SOURCE: "Character and Conflict in Ostrovskij's Talents and Admirers," in Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 1, 1964, pp. 26-36.

[In this essay, Kaspin argues that Ostrovsky's plays typically involve characters whose complex natures are the source of the dramatic conflict.]

A little over seventy-five years ago, in 1886, the critic and sociologist N. K. Mixajlovskij wrote in his obituary of A. N. Ostrovskij that it was difficult to assess the dramatist's literary activity, not because it created misunderstandings and was in need of untangling and clarification, but precisely because it was as obvious as the palm of one's hand.¹ In fact, the apparent artlessness, casualness of development, and pedestrian incidents that characterize almost all of Ostrovskij's plays create the illusion for the spectator of the reality of humdrum daily life. The problem of how Ostrovskij succeeds in making his works dramatic in a primary sense, that is, capable of deeply stirring the imagination or emotions, remains; and the purpose of this paper is to indicate in part how Ostrovskij achieves this aim.

The basic strength of Ostrovskij's dramatic work lies in his conception of character. In his portrayals, all his characters of any importance, involved as they are in their immediate problems or in achieving their aims, are invariably concerned with making choices from among conflicting, often contradictory, interests. In almost every one of his plays, it is out of the multiplicity of cross purposes, out of the conflicting aims and desires of the characters themselves that there arise the tensions that increasingly capture the interest of the spectator.

Although almost any of Ostrovskij's fifty plays would serve as the vehicle for investigation into the factors that make his works dramatic, some of these are present in greater concentration and are therefore more readily discernable in the late comedy Talents and Admirers (Talanty i poklonniki, 1882).²

The play deals with a problem, which, baldly stated, is a cliché: a gifted individual is forced to choose between love and art. The slow, relaxed first act, which serves to pose the problem faced by Negina, a young actress in a provincial theater, and to introduce all the main characters, is set in Negina's humbly furnished home. Because of the actress's pressing debts, all of her efforts and those of her mother, Domna Pantelevna, are now directed toward making a success of her impending benefit performance. Negina's situation in the theater has become increasingly difficult because she has been resisting the persistent attentions of such influential theater patrons and important officials as Prince Dulebov and Bakin. She finds support from her old mentor, the idealistic assistant stage-manager Narokov, and from a penniless University graduate, Meluzov, to whom she is engaged and who is awaiting a teaching post. Negina is visited by her colleague, Smel'skaja, accompanied by the millionaire, Velikatov, who has come to the remote provincial town because of the fair. The act concludes with Negina hurrying to join Smel'skaja and Velikatov, who is giving a dinner for the entire theater troupe. She leaves, even though it means disappointing Meluzov, who has come to continue the lessons he has been giving her to round out her education. She rationalizes, however, that since she has earned the enmity of Bakin and Prince Dulebov, she cannot afford to antagonize Velikatov.

Negina's problem is intensified in the next act, which takes place just outside the theater in the city park, the day before her performance. The act begins with Negina in tears because all her efforts have been vitiated by the intrigues of Prince Dulebov and Bakin, who have forced the termination of her contract. Neither Narokov's intercession nor Meluzov's spirited appeal to conscience has any effect on the theater owner, Migaev, who informs Negina that "at the request of the public" her contract will not be renewed upon completion of her benefit performance. The unpromising situation is abruptly reversed by Velikatov's unexpected purchase of the performance outright, and the act ends with an energetic air of optimism and impending success.

In act three Negina is forced to face her dilemma. The act is set in Negina's home and reflects the triumph of her brilliant performance earlier that evening. This joy is soon tempered, however, by the realization that without a position her earnings will suffice her and her mother only for a short time. After harassment from Bakin and from drunken but well-meaning admirers, Negina has a moment of quiet to read and discuss with her mother the notes she has received from Meluzov and from Velikatov. Meluzov writes that he now realizes how talented she is and what the theater means to her. Velikatov in his note claims he loves her, asks her to be the mistress of his estate, and promises her that they will go to one of the South Russian towns where she will be the star in a theater he controls. He begs forgiveness for his boldness, but adds he will recognize his fate if he is admitted to her home next day. The end of the act rises to a climax when Negina, in a highly emotional state, comes to an unannounced decision and then rushes out to spend the night with Meluzov.

By the resolution and boldness of her action, Negina leads the audience to believe that, in going off with Meluzov, she is forsaking art for love. This makes startling the dénouement in the fourth act, set the following evening in the waiting-room of the railroad station, with Negina and her mother leaving on the train in the company of Velikatov. The customary waning interest of a last act is reversed because of Negina's surprising reversal of the expectations of the audience: her decision, after all, is to sacrifice love for art.

The play is called a comedy although it presents little of the comic, and even that concerns only a few episodic characters. Actually, by modern standards, the way Ostrovskij classifies his plays seems curious. For instance, The Thunderstorm (Groza, 1860) and The Girl Without a Dowry (Bespridannica, 1879) both of which end with the inevitable violent death of their respective heroines, are called "dramas," while the amusing Bal'zaminov trilogy, dealing with a simple-minded civil servant who pursues his aim of finding a rich bride, carries, for each of its parts, the designation "scenes of Moscow life." Ostrovskij, like most Russian writers of his time, was influenced by Belinskij, who had characterized comedy as dealing with "the prose of daily life, its triviality, its accidental character" as opposed to tragedy, which "concentrates within the narrow circle of its action only the exalted, poetic moments in the life of the hero."³ None of Ostrovskij's characters are exalted beings in the classical sense. His concentration is mainly on the ordinary, as is the case with many of the great Russian novelists who were his contemporaries. Working within the limitation characteristic of the stage, Ostrovskij set about depicting "the prose of daily life" in a manner that approached actually, avoiding theatrical clichés and tricks. Consequently, the spectator is rarely moved in the beginning scenes because the problems of the little people on the stage at first appear so ordinary. The difficulty for the spectator is not the adjustment to the expected artificial world of the theater, but rather the adjustment to the unexpected presentation on the stage of the petty trivialities of the life he knows outside the theater.

The possibilities for dealing with the problem posed in this play may be reduced to formulas: (1) the protagonist can choose love, giving up art; (2) the protagonist can attempt to combine love and art and, especially if the beloved is wealthy, achieve success—or his efforts may prove unsuccessful, leading to defeat and possible destruction; (3) the protagonist can forsake love for art. Clearly, the solution depends mainly on the character and talent of the protagonist.

The third of these alternatives would seem to offer the solution least likely to produce a purely entertaining drama, but entertainment as such was rarely Ostrovskij's primary aim. In writing of art at about the same time he was working on Talents and Admirers, he stated: "It has an enormous civilizing power, it is considered everywhere to be one of the main intellectual interests of society, it has a powerful influence on morals and on national self-awareness" (XII, 159). And a few years later, in 1884, he wrote that for the great majority of the public the theater had educational significance and that the public looked to it for explanations of moral and social phenomena and of problems created by life (XII, 322).

Ostrovskij's solution for Negina aroused the displeasure of the liberal critic A. M. Skabičevskij, who took the dramatist to task for suggesting that Negina had no other recourse: she could, he stated, have continued her stage career as the wife of Meluzov, without the backing of Velikatov.⁴ There is, however, sufficient material in the memoirs of actors of the period to indicate that Ostrovskij's evaluation of life in the Russian provincial theater was more acute than that of the critic.⁵

Ostrovskij succeeds in attracting the interest of the audience not by the plot, which is commonplace enough, but by creating an air of tension based on conflict. Conflict, of course, is at the base of every play, but what makes Ostrovskij's application of this principle of interest is the way in which he causes the conflict to arise. Since he strives to reproduce on the stage the effect of ordinary reality, Ostrovskij eschews all sensational means. The conflict and tension arise out of the opposing wills, out of conflicting interests of his characters, who are carefully conceived and meticulously portrayed.⁶

These characters tend to fall into the categories of predators and victims, or wolves and sheep, to employ the title of one of Ostrovskij's plays (Volki i ovcy, 1875). Of course, the roles may be reversed, as exemplified in the predatory merchant Bol'šov, in It's a Family Affair—We'll Settle it Ourselves (Svoi ljudi—sočtemsja, 1850), who becomes the victim. And, given the opportunity, the supposed "sheep" sometimes turns out to be a "wolf," as does Vasil'kov in Wild Money (Bešenye den'gi, 1870).⁷

The "wolves" in Talents and Admirers include Velikatov, Prince Dulebov, Bakin, and the theater owner Migaev, although only Velikatov turns out to be the "wolf par excellence: he succeeds in making all the others do his will. Among the "sheep" are Negina, her mother, Narokov, Meluzov, and Smel'skaja.⁸ All the predators are what might be called practical-minded men. All the victims are either idealists or weak individuals. However, the antagonisms that arise are not limited to members of the opposing groups, but at times may also occur between members of the same group.

Aleksandra Nikolavna Negina is a beautiful, pure young girl whose whole life has been connected with the stage. Her father, who, as a flautist in a provincial theater orchestra, had brought the atmosphere of the theater into the home, would take her, even as a child, into the wings of the theater itself. As a result, at an early age she had been incurably stage struck. Despite her youth, she is an exceptionally capable actress, because of her native ability and because she has been carefully trained by Narokov, a lover of the stage, and a well-educated, refined man. Narokov's greatest joy is in the developing of Negina's considerable talent. Velikatov, too, recognizes her stage talent. It is not just because he is attracted to Negina, but because of the profits he has reaped from her benefit performance, that he undertakes to sponsor her career: his business sense is unerring. Even Meluzov, despite his general skepticism and dislike for the theater, acknowledges the warmth and sincerity of her performance. She stands out in ability from among her colleagues, who also are among her admirers.

As the play opens, the attraction of the theater is greater than ever before for Negina, because she has just begun to feel confidence in her acting, and is beginning to achieve on the stage the ambition to which she has been so long wholly and fervently devoted.

On the surface, of course, it might appear that Negina is a poor girl without a high sense of morality, merely following the easy course by accepting Velikatov's offer. This view might even be considered to be strengthened by her rejection of Meluzov and his modest life of selfless toil, as well as by her telling Meluzov she is not the heroine he has been teaching her to be. Actually, despite her acknowledgment of the goodness and essential nobility of Meluzov and his principles, Negina feels she is sacrificing in order to follow what for her is a higher morality, art. Negina and her problems are the center of the play and, eventually, the source of all the conflicts in it.

Domna Pantelevna is torn on the one hand by her maternal instincts that lead her to desire marriage for her daughter, even to poor Meluzov, and, on the other, by an overwhelming fear of poverty, the threat of which has poisoned her whole life and has loomed ever more dreadful as she has grown older. It is this increasing fear of meeting each day's needs, perhaps more than Velikatov's having charmed her and her belief that he will be kind and generous to her daughter, that leads her to suggest the acceptance of Velikatov's offer.

Even Smel'skaja, minor character that she is, is shown as being faced with conflicting feelings and with what are for her important decisions. She likes Negina, but fears the competition of her beauty, youth, and ability. As a poor provincial actress, reduced to struggle for survival, she looks for the best protector she can find, and readily turns from Velikatov to Prince Dulebov, when it becomes apparent to her that Velikatov is interested not in her but in Negina. She is essentially a good-hearted soul, and her concern for Meluzov and for Negina's relationship with him is not motivated solely by selfish considerations.

Narokov is a high-minded old provincial gentleman, a noble, who had dedicated all his wealth to his dream: his own theater in which none but the best plays would be performed. Being an inveterate dreamer with no concern for practical matters, he had eventually been ruined financially and reduced to work as an assistant stage-manager in his theater, which had been purchased by his former employee, the shrewd Migaev. The theater is such an obsession with Narokov that uncomplainingly he ekes out his existence at various odd jobs, just to retain contact with what for him is the only thing worth while. He is constantly at odds with Migaev, whose sole concern is to have a full house each night, and who is otherwise utterly indifferent to the quality of the play or performance. Narokov clashes with Prince Dulebov and with Bakin for contriving to drive away Negina, the jewel of the theater he still considers his. He is incensed at Domna Pantelevna because she is so coarse and because she is so engrossed in problems arising from a lack of money that she is insensitive to her daughter's talent. He is even antagonistic toward Meluzov, whose influence threatens for a time to lead Negina away from the theater. He is at first grateful to Velikatov for having bought all the tickets to Negina's benefit performance, thus helping his protégée. But when he sees that it is Negina who has been bought and who is already leaving, when he understands that his dream world has been despoiled, and that Velikatov is the enemy, he reacts like the gentleman he is, a romantic of the 'forties: he realizes that he is beaten, but he borrows money on his watch, and with a grand gesture he toasts his darling in champagne and wishes her success on the stage.

In contrast to Narokov, whose thoughts are in the past, Meluzov, an educated commoner, has his sights set for the future. His program for the betterment of mankind is based on education, and for this reason he is seeking an appointment as a teacher. With his basic interest in the problems of life, he is uncomfortable in the theater milieu. Narokov's flowery phrases seem amusingly old-fashioned to the serious-minded Meluzov, whose antipathy to the world of the theater is expressed in his statement to Bakin:

We poor devils, we toilers, have our own joys that you don't know, that are unattainable for you. Friendly conversation over a glass of tea, over a bottle of beer about books you don't read, about movements of science you don't know, about successes of civilization that don't interest you. What more can one desire! And I invaded, so to speak, a strange domain, a region of light-hearted existence, of carefree pastime, in a world of beautiful, gay women, in a world of champagne, bouquets, and expensive gifts. Now isn't that funny! Of course, it is funny. (XI, 75.)

As the "foreign" element in the play, that is, the one who does not care for the theater, Meluzov is the strongest among the "sheep." Although he loses Negina, Ostrovskij makes him the moral victor. Meluzov remains unshaken in his determination to carry on the work of enlightenment.

Meluzov, in his interest in the emancipation of women, recalls Černyševskij's heroes in his novel What Is to Be Done? (Čto delat'?, 1863): he defends Negina's rights with vigor; he attempts to lead her away from the morally questionable life of the theater; he strives to educate her and to convince her that the only worthwhile aim in life is the philanthropic one of helping one's less fortunate brethern. His somewhat stiff, humorless, morally rigorous approach to life also echoes Černyševskij. By his earnestness, sincerity, intelligence, and selflessness in his attentions to Negina, Meluzov could for a time pique her curiosity, gain her respect, and even evoke her gratitude. But having been born and bred in the theater, she could hardly, when the theater still held so much alluring promise for her, give it all up for the gray, monotonous existence of a provincial schoolman's wife. Meluzov's way of life, which offers a measure of security, even if on a humble scale, has some appeal to her for a short time, precisely during the period when intrigues threaten to terminate her stage career.

In his note to Negina after her performance, Meluzov admits he had underestimated her talent: "Yes, dear Sasha, art is not nonsense, I am beginning to understand this. Today in your performance I found so much warmth and sincerity that, to tell you plainly, I was amazed. I am very happy for you. These are rare and dear qualities of the soul." (IX, 59.) Meluzov's ability to admit his error, to change his mind about the value of art, illustrates well Ostrovskij's method of developing a character before our eyes. Meluzov has acquired a new dimension.

The sharpest opposition to Meluzov comes from Velikatov.⁹ This opposition is intense many-faceted, in spite of the intricate and successful efforts the latter exerts to create in his dealings with everyone the image of the most self-effacing and most modest of men. In contrast to Meluzov, a young idealistic plebian, a member of the intelligentsia, Velikatov is a middle-aged practical-minded nobleman, an ex-cavalry officer, a man of action. He charms even the suspicious Meluzov with his dignified, quiet appreciation of the latter's ideals—ideals which he, involved as he is, alas, in practical affairs, cannot emulate (IX, 25-26). He is a man of wide experience and sophistication in contrast to Meluzov's naiveté. In manner, Velikatov is unfailingly courteous and considerate of others. He never raises his voice nor uses a harsh word. But all these admirable traits are ones that he, in his superior position, can afford. They are part of the resources he employs to win the good will and the acquiescence of others. Meluzov, on the other hand, is uncompromisingly forthright, speaks heatedly and accusingly to those who act unfairly, even utters threats of physical violence and is ready to enforce his words. All this, however, he does not for himself, but to aid others, on principle—to defend human dignity.

On another plane, in contrast to Meluzov's outspoken frankness, is Velikatov's dissimulation. It is difficult to consider as retiring an individual who acts with bold decision, who, without intermediaries, carries out important affairs of all kinds, who meets many people and readily wins their favor. Yet shyness is the impression Velikatov wishes to create. He quietly adapts himself to the level of each person with whom he is dealing. With Meluzov, whom he addresses as Negina's fiancé, he sighs about ideals; with Smel'skaja he is accommodating; with Domna Pantelevna he is politely folksy, uttering old platitudes, speaking of his boring bachelor existence, familiarly calling her "auntie" and asking her to call him "nephew"; with Negina he shows himself to be generous, ever considerate, a powerful defender of her interests in the theater and, of her, the most undemanding of men; with Bakin he is restrainedly a fellow man of the world. Ostrovskij's comment on him in the dramatis personae is that "he is constantly conducting business affairs with merchants and, apparently, strives to imitate them in tone and manner" (IX, 7). In an era when caste was important, but when caste without money was becoming increasingly more hollow, Velikatov the nobleman learns to act like a merchant so that he can live like a lord. He gets the best of the merchants, amasses a million rubles, and owns flourishing estates, horse farms, and sugar factories.

At variance with the modest, retiring image he inspires, Velikatov in fact lives like the nobleman he is, while penniless Meluzov bears himself with sensitive pride. For Velikatov life is a fascinating, intricate, enjoyable game at which he plays with coolness and skill; for Meluzov life is earnest and rather grim.

Velikatov likewise stands in contrast with Prince Dulebov and with Bakin, both of whom are also interested in Negina. The practical-minded intriguers Prince Dulebov and Bakin, nobleman and commoner respectively, are opposed to the idealists Narokov and Meluzov, likewise nobleman and commoner respectively. The elderly Prince Dulebov is repulsive to Negina because of his insulting behavior toward her. His ways reveal the old-fashioned, pre-liberation standards of a lord toward his serf-actress, his plaything. His proposals to Negina are barely veiled, for the Prince cannot comprehend the need to conceal what to him seems a reasonable attitude.¹⁰ Even Meluzov is amused when Negina in her distress tells him of the Prince's conduct.

On the other hand, Bakin, a shrewd, quickly rising civil servant, is impatiently crude and brutal in his cynical behavior. Bakin has but two attitudes toward others: contempt and envy. Toward Meluzov he first feels envy because of the attention the latter receives from Negina, but later, when Negina leaves Meluzov, Bakin shows his contempt and taunts him. In contrast to Meluzov, who is idealistic and philanthropic, Bakin is the competitive, grasping parvenu. For Prince Dulebov he has contempt on account of his antiquated ways that seem unnecessarily indirect. Because he is considerably younger than the Prince, and because of his own energy, he does not consider the nobleman a serious contender for Negina. He stands in awe of Velikatov and tries desperately in his presence to show himself a gentleman and an equal. He is openly and bitterly envious of Velikatov's successes.

In contrast to the crude proposals to Negina by Prince Dulebov and Bakin, Velikatov's proposal is carefully prepared. He gives attention not only to Negina, but also to those who surround her and might influence her, and only then does he make his offer, couched in the gentlest and most tactful terms. It is not only his promise to further her stage career that makes it possible for Negina to accept his proposal, but also his delicacy and tact. Furthermore, Velikatov's enigmatic nature intrigues Negina and is a challenge to her.

A striking example of Ostrovskij's application of the principle of conflict occurs in the third act, in which Velikatov displays his psychological acumen on the eve of his departure with Negina. Aware that because of her agitation she might readily commit a desperate act, he realizes that his presence at this moment would prejudice her against him and that he might lose at the decisive moment the prize of the complex game he has been playing so masterfully up to this point. He foresees, too, that Negina might turn to Meluzov, whose idealism and devotion to her he properly assesses. Velikatov intends to prevent her from speaking freely with Meluzov in order to spoil their last meeting. This Velikatov attempts to do by making use of Bakin's imperviousness to insults, his bold impudence, and his very desire to best his millionaire rival. Velikatov's assessment of Negina and her passionate temperament, on the one hand, and of Bakin, on the other, is correct. Velikatov fails in his plan, however, because he has misjudged Meluzov. He took the former student for an intellectual incapable of practical action. Unexpectedly, however, Meluzov offers the uninvited Bakin the choice of leaving by the door or being thrown out through the window. Consequently, Velikatov's plan to spoil Negina's last meeting with Meluzov takes an opposite turn: Negina's gratitude to Meluzov is increased because, at this especially trying time, he has rid her of Bakin's distasteful presence. Even before Bakin had been routed, Negina had told her mother she was going out to see Meluzov. But at that time she was uncertain whether she would return soon or in the morning, and she begged her mother not to berate her with a single word or a single glance for what she might do. Now, however, she tells Meluzov that the horses are at hand and that they will go riding all night, and she calls to her mother to bolt the house door.

In this one sequence Ostrovskij has concentrated and brought into the open the clashing interests of several individuals—and against this tense background Negina is forced to make her decision.

Talents and Admirers serves well to illustrate how Ostrovskij achieves his dramatic effects. The basis of his strength as a dramatist lies in his presentation of characters as complex human beings with all their merits and failings, their aspirations, their meannesses and magnanimities. The very nature of these characters induces the frictions, the altercations, and the strife that create a network of tensions which Ostrovskij weaves around one central problem, in this case Negina's decision. The apparently casual introduction of detail—in a manner that recalls the arbitrariness of life—and the logically inevitable fusing of these details in a dramatic collision constitute the hallmark of Ostrovskij's work.

Notes

¹ ⟪СочиНеНия⟫(S.-P. , 1897), VI, 371.

² Ostrovskij outlined the plot of this four act comedy 9 September 1881, but it was not until 27 October that he began to write the play. The work was completed 6 December, was passed by the Drama censor the next day and approved by the Theatrical-Literary Committee on 9 December (A. H. OCTрOBCKиӥ, ⟪ ПoлHoe coбpaHиe сочиНеНиӥ⟫ [M., 1949-1953], IX, 415). (All references to Ostrovskij are from this edition and will be indicated only by volume and page). The play was first performed 20 December in the Moscow Malyj Theater with "outstanding success" (IX, 416) and has long enjoyed popularity with Russian audiences. It was firs t printed i n ⟪OTeчectBeHHьIe зaпиckи⟫ , No. I , 1882. The swiftness with which the play was created and the apparent ease with which it passed the censors contrast strongly with the course of Ostrovskij's early works, when, because of his satiric comedy It's a Family Affair—We'll Settle It Ourselves (⟪CBOилюи—coчTeMcя⪢⟫, 1850), the secret surveillance of the police and gendarmery (Γ. Π . ΠПиpoгoB, ⟪A. H. OCTPOBCKии—ceMиHapи⟫ [Leningrad, 1962], pp. 93, 97).

³ B. Γ. eлиHckи, ⟪ПoлHoe coбpahиe coчиHeHи⟫ (M., 1960), V, 60.

⁴ ⟪CoчиHeHия⟫(S.-P. , 1890), II, 808-809.

⁵ For commentary on the state of the Russian provincial theater toward the end of the nineteenth century see: Α. Π. п. ЛeHckи, "Пepeжиtoe," as well as "ПpичиHьI yпaka teatpaльHoгo eлa B пpoBиHции" in ⟪Ctatьи, пиcьMa, зaпиkи⟫, 2nd ed., (M., 1950); . Л. TaльHиKoB, ⟪KomиccapжeBckaя⟫ (M.-L., 1939), 58-80; A. Я. ГлaMa-Meщepckaя, ⟪BocпoMиHaHия⟫ (M.-L., 1937), 85-126; Ostrovskij in his article "O Teatpaльhиx шkoлax," XII, 168-169.

⁶ Ν. A. Dobroljubov, in his essay on Ostrovskij, "Temhoe цapctBo" (1859), says the following: "The dramatic collisions and the catastrophe in Ostrovskij's plays all occur as a result of the clashing of two parties—the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the self-willed and the meek. Clearly, by its very nature, the dénouement of such clashes must be rather abrupt and smack of casualness." (⟪ИзƯp. coч.⟫[M.-L., 1947], 108).

⁷ Although Ostrovskij's use of the word "wolf happens to include the meaning common in modern American slang, it extends far beyond. Incidentally, Mixajlovskij characterized Ostrovskij's heroes and heroines as possessing "either a wolf's muzzle or a fox's tail, or both the one and the other" (⟪СочиНеНия⟫, VI, 372). Such a clasification, however, would include neither Meluzov nor several other important characters of Ostrovskij.

⁸ On a low, humorous plane, the young merchant Vasja and his inseparable companion, the tragedian Gromilov, alternate from one category to the other.

⁹ There is contrast with Meluzov even in the detail of his name. Dal' gives among the meanings for velikatnyj, a dialect word, "stately, eminent, important," and "sometimes polite, with an ability to inspire respect." On the other hand, Ostrovskij has graced Meluzov with the given name Pëtr (rock), the patronymic Egorovi (son of George, recalling the slayer of the dragon and Russia's patron saint), but with a realistic, revealing surname that derives from a dialect word méluz, meaning "grain dust in a mill" (XIII, 326). And in fact, Meluzov is the stubborn crusader who is actually a small man. The care Ostrovskij took with names is apparent from his letter of 15 October 1880 to the young dramatist N. Ja. Solov'ev, in which he gives his reasons for changing names was for suggested years under by Solov'ev. Regarding names in Ostroskij's works, see also Part VII (pp. 122-131) of the article by Bл. филиппoB, in "Язьik пepcohaжe OctpoBckoгo" in ⟪A. H. OctpoBckи— ДpaMatypг⟫ (M., 1946), and A. И. PeBяkиH, ⟪A . H. OctpoBckи: ЖизHь и TBoPчecTBo⟫ (M., 1949), p. 238.

¹⁰ Л. ФpaдkиH, "TaлHTы и пoKлoHHиkи," Bcepoccиckoe teatpaлHoe oбщectBo, ⟪TaлaHTы и пokлoHHиkи: Matepиaлы и иccлeдoBaHия⟫ (M., 1947), pp. 28-29.