natured scorn. Will it be believed? When the standard authorities were consulted on the question, they confirmed the romancer's view!
It would seem that, according to Dr Garnett, Dumas was "great" in some respect, and by virtue of some high power. We presume that if Dumas is "high on Olympus" he has some right to be there: and if his is not the greatness of intellect, what form does his genius take? It must surely be a quality equal in calibre to that of brainpower, and there we are content to leave the matter.
Another of Dumas's claims to the rank of "great" is pithily put by Hayward.
"A title to fame, like a chain of proofs, may be cumulative. It may rest on the multiplicity and universality of production and capacity. Dumas will thus take rank as one of the three or four most popular and gifted writers that the France of the nineteenth century produced." Brander Matthews takes the same view. "Even more remarkable than the range of Dumas's work is its general level of merit. He had at least one element of greatness—an inexhaustible fecundity." He adds regretfully: "With his great powers one feels that he ought to have done something higher and nobler: that he had great powers, admits of no cavil." All who love Dumas and appreciate his
