half of which he never published (“Peterburg v sorokovykh godakh,” 558 ). Two
other notebooks of Khvoshchinskaia’s largely unpublished poetry are located
in f. 541 , op. 1 , ed. kh. 3 and 5 , RGALI.
In a memoir about Mordovtseva written soon after her death, her husband
was quoted as saying that most of her work was never published (Gorizontov,
“Fel’eton,” 1 ).
In a letter dated October–December 1839 , Teplova wrote Mikhail Maksi-
movich that she had written several prose tales (povesti v proze), which appar-
ently have been lost. After Teplova’s death, her sister, Serafima, sent a notebook
of Teplova’s unpublished poetry to M. P. Pogodin, editor of Moskvitianin,but no
more was heard of it (Vatsuro, “Zhizn’ i poeziia Nadezhdy Teplovoi,” 33 , 37–38).
On Pavlova’s missing works, see Munir Sendich, “‘Ot Moskvy do Drezdena’:
Pavlova’s Unpublished Memoirs,” Russian Literature Journal 102 ( 1975 ): 57–58.
On Kul’man’s lost poetry, see Fainshtein, Pisatel’nitsy pushkinskoi pory, 23.
Shakhovskaia only published one narrative poem, Snovidenie ( 1833 ), and two
short poems: “K M. N. Z[agoskinu]” (To M. N. Zagoskin) (Molva,no. 45 [June
1832 ]) and “Liudmila” (Molva,no. 52 [Apr. 19 , 1832 ]), the latter apparently part
of a longer work, perhaps a povest’ v stikhakh.On Shakhovskaia, who appears to
have been one of the prototypes for Zinaida in Turgenev’s “Pervaia liubov’”
(First love), see N. Chernov, “Povest’ I. S. Turgeneva ‘Pervaia liubov’’ i ee real’-
nye istochniki,” Voprosy literatury,no. 9 ( 1973 ): 225–41.
11 .On the 1863 edition of Pavlova’s poetry, see N. I. Gaidenkov,
“Primechaniia,” in Pavlova, Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii, 547. On Khvoshchin-
skaia’s objections to having her poetry rewritten, see Zotov “Nadezhda
Dmitrievna Khvoshchinskaia,” 94–95. On Teplova and Mikhail Maksimovich,
see Vatsuro, “Zhizn’ i poeziia Nadezhdy Teplovoi,” 26. Blagovo discusses the
many poems by Zhadovskaia that were omitted or published in incorrect form
in the posthumous Polnoe sobranie sochinenii(1885–86) that Zhadovskaia’s
brother hastily assembled, apparently for financial reasons. Zhadovskaia’s niece
and long-time secretary, Nastas’ia Fedorova, complained that she was not al-
lowed to contribute to it at all (V. A. Blagovo, Poeziia i lichnost’ Iu. V. Zhadovskoi
[Saratov: Izd. Saratovskogo universiteta, 1981 ], 31–36). See also N. Fedorova,
“Vospominanie ob Iu. V. Zhadovskoi,” Istoricheskii vestnik, 8 (Nov. 1887 ): 394–407.
12 .On Pushkin, see A. S. Pushkin, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v desiati tomakh
(Leningrad: Nauka, 1977 ), 3 : 473 ; E. M. Shneiderman, “E. I. Guber,” in Poety 1840–
1850 kh godov,131–32. On the editorial practices of Biblioteka dlia chteniia,see
Aronson and Reiser, Literaturnye kruzhki i salony, 16.
13 .Thick journals included poetry, serialized novels, literary critical essays,
and reviews as well as sections on history, science, travel literature, and fashion.
Petr Fedotov, best known as a satirical artist, also chose not to publish his po-
etry because he did not believe that it would pass the censorship. However, he
had a successful career as a samizdatpoet, reading his poems aloud to groups of
friends and encouraging them to copy and circulate them. See Poety 1840–1850-
kh godov, 379 , 520 , and Fedotov’s “K moim chitateliam, stikhov moikh razbi-
rateliam” (To my readers, strict examiners of my verse, 1850 ).
14 .But also Khomiakov, who had problems with the censorship because of
his Slavophilism; Lermontov, who died at twenty-seven; Del’vig, who died at
Notes to Pages 6–7 221