JOSEPH-FÉLIX BOUCHOR (1853-1937) "LA KOUTOUBIA, MARRAKECH" Huile sur toile, signée en bas à gauche. Ancienne étiquette collée au dos, sur châssis "n ° 46, La Koutoubia Marrakech, Maroc, JF Bouchor, 40 rue Guynemer". 45 X 32 CM (17 3/4 X 12 5/8 IN.)
BOUCHOR, Joseph Felix(1853 Paris - 1937) Der Friedhof von Rabat Marokko Öl/Leinwand. Links unten signiert, verso bezeichnet/betitelt. 38,5 x 46 cm. Gerahmt : 54 x 62 cm (beige-goldener Rahmen). Bei den Gräbern im Sonnenschein sitzende und hinaus aufs Meer schauende Frauen . Französischer Landschaftsmaler, Schüler von Constant und Lefebvre. Literatur : Thieme/Becker. Aufrufzeit 26. | Okt. 2024 | voraussichtlich 14:22 Uhr (CET) BOUCHOR, Joseph Felix(1853 Paris - 1937) The cemetery of Rabat Morocco Oil/canvas. Signed lower left, inscribed/titled on verso. 38.5 x 46 cm. Framed : 54 x 62 cm (beige-gold frame). Women sitting by the graves in the sunshine and looking out to sea . French landscape painter, pupil of Constant and Lefebvre. Literature : Thieme/Becker. Aufrufzeit 26. | Oct. 2024 | probably 14:22 (CET) *This is an automatically generated translation from German by deepl.com and only to be seen as an aid - not a legally binding declaration of lot properties. Please note that we can only guarantee for the correctness of description and condition as provided by the German description.
Joseph-Félix BOUCHOR (Paris 1853 - 1937) Medersa Attarine, Fez Oil on panel 24 x 33 cm Signed lower left JF Bouchor Titled on the back on an old label: Fès Medersa Attarine, par JF Bouchor 40 rue Guynemer Paris 6e This work depicts the inner courtyard of the Attarine medersa, built between 1323 and 1325 under the orders of the Merinid sultan Abu Saïd. It remained in use until the early 20th century. Joseph-Félix Bouchor witnessed the intense activity beneath the prayer hall during his visit from 1920 to 1930.
Joseph-Félix BOUCHOR (Paris 1853 - 1937) Medersa Saharidj, Fez Oil on panel 33 x 23.8 cm Signed lower right JF Bouchor Titled on the back of the panel Medersa Saharidj, Fès, par JF Bouchor 40 rue Guynemer Paris 6e and another illegible inscription. Madrasa Sahridj is one of the famous madrasas in Fez. Its construction was initiated in the 14th century under Merinid rule, near the al-Andalusiyyin mosque, by the heir to the throne 'Ali b. 'Uthman II, Abu al-Hasan (r. 1331-1348). The layout follows the ubiquitous model of the Merinid madrasas of Fez: a rectangular courtyard with a large water basin (sihrij in Arabic) occupying the center of the patio, surrounded on its lateral sides by galleries leading to student rooms and a large prayer hall. The carved stucco and glazed tile decoration is typical of the Marinids' transposition of Nasrid palace materials and techniques into a religious context. The contrast between the sumptuous ornamentation of the courtyard and the Spartan accommodation of the students in all Marinid madrasas may reflect the multiple functions of these buildings. Madrasas often served as mosques for their respective quarters and as settings for official ceremonies. They functioned as important centers of community life. The courtyard, the most public space in the madrasa, was therefore the focal point of ornamentation that emphasized the generous image of the madrasa's founder. An active painter in Paris, it was not until after the First World War that he undertook a long journey from Egypt to Morocco via Algeria, during which time he became close to Orientalist painters. The artist developed his subjects, offering portraits, but above all depicting the cities and monuments he visited. He illustrated several books, including "Le Maroc" by the Tharaud brothers and "Marrakech" in André Chevrillon's palms. His work is preserved in several museums, such as "Oued Séfrou", painted around 1930 and now in the Musée d'Orsay (RF 1977 95).
JOSEPH-FÉLIX BOUCHOR (1853-1937) LES TERRASSES AU SOLEIL COUCHANT VUES DE LA BAHIA, MARRAKECH THE TERRACES AT SUNSET VIEWED FROM THE BAHIA, MARRAKECH Huile sur toile, signée en bas à gauche. 32 X 44,5 CM (12 5/8 X 17 1/2 IN.)
JOSEPH-FÉLIX BOUCHOR (1853-1937) Schleuhs dans le bled, Fès, Maroc Huile sur toile Signée en bas à droite (Rentoilage) Oil on lined canvas, signed lower right 38 x 46 cm - 15 x 18 1/8 in. Provenance Collection particulière, France
Joseph Félix Bouchor (French, 1853-1937) Pastoral spring landscape with herder signed 'JF. Bouchor' (lower right) oil on canvas 52 x 63in (132 x 160cm)
Tableaux BOUCHOR Joseph-Félix (1853 - 1937) Huile sur toile "Vue de la Loggia della Signoria à Florence". Signé en bas à droite J.F. Bouchor. Ecole française. Voir au dos deux étiquettes, une manuscrite et une des douanes françaises, service des Expositions à Paris. Dim.:+/-46,5x38,5cm.
Joseph Félix BOUCHOR 1853-1937 Fantasia devant les remparts Huile sur panneau Signé en bas à gauche "J.F. BOUCHOR" 16 x 24 cm Oil on panel, signed lower left "J.F. BOUCHOR" 6.30 x 9.45 in. Provenance : Collection particulière, France Rapport de condition / Condition report : Bon état général. Examen UV : petites retouches éparses. Dimensions avec cadre : 31,5 x 39,5 cm. Good overall condition. UV examination: slight retouching. Dimensions with frame: 12.4 x 15.5 in. Estimation 600 - 800 €
(1853 Paris 1937). "Sur le Piave." Soldaten im Schützengraben. 23. Februar 1918. Öl auf Holz. Ca. 26,5 x 35 cm. Unten links sign., bez. u. dat. Gerahmt. R
Joseph Felix Bouchor French, 1853-1937 View of the Hill, Fiesole Signed J. F. Bouchor (ll) Oil on canvas 13 1/4 x 18 3/16 inches (34 x 46.7 cm) Provenance: Alfred W. Jenkins, by 1932 Bequest of Alfred W. Jenkins to the Brooklyn Museum, 1933 C Property of the Brooklyn Museum
JOSEPH-FÉLIX BOUCHOR (1853-1937) LES TERRASSES AU SOLEIL COUCHANT VUES DE LA BAHIA, MARRAKECH THE TERRACES AT SUNSET VIEWED FROM THE BAHIA, MARRAKECH Huile sur toile, signée en bas à gauche. 32 X 44,5 CM (12 5/8 X 17 1/2 IN.)
Tableaux BOUCHOR Joseph-Félix (1853 - 1937) Huile sur toile "Vue de la Loggia della Signoria à Florence". Signé en bas à droite J.F. Bouchor. Ecole française. Voir au dos deux étiquettes, une manuscrite et une des douanes françaises, service des Expositions à Paris. Dim.:+/-46,5x38,5cm.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Drawing signed (“J. F. Bouchor”). 1p. Oblong Large 4to. (10 ¼” x 14”). [Rennes, September 6, 1899]. Bouchor’s eye-witness courtroom pencil sketch depicting Court Clerk Coupois reading the deposition of Armand Du Paty De Clam (1853-1916) – the French army officer and handwriting “expert” who wrongly accused Alfred Dreyfus of espionage – before seated members of the court on September 6, 1899. A handwritten caption in the lower margin reads: “Coupois reading du Paty’s deposition / Please keep Bouchor’s originals. He will take them on his way back to Paris.” Alfred Dreyfus’ 1894 conviction for treason and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets that had been sent anonymously to the German embassy’s military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Paty de Clam, an amateur graphologist and an officer on the general staff was asked to compare the torn-up bordereau to a text written in an unknown hand. He concluded, incorrectly, that the two hands were similar enough to hold up under legal scrutiny. Asked to implicate Dreyfus, Paty de Clam conceived of several elaborate schemes including one that allowed him to dictate the text of the bordereau to an unsuspecting Dreyfus immediately before his arrest. After testifying to the similarity of Dreyfus’ handwriting with the bordereau’s during the 1894 trial, Paty de Clam became involved in the intrigues of Esterhazy and Major Hubert-Joseph Henry, a statistical section officer who had forged much of the evidence used against Dreyfus. The truth finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Henry confessed to his forgeries and committed suicide in a military prison and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial to become the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). He was defended at court by Edgar Demange, who had been engaged by his family in 1894, and by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…! One week into the trial, on August 14, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin on his way to the courtroom. Though badly wounded, he returned to court on August 22. During the trial “Dreyfus spoke at length, and always confidently and with impressive specificity and precision, reconstituting events, showing how and why his accusers could not be telling the truth… On numerous occasions throughout the trial, he broke out in protest against the injustice and inaccuracy of testimony and, as he put it, its calumnious nature,” (op. cit., Curran). Paty de Clam was excused from testifying on medical grounds but was deposed in Paris on August 26th and his deposition was read by Coupois, a military adjutant, on September 6 but this was “merely a repetition of Du Paty’s former evidence before the Supreme Court of Appeals,” (The Dreyfus Affair: A Chronological History, Whyte). Demange and Labori’s efforts to defend the truth with witnesses and overwhelming evidence that pointed to a broad conspiracy to frame Dreyfus, failed. On September 9, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally acquiesced, providing he could still try to clear his name. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. A very fine and detailed rendering of the Rennes court in excellent condition.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Drawing. 1p. Large 4to. (9¾” x 12½”). [Rennes], September 5, [1899]. Bouchor’s eyewitness, courtroom pencil sketch of Republican Senator and Dreyfusard Ludovic Trarieux (1840-1904), standing and pointing with his arm outstretched during his testimony at Dreyfus’ second trial at Rennes. Alfred Dreyfus’ 1894 conviction for treason and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets that had been sent anonymously to the German embassy’s military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Additional evidence, intended to implicate Dreyfus, was secretly forged and submitted by French Army officers to the military judges presiding over the proceedings. The truth finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Lieutenant Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry confessed to his forgeries, committed suicide in a military prison, and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial becoming the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). He was defended at court by Edgar Demange, who had been engaged by his family in 1894, and by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…! One week into the trial, on August 14, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin on his way to the courtroom. Though badly wounded, he returned to court on August 22. During the trial “Dreyfus spoke at length, and always confidently and with impressive specificity and precision, reconstituting events, showing how and why his accusers could not be telling the truth… On numerous occasions throughout the trial, he broke out in protest against the injustice and inaccuracy of testimony and, as he put it, its calumnious nature,” (op. cit., Curran). Trarieux, along with Auguste Scheurer-Kestner, was one of the few members of the Senate who publicly proclaimed Dreyfus’ innocence. He called out the War Ministry’s injustice prior to Esterhazy’s trial, defended Emile Zola during his trial and, in 1898, prompted Minister of War Jacques Cavaignac’s resignation for his persecution of Dreyfus’ supporter Georges Picquart. In June 1898, he founded the Ligue des droits de l’homme (Human Rights League), which declared “from this day, anyone whose liberty is threatened or whose rights are violated can be ensured of obtaining help and assistance from us.” The organization, with more than 8000 members, is still active – www.ldh-france.org. Trarieux testified as a witness at the Rennes trial on September 5, delivering a “long and eloquent deposition. He describes what prompted him to cast doubt on his initial belief in the guilt of Dreyfus and how he finally became totally convinced of his innocence and thus supported a revision. He cites the violent antisemitic attacks against Dreyfus… But above all, Trarieux asserts, he was convinced by information obtained from a foreign ambassador (Tornielli)… who confirmed that Dreyfus never had any relations with foreign military attaché; that Tornielli saw a letter from Schwartzkoppen asserting Esterhazy’s guilt; and, long before Henry’s confession, that the faux Henry was a forgery,” (The Dreyfus Affair: A Chronology, Whyte). The following day, he asserted that the petit bleu was authentic, clearing Georges Picquart of its forgery, and “read out the letter he sent [Minister of War Jean-Baptiste] Billot on 6 January 1898 before Esterhazy’s court martial. The letter denounces the travesty of justice which was being prepared in order to achieve the acquittal of Esterhazy,” (ibid). Of Trarieux’s testimony, the New York Journal reported that his “eloquent peroration showed right to be on the side of Dreyfus. We shall not be the last to congratulate him upon his deposition, which is the act of a man of heart,” (New York Journal and Advertiser, September 7, 1899). Nonetheless, on September 9, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later, at the urging of Trarieux, President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally acquiesced, providing he could still try to clear his name. Trarieux continued to fight for Dreyfus’ rehabilitation but died before he could witness it. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. In very fine condition.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Drawing signed (“J. F. Bouchor”). 1p. Large 4to. (9¾” x 12¾”). [Rennes, 1899]. Bouchor’s eye-witness courtroom pencil sketch depicting Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935) seated before his attorney Edgar Demange (1841-1925), during his 1899 court martial at Rennes; Bouchor has written at the top of the drawing that Demange is speaking about “the technical value of the bordereau,” the leading piece of (forged) evidence used against Dreyfus. Alfred Dreyfus’ 1894 conviction for treason and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets that had been sent anonymously to the German embassy’s military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Additional evidence, intended to implicate Dreyfus, was secretly forged and submitted by French Army officers to the military judges presiding over the proceedings. The truth finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Lieutenant Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry confessed to his forgeries and killed himself in a military prison and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial to become the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). He was defended at court by Demange, who had been engaged by his family in 1894, and by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…!. One week into the trial, on August 14, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin on his way to the courtroom. Though badly wounded, he returned to court on August 22. During the trial “Dreyfus spoke at length, and always confidently and with impressive specificity and precision, reconstituting events, showing how and why his accusers could not be telling the truth… On numerous occasions throughout the trial, he broke out in protest against the injustice and inaccuracy of testimony and, as he put it, its calumnious nature,” (op. cit., Curran). Demange and Labori’s efforts to defend the truth with witnesses and overwhelming evidence that pointed to a broad conspiracy to frame Dreyfus, failed. On September 9, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally agreed to acquiesce, providing he could continue to try to clear his name. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. Some light staining and wear, otherwise very fine.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Drawing. 1p. Large 4to. (9 ½” x 12 ½”). [Rennes, August 29, 1899]. Bouchor’s eyewitness, double portrait courtroom pencil sketch of French army Lieutenant-Colonel Georges-Marie Picquart (1854-1914), Dreyfus’ instructor at the War College and chief of military intelligence who, in 1896, after reviewing a pneumatic tube telegram (the petit bleu) sent from the German Embassy’s military attaché, Schwartzkoppen, to Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, the agent whose espionage activities had been pinned on Dreyfus, opened an investigation into Esterhazy. Next to Picquart is a sketch of a haughty looking officer, Jules Maximilien Lauth (1858-1943), an antisemitic member of the army’s General Staff and translator of German documents for the Statistical Section who forged evidence against Dreyfus and who, after 1895, was Picquart’s subaltern. In the bottom right corner is a sketch of two individuals identified as Lauth and Statistical Section Commandant Albert Cordier “at the bar,” during the trial at Rennes. Alfred Dreyfus’ 1894 conviction for treason and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets that had been sent anonymously to the German embassy’s military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Additional evidence, intended to implicate Dreyfus, was secretly forged and submitted by French Army officers to the military judges presiding over the proceedings. Picquart took over the military counter-intelligence section at the French War Ministry in 1895 and his assistant, Lauth, brought him the petit bleu, fragments of a pneumatic tube telegram which implicated Esterhazy and exonerated Dreyfus. Picquart initiated a secret investigation into Esterhazy, while being spied on and deceived by members of his own staff, Captain Lauth and Lieutenant Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry. Engaged in a broad cover-up, the army first punished Picquart by re-assigning him to active duty in Tunisia. Then, upon Esterhazy’s acquittal on January 11, 1898, Picquart was imprisoned the day Emile Zola’s letter J’Accuse...! was published. Picquart testified at Zola’s libel trial and became one of Dreyfus’ most outspoken supporters. On February 1, 1898, Picquart was “discharged for gross misconduct in the service,” effective February 26th, three days after Zola was found guilty. Picquart was then falsely accused of forging the petit bleu, which led to his second imprisonment on July 13th, five days before Zola’s second conviction. Petitions for his release, signed by thousands of people, were circulated in Le Siècle and L’Aurore before he was freed in June 1899. He later became Clemenceau’s Minister of War. The truth of Dreyfus’ innocence finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Henry confessed to his forgeries, committed suicide, and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial becoming the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). He was defended at court by Edgar Demange, who had been engaged by his family in 1894, and by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…! One week into the trial, on August 14, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin on his way to the courtroom. Though badly wounded, he returned to court on August 22. During the trial “Dreyfus spoke at length, and always confidently and with impressive specificity and precision, reconstituting events, showing how and why his accusers could not be telling the truth… On numerous occasions throughout the trial, he broke out in protest against the injustice and inaccuracy of testimony and, as he put it, its calumnious nature,” (op. cit., Curran). Picquart, Lauth and Cordier were among the numerous witnesses called upon to give evidence during the trial. On August 29, Cordier testified, “that his belief in the guilt of Dreyfus has reversed since 1894 because of the campaign against Picquart, led mainly by Henry...Cordier also discloses that from 1895 Henry, Lauth and Gribelin plotted against their superior Picquart. Cordier’s evidence provokes vehement protest, especially from Lauth...” (The Dreyfus Affair, A Chronological History, Whyte, pp. 269-270. For additional details about Cordier’s testimony, depicted in our sketch from the trial, see: “Cordier Acquits Dreyfus,” New York Times, August 30, 1899, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1899/08/30/100449919.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0.) On September 9, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally acquiesced, providing he could still try to clear his name. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. In very fine condition.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Drawing signed (“J. F. Bouchor”). 1p. Large 4to. (9 ½” x 12 ¾”). [Rennes, August-September 1899]. Bouchor’s eyewitness, courtroom pencil sketch of Jacques Marie Eugene “Godfroy” Cavaignac (1853-1905), Minister of War from November 1895 to April 1896 and again from June to September 1898, who presented a forgery by Lieutenant Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry – dubbed the faux Henry – as proof of Dreyfus’ guilt and refused to acknowledge Dreyfus’ innocence even after the note was proved a forgery. Cavaignac resigned his post in September 1898 and not only continued to deny Dreyfus’ innocence, but joined the French nationalist, anti-Dreyfus, Ligue de la patrie française and ran for the French presidency in 1899. Alfred Dreyfus’ 1894 conviction for treason and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets that had been sent anonymously to the German embassy’s military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Additional evidence, intended to implicate Dreyfus, was secretly forged and submitted by French Army officers to the military judges presiding over the proceedings. The truth finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Lieutenant Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry confessed to his forgeries, committed suicide in a military prison, and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial becoming the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). He was defended at court by Edgar Demange, who had been engaged by his family in 1894, and by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…! One week into the trial, on August 14, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin on his way to the courtroom. Though badly wounded, he returned to court on August 22. During the trial “Dreyfus spoke at length, and always confidently and with impressive specificity and precision, reconstituting events, showing how and why his accusers could not be telling the truth… On numerous occasions throughout the trial, he broke out in protest against the injustice and inaccuracy of testimony and, as he put it, its calumnious nature,” (op. cit., Curran). Cavaignac, along with several other Ministers of War involved in the affair, testified on August 14. On September 9, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally acquiesced, providing he still could try to clear his name. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. In very fine condition.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Drawing 1p. Large 4to. (approx. 12 ½” x 10”). [Rennes], September 7, 1899. Bouchor’s eye-witness courtroom pencil sketch depicting a uniformed Major Louis-Norbert Carrière (1833-?) standing before a table with his arm upraised. A handwritten note in the upper right corner reads “Here’s a senior officer that seems very unambiguous to me / Major Carrière’s indictment 7 September 1899.” Alfred Dreyfus’ 1894 conviction for treason and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets that had been sent anonymously to the German embassy’s military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Additional evidence, intended to implicate Dreyfus, was secretly forged and submitted by French Army officers to the military judges presiding over the proceedings. The truth finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Lieutenant Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry confessed to his forgeries and killed himself in a military prison and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial to become the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). He was defended at court by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…! One week into the trial, on August 14, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin on his way to the courtroom. Though badly wounded, he returned to court on August 22. During the trial “Dreyfus spoke at length, and always confidently and with impressive specificity and precision, reconstituting events, showing how and why his accusers could not be telling the truth… On numerous occasions throughout the trial, he broke out in protest against the injustice and inaccuracy of testimony and, as he put it, its calumnious nature,” (op. cit., Curran). Carrière had retired from the military in 1889 but was appointed government commissioner to the court martial in Rennes in 1892. An anti-Dreyfusard, “Officer Carrière deliberately misunderstood the instructions from Paris. He allowed points that had been ruled out by the 3 June 1899 decree to be debated, and he subjected the witnesses for the defense to abuse. Meanwhile, the seventy witnesses for the prosecution who were called, even if they had ‘no personal or direct knowledge of a pertinent fact,’ spoke under the influence of General Mercier. Affirming that the trial was a struggle, Carrière benefited from a freedom to speak since his ministry had not given him any written pleadings,” (“Louis-Norbert Carrière,” 1906 Dreyfus Rehabilitated, http://www.dreyfus.culture.fr/en/bio/bio-html-louis-norbert-carriere.htm. On September 7, “Carrière delivers his closing speech… [which] reiterates the arguments of the General Staff in confused and disorganized manner. He ends with an affirmation of the guilt of Dreyfus and demands the application of Article 76 of the Penal Code… Carrière’s speech provoked laughter among the public and was considered by most observers extremely weak, full of unfounded hypotheses and lacking in substance. [General Auguste] Chamoin confided in [Maurice] Paléologue [of the Foreign Office] that day: ‘After a closing speech for the prosecution of such total nullity the acquittal of Dreyfus is certain. I have just telephoned General de Galliffet to tell him.’ Paléologue replied: ‘And I have just telephoned M. Delcassé to say that a conviction is inevitable,’” (The Dreyfus Affair: A Chronological History, Whyte). Indeed, the efforts made by Dreyfus’ lawyers to prove their case with witnesses and overwhelming evidence that pointed to a broad conspiracy to frame Dreyfus, failed. On September 9, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally acquiesced, providing he could still try to clear his name. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. In very fine condition.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Signed Drawing. (“J. F. Bouchor”). 1p. Oblong 4to. (9½” x 8”). [Rennes, September 2, 1899]. Bouchor’s eyewitness, courtroom pencil sketches of several French generals, some of whom conspired against Dreyfus: Auguste Mercier (1833-1921), French Minister of War and one of the most virulent anti-Dreyfusard voices during the Dreyfus Affair; Major General Charles-Arthur Gonse (1838-1917), Deputy Chief of Staff under General Raoul Le Mouton de Boisdeffre, who refused to recognize Dreyfus’ innocence; Gauderique Roget (1846-1917), chief of staff to ministers Cavaignac and Zurlinden; and Denis Felix Deloye director of artillery for the Ministry of War, who testified on technical information contained in the bordereau. Alfred Dreyfus’ 1894 conviction for treason and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets that had been sent anonymously to the German embassy’s military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Additional evidence, intended to implicate Dreyfus, was secretly forged and submitted by French Army officers to the military judges presiding over the proceedings. The truth finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Lieutenant Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry confessed to his forgeries, committed suicide in a military prison, and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial to become the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). He was defended at court by Edgar Demange, who had been engaged by his family in 1894, and by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…! One week into the trial, on August 14, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin on his way to the courtroom. Though badly wounded, he returned to court on August 22. During the trial “Dreyfus spoke at length, and always confidently and with impressive specificity and precision, reconstituting events, showing how and why his accusers could not be telling the truth… On numerous occasions throughout the trial, he broke out in protest against the injustice and inaccuracy of testimony and, as he put it, its calumnious nature,” (op. cit., Curran). On August 31, Gonse and Mercier admitted that they treated an alleged confession by Dreyfus in a casual manner and on August 30 and September 2, Deloye gave evidence on technical information contained within the bordereau and its importance. Also on September 2, Roget and Gonse were questioned about their interference in chief of the army's intelligence section, Georges Picquart’s investigation into Esterhazy. On September 9, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally acquiesced, providing he could still try to clear his name. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. In fine condition.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Drawing. 1p. Large 4to. (9 ½” x 12 ½”). Rennes, September 5, 1899. Bouchor’s eyewitness, courtroom pencil sketches of General Auguste Mercier (in background) (1833-1921), French Minister of War and one of the most virulent anti-Dreyfusard voices during the Dreyfus Affair, and General Émile Zurlinden (in foreground) (1837-1929), Minister of War in 1898 who, as Military Governor of Paris, accused Georges Picquart, chief of the French army's intelligence section, of forging the petit bleu in order to frame Esterhazy. Alfred Dreyfus’ 1894 conviction for treason and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets that had been sent anonymously to the German embassy’s military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Additional evidence, intended to implicate Dreyfus, was secretly forged and submitted by French Army officers to the military judges presiding over the proceedings. Mercier led the military’s investigation, becoming convinced of the guilt of Jewish army officer Alfred Dreyfus, despite a lack of evidence. His ongoing belief in Dreyfus’ culpability was, in part, a reaction to the right-wing press’ criticism of the army’s shrouding its investigation in secrecy. Following Dreyfus’ conviction, Mercier requested the reinstatement of the death penalty for sedition and destroyed critical evidence, which led to his replacement as minister of war. For his cover-up, Dreyfus regarded Mercier as the “chief criminal” in his persecution. The truth finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Lieutenant Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry confessed to his forgeries, committed suicide in a military prison and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial becoming the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). He was defended at court by Edgar Demange, who had been engaged by his family in 1894, and by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…! One week into the trial, on August 14, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin on his way to the courtroom. Though badly wounded, he returned to court on August 22. During the trial “Dreyfus spoke at length, and always confidently and with impressive specificity and precision, reconstituting events, showing how and why his accusers could not be telling the truth… On numerous occasions throughout the trial, he broke out in protest against the injustice and inaccuracy of testimony and, as he put it, its calumnious nature,” (op. cit., Curran). Not only did Mercier testify numerous times during the trial, including August 12, 14, 24, 31 and September 2, but details of his first investigation were introduced as evidence during the proceedings. During his testimony on August 14, Zurlinden, who had been Minister of War from January 1895 to November 1895 and again from September 5, 1898, to September 17, 1898, asserted that Dreyfus was a German agent and author of the bordereau. On September 9, 1899, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally acquiesced, providing he could still try to clear his name. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. In very fine condition.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Signed Drawing. (“J. F. Bouchor”). 1p. Large 4to. (9¾” x 12½”). [Rennes], September 3, 1899. Bouchor’s eye-witness courtroom pencil sketch depicting Georges-Marie Picquart (1854-1914), French officer, Dreyfus’ instructor at the War College and chief of military intelligence. In 1896, following the interception of a letter (the petit bleu) from the German military attaché in Paris to French Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, Picquart opened an investigation into Esterhazy, the spy whose treason had been pinned on Dreyfus. The drawing depicts Picquart taking notes and is inscribed vertically in the left margin in an unknown hand, “to Dessommes / Carefully make a cliché and keep all of Mr. Bouchoz’s originals” (à Dessommes / Clicher soigneusement et conserver tous les originaux de M. Bouchoz). The 1894 conviction for treason of French-Jewish artillery captain Alfred Dreyfus and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island, hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets and had been sent anonymously to the German military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Additional evidence, intended to implicate Dreyfus, was secretly forged by French Army officers and submitted to the military judges presiding over the legal proceedings. Following his conviction, Dreyfus languished for years in solitary confinement, while his family and supporters attempted to clear his name. Anti-Dreyfusards, led by a virulent anti-Semitic French press, regularly circulated rumors and lies about him. Despite his own anti-Semitism, Picquart, in 1896, reported the discovery of the petit bleu which implicated Esterhazy and exonerated Dreyfus. Engaged in a massive cover-up, the army first punished Picquart by re-assigning him to active duty in Tunisia. Then, upon Esterhazy’s acquittal on January 11, 1898, Picquart was imprisoned the day Zola’s letter J’Accuse...! was published. Picquart testified at Zola’s libel trial and became one of Dreyfus’ most outspoken supporters. On February 1, 1898, Picquart was “discharged for gross misconduct in the service,” effective February 26th, three days after Zola was found guilty. Picquart was then falsely charged of forging the petit bleu, which led to his second imprisonment on July 13, 1898, five days before Zola’s second conviction. Petitions, signed by thousands calling for Picquart’s release were circulated in Le Siècle and L’Aurore before he was freed on June 13, 1899, ten days before he penned our letter. In 1906, like Dreyfus, Picquart was exonerated and promoted brigadier general; on October 25th he became Clemenceau’s Minister of War. Picquart is the protagonist in Robert Harris’ best-selling 2013 historical thriller An Officer and a Spy. The truth of Dreyfus’ innocence finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Henry confessed to his forgeries, committed suicide, and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial becoming the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). Dreyfus was defended at court by Edgar Demange, who had been engaged by his family in 1894, and by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…! One week into the trial, on August 14, while walking to court with Picquart, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin. Though badly wounded, Labori returned to court on August 22. Picquart’s testimony took place over the course of two days. On August 17th, “Picquart, in civilian clothes, begins his deposition. He recounts the role he has played in the Affair since 1894 and reveals the faults of the Ministry of War. He blames Du Paty [du Clam] for many of these. Picquart recalls the deep impression caused by Henry’s testimony at the court martial of Dreyfus (1894) and analyses the bordereau in situ to prove that Dreyfus could not have written it… [On August 18th] Picquart continues his deposition, which lasts almost five hours. In a meticulous analysis of the Secret Dossier of 1894, he proves that none of its four documents can be related to Dreyfus. He describes his discovery of the petit bleu and the subsequent maneuvers against him,” (The Dreyfus Affair, A Chronological History, Whyte). On September 9, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept of “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally acquiesced, providing he could still try to clear his name. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. In very fine condition.
[DREYFUS, AFFAIR.] BOUCHOR, JOSEPH-FÉLIX. (1853-1937). French portrait artist. Drawing. 1p. Oblong Large 4to. (9¾” x 12¾”). [Rennes, 1899]. Bouchor’s eyewitness pencil sketch depicting Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935) seated before his attorney Edgar Demange (1841-1925), next to a police officer, at his 1899 court martial at Rennes; Bouchor has written Dreyfus and Demange’s names in the lower left corner. Alfred Dreyfus’ 1894 conviction for treason and his subsequent exile and imprisonment on the French Guiana penal colony Devil’s Island hinged on an intercepted memo, or bordereau, which revealed French military secrets that had been sent anonymously to the German embassy’s military attaché, Captain Schwartzkoppen, in Paris. The memo’s actual author was French Major Marie-Charles-Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, a spy in German employ. Additional evidence, intended to implicate Dreyfus, was secretly forged and submitted by French Army officers to the military judges presiding over the proceedings. The truth finally emerged in the summer of 1898 after Lieutenant Colonel Hubert-Joseph Henry confessed to his forgeries and killed himself in a military prison and Esterhazy fled to England. General Boisdeffre, the army’s Chief of the General Staff who had been convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt from the beginning, resigned after Henry’s confession. Considering these events, the court annulled the 1894 judgment against Dreyfus and granted him a second military trial in Rennes. Dreyfus, frail and in poor health, sailed from his island exile on June 9, 1899, to appear at the Rennes trial on August 7th. Journalists and artists from around the world swarmed Rennes to observe the trial that would be “a culminating point of l’affaire. It was the last opportunity for the military system of justice to redeem itself… The first military tribunal [in 1894] had been able to insist that no hearings be conducted publicly. At Rennes, the second military tribunal held all hearings publicly, except for one, and the fact that the court insisted on holding any at all behind closed doors both exacerbated criticism of the proceedings and was hotly contested by the defense, for this time the eyes of the country and of the world were fixed on Rennes. The world press was ready to convict France if France convicted Dreyfus. And France itself, author of the Rights of Man and Citizens, country of the philosophes, and of the Enlightenment, was only too painfully aware of this,” (“The Military Trial at Rennes: Text and Subtext of the Dreyfus Affair,” Touro Law Review, Curran). The trial was covered in detail by newspapers and magazines worldwide and was even dramatized in Georges Méliès series of short silent films, produced concurrently with the trial to become the first ever film serial! (Nine of the eleven films can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Re6Y1G8_U). “By the time the Rennes trial took place, proof of his innocence abounded,” (The Affair: The Case of Alfred Dreyfus, Bredin). He was defended at court by Demange, who had been engaged by his family in 1894, and by prominent criminal attorney Ferdinand Labori, who had defended Emile Zola after his famous publication of J’Accuse…! One week into the trial, on August 14, Labori was shot in the back by a would-be assassin on his way to the courtroom. Though badly wounded, he returned to court on August 22. During the trial “Dreyfus spoke at length, and always confidently and with impressive specificity and precision, reconstituting events, showing how and why his accusers could not be telling the truth… On numerous occasions throughout the trial, he broke out in protest against the injustice and inaccuracy of testimony and, as he put it, its calumnious nature,” (op. cit., Curran). On September 9, the judges, by a majority of five to two, found Dreyfus guilty of treason under the absurd concept “extenuating circumstances,” and sentenced him to ten years detention. Ten days later President Émile Loubet issued Dreyfus a pardon. Dreyfus, initially opposed to accepting any pardon as it would have compelled him to withdraw his petition for a legal revision and acknowledge responsibility for a crime he steadfastly maintained he never committed, finally agreed to acquiesce, providing he could continue to try to clear his name. Despite the ongoing vitriolic attacks in the press and public displays by anti-Dreyfus elements, the Court of Cassation finally declared Dreyfus innocent 1906. The Dreyfus Affair’s significance is so far-reaching that the human rights movement, the origins of modern-day Zionism (Theodor Herzl was in Paris covering Dreyfus’ first trial for his Viennese newspaper), and the French separation of church and state can all claim to have been born during this dark chapter in French history. Educated at the Beaux-Arts and an exhibitor at the Salon des Artistes Francis, Bouchor became known for his portraits of General John Pershing and French President Georges Clemenceau (a supporter of Dreyfus and publisher of Zola’s “J’Accuse...!”) as well as his illustrations of the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I and Orientalist paintings inspired by his travels in North Africa. Provenance: Isabelle Lazar (nee Grumbacher), wife of Jewish journalist Bernard Lazare, anarchist, literary critic and one of Dreyfus’ earliest and most vocal defenders who covered the Rennes trial for The Chicago Record and The North American Review. In overall fine condition.
Joseph-Félix BOUCHOR (1853-1937). Le monument Delacroix. Jardin du Luxembourg. Paris. Huile sur toile. Dimensions : 48 x 40 cm. Belles étiquettes anciennes au dos. Joseph-Felix BOUCHOR (1853-1937). The Delacroix monument. Luxembourg Garden. Paris. Oil on canvas. Size: 48x40cm. Beautiful old labels on the back.
Joseph-Félix BOUCHOR (1853-1937). Le traghetto, Venise. Gondoliers sur le canal. Dimensions : 47 x 34 cm. Joseph-Felix BOUCHOR (1853-1937). The traghetto, Venice. Gondoliers on the canal. Size: 47 x 34cm.
Huile sur panneau "Bretonne et son bétail en bord de mer". Signé en bas à gauche J.F. Bouchor. Ecole française. Voir au dos une étiquette "Exposition de Bruxelles en 1925". Dim.:+/-37,5x46cm.
Huile sur toile "Le marché aux bestiaux à Le Faouët en Bretagne". Signé en bas à droite J.F. Bouchor. Voir au dos trois étiquettes. Ecole française. Dim. : +/-33,5x46 cm.
Joseph-Félix BOUCHOR 1853-1937 Fantasia devant les remparts Huile sur panneau Signé en bas à gauche "J.F. BOUCHOR" h: 16 w: 24 cm Provenance : Collection particulière, France Commentaire : Oil on panel Signed lower left "J.F. BOUCHOR"
Joseph-Félix BOUCHOR 1853-1937 Retour de fête à Fès Huile sur toile Signée en bas à droite "JF BOUCHOR" Titrée au dos "Retour de fête Fès - Maroc par J.F. Bouchor" h: 65,50 w: 81 cm Provenance : Collection particulière, France Commentaire : Oil on canvas Signed lower right "JF BOUCHOR" Titled on the back "Retour de fête Fès - Maroc par J.F. Bouchor"
Joseph-Félix BOUCHOR (1853-1937) Venise, rio della Fava Huile sur toile signée en bas à droite, étiquette manuscrite au dos. 38 x 46 cm (Frottements et manque en bas à droite)
Joseph-Félix BOUCHOR (1853-1937) Venise, rio della Fava Huile sur toile signée en bas à droite, étiquette manuscrite au dos. 38 x 46 cm (Frottements et manque en bas à droite)
Joseph-Félix Bouchor (1853-1937) 'The butter market, Middelburg', signed lower right, canvas. The work bears two labels on the back: 'Marché au Beurre, Middelburg' and 'Acquis de l'auteur en décembre 1922 par Ernest Judlin, Oissel'. Ernest Judlin was the former director of the 'Manufacture cotonnière' in Oissel (near Rouen, France) and the artist had his atelier in Freneuse, 5 km from Oissel. 66 x 82 cm.
Joseph- Félix BOUCHOR (Paris 1853 - 1937) La Bahia au printemps, Marrakech Huile sur panneau 23,5 x 33,5 cm Signé en bas à droite JF Bouchor Porte au dos des anciennes étiquettes : Le pêcher en fleurs La Bahia au printemps Marrakech par JF Bouchor 40 rue Guynemer Paris 6ème; et une ancienne étiquette de transporteur Gerfaud14 rue de la Grange Batelière
Joseph-Félix Bouchor (1853-1937), Framed Oil on Panel, Signed Lower Right, “4 Juillet 1918 Independence Day” Above Signature. Title Plaque: Fourth of July 1918 General Pershing’s American Expeditionary Force Marching Down The Place de la Concorde, Paris, 1918 Provenance: Christie’s, NY, February 13, 1996, Lot 219
JOSEPH FELIX BOUCHOR (French, 1853-1937), Dutch village scene, oil on canvas, signed lower left. Small puncture to top right, scattered minor inpaint, craquelure. Canvas 25-1/2''h, 32''w. (Fine Art)
Joseph-Felix Bouchor (1853-1937) French. "Les Bateaux de la Marina Grande, Capri", a View of Boats on the Shore by Houses along the Seafront, Oil on Canvas, Signed, and Inscribed on a label on reverse, 15" x 18.25".
JOSEPH-FELIX BOUCHOR France, 1853-1937 "An Open Doorway With the American Y.M.C.A". Inscribed upper right "A mon ami Hall Aout 1918 JF Bouchor". Titled verso. Oil on board, 13.75" x 10.5". Framed.
JOSEPH-FÉLIX BOUCHOR (1853-1937) LES TERRASSES DE L'ATLAS, MARRAKECH THE TERRACES FACING THE ATLAS MOUNTAINS, MARRAKECH Huile sur panneau, signée en bas à droite. Dédicacée au dos à André Schmit. 23,7 X 33cm (9 5/16 X 13 IN.) € 2,500-3,500
JOSEPH-FÉLIX BOUCHOR (1853-1937) "KOUBA MOULAY IBRAHIM, RABAT, MAROC" Huile sur toile, signée en bas à gauche, située sur une étiquette ancienne au dos et numérotée "57". 45,5 X 38 cm (17 15/16 X 14 15/16 IN.)
