Реформы почтового дела в контексте российской государственности XVIII в.
The purpose of this contribution is to present an account of the development of accounting practice in Russia at the end of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth century. The government reforms carried out by Peter the Great resulted in the implementation of new administrative structures that considerably improved the management of tsarist finances. The cameralist method of accounting was introduced in order to increase the control of public money. As a result, the position of the financial control institution was reinforced within the State. This study provides an investigation into the building process of the monarchical State and its financial system at this crucial period of Russian history.
The cursus publicus, established by the Roman Empire to connect all its conquered territories, may be considered to be the ancestor of all modern post offices. Therefore, mail service networks are part of an organization, dating from Antiquity, which is common to the entire European community. From the 18th century onwards, the French mail service network may be divided into three successive phases. First, the consolidation of the transportation system that was being set up. Second, the development of the system’s ability to deal with increasing traffic (through broader human resources). Thirdly, the diversification of its operations and the development of its technical modernisation. What was the situation in other European countries? Are there similarities and differences in how their networks were set up and organized? Finally, how did European Post Offices cooperate with each other in spite of their differences?
The article discusses one of the 1720s Russian educational projects that was presumably written by Andrey Osterman who was an appointed governor to the young emperor Peter II. The proposal that had been approved by The Supreme Privy Council delivered a full value program of Peter II’s study. Though the issue whether the plan was realized or not remains unclear the text itself presents the ground to consider the education principles that were employed to meet the need of power discourse. The author argues that unlike educational priorities accepted under the first Russian emperor Peter I who promoted mathematics and technical subjects his grandson Peter II was to be brought up according to the program based on learning dominantly history and geography. The article’s second part communicates ideas of the ground of such attitude change that happened within a very limited period of time and evaluates the interest the Russian Royal Court demonstrated to Osterman’s project in the early 1760s. The original text of the manuscript currently kept at the Russian State Archives of Ancient Documents (RGADA) is presented as a supplement to the article.
Reconstructed on the base of the lawsuit over the legacy, the history of the family and kinship relations of the retired State Councillor Avraam Stepanovich Sverchkov ( he was the key person in the legislative commissions in 1720s – early 1740s and in 1755 bequeathed a considerable part of his property to the newly established Moscow University ) suggests that only a nuclear family existed and had value for the category of bureaucrats he belonged to. Coming from unprivileged estates and not being members of chancellery service families these persons climbed the hierarchy ladder thanks to their professional skills, and independently built their careers, friendships, matrimonial and other strategies, advancing in their service due to personal contacts, knowledge and experience. Being involved in the actual implementation of authorities’ reformative initiatives in the first half of the eighteenth century, Sverchkov and clerks like him formed the higher level of office employees in a variety of central institutions and ensured undisturbed operation of all the units of the state machine. Acquiring hereditary nobility through their service, this kind of collegiate officials shaped the field of social and family interaction within a single nuclear family rather than on the basis of vertical kinship relations. Their social capital, career progress, material well-being and security were interrelated and depended on two generations (parents and children) having been integrated in a complex system of social contacts.