375 stated that both these men wrote their proposals after conducting special studies on location “during special missions,” but this was certainly not the case as far as von Luberas was concerned. First of all, while in the service of the tsar, von Luberas did not undertake any official trip to Sweden in order to study Swedish mining practices and their administration. Secondly, it is not possible to state unequivocally that the proposal he drew up for an instruktsiia for the Russian berg-kollegiia reflected the principles of the Swedish mining administration. Instead, von Luberas’ project contained a description of administrative and technical principles which, at the time, were generally accepted in Germany and in the countries that had adopted German mining laws, and Sweden was but one of those countries. Thus, it is not possible to view von Luberas’ proposal as a description of specifically Swedish conditions. Pavlenko formulated the results of his comparison of the instructions for the Russian berg-kollegiia, that is, the so-called berg-privilegiia, and the two draft proposals in the following way: It is characteristic that neither this nor the other project satisfied the Russian legislators, and the berg-privilegiia promulgated on December 10, 1719 was the fruit of great creative efforts and a thorough revision of the projects for the purpose of adapting them to specific Russian conditions. Bliiher’s and von Luberas’ proposals had, according to Pavlenko, been rejected by the Russian legislators, the former because it proposed much too limited and specialized functions for the berg-kollegiia, and the latter because it would have made the berg-kollegiia “more of an auditingtechnical institution than an administrative organ.” In contrast to these two proposals, the Russian berg-privilegiia was based instead “on the reworking of general principles of industrial policy and on the creation of broader legal norms for the development of mining. There is no doubt but what Pavlenko is right that both Bliiher’s and von Luberas’ proposals may have been viewed as being much too technically oriented to serve as administrative statutes for the newly created Russian berg-kollegiia. At the same time, however, it is extremely doubtful that Pavlenko is correct in saying that the instructions for the berg-kollegiia resulted from a thorough and “creative reworking” of those two proposals. Nor did Pavlenko describe, as one might have expected him to, how this purported “creative reworking” was actually carried out. Instead, it is probable that little attention was paid to Bluher’s and von Luberas’ The German original of von Luberas’ project is in TsGADA, f. 248 delo 1078; a Russian translation is in TsGADA, f. 16 delo 171. Bluher’s project is printed in N. F. Kalachov, ed., Doklady i prigovory, sostoiavshiesia v Pravitel’stvuiushchem Senate v tsarstvovanie Petra Velikogo (6 v., St. Petersburg, 1880—1901), I, 122—123. Pavlenko (1953), 102. (iS ” 64
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=