Summerfolk

Yet it is important to avoid taking too teleological an approach to the history of the dacha by tying its significance too closely to the fate of Russian society in general, or by asserting that its historical trajectory was leading inexorably from the eighteenth-century aristocratic villa to the late imperial suburbs. The dacha was a much richer phenomenon than either of those interpretations would allow. The enormous expansion of the out-of-town public was not a symptom of social decline or dilution but rather a remarkable opportunity for diverse urban groups and individuals to explore and reflect on a new range of experiences. The problems thrown up by urbanization did not prevent thousands of dachniki from spending tranquil, enjoyable, and culturally productive summers in the last few prerevolutionary decades; if anything, quite the opposite. For this reason, the next chapter will swap teleology for plurality, take a step away from socioeconomic history, and examine the many meanings attached to the dacha, both publicly and privately, in the late imperial period.

1. K. la. Poluianskii, Dachi: Temnye storony naemnykh dach i vygoda stroit’ sobstvennye dachi (St. Petersburg, 1894), 1.

2. Alfavitnyi sbornik rasporiazhenii po S.-Peterburgskomu Gradonachal’stvu i Politsii. izvlechennykh iz prikazov za 1866–1885 gg. (St. Petersburg. 1886). 110–11. These regulations went into force between 1879 and 1885.

3. M. Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia, vol. 1 (New York, 1976), 31.

4. J. N. Westwood, A History of Russian Railways (London, 1964), 79.

5. See Ot konki do tramvaia: Iz istorii peterburgskogo transporta (St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1993).

6. An excellent account of St. Petersburg in the nineteenth century is J. Bater, St. Petersburg: Industrialization and Change (London, 1976), which discusses all these points in exhaustive detail.

7. See 0.1. Chernykh, “Dachnoe stroitel’stvo Peterburgskoi gubernii XVIII-nachaia XX vv.” (dissertation, St. Petersburg, 1993), 1:38–43·

8. L. M. Reinus, Dostoevskii v Staroi Russe (Leningrad, 1969), 8, 36–37.

9. Generalizations in this and following paragraphs are based on a study of advertisements in Peterburgskii listok, Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskoi gorodskoi politsii, Moskovskii listok, and Russkoe slovo.

10. On middling civil servants, see S.F. Svetlov, Peterburgskaia zhizn’ v kontse XIX stoletiia (v 1892 godu) (St. Petersburg, 1998), 21–22. Indications of the price range for rented dachas can be found in guidebooks; e.g., N. Fedotov, Opisanie i podrobnye plany dachnykh mestnostei po finliandskoi zheleznoi doroge(St. Petersburg, 1886) (this is an especially valuable source, as the author apparently did not rely on newspaper advertisements but made inquiries directly of dacha owners and caretakers); and L.A. Feigin, Sputnik dachnika po okrestnostiam Moskvy (Moscow, 1888).

11. See, e.g., G. M. Sudeikin, “Al’bom proektov” dach, osobniakov, dokhodnykh domov, sluzhb i t.p. (Moscow, 1912), 7–9·

12. V. Stori, Dachnaia arkhitektura, vol. 1, 12’ proektov i smet deshevykh postroek (St. Petersburg, 1907), 3.

13. A.I. Tilinskii, Deshevye postroiki: 100 proektov, v razlichnykh stiliakh, dachnykh i usadebnykh domov, sadovykh besedok, ograd, palisadnikov, kupalen, sadovoi mebeli (St. Petersburg, 1913), 55–56. Similar is A. Dal’berg, Prakticheskie sovety pri postroike dach (St. Petersburg, 1902).

14. P. Griundling, Motivy sadovoi arkhitektury (St. Petersburg, 1903).

15. See, e.g., K. Barantsevich, “Poslednii dachnik,” in his Kartinki zhizni (St. Petersburg, 1902).

16. Dachnitsa, 15 June 1912, 1–2.