Editing Dreyfus affair (section)

=== The denunciation of Esterhazy and the progress of Dreyfusism ===
The nationalist press launched a violent campaign against the burgeoning Dreyfusards. In counter-attack, the General Staff discovered and revealed the information hitherto ignored in the "secret file".<ref>v. articles in ''L'Éclair'' of 10 and 14 September 1896, which were opposed to Dreyfus and revealed the existence of the "secret file". Bredin, ''The Affair'', p. 163. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> Doubt began to surface, and figures in the artistic and political spheres asked questions.<ref group="Note">[[Paul Adolphe Marie Prosper Granier de Cassagnac|Cassagnac]], though antisemitic, published an article entitled ''Doubt'' {{in lang|fr}} in mid-September 1896.</ref> Picquart tried to convince his seniors to react in favour of Dreyfus, but the General Staff seemed deaf. An investigation was started against him, he was monitored when he was in the east, then transferred to [[French protectorate of Tunisia|Tunisia]] "in the interest of the service".<ref>Bredin, ''The Affair'', p. 167. {{in lang|fr}}</ref>

At this moment Major Henry chose to take action. On 1 November 1896, he created a false document, subsequently called the "faux Henry" [Henry forgery],<ref group="Note">Otherwise known as "faux patriotique" [patriotic forgery] by the anti-Dreyfusards.</ref> keeping the header and signature of an ordinary letter from Panizzardi, and wrote the central text himself:

{{blockquote|I read that a deputy will call on Dreyfus. If you ask further explanations from Rome, I would say that I never had relations with the Jew. That is understood. If asked, speak like that, because that person should never know what happened with him.}}

This was a rather crude forgery. Generals Gonse and Boisdeffre, however, without asking questions, brought the letter to their minister, [[Jean-Baptiste Billot|General Jean-Baptiste Billot]]. The doubts of the General Staff regarding the innocence of Dreyfus flew out the window.<ref name=Bredin168>Bredin, ''The Affair'', p. 168. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> With this discovery the General Staff decided to protect Esterhazy and persecute Colonel Picquart, "who did not understand anything".<ref name=Bredin168 /> Picquart, who knew nothing of the "faux Henry", quickly felt isolated from his fellow soldiers. Major Henry accused Picquart of embezzlement and sent him a letter full of innuendo.<ref>[http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k750834 ''History of the Dreyfus Affair'' Volume 2] p. 517 et seq. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> He protested in writing and returned to Paris.

Picquart confided in his friend, lawyer Louis Leblois, who promised secrecy. Leblois, however, spoke to the vice president of the Senate, the Alsatian [[Auguste Scheurer-Kestner]] (born in [[Mulhouse]], like Dreyfus), who was in turn infected by doubts. Without citing Picquart, the senator revealed the affair to the highest people in the country. The General Staff, however, still suspected Picquart of causing leaks. This was the beginning of the Picquart affair, a new conspiracy by the General Staff against an officer.<ref>Doise, ''A well kept secret'', p. 109 et seq. {{in lang|fr}}</ref>

Major Henry, although deputy to Picquart, was jealous and fostered his own malicious operation to compromise his superior.<ref>Henry aspired to be Sandherr's successor, having been his assistant for many years, but Picquart was appointed head of the SR. The dismissal of Picquart would allow Henry to satisfy his ambition (Bredin, ''The Affair'' p. 262).</ref> He engaged in various malpractices (making a letter and designating it as an instrument of a "Jewish syndicate", wanting to help Dreyfus to escape, rigging the "petit bleu" to create a belief that Picquart erased the name of the real recipient, drafting a letter naming Dreyfus in full).

Parallel to the investigations of Picquart, the defenders of Dreyfus were informed in November 1897 that the identity of the writer of the "bordereau" was Esterhazy. Mathieu Dreyfus had a reproduction of the bordereau published by ''[[Le Figaro]]''. A banker, Castro, formally identified the writing as that of Esterhazy, who was his debtor, and told Mathieu. On 11 November 1897, the two paths of investigation met during a meeting between Scheurer-Kestner and Mathieu Dreyfus. The latter finally received confirmation that Esterhazy was the author of the note. Based on this, on 15 November 1897 Mathieu Dreyfus made a complaint to the minister of war against Esterhazy.<ref>Bredin, ''The Affair'', p. 200. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> The controversy was now public and the army had no choice but to open an investigation. At the end of 1897, Picquart returned to Paris and made public his doubts about the guilt of Dreyfus because of his discoveries. Collusion to eliminate Picquart seemed to have failed.<ref>Thomas, ''The Affair Without Dreyfus'', p. 475. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> The challenge was very strong and turned to confrontation. To discredit Picquart, Esterhazy sent, without effect, letters of complaint to the president of the republic.<ref>[http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k750834 ''History of the Dreyfus Affair'' Volume 2], p. 603 and 644. {{in lang|fr}}</ref>

[[File:Émile Zola par Paul Nadar.jpg|thumb|upright|Émile Zola in 1898]]

The Dreyfusard movement, led by Bernard Lazare, [[Mathieu Dreyfus]], [[Joseph Reinach]] and [[Auguste Scheurer-Kestner]] gained momentum.<ref>For all this paragraph, excluding additional details: Winock, ''The Century of Intellectuals'', pp. 11–19.</ref> [[Émile Zola]], informed in mid-November 1897 by Scheurer-Kestner with documents, was convinced of the innocence of Dreyfus and undertook to engage himself officially.<ref group=Note>"He had already intervened in ''Le Figaro'' in May 1896, in the article "''For the Jews''".</ref> On 25 November 1897 the novelist published ''Mr. Scheurer-Kestner'' in ''[[Le Figaro]]'', which was the first article in a series of three.<ref group="Note">According to the ''Syndicat'' of 1 December 1897 and the ''Minutes'' of 5 December 1897.</ref> Faced with threats of massive cancellations from its readers, the paper's editor stopped supporting Zola.<ref>Zola, ''Fight for Dreyfus'', p. 44. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> Gradually, from late-November through early-December 1897, a number of prominent people got involved in the fight for retrial. These included the authors [[Octave Mirbeau]] (his first article was published three days after Zola)<ref>See ''Chez L'Illustre Ecrivain'', published in ''Le Journal'' of 28 November 1897, collected in Octave Mirbeau, ''The Dreyfus Affair'', 1991, pp. 43–49. {{in lang|fr}}</ref> and [[Anatole France]], academic [[Lucien Lévy-Bruhl]], the librarian of the ''[[École normale supérieure (Paris)|École normale supérieure]]'' [[Lucien Herr]] (who convinced [[Léon Blum]] and [[Jean Jaurès]]), the authors of ''[[La Revue Blanche]]'',<ref group=Note>At that time the heart of the artistic avant-garde, publishing [[Marcel Proust]], [[Saint-Pol-Roux]], [[Jules Renard]], [[Charles Péguy]], et al.</ref> (where Lazare knew the director Thadee Natanson), and the Clemenceau brothers [[Albert Clemenceau|Albert]] and [[Georges Clemenceau|Georges]]. Blum tried in late November 1897 to sign, with his friend [[Maurice Barrès]], a petition calling for a retrial, but Barrès refused, broke with Zola and Blum in early-December, and began to popularize the term "intellectuals".<ref>The concept began in a deeply pejorative sense, to denounce, wrote [[Ferdinand Brunetière]] "there is a pretension to raise writers, scholars, teachers, philologists to the rank of supermen" (Michel Winock, ''The Age of intellectuals'', p. 29). {{in lang|fr}}</ref> This first break was the prelude to a division among the educated elite after 13 January 1898.

The Dreyfus affair occupied more and more discussions, something the political world did not always recognize. [[Jules Méline]] declared in the opening session of the National Assembly on 7 December 1897, "There is no Dreyfus affair. There is not now and there can be no Dreyfus affair."<ref>[http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/Dreyfus/dreyfus_chambredesdeputes_s%C3%A9ance_4decembre1897.asp Excerpts from the meeting of 4 December 1897], at the website of the National Assembly. {{in lang|fr}}</ref>