Germany's Criminal Prohibition of Homosexual Acts

Germany's Criminal Prohibition of Homosexual Acts is invoked by Picquart as a possible lever against Schwartzkoppen, not as proof of anyone’s private conduct. In a discussion with General Gonse, Picquart argues that the prospect of exposure under German law might deter Schwartzkoppen from protesting French surveillance. The exchange places criminal law inside the machinery of espionage: a prohibition can serve not only as punishment but also as a threat that an intelligence officer might exploit.

A legal prohibition turned into leverage

Picquart’s proposal arises while he is arguing for operations that could reveal whether Schwartzkoppen has other agents and perhaps uncover further evidence concerning Alfred Dreyfus. He counters Gonse’s concern that establishing a French presence near the Germans would provoke a diplomatic uproar: if the Germans discovered it, Picquart reasons, they would be reluctant to complain, because doing so would expose their own vulnerability.

That vulnerability, in Picquart’s account, is the risk that Schwartzkoppen could be exposed as “a pansy.” Picquart says that this could bring “a sentence of five years’ imprisonment in Germany,” and presents the threat as a way to repay Schwartzkoppen for employing Alfred Dreyfus. The passage establishes what Picquart believes the law could be used to do; it does not establish that Schwartzkoppen was in fact homosexual, that Picquart possessed proof of his sexuality, or that any prosecution occurred.

Gonse’s objection and the limits of the tactic

Gonse rejects the proposal on grounds of professional honor, calling Schwartzkoppen a gentleman and saying that such coercion would violate their traditions. His reaction exposes a conflict within the French intelligence operation: Picquart treats the law as an exploitable weakness, while Gonse distinguishes intelligence work from an attack on an opponent’s private life. Picquart has anticipated the objection and says he came prepared, but the supplied passage does not record the rest of his argument or show that Gonse accepted the tactic.

The episode therefore makes the prohibition consequential without depicting its direct enforcement. Its force lies in the possibility of exposure and imprisonment, as Picquart imagines it, and in the disagreement over whether that possibility should be weaponized. The account gives no independent confirmation of Picquart’s assessment of Schwartzkoppen’s vulnerability.

Secrecy gives way to public allegation

The wider case soon demonstrates the fragility of secrets. After L’Éclair publishes an anonymous article claiming that Alfred Dreyfus’s conviction rested on a secret file, Picquart lists the people who know of the dossier: senior officers and intelligence staff, the seven judges, the president and his doctor, Mathieu Dreyfus, and potentially others. He concludes that photography, telegraphy, railways, and newspaper presses make secrecy difficult to preserve. He fears, however, that the leak may make Gonse and Boisdeffre more determined to restrict the investigation rather than vindicate Picquart’s position.

Esterhazy later uses Le Matin to accuse Picquart of being close to the Dreyfus family, opening an investigation against him, and showing secret files to Louis Leblois. The accusation brings Picquart’s name into print and turns a concealed intelligence dispute into a public attack on his reputation. This is part of the account’s broader movement from private surveillance and confidential files toward increasingly visible claims and counterclaims; it does not, by itself, disclose anything about Schwartzkoppen’s private life.

A suggestive phrase, not a settled revelation

At a hearing, Georges de Pellieux declares that a document supposedly received by the Ministry of War in November 1896 contained the words: “Never admit the relations that we had with that Jew.” He presents the document as absolute proof of Alfred Dreyfus’s guilt and appeals to Boisdeffre to support his testimony. Picquart recognizes the reference as a letter said to have been retrieved from the German Embassy, which Billot had previously read aloud without showing him.

The phrase is presented as part of Pellieux’s claim about the Dreyfus case, not as confirmation of a homosexual relationship or as a reference explicitly identifying Schwartzkoppen. Picquart sees Pellieux’s intervention as another blunder and urges Labori to seize the moment, while Gonse moves to speak before Labori can. The passage thus reinforces the distinction between a criminal prohibition invoked as a private threat and ambiguous language advanced publicly as evidence: neither the phrase nor the law, in the evidence given here, establishes the underlying private facts.