Alexandre Dumas

• Salem on Literature
• Information, Facts, and Links
• Group

Browse all of the Salem on Literature series

Alexandre Dumas (Magill Book Reviews)

The subtitle of this biography is drawn from the phrase in which novelist George Sand summed up her fellow Frenchman Dumas. Claude Schopp, however, neither proves nor disproves that Dumas was a “genius of life.” He certainly portrays his subject’s struggle with lifelong problems--scandalous love affairs, mountainous debts, a talent for getting into duels--but he does not show Dumas zestfully attacking or triumphing over these things, as would a “genius of life.” As portrayed by Schopp, Dumas appears simply to have lived from hand to mouth.

On the positive side, Schopp vividly presents many of Dumas’ moment-to-moment actions. Especially gripping is his account of Dumas’ role in the 1830 revolution, when the playwright/ novelist walked the Parisian boulevards through gunfire and later led a troop to capture a Royalist fortification. Schopp also skillfully retells the stories of Dumas’ stage plays, and he does a good job of portraying the ups and downs in the relation between Dumas and his son, Alexandre fils.

Rather than show many major events in Dumas’ life, however, Schopp brings them in by the back door. As an example, he tells the reader that a coolness grew between Dumas and Victor Hugo, but does not recount a single incident along the path toward that estrangement. Neither does he present their reconciliation although he mentions in an aside that a go-between arranged it. Most readers will expect far more detail about the intertwined lives of these two heroes of French Romanticism. Moreover, Schopp presents only the sketchiest details about Dumas at work on his masterpieces THE THREE MUSKETEERS and THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO.

At the heart of this treatment, apparently, is an indulgent cynicism (shading at times into outright disdain) toward Dumas. Biographers may not be required to like or respect their subjects, but those who do not usually attempt to debunk those subjects. In Schopp’s case, however, the motive is unclear.