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.
50. The new trend is reflected in a pattern book of 1853 that includes designs for “prosperous”
and “rich” peasants: see Atlas proektov i cherrezhei sel’skikh posrroek (St. Petersburg), figs. 18 and 28. The importance of the new peasant householder
is reflected in later do-it-yourse1fbuilding books: F. N. Korolev’s Rukovodstvo k vozvedeniiu v selakh ognesroikikh zdanii (St. Petersburg, 1880), which proved popular enough to have sold out by the publication
of the same author’s Sel’skoe stroitel’noe iskusstvo (St. Petersburg, 1887).
51. See J. Burds, Peasant Dreams and Marker Politics: Labor Migration and the Russian Village, 1861–1905 (Pittsburgh,1998), 160–63.
