Trial of the (last) century
Fixing ‘The Fixer’
Tell-a-Friend
Print“Blood Libel: The Life and Memory of Mendel Beilis,” includes a discussion concerning the connection between the Beilis case and the novel “The Fixer,” the 1966 Pulitzer Prize winner by Bernard Malamud. The discussion is based on a 2010 article written by Jay Beilis, Jeremy Simcha Garber and Mark S. Stein that appeared in the Benjamin Cardozo Law School review, DeNovo.
The Malamud plot involves the character Yakov Bok, accused of murder in Kiev in the same time period in which the real Beilis case unfolded. As part of the revised Beilis memoir, the editors include numerous instances of what they allege is plagiarism by Malamud.
“For most of the items we have listed, Malamud’s only possible source was Beilis’s memoir, in English or Yiddish. The frequent identity of language between ‘The Fixer’ and ‘The Story of My Sufferings’ suggests that Malamud used the English, not the Yiddish, edition,” the book claims.
The authors concede that for details that came out in trial, “Malamud could have had some source other than Beilis’s memoir, or some source in addition to Beilis’s memoir.”
In Malamud’s fictional account, the character Bok had some unsavory character traits. The real-life Beilis, on the other hand, was described as a hard-working, upstanding family man. “It infuriated the Beilis family” that because of the ‘Fixer’ novel and movie, the real Beilis and the fictional Bok might be equated in the public’s mind.”
The revised Beilis memoir lists what it argues are numerous comparisons between the original Beilis text and that of Malamud, showing strong similiarities, and what at times would seem to be nearly verbatim duplication.
“To plagiarize, according to the conventional definition, is to copy without attribution. Under this definition, Malamud plagiarized extensively from Beilis’s memoir in writing ‘The Fixer.’ He copied a large amount of verbatim dialogue, verbatim descriptions, states of mind, and events. He failed to credit Beilis’s memoir in any way,” the editors state.
In his book, “Bernard Malamud, A Writer’s Life,” biographer Philip Davis cites a statement by Malamud saying he had used “some of Beilis’s experience, but that the ‘The Fixer’ was fiction.”
Davis writes “there is no doubt” that Malamud “drew heavily” on the facts of the Beilis story. Davis notes that David Beilis, and his son Jay, “quite properly” noted “close verbal parallels” between Malamud’s work and Mendel Beilis’s words.
Davis also writes that Malamud used facts that suited his fiction, but that the novelist was correct in stating that his work was “art, not case history.” Wrote Davis: “When it mattered most, his [Malamud’s] sentences offered a different dimension and a deeper emotion.”
The new version of Beilis’s memoir has as one of its goals the creation of a wall separating the fact from the fiction. “I hope that some of the confusion created by Malamud will disappear with the publication of this book on the life and memory of Mendel Beilis,” Jay Beilis wrote in his afterward to the revised memoir.
More on: Trial of the (last) century
Era of Jew-framing?
Dreyfus and Frank cases are Beilis bookends
Two other cases in the public eye frame the Mendel Beilis case — “frame” being the key word in more than one sense.
In 1894, the French army officer Alfred Dreyfus, who was Jewish, was accused of treason by passing secrets to Germany. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on the harsh prison colony of Devil’s Island.
The Dreyfus conviction stood despite evidence pointing to another officer. Such notable writers as Émile Zola and others took up Dreyfus’ cause, even as others in French life on the right stood by his guilt.
Trial amid a world in flux
The Beilis case unfolded in a climate of change in the United States and Europe.
Jews in the United States in the early part of the 20th century were energized by the promise of the good life in “the golden land,” but at the same time aware of anti-Semitism, said Eli Faber, John Jay College professor emeritus specializing in Jewish American history.
In those years, young Jews were beginning to go to college and enter the professions. There was a movement away from the Lower East Side. The Yiddish press was vibrant. Yiddish newspapers were not “Jewish” newspapers, meaning newspapers filled with Jewish content. They were general circulation newspapers like the New York Herald, but written in a language other than English (in this case, Yiddish). Among readers of these newspapers there was a “sharp and keen interest in what was going on in America and in the world,” Faber said.
The Beilis case unfolded in a climate of change in the United States and Europe.
Jews in the United States in the early part of the 20th century were energized by the promise of the good life in “the golden land,” but at the same time aware of anti-Semitism, said Eli Faber, John Jay College professor emeritus specializing in Jewish American history.
In those years, young Jews were beginning to go to college and enter the professions. There was a movement away from the Lower East Side. The Yiddish press was vibrant. Yiddish newspapers were not “Jewish” newspapers, meaning newspapers filled with Jewish content. They were general circulation newspapers like the New York Herald, but written in a language other than English (in this case, Yiddish). Among readers of these newspapers there was a “sharp and keen interest in what was going on in America and in the world,” Faber said.
In March 1911, in Kiev, a 13-year-old Christian youth, Andrei Yushchinsky, was kidnapped and murdered. On July 11, 1911, a Jewish man, Menachem Mendel Beilis, was arrested for the crime, which was touted in the czarist-controlled media as a Jewish ritual murder. It was a classic case of the blood libel. A Kiev police detective investigating the case, Nikolai Krasovsky, did not believe that Beilis was guilty. It cost him his career, but even after being fired, he continued his investigations. One hundred years ago next week, on May 30-31, 1912, his findings — including naming the real killers — were published in Kiev newspapers. Nevertheless, Beilis was brought to trial on Sept. 25, 1913. The case, which lasted just over a month, had international news coverage, shining a world spotlight on anti-Semitism in the Russian empire. For many, it gave the czarist government a black eye and helped to spur the exodus of Jews from Eastern Europe. In the end, despite the efforts of the Kiev prosecutors, a jury acquitted Beilis after a few hours of deliberation.
In March 1911, in Kiev, a 13-year-old Christian youth, Andrei Yushchinsky, was kidnapped and murdered. On July 11, 1911, a Jewish man, Menachem Mendel Beilis, was arrested for the crime, which was touted in the czarist-controlled media as a Jewish ritual murder. It was a classic case of the blood libel. A Kiev police detective investigating the case, Nikolai Krasovsky, did not believe that Beilis was guilty. It cost him his career, but even after being fired, he continued his investigations. One hundred years ago next week, on May 30-31, 1912, his findings — including naming the real killers — were published in Kiev newspapers. Nevertheless, Beilis was brought to trial on Sept. 25, 1913. The case, which lasted just over a month, had international news coverage, shining a world spotlight on anti-Semitism in the Russian empire. For many, it gave the czarist government a black eye and helped to spur the exodus of Jews from Eastern Europe. In the end, despite the efforts of the Kiev prosecutors, a jury acquitted Beilis after a few hours of deliberation.
