185 time of the Russian reforms, have an up-to-date set of regulations outlining in detail all of the college’s operating procedures. As mentioned above, Miliukov identified this possibility in his treatment of the kammarkollegium, when he assumed that the Swedish body completely lacked instructions comparable to the Russian instruktsiia. When it came to the statskontoret, however, he never raised this question, since he had been led to believe that there was an instruktion from 1695 to which he did not have access, but which may have served as the model for the Russian text. In fact, however, the instruktion given to the statskontoret upon its institution as an independent body in 1680 still remained in force in 1719. While it had, of course, been supplemented by two so-called “explanations” in 1684 and 1685, there were no other documents which regulated the activities of the statskontoret. That college was finally issued new instructions in 1720.“*”’’ Miliukov’s method, verbal comparisons based exclusively on the texts of the instructions, showed conclusively that the three Swedish documents mentioned above could not have been the sole sources for the Russian instruktsiia for the shtats-kontor-kollegiia. For example, the instruktsiia contains precise instructions as to how the state budget was to be arranged in titles, although nothing of this is mentioned in the Swedish texts. Nonetheless, the Swedish statskontoret did have specific rules according to which the budgets were to be drawn up. When one compares the formulation of the Swedish state budgets with the rules given in the instruktsiia for drawing up the Russian state budget, it becomes perfectly clear, as we shall see below, that the Swedish state budget’s division into titles served as a model for the Russian procedures. That which has been said makes it clear that the Swedish instruktion and its explanations did not form a sufficient pool of source materials with which to conduct a comprehensive study of the dependent relationship between the shtats-kontor-kollegiia and the statskontoret-, the Swedish materials for comparison with the Russian instructions must therefore be broadened. The most important Swedish materials chosen for this comparison include the instruktion of 1680 and its explanations, as well as the administrative report of 1697 mentioned earlier. This last document is very important for the following presentation, since it is the only contemporary source which describes In detail the manner in which the Swedish state budget was actually drawn up. As mentioned above, Miliukov also had access to this report, but as a result of his methodological assumptions he failed to make use of it. When it comes to gathering information about the organization and staffing of the Swedish statskontoret—as in the case of the other colleges— 206 Bääth & Munthe, 25.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=