29 pages • 58-minute read
J'Accuse
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Literary Devices
Argumentative Essay
J’Accuse…! argues for the innocence of Alfred Dreyfus. Although Zola’s writing is published as an open letter, it follows the format of an argumentative essay, especially in that it relies on evidence rather than on personal opinion or experience. In an argumentative essay, the author has a point about a debatable topic that they wish to argue on behalf of, backed up by research. Here, Zola’s thesis is that Dreyfus did not commit the crime he was convicted of. He uses a thorough examination of the facts of the case, from the discovery of the bordereau to the court martial that acquitted Esterhazy, to prove that Dreyfus is innocent and concludes with a list of his accusations against the parties he deems guilty for the miscarriage of justice. The addressee Zola wants to convince is primarily President Felix Faure, as he could potentially intercede on behalf of Dreyfus, but since the open letter was published in a newspaper, his audience was also the people of France. Zola’s argument was highly effective and helped prompt calls for a retrial of the case.
Verbal Irony
Zola utilizes verbal irony in several places in J’Accuse…!. Verbal irony is a word or phrase used in such a way that it means the opposite of its real meaning. In one paragraph, Zola enumerates the supposed wrongdoings that Dreyfus committed, following each with the phrase “a crime!” (12) These include knowing multiple languages, not carrying “compromising papers,” visiting the place he was born, having a good work ethic, staying informed, not being confused, and being confused (12). None of those things are a “crime,” nor illegal in any way. Zola uses the term “crime” sarcastically, illustrating clearly that Dreyfus did not behave in a criminal manner, and the supposed evidence against him was either invented or grossly exaggerated in order to pressure the court martial to issue a guilty verdict.
Hypophora and Rhetorical Questions
Hypophora appears numerous times throughout J’Accuse…!. Hypophora is a literary device in which the author asks a question and then promptly answers it. Zola posits a number of questions in his letter, some of which are rhetorical and therefore not answered by Zola, and some of which are hypophora. An example of a rhetorical question is when Zola asks, “How could anyone expect a court martial to undo what another court martial had done?” (22). Obviously, Zola does not believe another court martial could solve the issues created by the first court martial that convicted Dreyfus, so this question has no intended answer. An example of hypophora, in contrast, appears when Zola asks:
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? (11).
Zola immediately follows this question with the answer of “no,” demonstrating that the rumors of Dreyfus’s treason were not true and were not a danger to Europe in any way. Zola uses hypophora again when he asks:
But a document concerning national defense that could not be produced without sparking an immediate declaration of war tomorrow? (13).
Zola also answers this question with “no,” arguing that no such document, in this case the supposed bordereau, can be brought forth as evidence in the Dreyfus case. The use of hypophora allows Zola to make his points more effectively, prompting the audience to think critically about what he is asking before he guides them to his conclusion with the answer.
Pathos
Zola uses pathos, which is a rhetorical device that appeals to the reader’s emotions, to elicit sympathy for Dreyfus’s plight. In Paragraph 10, he details the horror of the initial trial, writing:
What a nightmare it is for all who know it in its true details. Major du Paty de Clam had Dreyfus arrested and placed in solitary confinement. He ran to Mme Dreyfus, terrorized her, telling her that if she talked her husband would be ruined. Meanwhile, the unfortunate Dreyfus was tearing at his flesh and proclaiming his innocence (10).
Using the word “nightmare” emphasizes how terrible the conditions of solitary confinement were for Dreyfus, and how unjust the totality of the trial was. Zola also brings Dreyfus’s wife into the conversation, arguing that du Paty de Clam caused her such pain that the verb “terrorized” is most apt for their interaction. He also paints the picture of Dreyfus ripping his own body apart to argue on behalf of his innocence, which is a painful image for the reader to imagine. In describing the first trial and the behavior of du Paty de Clam in this way, Zola elicits an emotional response from the readers, in order to create empathy and pity for both Dreyfus and his wife and to persuade the audience to call for Dreyfus’s retrial and release.
Unlock all 29 pages of this Study Guide
Get in-depth, chapter-by-chapter summaries and analysis from our literary experts.
- Grasp challenging concepts with clear, comprehensive explanations
- Revisit key plot points and ideas without rereading the book
- Share impressive insights in classes and book clubs