person
N. I. Gitovich
Gitovich
also: Н. И. Гитович, N. I. Gitovich
Textologist credited as one of three editors of this volume (Volume 2 of the Soviet academic edition of Chekhov's letters), responsible for the January-September 1888 letters and the "Letters Not Preserved and Not Found" section; also a co-commentator on the earlier 1930 "Neizdannye pisma" collection cited in the bibliography.
Reading notes
- To A. N. Pleshcheyev, 30 September 1888. Moscow. §28 Н. И. Гитович
N. I. Gitovich appears here as one of three commentators on a 1930 collection of unpublished letters -- the same Gitovich who, per section 93, is also one of the three editors of the present volume (responsible for the January-September 1888 letters and the "Letters Not Preserved" section), and the most frequently recurring editorial name in this back matter.
- To A. N. Pleshcheyev, 30 September 1888. Moscow. §93 Н. И. Гитович
N. I. Gitovich closes out the volume's editorial credits, responsible for the January-September 1888 letters and the "Letters Not Preserved and Not Found" section -- the same Gitovich credited as a commentator on an earlier collection at section 28, and the most frequently recurring editorial name across this entire back matter.
- To I. M. Kondratyev, 28 December 1889. Moscow. §30 N. I. Gitovich
N. I. Gitovich appears here as the author of the standard chronicle "Letopis zhizni i tvorchestva A. P. Chekhova" -- the same Gitovich credited at section 55 as one of the present volume's editors, responsible for the letters of October-December 1888 and July-December 1889, and the most frequently recurring editorial name in this back matter.
- To I. M. Kondratyev, 28 December 1889. Moscow. §52 the autographs of thirty-one letters remain unknown
Editorial/textual-history detail: twenty-four letters previously printed from copies are now given from newly discovered autographs (numbered by the edition's own letter-numbering scheme, not this document's section numbers), while thirty-one others remain known only from copies -- routine textual scholarship, not narrative content.