In 1894, Dreyfus, a Jew and captain in the French army, was sentenced to life in exile by a French military court for leaking secrets, and in 1896, the relevant intelligence agency found that a German spy was involved in the case and concluded that Dreyfus was not guilty. However, the Ministry of War and the military court not only had no intention of correcting the mistake, but also tried to cover up the truth by transferring the head of the intelligence agency and blatantly sentencing the German spy who really leaked the information to be innocent. In response, the famous writer Zola stepped forward and published a series of "Letter to the Youth", "Letter to France" and an open letter to the President, the famous "I Complain", which triggered a movement for social justice throughout France. Zola was prosecuted by the military for "false accusation" and sentenced to one year's imprisonment and a fine of 3,000 francs. Zola was forced into exile in England and returned to France a year later. He continued to fight against the military. It was not until 1906, four years after Zola's death, that Dreyfus, who had been wronged for twelve years, was officially cleared of the charges against him.

This is known in history as the Dreyfus Affair.

Zola was rightly acclaimed in France and throughout the world. Because he spared no effort to speak out in defense of the rights, honor and dignity of a man who had nothing to do with him, and who was small in comparison with the whole army and the nation; because he dared to challenge, in his own strength, a powerful cabal, which, taking advantage of the existing system, had assembled all sorts of evil forces in order to stifle the ideals of republicanism, social justice and liberty; and because he was not afraid to go to court at the cost of abandoning his existing honor and comfortable life, of siege, of imprisonment and exile, and of the fact that he was not afraid to go to court at the cost of abandoning his existing honor and comfortable life, of imprisonment and exile. ideals; and also because he persisted in this feat of disparate power to the last breath, at the cost of abandoning the honors and comforts he already had, and without fear of going to court, or of siege, or of imprisonment and exile. To oppose France in order to preserve the spirit of France is extraordinary. Mark Twain wrote: "Some of the churches and military tribunals are composed of cowards, hypocrites, and men of influence; such men can be made a million in a year, while it takes five hundred years to make a Joan of Arc or a Zola!" It should be admitted that these words are not much of an overstatement, if one witnesses the great difference in the quality of human life.

However, around Zola, there was a group of intellectuals who were rich in reason, knowledge, conscience and courage - the "Zolas" who fought together with Zola, which cannot be ignored. It is precisely because of the nourishment of Rousseau and the whole Enlightenment, and the national spirit of "liberty, equality and fraternity" cultivated by the French Revolution, that such a united and strong spiritual entity was created. Without this entity, it may not be possible to produce such a brave and firm Zola; without this entity, Zola's single-handed battle will be interrupted because of serious Yin. But only with this entity, when social justice is threatened, a Zola, or a Zola not named Zola, will surely emerge from it.

This is in fact the case. In Zola, the biography of the French writer Lanoue, it is recounted that Zola, who was still in a state of indecision at the beginning of the story and was buried in his work, was promoted by the figures of the "Dreyfus School"; and, above all, he was convinced by a group of journalists, lawyers, and historians. The surrounding cast of characters is so brilliant that they are drawn together by a Jewish injustice. Rarely, among them, the writer Frans and the newspaper man Clemenceau were different types of characters from Zola, not agreeing or even opposing in their professional or other opinions; yet they were brought together by the mere fact of a "sense of justice". They took Zola's struggle as their own, and in the struggle, they showed a strong "team spirit". For example, Clemenceau, who reorganized the newspaper Aurora, gave his full support to Zola; the title of Zola's diatribe, "I Complain," was also added at his suggestion. They accompanied Zola to court, and persisted in the struggle which he had begun after his departure from France; and when justice was frustrated throughout the country by Zola's crime, and the spiritual wealth of France was in danger of sinking, they became the rallying cry and the banner which guided the rising minds and forces of civil society. It was they, until after Zola's death, who carried on Zola's unfinished business. Without their collective struggle, the outcome of the Dreyfus Affair would have been difficult to envision, or at least the time of its realization would have been considerably delayed as a result.

A country, a society, is very different without the existence of an intellectual community. From Socrates to Bruno and Galileo, even Voltaire and Hugo, they have suffered death, they have suffered, they have remained isolated because of the lack of such a collective. They were cut up into individuals who could only speak to society individually, so that they were echoed among their own kind.

According to the well-known contemporary French writer Révy, it is only since the Dreyfus affair that there has been a sizable number of intellectuals in France; that is to say, at this time there was not just one Zola, but a "Zolas". "We are intellectuals! The party of the intellectuals! There is a challenge, a driving arrogance in this cry ......" wrote Reveille in a book titled "The Adventures of Freedom", "It is a way, a very bold way, to dance a title that is almost insulting as a flag. " Recalling Intellectual Action, and the Manifesto of the Intellectuals drafted by Clemenceau, when discussing the naming of "intellectuals," he was looking at the number of intellectuals as an important part of it, i.e., as a criterion. He wrote: "Hundreds of poets, painters, professors, who consider it their duty to lay down their pens or brushes to comment on the affairs of the country, have at the same time revised the meaning of the word 'intellectual'. Even the opponents, the abusers of Dreyfus and the supporters of the national interest, who, with the current of the times, no longer remained silent or gamboled, no longer hid their irritations and beliefs, no longer adhered to the traditions of collegiate silence and resignation in the face of their provocateurs, used the same words, the same means of participation, and formed alliances and associations of various kinds as well. Is it an imitation? Is it a fanaticism? One could say so. But it may also be recorded thus: in the arena of thought, a new kind of figure has arisen - as fresh and specific as the clergyman, the scribe, the sophist, and the erudite mark out other ages." This fresh and specific group is the modern intellectual. What he means is that intellectuals, in the true sense of the word, are only possible in modern times.

Indeed, intellectuals and modern democratic society are symbiotic and interactive. On the contrary, without the creation of a decent intellectual community, such a society can only be called pre-modern; the passage of time does not bring about substantial changes in it, but merely adds a bit of new-century polish.