“Speaking about predator playwrights, it is worthwhile to point to the similar predators in the Little-Russian dramaturgy. The first place should go to Mr. Starytsky, the famous author of Hamlet in bast-shoes. He is the most fruitful, the most popular and… the most unscrupulous of the Little-Russian playwrights. The methods of his creative work are not complicated. He reads or watches a play and, if he likes it, the Little-Russian dramaturgy is enriched with a new work after a week or two. He may change the title of one play, add some third-rate character or throw somebody out of another one, dress a woman as a man, and will calmly receive his author’s fee …” This is how journalist Izmail Alexandrovsky assessed Starytsky’s oeuvre in his article entitled “Predator playwrights.”
A famous Ukrainian writer, one of the founders of the Ukrainian professional theater, Mykhailo Starytsky (1840–1904) devoted nearly all of his life to art, sparing neither his own strength, nor money. He sold his own estate and rusk-making plant in order to help the first Ukrainian professional company of actors reach a high level. But at the time the Ukrainian theater also lacked works it could stage. It took a lot of time to write original plays, so Starytsky started adapting other playwrights’ works and some prose pieces for staging. Certainly, he did this with the consent of the author and mentioned his name on the playbills and in librettos. However, borrowing other authors’ plots provided the grounds for accusations of plagiarism, eventually leading to Starytsky’s lawsuit, which was the first case of a writer vs. a journalist in the history of Ukrainian theatrical arts and literature. The trial took place in the early 20th century.
Starytsky had been long suffering from the slanderous accusations published by the newspapers. The first canard came after his translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet was published in 1882 (this was Hamlet’s first Ukrainian translation ever). An anonymous contributor tried to persuade the readers that in Starytsky’s Ukrainian-language version the monologue “To be or not to be” read as “To be or not to be/ There is the rub.” In fact the expression was translated as “To live or not to live/ That is the question.”
Starytsky sent numerous letters complaining to the newspaper’s editors, but received no answer. “I many times stated in Kyiv’s former newspapers Zoria and Trud that the word ‘rub’ allegedly used along with some other expressions in my translation of Hamlet and spread by your employee (anonymous) is a blatant lie…” Deliberate mockery continued to appear on the pages of Kyiv’s periodicals. The non-existing “rub” was referred to whenever opportunity presented itself. For example, “The play’s plot shows how many interesting situations it may have … but the author of the immortal Hamlet ‘rub’ took up the work and produced something that is gaudy and clumsy…” This is a review of the play Tsyhanka Aza (Aza the Gypsy).
Later the “rub” was amplified with other, no less insulting inventions. The playwright was most offended by accusations of plot stealing. He sent letters of complaints about journalists’ unfair accusations to the editors of the periodicals, but, like before, they were ignored by the publishers. The last straw that prompted him to take more drastic steps was the notorious article entitled “Predator Playwrights” quoted at the beginning.
Its author, Izmail Alexandrovsky, allegedly aimed at disclosing of the Ukrainian dramatist’s “insidiousness.” The journalist tried to persuade the readers that Starytsky claimed rehashes to be his own original works, published them, and received honoraria, cooperating with agents of the Russian Drama Society.
Furthermore, according to Alexandrovsky, while rewriting other writers’ works, Starytsky “had mercy neither on the living nor the dead” and copied from the works of both Ukrainian and foreign writers. Among the plays which were not just rewritten, but completely “stolen,” he said, was one that could by no means be regarded as Starytsky’s work as it was originally authored by Marko Kropyvnytsky.
Thus, Starytsky was being accused of an intellectual crime that entailed responsibility before law. The facts produced by Alexandrovsky were so controversial that none of Kyiv’s newspapers, even those known for their chauvinist line, agreed to publish it. And only the St. Petersburg-based newspaper Peterburgskie otgoloski accepted and publish it.
The story continued in the northern capital as Starytsky lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of the St. Petersburg District Court in order to stop the mockery and restore justice. But the investigation of Starytsky’s case was delayed. Finally, on Nov. 18, 1901, the hearing of the case of the Little-Russian writer Starytsky versus the reporter of the newspaper Mirovye otgoloski Aleksandrovsky on a charge of slander and scandal took place in Kyiv. Representatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and student youth gathered in the courtroom of the third civil department. Starytsky was not present due to illness. The writer’s interests were represented by his daughter—Liudmyla Starytska-Cherniakhivska. Volodymyr Naumenko, Marko Kropyvnytsky, Olha Kosach (Olena Pchilka), Mykola Tobilevych (Mykola Sadovsky), and Mykola Lysenko were there as witnesses.
The investigation ascertained that Alexandrovsky’s accusations were unjustified and based upon fabricated facts. The plaintiff proved that the adaptations of all the plays were made exclusively with their authors’ consent and their names and the titles of the original works were always mentioned. In confirmation of this the writer demonstrated two books: Malorusky teatr (Little-Russian Theater) by Starytsky, published by Rozsokhin in 1890 and 1893 and a catalogue of the plays written by the members of the Russian Drama Society, which mentioned the adaptations along with the original titles and authors. Furthermore, Starytsky mentioned the name of his co-author on playbills.
The defense insistently referred to the 1887 catalogue of plays, where both Starytsky’s own works and his adaptations were united under a single title — “works” — and made reference to the playbills in which the original work was not mentioned. In response, the playwright showed a certificate of the Russian Drama Society dated Nov. 19, 1900. The document confirmed that Starytsky appealed on numerous occasions to the society’s committee with complaints that the managing directors and societies frequently made mistakes in violation of censorship rules by printing playbills and his plays’ titles without mentioning the co-authors’ name.
The document also said that the original works and adaptations were united into a single category (works) in accordance with the regulations of the time (1887). Under these regulations both kinds of works were considered to be authors’ own works. Since 1891, according to the new rules, all the adaptations were included in the category of translated plays. So, the playwright could not be blamed for the fact that the catalogue of 1887 and some playbills presented these works Starytsky’s own creations as Alexandrovsky had claimed. Hence Starytsky’s fees were absolutely legitimate, contrary to the critic’s accusations.
As a result, it was found that there were no grounds for accusing the writer of plagiarism, and that Alexandrovsky’s attacks had the nature of personal dislike. The reporter was pronounced guilty. One thing that had to be settled was the degree of punishment. Under the existing laws, it could be between two and eight months of imprisonment. But Starytsky’s private charge d’affaires said that the writer was not interested in the degree of punishment, because the most important thing for him was to restore his good name. Also, considering that the accused exhibited flippancy in his articles (that is precisely the words the newspapers used when covering the proceedings), he was sentenced to a seven-day imprisonment and ordered to reimburse Starytsky’s expenditures on the lawsuit.
However, the defendant filed an appeal. Starytsky had to petition for retrial, which was delayed for years. But in spring 1904 the situation was clarified, and this time there was hardly anything that could save Alexandrovsky from punishment. That is why he appealed to Starytsky with a request to drop the case and promised to publish in Kyiv’s newspapers articles with personal apologies and acknowledgement of his mistakes while assessing the playwright’s oeuvre. Starytsky agreed. The journalist kept his word. Starytsky finally had the peace that he had sought for and won back his reputation. However, his condition was deteriorating with each passing day and after several weeks, on April 27, 1904, the writer died.
Although the problem of authorship of Starytsky’s many works caused him a lot of troubles, his efforts produced the works that enjoyed the greatest popularity in Ukraine both during his lifetime and today—Za dvoma zaitsiamy (Chasing Two Hares) is a case in point.
