teur whose entire literary output consisted of six povesti(tales). Pavlova
is described in these encyclopedias as “Pavlov’s wife” and an “author-
ess” (pisatel’nitsa).As late as 1991 a Soviet publication identified Pav-
lova as a “poetess”—although one of “surprisingly varied themes and
genres”—to whom several well-known men poets dedicated poems.^22
Soviet ideology appears to have promoted and even encouraged acondescending attitude toward women’s writing. Collections appeared
with such titles as Serdtsa chutkogo prozren’em... : Povesti i rasskazy
russkikh pisatel’nits XIX v.(With the insight of a sensitive heart... : Tales
and stories by Russian authoresses of the nineteenth century, 1991 ),
Moskovskaia muza(The Moscow muse, 1998 ), and Ts aritsy muz: Russkie
poetessy XIX veka (Queens of the muses: Russian poetesses of the nine-
teenth century, 1989 ). No collection of Russian men’s poetry bore the title
“The Moscow Muse” or “Kings of the Muses.” Several Soviet scholars
in studies of nineteenth-century women poets referred to them by their
first names, something one cannot imagine them doing to male literary
figures.^23 Nor were women poets even included in the minor canon
known to literary specialists. In the scholarly Biblioteka poeta (Poet’s li-
brary) series of the Soviet period only one nineteenth-century woman
poet, Pavlova, had a volume entirely devoted to her work.
Methodological and Theoretical Considerations
Some methodological and theoretical issues should be clarified before
we proceed. First, I have included women poets in this study on the ba-
sis of the quality and quantity of their poetry. Most published at least
one book of poetry, a feat in itself for a Russian woman at this time; a
few left notebooks of unpublished poems.^24
Second, I have chosen to consider the work of these women poets inrelation to that of their male contemporaries. Gynocritical studies that
look at women writers in their own terms have been essential for re-
covering forgotten women writers, defining women’s literary traditions,
and developing “interpretive strategies” appropriate to their work.^25
However, many critics have realized the importance of eventually treat-
ing men and women writers together. Indeed, such a comparative ap-
proach is necessary in order to answer fully the question that Elaine
Showalter calls central to feminist criticism: “What is the difference of
women’s writing?”^26
Although, as I intend to show, the women poets of this generationIntroduction 9