En occultant les éléments contraires

The Bernard Lewis Trial

Later, he wrote an account of the ruling in a letter published in the June 15, 1996 issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly.

This page is to show the ruling, both in the original French and translated into English, as well as provide an opportunity to compare it with the version given by Bernard Lewis so that readers can gauge the accuracy of this well-known historian.

Here are excerpts from both Bernard Lewis' letter and the actual ruling:

Lewis Version

Actual Ruling

The court ruled that while it was "in no way established" that I had "pursued a purpose alien" to my "mission as a historian," I was at fault in not having cited, in the course of the interview, "elements contrary to my thesis" and had thus "revived the pain of the Armenian community." For this I was ordered to pay one franc in damages to each of the two plaintiff parties as well as a contribution to their costs.

Whereas, even if it is in no way established that he pursued a purpose alien to his mission as a historian, and even if it is not disputable that he may maintain an opinion on this question different from those of the petitioning associations, the fact remains that it was by concealing elements contrary to his thesis that the defendant was able to assert that there was no "serious proof" of the Armenian genocide; consequently, he failed in his duties of objectivity and prudence by expressing himself without qualification on such a sensitive subject; and his remarks, which could unfairly revive the pain of the Armenian community, are tortious and justify compensation under the terms set forth hereafter;

The historian is bound by his responsibility toward the persons concerned when, by distortion [dénaturation] or falsification, he credits the veracity of manifestly erroneous allegations or, through serious negligence, omits events or opinions subscribed to by persons qualified and enlightened enough so that the concern for accuracy prevents him from keeping silent about them.

The Court...orders the publication of excerpts of this judgment in the next issue of the newspaper Le Monde to appear after the date on which this judgment shall be made final, the cost of this insertion, to be borne by the defendant, not to exceed twenty thousand (20,000) francs.