Written in History

by Simon Sebag Montefiore

  Mr. President,

  Would you allow me, grateful as I am for the kind reception you once extended to me, to show my concern about maintaining your well-deserved prestige and to point out that your star which, until now, has shone so brightly, risks being dimmed by the most shameful and indelible of stains?

  Unscathed by vile slander, you have won the hearts of all. You are radiant in the patriotic glory of our country’s alliance with Russia, you are about to preside over the solemn triumph of our World Fair, the jewel that crowns this great century of labor, truth, and freedom. But what filth this wretched Dreyfus affair has cast on your name—I wanted to say “reign.” A court martial, under orders, has just dared to acquit a certain Esterhazy, a supreme insult to all truth and justice. And now the image of France is sullied by this filth, and history shall record that it was under your presidency that this crime against society was committed.

  As they have dared, so shall I dare. Dare to tell the truth, as I have pledged to tell it, in full, since the normal channels of justice have failed to do so. My duty is to speak out; I do not wish to be an accomplice in this travesty. My nights would otherwise be haunted by the spectre of the innocent man, far away, suffering the most horrible of tortures for a crime he did not commit….

  But now we see Dreyfus appearing before the court martial. Behind the closed doors, the utmost secrecy is demanded. Had a traitor opened the border to the enemy and driven the Kaiser straight to Notre-Dame the measures of secrecy and silence could not have been more stringent. The public was astounded; rumors flew of the most horrible acts, the most monstrous deceptions, lies that were an affront to our history. The public, naturally, was taken in. No punishment could be too harsh. The people clamored for the traitor to be publicly stripped of his rank and demanded to see him writhing with remorse on his rock of infamy. Could these things be true, these unspeakable acts, these deeds so dangerous that they must be carefully hidden behind closed doors to keep Europe from going up in flames? No! They were nothing but the demented fabrications of Major du Paty de Clam, a cover-up of the most preposterous fantasies imaginable. To be convinced of this one need only read carefully the accusation as it was presented before the court martial.

  How flimsy it is! The fact that someone could have been convicted on this charge is the ultimate iniquity. I defy decent men to read it without a stir of indignation in their hearts and a cry of revulsion, at the thought of the undeserved punishment being meted out there on Devil’s Island. He knew several languages: a crime! He carried no compromising papers: a crime! He would occasionally visit his country of origin: a crime! He was hardworking, and strove to be well informed: a crime! He did not become confused: a crime! He became confused: a crime! And how childish the language is, how groundless the accusation!…

  These, Sir, are the facts that explain how this miscarriage of justice came about; The evidence of Dreyfus’s character, his affluence, the lack of motive and his continued affirmation of innocence combine to show that he is the victim of the lurid imagination of Major du Paty de Clam, the religious circles surrounding him, and the “dirty Jew” obsession that is the scourge of our time.

  And now we come to the Esterhazy case. Three years have passed, many consciences remain profoundly troubled, become anxious, investigate, and wind up convinced that Dreyfus is innocent….

  As I have shown, the Dreyfus case was a matter internal to the War Office: an officer of the General Staff, denounced by his co-officers of the General Staff, sentenced under pressure by the Chiefs of Staff. Once again, he could not be found innocent without the entire General Staff being guilty. And so, by all means imaginable, by press campaigns, by official communications, by influence, the War Office covered up for Esterhazy only to condemn Dreyfus once again….We are horrified by the terrible light the Dreyfus affair has cast upon it all, this human sacrifice of an unfortunate man, a “dirty Jew.” Ah, what a cesspool of folly and foolishness, what preposterous fantasies, what corrupt police tactics, what inquisitorial, tyrannical practices! What petty whims of a few higher-ups trampling the nation under their boots, ramming back down their throats the people’s cries for truth and justice, with the travesty of state security as a pretext….

  It is a crime that those people who wish to see a generous France take her place as leader of all the free and just nations are being accused of fomenting turmoil in the country, denounced by the very plotters who are conniving so shamelessly to foist this miscarriage of justice on the entire world. It is a crime to lie to the public, to twist public opinion to insane lengths in the service of the vilest death-dealing machinations. It is a crime to poison the minds of the meek and the humble, to stoke the passions of reactionism and intolerance, by appealing to that odious anti-Semitism that, unchecked, will destroy the freedom-loving France of the Rights of Man. It is a crime to exploit patriotism in the service of hatred, and it is, finally, a crime to ensconce the sword as the modern god, whereas all science is toiling to achieve the coming era of truth and justice.

  Truth and justice, so ardently longed for! How terrible it is to see them trampled, unrecognized and ignored!…

  This is the plain truth, Mr. President, and it is terrifying. It will leave an indelible stain on your presidency. I realize that you have no power over this case, that you are limited by the Constitution and your entourage. You have, nonetheless, your duty as a man, which you will recognize and fulfil. As for myself, I have not despaired in the least, of the triumph of right. I repeat with the most vehement conviction: truth is on the march, and nothing will stop it….

  I accuse Lt. Col. du Paty de Clam of being the diabolical creator of this miscarriage of justice…over the last three years, by all manner of ludicrous and evil machinations.

  I accuse General Mercier of complicity, at least by mental weakness, in one of the greatest inequities of the century.

  I accuse General Billot of having held in his hands absolute proof of Dreyfus’s innocence and covering it up, and making himself guilty of this crime against mankind and justice, as a political expedient and a way for the compromised General Staff to save face….

  I have but one passion: to enlighten those who have been kept in the dark, in the name of humanity which has suffered so much and is entitled to happiness. My fiery protest is simply the cry of my very soul. Let them dare, then, to bring me before a court of law and let the inquiry take place in broad daylight! I am waiting.

  With my deepest respect, Sir.

  Émile Zola, 13th January 1898

  Lorenzo the Magnificent to his son Giovanni de Medici, 23 March 1492

  Every boy of sixteen should receive a letter like this from his father, telling him to stay clear of debauchery and concentrate on his work. This one is special because the son, Giovanni, has just become the youngest-ever cardinal in the history of the Catholic Church. He already has a proven tendency to overindulge his sensual appetites in terms of both food and women. And his father is Lorenzo the Magnificent, the head of the house of Medici, a vastly wealthy banker, ruthless political player, and brilliant patron of Renaissance art who has effectively ruled the republican city-state of Florence since 1469. Now Lorenzo is older and in decline, but he has just managed to achieve his ambition to arrange the elevation of his son Giovanni to the scarlet of cardinal, which means the Medici are diversifying their power into the Church and into Rome. But that means the boy is setting off for Rome, a city rightly called a “sink of iniquity” where there are said to be seven thousand prostitutes in a population of just fifty thousand. Lorenzo is a tender father, as you can see in his wonderful letter, full of sensible advice like “Eat plain food and take plenty of exercise” and “oppose temptation.” But Rome is about to become even more lascivious: the Borgias are coming to power….

  Just after Giovanni’s departure for Rome, his magnificent father died and the Medicis temporarily lost control of Florenc
e. Cheerful, hedonistic, and fat, Cardinal de Medici enjoyed his career in Rome, finally in 1513 contriving to be elected pope as Leo X, the very definition of the decadent, venal pontiff who inspired Martin Luther’s revolt against the corrupt Church. On his election, he is said to have announced: “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it.” He died in 1521 after thoroughly enjoying every minute.

  The first thing I want to impress upon you is that you ought to be grateful to God, remembering always that it is not through your merits, or your wisdom that you have gained this dignity, but through His favor. Show your thankfulness by a holy, exemplary, chaste life….During the past year I have been much comforted to see that, without being told to do so, you have often of your own accord gone to confession and to Holy Communion. I do not think there is a better way of keeping in God’s grace than to make this a regular practice. I know only too well that in going to live in Rome, which is a sink of iniquity, you will find it hard to follow this advice because there will be many there who will try to corrupt you and incite you to vice, and because your promotion to the cardinalate at your early age arouses much envy….You must, therefore, opposite temptation all the more firmly….It is at the same time necessary that you should not incur a reputation for hypocrisy, and in conversation not to affect either austerity or undue seriousness. You will understand all this better when you are older….You are well aware how important is the example you ought to show to others as a cardinal, and that the world would be a better place if all cardinals were what they ought to be, because if they ever were so there would always be a good Pope and consequently a more peaceful world….

  You are the youngest cardinal, not only in the Sacred College of today but at any time in the past. Therefore, when you are in assembly with other cardinals, you must be the most unassuming, and the most humble….Try to live with regularity….Silk and jewels are seldom suitable to those in your station. Much better to collect antiquities and beautiful books, and to maintain a learned and well regulated household rather than a grand one. Invite others to your house more often than you accept invitations to theirs; but not too often. Eat plain food and take plenty of exercise….Confide in others too little rather than too much. One rule above all others I urge you to observe most rigorously: Rise early in the morning. This is not only for your health’s sake, but also so that you can arrange and expedite all the day’s business….

  With regard to your speaking in the Consistory, I think it would be best for the present while you are still so young, to refer whatever is proposed to you to His Holiness, giving as your reason your youth and inexperience. You will find that you will be asked to intercede with the Pope for many small objects. Try at first to do this as seldom as you can, and not to worry him unduly in this way. For it is the Pope’s nature to pay the most attention to those who bother him least….

  Farewell

  Liberation

  Emmeline Pankhurst to the Women’s Social and Political Union, 10 January 1913

  Emmeline Pankhurst demands a militant campaign to acquire votes for women, including smashing windows and arson. Pankhurst’s methods appalled many, including her daughters Adela and Sylvia, who left the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) in protest; many other prominent activists claimed that the extremists of the WSPU “were the chief obstacles in the way of the success of the suffrage movement in the House of Commons.” Nonetheless, Pankhurst’s methods worked. She placed female suffrage at the center of the national agenda.

  Born in Manchester, married to a much older barrister, a supporter of the female suffrage movement, with whom she had five children, Pankhurst was a highly effective campaigner. She, her daughters, and her supporters known as the Suffragettes organized violent protests and assaults on policemen, were imprisoned, went on hunger strikes, and were force-fed and beaten several times. Only the First World War stopped her protests, but ironically it was the war that made female suffrage undeniable. In 1918 votes were granted to women who were householders over the age of thirty. This was extended to women over twenty-one in 1928—just before Pankhurst’s death.

  LINCOLN’S INN HOUSE, KINGSWAY, W.C. PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

  Dear Friend,

  The Prime Minister has announced that in the week beginning January 20th, the Women’s Amendments to the Manhood Suffrage Bill will be discussed and voted upon. This means that within a few short days the fate of these Amendments will be finally decided.

  The W.S.P.U. has from the first declined to call any truce on the strength of the Prime Minister’s so-called pledge, and has refused to depend upon the Amendments in question, because the Government have not accepted the responsibility of getting them carried. There are, however, some Suffragists—and there may be some even in the ranks of the W.S.P.U.—who hope against hope that in spite of the Government’s intrigues an unofficial Amendment may be carried. Feeling as they do, these Suffragists are tempted to hold their hand as far as militancy is concerned, until after the fate of the Amendments is known.

  But every member of the W.S.P.U. recognizes that the defeat of the Amendments will make militancy more a moral duty and more a political necessity than it has ever been before. We must prepare beforehand to deal with that situation!

  There are degrees of militancy. Some women are able to go further than others in militant action and each woman is the judge of her own duty so far as that is concerned. To be militant in some way or other is, however, a moral obligation. It is a duty which every woman will owe to her own conscience and self-respect, to other women who are less fortunate than she herself is, and to all those who are to come after her.

  If any woman refrains from militant protest against the injury done by the Government and the House of Commons to women and to the race, she will share the responsibility for the crime. Submission under such circumstances will be itself a crime.

  I know that the defeat of the Amendments will prove to thousands of women that to rely only on peaceful, patient methods, is to court failure, and that militancy is inevitable.

  We must, as I have said, prepare to meet the crisis before it arises. Will you therefore tell me (by letter, if it is not possible to do so by word of mouth), that you are ready to take your share in manifesting in a practical manner your indignation at the betrayal of our cause.

  Yours sincerely, E. Pankhurst

  Rosa Parks to Jessica Mitford, 26 February 1956

  The mother of the civil rights movement in America, Rosa Parks, then around forty-three, was already an activist along with her husband when she took on the racist law in Montgomery, Alabama, that ordered the segregation of white and black people on the local buses. This was just one of the notorious “Jim Crow” laws brought in throughout the Southern states in the early twentieth century, enforcing repression of black people even though slavery had been abolished forty years earlier. Parks had helped investigate some of the racist atrocities—gang rapes and murders of people of color—that so often went unpunished in Alabama.

  In December 1955 Parks refused to give up her seat in the “colored” section of the bus she was traveling in to a white passenger when the “white” section was full. She was arrested, and her case was used in the subsequent legal challenge against segregation that was won in November 1956. In the middle of the case, before its outcome is known, Parks writes this letter to “Mrs. Treuhaft,” who is better known as Jessica Mitford, the most radical of the six daughters of the English nobleman Lord Redesdale. One became a duchess, two were Nazi sympathizers, one was a novelist, and Jessica became a Communist. At this time she is married to Robert Treuhaft, a civil rights lawyer living in California. This story is not over. This letter marks just one stage in the long history of the struggle against racism in America, starting with the American Civil War, continuing with the work of Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s—and essential today with movements like Black Lives Matter.

 
; Dear Mrs. Treuhaft:

  I am very happy to hear from you again. Thanks, very much for the contribution and the names of other contributors.

  We are having a difficult time here, but we are not discouraged. The increased pressure seems to strengthen us for the next blow.

  My first case was heard in the Circuit Court February 22, I was found guilty and sentenced to 70 days in jail. The appeal was made to the State Supreme Court.

  I was immediately arrested again with the leaders of the bus protest.

  We have received very generous contributions from over the country, although no specific appeal has been made through the mail.

  The wide spread publicity we are getting is most disturbing to the local governing group. They resent outside interference. Therefore, I will have to take the matter of direct appeal to the Montgomery Improvement Association.

  The Claudette Colvin Case is one of four filed with the Federal Court at present.

  I will write again soon.

  Sincerely yours,

  Rosa L. Parks

  Nelson Mandela to Winnie Mandela, 2 April 1969

  Mandela’s prison letters to Winnie are lessons on how to live. Born into Tembu royalty in 1918, Mandela joined the African National Congress and the armed struggle against apartheid as a lawyer in Johannesburg in the 1950s. Seven years later Nelson spotted a young woman, Winnie Madikizela, aged twenty-two, at a bus stop. Divorcing his wife, he married Winnie. At the Rivonia Trial in 1964 Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorism.

  Mandela’s inspirational prison letters show his gift for self-improvement, his astonishing humility and natural decency. During twenty-seven years in prison, as he explains to Winnie here, Mandela regards his cell as “an ideal place to learn to know yourself, to search realistically and regularly the process of your own mind and feelings. In judging our progress as individuals we tend to concentrate on external factors such as one’s social position, influence and popularity, wealth and standard of education. These are, of course, important…and it is perfectly understandable if many people exert themselves mainly to achieve all these. But internal factors may be even more crucial in assessing one’s development as a human being. Honesty, sincerity, simplicity, humility, pure generosity, absence of vanity, readiness to serve others—qualities which are within easy reach of every soul—are the foundation of one’s spiritual life. Development in matters of this nature is inconceivable without serious introspection, without knowing yourself, your weaknesses and mistakes. At least, if for nothing else, the cell gives you the opportunity to look daily into your entire conduct, to overcome the bad and develop whatever is good in you. Regular meditation, say about 15 minutes a day before you turn in, can be very fruitful in this regard. You may find it difficult at first to pinpoint the negative features in your life, but the 10th attempt may yield rich rewards. Never forget that a saint is a sinner who keeps on trying.”