AN ANCIENT USAGE.

Photograph by Count Jean de Strelecki.Belasco’s Collection.“THE STUDENT”—DAVID BELASCO

Photograph by Count Jean de Strelecki.Belasco’s Collection.

“THE STUDENT”—DAVID BELASCO

ground of his indebtedness to plays earlier than his. He has done only what all other dramatists have done since the beginning of the craft; that is, he has basedsomeof his plays on dramatic expedients and situations that have long been considered to be common property.

Several of Shakespeare’s plays were based by him on plays of earlier date, by other authors. Dryden borrowed freely from Spanish plays and sometimes from Corneille and Molière,—a fact which caused Scott to remark (Preface to “The Assignation”) that “originality consists in the mode of treating a subject more than in the subject itself.” English dramatists, from Wycherly onward, have freely borrowed from Molière. Fielding, there is reason to believe, derived an occasional hint from the great Frenchman, as also from Thomas Murphy. Goldsmith was a little indebted to Wycherly. Hoadley borrowed from Farquhar; Steele from Bickerstaff; Colman from Murphy; Sheridan from both Wycherly and Congreve, and perhaps from his mother’s play of “The Discovery” and her novel of “Sydney Biddulph”; Boucicault from many French sources and some English ones. I would not be understood as approving or defending that practice in dramaticauthorship: on the contrary, in the whole course of my long service as a dramatic critic and historian I have condemned it. These words, written by me many years ago, relative to Boucicault, indicate my view ofthe practice:

Dramatic authorship, indeed, seems to have been regarded by him,—and by many other playwriters,—as a species by itself, exempt from obligation to moral law. The bard who should “convey” Milton’s “Lycidas” or Wordsworth’s great “Ode,” and, after making a few changes in the text and introducing a few new lines, publish it as a composition “original” with himself, would be deemed and designated a literary thief. The dramatist, taking his plots from any convenient source and rehashing incidents and speeches selected from old plays, can publish the fabric thus constructed as an “original drama,” and, so far from being discredited, can obtain reputation and profit by that proceeding. [“Old Friends,” by W. W.: 1909.]

If the large majority of dramatic authors,—Sophocles, Shakespeare, Racine, Molière, Sheridan, and the rest, down to the present day,—be convicted of plagiarism on the ground that they have rehashed old material, that charge will stand against Belasco. But the dramatist who, with manifest truth, pleads, as Belasco can plead (and as I understand that he does plead), “a well-known, universal, recognized custom” cannot, justly, be singled out and stigmatized for plagiarism,—any more than a respectable Turk, resident in Constantinople, with four wives, can be singled out and stigmatized for bigamy. I no more approve the custom of what I call “playwrighting” than I approve or advocate polygamy,—but I speak for justice. Moreover, it is essential to be remembered that the number of basic situations, in fiction as in fact, is limited, and consideration ofthe methodof combining and treating them must vitally affect the question of “originality.” To make an avowed adaptation of the work of another, or, with credit, to base a passage on suggestion derived from an incident in the work of another is not plagiarism.

The fair investigator of the charge of plagiarism against Belasco will find that it is twofold: it accuses him of appropriation from the works of other writers precedent to him, and of appropriation from other writers contemporary with him to whose writings he has had, or, as alleged, may have had, access.

In considering the first part of the accusation I would recommend all inquirers to read the masterly exposition of the subject of Plagiarism made by Charles Reade (himself one of the successful writers frequently, in his day, accused of the offence), whichis printed, in his collected Works, as an appendix to his capital story of “The Wandering Heir,”—a story first made public in dramatic form. That exposition is too long to be quoted here in full, but the appended extract from it, which deals with what Reade calls “the mere intellectual detraction” involved in the charge that he had stolen “The Wandering Heir” from Dean Swift’s “The Journal of a Modern Lady,” is illuminative:

“It [‘the mere intellectual detraction’] is founded on two things—1. The sham-sample swindle, which I have defined. 2. On a pardonable blunder.“The blunder is one into which many criticasters of my day have fallen; but a critic knows there is a vital distinction between taking ideas from ahomogeneoussource and from aheterogeneoussource, and that only the first mentioned of these two acts is plagiarism; the latter is more like jewel-setting. Call it what you will, it is not plagiarism.“I will take the fraud and the blunder in order and illustrate them by a few examples, out of thousands.“By the identical process Pseudonymuncle has used to entrap your readers into believing ‘The Wandering Heir’ a mere plagiarism from Swift, one could juggle those who read quotations, not books, into believing:—“1. That the Old Testament isfullof indelicacy.“2. That the miracles of Jesus Christ are none of them the miracles of a God, or even of a benevolent man—giving water intoxicating qualities, when the guests had drunk enough, goodness knows; cursing a fig-tree; driving pigs to a watery grave. This is how Voltaire works the sham-sample swindle, and gulls Frenchmen that let him read the Bible for them.“3. That Virgil never wrote a line he did not take from Lucretius or somebody else.“4. That Milton the poet isallHomer, Euripides, and an Italian play called ‘Adam in Paradise.’“5. That Molière isallPlautus and Cyrano de Bergerac, ‘en prendtoutson bien où il le trouve.’“6. That the same Molièreneverwrites grammatical French.“7. That Shakespeare isallPlautus, Horace, Holinshed, Belleforest, and others.“8. That Corneille had not an idea he did not steal from Spain.“9. That Scott has not an original incident in all his works.“10. That five Italian operas areallEnglish and Irish music.“11. That the overture to ‘Guillaume Tell’ isallcomposed by Swiss shepherds.“12. That ‘Robinson Crusoe’ is a mere theft from Woodes, Rogers, and Dampier.“Not one of these is a greater lie, and few of them are as great lies, as to call ‘The Wandering Heir’ a plagiarism from Swift.“Now for the blunder. That will be best corrected by putting examples of jewel-setting and examples of plagiarism cheek by jowl.“Corneille’s ‘Horace,’ a tragedy founded on aheterogeneouswork,—viz., an historical narrative by Livy,—is not a plagiarism. His ‘Cid,’ taken from a Spanish play, is plagiarism. Shakespeare’s ‘Comedy of Errors’ and Molière’s ‘Avare’ are plagiarisms, both from Plautus.Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth,’ taken from aheterogeneouswork, a chronicle, is no plagiarism, though he uses a much larger slice of Holinshed’s dialogue than I have taken from Swift, and follows his original more closely. The same applies to his ‘Coriolanus.’ This tragedy is not a plagiarism; for Plutarch’s Life of Coriolanus is aheterogeneouswork, and the art with which the great master uses and versifiesVolumnia’sspeech, as he got it from North’s translation of Plutarch, is jewel-setting, not plagiarism. By the same rule, ‘Robinson Crusoe,’ though Defoe sticks close to Woodes, Rogers, and Dampier in many particulars of incident and reflection, is not a plagiarism, being romance founded on books of fact. The distinction holds good as to single incidents or short and telling speeches. Scott’s works are literally crammed with diamonds of incident and rubies of dialogue culled fromheterogeneousworks, histories, chronicles, ballads, and oral traditions. But this is not plagiarism; it is jewel-setting. Byron’s famous line—‘The graves of those who cannot die,’is a plagiarism from another poet, Crabbe; butWolsey’sfamous distich in Shakespeare’s ‘Henry the Eighth’ is not a plagiarism from Wolsey; it is an historical jewel set in aheterogeneouswork, and set as none but a great inventor ever yet set a fact-jewel....”

“It [‘the mere intellectual detraction’] is founded on two things—1. The sham-sample swindle, which I have defined. 2. On a pardonable blunder.

“The blunder is one into which many criticasters of my day have fallen; but a critic knows there is a vital distinction between taking ideas from ahomogeneoussource and from aheterogeneoussource, and that only the first mentioned of these two acts is plagiarism; the latter is more like jewel-setting. Call it what you will, it is not plagiarism.

“I will take the fraud and the blunder in order and illustrate them by a few examples, out of thousands.

“By the identical process Pseudonymuncle has used to entrap your readers into believing ‘The Wandering Heir’ a mere plagiarism from Swift, one could juggle those who read quotations, not books, into believing:—

“1. That the Old Testament isfullof indelicacy.

“2. That the miracles of Jesus Christ are none of them the miracles of a God, or even of a benevolent man—giving water intoxicating qualities, when the guests had drunk enough, goodness knows; cursing a fig-tree; driving pigs to a watery grave. This is how Voltaire works the sham-sample swindle, and gulls Frenchmen that let him read the Bible for them.

“3. That Virgil never wrote a line he did not take from Lucretius or somebody else.

“4. That Milton the poet isallHomer, Euripides, and an Italian play called ‘Adam in Paradise.’

“5. That Molière isallPlautus and Cyrano de Bergerac, ‘en prendtoutson bien où il le trouve.’

“6. That the same Molièreneverwrites grammatical French.

“7. That Shakespeare isallPlautus, Horace, Holinshed, Belleforest, and others.

“8. That Corneille had not an idea he did not steal from Spain.

“9. That Scott has not an original incident in all his works.

“10. That five Italian operas areallEnglish and Irish music.

“11. That the overture to ‘Guillaume Tell’ isallcomposed by Swiss shepherds.

“12. That ‘Robinson Crusoe’ is a mere theft from Woodes, Rogers, and Dampier.

“Not one of these is a greater lie, and few of them are as great lies, as to call ‘The Wandering Heir’ a plagiarism from Swift.

“Now for the blunder. That will be best corrected by putting examples of jewel-setting and examples of plagiarism cheek by jowl.

“Corneille’s ‘Horace,’ a tragedy founded on aheterogeneouswork,—viz., an historical narrative by Livy,—is not a plagiarism. His ‘Cid,’ taken from a Spanish play, is plagiarism. Shakespeare’s ‘Comedy of Errors’ and Molière’s ‘Avare’ are plagiarisms, both from Plautus.Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth,’ taken from aheterogeneouswork, a chronicle, is no plagiarism, though he uses a much larger slice of Holinshed’s dialogue than I have taken from Swift, and follows his original more closely. The same applies to his ‘Coriolanus.’ This tragedy is not a plagiarism; for Plutarch’s Life of Coriolanus is aheterogeneouswork, and the art with which the great master uses and versifiesVolumnia’sspeech, as he got it from North’s translation of Plutarch, is jewel-setting, not plagiarism. By the same rule, ‘Robinson Crusoe,’ though Defoe sticks close to Woodes, Rogers, and Dampier in many particulars of incident and reflection, is not a plagiarism, being romance founded on books of fact. The distinction holds good as to single incidents or short and telling speeches. Scott’s works are literally crammed with diamonds of incident and rubies of dialogue culled fromheterogeneousworks, histories, chronicles, ballads, and oral traditions. But this is not plagiarism; it is jewel-setting. Byron’s famous line—

‘The graves of those who cannot die,’

is a plagiarism from another poet, Crabbe; butWolsey’sfamous distich in Shakespeare’s ‘Henry the Eighth’ is not a plagiarism from Wolsey; it is an historical jewel set in aheterogeneouswork, and set as none but a great inventor ever yet set a fact-jewel....”

Examination of Belasco’s plays will reveal that they are, for the greater part, founded on what Reade designates “heterogeneous works,”—that is,while he has in some instances borrowed or utilized material long generally regarded as common property, he has gone, far more, to history and record,—and that his plays contain more original writing than ninety per cent. of the plays which are customarily acted on the English-speaking Stage.

Turning from the question of what Belasco may or may not have derived from elder dramatists, we come to a field in which it is easy to move with definite, assured steps. The first accusation against him of plagiarism from a contemporary, as far as I have been able to ascertain, was made by Albert M. Palmer, on information and belief, in regard to the play of “The Millionaire’s Daughter,” first produced at the Baldwin Theatre, San Francisco, May 19, 1879. Palmer had been given to understand that Belasco, in this play, had infringed Bronson Howard’s play of “The Banker’s Daughter,” first produced at the Union Square Theatre, November 30, 1878, and which Maguire had endeavored to secure for Baldwin’s. He sent his attorney, W. Barnes, to see Belasco’s play of “The Millionaire’s Daughter,” accompanied by assistants, who took down as much as possible of the dialogue. After the performance Belasco said to Maguire: “It is not necessary for Mr. Barnes to try totake down my dialogue: he hasseenthe play: tell him he can have a copy of the manuscript, if he wishes.” Barnes advised Palmer that there wasno plagiarismby Belasco, and there the matter ended.

The second accusation was that of Howard P. Taylor, alleging that Belasco took material portions of “May Blossom” from “Caprice”: Taylor would not bring that charge into court, though Belasco invited him to do so; and Harrison Grey Fiske, the editor of “The Dramatic Mirror,” the publication in which the false accusation had been repeatedly made, publicly declared it to be unwarranted.

Beyond these, I have been furnished by my friend Judge A. G. Dittenhoefer (acting with Belasco’s permission) with a list showing that six distinct, formal charges of plagiarism have been made against Belasco and redress sought by legal action for injury thus alleged to have been done by him. The plays as to which these charges have been made are (1) “The Wife”; (2) “Du Barry”; (3) “Sweet Kitty Bellairs”; (4) “The Woman”; (5) “The Case of Becky”; (6) “The Boomerang.”

In the first of these cases suit was instituted, in 1888, by Fannie Aymar Matthews, against David Belasco and Henry C. De Mille, praying for an

DAVID BELASCOPhotograph by the Misses Selby.Author’s Collection.

DAVID BELASCO

Photograph by the Misses Selby.Author’s Collection.

injunction to restrain the further presentation of their play of “The Wife,” on the ground that it was a plagiarism of her play entitled “Washington Life.” The action was tried before the Hon. Miles Beach, Justice of the Supreme Court of New York. Judge Beach decided in favor of Belasco and De Mille, finding that there was no infringement,no plagiarism.

The second case was an action brought by the French writer M. Richepin, January 25, 1902, in which he demanded an accounting for the receipts from representation of Belasco’s play of “Du Barry,” on the ground that it was, in fact, a play written by the Plaintiff. M. Richepin would not bring this case to trial, and it was finally discontinued, in January, 1908.

In the third case Grace B. Hughes (otherwise known as Mary Montagu) began an action, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, February 3, 1904, against Belasco, Maurice Campbell, and Henrietta Crosman. The action was brought to restrain further representation of Belasco’s play of “Sweet Kitty Bellairs,” on the ground that it was, in fact, an infringement of the Plaintiff’s play of “Sweet Jasmine.” Motion for an injunction was argued before Judge Lacombe, on March 18, 1904, and on March26 it was denied, Judge Lacombe holding that there wasno plagiarism. The case was never brought to trial, and it was stricken from the calendar, on March 3, 1913.

The fourth case (which is dealt with in detail, page 336,et seq.) was the action brought against Belasco and William C. De Mille by Abraham Goldknopf, in February, 1912, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, praying for an injunction to restrain the further representation of their play of “The Woman” on the ground that it was, in fact, an infringement of Goldknopf’s play of “Tainted Philanthropy.” Judge Holt, before whom the case was tried, held that there was no infringement by Belasco and De Mille,no plagiarism, and on March 3, 1913, final judgment was entered dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint, upon the merits.

In June, 1912, the fifth action against Belasco was brought by Amelia Bachman and George L. McKay, seeking to restrain him from further presentation of “The Case of Becky,” on the ground that it was, in fact, a plagiarism of their play entitled “Etelle.” Trial of this action was begun May 13, 1913, before Judge Julius M. Mayer, of the United States District Court, and was concluded the next day. On July 9, 1913, Judge Mayer rendered hisdecision, holding that there wasno plagiarismby Belasco, and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ complaint, upon the merits.

The sixth case was an action begun on January 14, 1916, by Lila Longson, to restrain Belasco, Winchell Smith, and Victor Mapes from further presentation of their play of “The Boomerang,” upon the ground that it was an infringement of her play of “The Choice.” The case was tried in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, on September 19-21, and, at the close of the trial, Judge W. B. Sheppard held that there was no infringement and dismissed the complaint. Final judgment, dismissing the complaint upon the merits, was entered September 25, 1916.

In all these cases only one judgment in favor of Belasco was appealed,—that by Judge Mayer, in the action by Amelia Bachman and George L. McKay,in re“The Case of Becky.” Their appeal was taken to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was argued April 6, 1914. On May 12, following, the Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision in favor of Belasco, affirming Judge Mayer’s decision dismissing the complaint. The opinion of the Court was written by Judge E. HenryLacombe, and can be found in 224 Fed. Rep., page 817.

The significance of this summary offactsis obvious. Belasco has been, and is, freely accused of literary theft,—but on each and every occasion when accusation has been made and investigated in Court he has defeated his defamers and been completely vindicated.

While Belasco, in common with the generality of dramatic authors, has certainly profited by the example and sometimes by the labor of others (a fact which he does not seek to conceal or deny, but which, on the contrary, he has freely and fairly recognized and admitted), there is aper contraaspect of his relation to other play-writers which none of his detractors,—and, for that matter, as far as I am aware, none of his admirers and advocates except myself,—ever mentions,—namely, the immense and direct advantage and profit derived by other play-writersfrom him. Nor is that indebtedness confined to makers of plays: as theatre manager, stage manager, mechanician, success for others if not always for himself has walkedwith him, and for scores of persons connected with the Theatre (many of them void of appreciation) his has been the touch of a Midas, turning dross to gold and, incidentally, establishing them in reputation. Among the makers of plays who, first and last, have greatly profited by his sagacity, skill, and labor are James A. Herne, Peter Robertson, Bronson Howard (who always handsomely acknowledged the obligation), William Young, H. H. Boyesen, Henry C. De Mille, A. C. Gunter, Clay M. Greene, P. M. Potter, Franklyn Fyles, Charles Simon, Pierre Berton, Charles Klein, Lee Arthur, John Luther Long, Richard Walton Tully, Miss Pauline Phelps, Miss Marion Short, William C. De Mille, William J. Hurlbut, Eugene Walter, Avery Hopwood, Edward J. Locke, Miss Alice Bradley, George Scarborough, and Winchell Smith.[6]In all the mass of letters addressed to Belasco and examined by me in preparing this Memoir I have found fitting acknowledgment of benefits conferred by only two of those persons, aside from Howard,—Franklyn Fyles and Mr. Scarborough. The latter wrote:

(George Scarborough to David Belasco.)

“150 Madison Avenue, Tompkinsville,“Staten Island, February 28, 1916.“My dear Governor:—“Just a brief line before the drop falls on poor little ‘Wetona’ [“The Heart of Wetona”] to-morrow night:“It has been a great honor to sit at your feet the past few months—to go to school to you. An infinite pleasure, also, to have seen you work and known you.“If the play gets over, the great measure of the success will be yours. If it fails, the fault will be with the material which came to you.“Whatever the issue is, I want now to thank you for your many personal courtesies, for your enthusiasm and your friendship. Hereafter, when some would-be author ‘hits the ceiling’ at some change you suggest in his ’script, please have him get me on the telephone and I will cheerfully tell him how many kinds of a d—— fool he is not to know a master touch and not to appreciate the Master’s interest.“May you be preserved to the Theatre for a long, long time.“Affectionately,“George Scarborough.”

“150 Madison Avenue, Tompkinsville,“Staten Island, February 28, 1916.

“My dear Governor:—

“Just a brief line before the drop falls on poor little ‘Wetona’ [“The Heart of Wetona”] to-morrow night:

“It has been a great honor to sit at your feet the past few months—to go to school to you. An infinite pleasure, also, to have seen you work and known you.

“If the play gets over, the great measure of the success will be yours. If it fails, the fault will be with the material which came to you.

“Whatever the issue is, I want now to thank you for your many personal courtesies, for your enthusiasm and your friendship. Hereafter, when some would-be author ‘hits the ceiling’ at some change you suggest in his ’script, please have him get me on the telephone and I will cheerfully tell him how many kinds of a d—— fool he is not to know a master touch and not to appreciate the Master’s interest.

“May you be preserved to the Theatre for a long, long time.

“Affectionately,“George Scarborough.”

The scope and variety of his labor as an author are impressively signified in the following partial list of his writings:

(Note.—The dates given in the following table refer to the years in which the plays specifiedwere written,—and, therefore, in some instances, they differ from the dates given in Chronology, and elsewhere, which refer topresentationof the plays.)

JUVENILE EFFORTS.

“Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.”“Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp.”Angel in Hell,” “AnBarmaid’s Revenge; or, The Fatal Corkscrew,” “The (burlesque).Bohemian Girl,” “The (with music).Bronze Statue,” “The.Butcher’s Revenge; or, The Seven Buckets of Blood,” “The (burlesque).Death of Benedict Arnold,” “The.Dying Boy’s Last Christmas,” “The.“East Lynne” (burlesque).Hanging of Nathan Hale,” “The.“Jim Black; or, The Regulator’s Revenge” (his first play).Roll of the Drum,” “The (before 1869).Signing of the Declaration of Independence,” “The.“Spiritland.”Trovatore,” “Il (with music from the opera of that name).

“Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.”

“Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp.”

Angel in Hell,” “An

Barmaid’s Revenge; or, The Fatal Corkscrew,” “The (burlesque).

Bohemian Girl,” “The (with music).

Bronze Statue,” “The.

Butcher’s Revenge; or, The Seven Buckets of Blood,” “The (burlesque).

Death of Benedict Arnold,” “The.

Dying Boy’s Last Christmas,” “The.

“East Lynne” (burlesque).

Hanging of Nathan Hale,” “The.

“Jim Black; or, The Regulator’s Revenge” (his first play).

Roll of the Drum,” “The (before 1869).

Signing of the Declaration of Independence,” “The.

“Spiritland.”

Trovatore,” “Il (with music from the opera of that name).

Ace of Spades,” “The (1877—or earlier).“American Born” (based on “British Born”: 1882).Assommoir,” “L’ (“Drink”: based on Zola’s novel: 1879).Belle Russe,” “La (1880-’81).“Bleak House” (from the novel—about July, 1875).“Capitola” (a version of “The Hidden Hand”: 187[6?]).“Cherry and Fair Star” (revision of the old spectacle so named: 187—).“Chums” (1879—see “Hearts of Oak”).Christmas Night; or, The Convict’s Return,” “The (1877).Creole,” “The (based on Adolphe Belot’s story, “L’Article 47”: 1879-’80).Cricket on the Hearth,” “The (from Dickens’ “Christmas Story”: 1877-’78).Curse of Cain,” “The (with Peter Robertson: 1882).“David Copperfield” (from the novel—before 1878).Doll Master,” “The (1874-’75?).“Dombey & Son” (from the novel—before 1878).“Dora” (alteration of Charles Reade’s play: 1875).“Faust” (1877).Fast Family,” “A (adaptation of Sardou’s “La Famille Benoiton!”: 1879).Haunted House,” “The (1877).“Hearts of Oak” (based on “The Mariner’s Compass,” originally called “Chums”: with James A. Herne: 1879).Hidden Hand,” “The (from Mrs. Southworth’s book—at least three different versions: before 1878).Lone Pine,” “The (187[5?]).Millionaire’s Daughter,” “The (1879).Moonlight Marriage,” “The (“The Marriage by Moonlight”: based on Watts Phillips’ “Camilla’s Husband”: 1879).New Magdalen,” “The (from Collins’ novel—1874).“Nicholas Nickleby” (from the novel—before 1879).

Ace of Spades,” “The (1877—or earlier).

“American Born” (based on “British Born”: 1882).

Assommoir,” “L’ (“Drink”: based on Zola’s novel: 1879).

Belle Russe,” “La (1880-’81).

“Bleak House” (from the novel—about July, 1875).

“Capitola” (a version of “The Hidden Hand”: 187[6?]).

“Cherry and Fair Star” (revision of the old spectacle so named: 187—).

“Chums” (1879—see “Hearts of Oak”).

Christmas Night; or, The Convict’s Return,” “The (1877).

Creole,” “The (based on Adolphe Belot’s story, “L’Article 47”: 1879-’80).

Cricket on the Hearth,” “The (from Dickens’ “Christmas Story”: 1877-’78).

Curse of Cain,” “The (with Peter Robertson: 1882).

“David Copperfield” (from the novel—before 1878).

Doll Master,” “The (1874-’75?).

“Dombey & Son” (from the novel—before 1878).

“Dora” (alteration of Charles Reade’s play: 1875).

“Faust” (1877).

Fast Family,” “A (adaptation of Sardou’s “La Famille Benoiton!”: 1879).

Haunted House,” “The (1877).

“Hearts of Oak” (based on “The Mariner’s Compass,” originally called “Chums”: with James A. Herne: 1879).

Hidden Hand,” “The (from Mrs. Southworth’s book—at least three different versions: before 1878).

Lone Pine,” “The (187[5?]).

Millionaire’s Daughter,” “The (1879).

Moonlight Marriage,” “The (“The Marriage by Moonlight”: based on Watts Phillips’ “Camilla’s Husband”: 1879).

New Magdalen,” “The (from Collins’ novel—1874).

“Nicholas Nickleby” (from the novel—before 1879).

Photograph by Count Jean de Strelecki.Belasco’s Collection.DAVID BELASCO

Photograph by Count Jean de Strelecki.Belasco’s Collection.

DAVID BELASCO

“Not Guilty” (alteration of Watts Phillips’ play of that name: 1878).Octoroon,” “The (“retouched and altered” version of Boucicault’s play: 1878).“Oliver Twist” (version of, from earlier play and the novel—before 1878).“Olivia” (dramatization of “The Vicar of Wakefield”: 1878).“Our Mysterious Boarding House” (1877).“Paul Arniff” (based in part on “The Black Doctor”: 1880).Persecuted Traveller,” “The (1877).Prodigal’s Return,” “The (1877).Scottish Chiefs,” “The (from the novel—before 1878).Storm of Thoughts,” “A (1877).Stranglers of Paris,” “The (based on Adolphe Belot’s story of that name: 1881: re-written, 1883).“Struck Blind” (from a story: 1875).“Sylvia’s Lovers” (1874-’75?).“Thaddeus of Warsaw” (from the novel—before 1878).“True to the Core” (alteration of T. P. Cooke’s “prize drama”: 1880).“Uncle Tom’s Cabin” (at least two dramatizations of the novel—before 1878).“Wine, Women and Cards” (1877).“Within an Inch of His Life” (based on Gaboriau’s story: 1879).

“Not Guilty” (alteration of Watts Phillips’ play of that name: 1878).

Octoroon,” “The (“retouched and altered” version of Boucicault’s play: 1878).

“Oliver Twist” (version of, from earlier play and the novel—before 1878).

“Olivia” (dramatization of “The Vicar of Wakefield”: 1878).

“Our Mysterious Boarding House” (1877).

“Paul Arniff” (based in part on “The Black Doctor”: 1880).

Persecuted Traveller,” “The (1877).

Prodigal’s Return,” “The (1877).

Scottish Chiefs,” “The (from the novel—before 1878).

Storm of Thoughts,” “A (1877).

Stranglers of Paris,” “The (based on Adolphe Belot’s story of that name: 1881: re-written, 1883).

“Struck Blind” (from a story: 1875).

“Sylvia’s Lovers” (1874-’75?).

“Thaddeus of Warsaw” (from the novel—before 1878).

“True to the Core” (alteration of T. P. Cooke’s “prize drama”: 1880).

“Uncle Tom’s Cabin” (at least two dramatizations of the novel—before 1878).

“Wine, Women and Cards” (1877).

“Within an Inch of His Life” (based on Gaboriau’s story: 1879).

Auctioneer,” “The (rewritten from a play made at his direction by Charles Klein and Lee Arthur: 1901: again, 1913).“Caught in a Corner” (revision of a play by Clay M. Greene—and others: 1887).Charity Ball,” “The (with Henry C. De Mille: 1889).Darling of the Gods,” “The (with John Luther Long: 1901-’02).“Du Barry” (1900-’01).Girl I Left Behind Me,” “The (with Franklin Fyles: 1892).Girl of the Golden West,” “The (1904).Governor’s Lady,” “The (with Alice Bradley—1911-’12).Grand Army Man,” “A (with Misses Pauline Phelps and Marion Short: 1906-’07).Heart of Maryland,” “The (1890-’95).Highest Bidder,” “The (based on “Trade”—which never was acted—by Morton and Reese: 1887).Kaffir Diamond,” “The (revision of play by E. J. Schwartz: 1888).Lily,” “The (adaptation from “Le Lys” by Pierre Wolff and Gaston Leroux: 1908-’09).“Lord Chumley” (with Henry C. De Mille: 1888).“Madame Butterfly” (based on a story of the same name by John Luther Long: 1900).Marquis,” “The (version of Sardou’s “Ferréol”: 1886).“May Blossom” (based in part on his own play of “Sylvia’s Lovers”: 1882-’83).“Men and Women” (with Henry C. De Mille: 1890).“Miss Helyett” (rewritten from the French of Maxime Boucheron: 1891).Music Master,” “The (altered and revised from play by Charles Klein: 1903-’04).“Naughty Anthony” (1899-1900).“Pawn Ticket 210” (with Clay M. Greene—based on an idea in Baring-Gould’s novel of “Court Royal”: 1887).Prince and the Pauper,” “The (revision of a play by Mrs. Abby Sage Richardson, based on Mark Twain’s novel: 1889-’90).Return of Peter Grimm,” “The (1908-’10).Rose of the Rancho,” “The (based on “Juanita,” by Richard Walton Tully: 1905-’06).Secret,” “The (adaptation from French of Henri Bernstein: 1913).“She” (revision of William A. Gillette’s dramatization of Haggard’s novel—1887).“Sweet Kitty Bellairs” (based on the novel of “The Bath Comedy,” by Agnes and Egerton Castle: 1902-’03).Ugly Duckling,” “The (revision of a play by P. M. Potter: 1890).“Under the Polar Star” (with Clay M. Greene: 18—: revised, 1896).“Under Two Flags” (revision of play by P. M. Potter, based on Ouida’s novel: 1901).“Van Der Decken” (1913-’15).“Valerie” (alteration of Sardou’s “Fernande”: 1885-’86).Wall Street Bandit,” “A (revision of a play by A. C. Gunter: 1886).Wanderer,” “The (revision of Maurice V. Samuels’ adaptation of Wilhelm Schmidtbonn’s “Der Verlorene Sohn”: 1916-’17)“Wife,” “The (with Henry C. De Mille: 1887).“Younger Son,” “The (adapted from a German play named “Schlimme Saat”: 1893).“Zaza” (based on a French play of that name by Pierre Berton and Charles Simon: 1898).

Auctioneer,” “The (rewritten from a play made at his direction by Charles Klein and Lee Arthur: 1901: again, 1913).

“Caught in a Corner” (revision of a play by Clay M. Greene—and others: 1887).

Charity Ball,” “The (with Henry C. De Mille: 1889).

Darling of the Gods,” “The (with John Luther Long: 1901-’02).

“Du Barry” (1900-’01).

Girl I Left Behind Me,” “The (with Franklin Fyles: 1892).

Girl of the Golden West,” “The (1904).

Governor’s Lady,” “The (with Alice Bradley—1911-’12).

Grand Army Man,” “A (with Misses Pauline Phelps and Marion Short: 1906-’07).

Heart of Maryland,” “The (1890-’95).

Highest Bidder,” “The (based on “Trade”—which never was acted—by Morton and Reese: 1887).

Kaffir Diamond,” “The (revision of play by E. J. Schwartz: 1888).

Lily,” “The (adaptation from “Le Lys” by Pierre Wolff and Gaston Leroux: 1908-’09).

“Lord Chumley” (with Henry C. De Mille: 1888).

“Madame Butterfly” (based on a story of the same name by John Luther Long: 1900).

Marquis,” “The (version of Sardou’s “Ferréol”: 1886).

“May Blossom” (based in part on his own play of “Sylvia’s Lovers”: 1882-’83).

“Men and Women” (with Henry C. De Mille: 1890).

“Miss Helyett” (rewritten from the French of Maxime Boucheron: 1891).

Music Master,” “The (altered and revised from play by Charles Klein: 1903-’04).

“Naughty Anthony” (1899-1900).

“Pawn Ticket 210” (with Clay M. Greene—based on an idea in Baring-Gould’s novel of “Court Royal”: 1887).

Prince and the Pauper,” “The (revision of a play by Mrs. Abby Sage Richardson, based on Mark Twain’s novel: 1889-’90).

Return of Peter Grimm,” “The (1908-’10).

Rose of the Rancho,” “The (based on “Juanita,” by Richard Walton Tully: 1905-’06).

Secret,” “The (adaptation from French of Henri Bernstein: 1913).

“She” (revision of William A. Gillette’s dramatization of Haggard’s novel—1887).

“Sweet Kitty Bellairs” (based on the novel of “The Bath Comedy,” by Agnes and Egerton Castle: 1902-’03).

Ugly Duckling,” “The (revision of a play by P. M. Potter: 1890).

“Under the Polar Star” (with Clay M. Greene: 18—: revised, 1896).

“Under Two Flags” (revision of play by P. M. Potter, based on Ouida’s novel: 1901).

“Van Der Decken” (1913-’15).

“Valerie” (alteration of Sardou’s “Fernande”: 1885-’86).

Wall Street Bandit,” “A (revision of a play by A. C. Gunter: 1886).

Wanderer,” “The (revision of Maurice V. Samuels’ adaptation of Wilhelm Schmidtbonn’s “Der Verlorene Sohn”: 1916-’17)

“Wife,” “The (with Henry C. De Mille: 1887).

“Younger Son,” “The (adapted from a German play named “Schlimme Saat”: 1893).

“Zaza” (based on a French play of that name by Pierre Berton and Charles Simon: 1898).

“Bubbles.”“Jennie.”“Jimsie, the Newsboy.”Opera Singer,” “The.“Repka Stroon.”

“Bubbles.”

“Jennie.”

“Jimsie, the Newsboy.”

Opera Singer,” “The.

“Repka Stroon.”

Careful study of the plays of Belasco has convinced me that, much as he has accomplished, he has not yet fully developed his powers or fully expressed himself as a dramatist. There is ample evidence in his writings that he abundantly possesses the natural faculty of dramatic expression. That faculty is born—not made. The dramatic mind comprehends a story not in narrative but in action, sees the characters which are involved, each as a distinctive individual, perceives their relations to one another, notes their movements and hears them speak. To the dramatic mind the spectacle of human life is, essentially, one ofmovement. But that spectacle is vast, tumultuous, bewildering, not to be comprehended at once, perhaps not ever to be comprehended fully, and certainly not to be comprehended without the reinforcement of large experience and a profound, peaceful meditation.The reader of Shakespeare feels that the fully developed intellect of that great dramatist calmly brooded on the world: but there is no Shakespeare now, and there has been no such thing as tranquillity in the world for many long years.

Belasco, when he began to write, was a poor boy, imperfectly educated, in a disorderly environment, subject to all sorts of distractions and impediments, and throughout the whole of his career he has struggled onward under the sharp spur of necessity, without leisure or peace. In scarcely one of his many dramas is it possible to discern anunforceddramatic impulse, spontaneously creative of an exposition of diversified characters, acting and reacting upon circumstances, in dramatic situations, and constituting an authentic picture of human nature and life. In many of those dramas theexistenceof that impulse is perceptible, but almost invariably the growth of it is checked and the sway of it is impeded by the necessity of haste, or of conformity to the demand of some arbitrary occasion or of deference to the requirement of some individual actor, or to weariness and dejection. Fine bits of characterization appear; flashes of fancy frequently irradiate dialogue; imagination imparts a splendid glow to striking situations,—as in “The Darling of the Gods” and “The Girl I Left BehindMe,”—and pathos is often elicited by simple means; but sometimes probability is wrested from its rightful place, and extravagance of embellishment mingles with verbosity to cause prolixity and embarrass movement. In a word, a sense ofeffort, a strenuous urgency for the attainment of violenteffect, is largely perceptible in Belasco’s plays,—as, indeed, it is in nearly the entire bulk of modern American Drama. How could it be otherwise?

“Like children bathing on the shore,Buried a wave beneath,Another wave succeeds beforeWe have had time to breathe.”

Belasco, a good son, affectionate and faithful, ever solicitous to contribute to the support of his parents and their family, began labor in childhood, and he has never ceased to labor. At an early age he married, assuming the duties and incurring the responsibilities of a husband and a father in harsh surroundings. In about twenty-five years, working as factotum, secretary, teacher, agent, mechanical inventor, actor, stage manager, theatre manager, and playwriter, and battling against a powerful, unscrupulous, malignantly hostile commercial antagonism, he raised himself from poverty-ridden obscurity to independence, general public esteem, andinternational celebrity as a theatrical leader. Throughout the ensuing fifteen years he increased his eminence, becoming at last the representative theatrical manager of our day [meaning, here, about 1902 to the present, 1917] in America. He has adapted or rewritten more than 200-odd plays, has collaborated with other writers in making twenty-odd new ones, and is himself the sole author of about thirty more, most of which have been acted but several of which have not. The wonder is not that his writings exhibit some defects, but that, at their best, they contain so much truthful portrayal of character, pictorial reflection of life, fine dramatic situation, and compelling power to thrill the imagination and touch the heart. The time, it seems to me, has not yet come for attempting a comprehensive and final estimate of his faculty and achievement as a dramatist. Whether as an author or a character, he presents a singular, elusive, and perplexing study. The constitution of his mind, I have often thought, shows a striking resemblance to that of the romantic and copiously inventive old English novelist William Harrison Ainsworth. The same prodigal vitality, the same intensity of interest, the same audacious recklessness of probability, the same facility of graphic characterization, the same exuberance of detail, and above all thesame wild romanticism peculiar to Ainsworth’s novels are perceptible in Belasco’s plays. The imagination that conceived “Adrea” might well have conceived “The Lancashire Witches” or the first book of “Jack Sheppard.” But Belasco is not merely an imitator. He has pursued a course natural to himself, and he has created much in Drama that is both original and beautiful. If he had written nothing but “The Girl of the Golden West” and “The Return of Peter Grimm” his name would live as that of one of the best dramatists who have arisen in America.

[Written May 18, 1917. Given to me by my father with instruction to mark it, when setting it for him:ADD, AND REVISE.The last phase of his illness began on May 24, and he never saw this passage after he wrote it as it stands.—J. W.]

[Written May 18, 1917. Given to me by my father with instruction to mark it, when setting it for him:

ADD, AND REVISE.

The last phase of his illness began on May 24, and he never saw this passage after he wrote it as it stands.—J. W.]

The trial of the Goldknopf action against Belasco, based on the pretence that “The Woman” was plagiarized from “Tainted Philanthropy; or, The Spirit of the Time,” was begun, July 31, 1912, with a hearing before Commissioner Gilchrist, at

DAVID BELASCOFrom a photograph by Arnold Genthe.Author’s Collection.

DAVID BELASCO

From a photograph by Arnold Genthe.Author’s Collection.

the Federal building, New York, and it proceeded, the Hon. George C. Holt, Justice, presiding, in the United States Circuit Court, on August 5. It was established by sworn testimony that Goldknopf’s “play” was submitted by him to the Belasco Play Bureau in May, 1910, and that under date of July 10 Mr. Henry Stillman, the play reader of that bureau, wrote to Goldknopf a letter in which he said:

“Mr. Belasco has gone away for the summer. I sent your play to him, two or three days after reading it myself. He returned it to me to-day. While he was interested in reading it, it is not quite adapted to his present requirements. Will you please call for the manuscript?”

Mr. William C. De Mille testified that after the production of “The Warrens of Virginia,” in January, 1908, he had suggested to Belasco that if they could “throw up a good heart story against the general background of political ‘graft’ it would make a good play”; that Belasco had been favorably impressed by the suggestion, and that a contract had been entered into between them, in that year, for the writing of such a play,—several drafts of which, bearing different titles (“The Princess of the Wire,” “The Machine,” “1035, Plaza,” etc.), were made before the final one was put intorehearsal. It also was established that Mr. De Mille had read his play to friends,—among them Professor John Erskine, of Columbia University,—in 1908.

Belasco corroborated Mr. De Mille; specified that he had instructed Mr. Stillman “to be kind to aspiring dramatists,” which fact he surmised “might account for the courteous tone of his note to” Goldknopf; testified that he had never seen the manuscript of “Tainted Philanthrophy” prior to July 31, 1912, and hadnot even heard of ituntil the suit was started. Then, becoming exasperated, he exclaimed: “I am heartily sick of being sued by nurserymaids, waiters, and barbers every time I bring out a new piece, and I should like very much to give a performance of both these plays before your Honor, in the fall.” To this startling proposal Judge Holt assented, remarking that he could doubtless have the merits of the case better placed before him by witnessing both the plays in representation than by merely reading them,—adding: “But it will be very expensive for you to have the case decided in this way, will it not?” To this inquiry Belasco replied: “Yes, sir; it will cost me about $5,000, but I want to show these unknown authors, once and for all, that they cannot come into the courts and attack every successful production I makewithout submitting their plays to a comparison that will dispose of their claims very quickly.” On Belasco engaging himself to provide as good a cast for “Tainted Philanthropy” as that with which he was presenting “The Woman,” his proposal was accepted by counsel for Goldknopf.

The comparative performances were given, November 26, at the Belasco Theatre, in the presence of Judge Holt and invited audiences—Belasco desiring that as many journalists and members of his own profession as possible might see for themselves the shameful injustice to which he was subjected by the charge of plagiarism. “The Woman,” which was then filling an engagement at the Grand Opera House, New York, was acted first, beginning at eleven o’clock in the morning. After an interval of an hour “Tainted Philanthropy” was presented, “exactly as written,”—manuscript copies of both plays having been submitted to the court in order to make impossible any dispute on grounds of alleged changes during representation. The Goldknopf fabrication proved to be the veriest farrago of impalliable trash,—and, as it was performed with absolute sincerity by conscientious and capable actors, it became ludicrous in the extreme. On November 29, Judge Holt rendered his decision, finding, necessarily, that there isno plagiarismfrom“Tainted Philanthropy” in “The Woman.” The chief parts in the former were cast thus:

The following letter on the subject of the Goldknopf accusations gave Belasco much satisfaction:

(The Society of American Dramatists and Composers to David Belasco.)

“New York, November 27, 1912.“Dear Mr. Belasco:—“At a special meeting of the Board of Directors of The Society of American Dramatists, held immediately after witnessing the performances of ‘The Woman’ and ‘Tainted Philanthropy,’ a resolution was passed congratulating and thanking you for your splendid work in behalf of the dramatists of America in having called the attention of the public and the press to the efforts of irresponsible writers and lawyers against authors and producers of successful plays. We are of the opinion that these ‘strike’ suits, having no basis or ground for legal action, are a greathardship to the professional dramatist, and [that] the attention of the Bar Association should be called to this particular suit as an aggravated instance of sharp practice and unwarranted attack on the dramatist’s name and pocket.“Yours most sincerely,“Charles Klein,“Secretary.”

“New York, November 27, 1912.

“Dear Mr. Belasco:—

“At a special meeting of the Board of Directors of The Society of American Dramatists, held immediately after witnessing the performances of ‘The Woman’ and ‘Tainted Philanthropy,’ a resolution was passed congratulating and thanking you for your splendid work in behalf of the dramatists of America in having called the attention of the public and the press to the efforts of irresponsible writers and lawyers against authors and producers of successful plays. We are of the opinion that these ‘strike’ suits, having no basis or ground for legal action, are a greathardship to the professional dramatist, and [that] the attention of the Bar Association should be called to this particular suit as an aggravated instance of sharp practice and unwarranted attack on the dramatist’s name and pocket.

“Yours most sincerely,“Charles Klein,“Secretary.”

In his decision Judge Holt said:

“This suit is to restrain the [alleged] infringement of a copyright.... Both pieces have been presented by experienced and skilful actors, with excellent scenery and stage appointments. I have carefully read the manuscripts of each play and have seen the representations of them.... In my opinion the proofwholly failsto establish the charge. There isnothingto prove,or to suggest, such a comparison of the two plays—that ‘The Woman’ was copied from ‘Tainted Philanthropy,’ or that any part of the one was taken from any part of the other. There isnothingto indicate that either the words, the ideas, or the plot of the defendant’s play were suggested by complainant’s play. The two plays, in my opinion, are wholly dissimilar, and I seeno ground whateverfor the charge that one infringed the copyright of the other in any particular. There should be a decree for the defendants, dismissing the bill on the merits, with costs.”

Final judgment to that effect was entered March 3, 1913. Belasco’s unique demonstration of the shameful injustice of the Goldknopf charge, however, cost him $5,700. Writing on the subject ofthis suit and of the performances offered in evidence in it, he has said:

“A lawsuit charging plagiarism is an expensive affair, even though the accused manager may win. Because of this, a compromise is frequently effected. There are many unscrupulous people who make a business of submitting impossible manuscripts in order to bring suits when a successful play is produced. Others keep long lists of registered titles, with the same idea in mind. Thousands of dollars have been paid by American authors and producers to end these blackmail suits, because they are more cheaply settled out of court. I have never yielded to this swindle,—and I never will.... My actors played ‘Tainted Philanthropy’ beautifully, and I gave it a dignified setting. It was a case of ‘Look here, upon this picture, and on this!’ The audience laughed at ‘Tainted Philanthropy’ until the theatre echoed.... I think it was the first instance in the history of American jurisprudence when a judge adjourned court to go to the theatre for the day, as a matter of legal duty....“As a result of this wretched, contemptible suit, and others like it, I discontinued my Play Bureau, which I had established several years previously to encourage young American dramatic authors. I have produced more plays by such authors than any two other managers, and I wanted to help them further. My Bureau cost me from $15,000 to $20,000 a year to maintain and never paid me a cent, though sometimes as many as 100 plays were received through it in a single day. When I realized that instead of helping young authors it was merely helping blackmailers to attack me as a plagiarist, I closed it up.”

“As a result of this wretched, contemptible suit, and others like it, I discontinued my Play Bureau, which I had established several years previously to encourage young American dramatic authors. I have produced more plays by such authors than any two other managers, and I wanted to help them further. My Bureau cost me from $15,000 to $20,000 a year to maintain and never paid me a cent, though sometimes as many as 100 plays were received through it in a single day. When I realized that instead of helping young authors it was merely helping blackmailers to attack me as a plagiarist, I closed it up.”

Belasco produced “The Case of Becky” for the first time, October 30, 1911, at the New National Theatre, Washington, D. C., but it was not until October 1, 1912, that, at the Belasco Theatre, the piece was first made known in the metropolis. It is a psychological “study,” in dramatic form, based on a play by Edward Locke, entitled “After Many Years.” Locke (who entered Belasco’s employment to study stage management and who for a time acted a small part in “The Music Master”) read his play to Belasco,—who, perceiving in it possibilities of novel and striking dramatic effect, at once accepted it, with the understanding that it should be rewritten under his supervision. That stipulation was agreed to and partially fulfilled,—the rewriting being (as in a great many other similar instances) done largely by Belasco. The members of the company which eventually acted in the drama could conclusively testify to this fact, since much of that labor was performed in their presence, at rehearsals.

The name finally bestowed upon this piece is “The Case of Becky.” It is in three acts, requires only two scenic settings, implicates seven persons,and is an ingenious and interesting play on a painful but important subject,—namely, disease or disorder affecting human personality. The chief characters in it areDr. Emerson, an eminent physician who employs hypnotism in psychiatry;Professor Balzamo, an itinerant and unscrupulous hypnotist of extraordinary power, and a girl namedDorothy. This girl is the victim of a dreadful metempsychosis and is often mysteriously changed from her normal, lovable personality,—in which she is sweet-tempered, affectionate, gentle, and refined,—into a common, mischievous, vindictive hoyden who is designated asBecky.Dr. Emersonis laboring to reëstablish her permanently in her normal consciousness by means of hypnotism,—an object which, ultimately, he attains. It is incidentally revealed that many years earlierBalzamo, exercising his hypnotic faculty, has compelledEmerson’swife to leave her husband and travel with him, as a subject for use in brutal and degrading exhibitions of hypnotism. While in that helpless bondage the daughter,Dorothy, has been born (her psychic disorder being attributable to the prenatal effect of abuse of her mother) and the miserable woman has died. Chance has installedDorothyas a patient in the home of her father, who, while ministering to her in affliction, does not know her

Back to Index Next