363 to find any direct verbal agreement between the Russian instruktsiia, on the one hand, and either the Swedish instruktion of 1651 or von Luberas’ proposal, on the other. In spite of this fact, he felt that he had identified a “common tendency” in the text of the instruktsiia and the comparative materials he had selected, which thus suggested that the Russian instructions had been drawn up primarily on the basis of the Swedish instruktion of 1651 and von Luberas’ proposal. He presented the connection between these three texts in the following manner: something of this instruktion (that is, the Swedish instruktion of 1651—author’s note) was carried over into von Luberas’ proposal for an instruktsiia, and something from both the one and the other ended up in the Russian instruktsiia for the kommcrts-kollcgiia, which was approved on March 3, 1719. But considering what went into it, we may infer that the Swedish instruktion and von Luberas’ proposal had a double and parallel influence on it. Furthermore, Miliukov felt that he was able to identify Heinrich Pick as the author of the Russian instruktsiia. Pavlov-Sil’vanskii, on the other hand, argued that the president of the college, Tolstoi, had written a major part of the instruktsiia.-* Considering the materials available to Miliukov for his study of the sources used in drafting the Russian instruktsiia, his conclusions were completely justified. What he did not know, however, was that a new instruktion had been developed for the Swedish kommerskollegium in coniiection with its reestablishment as an independent administrative organ in 1711. This instruktion, which was dated September 18, 1712, was merely a proposal, of course, but as such it nevertheless came to serve as the normative basis for the activities of thecollege up until 1723, when a newinstruktion was drafted and approved.^-"’ This unofficial instruktion of 1712 was never printed and to this day remains available only in manuscript form among the papers of the Swedish kommerskollegium, which explains why Miliukov was unaware of its existence.-** The man behind the rebirth of the kommerskollegiumin 1711 was State Secretary Karsten Feif, Charles XII’s most influential advisor in administrative affairs during his stay at Bender. Feif was influenced by earneralist ideas and showed great interest, for example, in the Austrian earneralist Wilhelmvon Schroder’s Furstliche Schatz- und Rent Cammer, which had been published in 1686. The basic idea of this treatise was that, by Miliukov, 449—450. Pavlov-Sil’vanskii, 31—32. Ingvar Holmberg, “Kommerskollegii arbetsformer under frihetstiden," Mcddehxnden från svenska riksarkivet för år 1957 (Stockholm, 1959), 152—162. -® RA, Kommerskollegii arkiv, B la, vol. 64, Projekt till instruktion för kommerskollegiet. September 18, 1712.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=