# The Life and Writings of Alexandre Dumas/Preface

PREFACE
The centenary of the birth of Alexandre Dumas père occurred in July of this year. As no satisfactory "Life" of the great Frenchman exists in English, this was thought an appropriate moment for giving the public, with whom his romances are so popular, an account of Dumas's life, character, and writings, which should be both interesting to the ordinary reader, and trustworthy as a book of reference. The author has endeavoured to tell the general reader—"the man in the public library"—who Dumas was, what he did, which books he did write and which he did not write, and finally, what his confrères and the great critics have said of him.
One or two points may be dealt with here, by way of anticipating obvious criticism. The first relates to the omission from the following pages of the spiteful libels of MM. "de Mirecourt," de Cassagnac, etc. It is almost impossible at this date for any one, particularly an Englishman, to take the circumstantial allegations of these gentlemen and refute them in detail. It is now over sixty years since they were made: they had their source in admitted enmity, and their medium was equally ​contemptible. Dumas ignored them; his colleagues in the higher ranks of literature discredited them; his enemies accepted them willingly, without demanding proof. "M. de Mirecourt" was sentenced to imprisonment for publishing his statements; but their improbability is still stronger proof of their falseness. When Dumas's "collaborators" denied the allegations made "on their behalf," "M. de Mirecourt" impudently accused them of having allowed Dumas to dictate their denials; when he "proved" Dumas's illiteracy, by an anecdote in which he cited M. Maquet in support, that gentleman promptly gave the libeller the lie!
We make no apology for dwelling on this point, for the charges of this M. Jacquot have been accepted almost universally as the truth. Quérard cites the gentleman with obvious complacency; Larousse in his Dictionnaire quotes him constantly, and Mr Fitzgerald condemns the man's testimony almost as often as he makes use of it. Mr Henley's article in Chambers's "Encyclopædia" is probably the only biographical account of Dumas which is trustworthy. That in the ninth edition of the "Encyclopædia Britannica" is by Mr Fitzgerald.
Of M. Quérard, who in his "Superchéries" proves to his own satisfaction that with one or two insignificant exceptions Dumas never wrote anything at all, it is sufficient to point out that he considered ​that author as merely "a clever arranger of the thoughts of others." When a new edition of the "Superchéries" was issued, the exposés of M. Quérard, which stopped at 1848, were not continued, and the editors formally expressed their regret that the great writer had received such treatment from the critic. They further hinted that only a determination to use the material of the first edition of the work in its entirety prevented them from dealing with M. Quérard's accusations.
We have referred to Mr Fitzgerald. His "Life and Adventures of Alexander Dumas" was written shortly after the novelist's death, is now forgotten, and is probably out of print. This relieves us from the necessity of saying more than that Mr Lang in his "Essays in Little," Mr Brander Matthews in his "French Novelists," Mr W. H. Pollock in the Nineteenth Century, Mr A. B. Walkley in "Playhouse Impressions," and others, have all condemned the book as being inaccurate and unworthy of the subject and the writer. A great change has taken place in the literary estimation of Dumas during the past thirty years; and it is our aim to convey this desirable revolution in opinion to the mind of the ordinary reader.
Consistent with the declaration made above, we have ignored the charges brought against Dumas with reference to his attitude toward Louis Philippe. ​The ex-employee of the Duke of Orleans is accused of having alternately abused and fawned upon that dignitary when he became king. We prefer to take the responsibility of suppressing the allegations respecting this episode in Dumas's career as utterly at variance with his practice and his nature.
Another omission requires explanation. We have dealt with the plays of Dumas, so far as they affected his career, in Part I.; we have touched on them in general terms in other portions of the book; but have refrained from dealing with them at all extensively. The general reader of the English-speaking public does not know Dumas's plays, and has had no opportunity of seeing them or of reading them, therefore one cannot hope to interest him in them; and at the risk of throwing the subject out of its proper proportion we have omitted to treat them fully. To those who do know and appreciate him as a dramatist, we can recommend "Le Drame d'A. Dumas" by M. H. Parigot, published by Calmann-Lévy.
There is a general confusion in books of reference concerning the year of Dumas's birth. As Glinel shows, by reproducing the certificate of birth, the author was born in 1802.
The author has tried to make his book as accurate as possible, but the task has been difficult, as no impartial and complete biography of Dumas exists, ​even in French. He will therefore be grateful to any critic, friendly or otherwise, who will point out any errors of fact in the text.
Note.—My thanks are due to Madame Dumas fils for her kind assistance; to M. D'Hauterive, her son-in-law, for similar kindness; to Mr Lang, Mr W. M. Rossetti and Mr Swinburne for courteous replies to inquiries; to Mr Robert Garnett for valuable advice and help; to M.M. Calmann-Lévy for information given; to Mr F. M. Duncan for his photographs of illustrations in the British Museum Library; and to M. E. Roch, secretary of the Villers-Cotterets Centenary Fêtes Committee.