Podcasts about dreyfusards

ชมวิดีโอ EP นี้ใน YouTube เพื่อประสบการณ์การรับชมที่ดีที่สุด https://youtu.be/GNNWDwmN3nU 8 Minute History เอพิโสดนี้ ยังคงอยู่กับ ‘คดีเดรย์ฟัส' คดีประวัติศาสตร์สุดอื้อฉาวของฝรั่งเศส ที่อคติทางเชื้อชาตินั้น สามารถบิดเบือนความยุติธรรมของประเทศที่เชื่อในเสรีภาพ เสมอภาค และภราดรภาพ จนทำให้ผู้บริสุทธิ์คนหนึ่งต้องถูกพรากอิสรภาพไป เรื่องราวของอัลเฟรด เดรย์ฟัส สร้างความสั่นสะเทือนไปทั่วฝรั่งเศส คำตัดสินให้จำคุกเดรย์ฟัสตลอดชีวิตนั้นสร้างความคลางแคลงใจให้กับครอบครัวของเขาและชาวฝรั่งเศสกลุ่มหนึ่งเป็นอย่างมาก ปฏิบัติการทวงคืนความยุติธรรมให้กับเดรย์ฟัส โดย Dreyfusards จึงได้เริ่มต้นขึ้น พร้อมหลักฐานชิ้นสำคัญที่โยงใยไปสู่ ‘คนขายชาติ' ตัวจริง

ชมวิดีโอ EP นี้ใน YouTube เพื่อประสบการณ์การรับชมที่ดีที่สุด https://youtu.be/GNNWDwmN3nU8 Minute History เอพิโสดนี้ ยังคงอยู่กับ ‘คดีเดรย์ฟัส' คดีประวัติศาสตร์สุดอื้อฉาวของฝรั่งเศส ที่อคติทางเชื้อชาตินั้น สามารถบิดเบือนความยุติธรรมของประเทศที่เชื่อในเสรีภาพ เสมอภาค และภราดรภาพ จนทำให้ผู้บริสุทธิ์คนหนึ่งต้องถูกพรากอิสรภาพไปเรื่องราวของอัลเฟรด เดรย์ฟัส สร้างความสั่นสะเทือนไปทั่วฝรั่งเศส คำตัดสินให้จำคุกเดรย์ฟัสตลอดชีวิตนั้นสร้างความคลางแคลงใจให้กับครอบครัวของเขาและชาวฝรั่งเศสกลุ่มหนึ่งเป็นอย่างมาก ปฏิบัติการทวงคืนความยุติธรรมให้กับเดรย์ฟัส โดย Dreyfusards จึงได้เริ่มต้นขึ้น พร้อมหลักฐานชิ้นสำคัญที่โยงใยไปสู่ ‘คนขายชาติ' ตัวจริง

Qui se souvient de Madame Zola ? Née Eléonore, dans un milieu populaire, devenue Gabrielle l'affranchie parmi les peintres de l'époque et épouse l'ami de Cézanne, Emile Zola. Zola l'auteur des Rougon Macquart, 20 volumes de l'Histoire naturelle et sociale d'une famille sous le second Empire, Zola le chef de file des Dreyfusards dénonçant dans J'accuse le complot ourdi contre le capitaine juif et toujours à ses côtés, Alexandrine. Flamboyante Zola est le troisième roman de Jean-Louis Milesi. Il décrit la part d'ombre d'un monument de la littérature, sa double vie conjugale, ses mensonges, sa peur de vieillir sans enfant. Une histoire qui pour une fois se raconte du point de vue de son épouse, Alexandrine.Jean-Louis Milesi est l'invité de Sur le pont des arts. Flamboyante Zola vient de sortir aux Presses de la cité. Au programme de l'émission :Chronique Pionnières de la culture Marjorie Bertin nous raconte la vie d'Artemisia Gentileschi. Cette peintre issue du caravagisme est l'une des rares femmes de l'époque moderne à avoir pu vivre de son art.Reportage Direction Kigali au Rwanda, notre correspondante Lucie Mouillaud nous fait découvrir la danse des Intore. Cet art, pratiqué par les jeunes combattants d'élite issus de la noblesse tutsie, est entré au patrimoine mondial immatériel de l'Unesco en décembre 2024.Playlist du jour- Sarabland -  Senny Camara et Cory Seznec - Matcha Queen – Yoa- Need Me - Rita Ange Kagaju feat Kivumbi King.

Qui se souvient de Madame Zola ? Née Eléonore, dans un milieu populaire, devenue Gabrielle l'affranchie parmi les peintres de l'époque et épouse l'ami de Cézanne, Emile Zola. Zola l'auteur des Rougon Macquart, 20 volumes de l'Histoire naturelle et sociale d'une famille sous le second Empire, Zola le chef de file des Dreyfusards dénonçant dans J'accuse le complot ourdi contre le capitaine juif et toujours à ses côtés, Alexandrine. Flamboyante Zola est le troisième roman de Jean-Louis Milesi. Il décrit la part d'ombre d'un monument de la littérature, sa double vie conjugale, ses mensonges, sa peur de vieillir sans enfant. Une histoire qui pour une fois se raconte du point de vue de son épouse, Alexandrine.Jean-Louis Milesi est l'invité de Sur le pont des arts. Flamboyante Zola vient de sortir aux Presses de la cité. Au programme de l'émission :Chronique Pionnières de la culture Marjorie Bertin nous raconte la vie d'Artemisia Gentileschi. Cette peintre issue du caravagisme est l'une des rares femmes de l'époque moderne à avoir pu vivre de son art.Reportage Direction Kigali au Rwanda, notre correspondante Lucie Mouillaud nous fait découvrir la danse des Intore. Cet art, pratiqué par les jeunes combattants d'élite issus de la noblesse tutsie, est entré au patrimoine mondial immatériel de l'Unesco en décembre 2024.Playlist du jour- Sarabland -  Senny Camara et Cory Seznec - Matcha Queen – Yoa- Need Me - Rita Ange Kagaju feat Kivumbi King.

Um dos mais célébres manifestos libertários do planeta, o texto “J'accuse,” do escritor francês Émile Zola, publicado na imprensa parisiense do século XIX, acaba de inspirar a criação de um museu, inaugurado nesta terça-feira (26) pelo presidente da França, Emmanuel Macron. Localizado em Médan, na região de Paris, o Museu Dreyfus foi instalado na antiga casa de Zola e traz mais de 500 documentos destinados a perpetuar a memória do "caso Dreyfus", que polarizou a sociedade francesa da época. “Nunca se esqueçam de nossas lutas do passado, porque elas nos contam que o mundo em que vivemos, assim como nosso país, como nossa República, podem estar novamente ameaçados”, disparou o presidente francês Emmanuel Macron nesta terça-feira (26) ao inaugurar o museu dedicado ao célebre "caso Dreyfus". O chefe de Estado fazia alusão aos diversos episódios de antissemitismo que vêm assombrando o país - e o Velho Continente - recentemente. “Há, neste museu, o que é indissociável entre o que compõe a nação e a República Francesa: os ideais, o amor pela língua e este gosto pela verdade e pela Justiça”, disse Macron aos descendentes de Alfred Dreyfus e Émile Zola, presentes na inauguração. Acompanhado pelo ex-primeiro-ministro da França, Manuel Valls, e pelo rabino-chefe da França, Haïm Korsia, o presidente francês visitou o museu que apresenta curiosidades como um fac-símile do famoso falso deslize que incriminou o capitão Dreyfus na época, acusado injustamente de traição, assim como muitos cartazes antissemitas ou ofensivos contra Émile Zola.  “Zola também faz parte desta luta pela qual se arriscou loucamente, uma luta eminentemente republicana”, acrescentou Emmanuel Macron. Com a visita desta terça-feira, Macron mantém uma promessa feita em março de 2018 no jantar anual do Crif (Conselho Representativo das Instituições Judaicas na França). "J'accuse", um monumento à verdade e à Justiça "J'accuse" [em português, "Eu acuso"] é o título do célebre artigo redigido pelo escritor francês Émile Zola na época do "caso Dreyfus", e publicado no jornal L'Aurore do 13 de janeiro de 1898, sob a forma de uma carta endereçada ao presidente da República da França da época, Félix Faure. O chamado affaire Dreyfus polarizou os franceses em dois campos opostos: aqueles que, como Zola, defendiam a inocência do capitão Alfred Dreyfus na acusação de traição e espionagem, da qual foi finalmente foi inocentado depois de um longo processo, e aqueles que o consideravam culpado. A condenação, no final de 1894, do capitão Dreyfus - por ter supostamente entregue documentos secretos franceses ao Império Alemão - teria sido, segundo especialistas, um "erro judicial ou mesmo uma conspiração judicial", com um pano de fundo de espionagem, em um contexto social particularmente favorável ao antissemitismo e ao ódio à Alemanha [conhecido como "revanchismo"], após a anexação da Alsácia-Lorena em 1871. O caso movimentou a sociedade francesa durante nada menos do que 12 anos, de 1894 a 1906, dividindo-a profunda e duramente em dois campos opostos: os "Dreyfusards", partidários da inocência de Dreyfus, e os "anti-Dreyfusards", que acreditavam na sua culpa. O processo virou filme  - "O Oficial e o Espião" (2020) - na mão do não menos polêmico Roman Polanski, com o oscarizado Jean Dujardin no papel principal. Na época dos fatos, o artigo de Zola - o famoso "J'accuse" - foi publicado na primeira página e foi a manchete do diário L'Aurore, cujos 300.000 exemplares esgotaram-se em poucas horas. Vários intelectuais assinaram, na ocasião, uma petição em favor da revisão do processo Dreyfus, publicada também pelo jornal, entre eles nomes como Anatole France, Georges Courteline, Octave Mirbeau e Claude Monet. As assinaturas foram recolhidas por estudantes ou jovens escritores da época, como Marcel Proust. Zola recebeu diversas mensagens de apoio, mas também cartas injuriosas e ameaças de caráter antissemita ou xenófobo [o pai de Zola era italiano]. O caso Dreyfus, que iria inflamar as multidões [francesas e mundiais] durante vários anos, acabara de nascer, no meio da polêmica. O capitão Dreyfus foi finalmente reabilitado em 1906. Memorial contra o antissemitismo O Museu Dreyfus, inaugurado nesta terça-feira (26) pelo presidente francês, deseja "perpetuar a memória de Émile Zola e do caso Dreyfus, vítima de um complô judicial e antissemita de 1894", afirmou Louis Gautier, presidente da associação Maison Zola-Musée Dreyfus, ao jornal Le Parisien. A antiga residência do autor de Germinal, na região de Yvelines, tem cerca de 300 m2, e abre suas portas ao público na quinta-feira (28), apresentando mais de 500 documentos entre objetos, manuscritos, fotografias, canções, filmes, brochuras, cartazes, desenhos e folhetos destinados a perpetuar a memória do capitão. Poucos dias após a sua inauguração, o museu deverá receber "crianças em idade escolar para tratar das questões do antissemitismo, racismo e exclusão, o funcionamento da justiça, o papel dos meios de comunicação e das redes sociais, além do papel dos intelectuais na democracia", explicou Gautier. A criação do museu e a restauração do espaço foram financiadas em grande parte pelo empresário Pierre Bergé, companheiro do famoso estilista Yves Saint Laurent, assim como pela região de Ile-de-France, a Fundação para a Memória da Shoah [Holocausto] e a Delegação Interministerial de Luta contra o Racismo, o Anti-semitismo e o Ódio Anti-LGBT (Dilcrah).

durée : 00:04:58 - Les Nuits de France Culture - par : Philippe Garbit, Albane Penaranda, Antoine Dhulster - La Nuit Paul Signac - Entretien 3/3 avec Charlotte Hellman qui clôt cette nuit en rappelant les engagement de Paul Signac, notamment auprès des anarchistes, puis des dreyfusards et qui se place souvent du côté des plus faibles. - réalisation : Virginie Mourthé - invités : Charlotte Liebert Hellman arrière-petite fille de Paul Signac.

André Gide est un écrivain français, né à Paris 6e le 22 novembre 1869 et mort à Paris 7e le 19 février 19511. Après une jeunesse perturbée par le puritanisme de son milieu, jeune Parisien, où il se lie d'une amitié intense et tourmentée, avec Pierre Louÿs, il tente de s'intégrer au milieu littéraire post symboliste et d'épouser sa cousine. Une rencontre avec Oscar Wilde et un voyage intiatique avec Paul Albert Laurens le font rompre avec le protestantisme et vivre son homosexualité péderaste. Il écrit, notamment Paludes qui clotûre sa période symboliste et, après la mort « libératrice » de sa mère, ses noces avec sa cousine Madeleine, il achève Les Nourritures terrestres, dont le lyrisme est salué par une partie de la critique à sa parution en 1897 mais qui est aussi critiqué pour son individualisme. Après des échecs au théâtre, il s'affirme comme un romancier moderne dans la construction et dans les thématiques et s'impose dans les revues littéraires. Si André Gide y soutient le combat des Dreyfusards, mais sans militantisme, il préfére les amitiés littéraires — Roger Martin du Gard, Paul Valéry ou Francis Jammes —, amitiés qui s'effacent parfois avec le temps comme celle de Pierre Louys. C'est avec ces amis qu'il crée La Nouvelle Revue française (NRF) dont il est le chef de file et joue dès lors, un rôle important dans les lettres françaises. Parallèlement, il publie des romans sur le couple comme L'Immoraliste en 1902 ou La Porte étroite en 1909 qui le font connaître. Ses autres romans publiés avant et après la Première Guerre mondiale — Les Caves du Vatican (1914) délibérément disloqué, La Symphonie pastorale (1919), son livre le plus lu, traitant du conflit entre la morale religieuse et les sentiments, Les Faux-monnayeurs (1925) à la narration non linéaire — l'établissent comme un écrivain moderne de premier plan auquel on reproche parfois une certaine préciosité. Les préoccupations d'une vie privée marquée par l'homosexualité assumée et le désir de bousculer les tabous sont à l'origine de textes plus personnels comme Corydon (publié tardivement en 1924) où il défend l'homosexualité et la pédérastie, puis Si le grain ne meurt (1926), récit autobiographique qui relate sa petite enfance bourgeoise, ses attirances pour les garçons et sa vénération pour sa cousine Madeleine qu'il finit pas épouser tout en menant une vie privée compliquée. Plaque au 1bis rue Vaneau, Paris 7e Son œuvre trouve ensuite un nouveau souffle avec la découverte des réalités du monde auxquelles il est confronté. Ainsi le voyageur esthète découvre l'Afrique noire et publie en 1927 le journal de son Voyage au Congo, dans lequel il dénonce les pratiques des compagnies concessionnaires mais aussi celles de l'administration coloniale et l'attitude de la majorité des Européens à l'égard des colonies. Au début des années 1930, il s'intéresse au communisme, s'enthousiasme pour l'expérience soviétique, mais subit une désillusion lors de son voyage sur place à l'été 1936. Il publie son témoignage la même année, Retour de l'U.R.S.S., qui lui vaut les attaques haineuses des communistes. Il persiste cependant dans sa dénonciation du totalitarisme soviétique au moment des procès de Moscou et s'engage, parallèlement, dans le combat des intellectuels contre le fascisme. En 1940, accablé par les circonstances, il abandonne la NRF et quasiment l'écriture en se repliant sur la Côte d'Azur, puis en Afrique du Nord durant la guerre. Après la guerre, il est mis à l'écart de la vie littéraire, mais honoré par le prix Nobel de littérature en 1947, et il se préoccupe dès lors de la publication intégrale de son Journal. Il meurt le 19 février 1951.

The episode "tore society apart, divided families, and split the country into two enemy camps, which then attacked each other …”   A description by some future historian looking back at Britain after Brexit? No - it is how the late French President Jacques Chirac described the so-called “Dreyfus Affair”, which shook France from top to bottom a century ago.   Alfred Dreyfus was a Jewish army officer who was convicted on false charges of passing military secrets to the Germans. He spent several years in prison on Devil's Island, and was only released and exonerated after a long campaign led by eminent figures such Emile Zola.   Although the circumstances of the Dreyfus affair are very different to those surrounding Brexit, there are certain parallels – for example, the way that people came to identify themselves as either Dreyfusards or anti-Dreyfusards.   The Dreyfus affair and its aftermath convulsed France for decades, with French society split down the middle about whether Dreyfus was guilty or innocent.   How important are societal divides like these?  Should they be allowed to run their natural course - or should steps be taken to encourage “healing”, as Boris Johnson recently urged?   In this edition of Analysis, Professor Anand Menon, Director of the UK in a Changing Europe, looks back at the Dreyfus affair, and asks what lessons we can learn - and whether they can help us better understand what is happening in Britain as the country faces up to the reality of Brexit, and the coronavirus crisis.   Contributors: Alastair Campbell, former Downing Street press secretary to Tony Blair Ruth Harris, Professor of Modern European History, University of Oxford Margaret MacMillan, emeritus Professor of International History, University of Oxford Philippe Oriol, historian and author of “The False Friend of Captain Dreyfus” Paula Surridge, Senior Lecturer in the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies at Bristol University Nick Timothy, former joint chief of staff at 10 Downing Street Anthony Wells, Head of Research, YouGov Translation of extract from “J’Accuse…!” by Emile Zola, by Shelley Temchin and Jean-Max Guieu, Georgetown University. Presenter: Professor Anand Menon Producer: Neil Koenig Editor: Jasper Corbett

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you’re like me (and I hope you aren’t), the “Trial of the Century” involved a washed-up football star, a slowly moving white Bronco, an ill-fitting glove, and charges of racism. I watched every bit of it and remember exactly where I was when the verdict was announced. But if you are French (which is a nice thing to be), then there is only one “Trial of the Century” and it involved an honorable though stuffy army captain, a torn up note of no significance, a bungling military establishment, and charges of anti-Semitism. The erstwhile American football player (and actor, don’t forget he was an actor) was guilty, pretty much everyone knew it, but no one really wanted to take the issue on. The aloof French officer was innocent, pretty much everyone knew it too, but in this instance a kind of culture war broke out. France circa 1900 was at a fork in the historical road: on the left, the liberalism of the Revolution; on the right, the conservatism of the post-Napoleonic settlement. So which was it to be: France a nation of free-thinking citizens or France a nation of Catholic Frenchmen? The question was not definitively answered during the Dreyfus Affair, but new (and somewhat disturbing) possibilities were sketched out. The analysis of these new paths is one (among many) of the great strengths of Ruth Harris‘s new book Dreyfus: Politics, Emotion, and the Scandal of the Century (Henry Holt, 2010) . She shows that both sides–the Dreyfusards (aka “Intellectuals”) and the Anti-Intellectuals–used the Affair to elaborate their visions for France and, in the process, worked themselves into a tizzy. They began to believe things that, well, only a lunatic could believe. French political culture entered a kind of surreal moment (a bit like American political culture during the O.J. trial if you ask me). Alas, the French didn’t quickly come back to reality after the Affair ended. They organized parties and continued to fight. And they are still fighting. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices