19. The financial advantages of moving from an expensive city apartment to a cheap dacha in a village outside Moscow are emphasized in M. Tikhomirov, “Detskie gody: Moskva i podmoskov’e,” Moskovskii arkhiv 1 (Moscow, 1996): esp. 482–83. Tikhomirov, later a well-known historian, was born in 1893 into a petit bourgeois family: his father worked all his life for the Morozovs, a prominent late imperial family of entrepreneurs.
20. “Peterburgskie otgoloski,” PG, 15 May 1875, 1.
21. “Podgotovitei’nye raporiazheniia.” Well-to-do families would send an advance party of servants so as to give the house a thorough spring cleaning: see V. N. Kharuzina, Proshloe: Vospominaniia detskikh i otrocheskikh let (Moscow, 1999), 268. Kharuzina (born in 1866 into a prosperous merchant family) is here recalling the 1870s.
22. For two well-researched but, in the conclusions they draw, radically opposed studies of the post-Emancipation nobility, see R. Manning, The Crisis of the Old Order in Russia (Princeton, 1982), and S. Becker, Nobility and Privilege in Late Imperial Russia (De Kalb, Ill., 1985).
23. M. Gavlin, Rossiiskie Medichi: Portrety predprinimatelei (Moscow, 1996), 75. A similar example was Liublino, an estate that was bought by a merchant in mid-century and developed as a dacha settlement: see K. A. Aver’ianov, “Liublino,” in Istoriia sel i dereven’ podmoskov’ia XIV-XX vv., vol. 2 (Moscow, 1993), 69.
24. Details in this paragraph are drawn from conversations with the present inhabitants of these dachas, who are for the most part descendants of the original owners.
25. G. V. Il’in, “Zelenograd (vozniknovenie i razvitie),” Russkii gorod 5 (1982): 40.
26. G. Znakomyi, Dachi i okrestnosti Peterburga (St. Petersburg, 1891), 44.
27. S. Smirnov, Putevoditel’ ot Moskvy do Troitskoi Sergievoi Lavry (Moscow, 1882), 10–11.
28. A. Benois, Memoirs, vol. 1 (London, 1988), chap. 11.
29. Materialy po statistike narodnogo khoziaistva, vol. 16, Chastnovladel’cheskoe khoziaistvo v S.-Peterburgskom uezde (St. Petersburg, 1891), 26–31.
30. V. Bur’ianov, Progulka s det’mi po S. Peterburgu i ego okrestnostiam (St. Petersburg, 1838), 3:196. A similar but less informative account is I. Pushkarev, Putevoditel’ po Sanktpeterburgu i okrestnostiam ego (St. Petersburg, 1843), 465–66.
31. “Chto ob nas govoriat i pishut?” PLL, 6 June 1882, 2–3. The population ofShuvalovo (the lakes and Pargolovo I) was in 1881 estimated to be 30,000; in Pargolovo II there were 277 male property owners and in Pargolovo III 141. See Peterburgskie dachnye mestnosti v otnoshenii ikh zdorovosti (St. Petersburg, 1881), 21–22.
32. The terms of leases varied significantly from one location to another: for lands in private ownership a typical period was twenty-five or thirty years, but further conditions could be imposed. Dacha plots at the estate of Levashevo (north of St. Petersburg) had to be not less than half of one desiatina in area, and on this land only one dwelling could be built; for this reason, the take-up rate in the 1880s was much lower than in Pargolovo or Shuvalovo (see Fedotov, Opisanie, 54–57).
33. V. N. Sveshnikova, “Liniia Rikhimiaki-Sankt-Peterburg Finliandskoi zheleznoi dorogi (ot Sankt-Peterburga do Beloostrova),” in Pamiatniki istorii i kul’tury Sankt-Peterburga: Sbornik nauchnykh statei, ed. A. V. Kornilova (St. Petersburg, 1994), 39–40. The statutes of the dacha company (tovarishchestvo) were published in PSZ, ser. 2, 52, no. 57577 (16 July 1877); the founders were high-ranking civil servants and members of the military and of the first and second merchants’ guilds.
34. Sveshnikova, “Liniia,” 35.
35. Znakomyi, Dachi, 53–54·
36. “Nachinaiushchaiasia dachnaia zhizn’,” PL, 12 Apr. 1880, 2–3.
37. This fact will receive confirmation in the later account of the 1920S, when Soviet authorities found most residents of suburban settlements to own multiple dachas and confiscated their surplus property.
38. RGIA, f. 1424, op. 2, d. 241 (Plany zemel’nykh uchastkov i stroenii raznykh lits v myze Shuvalovo, 1880–1910).
39. D. N. Mamin-Sibiriak, Cherty iz zhizni Pepko, in his Sobranie sochinenii, 10 vols. (Moscow, 1958), 8:306. The barge timber detail shows the derivative nature of the description.
40. For a small selection, see Putevoditel’ po S.-Peterburgu, okrestnostiam i dachnym mestnostiam s planom stolitsy, imperatorskikh teatrov i tsirka (St. Petersburg, 1895), 135; N.A. Leikin, Neunyvaiushchie Rossiiane (St. Petersburg, 1912), 181–91, and PG, 22 May 1875, 3.
41. PSZ, ser. 2, 25, no. 24207 (5 June 1850). Chinsh was formerly an equivalent of quitrent for the PolishLithuanian nobility that allowed for a much more legally defined and guaranteed set of property rights than did the Russian obrok. It can be seen as analogous to legal arrangements made in Western Europe (e.g., the German Erbzinsrecht) to institute a nonfeudal system of property: by allowing nonnobles access to landownership it was possible to settle vacant lands and to revitalize economies that had become disastrously inefficient under serfdom (see the entry in B&E, vol. 38). A classification of the various types of ownership possible under late imperial law is to be found in I. D. Mordukhai-Boltovskii, Svod zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii (St. Petersburg, 1912), vol. 10, bk. 2, arts. 406–15.
42. PSZ, ser. 2, 35, no. 35415 (5 Feb. 1860). Similar restrictions were enforced for residents of Kamennyi Island, which was under the direct authority of the imperial court: see ibid, 34, no. 34446 (2 May 1859). For more on the development of Sokol’niki as a dacha location in the nineteenth century, see A. V. Bugrov, “Sokol’niki,” Istoriia sel i dereven’ podmoskov’ia XIV–XX vv., vol. 10 (1995), esp. 20–21.
43. P. Neigardt, ed., Spisok zemel’nykh vladenii S.-Peterburgskogo uezda (St. Petersburg, 1865), 38–91.
44. Details of one case, the territory of the appanage farm (udel’naia ferma) outside St. Petersburg, can be found at TsGIA SPb, f. 1205, op. 12, dd. 369, 370.
45. Materialy po statistike narodnogo khoziaistva, esp. 97–99.
46. E. Amburger, Ingermanland: Eine junge Provinz Rußlands im Wirkungsbereich der Residenz und Weltstadt St. Petersburg-Leningrad (Cologne, 1980), 1:564. This volume has the best available account of St. Petersburg’s dacha life from the point of view of a social and economic rather than cultural or architectural historian (see esp. 562–73).
47. See V. O. Mikhnevich, Peterburgskoe leto (St. Petersburg, 1887), 22–25.
48. D. A. Zasosov and V. 1. Pyzin, Iz zhizni Peterburga 1890–1910-kh godov: Zapiski ochevidtsev (Leningrad, 1991), 181.
49. The extent of peasant ownership of houses in the St. Petersburg region is suggested in Neigardt, Spisok zemel’nykh vladenii.