The host
for the evening had encountered “An Officer and a Spy”(2013) at his bedside
when visiting a friend in Arnisdale. Having started the book by Robert Harris
during his visit, he persuaded his friend to let him take it to complete his
read. He thoroughly enjoyed the
book. Recommending a recently published book was a bit of a departure from his
previous recommendations, the novelty of this might have influenced his choice.
He spent
some time describing the historical context of the “Dreyfus Affair”, which had
become a national scandal that tore France apart, and has had an enduring
influence ever since.
The
Franco-Prussian war of 1870 resulted in France losing Alsace and Lorraine, and
signalled the setting up of the French Republic. Tensions between Catholic
royalists and Protestants remained throughout the post-war period, manifesting
in the failure of both the First
and the Second Republics, several uprisings, accusations of corruption and
other covert efforts to destabilize the Republic. French Protestants accepted
the Jews, and after centuries of persecution they were given equal rights. For
historical reasons many Jewish families lived in Alsace and Lorraine.
Alfred
Dreyfus was born in Mulhouse in Alsace in 1859, into a large wealthy Jewish
family. When Dreyfus was 10 years old his family was uprooted by the war and
moved to Paris. It is thought that this experience influenced Dreyfus to pursue
a military career. The French Army was slow to integrate with the Republic, and
many monarchist and/or Catholic allegiances remained within its ranks at the
time of his training. This proved challenging for Dreyfus, as his advancement
through the ranks was affected by anti-Semitism, particularly at the École Supèrieure de Guerre. In his final exams there he
encountered a General who held the view that Jews were not desirable in the
Army.
In
contrast Georges Picquart’s Catholic upbringing and early military career were
unencumbered. He rose rapidly through the ranks following his graduation from
the École Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr and
became a lecturer at the L’École Supérieure
de Guerre, where he first encountered Dreyfus as a student.
This
scene setting opened the discussion on the merits of the book. This was Robert
Harris’s 9th novel. A number of those present had read earlier
works, including “Fatherland” and “The Ghost”, and considered this to be his
best.
They were
not alone in extolling the virtues of this novel, with Harris receiving the
“Walter Scott” prize for historical fiction and the Crime Writers Association’s
award for the “Best Thriller of the Year”.
The novel
opens with the conviction and degradation of Dreyfus, and with Major Picquart
witnessing these events and reporting back to the Minister of War, Auguste
Mercier. Dreyfus is shipped off to Devil’s Island, while Picquart is promoted
to Colonel and made head of the “Statistical Section”, the secret intelligence
unit that hunted Dreyfus down.
Picquart
is uncomfortable with what he finds in the Section. There is a lack of openness
and an atmosphere of subterfuge. He sets about questioning the evidence
supporting the conviction of Dreyfus and exposing discrepancies. He also
identifies an alternative suspect still active in the army. Undaunted by the
task of taking on the military and political leaders of the day, Picquart sets
about challenging the corruption endemic within their institutions. Against all
the odds he succeeds.
Unusually
for our group, there was a unanimous view that this was “a great read”. It was variously described as a “page
turner”, a “sleep
robber”, and a “gripping
thriller”.
The pace
and flow of the book were much admired. In particular the device of narrating
the story through Georges Picquart was thought to be inspired.
While
most of our group had some prior knowledge of the “Dreyfus Affair” and had
linked the exposure of the scandal to Émile Zola, no one had heard of Harris’s
hero Picquart. His characterization was greatly appreciated by all. A complex
individual, stiff and dismissive, highly intelligent and principled, and with
indefatigable energy directed at exposing the corrupt practices of those around
him. It was suggested that he could have been a difficult man to like. His
treatment of both friends and foe seemed impersonal and lacking intimacy, yet
he displayed social skills when the need required.
Harris’s
impeccable research of the mountains of paper written about the “Affair”
impressed us all. His search took him through court transcripts, historical
analysis and newspaper coverage.
As we sat
in the drawing room of an Edinburgh property built in the 1830’s, this writer
wondered what the residents of the house would have made of the case. A quick
check on the coverage provided by the local paper of the time, the Edinburgh
Evening News, confirmed that there was detailed and extensive coverage given to
the matter by the press. It was a “juicy story” by the standards of the day,
which ran and ran for several years. It would appear that nothing really
changes, except perhaps the quality of the journalism.
We
admired Harris’s craftsmanship. There was no “flowery writing”, but instead
authentic descriptive detail, tight story telling and scrupulous attention to
the facts.
Despite
our knowing the generality of the story and the outcome, Harris was able to add
value and detail which brought the story to life. His account of the treatment
of Dreyfus, through the “degradation” and his imprisonment on Devil’s Island
with all of the cruelties administered by his guards (on the orders of the most
senior officers in the French army) was skillfully layered together with the
description of Picquart’s own treatment when he refused to play along with the
subterfuge. Together they developed a heightened sense of indignation in the reader.
The
complexity and intrigue of the plot was enhanced by Harris’s ability to bring
to life the other characters and their actions in convincing detail, thereby
making clear their responsibility for what happened.
We made
comparisons with the writings of Hilary Mantel and John Le Carré. It was suggested that, while Harris
was an easier read than Mantel, his character development was weaker and, as a
consequence, less satisfying to the reader.
We
discussed the role of Émile Zola and the impact of his open letter, titled
“J’accuse” which was addressed to the French President Félix Faure and given front-page
coverage in the Paris daily newspaper L’Aurore. His letter shook the
establishment and undoubtedly brought the matter out into the open. However, it
led to Zola’s prosecution for criminal libel. He was convicted on 23d February
1898 and avoided imprisonment by fleeing to London. He was able to return to
Paris in June 1899, by which time Dreyfus had been offered and had accepted a
pardon. This fell short of exoneration which would have confirmed his
innocence, but Dreyfus considered that it was better to be free rather than run
the risk of being found guilty at a further trial. Zola was philosophical about
this stating that “The truth is on the march, and nothing shall stop it”.
One
comment on Zola’s intervention summed it up very succinctly: “They lied to
protect the country. He told the truth to save it.” The group admired the courage displayed by
Zola, and compared the protected position of the whistleblower today with the
vulnerability faced by Zola.
The
introduction of legislation designed to protect the whistleblower and the
increasing importance of DNA profiling in providing the evidence needed for
conviction or acquittal were cited as positive developments in the search for
the truth. However, some thought that the practices of “cover up” and “closing
ranks” were at least as common today as they were then.
There
followed a lengthy discussion about the legal systems in France and the UK,
their respective strengths and weaknesses, the role of the European Court of
Justice, the use of tariffs in sentencing, jury system inadequacies, the role
of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, plea bargaining, the adversarial
legal system, the peculiarities of Courts-martial, and much, much more.
Some of
our group were very familiar with the dark arts of political intrigue having
backgrounds in the Civil Service, and they were able to provide anecdotal
commentary around the machinations of political chicanery. It would appear,
from an interpretation of what they inferred, that nothing has changed.
The
discussion returned to “An Officer and a Spy”. We marvelled at the fact that
Harris had managed to write the book in only six months. We searched for
weaknesses or differences of opinion, but none could be found. There was only
one member with a negative view and that was in relation to the book cover. He
did not appreciate the author’s name occupying a much more dominant position
than the book title! This niggle did not influence the unanimous view that this
was a very good book and an excellent read.
We look
forward to the Polanski film that is expected to follow the publication of “An
Officer and a Spy”, and to “Dictator” which will be the conclusion to Harris’s Cicero
trilogy.
