Of the three names Hebrew, Israelite, Jew, the first is properly applied to the period when Hebrews constituted in the full sense of the word a nation; the second has acquired an almost exclusive religious force; while the third is the proper designation to cover the twofold aspect of Hebrews as a people and a religious body. Applying this distinction, the period before the Babylonian exile (B.C. 586) may be designated as Hebrew History and the post-exilic period as Jewish History.

Jewish History (circa 1550-1900)

A) Holland was one of the first countries in modern times to rise out of the barbarism of the Middle Ages. As early as 1593 it permitted Jews to settle and trade, though they did not acquire the rights of citizenship till 1796. Holland, therefore, became a refuge in the seventeenth century; of which the Spanish Maranos availed themselves; and by the middle of that century Amsterdam had a considerable Jewish population renowned for its learning and enterprise. Nor has there been any instance of persecution of Jews in Holland from the time of their entrance to the present day, except such as orthodox Jews themselves indulged in against " heretics," e.g. the cases of Gabriel Acosta and Spinoza.

B) In England, the edict of Edward I. remained in force for more than 300 years, though Jews are known to have lived secretly in London, and to have had a synagogue there during the whole of this period. The first attempt made by the Jews to obtain a legal recognition in England was during the Protectorate of Cromwell in 1655. (see Manasseh Beth Israel).

Manasseh Beth Israel (1604-57)

" A Hebrew scholar and Cabbalist. He was born at Lisbon and educated at Amsterdam, where his father had removed to escape persecution. At the age of eighteen he took the place of his former instructor, Rabbi Isaac Uzziel, in the Amsterdam synagogue. In 1656 Manasseh came to England to obtain permission from Parliament for the re-establishment of the Jews in England, banished from that country since the time of Edward I. (1290). Parliament refused to pass the measure, but Cromwell favored it, and unofficially permitted a large number of Jews to settle in London."

Cromwell himself was favorable to their admission; so were the lawyers; but the nation generally, and particularly the emphatically religious portion of it, were strongly hostile to such a proceeding; and the wearisome, controversial jangling of the divines appointed to consider the question prevented anything from being done till the reign of Charles II., who, standing much and frequently in need of their services, permitted them quietly to settle in the land. In 1723 they were permitted to give evidence in courts of justice; in 1753 they obtained the right of naturalization. Since 1830 civic corporation, since 1833 the profession of advocate, and since 1845 the offices of Alderman and of Lord Mayor have been opened to them. The last triumph of the principle of toleration was achieved in 1858 by the admission of Jews in Parliament. In the year 1885 Lord Rothschild took his seat as a member of the House of Lords.

C) Some of the exiles from Spain and Portugal found their way into France, where they long lingered in a miserable condition. In 1550 they were received into Bayonne and Bordeaux; they were also to be found in considerable numbers in Avignon, Lorraine, and Alsace. In 1784 the capitation tax was abolished. In 1790, in the early period of the French Revolution, the Jews presented a petition to the national representatives, claiming full rights as citizens. Mirabeau was among their advocates, and their cause was not unsuccessful. From this time their technical designation in France has been ' Israelites.' In 1806 the Emperor Napoleon summoned a "Sanhedrin" of Jews to meet in Paris, to whom a variety of questions were put, mainly with a view to test their fitness for citizenship. Their answers were satisfactory, and they were allowed to reorganize their religious institutions in the most elaborate manner. No material change has, since taken place in the laws regarding them, though since 1895 Anti-Semitism has been very virulent in France, and has been especially noteworthy in connection with the case of Alfred Dreyfus (q.v.).

Alfred Dreyfus (1859---)

A French artillery officer, who was brought into prominence as the central figure in one of the most celebrated cases of modern political history. He was born in Mulhausen, Upper Alsace, of Jewish parentage, removed to Paris in 1874, studied at the Chaptal College and at Sainte-Barbe, entered the Ecole Polytechnique in 1878, and later attended the Ecole d' Application (School of Applied Gunnery). After serving as second lieutenant in the Thirty-first Regiment of artillery at Le Mans (1882-83), and in the Fourth Mounted Battery at Paris, he was appointed captain in the Twenty-first Regiment of artillery, September 12, 1889. On April 21, 1890, he entered the Ecole de Guerre, where he ranked among the leading ten of his class. Within a year after leaving this institution, he received an appointment on the general staff. On October 15, 1894, Dreyfus was arrested on a charge of having sold military secrets to a foreign Power. The utmost secrecy was observed by the War Office in regard to the whole affair.

 Dreyfus was isolated in prison and treated with great harshness. When he was tried, although he was allowed counsel, the court was a secret one, and he was sentenced to military degradation and solitary confinement on the Ile du Diable, off the coast of French Guiana. On January 4, 1895, he was conducted by a military escort to the court-yard of the Ecole Militaire in Paris, and, in the presence of a great assembly of spectators, the stripes were torn from his uniform, and his sword was broken. On March 10th he was transported to the Ile du Diable, where he was treated with severity, on one occasion being chained to his pallet for two months. He persistently denied his guilt, and this fact, together with the secrecy of the proceedings and the bitterness of the anti-Semitic agitation, led to a growing conviction in the minds of many that the real culprit had been shielded, and that it had been found convenient to put Dreyfus forward as a scapegoat.

The evidence used against Dreyfus was a memorandum, known as the bordereau,' and the prosecution simply attempted to show that it was in the Captain's handwriting. It began, "Without news indicating that you wish to see me, I send you nevertheless, monsieur, some important information." Then followed a numbered list of documents relating to the frontier forts, artillery instructions to the general staff, etc. Naturally it was never made known how this document was obtained by the War Office, as it would have caused complications with a friendly Power; but it was supposed to have come through an Alsatian porter in the service of Colonel von Schwarzkoppen, military attache of the German Embassy. In May, 1896, another paper was brought to the War Office, and fell into the hands of Commandant Picquart. It bore the signature of Major Esterhazy, an officer of doubtful character, and the handwriting corresponded exactly with that of the Dreyfus bordereau,' while that of Dreyfus did not. Then began a remarkable series of attempts to bring to light and to suppress the truth. The most prominent defenders of Dreyfus were his brother Matthieu Dreyfus, the novelist Emile Zola, and M. Scheurer-Kestner, a member of the French Senate.

 A large part of the Liberal press also sided with the accused captain, and, during the later phases of the affair, his cause was adopted by the Socialists as a party issue for the time. Arrayed against him were the anti-Semitic elements of France and the powerful Nationalist influence, meaning by the latter all those who regarded the condemnation of Dreyfus as necessary for the vindication of the honor of the army, always dear to the hearts of Frenchmen. The War Office met the attacks of the friends of Dreyfus simply by asserting that the proceedings against him had been regular in every respect. There was a fixed purpose to prevent any discussion of the nature of the evidence or the facts of the case. Commandant Picquart, who showed an honest desire to bring out the truth, was made a lieutenant-colonel, and sent away on special service. Attempts were then made to compromise him by means of false dispatches, and he was finally removed from the active list of the army.

On July 7,1898, the agitation having risen high, a new declaration was made in the Chamber of Deputies by M. Cavaignac, Minister of War. He positively asserted that Dreyfus had been justly found guilty, and referred to certain documents not hitherto mentioned in the case. Colonel Picquart challenged these proofs and declared that of the three documents upon which M. Cavaignac based his belief in the guilt of Dreyfus, two were irrelevant, and the third, the only one in which Dreyfus's name occurred, was a forgery. Six weeks later, Colonel Henry, who had been connected with the intelligence department of the War Office, confessed to having committed this forgery, and committed suicide. This led to a general readjustment in the organization of the general staff. General de Boisdeffre, chief of staff, resigned; Major Esterhazy and Colonel Paty du Clam were removed from the active list, but still the War Office proclaimed its belief in the guilt of Captain Dreyfus, Colonel Picquart was imprisoned on a charge of communicating secret documents, late in November.

On the 29th of the previous month, however, the Court of Cassation, the highest tribunal in France, had taken up the matter of revision, and, after several months' deliberation, ordered (June 3, 1899), a retrial by a court-martial. The proceedings against Picquart were subsequently quashed. The court-martial sat at Rennes from August 7 to September 9, 1899, and rendered a decision that Dreyfus was guilty, with extenuating circumstances. He was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years, from which the period of his previous confinement was to be deducted. The evidence at the trial was of the flimsiest character, as it had been from the beginning, but the determination to protect the officers of the army at the expense of Dreyfus was maintained. The members of the court-martial united in a recommendation of mercy, and on September 19th the prisoner was pardoned by President Loubet.

The Dreyfus case was far-reaching in its effect upon French affairs. It divided and wrecked the Brisson Ministry of 1898; it seemed for a time likely to furnish a rallying point for monarchist agitation; it exposed a state of gross corruption in the French army; and it presented grave possibilities of trouble with Germany and Italy, which were the countries naturally suspected of the bribery of a French officer. In 1896, both the German and Italian Governments had denied, through diplomatic channels, in the most emphatic manner, having had any dealings with Dreyfus. M. Zola was condemned to a year's imprisonment July 18, 1898, for his protest against the travesty of justice involved in the whole management of the case, and went into exile to escape imprisonment. Esterhazy, after he was dismissed from the service, went to London, and made a confession through the London Chronicle, June 2, 1899, that he wrote the ' bordereau ' by order of Colonel Sandherr, assistant chief of the intelligence department.

 This confession was ascribed by the anti-Dreyfus party to bribery by the friends of Dreyfus. The impression has generally prevailed among unprejudiced persons and in other countries than France, that Dreyfus was unfairly tried, unjustly convicted on manufactured evidence, and that justice was refused him by officers high in authority for personal and political reasons. In December, 1900, in order that the matter might be finally disposed of, an amnesty bill was passed by the Government relieving every one concerned of any further liability to criminal prosecution. This was opposed by the friends of Dreyfus, Picquart, and Zola, who demanded a full vindication. It was declared on behalf of the Government that the army had been so embittered by the affair that no court-martial could be depended on to give an unprejudiced verdict, and that, for the safety of France, all further agitation of the question must cease.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: An excellent review of the case up to that date appeared in the London Times for October 13, 1898. Guyon, The Dreyfus Case (London, 1898).