nd justice. Silence on his part
would have been a denial of all his principles, all his past life. . . .
Against him are marshalled all the Powers of Darkness, all the energy of
those who prefer concealment to light, all the enmity of the military
hierarchy which has never forgotten "La Debacle," all the hatred of the
Roman hierarchy which will never forgive "Lourdes" and "Rome." And the
fetish of Patriotism is brandished hither and thither, rallying even
free-thinkers to the cause of concealment, while each and every appeal
for light and truth is met by the clamorous cry: "Down with the dirty
Jews!"

* He himself wrote these very words seventeen months later in
his article 'Justice,' published in Paris on his return from
exile.

'For even as Jean Calas was guilty of being a Protestant so is Alfred
Dreyfus guilty of being a Jew, and at the present hour unhappily there
are millions of French people who can no more believe in a Jew's
innocence than their forerunners could believe a Protestant to be
guiltless. Zola, for his part, is no Jew, nor can he even be called a
friend of the Jews--in several of his books he has attacked them somewhat
violently for certain tendencies shown by some of their number--but most
assuredly does he regard them as fellow-men and not as loathsome animals.
In the same way Voltaire wrote pungent pages against the narrow practices
of Calvinism and yet espoused the causes of Calas and Sirven, even as
Zola has espoused that of Dreyfus. The only remaining question is whether
Zola will prove as successful as his famous forerunner. [Nearly the whole
of the European press was at that stage expressing doubt on this point.]
In this connection I may say that I regard Zola as a man of very calm,
methodical, judicial mind. He is no ranter, no lover of words for words'
sake, no fiery enthusiast. Each of his books is a most laborious,
painstaking piece of work. If he ever brings forward a theory he bases it
on a mountain of evidence, and he invariably subordinates his feeling to
his reason. I therefore venture to say that if he has come forward so
prominently in this Dreyfus case it is not because he _feels_ that wrong
has been done, but because he is absolutely _convinced_ of it. Doubtless
many of the expressions in his recent letter to President Faure have come
from his heart, but they were in the first place dictated by his reason.
It is not for me here and at the present hour to speak of proofs