A certain part of these articles, as well as reviews and critiques about Yiddish theatre, he later published in an abbreviated form, in his two-volume book, "Yiddish Theatre" (Bialystok, 1921, A. Albeck Publishers, Vol. 1, 160 pages; Vol. 2, 126 pp.), in which one can see his great admiration for Jacob Gordin, the playwright, his warm relationship to Yiddish theatre, and to Yiddish actors, and the difference of opinion with David Frishman, and with the Yiddish intelligentsia, generally about the attitude of the Jewish writer to the Yiddish theatre. Prilutski here is the first to point to Sholem Aleichem as a playwright. In this book for the first time, there are published monographies and evaluations of individual Yiddish actors and notices about the history of Yiddish theatre in the Russian Empire.

Dr. A. Mukdoni characterizes Prilutski as a theatre critic:

"The permanent theatre critic for my arrival in Warsaw (1909) was Noah Prilutski. He began to write reviews in the newspaper, "Der veg" (and "Der tog," 1905), which was issued through the editing of his father, Tsevi Prilutski. Noah Prilutski then was a young student. He took up Yiddish theatre seriously, and by himself he already was more a theatre critic for all the random, review writers. In his reviews he already was more a theatre critic than literature critic. He spoke already in his exceptional way about the production, and about the actor; he was the first who was permitted to write an entire article about an actor, in which he wanted to portray an image of the actor-artist, independent of the play in which he acted.

However, there was no clear and certain acceptance of the theatre art in his reviews. It is often not clear to he himself what kind of demands he had to place on the theatre in general and each performance in particular. He planted himself in the blurred directions of that time. He already had a bit of knowledge: a capable man -- whatever he sets his mind to, he gave himself to it. He seized it nimbly.

A big flaw in his theatre criticism was, in my opinion, the too-homely, too kind-brotherly and benevolent tone. He was too great a teacher, too great a supporter. He thought of himself as the careful educator of the theatre. He was a trembling mother who constantly spoke without a doubt. By the way, he was too sentimental when the "literary troupe" disbanded, She lived like a corpse: "She was a part of my soul" -- he lamented, and so was the tone of his theatre criticism. After all, he was the first, more or less, genuine theatre critic. His activity as a theatre critic was fruitful, mainly in the newspaper, "Der veg." He threw himself into theater criticism with youthful zeal and followed the development of the Yiddish theatre in the several years before its "renaissance," faithfully and honestly.

... At the end of 1908 there was no trace of the theatre renaissance. The sworn optimist and friendliest theatre critic Noah Prilutski was already writing very pessimistically about the state of the Yiddish theatre; he ws already complaining about a bitter crisis, about the complete depravity of the repertoire and about the boundless infidelity in the methods of performances.

... Gordin's passing (1909) happened like thunder. It was a clear mood in the theatre crisis: Finally, we must now take to the paper crowns and to the wooden swords.... This mood has strengthened Noah Prilutski with his articles about Gordin, that all-powerful pauper. One after the other, they were printed (Prilutski's) articles in "Unzer lebn," about the omnipotence of Gordin's talent, and about this, that the Yiddish actor is an orphan forever."

M. Ites [Razumni] writes:

"Prilutski was one of the first, if not the first, who interested himself in Yiddish theatre and began to implement the reviews in a European style. Many Yiddish actors have him to thank for their development and ascension. He also spoke about art and artists in essays and reviews."

In "Bikher-velt" (Warsaw, 1923, 3/4), Prilutski referred with an abbreviated reprint, the first booklet about Yiddish theatre, "Bmt iskhk au gi-khziun" from G. Abramski (published in 1877 or 1878 in Romania and in an ikr-hmtsiaut).

Prilutski's societal, journalistic and Yiddish research work (details about this can be found in Zalmen Reisen's " Lexicon of Yiddish Literature and Press," and in the necrology articles of Nachman Mayzel and Yudl Mark) took him away from his theatrical criticism. Nevertheless his warm interest in Yiddish theatre remained. He participated with an opportunity in the conference of the Yiddish Artists' Union in Poland, and he was given the task of creating a unified Yiddish stage dialect, about which he published a long article in "Yiddish Theatre" (Warsaw, 1927, Book II, pages 130-144).

In January 1936 Prilutski began to publish in Warsaw's "Moment" his memoirs about Yiddish theatre.

During the outbreak of the Second World War, he remained in Warsaw (where he had settled since 1910), later became a refugee, and when Vilna was taken by the Russian Army in 1939, Prilutski took over the direction of the "Yiddish Scientific Institute (YIVO)," where he previously was one of the most important activists. He also was a lecturer for the Yiddish chairs in the universities of Vilna and Kovno. Although a flit, that his library, he did not miss the opportunity from Abraham Goldfaden's hundredth birthday, and he published in the almanac "Untervegns" a large work about Yiddish theatre, which he has published in a separate publication under the name "Farvos iz dos yidishe teater oyfgekumen azoy shpet?," Vilna (Vilnius), 1940, 136 pages). This book consisted of seven chapters. The first four chapters deal with the promotion of theatre among the nations of the world, and the last three chapters draw a parallel between the history of Yiddish theatre and the world theatre (the religious worship and the church performances in comparison with the Jewish wedding customs, dramatic elements in the Yiddish literature, Purim customs, and "Purim-shpiel," until the emergence of Goldfaden's theatre).

Prilutski is strongly divided with Dr. Shiper,who maintains that the emergence of Yiddish theatre must be seen in the "Purim-shpiel." Prilutski thinks the "Purim-shpiel" as only random, unstable productions, and the beginnings of Yiddish theatre was initially in the foundation of Goldfaden's stage in 1876.

He builds his theses on the following two reasons:

(1) "The most important dramatic element in Jewish praying in public was, naturally, the dialogue of the tefillot, pizmunim, piutim and other componennts of rhythm. ... A very rich liturgy (especially at the Sabbath and holidays), overfilled with singing (cantor and choristers), and performed in the most diverse ways (solos from a cantor, eventually the choir will perform); The solo, but with chanting (chattering) of all the worshipers; antiphony; the same antiphony with a mixture of chanting in some passages; division of the text between cantor, priest and public; that is between cantor, teacher and calls to the Aliyah, etc.; complex ceremonies (during the reading of the Torah, during the reciting of the priestly blessing, during the blowing of the trumpet, during the beating of the Hoshanot, during the Hakofot with the lulav and aravah, or with the Sefer Torah), all this together (even without the instrumental music, which is only allowed in the shuls of some German cities) [also Galicia, on Hanukkah -- Y.M.] already bears the character of a dithyrambic-pathetic (in some parts), to triumphal triumphs (in others), musical-dramatic material, which with a quite simple means of a purely technical nature, it would be common for him to turn into a liturgical drama according to the communal pattern. ... But that didn't happen, and the Yiddish dramatic art therefore lacked the cradle that the Western European possesses. ... The main reason why the possible further development of the dramatic elements in our work did not take place... In the Middle Ages, the Jewish community lacked the authoritative power that would consider such an evolution useful and desirable, and therefore, they also wanted it to happen and be ready to help.

(2) It was (in liturgical worship) (by the nations of the world, the songs of the people were also incorporated; this element increased quantitatively, and little by little the Latin texts (on which the prayers used to take place) were completely pushed out (nationalization of the "liturgical drama"). ... ... In the synagogue worship, Yiddish singing was never introduced; the lively, the spoken language of the folk masses (in Germany, Northern Italy, Peyem [?], Moravia and Poland) did not push the Hebrews out of prayer. ... If, however, it was necessary to come to an overflow [?] to pray in public in a "liturgical drama" ... would (the transition) not have been painted at all without a change from Hebrew to Yiddish. ... As soon as the Jews did not develop a theatre from a religious cult (as in the Catholic nations), it was no longer able to form directly from those dramatic elements that had (always) lived in the Jewish community masses, just like the surrounding population. If Yiddish theatre was golden at a certain moment, this could only have happened according to a foreign model, which, by the way, had to be unconditionally secular. ... The "Purim-shpiel," with the performances, until the end of the 18th century, they appear to us only as "a theatre in episodes," if you can express yourself that way, -- a chapter in the history of the Yiddish stage art. ... Yiddish theatre, in fact, in the broader sense of concept, arose only in the year 1876, and soon it was placed on a professional basis to manage the existence of a permanent national culure institution."

According to the partisan Abraham Sutzkever, who survived in the Soviet Union, the Nazis arrested Prilutski on 1 August 1941 and brought him to the Gestapo, and people found him lying on a stone floor half-naked, his shirt tied to his head, soaked in blood. Later Prilutski was shot, along with the other Jewish martyrs.

The news about this brutal murder was reported in 1944, after the liberation of Vilna, dergangen to the world.

-- Z. Reisen -- "Lexicon of Yiddish Literature," Vol. II, pages 954-966.

-- Elkhanan Zeitlin -- Notitsn, "Unzer ekspres," Warsaw, 22 August 1930.

-- M. Ites (Razumni) -- Noakh Prilutski -- der visnshaftlekh, zhurnalist un politiker, "Yiddishe bilder," Riga, 30 (114), 1939.

--Nachman Mayzel -- Noakh Prilutski, "Yidishe kultur," N.Y., 1, 1945.

-- Yudl Mark -- Noakh Prilutski -- Der kemfer un der farsher, "Tsukunft," N.Y., February 1945.