimes tragically) too easy to accept it as genuine, whether it is or isn't.
ReplyDeleteMargot: Thanks for the comment. I say security can only be gained when the truth is determined. Secrecy is the enemy of truth.
DeleteThis sounds like an excellent book. The Dreyfus case was a colossal miscarriage of justice, and an example of anti-Semitism in the extreme.
ReplyDeleteI read a passage from the book which related a demonstration of 20,000 in France yelling, "Kill the Jew." I was rather taken aback at the level of bigotry here, which is why I'm not sure about reading the book. But I appreciate that the author researched for it and wrote as good and thorough book as he has.
Kathy D.: Thanks for the comment. It was discouraging to read of the depth on Anti-Semitism in France. Many assumed guilt because Dreyfus was Jewish. Harris does not shy from the prejudices of the time. I wonder if Esterhazy had been Jewish and Dreyfus non-Jewish if events would have been different.
DeleteI shared your liking for this book when I read it: and was interested in the author comments, where he says that almost everything in the book is factual. I enjoyed your legal take on it, bearing out what I suspected to be true about the outrageousness of the legal process - I am glad you were able to confirm it with your expertise.
ReplyDeleteMoira: Thanks for the comment. Yet another example where truth inspires great fiction.
DeleteI lost interest when I came across "kitsch" on the first page, I'm afraid. I couldn't accept a nineteenth century French officer who said "kitsch".
ReplyDeleteThe level of anti-Semitism was frightening: not just in France. Even after the truth was established, for example, G.K. Chesterton insisted Dreyfus was somehow guilty. See this Father Brown story, for example: http://www.ccel.org/c/chesterton/wisdom/drhirsch.html
Roger: Thanks for the comment.
ReplyDelete"Kitsch" did not slow me down. An occasional misplaced word does not bother me.
I was equally struck by the virulent anti-Semitism.
Another book I am looking forward to reading. Thanks for this review and I will come back and re-read when I have read my copy.
ReplyDeleteTracyK: Thanks for the comment. It is a book that will make you think.
DeleteI would love to read this book, but the virulent anti-Semitism, quite true then, and unfortunately, having reared its ugly head during the U.S. elections, would probably prevent me from doing so.
ReplyDeleteMy grandparents fled anti-Semitic pogroms in 1907 Russia, and I'm not anxious to read about more real anti-Semitism. It dawns on me that they fled not that long after the Dreyfus Affair took place in France.