IBDP History Internal Assessment
Identification and Evaluation of Sources
To reach a decisive conclusion regarding the Dreyfus Affair’s ultimate significance in laying the foundation for political Zionism, a plethora of sources must be considered, both contemporary and non-contemporary. Due to the nature of the scope of this research topic, several other sources will be referred to, although the main focus will lie on Jacques Kornberg’s Theodor Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism and Theodor Herzl’s own personal diaries.
Source 1 [Kornberg]
Published in 1993 by historian Jacques Kornberg, this source’s origin is particularly valuable as it approaches the subject with hindsight, offering a revisionist view on Herzl and the birth of Zionism. Such is confirmed by Kornberg himself, who prefaces that his book challenges the prevailing view that attributes Herzl’s conversion to Zionism to the Dreyfus trial, intending to shed new light on his Zionism by investigating its origin, ostensibly setting the historian apart from others who have investigated this topic. The time from which he is writing allows him to evaluate and refer to the works of scholars and historians who came before him, which is done extensively throughout the book. Kornberg’s purpose dwells within the notion of confuting the so-called Dreyfus Legend surrounding Zionism, which is valuable when considering our orthodox understanding of Herzl’s work. Nevertheless, Kornberg’s fixation on proving this thesis develops a significant limitation in his writing, often losing sight of the bigger picture and offering biased and, at times, misconstrued information. Despite this, it was confirmed through personal email correspondence with the author that everything written in the book had been intentional and even the most controversial of claims would not be reconsidered today.
Source 2 [Herzl]
This source presents a complete collection of Theodor Herzl’s diaries, compiled into five chronological volumes. Its origin alone is what makes this document such a crucial component to this investigation, as it offers the reader a glimpse into Herzl’s mind throughout the time in which the Zionist movement was being developed. As such, one should expect this to be the definitive proof of the Dreyfus Affair’s significance in the movement’s conception; however, one must denounce the great deal of inconsistency in Herzl’s accounts, making it difficult to determine the genuine impact of the Affair upon him other than simply the amount of entries focused on these events. Instead, the first two volumes of Herzl’s diaries heavily emphasise rising anti-Semitic sentiment in Germany and Austria, figuratively reducing the Dreyfus Affair to a footnote in the grand scheme of things. What the source does provide, though, is the sense of who Herzl was, and perhaps more importantly, an understanding of the societal circumstances which propelled Zionism. For instance, the source corroborates the contentious notion of the presence of anti-Semitism in 19th-century France, strongly juxtaposing what Guy Chapman would argue in the 1950s, stating that there was little anti-Semitism in France, and that it was confined to high society.
Investigation
The belief that the propagation of the Zionist movement was borne out of the Dreyfus Affair’s undying embers is one which many historians hold to be synonymous with the truth. There is evidence to suggest that what Zola describes as one of the most shocking judicial errors of the century had a direct influence on Theodor Herzl’s conception of political Zionism. Our views towards the pertinence of anti-Semitism, and more importantly, the significance of its contribution to the consequences of the historical Dreyfus Affair, have varied greatly over the years. The evolution of revisionist accounts on the matter presents a gradual shift in emphasis to the former anti-Semitism, manifesting such as the fundamental factor to consider, much unlike what Dreyfus’s contemporary historiography dictates. By virtue of this fact, the validity of Herzl’s claim towards the significance of Dreyfus as a catalyst to the shaping of his own Zionist beliefs is often challenged with regards to whether he overplayed the social prejudice against Jews to further the ambitions of his Zionist movement.
This particular essay will contend that Theodor Herzl’s Zionist movement should indeed be credited to the Dreyfus Affair, albeit not without the traces of dishonesty and misrepresentation which plague it to this very day.
As Herzl famously asserts in 1899, what made me a Zionist was the Dreyfus trial, which I witnessed in 1894, marking perhaps the most blatant proof of the Affair’s consequential impact upon the Zionist movement’s conception. Nevertheless, this bold statement is met with criticism from Kornberg, denouncing it as little more than the inflation of a half-truth to enhance confidence in his leadership, a claim which is greatly corroborated when analysing Herzl’s memoirs in the years leading up to 1899. The historian argues that the Dreyfus Affair could not possibly have been the basis for Herzl’s conversion to Zionism as Herzl did not mention the trial in his Zionist diary, nor in his Autobiography written three years later, just when the Dreyfus Affair had begun to tear France apart, insisting rather that election results in Vienna took him over the brink. As controversial as this allegation may appear, one must indeed consider that the first documentation of Herzl’s notion of political Zionism can be traced back as early as 1895, thus preceding mention of Alfred Dreyfus or even the persecution of Jews in France. Instead, as respected historian Piers Paul Read writes, Herzl preoccupies himself with the rise of anti-Semitism in Russia, Germany, Austria, and Eastern Europe, as is evident with reference to contemporary diary entries. Moreover, Kornberg condemns Herzl for having assumed the mantle of a prophet after the fact, now conferring historic significance on the Dreyfus Affair, claiming Herzl’s allusions to Dreyfus to have served the devious purpose of garnering more support for his Zionist movement. However, Kornberg’s interpretation of Dreyfus’s significance to Herzl is often observed to be excessively parochial and cynical, lacking the impartiality to convey the case’s finer complexities and grander implications. Kornberg fails to see that Dreyfus, whilst indeed playing a role in Herzl’s Zionist conversion, was also the last straw, the best opportunity, and the strongest force with which Herzl could set his utopian plans in motion.
Conversely, one should also deliberate the stance regarding Herzl’s Zionism to have hinged nigh unilaterally upon the seminal Dreyfus Case, as has been proposed by the award-winning historian Alex Bein. Writing in 1934, Bein’s biography of Herzl aligns itself with the orthodox view such that, because he was so sensitive as a Jew, the ghastly spectacle must have shaken him to the depths of his very being. It was as if the ground had been cut away from under his feet. In this sense, Herzl could later say that the Dreyfus Affair made him a Zionist, coinciding with Carl E. Schorske’s evaluation of Herzl’s judgement that even if Dreyfus were guilty, the cry of the mob which called for his blood transcended the question of treason, for Herzl, the last mooring snapped. Interestingly, though, come 1980, Bein would reassess his views to conform with those presented by the renowned revisionist historian Henry Cohn and Israeli political scientist Shlomo Avineri, who entertain the notion that Herzl’s Zionist beliefs, albeit contingent upon the upsurge of anti-Semitic sentiment in France, are part of a far more complicated picture, where the reasons for Herzl’s change of heart are multiple. These individuals agree with Kornberg that the electoral successes of the Christian Socials and Social Democrats in Herzl’s Austrian homeland (both political parties expressing deeply anti-Jewish policies) were a driving force in his Zionism, but starkly juxtapose Kornberg’s tendency to downplay and dilute the presence of French religious and racial prejudice against Jews at the time. As Cohn writes, Herzl’s experiences in Paris made him more deeply aware of the strength and the indelible nature of anti-Semitism throughout Europe; this realisation was brought home most forcefully and transmuted into the Zionist idea, effectively portraying the effect of the shocking degree of diasporic derision in France at the time on Herzl’s philosophies. The publication of anti-Semitic and anti-Dreyfusard propaganda in the form of articles and cartoons in L’Intransigeant, one of 20th-century France’s major newspapers, deeply supports this view. The latter, a collection of 51 caricatures entitled Musée des Horreurs [Fig. A], was especially popular at the time, selling approximately 300 thousand copies and displaying horrifically antagonistic depictions of Dreyfusards. Perhaps more moving would be the words of Émile Zola himself, which read, having poisoned them with this virus of fanaticism, they are launched upon the streets to shout, Down with the Jews! Death to the Jews!, describing the anti-Semitic rallies which erupted throughout France as growing support in the Dreyfusard camp brewed in late 1898. These chants were echoed routinely along the streets of Paris, with further sources backing its legitimacy despite the few historians, namely Jacques Kornberg, who controversially disregard this as Dreyfusard indoctrination.
In conclusion, James F. McMillan’s assertion that historians, like contemporaries, cannot agree on the affair’s ultimate significance, is vindicated by the polarisation and controversy surrounding Dreyfus’s influence on Theodor Herzl. Though one is presented with Kornberg’s thesis, which proclaims that the cause for his Zionism was certainly not the Dreyfus Trial, the truth presumably lies within the Schorskeian outlook, which holds the view that the Dreyfus Case, as a societal travesty, was paramount to the development of Zionism. Anti-Semitism, whether it hid in the prude extravagance of the 7ème arrondissement or ran rampant in the grand squares of Paris, was irrefutably present in fin-de-siècle France. Thus, one can conclude that the Dreyfus Scandal’s occurrence in the birthplace of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, a hundred years after the supreme act of tolerance and emancipation, and reverting to religious warfare, to the most odious and the most stupid of fanaticisms, was a fundamental constituent to Herzl’s conception of political Zionism.
Reflection
If the decisive truth were to be found within Herzl’s personal diaries, which have been accessible for the past century, then it would have come as a genuine surprise that the question of the Dreyfus Affair’s impact on the birth of Zionism remains such a heavily contested topic. As such, I had also explored the works of various relevant historians, acquainting myself with the interpretations which have come forth through both historiographical orthodoxy and revisionism. However, these historians’ analyses of the same primary source documents that I had investigated elucidated the notion that the comprehension of archaic documents is a considerable challenge in the profession. With this epiphany, reading the works of historians who defended either end of the spectrum with regards to the existence of the Dreyfusard influence on Herzl brought several subsequent problems to rise. If the reliability of the primary sources themselves, the basis for any investigation in this topic, are so often drawn into question, to what extent can one trust the claims of any historian?
Writing in Germany, a nation which still feels the repercussions of anti-Semitism from the early 20th century, one finds it difficult to read Kornberg’s work, which seemingly nullifies the significance of former Jewish oppression as a constituent to the development of Herzl’s Zionist beliefs. In this regard, one is reminded of the dangers of historical revisionism, where the constant re-evaluation of events tends to gravitate the focus away from instinctive, emotional knowledge, thereby tainting history as an apathetic discipline.
Ultimately, this investigation has not only been engaging for the study of the topic itself, but for the experience it has given me in emulating the processes of a historian on a microcosmic level. Not only has it introduced me to the difficulties of the profession in understanding and interpreting primary source information, but also to the weight of the revisionist school of historiography in the distortion of history. Nevertheless, reading between the lines of plain orthodoxy and extreme re-assessments draws one closer to the truth.
Bibliography
Hulme, David. Theodor Herzl and Zionism. Digital image. VISION. Summer 2008. Accessed 15 October 2018. http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/history-theodor-herzl-zionism/5834.aspx.
Kornberg, Jacques. Theodor Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.
Herzl, Theodor. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl. Edited by Raphael Patai. Translated by Harry Zohn. New York: Herzl Press, 1960.
Chapman, Guy. The Dreyfus Case: A Reassessment. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1979.
Zola, Émile, and Austin, Louis Frederic. The Dreyfus Case: Four Letters to France. The Bodley Head, 1898.
Read, Piers Paul. The Dreyfus Affair: The Story of the Most Infamous Miscarriage of Justice in French History. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.
Bein, Alex, and Maurice Samuel. Theodore Herzl: A Biography. New York: Atheneum, 1970.
Schorske, Carl E. Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture. London: Phoenix (an Imprint of The Orion Publishing Group Ltd), 2010.
Bein, Alex. The Jewish Question: Biography of a World Problem. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1990.
Avineri, Shlomo. Herzl’s Road to Zionism. The American Jewish Year Book 98 (1998): 3-15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23605389.
Cohn, Henry J. Theodor Herzl’s Conversion to Zionism. Jewish Social Studies 32, no. 2 (1970): 101-10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4466575.
Katz, Maya Balakirsky, and Lorraine Beitler. Revising Dreyfus. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Kornberg, Jacques. Theodore Herzl: A Reevaluation. The Journal of Modern History 52, no. 2 (1980): 226-52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1878229.
McMillan, James F. Twentieth-Century France: Politics and Society, 1898-1991. London: Hodder Arnold, 2006.
Appendix
Fig. A
Cohl, Émile. Les Qualités Du Juif D’après La Méthode De Gall. Cartoon. La Libre Parole (Paris), December 1893.
Fig. B
