What do you think?
Rate this book
Sainte-Hermine #2
Les Compagnons de Jéhu
Automne 1799 : le Directoire agonise, acculé de toutes parts. À l'est et au sud, des bandes nommées "compagnies de Jéhu" cherchent à financer la contre-révolution royaliste en attaquant les diligences qui transfèrent des fonds. À l'ouest, en Bretagne, la chouannerie renaît, menée par Georges Cadoudal. Un jeune général, Napoléon Bonaparte, revient d'une expédition en Égypte, bien décidé à prendre le pouvoir. Sur cette toile de fond historique se joue un amour impossible entre deux camps opposés : Roland de Montrevel, fidèle inconditionnel de Bonaparte, combat le royaliste Charles de Sainte-Hermine (alias Morgan) qu'aime en secret la propre soeur de Roland, Amélie. Flamboyante épopée célébrant l'honneur, l'héroïsme et l'amitié, Les Compagnons de Jéhu ressuscite la France d'avant l'Empire, déchirée entre divisions et désir de réconciliation. De ce moment charnière, situé juste avant sa naissance, Dumas fait le volet central d'une trilogie consacrée au Consulat et à l'Empire, qu'il complétera ensuite avec Les Blancs et les Bleus et Le Chevalier de Sainte-Hermine, prouvant que "les poètes savent aussi bien l'histoire que les historiens, - s'ils ne la savent pas mieux".
854 pages, Pocket Book
First published January 1, 1857
29 people are currently reading
479 people want to read
About the author
Alexandre Dumas
6,977 books12.3k followersThis note regards Alexandre Dumas, père, the father of Alexandre Dumas, fils (son). For the son, see Alexandre Dumas fils.
Alexandre Dumas père, born Alexandre Dumas Davy de la Pailleterie, was a towering figure of 19th-century French literature whose historical novels and adventure tales earned global renown. Best known for The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, and other swashbuckling epics, Dumas crafted stories filled with daring heroes, dramatic twists, and vivid historical backdrops. His works, often serialized and immensely popular with the public, helped shape the modern adventure genre and remain enduring staples of world literature.
Dumas was the son of Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, a celebrated general in Revolutionary France and the highest-ranking man of African descent in a European army at the time. His father’s early death left the family in poverty, but Dumas’s upbringing was nonetheless marked by strong personal ambition and a deep admiration for his father’s achievements. He moved to Paris as a young man and began his literary career writing for the theatre, quickly rising to prominence in the Romantic movement with successful plays like Henri III et sa cour and Antony.
In the 1840s, Dumas turned increasingly toward prose fiction, particularly serialized novels, which reached vast audiences through French newspapers. His collaboration with Auguste Maquet, a skilled plotter and historian, proved fruitful. While Maquet drafted outlines and conducted research, Dumas infused the narratives with flair, dialogue, and color. The result was a string of literary triumphs, including The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, both published in 1844. These novels exemplified Dumas’s flair for suspenseful pacing, memorable characters, and grand themes of justice, loyalty, and revenge.
The D’Artagnan Romances—The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, and The Vicomte of Bragelonne—cemented his fame. They follow the adventures of the titular Gascon hero and his comrades Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, blending historical fact and fiction into richly imagined narratives. The Count of Monte Cristo offered a darker, more introspective tale of betrayal and retribution, with intricate plotting and a deeply philosophical core.
Dumas was also active in journalism and theater. He founded the Théâtre Historique in Paris, which staged dramatizations of his own novels. A prolific and energetic writer, he is estimated to have written or co-written over 100,000 pages of fiction, plays, memoirs, travel books, and essays. He also had a strong interest in food and published a massive culinary encyclopedia, Le Grand Dictionnaire de cuisine, filled with recipes, anecdotes, and reflections on gastronomy.
Despite his enormous success, Dumas was frequently plagued by financial troubles. He led a lavish lifestyle, building the ornate Château de Monte-Cristo near Paris, employing large staffs, and supporting many friends and relatives. His generosity and appetite for life often outpaced his income, leading to mounting debts. Still, his creative drive rarely waned.
Dumas’s mixed-race background was a source of both pride and tension in his life. He was outspoken about his heritage and used his platform to address race and injustice. In his novel Georges, he explored issues of colonialism and identity through a Creole protagonist. Though he encountered racism, he refused to be silenced, famously replying to a racial insult by pointing to his ancestry and achievements with dignity and wit.
Later in life, Dumas continued writing and traveling, spending time in Belgium, Italy, and Russia. He supported nationalist causes, particularly Italian unification, and even founded a newspaper to advocate for Giuseppe Garibaldi. Though his popularity waned somewhat in his final years, his literary legacy grew steadily. He wrote in a style that was accessible, entertaining, and emotionally reso
Alexandre Dumas père, born Alexandre Dumas Davy de la Pailleterie, was a towering figure of 19th-century French literature whose historical novels and adventure tales earned global renown. Best known for The Three Musketeers, The Count of Monte Cristo, and other swashbuckling epics, Dumas crafted stories filled with daring heroes, dramatic twists, and vivid historical backdrops. His works, often serialized and immensely popular with the public, helped shape the modern adventure genre and remain enduring staples of world literature.
Dumas was the son of Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, a celebrated general in Revolutionary France and the highest-ranking man of African descent in a European army at the time. His father’s early death left the family in poverty, but Dumas’s upbringing was nonetheless marked by strong personal ambition and a deep admiration for his father’s achievements. He moved to Paris as a young man and began his literary career writing for the theatre, quickly rising to prominence in the Romantic movement with successful plays like Henri III et sa cour and Antony.
In the 1840s, Dumas turned increasingly toward prose fiction, particularly serialized novels, which reached vast audiences through French newspapers. His collaboration with Auguste Maquet, a skilled plotter and historian, proved fruitful. While Maquet drafted outlines and conducted research, Dumas infused the narratives with flair, dialogue, and color. The result was a string of literary triumphs, including The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, both published in 1844. These novels exemplified Dumas’s flair for suspenseful pacing, memorable characters, and grand themes of justice, loyalty, and revenge.
The D’Artagnan Romances—The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, and The Vicomte of Bragelonne—cemented his fame. They follow the adventures of the titular Gascon hero and his comrades Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, blending historical fact and fiction into richly imagined narratives. The Count of Monte Cristo offered a darker, more introspective tale of betrayal and retribution, with intricate plotting and a deeply philosophical core.
Dumas was also active in journalism and theater. He founded the Théâtre Historique in Paris, which staged dramatizations of his own novels. A prolific and energetic writer, he is estimated to have written or co-written over 100,000 pages of fiction, plays, memoirs, travel books, and essays. He also had a strong interest in food and published a massive culinary encyclopedia, Le Grand Dictionnaire de cuisine, filled with recipes, anecdotes, and reflections on gastronomy.
Despite his enormous success, Dumas was frequently plagued by financial troubles. He led a lavish lifestyle, building the ornate Château de Monte-Cristo near Paris, employing large staffs, and supporting many friends and relatives. His generosity and appetite for life often outpaced his income, leading to mounting debts. Still, his creative drive rarely waned.
Dumas’s mixed-race background was a source of both pride and tension in his life. He was outspoken about his heritage and used his platform to address race and injustice. In his novel Georges, he explored issues of colonialism and identity through a Creole protagonist. Though he encountered racism, he refused to be silenced, famously replying to a racial insult by pointing to his ancestry and achievements with dignity and wit.
Later in life, Dumas continued writing and traveling, spending time in Belgium, Italy, and Russia. He supported nationalist causes, particularly Italian unification, and even founded a newspaper to advocate for Giuseppe Garibaldi. Though his popularity waned somewhat in his final years, his literary legacy grew steadily. He wrote in a style that was accessible, entertaining, and emotionally reso
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
August 10, 2017
3 - 3.5 stars
_The Companions of Jehu_ is another excellent lesser known Dumas work. Loosely part of a trilogy that covers the Napoleonic wars (the others being The Whites and the Blues and the recently unearthed The Last Cavalier: Being the Adventures of Count Sainte-Hermine in the Age of Napoleon) this book stands alone very well. The story starts at a wayside inn where we are introduced to two of our main characters, told of a recent highway robbery, and a duel is promptly proposed. From here the pace of the book rarely slackens.
One of the most interesting aspects of this story is that there is no actual villain. We have the allies of Napoleon on one side (represented audaciously by the protagonist Roland, aka Louis de Montreval) and the royalists on the other side (with their swashbuckling hero Morgan, aka the Baron Charles de Sainte-Hermine...our heroes seem to like noms de guerre in this book), but neither is presented as the “right side”. They both display honour and nobility in equal measure, despite the fact that they are on opposing political sides. Added to these two main characters are Sir John, a travelling Englishman who befriends Roland and promptly falls in love with his sister Amelie (who is herself the secret lover of the royalist Morgan), Roland’s family, the stalwart royalist guerilla leader Georges Cadoudal, and Napoleon himself, Roland’s friend and mentor here returning from the Egyptian campaign to become First Consul, his first step on the road to empire.
Roland is a melancholy figure, victim to an “ailment” that is only alluded to, but not that hard to suss out, which prompts him to live dangerously and seek a glorious death wherever he can (a death which constantly eludes him, much to his chagrin). Morgan is a consummate gentleman, noble to a fault, who goes so far as to issue an order to his secret society of Royalist highwaymen (the titular Companions of Jehu) that they are to consider the person of Roland sacrosanct since he is the brother of Morgan’s lover. The character of Napoleon is great, by turns noble, capricious and brilliant it’s clear that Dumas enjoyed writing him as a protagonist in the novel. Amelie is a bit of a wet blanket, having little to do but be a tragic heroine and lover to the enemy of her brother.
The story has the usual twists and turns one comes to expect of Dumas, though perhaps with fewer of the subplots and many intertwined story elements of some of his other tales. We of course have the doomed love of Morgan and Amelie; the destined antagonism of Roland and Morgan (something which the former does all he can to stimulate, and the latter all he can to diminish); the machinations and intrigues of Napoleon against both his known and unknown enemies; and the overarching attempts by the Companions of Jehu to overthrow the revolutionary regime and reinstall the Bourbons on the throne.
There are many gripping scenes, daring adventures, and near-death experiences. One of the most fascinating moments in the story for me was the Victim’s Ball. There is much contention as to the historicity of these events, but (according to legend at least) these victim’s balls were apparently secret soirees held by the children and survivors of the royalist victims of Madame Guillotine. They had the air of licentious masked balls wherein the participants dressed in the finery of pre-Revolution days and even wore fine scarlet ribbons or threads around their necks, a macabre reminder of the fate of their forbears. It would make an excellent scene in a movie version of the story.
Overall _The Companions of Jehu_ is an excellent swashbuckling adventure. Not quite in the league of The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo, but if you’re looking for a good fix of Dumas adventure this is a great place to get it.
_The Companions of Jehu_ is another excellent lesser known Dumas work. Loosely part of a trilogy that covers the Napoleonic wars (the others being The Whites and the Blues and the recently unearthed The Last Cavalier: Being the Adventures of Count Sainte-Hermine in the Age of Napoleon) this book stands alone very well. The story starts at a wayside inn where we are introduced to two of our main characters, told of a recent highway robbery, and a duel is promptly proposed. From here the pace of the book rarely slackens.
One of the most interesting aspects of this story is that there is no actual villain. We have the allies of Napoleon on one side (represented audaciously by the protagonist Roland, aka Louis de Montreval) and the royalists on the other side (with their swashbuckling hero Morgan, aka the Baron Charles de Sainte-Hermine...our heroes seem to like noms de guerre in this book), but neither is presented as the “right side”. They both display honour and nobility in equal measure, despite the fact that they are on opposing political sides. Added to these two main characters are Sir John, a travelling Englishman who befriends Roland and promptly falls in love with his sister Amelie (who is herself the secret lover of the royalist Morgan), Roland’s family, the stalwart royalist guerilla leader Georges Cadoudal, and Napoleon himself, Roland’s friend and mentor here returning from the Egyptian campaign to become First Consul, his first step on the road to empire.
Roland is a melancholy figure, victim to an “ailment” that is only alluded to, but not that hard to suss out, which prompts him to live dangerously and seek a glorious death wherever he can (a death which constantly eludes him, much to his chagrin). Morgan is a consummate gentleman, noble to a fault, who goes so far as to issue an order to his secret society of Royalist highwaymen (the titular Companions of Jehu) that they are to consider the person of Roland sacrosanct since he is the brother of Morgan’s lover. The character of Napoleon is great, by turns noble, capricious and brilliant it’s clear that Dumas enjoyed writing him as a protagonist in the novel. Amelie is a bit of a wet blanket, having little to do but be a tragic heroine and lover to the enemy of her brother.
The story has the usual twists and turns one comes to expect of Dumas, though perhaps with fewer of the subplots and many intertwined story elements of some of his other tales. We of course have the doomed love of Morgan and Amelie; the destined antagonism of Roland and Morgan (something which the former does all he can to stimulate, and the latter all he can to diminish); the machinations and intrigues of Napoleon against both his known and unknown enemies; and the overarching attempts by the Companions of Jehu to overthrow the revolutionary regime and reinstall the Bourbons on the throne.
There are many gripping scenes, daring adventures, and near-death experiences. One of the most fascinating moments in the story for me was the Victim’s Ball. There is much contention as to the historicity of these events, but (according to legend at least) these victim’s balls were apparently secret soirees held by the children and survivors of the royalist victims of Madame Guillotine. They had the air of licentious masked balls wherein the participants dressed in the finery of pre-Revolution days and even wore fine scarlet ribbons or threads around their necks, a macabre reminder of the fate of their forbears. It would make an excellent scene in a movie version of the story.
Overall _The Companions of Jehu_ is an excellent swashbuckling adventure. Not quite in the league of The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo, but if you’re looking for a good fix of Dumas adventure this is a great place to get it.
September 23, 2021
چه دردناک است آه و نالهٔ محتضرانی که میبینند زندگیشان به آخر رسیده است و هنوز «الکساندر دوما» را نخواندهاند.
July 29, 2011
Pas mon préféré de Dumas, mais bon, c'est Dumas, donc c' est bien écrit. C' est même tellement bien écrit qu' on arrive à éprouver de la sympathie pour les héros qui sont, après tout, de sales brigands royalistes ! La force des mots...
April 26, 2023
One of my favourite things about this book from my first reading, is how interesting the author finds the characters. I love the interactions between them and the dialogue--there are so many little details in what the characters say and do, which makes them feel more realistic, and it’s both easy and complicated to understand their motivations and personality as the events push forward.
I liked this much better than A Tale of Two Cities when depicting the French Revolution, even though it’s during Napoleon’s time after the Revolution, it just feels so much more fleshed out--even though many of characters are similar in some ways. Amelie is probably not much more impressive than Lucie in terms of being a compelling character, but she does feel like more of a person, and has a more significant role in the plot (though largely in the background). So, in terms of female characters, the depiction isn’t super realistic at times, but it also isn’t quite as frustrating or unfathomable as A Tale of Two Cities felt. One thing I found interesting was the description of the main heroes as being brave but also having notably feminine features, which I think does add some dynamic to the typical masculine male hero (though the characters do retain many of those classic 'hero' traits).
I love that the protagonist/focus of the first book is actually the antagonist. It’s oddly refreshing. I don’t think I realised as a child that the main character (who isn’t the main character in the later books) is such a villain? Like, he’s so evil at times, but I also love him and sympathise with him because he feels like a person, he just has an unusual amount of existential anxiety. I didn’t even care about Morgan, who ends up being the main character in the other books (which I believe are both? prequels?) and is arguably the better person. That’s another thing A Tale of Two Cities lacked. I really liked that the two sides are both depicted positively in their own ways, and there is an obvious respect for the individuals on either side of the story by the author (whether royalist or in favour of Napoleon), whereas A Tale of Two Cities just focused on the frenzy that ensued, and seemed to lose sight of the characters in doing so.
Roland really do be crazy. He has his very empathetic moments, and his really rough ones, but he's very nervous and impulsive (the descriptions of his laugh even add to that depiction), in a way that responds to the French culture of the time Particularly the lack of fear over killing or being killed for certain causes. “Oh, general! How happy I should be--if I were not so unhappy!” Is an interesting quote, as well as “Have you not perceived that I am protected by a fatality which prevents me from dying?” The irony, but also the importance to the plot is really interesting here. The way the scenes are set, even though I know nothing of the geography or history of France, is also very imaginative and well-phrased, regardless rough translation at times. This description right before a duel is so pretty but ominous:
“Both, one to right, the other to the left, cast a glance at the same horizon. The aspect harmonized with the terrible solemnity of the scene about to take place. Nothing was visible to Roland’s right and to M. de Barjols’ left, except the mountain’s swift incline and gigantic peak. But on the other side, that is to say, to M. de Barjols’ right and Roland’s left, it was a far different thing. The horizon stretched illimitable. In the foreground, the plain, its ruddy soil pierced on all sides by rocks, like a Titan graveyard with its bones protruding through the earth. Then, sharply outlined in the setting sun, was Avignon with its girdle of walls and its vast palace, like a crouching lion, seeming to hold the panting city in its claws. Beyond Avignon, a luminous sweep, like a river of molten gold, defined the Rhone. Beyond the Rhone, a deep-hued azure vista, stretched the chain of hills with separate Avignon from Nimes and d’Uzes. And far off, the sun, at which one of these two men was probably looking at for the last time, sank slowly and majestically in an ocean of gold and purple.” It's a little long, but I really do like this book. I know many people would prefer The Count of Monte Cristo, but this one is really my favourite of Dumas', and I'm excited to read the rest of the series if I can. I just like how complicated it is. Too bad I can only find small clips of silent film versions of it since it's not very popular. I like it, though, even though I know nothing about Napoleon lol.
I liked this much better than A Tale of Two Cities when depicting the French Revolution, even though it’s during Napoleon’s time after the Revolution, it just feels so much more fleshed out--even though many of characters are similar in some ways. Amelie is probably not much more impressive than Lucie in terms of being a compelling character, but she does feel like more of a person, and has a more significant role in the plot (though largely in the background). So, in terms of female characters, the depiction isn’t super realistic at times, but it also isn’t quite as frustrating or unfathomable as A Tale of Two Cities felt. One thing I found interesting was the description of the main heroes as being brave but also having notably feminine features, which I think does add some dynamic to the typical masculine male hero (though the characters do retain many of those classic 'hero' traits).
I love that the protagonist/focus of the first book is actually the antagonist. It’s oddly refreshing. I don’t think I realised as a child that the main character (who isn’t the main character in the later books) is such a villain? Like, he’s so evil at times, but I also love him and sympathise with him because he feels like a person, he just has an unusual amount of existential anxiety. I didn’t even care about Morgan, who ends up being the main character in the other books (which I believe are both? prequels?) and is arguably the better person. That’s another thing A Tale of Two Cities lacked. I really liked that the two sides are both depicted positively in their own ways, and there is an obvious respect for the individuals on either side of the story by the author (whether royalist or in favour of Napoleon), whereas A Tale of Two Cities just focused on the frenzy that ensued, and seemed to lose sight of the characters in doing so.
Roland really do be crazy. He has his very empathetic moments, and his really rough ones, but he's very nervous and impulsive (the descriptions of his laugh even add to that depiction), in a way that responds to the French culture of the time Particularly the lack of fear over killing or being killed for certain causes. “Oh, general! How happy I should be--if I were not so unhappy!” Is an interesting quote, as well as “Have you not perceived that I am protected by a fatality which prevents me from dying?” The irony, but also the importance to the plot is really interesting here. The way the scenes are set, even though I know nothing of the geography or history of France, is also very imaginative and well-phrased, regardless rough translation at times. This description right before a duel is so pretty but ominous:
“Both, one to right, the other to the left, cast a glance at the same horizon. The aspect harmonized with the terrible solemnity of the scene about to take place. Nothing was visible to Roland’s right and to M. de Barjols’ left, except the mountain’s swift incline and gigantic peak. But on the other side, that is to say, to M. de Barjols’ right and Roland’s left, it was a far different thing. The horizon stretched illimitable. In the foreground, the plain, its ruddy soil pierced on all sides by rocks, like a Titan graveyard with its bones protruding through the earth. Then, sharply outlined in the setting sun, was Avignon with its girdle of walls and its vast palace, like a crouching lion, seeming to hold the panting city in its claws. Beyond Avignon, a luminous sweep, like a river of molten gold, defined the Rhone. Beyond the Rhone, a deep-hued azure vista, stretched the chain of hills with separate Avignon from Nimes and d’Uzes. And far off, the sun, at which one of these two men was probably looking at for the last time, sank slowly and majestically in an ocean of gold and purple.” It's a little long, but I really do like this book. I know many people would prefer The Count of Monte Cristo, but this one is really my favourite of Dumas', and I'm excited to read the rest of the series if I can. I just like how complicated it is. Too bad I can only find small clips of silent film versions of it since it's not very popular. I like it, though, even though I know nothing about Napoleon lol.
December 1, 2024
Questo volume rispetto al precedente è più completo! Ha suspense, battaglie, amore, morti, personaggi reali e di fantasia, Storia… insomma qui gli ingredienti sono completi e numerosi per migliorare la riuscita del prodotto finale rispetto al volume precedente!
Si ritrova il Dumas che siamo abituati a leggere e che non ci stanca mai ❤️
Mi sono innamorata del personaggio di Roland e l’ultimo capitolo dove l’autore racconta la nascita della storia che ci ha narrato fino a quel momento è stato meravigliosamente interessante 🥰
Si ritrova il Dumas che siamo abituati a leggere e che non ci stanca mai ❤️
Mi sono innamorata del personaggio di Roland e l’ultimo capitolo dove l’autore racconta la nascita della storia che ci ha narrato fino a quel momento è stato meravigliosamente interessante 🥰
February 17, 2025
I love Dumas.
February 20, 2022
В течение последнего месяца рассудок, видимо, в качестве защиты от распостранения совершенно бесполезной (на противоречивость жаловаться в наши дни - себе же противоречить) информации о локальных и международных отношениях, выработал привычку генерировать череду нелепых вопросов, призванных оживлять восприятие "классической литературы". В случае Дюма-папà ими стали, например: "Пил ли Дюма больше Бальзака кофе? Чаще ли кофе отец своего сына пил, чем сын своего отца? Научил ли отец сына кофе пить или сын - отца? Удалось ли Бальзаку подать пример семейству Дюма в неблагодарном деле злоупотребления непрозрачными напитками?
Читал ли Фрейд-отец Дюма-папà или отдавал предпочтение сыну? Интересовалась ли Фрейд-дочь семейством Дюма и отдельными экземплярами их творчества? А что касается Сабины Николаевны Шпильрейн?
Не позволял ли Дюма себе некторые перегибы в дисциплинарных практиках в отношнии талантливого отпрыска? Не приходилось ли сыну облачаться, этико-эстетического удовлетворения отца ради, в одежды, сшитые из кожи личных, фамильных и государственных врагов?"
Такого рода суесловие не говорит ничего об оценке читаемого и лишь в незначительной мере может претендовать на раскрытие некоторых корреляций (как в случае Фрейда-Ролана-Шпильрейн), остающихся смутными и для самого рецензента, если только он не выделяет индивидуальной площади и времени для рассуждения.
Площади необязательно быть дикой, взмыленной, гнедой или в яблоках. Можно обойтись першероном.
Отстраняясь от сливочных спекуляций: отчего, спрашивается, я не читала в детские годы, вместо приобретаемых отцом юморин Белянина (на что не жалуюсь) - притаившегося на дальней полке у бабуш��и, матери отца, Дюма-папà?
В без месяца 33 не могу назвать себя хорошей (или хотя бы "доброй") шутницей, а ведь развитие могло обернуться таким путём, что к 20 годам можно было ождидать в себе формирования или намёток черт Ролана, Моргана, лорда Танлея или, в крайнем случае, Шарлотты; ибо так временами не достаёт порывистости, столь многому, в самом деле, препятствует осмотрительность! В англичанине и того и другого в меру, но его безмолвное согласие на дуэль с другом и отцом обезображенной "театральностью" сцены смерти Пассии - наделяет его совершенно уникальным для всех действующих лиц качеством, однозначного словесного определения которому пока дать не удаётся - ближайшее понятие достоинства не отражает глубины характера; к тому же, ни Жозефина, ни Мишель, ни безымянные австрийцы, ни даже Гойе достоинства не лишены (любовь к длительным ванным времяпровождениям однако нередко может привести к незаметному растворению достоинства в чрезмерно пенящейся и по-кришнаитски удушающей изобилием ароматических добавок жидкости).
Проще говоря, достоинство - это одно из принципиальных качеств всех действующих лиц, однако нечто, не считая англичанистости с точки зрения француза, выделяет именно лорда Танлея. Идеалистически его можно было бы счесть совершенной степенью Ролана - преодолевшего безотчётную храбрость, в свою очередь, делающую Ролана Роланом, признанным Ойкуменой оппонентом Соратников Иегу. Ролан же мог бы оказаться отпадным роялистом, да простят меня литераторы за староверческие эпитеты.
Одни из многих мелочей, заставляющих восхищаться персонажами Дюма, не делающие с ростом восхищения характеры более жизненными - "слово Ролана", сдающегося в плен, и деньги, выданные Кадудалем поверженным республиканцам. И слово и деньги не даром названы "мелочами" - и то и другое (а равно и заключительная дуэль) являются продуктами эстетики и жанра, своеобразной аналогией конголезского "дендизма" (на самом деле, в последних четырёх словах может не скрываться заслуживающего потраченного на чтение времени "смысла"). Как если бы Эдвард Сноуден вдруг попросил убежица в Украине и рассказал местным масс-медиа аналогичную предшествующей историю о everyday life of whistleblowers in Russia.
К слову, в районе IV главы у (редкого?) читателя может назреть глупый вопрос: отчего Ролан не убил собственного секунданта, англичанина, вместо человека, оскорбившего Бонапарта, но отличающегося равной решительностью, очевидно, способного реализовать собственный потенциал? Ответ на него может обнаружен выше и в оригинальном тексте.
С одной стороны, выбор-то межуд двумя людьми, лишающимися жизни. С другой - влияние противоположного избранному Дюма-папà решения оказалось бы катастрофическим для психики молодого человека - Ролан де Монтревель стал бы внимательнее к тщеславным людям, тщеславия не замечая, а изучая решения, называемые "историческими" ещё прежде того как в уме молодого человека образуется более-менее ёмкое определение истории и возможности участия в ней. Детальность сцен исполнилась бы вязкой этической патетики, а молодой человек к 22 годам начал (бы) отвешивать поклоны, подобно Бернадоту, лишь сестрам бонапартов, не смотря на состоявшийся минутой ранее напряжённый разговор с императорами в перспективе.
Напоследок, из "заметок лимонным соком на туфельках секретарши":
Всякий раз, когда Александр-папà зачинает своё "Мы видели.." - хочется ответить просто и твёрдо: "Не видели, нет, при всём уважении". Потому что не видели ведь! Автор, кто бы он ни был, в праве воображать что угодно о своих читателях, это правда, но навязывать им роль свидетелей того, что произошло на страницах романа - эт-то, простите, дерзость.
Читал ли Фрейд-отец Дюма-папà или отдавал предпочтение сыну? Интересовалась ли Фрейд-дочь семейством Дюма и отдельными экземплярами их творчества? А что касается Сабины Николаевны Шпильрейн?
Не позволял ли Дюма себе некторые перегибы в дисциплинарных практиках в отношнии талантливого отпрыска? Не приходилось ли сыну облачаться, этико-эстетического удовлетворения отца ради, в одежды, сшитые из кожи личных, фамильных и государственных врагов?"
Такого рода суесловие не говорит ничего об оценке читаемого и лишь в незначительной мере может претендовать на раскрытие некоторых корреляций (как в случае Фрейда-Ролана-Шпильрейн), остающихся смутными и для самого рецензента, если только он не выделяет индивидуальной площади и времени для рассуждения.
Площади необязательно быть дикой, взмыленной, гнедой или в яблоках. Можно обойтись першероном.
Отстраняясь от сливочных спекуляций: отчего, спрашивается, я не читала в детские годы, вместо приобретаемых отцом юморин Белянина (на что не жалуюсь) - притаившегося на дальней полке у бабуш��и, матери отца, Дюма-папà?
В без месяца 33 не могу назвать себя хорошей (или хотя бы "доброй") шутницей, а ведь развитие могло обернуться таким путём, что к 20 годам можно было ождидать в себе формирования или намёток черт Ролана, Моргана, лорда Танлея или, в крайнем случае, Шарлотты; ибо так временами не достаёт порывистости, столь многому, в самом деле, препятствует осмотрительность! В англичанине и того и другого в меру, но его безмолвное согласие на дуэль с другом и отцом обезображенной "театральностью" сцены смерти Пассии - наделяет его совершенно уникальным для всех действующих лиц качеством, однозначного словесного определения которому пока дать не удаётся - ближайшее понятие достоинства не отражает глубины характера; к тому же, ни Жозефина, ни Мишель, ни безымянные австрийцы, ни даже Гойе достоинства не лишены (любовь к длительным ванным времяпровождениям однако нередко может привести к незаметному растворению достоинства в чрезмерно пенящейся и по-кришнаитски удушающей изобилием ароматических добавок жидкости).
Проще говоря, достоинство - это одно из принципиальных качеств всех действующих лиц, однако нечто, не считая англичанистости с точки зрения француза, выделяет именно лорда Танлея. Идеалистически его можно было бы счесть совершенной степенью Ролана - преодолевшего безотчётную храбрость, в свою очередь, делающую Ролана Роланом, признанным Ойкуменой оппонентом Соратников Иегу. Ролан же мог бы оказаться отпадным роялистом, да простят меня литераторы за староверческие эпитеты.
Одни из многих мелочей, заставляющих восхищаться персонажами Дюма, не делающие с ростом восхищения характеры более жизненными - "слово Ролана", сдающегося в плен, и деньги, выданные Кадудалем поверженным республиканцам. И слово и деньги не даром названы "мелочами" - и то и другое (а равно и заключительная дуэль) являются продуктами эстетики и жанра, своеобразной аналогией конголезского "дендизма" (на самом деле, в последних четырёх словах может не скрываться заслуживающего потраченного на чтение времени "смысла"). Как если бы Эдвард Сноуден вдруг попросил убежица в Украине и рассказал местным масс-медиа аналогичную предшествующей историю о everyday life of whistleblowers in Russia.
К слову, в районе IV главы у (редкого?) читателя может назреть глупый вопрос: отчего Ролан не убил собственного секунданта, англичанина, вместо человека, оскорбившего Бонапарта, но отличающегося равной решительностью, очевидно, способного реализовать собственный потенциал? Ответ на него может обнаружен выше и в оригинальном тексте.
С одной стороны, выбор-то межуд двумя людьми, лишающимися жизни. С другой - влияние противоположного избранному Дюма-папà решения оказалось бы катастрофическим для психики молодого человека - Ролан де Монтревель стал бы внимательнее к тщеславным людям, тщеславия не замечая, а изучая решения, называемые "историческими" ещё прежде того как в уме молодого человека образуется более-менее ёмкое определение истории и возможности участия в ней. Детальность сцен исполнилась бы вязкой этической патетики, а молодой человек к 22 годам начал (бы) отвешивать поклоны, подобно Бернадоту, лишь сестрам бонапартов, не смотря на состоявшийся минутой ранее напряжённый разговор с императорами в перспективе.
Напоследок, из "заметок лимонным соком на туфельках секретарши":
Всякий раз, когда Александр-папà зачинает своё "Мы видели.." - хочется ответить просто и твёрдо: "Не видели, нет, при всём уважении". Потому что не видели ведь! Автор, кто бы он ни был, в праве воображать что угодно о своих читателях, это правда, но навязывать им роль свидетелей того, что произошло на страницах романа - эт-то, простите, дерзость.
April 4, 2018
Classic Dumas
Took me a while to get through this book as it weaved through history and fiction. It’s worth it though. The character of Roland is one of my favourites I must admit. Charming, brave, intelligent but with a death wish that impresses Bonaparte to no end.
Took me a while to get through this book as it weaved through history and fiction. It’s worth it though. The character of Roland is one of my favourites I must admit. Charming, brave, intelligent but with a death wish that impresses Bonaparte to no end.
August 31, 2021
Chef d'œuvre romanesque ou sous le
Directoire, les partisans du general Bonaparte et ceux de Louis XVIII redoublent d'activités et d efforts pour arriver au pouvoir.
Directoire, les partisans du general Bonaparte et ceux de Louis XVIII redoublent d'activités et d efforts pour arriver au pouvoir.
November 16, 2022
"The Companions of Jehu" by Alexandre Dumas
First of all, I wondered why the page count of my version of book (Persian version: گروه آهنین) had lesser pages than the original version. So, I looked up for it and understood that in my version some parts (like 18th Brumaire) were omitted. Therefore, instead of having 600 pages, it had only 300 pages, but the plot wasn't damaged, I guess. The translator had tried to make the novel shorter (for what reason? I don't know.) but after all, it was a good novel though it was so short.
The novel doesn't have an antagonist, but it has two protagonists (Roland & Morgan) who are each other's enemy. It is admirable that Dumas doesn't try to side with only one of them. By the way, I don't understand how both sides (Bonapartists and Royalists) claim they're fighting for the liberty and are against dictatorship.
Sir John Tanlay also had a pleasant and respectable character. His favor to Amelie was admirable.
One of the problems with the plot was that Fouche in this book wasn't wise enough and couldn't catch the companions of Jehu, though based on history (Zweig's Fouché) he was one of the wisest people in the politics and intelligence service.
After all, this was a good pleasant book, but not as good as Dumas' other works (e.g. French Revolution series and The Count of Monte Cristo).
First of all, I wondered why the page count of my version of book (Persian version: گروه آهنین) had lesser pages than the original version. So, I looked up for it and understood that in my version some parts (like 18th Brumaire) were omitted. Therefore, instead of having 600 pages, it had only 300 pages, but the plot wasn't damaged, I guess. The translator had tried to make the novel shorter (for what reason? I don't know.) but after all, it was a good novel though it was so short.
The novel doesn't have an antagonist, but it has two protagonists (Roland & Morgan) who are each other's enemy. It is admirable that Dumas doesn't try to side with only one of them. By the way, I don't understand how both sides (Bonapartists and Royalists) claim they're fighting for the liberty and are against dictatorship.
Sir John Tanlay also had a pleasant and respectable character. His favor to Amelie was admirable.
One of the problems with the plot was that Fouche in this book wasn't wise enough and couldn't catch the companions of Jehu, though based on history (Zweig's Fouché) he was one of the wisest people in the politics and intelligence service.
After all, this was a good pleasant book, but not as good as Dumas' other works (e.g. French Revolution series and The Count of Monte Cristo).
January 15, 2020
A lesser known of Dumas' work, The Companions of Jehu (Les Compagnons de Jéhu) remains probably my favorite. While certainly not the eighteen-part epic of The Count of Monte Cristo, this tale contains almost everything I've come to adore about Dumas.
The story follows two highly, principled, noble young protagonists in the early days of Napoleonic France. One, Roland, is a commander under, and close confidant of Napoleon himself, and strongly believes in Napoleon's vision. The other is Morgan, a young man born to aristocratic parents guillotined in the Reign of Terror, who leads a secret society, the titular Companions of Jehu, in an effort to restore the monarchy in France. While these two heroes are both incredibly sympathetic, they remain unequivocally opposed to one another, and the Companions of Jehu tells the tale of their struggles in a dramatic landscape of intrigue, violence, and romance. And my oh my, is there a good romance in this book.
In summation, I recommend this novel to any fan of Dumas looking for more after reading The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo. The biggest obstacle, however, is finding a good translation, if you are an English reader. I've tried to find good translations for friends and family that I've recommended it to, but every one that I've found pales in comparison to the original French. I suppose that's the difficulty of seeking out lesser known works, but maybe you'll have more luck than I did, and, in any case, it's still worth a read.
The story follows two highly, principled, noble young protagonists in the early days of Napoleonic France. One, Roland, is a commander under, and close confidant of Napoleon himself, and strongly believes in Napoleon's vision. The other is Morgan, a young man born to aristocratic parents guillotined in the Reign of Terror, who leads a secret society, the titular Companions of Jehu, in an effort to restore the monarchy in France. While these two heroes are both incredibly sympathetic, they remain unequivocally opposed to one another, and the Companions of Jehu tells the tale of their struggles in a dramatic landscape of intrigue, violence, and romance. And my oh my, is there a good romance in this book.
In summation, I recommend this novel to any fan of Dumas looking for more after reading The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo. The biggest obstacle, however, is finding a good translation, if you are an English reader. I've tried to find good translations for friends and family that I've recommended it to, but every one that I've found pales in comparison to the original French. I suppose that's the difficulty of seeking out lesser known works, but maybe you'll have more luck than I did, and, in any case, it's still worth a read.
December 26, 2020
Encore du très grand Dumas. Tome 2 d’une série sur le Directoire et le Consulat. A lire néanmoins en premier car premier livre écrit par l’auteur. Superbe évocation d’une lutte à mort entre Roland , fidèle du premier consul et Charles, le chevalier de Saint-Hermine sur fond de chouannerie et de lutte royaliste. un régal
June 24, 2021
Until I saw the film "Django Unchained". I didn't look for who the Alexandre Dumas is. Quite surprise to found out from the film that he is black. While the slavery was still a thing in America, people like Alexandre Dumas still existed(In French of course). I'm grateful to Schulz(a major character of Django Unchained movie) for this enlightenment.
June 30, 2021
Though it took me a long time to read,it was truly worth it. Dumas remains one of my favorite authors and this book, though little known by most people, is amazing! I couldn’t believe how it ended, very unlike his other books I’ve read. It’s such a “love” story with lots of history and chivalry. It makes me love him all the more.
August 9, 2021
Asarii przydzielono w pracy maile, więc tradycyjnie włączyłam audiobooka. Szczerze powiedziawszy zbyt wiele nie pamiętam, prócz tego, że mnie męczyło dosłownie wszystko. Ale jakby nie patrzeć większość audiobooków to robi, więc nie powinno mnie to dziwić.
May 26, 2017
Last few chapters of the book not needed, ended very suddenly.
March 28, 2018
5 stars.
#1 in the Sainte-Hermine Cycle by Alexandre Dumas. Originally published in 1857; 1902 English translation.
(to be continued)
#1 in the Sainte-Hermine Cycle by Alexandre Dumas. Originally published in 1857; 1902 English translation.
(to be continued)
April 17, 2018
Not one of Dumas best, but, I did enjoy the story of Bonarparte .
October 21, 2019
Great and entertaining. The story transports you to the turn of the 18th century.
However, I found it less breathtaking than the amazing Count of monte Cristo.
However, I found it less breathtaking than the amazing Count of monte Cristo.
January 9, 2022
Četla jsem českou verzi Spiklenci ještě na gymnáziu, tehdy to na mé bylo moc informačně obsáhlé, chtěla bych přečíst znovu.
July 18, 2016
Les Compagnons de Jéhu" est une oeuvre fort decevante du grand Dumas. Mon premier problème est que j'ai trouvé le protagoniste Roland de Montrevel très antipathique. Au début du roman il provoque et tue en duel un jeune homme inoffensif. À la fin il arrete et envoie au guillotine l'amant de sa soeur. Honnetement, j'ai trouvé les heures passées avec ce salaud qui tient lieu d'héros très longues.
Mon deuxième problem est que l'humour, qui est normallement omnipresent dans dans les romans de Dumas, est plus ou moins absent chez les "Compagnons" . Dans le cycle de D'Artagnan et dans le cycle de Balsamo, les scènes qui décrivent les jeux coulisses à Versailles sont richement comiques. Chez les "Compagnons" les passages avec Napoléon sont plats à morts.
Pour moi c'est un grand énigme pourquoi les passages avec Napoléon sont et si terns car Dumas avait des bonnes raisons de détester Napoléon. Son père qui avait été un général de l'armée républicaine a critiqué Napoléon dans une salle pleine d'autres officiers pour la manière barbare dont Napoléon conduisait sa guerre en Egypte. Napoléon n'a jamais pardonné le père de Dumas pour ces paroles. Quand le père de Dumas a été capture par des pirates lors de son voyage de retour d'Egypte, Napoléon a refusé de payer le rancon. Le père a du passer des années en prison dans le sud d'Italie. L'expérience a profondémet abimé la santé du père de Dumas qui est mort très jeune. Le ton neutre envers Napoléon qu'emploie Dumas dans "Les Compagnons de Jéhu" est alors très surprennant. C'est possible que Dumas craignait de perdre controle de ses émotions, s'il commencerait à attaquer Napoléon. De toute facon, il a choisi de se retenir. Le résultat est que son roman est très ennuyant partout ou Napoléon parait.
J'ai entrepris la lecture de ce roman parce que je suis un mordu de Dumas. Je l'ai completé parce que j'ai le projet de lire la trilogie de "Saint-Hermine" au complet. Si vous n'etes pas comme moi un grand amateur de Dumas, je vous conseille de mettre à coté "Les Compagnons de Jéhu" qui compte parmi les oeuvres les moins fortes d'Alexandre Dumas.
Mon deuxième problem est que l'humour, qui est normallement omnipresent dans dans les romans de Dumas, est plus ou moins absent chez les "Compagnons" . Dans le cycle de D'Artagnan et dans le cycle de Balsamo, les scènes qui décrivent les jeux coulisses à Versailles sont richement comiques. Chez les "Compagnons" les passages avec Napoléon sont plats à morts.
Pour moi c'est un grand énigme pourquoi les passages avec Napoléon sont et si terns car Dumas avait des bonnes raisons de détester Napoléon. Son père qui avait été un général de l'armée républicaine a critiqué Napoléon dans une salle pleine d'autres officiers pour la manière barbare dont Napoléon conduisait sa guerre en Egypte. Napoléon n'a jamais pardonné le père de Dumas pour ces paroles. Quand le père de Dumas a été capture par des pirates lors de son voyage de retour d'Egypte, Napoléon a refusé de payer le rancon. Le père a du passer des années en prison dans le sud d'Italie. L'expérience a profondémet abimé la santé du père de Dumas qui est mort très jeune. Le ton neutre envers Napoléon qu'emploie Dumas dans "Les Compagnons de Jéhu" est alors très surprennant. C'est possible que Dumas craignait de perdre controle de ses émotions, s'il commencerait à attaquer Napoléon. De toute facon, il a choisi de se retenir. Le résultat est que son roman est très ennuyant partout ou Napoléon parait.
J'ai entrepris la lecture de ce roman parce que je suis un mordu de Dumas. Je l'ai completé parce que j'ai le projet de lire la trilogie de "Saint-Hermine" au complet. Si vous n'etes pas comme moi un grand amateur de Dumas, je vous conseille de mettre à coté "Les Compagnons de Jéhu" qui compte parmi les oeuvres les moins fortes d'Alexandre Dumas.
February 17, 2015
The second part of The Saint-Hermine -trilogy The Companions of Jehu is much better than the first part The Whites and The Blues. This book was written before the first part of the series and I would recommend that reader should also read Companions before The Whites and the Blues. The Whites and The Blues work better as a backstory.
While The Whites and The Blues is mainly a history lecture, The Companions of Jehu is a real novel with intriguing plot. It deals with the royalist and republican factions in France during Napoleon's rise to power. The main character of Republican side is Roland, the aide-de-camp of Napoleon and the main character of royalist faction is mysterious Morgan aka Count of Saint-Hermine, the leader of the Company of Jehu. Both are very interesting an likeable persons and book does not take a stance on whose side is the right side.
The love story between Morgan and Amelie was pretty predictable and even dull. Why is it always in these kind of novels that losing one's lover leads to death. It is just like that useless Raoul in Vicomte of Bragelonne.
Well, aside of that love story, this is a fantastic novel. I consider this one of the best books of Dumas and that is saying a lot. It may not challenge the Musketeer trilogy of Monte Cristo but I would certainly put it in the same line with The Valois trilogy.
While The Whites and The Blues is mainly a history lecture, The Companions of Jehu is a real novel with intriguing plot. It deals with the royalist and republican factions in France during Napoleon's rise to power. The main character of Republican side is Roland, the aide-de-camp of Napoleon and the main character of royalist faction is mysterious Morgan aka Count of Saint-Hermine, the leader of the Company of Jehu. Both are very interesting an likeable persons and book does not take a stance on whose side is the right side.
The love story between Morgan and Amelie was pretty predictable and even dull. Why is it always in these kind of novels that losing one's lover leads to death. It is just like that useless Raoul in Vicomte of Bragelonne.
Well, aside of that love story, this is a fantastic novel. I consider this one of the best books of Dumas and that is saying a lot. It may not challenge the Musketeer trilogy of Monte Cristo but I would certainly put it in the same line with The Valois trilogy.
August 21, 2022
Ce roman, qui vient en deuxième dans la trilogie où "les Blancs et les Bleus" le précède, a en fait été écrit avant : c'est lui qui est matriciel. En réalité, peut-être à cause de cet ordre d'écriture, il n'y a pas tant de progression que cela entre les deux ; c'est le même thème de la bravoure indifférente au camp d'appartenance, mise en valeur par le face-à-face de deux héros, Roland, républicain qui s'est attaché aux pas de Napoléon dont il est l'aide de camp, et Morgan, fidèle au roi et qui anime, dans l'Est de la France, une bande de brigands au grand coeur qui détrousse les diligences (mais en ne prenant que les fonds publics et sans faire de mal aux dames) au profit de Cadoudal, chef de la résistance bretonne. L'affaire est pimentée par le fait que Morgan est l'amant secret de la soeur de Roland... beaucoup de péripéties, de chevalerie, et on s'introduit aussi dans les coulisses de la conquête du pouvoir par Napoléon. Cela n'a pas la perfection de la trilogie des "derniers Valois", mais c'est bien attachant ; la note finale, dans laquelle Dumas décrit ses recherches historiques pour l'élaboration de ce roman, mérite la lecture. On y remarque en particulier que les épisodes inspirés d'événement vrais (la mort des compagnons de Jéhu) ne sont pas forcément les plus réussis, ni même les plus réalistes.
March 28, 2023
Four stars - I'm a massive fan of Alexandre Dumas, and have read many of his books. HOWEVER, the same irk pops up in almost every one of his stories. Characters. I have a problem when any tale has too many characters. Keeping track and remembering who's who, can sometimes have you cheering the villain. Normally I just plough on and read through it. By the time I'm half way through they have settled in place and I know who they are. With foreign sounding names or long ones I often make up my own version of them, this helps. YET with Dumas he'll sometimes use their first name, switch to their surname and also use their title name. 8 characters x 3 names = 24 choices. Nightmare.
What keeps me coming back is his story-telling and the way he weaves in real history and historical figures, such as, in this book Napoleon Bonaparte, his battles and French/World history, of which I know very little. I believe he'll keep to the REAL facts, I trust him to do so. So I keep coming back and it's all thanks to the feeling I got reading, The Count of Monte Christo. My all time favourite book.
There that's it, review done.
What keeps me coming back is his story-telling and the way he weaves in real history and historical figures, such as, in this book Napoleon Bonaparte, his battles and French/World history, of which I know very little. I believe he'll keep to the REAL facts, I trust him to do so. So I keep coming back and it's all thanks to the feeling I got reading, The Count of Monte Christo. My all time favourite book.
There that's it, review done.
April 8, 2016
Based on fact, the Companions robbed government (under General Bonaparte) to fund the royalist cause. They're a bit like highwaymen. Love story, with brother keen to discover the identity of these young aristocratic "heroes". The brother Roland is invincible. He fights a duel early on with Englishman as his second. They become friends. Descriptions of Bonaparte before he became Emperor. Full of adventure, heroism, romance, action packed as all Dumas's novels.
July 15, 2012
Fascinating tale of a noble bunch of highway robbers.
November 17, 2014
my initial lesson about French Revolution.
March 2, 2015
A fine novel, with drama and melodrama, set around the time when Napoleon became first consul. Not an epic, but Dumas is always readable.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews