415 characterized by a “creative reworking.” The Swedish prototypes were, of course, modified by the Russians in many ways, but if one considers the reform in its entirety, and especially the reform of the fiscal administration, it is clear that the Russian reformers attempted to introduce the Swedish system without considering the fact that the social preconditions necessary for such a loan did not exist in Russia. When it comes to the Russian administrative reforms, then, it is clear that Peter and his Senate were not as conscious of the important differences between the Swedish and Russian societies as Soviet historians have argued. One question requiring closer treatment here is why it was that the Swedish administrative system and Swedish law were selected as the prototypes for the Russian reform. The opinions of prerevolutionary Russian historians concerning this matter have been presented in detail in the introduction and will not be repeated here, but it is necessary to comment on the explanations of this phenomenon that dominate Soviet historiography. Soviet historians have offered two basic explanations for Peter’s special interest in the Swedish administrative system: 1) since Sweden’s socio-economic development occupied an Intermediate position between that of the backward and feudal Russia, on the one hand, and those of the more developed countries such as England and Holland, on the other, Peter and his aides did not find Sweden as foreign as they found the maritime powers, and 2) Sweden’s strictly centralized administrative structure reflected her absolutist form of government, and Peter thus chose it as a prototype for his reforms since it best answered the needs of the emerging Russian absolutist regime. There is no doubt that Peter and his aides must have realized the differences in economic development between the countries mentioned above, but it is unlikely that this realization was decisive for Peter’s choice of a prototype for his reforms. Once Peter decided upon a thorough reform of the Russian administration, his search for a prototype led him to look not so much for the country with the socio-economic structure most similar to that of Russia, but rather for the country with the most systematic and unitary administrative system. On the basis of this criterion, neither Holland nor England could be considered as prototypes for the Russian reforms. Holland’s federal form of government was sufficient reason to eliminate it from consideration, and the Russians must have been dismayed at the decentralization of political power in the Dutch system."* Nor did England provide a good model. While the tremendous expansion of the English military forces, and especially of the navy, since the Glorious Revolution had led to an expansion of the administration and ■* Concerning the Dutch administration, see S. J. Fockema Andreae, De Nederlandse StiiiJt onder de republiek (Amsterdam, 1961), 22—32.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=