7

In Conclusion

Noncanonical Men Poets

In this study I have attempted to define the social and literary factors that

led men literary gatekeepers and canon-makers of the Romantic period

to dismiss the poetry of their women contemporaries. I have examined

the social conditions under which these women poets lived, their re-

working of male-centered literary conventions, and the critical as-

sumptions that affected their reception and subsequent literary reputa-

tions. I also have indicated some literary approaches to these women’s

poetry that might deepen our understanding of it and allow us to eval-

uate it on its own terms. Most of the theoretical and recovery work, how-

ever—including the development of gender-neutral aesthetic standards

to evaluate men and women’s writing together—remains to be done.

But while none of the women poets of this generation has entered the

canon of Russian literature, neither has every Russian man poet. In con-

clusion it will be useful to consider what factors beside gender—or in

combination with gender—have affected poets’ canonicity. We can do

so by returning to the noncanonical men poets mentioned in the intro-

duction and asking questions about them similar to those we have asked

about their women contemporaries. What social conditions did they ex-

perience? What were their literary practices and how was their poetry

received? Did they, too, rework poetical conventions? Have they been ex-

cluded from the canon because of social and literary-political factors?

Or did they simply write inferior poetry? While a detailed consideration

of the lives and works of noncanonical men poets lies outside the scope

of this study, a brief discussion of these questions will allow us to draw

more general conclusions.

167