260 Table 2. The Number of Districts in the Provinces of the St. Petersburg guberniia with 5,000 Homesteads per District Shortages Districts Province 1678 1710 1678 1710 1. St. Petersburg .... 2. Viborg 3. Narva 4. Reval 5. Novgorod 6. Pskov 7. Luki Velikie 8. Tver’ 9. laroslavl’ 10. Uglich 11. Kashin 12. Poshekhon’e Totals + signifies complete districts with 5,000 homesteads — signifies districts with fewer than 5,000 homesteads Note: St. Petersburg has been included as an entire district in spite of a recorded shortage of 881 homesteads in the census of 1710. Source: TsGADA, f. 248 delo 661 1. 310. + 1 881 + 1—1 3,391 3,243 —1 + 1 + 5—1 2,942 + 3—1 835 34 + 3 —1 + 2—1 + 1 —1 + 6—1 4- 1 —1 3,937 2,448 3,331 3,599 1,794 3,918 21,989 38 + 1 —1 -r 4—1 3,400 3,232 2,273 + 2—1 + 1 —1 772 + 2—1 + 1—1 + 3—1 + 2—1 3,009 21,108 +24—7 +16—10 the size of those introduced in 1715 (one dolia had 5,536 homesteads),'"*’ the result would have been twenty-four complete districts and seven incomplete ones with a total shortage of 21,989 homesteads, according to the 1678 census, or sixteen complete and ten incomplete districts with a total shortage of 21,108 homesteads, according to the 1710 census. The Senate dealt with these calculations between December 3 and December 19, 1718,'"® and while, in view of the meagerness of the sources, we know nothing about the course of these discussions, the ultimate result was that each province was subdivided into five districts, each containing two thousand homesteads on the basis of the census of 1678. M. M. Bogoslovskii noted that “the Senate district, with two thousand homesteads according to the homestead census of 1678, was no smaller than the district with three or four thousand persons proposed by Pick, since, according to that census, the peasant homestead was so heavily populated (six to seven males) that there must have been considerably more than three to four thousand people on two thousand homesteads, of Bogoslovskii’s observation is subject to some doubt, since it is clear from the memorandum he referred to that Pick made no quantitative *'* See above, p. 242. TsGADA, f. 248 delo 661 11. 309v—310. Miliukov, 462 note 3. Bogoslovskii (1902), 147 note 1. TsGADA, f. 248 delo 58 11. 32—33. But the validity ’’ 179
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=