1. For a detailed analysis in English (with references to Russian sources of data) of the transformation of Petersburg's built environment after 1860, see James H. Bater, St. Petersburg: Industrialization and Change (Montreal, 1976), especially pp. 321-53. In addition Elena A. Borisova's Russkaia arkhitektura vtoroi poloviny XIX veka (Moscow, 1979) refers frequently to the relation between capitalist development and architectural practice, especially in chapters 3 ("Obraz goroda vtoroi poloviny XIX v.") and 4 ("Razvitie novykh tipov sooruzhenii i ego vliianie na arkhitekturno-khudozhestvennyi protsess").

2. A sense of professional cohesion in architecture led to the formation of two major architectural associations: the Moscow Architectural Society (1867) and the Petersburg Society of Architects (1870). The founder and first president of the Moscow group was Mikhail Bykovskii (1801-1885), a noted architect whose work during four decades ranged from church and palace architecture to commercial structures. He was also the father of Konstantin Bykovskii, president of the Moscow society from 1894 to 1903 and one of its most active spokesmen. For a detailed study of the elder Bykovskii's work, see Evgeniia I. Kirichenko, Mikhail Bykovskii (Moscow, 1988).

The first president of the Petersburg society was Aleksandr Rezanov, a prominent architect and, from 1871, rector of the Imperial Academy of Arts. In 1872 the Petersburg society initiated the journal Zodchii (Architect). For forty-five years, until the end of 1917, this publication not only served as a record of the architectural profession throughout Russia but also provided a conduit for technical information and ideas developed in Russia, as well as in Europe and the United States. For information on the founding of the societies and of various architectural journals, see Iu. S. Iaralov, ed., 100 let obshchestvennykh arkhitekturnykh organizatsii v SSSR, 1867-1967 (Moscow, 1967). See also V. Shreter, "K istorii S-Peterburgskogo Obshcestva Arkhitektorov," Zodchii , 1894, no. 5:35-37; and L. N. Benois and M. F. Geisler, "25-letie osnovaniia S-Peterburgskogo Obshchestva Arkhitektorov," Zodchii , 1895, no. 11:82-90.

3. See Joan Bassin, Architectural Competitions in Nineteenth-Century England (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1984), pp. 4-12, for a discussion of the professionalization of English architecture during the nineteenth century. Although English economic and social structures differ greatly from the Russian, a professional identity among architects developed similarly in the two countries—in both cases because of rapid economic and industrial growth. See also Barrington Kaye, The Development of the Architectural Profession in Britain: A Sociological Study (London, 1960).

4. Robert Macleod notes this (sometimes creative) confusion in nineteenth-century British architecture in Style and Society: Architectural Ideology in Britain, 1835-1914 (London, 1971). His interpretation of the effects of professionalism and a market economy on architecture in Britain amplifies that of Bassin (see pp. 123-26). See also Bassin, pp. 6-7, on the patronage of "corporate groups" in the expansion of architectural opportunity.

5. Borisova, Russkaia arkhitektura , pp. 168-72, discusses the interrelation of social change and architectural development in Russia during the latter half of the century. For a study of the impact of industrial development on the urban setting, see James H. Bater, "The Industrialization of Moscow and St. Petersburg" in Studies in Russian Historical Geography , ed. James H. Bater and R. A. French (London, 1983), pp. 279-303.

6. For a detailed survey of developments in Russian construction technology during the nineteenth century, see M. A. Kozlovskaia, "Razvitie nauchno-tekhnicheskoi bazy arkhitektury i stroitel'stva" in Konstruktsii i arkhitekturnaia forma v russkom zodchestve XIX-nachala XX vv. , ed. Iu. C. Lebedev (Moscow, 1977), pp. 12-40. The 1872 Moscow Polytechnical Exhibition, presented as part of the bicentennial observance of Peter the Great's birth, is a landmark in Russian cultural history, with ramifications for both the arts and technology. Its sponsor, the Society of Lovers of the Natural Sciences, Anthropology, and Ethnography, arranged for some twelve thousand exhibits at sites throughout Moscow, many of which became the basis of collections continue

at the Polytechnical Museum and the Historical Museum in Moscow. In the architectural section, sponsored by the Moscow Architectural Society, models of major monuments and architectural documents from both Petersburg and Moscow were displayed. In addition, the exhibition also featured new construction technology. See Borisova, Russkaia arkhitektura , pp. 155-57; and Evgeniia I. Kirichenko, Moskva na rubezhe dvukh stoletii (Moscow, 1977), p. 26. For a detailed contemporary account, see V. Kuroedov, "Obzor arkhitekturnoi chasti politekhnicheskoi vystavki v Moskve," Zodchii , 1872, no. 7:105-12; and no. 8:139-42.

7. In Russia the symbol of the progressive union of technology and architecture was Joseph Paxton's Crystal Palace. Although the enormous glass and iron hall, built in 1851 for London's Great Exhibition, was for Dostoevskii during the 1860s the emblem of a soulless, dehumanized modern society, Vladimir Stasov, one of the most influential Russian cultural critics, praised the structure (and the country that produced it) for breaking courageously with the lifeless principles of the classical Renaissance style and for asserting the primacy of architecture among the arts in the modern age. Stasov expressed these views, at varying length, in a number of articles, culminating in the section on architecture in his survey of nineteenth-century European art Iskusstvo XIX veka , first published in a special issue of the journal Niva in 1901 and subsequently expanded before his death in 1906. See V. V. Stasov, Izbrannye sochineniia v trekh tomakh (Moscow, 1952), 3:499-502. Evgeniia I. Kirichenko appraises Stasov's architectural criticism in the latter part of the nineteenth century in Russkaia arkhitektura 1830-1910-kh godov (Moscow, 1978), pp. 124-25.

8. Iu. S. Iaralov, ed., 100 let , p. 12; and Borisova, Russkaia arkhitektura , pp. 309-10.

9. The connections with German schools were most closely developed. Two prominent architects teaching at the Academy of Arts in Petersburg were educated in Germany: Ludwig Bonstedt (1822-1885) at the Bauakademie and the Berlin Academy of Arts; and Harold Bosse (1812-1894) in Darmstadt. Although born in Petersburg, Bonstedt left Russia for Germany in 1863, after five years as a professor at the Petersburg Academy of Arts. In 1872 he won first prize in the competition for the design of the Reichstag, but his design was not built. See the biographical sketch by V. S. Shreter in Zodchii , 1872, no. 5:112-14; and the obituary, also by Shreter, in Zodchii , 1886, no. 1:1-3. A contemporary gives a brief account of Bosse's work in Zodchii , 1894, no. 12:91; see also. V. Andreev," G. E. Bosse—arkhitektornovator," Arkhitektura SSSR , 1988, no. 1:88-95.

10. An excellent Soviet study of nineteenth-century industrial architecture is A. L. Punin's Arkhitekturnye pamiatniki Peterburga: Vtoraia polovina XIX veka (Leningrad, 1981), particularly pp. 63-92; the impact of Joseph Paxton's Crystal Palace is noted on p. 75. See also two essays in Lebedev, Konstruktsii i arkhitekturnaia forma : N. A. Smurova, "Inzhenernye sooruzheniia i ikh vliianie na razvitie russkoi khudozhestvennoi kul'tury" (with particular emphasis on the work of Vladimir Shukhov), pp. 60-93; and Iu. P. Volchok, "Stanovlenie novykh tektonicheskikh sistem v promyshlennoi arkhitekture," pp. 94-126.

11. See B. M. Kochakov, ed., Ocherki istorii Leningrada , vol. 2, Period kapitalizma (Moscow-Leningrad, 1957), p. 173, for precise data and sources.

12. For examples of the poverty and overcrowding in Moscow, see Joseph Bradley, Muzhik and Muscovite: Urbanization in Late Imperial Russia (Berkeley, 1985), pp. 55-60 passim. See also James H. Bater, "Modernization and Municipality: Moscow and St. Petersburg on the Eve of the Great War," in Bater and French, 2:305-27.

13. Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar ' (Petersburg, 1900), s.v. "Sankt-Peterburg."

14. For a contemporary report on the palace, including a cost analysis, see "Dom E. I. V. Velikogo Kniazia Vladimira Aleksandrovicha," Zodchii , no. 3:41-42; nos. 4-5:63-64; and nos. 7-8:89-90. Zodchii also included detailed drawings and plans of the structure (which the editors call a house) in the volumes for 1875 and 1878.

15. Punin, Arkhitekturnye pamiatniki Peterburga , p. 166.

16. Ibid., p. 169. For a biography of Karl Rachau (1830-1880) and illustrations of several of his buildings, see "K. K. Rachau," Zodchii , 1882, no. 1:12-13.

15. Punin, Arkhitekturnye pamiatniki Peterburga , p. 166.

16. Ibid., p. 169. For a biography of Karl Rachau (1830-1880) and illustrations of several of his buildings, see "K. K. Rachau," Zodchii , 1882, no. 1:12-13.

17. F. M. Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh (Leningrad, 1980), 21:106.

18. Ibid., p. 107.

17. F. M. Dostoevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh (Leningrad, 1980), 21:106.

18. Ibid., p. 107.

19. Borisova places the origins of this relation between public opinion and architecture to the period 1830-1850, during which the periodical press in Russia (above all, the newspapers) increasingly scrutinized the built environment, both descriptively and prescriptively. See Russkaia arkhitektura , p. 15.

20. Before the publication of Zodchii in 1872, the most frequent and detailed commentary on architecture in Russia appeared in Khudozhestvennnia gazeta (Art gazette), founded in 1836. The issues from the early 1840s help to pinpoint the beginnings of the speculative building rush in Petersburg, although the activity of that period was modest in comparison with the boom of the 1860s and subsequent decades.

21. I. Merts, "Iz Pamiatnoi knizhki" Zodchii , 1875, no. 2:20.

22. "Dom F. L. Guna v S-Peterburge," Zodchii , 1875, nos. 7-8:91.

23. From "Khronika," Zodchii , 1875, no. 10:118.

24. This passage appeared in the introduction to "Nasha arkhitektura," the third section in Stasov's four-part survey of the arts in Russia during the reign of Alexander II, "Dvadtsat' piat' let russkogo iskusstva," first published dur- soft

ing 1882 and 1883 in the journal Vestnik Evropy . Quoted from Stasov, Izbrannye sochineniia v trekh tomakh , 2:499. In the same article Stasov writes approvingly of attempts to create a Russian national style in architecture, even though such attempts were a part of the eclecticism that he criticized.

25. "Khronika," Zodchii , 1875, no. 10:119.

26. V. Kuroedov, "Berlinskaia arkhitektura. Putevye zametki," Zodchii , 1876, no. 7:79.

27. Population figures are from Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Institut Istorii, Istoriia Moskvy , vol. 4, Period promyshlennogo kapitalizma (Moscow, 1954), p. 227. The same volume also has extensive information on the economic growth of Moscow during the latter part of the nineteenth century.

28. For a description of the Porokhovshchikov house, see D. Liushin, "Dereviannyi dom g-na Porokhovshchikova," Zodchii , 1872, no. 2:16. This volume also contains a plan and architectural drawings of the structure.

29. On the involvement of Moscow's merchants in PanSlavism (with specific reference to Porokhovshchikov), see Thomas Owen, Capitalism and Politics in Russia: A Social History of the Moscow Merchants, 1855-1905 (New York, 1981), pp. 89-93.

30. "Moskovskie zametki," Golos , 1875, no. 235:1 (quoted in Borisova, Russkaia arkhitektura , p. 294).

31. For a detailed analysis of the competition process for the design of the Historical Museum, see E. I. Kirichenko, Moskva na rubezhe , pp. 36-39, and "The Historical Museum: A Moscow Design Competition, 1875-83," in Uses of Tradition in Russian and Soviet Architecture , ed. Catherine Cooke (London, 1987), pp. 24-26. In their programmatic statement The Sense and Meaning of the [Historical] Museum (1873), A. S. Uvarov and I. E. Zabelin noted: "The path that neglects history has never led to good. . . . A people wishing to achieve greatness must know its history, under the pain of ceasing to be a great people. . . . Museums are one of the most powerful means for the achievement of a people's self-awareness—the highest goal of history." Quoted in E. I. Kirichenko, "Arkhitektor V. O. Shervud i ego teoreticheskikh vozzreniia," Arkhitekturnoe nasledstvo 22 (1974): 4.

32. Lev Dahl's views on Russian architecture, in particular, his belief that a revived Russian style would be compatible with the demands of "rational architecture," are summarized in T. A. Slavina, Issledovateli russkogo zodchestva (Leningrad, 1983), pp. 102-4.

33. For excerpts from Shervud's notebooks, see V. Voropaev, "'Menia ochen' zanimal Gogol' . . . ': Iz 'Zapisok' V. O. Shervuda," Literaturnaia gazeta , 9 April 1986, p. 6. The notebooks are in the Manuscript Division of the Lenin Library in Moscow. In her article on Shervud, Evgeniia I. Kirichenko gives a detailed analysis of his effort to establish a scientific basis for a Russian architectural style, exemplified by the design of the Historical Museum. To rise above historically based decorative detail in forming a national style proved difficult, if not impossible. In a letter of May 1874 to the historian Ivan Zabelin, Shervud complained that his preliminary designs for the museum produced only "nice architectural houses for a wealthy client or, even more, for provincial city halls" ("Arkhitektor V. O. Shervud i ego teoreticheskie vozzreniia," pp. 3-7).

34. Ropet's work and his view of the role of historical interpretation in architecture are discussed in Evgeniia I. Kirichenko, "Arkhitektor I. P. Ropet," Arkhitekturnoe nasledstvo 20 (1972): 85-93. Despite Ropet's attempt to incorporate stylistic features of Russian vernacular architecture into his work, Kirichenko notes that his use of the "Russian style" was not antithetical to eclecticism but rather another eclectic manifestation (p. 87). Reproductions of the designs of both Hartman and Ropet were included in a series of illustrated volumes entitled Motivy russkoi arkhitektury (Petersburg, n.d. [apparently 1890s]). See particularly vol. 2, for the year 1875.

35. See Evgeniia I. Kirichenko, "Istorizm myshleniia i tip muzeinogo zdaniia v russkoi arkhitekture serediny i vtoroi poloviny XIX v.," in Vzaimosviaz' iskusstv v khudozhestvennom razvitii Rossii vtoroi poloviny XIX v. , ed. G. Iu. Sternin (Moscow, 1982), pp. 135-42.

36. On the competition for the Polytechnic Museum project, see Kirichenko, Moskva na rubezhe , p. 48. Although Nikolai Shokhin (1819-1895), who graduated from the architectural school attached to the Kremlin Court Office, had extensive experience in restoring medieval Russian monuments in the Kremlin and elsewhere in Moscow, his original design for the museum was Italianate. Monighetti redesigned the facades in the Russian style.

37. V. Shreter, "Dom V. F. Shtrausa v S-Peterburge," Zodchii , 1874, no. 12:145-47, with illustrations.

38. V. Shreter, "Obyvatel'skii dom i fabrika shelkovykh izdelii A. I. Nissena," Zodchii , 1873, no. 2:139.

39. I. S. Kitner, "Kirpichnaia arkhitektura," Zodchii , 1872, no. 6:84. For the role of Ieronim Kitner and of his sons Maksim and Richard in the architectural profession in Petersburg, see Iu. I. Kitner, "Dinastiia arkhitektorov," Stroitel'stvo i arkhitektura Leningrada , 1978, no. 4:24-25.

40. V. P. Kuroedov, "Berlinskaia arkhitektura. Putevye zametki," Zodchii , 1876, no. 7:79.

41. A. Krasovskii, Grazhdanskaia arkhitektura (Petersburg, 1886), pp. 5, 12. For further work on Krasovskii, see A. L. Punin, "Idei ratsionalizma v russkoi arkhitekture vtoroi poloviny XIX veka," Arkhitektura SSSR , 1962, no. 11:55-58. An assessment of Krasovskii's work by his contemporaries is contained in his obituary in Zodchii , 1875, no. 9:102-3.

42. Krasovskii, Grazhdanskaia arkhitektura , pp. 27-29.

43. N. V. Sultanov, "Odna iz zadach stroitel'nogo uchilishche," Zodchii , 1882, no. 5:71. break

44. Krasovskii, Grazhdanskaia arkhitektura , p. 11. Sultanov's debt to Krasovskii on this issue is discussed in Slavina, Issledovateli russkogo zodchestva , p. 145.

45. S. Zosimovskii, "Po povodu rechi grazhdanskogo inzhenera Sultanova 'Odna iz zadach stroitel'nogo uchilishcha'," Zodchii , 1882, no. 6:85.

46. Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar ' (St. Petersburg, 1890), s.v. "Akademiia Iskusstv."

47. Valerii G. Isachenko, et al., Arkhitektory-stroiteli Peterburga-Petrograda nachala XX veka (Leningrad, 1982), pp. 4-5. For a more detailed description of the architecture program at the Academy of Arts, see K. N. Afanas'ev, A. V. Shchusev (Moscow, 1978), pp. 181-82.

48. Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar ' (Petersburg, 1894), s.v. "Institut grazhdanskikh inzhenerov imp Nikolaia I." For a recent Soviet account of the institute, see Nina Smurova, "Arkhitekturnaia shkola Instituta grazhdanskikh inzhenerov," in Problemy istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury , ed. A. A. Strigaleva (Moscow, 1985), pp. 31-41.

49. Institutional affiliations are derived from the listing of architects in V. G. Isachenko, Arkhitektory-stroiteli .

50. Borisova, Russkaia arkhitektura , p. 308.

51. N. A. Dmitrieva, Moskovskoe uchilishche zhivopisi, vaianiia, i zodchestva (Moscow, 1951).

52. For comments on the professional function of the competition system in British architecture, see Bassin, Architectural Competitions in Nineteenth-Century England , pp. 9, 13-16. The parallel phenomenon in Russia is examined by Nina Smurova, "Organizatsiia konkursnogo dela v Rossii," in Problemy istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury (Moscow, 1983), pp. 14-21.

53. The career of Leontii Benois (1856-1928) as both architect and pedagogue is surveyed in V. G. Lisovskii and L. A. Iudina, "Zamechatel'nyi zodchii i pedagog," Stroitel'stvo i arkhitektura Leningrada , 1979, no. 2:35-38.

54. See Kirichenko, Moskva na rubezhe , pp. 41-42, with references to archival sources on the design competition for the Upper Trading Rows.

55. A brief sketch of the architectural evolution of the passage in Petersburg is presented in Punin, Arkhitekturnye pamiatniki Peterburga , pp. 97-100; see also Lebedev, Kontruktsii i arkhitekturnaia forma , pp. 143-57. For the larger context of iron and glass galleries and halls in Britain and France, see Bassin, Architectural Competitions in Nineteenth-Century England , pp. 65-66.

56. Borisova, Russkaia arkhitektura , p. 306. Detailed photographs of the old trading rows, as well as a history of the construction of the new building for the Upper Trading Rows appeared in the album Torgovye riady na Krasnoi ploshchadi v Mokve (Kiev, 1893).

57. I. P. Mashkov, ed., Putevoditel' po Moskve (Moscow, 1913), pp. 259-62. A description and detailed plan of the Upper Trading Rows are also contained in A. I. Komech, ed., Pamiatniki arkhitektury Moskvy , 2d ed. (Moscow, 1983), pp. 404-5.

58. The Bavarian Otto Krel's contributions to the development of technical resources for Russian architecture and civil engineering are chronicled in his obituary in Zodchii , 1914, no. 14:165-66.

59. For an account of Shukhov's trip to the United States, see G. M. Kovelman's biographical study Tvorchestvo pochetnogo akademika inzhenera Vladimira Grigorevicha Shukhova (Moscow, 1961), pp. 16-19. The growing Russian interest in American architecture and construction technology is exemplified by Sergei Kuleshov's extensive travel account "Eskizy amerikanskoi arkhitektury i tekhniki," Zodchii , 1877, no. 4:32-34; nos. 5-6:48-56; nos. 11-12:100-105; (1878), no. 1:1-8. See also William Craft Brumfield, "Russian Perceptions of American Architecture, 1870-1917," in Architecture and the New Urban Environment: Western Influences on Modernism in Russia and the USSR (Washington, D. C., 1988), pp. 54-57. Shukhov's work at the 1896 Nizhni Novgorod exhibition is illustrated in Vidy robot proizvedennykh stroitel'noi firmy Bari na vserossiiskoi vystavke 1896 v N. Novgorode (Moscow, 1896). See also Nina Smurova, "Arkhitekturno-stroitel'nye dostizheniia Vserossiiskoi vystavki 1896 g. i ee rol' v razvitii otechestvennoi arkhitektury," in Problemy istorii sovetskoi arkhitektury (Moscow, 1976), 2:14-19.

60. Fedor Shekhtel and Karl Shmidt are among the apprentice architects who, according to various sources, worked on the Upper Trading Rows project.

61. Smirnova surveys Klein's life and work in the chapter "R. Klein," in Zodchie Moskvy: XV-XIX vv. , ed. Iu. S. Iaralov and S. M. Zemtsov (Moscow: 1981), pp. 288-300.

62. A photograph of the Vikula Morozov building, designed by Aleksandr Ivanov, appeared in Zodchii , 1899, plate 21. The Khludov emporium, designed in a similar Beaux-Arts style by Lev Kekushev, appeared in Arkhitekturnye motivy , 1899, no. 1, plate 1.

63. Rezanov's article "Proekt zdanii gorodskoi dumy v Moskve," Zodchii , 1876, nos. 8-9:93-94, summarizes his original design for the Duma. Although Rezanov's project was not chosen in the final competition, his design for the facade was more original than that in Chichagov's final proposal. Rezanov's drawing of the main facade appeared in Zodchii , 1876, plate 36 (plate 18 shows the ground plan); his revised version of the facade—co-designed with Andrei Gun—was published in Zodchii , 1888, plate 58.

64. Kirichenko, Moskva na rubezhe , p. 47.

65. The 1882 volume of Zodchii contains excellent illustrations of competition designs (four prizes and one honorable mention by architects including Kitner and Gun, Leontii continue

Benois, Shreter, and Ivan Bogomolov), none of which resemble the Russian style eventually chosen.

66. Parland's detailed self-justifying account of the design and construction of the Church of the Resurrection appeared in Zodchii , 1907, no. 35:374-78, with illustrations. The church was also the subject of a lavishly produced brochure, with plans and architectural drawings: Kratkii otchet o postroike Khrama Voskreseniia Khristova sooruzhennogo na meste smertel'nogo poraneniia v Boze pochivshiego Imperatora Alekandra II (Petersburg, 1907).

67. A report on the mosaic work of A. A. Frolov (including the Church of the Resurrection) is contained in Nedelia stroitelia (Builders' weekly, the supplement to Zodchii ), 1900, no. 29:180-82. Frolov also did designs for secular structures, including mosaic panels for the Upper Trading Rows. A partial listing of these projects is contained in the obituary "A. A. Frolov," Stroitel' , 1897, nos. 13-14:539-40.

68. For a commentary on Mamontov's transformation of Abramtsevo, see G. Iu. Sternin, "Abramtsevo: ot 'usad'by' k 'dacha'," in Russkaia khudozhestvennaia kul'tura vtoroi poloviny XIX-nachala XX veka (Moscow, 1984), pp. 187-88. See also E. R. Arenzon, "Ot Kireeva do Abramtseva: K biografii Savvy Ivanovicha Mamontova, 1841-1918," Panorama iskusstv 6 (1986):359-82.

69. Sternin, "Abramtsevo," p. 198; Borisova, Russkaia arkhitektura , pp. 256-57. Natalia Polenova's account is presented in her Abramtsevo: vospominaniia (Moscow, 1922), pp. 30-43.

70. Reproductions of project sketches by Polenov and Vasnetsov appear in Polenova, pp. 33, 35, and 36. Polenov's drawing reflects the Church of the Savior on the Nereditsa in the nineteenth century, when it looked different (particularly in the roofline) from the present church, which is based on a turn-of-the-century reconstruction.

71. For a detailed account of the design of the Abramtsevo church, see N. V. Masalina, "Tserkov' v Abramtseve," in Iz istorii russkogo iskusstva vtoroi poloviny XIX-nachala XX veka , ed. Elena A. Borisova (Moscow, 1978), pp. 47-58.

72. For a history of the subsequent development of the Abramtsevo ceramics workshop into a commercial enterprise located in Moscow, see E. R. Arenzon, "'Abramtsevo' v Moskve. K istorii khudozhestvenno-keramicheskogo predpriiatiia S. I. Mamontova," in Muzei 10 , ed. A. S. Loginova (Moscow, 1989), pp. 95-103.

73. In a letter to Elena Polenova, 4 January 1895. See V. V. Stasov, Pis'ma k deiateliam russkoi kul'tury (Moscow, 1967), 2:58-59. A subsequent, and more favorable, assessment of the Abramtsevo church appeared in Stasov's article "Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov i ego raboty," Iskusstvo i khudozhestvennaia promyshlennost ', 1898, nos. 1-2:65-97; and no. 3:137-83 (see particularly p. 165).

74. Ezhegodnik Obshchestva arkhitektorov-khudozhnikov , no. 1 (1906), pp. 15 (exterior) and 110 (interior).

75. Borisova, Russkaia arkhitektura , p. 264.

76. Pavel Siuzor, in Trudy I s"ezda russkikh zodchikh , p. xii. For a detailed commentary on the prerevolutionary architectural congresses (albeit with a Marxist critical bias), see N. I. Sokolova, "Arkhitekturnye s"ezdy v Rossii," Akademiia arkhitektury 3 (1935): 63-71.

77. Robert Gedike, "Rech' predsedatelia 1-go otdela," in Trudy I , pp. 1-2.

78. Konstantin Bykovskii, "O znachenii izucheniia drevnikh pamiatnikov dlia sovremennogo zodchestva," in Trudy I , p. 5.

79. Ibid., pp. 13-14.

78. Konstantin Bykovskii, "O znachenii izucheniia drevnikh pamiatnikov dlia sovremennogo zodchestva," in Trudy I , p. 5.

79. Ibid., pp. 13-14.

80. Ieronim Kitner, "O ponizhenii tarifa na provoz estestvennogo kamnia po vsem russkim zheleznym dorogam," in Trudy I , p. 248.

81. V. O. Shervud, Opyt issledovaniia zakonov iskusstva: Zhivopis', skul'ptura, arkhitektura, i ornamentika (Moscow, 1895), pp. 129-30. For a detailed analysis of Shervud's treatise in its intellectual and historiographic context, see E. I. Kirichenko, "Arkhitektor, V. O. Shervud i ego teoreticheskie vozzreniia," Arkhitekturnoe nasledstvo 22 (1974):7-18.

82. Shervud, Opyt issledovaniia zakonov iskusstva , p. 126.

83. Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, Russkoe iskusstvo: Ego istochniki, ego sostavnye elementy, ego vyshee razvitie, ego budushchee (Moscow, 1879), p. 187. For an analysis of Viollet-le-Duc's influence in Russia, see Robin Middleton, "Viollet-le-Ducsky?" Architectural Design , February 1970:76-78; and Catherine Cooke, "Russian Perspectives," in Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, 1814-1879 (London, 1980), pp. 60-63.

84. N. V. Sultanov, "Russkoe zodchestvo v zapadnoi otsenke. V," Zodchii , 1880, no. 12:104-6. See also Slavina, Issledovateli russkogo zodchestva , p. 79.

85. The English notion of a revived indigenous architecture from medieval sources is exemplified by the following comments of George Gilbert Scott, from Remarks on Domestic and Secular Architecture, Present and Future (London, 1857), p. 111:

I want . . . to show the public that we aim not at a dead antiquarian revival, but at developing upon the basis of the indigenous architecture of our own country, a style which will be pre-eminently that of our own age, and will naturally, readily, and with right good will and heartiness, meet all its requirements, and embrace all its arts, improvements, and inventions.

Macleod quotes this passage in Style and Society , pp. 18-19, which has numerous references to the broader question of continue

architecture and national identity in nineteenth-century Britain.

86. Konstantin Bykovskii, "Zadachi arkhitektury XIX veka," in Trudy II s"ezda russkikh arkhitektorov , p. 18.

87. Borisova, Russkaia arkhitektura , p. 259. For a concise, lucid discussion of the relation between eclectic architecture and other semiotic systems, see her "Znak stilia," Arkhitektura SSSR , 1984, no. 1:21-22.

88. Bykovskii, "Zadachi arkhitektury XIX veka," in Trudy II , p. 18.

89. The convoluted German prose of this passage, printed entirely in capitals in the original, reads "Dieser Neustil, die Moderne, wird, um uns und unsere Zeit zu repräsentieren, eine deutliche Änderung des bisherigen Empfindens, den beinahe volligen Niedergang der Romantik und das fast alles usurpierende Hervortreten der Zweckerfullung bei allen unseren Werken deutlich zum Ausdrucke bringen müssen." From Die Baukunst unserer Zeit (Vienna, 1914), p. 41. Despite the change in title, this work is the fourth printing of Die moderne Architektur , with a new foreword.

90. See Heinz Geretsegger and Max Peintner, Otto Wagner, 1841-1918 (Salzburg, 1964), pp. 11-14.

91. "Als grober Fehler wird es immer zu bezeichnen sein, einem favorisierten Aussenmotiv die verlangte Innenstruktur anzupassen oder gar diesbezüglich Opfer zu bringen. Die Lüge ist dann unvermeidlich and widrig wie diese wirkt die daraus resultierende Form" (Otto Wagner, Die moderne Architektur , 3d ed. [Vienna, 1902]).