64. Literary Wisdom and Devil's Island

It is now quite clear, as the man who writes the editorials of the "Zukunft" has just announced: it is only because of the dreadful narrow-mindedness of men that they cannot rise to the lofty position: I do not presume to judge the guilt or innocence of Captain Dreyfus. And furthermore, it comes from this dreadful narrowness that they "cannot judge political matters politically". It is true that the rest of us could say, if we wanted to, that we are perhaps better able to judge human things humanly than the editorialist of the "Zukunft", who gradually acquired his high political insight in Friedrichsruh. But of what use would such a generally human point of view be to us, since the gentleman in question seems to have no idea that all the fruits of the lessons in Friedrichsruh are in vain if the necessary disposition is not present. You can take as many "lessons" as you like from the greatest statesman, and you will not become a psychologist to the small degree necessary to say: according to everything we know, Dreyfus must be innocent. For me, for example, Dreyfus' behavior during and after the trial in 1894 was enough to consider him innocent. The editorialist of the "Zukunft", however, thinks that it must depend on the judgment of Pellieux, who knows the files, and of Mr. Cavaignac, who disappeared from the ministry when the revision was in sight; but he does not seem to think that a real connoisseur of human nature like Zola swore that Dreyfus was innocent. Yes, it has come to that. Today, German journals accept judgments for which laughter would be the highest honor that should be bestowed upon them.