Alexandre Dumas - the celebrated French part-African novelist - is in the public eye once again with another adaptation of his book ‘The Three Musketeers’ and since Dumas is of interest to the general reader again. I thought it was an appropriate time to bring up the not very well-known role and descriptions of jews in his fiction and non-fiction works.
Now Dumas was a prolific writer and I don’t pretend to have studied or read all the work wrote, but I have read most of it. The impression that comes across is that Dumas had a very definite impression that the jews were a negative almost satanic force in the world and as such were to be cast out and rejected by all right thinking people.
We can see this expressed most emphatically in ‘The Prussian Terror’ when he states that:
‘After the town hall the most interesting place is the street of the Jews. When the writer of these lines visited Frankfort for the first time, some thirty years ago, there were still Jews and Austrians there—real Jews, who hated Christians even as Shylock hated them, and real Christians who hated Jews as did Torquemada.’
Which he then clarifies slightly by telling us that:
‘The chief families are those of the old nobility; those of French extraction expatriated by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and who by their intelligence and industry stand in the first rank of society; thirdly, Italian families, in whom the feelings of race have been stronger than religious differences, and who, although Catholics by profession, have mingled with the French Protestants. Finally the Jewish bankers, who naturally group themselves around the house of Rothschild as being incontestably members of the same clan. All are devoted to Austria, because to Austria the town owes its peculiar position, the source of its wealth and independence, and all these classes, though divided by race, language, and religion, are united by their common affection for the House of Hapsburg—a love which perhaps hardly attains to devotion, but which, in words at least, amounts to fanaticism.’
We can see from these two passages - which are describing Frankfurt-am-Main - that Dumas is suggesting that the jews were inveterate haters of all things Christian and that a similar animosity existed on the Christian side of the fence as well. He uses the additional adjective ‘real’ to emphasize the difference between those who are true believers and those who nominally practice their faith.
This could be easily taken to suggest that to Dumas the root of the animosity that has long characterised Judeo-Christian relations lay in the insincere practice of religious beliefs on both sides. However this would not be accurate since we can see that in the case of the jew the admonition in question uses a very particular example of that hatred: Shakespeare’s character Shylock. In other words Dumas is asserting that while yes religious beliefs are part of the origin of animosity in Judeo-Christian relations: that is not the only reason or the root.
What Dumas is actually asserting is that the root cause is jewish practice in relation to (as well as dominance of) money-lending and banking.
This can be seen in Dumas’ use of Shylock since in Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’ he is a money-lender who is using his monetary leverage over Christians (Antonio specifically) to extract revenge on them and it is his money-lending and banking practices that eventually land him in trouble.
Similar can be seen in what Dumas points out when he uses the Rothschilds as an example for the jews of Frankfurt: in other words the jews of Frankfurt are bankers to Austria and this collective is lead primarily by the Rothschild family.
This is confirmed later on in Dumas’ ‘The Prussian Terror’ when he states that:
‘"Frankfort has found twenty-four millions for the Austrians," cried the general, "and can easily find fifteen or eighteen for us. But if it refuses, I myself will find them. Four hours only of pillage and we shall see if your street of the Jews and the coffers of your bankers do not produce twice as much."’
In other words: Dumas is saying that the jews of Frankfurt-am-Main are both very wealthy and very powerful within Austria itself. That Dumas identifies this jewish financial influence and their banking practices as being the cause of much resentment against them can be demonstrated by quoting his other mentions of jews.
In his ‘The Three Musketeers’ he writes:
‘"Well, then, off to the nearest goldsmith's, and sell that diamond for the highest price you can get from him. However much of a Jew he may be, he will give you at least eight hundred pistoles. Pistoles have no name, young man, and that ring has a terrible one, which may betray him who wears it."'
While in ‘The Vicomte de Bragelonne’ we read:
‘Cropole looked at the diamond so long, that the unknown said, hastily:
"I prefer your selling it, monsieur; for it is worth three hundred pistoles. A Jew--are there any Jews in Blois?--would give you two hundred or a hundred and fifty for it--take whatever may be offered for it, if it be no more than the price of your lodging. Begone!"’
And in ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’ we find:
‘Edmond preserved the most admirable self-command, not suffering the faintest indication of a smile to escape him at the enumeration of all the benefits he would have reaped had he been able to quit the island; but as The Young Amelia had merely come to Monte Cristo to fetch him away, he embarked that same evening, and proceeded with the captain to Leghorn. Arrived at Leghorn, he repaired to the house of a Jew, a dealer in precious stones, to whom he disposed of four of his smallest diamonds for five thousand francs each. Dantes half feared that such valuable jewels in the hands of a poor sailor like himself might excite suspicion; but the cunning purchaser asked no troublesome questions concerning a bargain by which he gained a round profit of at least eighty per cent.
[…]
The proposal was too advantageous to be refused, the more so as the person for whom the yacht was intended had gone upon a tour through Switzerland, and was not expected back in less than three weeks or a month, by which time the builder reckoned upon being able to complete another. A bargain was therefore struck. Dantes led the owner of the yacht to the dwelling of a Jew; retired with the latter for a few minutes to a small back parlour, and upon their return the Jew counted out to the shipbuilder the sum of sixty thousand francs in bright gold pieces.’
In all of the these references in Dumas’ work we should note that jews are referred to - implicitly or explicitly - as being tough and/or dishonest traders who will only grudgingly give their (gentile) clients the money that they want for the object under consideration. The jews further ask few questions about the origin of the goods which are being traded to them (i.e., they act as fences for criminals) or for the purposes that their loans are going to be used for.
This is reinforced by the reference in ‘The Count of Monte Cristo’ to the very deep pockets of the jews who have enough money to be the bankers to monarchs or the pawn brokers to the people. We see this as in ‘The Vicomte de Bragelonne’ when the King exclaims to Cardinal Mazarin that he knows he can get a million gold pieces from any jew (also see Dumas’ ‘The Companions of Jehu’ in relation to Philip the Good on this). However forty-six million he doubts he can get as it beyond the means of just about everyone: even the jews. This is meant to signify that while the jews are the near-omnipotent lords of high finance in the novels of Dumas: they are still human beings not distant literary phantasms.
Conversely in ‘The Forty-Five Guardsmen’ Dumas mentions that the jews sell ‘gold necklaces as thick as a chain’, which is reference to the status of the jews as the pawn brokers to the people and fences to the criminal fraternity. It is to the jews that the hard-working man or women goes when they are down on their luck to try and pawn whatever trinkets they have and the jew forces them to accept a mere pittance for their treasured possessions, while then selling them on to the better off at an exorbitant mark-up.
This is also indicated in one of Dumas’ non-fiction works ‘Celebrated Crimes’ when in the section ‘La Constantin’ he recounts that:
‘"What is it? An affair of honour?"
"Yes."
"Good God! You are going to fight!" she exclaimed, trying to seize him by the arm. "You are going to fight!"
"Ah! If it were nothing worse than that!" said Quennebert, pacing up and down the room: "but you need not be alarmed; it is only a money trouble. I lent a large sum, a few months ago, to a friend, but the knave has run away and left me in the lurch. It was trust money, and must be replaced within three days. But where am I to get two thousand francs?"
"Yes, that is a large sum, and not easy to raise at such short notice."
"I shall be obliged to have recourse to some Jew, who will drain me dry. But I must save my good name at all costs."’
And in the section ‘Nisida’ of the same work we find the following statement:
‘"I flatter myself I am. It is true that, in order to make the transformation complete, I chose the very oldest coat that displayed its rags in a Jew's shop."’
In both of these mentions by Dumas we can see that the jews are portrayed as taking advantage of the rich by offering them whatever money the need at an usurious rate of interest, while conversely taking advantage of the poor by selling the desperate and destitute rags with which to attempt to cover their nakedness. This juxtaposes the two faces of the jew that we know from history: the court jew and the jewish pedlar. They both have the same modus operandi in seeking to drain the life out of gentiles for their own benefit, but target different markets: the court jew takes advantage of the avariciousness and expensive tastes of the rich, while the jewish pedlar takes advantage of the desperation of the poor.
That the jew is at war with the gentiles much as Shylock was is indicated by Dumas’ play ‘Kean’, which has a jewish main character Salomon who is both clearly based on Shylock.
We also find the following summarizing statement in that work:
‘It's that brigand of a jeweler -- Samuel the Jew, you know? He's obtained a body attachment against you for your check for 400 pounds sterling -- and the sheriff and the attorneys are at the hotel!’
We can note in the above that Samuel the Jew - just like Shylock and Salomon - is after his ‘pound of flesh’ and as a financier (as jewelers often invariably were as well on a local level) he uses the local gentile authorities to enforce his claims to the bodies of those who dare to default on their debts - inflated by usurious levels of interest - to him. As well as the fact that jews will lie to get their revenge or desires as is suggested by the description of the hunchback ‘lying like a jew’ in the section ‘Nisida’ in Dumas’ ‘Celebrated Crimes’.
This war against gentiles is also illustrated by Dumas in his ‘Celebrated Crimes’ in the section ‘Ali Pasha’ when he recounts that the jews are the allies of the anti-European forces the Turks and the legions of Islam.
To wit:
‘During five days Ali received these forced benevolences from all parts. He sat, covered with rags, on a shabby palm-leaf mat placed at the outer gate of his ruined palace, holding in his left hand a villainous pipe of the kind used by the lowest people, and in his right an old red cap, which he extended for the donations of the passers-by. Behind stood a Jew from Janina, charged with the office of testing each piece of gold and valuing jewels which were offered instead of money; for, in terror, each endeavoured to appear generous. No means of obtaining a rich harvest were neglected; for instance, Ali distributed secretly large sums among poor and obscure people, such as servants, mechanics, and soldiers, in order that by returning them in public they might appear to be making great sacrifices, so that richer and more distinguished persons could not, without appearing ill-disposed towards the pasha, offer only the same amount as did the poor, but were obliged to present gifts of enormous value.’
We further learn that Milady - the vicious and vengeful enemy of all men in Dumas’ ‘The Three Musketeers’ - is actually based on the homicidal jewess Judith in the Old Testament.
To wit:
‘Breathing that sea breeze, so much more invigorating and balsamic as the land is approached, contemplating all the power of those preparations she was commissioned to destroy, all the power of that army which she was to combat alone--she, a woman with a few bags of gold--Milady compared herself mentally to Judith, the terrible Jewess, when she penetrated the camp of the Assyrians and beheld the enormous mass of chariots, horses, men, and arms, which a gesture of her hand was to dissipate like a cloud of smoke.’
This is hardly the most positive comparisons for Dumas to have made about the jews. However I would suggest that Milady is more like an Esther character than a Judith: precisely because she like Esther seduces her gaoler (John Fenton) who then kills her enemy (the Duke of Buckingham) [much as the Persian King did Haman] for her causing the attack on her people (in the form of the English army) to evaporate so that the French army can continue to slaughter the Protestants of La Rochelle.
In illustrating the perfidy of the jews Dumas also styles them as magicians and masters of black magic to whom the unwise and foolish among the Christian laity turn to for help and advice.
In ‘Chicot the Jester’ he writes:
‘As he listened, the duke, by a skilful movement, had, little by little, quitted the door, followed by Aurilly, and was now at some distance off.
"My pleasures!" said he, angrily; "what makes you think I was seeking pleasure?"
"Ah, monseigneur, in any case pardon us, and let us retire," said Quelus.
"It is well; adieu, gentlemen; but first listen. I was going to consult the Jew Manasses, who reads the future; he lives, as you know, in Rue de la Tournelle. In passing, Aurilly saw you and took you for the watch, and we, therefore, tried to hide ourselves in a doorway. And now you know what to believe and say; it is needless to add, that I do not wish to be followed," and he turned away.
"Monseigneur," said Aurilly, "I am sure these men have bad intentions; it is near midnight, and this is a lonely quarter; let us return home, I beg."
"No, no; let us profit by their departure."
"Your highness is deceived; they have not gone, but have returned to their retreat: look in the angle of the Hôtel des Tournelles."
François looked, and saw that Aurilly was right; it was evident that they waited for something, perhaps to see if the duke were really going to the Jew.
"Well, Monseigneur," continued Aurilly, "do you not think it will be more prudent to go home?"’
Further Dumas also endorses the position that jews ritually sacrifice Christian children as part of their rites (otherwise known as jewish ritual murder or the ‘blood libel’) in his ‘Marguerite de Valois’.
To wit:
‘It was time the two couples disappeared! Catharine was putting the key in the lock of the second door just as Coconnas and Madame de Nevers stepped out of the house by the lower entrance, and Catharine as she entered could hear the steps of the fugitives on the stairs.
She cast a searching glance around, and then fixing her suspicious eyes on Réné, who stood motionless, bowing before her, said:
"Who was that?"
"Some lovers, who are satisfied with the assurance I gave them that they are really in love."
"Never mind them," said Catharine, shrugging her shoulders; "is there no one else here?"
"No one but your majesty and myself."
"Have you done what I ordered you?"
"About the two black hens?"
"Yes!"
"They are ready, madame."
"Ah," muttered Catharine, "if you were a Jew!"
"Why a Jew, madame?"
"Because you could then read the precious treatises which the Hebrews have written about sacrifices. I have had one of them translated, and I found that the Hebrews did not look for omens in the heart or liver as the Romans did, but in the configuration of the brain, and in the shape of the letters traced there by the all-powerful hand of destiny."’
The above is hardly the most positive of characterizations suggesting as it does that jews are masters of the black arts and carry out of satanic rituals at the behest of paying clients (whether they believe them to actually be effective is another matter however).
From this we can see that Dumas’ jew is a proverbial Shylock who seeks to hurt Christians (and gentiles more broadly) at every turn by extracting as much wealth out of them as possible leaving both the rich and poor in dire straits after his ministrations.
Dumas’ jew is also a master of dark magic and is in league with the enemies of Europe: the forces of Islam (as well as the forces of darkness). He is a traitor, a sorcerer and an inveterate and merciless exploiter who bleeds his victims for everything he can get and then once they have almost been bled dry then he sends in the gentile authorities to claim their bodies as his own while waving the usurious contract he has duped them into signing.
Dumas’ jew is - to put it in Denis Fahey’s words- an anti-human: a misanthropic virus in the body of Christendom that needs to be expunged at the first opportunity and not left to operate unchallenged and cause untold levels of destruction. This is Dumas’ jew: the anti-thesis of everything Christianity stood for in his view and the satanic force behind the curtain in human history.