THE PHILOSOPHER AND THE REFORMER:
TSAR PETER I, G.W. LEIBNIZ, AND THE COLLEGE SYSTEM

Peter Petschauer

Much has been written about the interaction between Tsar Peter I and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, especially about the philosopher's influence on the ruler.1 Even today one can participate in the enthusiasm that characterized their exchange of ideas and information; after two hundred years, the breath of their curiosity and the intensity of their vitality is still catching. Indeed, the spectrum of their concerns was so varied that it touched upon practically every aspect of life. But while some areas of their interaction have already been discussed in great detail, particularly Leibniz's interest in the East, his recommendations for Peter's collegial system are not well known.2 It is especially unclear to what extent the German helped determine the conceptualization and establishment of the colleges, the kollegii, the main central bureaucratic organ of the Petrine administration. All too often ideological and nationalistic interests have obscured and interfered with an accurate telling of his role 3

Before entering any discussion about the influence of the Aufklarer on the tsar, one should be aware of the basic meaning, importance, and function of the colleges, When Peter began to restructure Russia's central domestic administration, he found a multitude of overlapping jurisdictions (that is, more than forty separate offices) 4, which he tried to reorder into systematic con\herence by imposing a new set of institutions, to wit, the senate, the colleges and the procuracy. He wanted to give the Russian state a coherent administration that would report on activities of the central and territorial jurisdictions and that would receive, and then properly pass on, the orders of the tsar.5

The reason for establishing the Senate—to deal first with the central coordinating and supervisory body—was thus to create an agency that could head the embryonic bureaucracy and undermine the basis of the existing agencies and lines of interest and communication. In actual practice, the Senate first acted as a cabinet and a high court. When Peter then supplemented its executive potential with the colleges, he enabled it to develop into his top administrative body, the precursor of the later ministries.

As initially conceived, the colleges were thus an integral part of the "senatorial" government (Ruling Senate—Pravitel'stvuiushchti Senat) of the period between 1711 and 1775-85, possibly even 1802. In large part the first systematic domestic administration formed around the colleges because Peter added them to the Senate's jurisdiction as the executive bodies; as the right arm of the central administrative agency, the colleges played a vital organizational and functional role.7 Whether or not one views Peter's administrative reforms as the beginning of a regular bureaucratic organization, most historians agree that his efforts ultimately rendered such a development possible. It was not only that he created the opportunity for future administrative viability but that he also enhanced the potential for "the gradual emergence of an identifiable group of individuals (with families) who formed a permanent body of high officials and dignitaries."8 Ultimately, however, Peter's efforts established little more than a set of administrative bodies that were restrained for decades from doing anything more than expand their jurisdictions and standardize their procedures. The instability at the state's very apex and the bureaucracy's difficulty in attracting and, before the reign of Catherine II, in retaining at all levels a sufficient number of well-trained and purposeful elite administrators, were simply not conducive to fine-tuning the new approach.9

It has often been recounted that the senatorial form of government—including its college structure—was a "foreign" infusion into Russian administrative thinking and practice. It has been held in particular that "the colleges ... were an adaptation from the Swedish government ...10 Although one may be able to agree with the first point, the second seems such a generalization that it almost excludes the actuality of Peter's systematic search for the best available combination of central administrative models then practiced in Europe. Even if it is true that the Russian system drew heavily from the Swedish model, it is just as important to look at the multitude of the other options that could have modified the Swedish approach before it was taken on by the tsar. Even if massive influences by Leibniz on the formation of the collegial system could be disproven, one would still have to deal with the fact that some historians dealing with the topic find it necessary to discuss the German intellectual and legal background to cameralist (i.e., collegial) administrative tradition 11

Leibniz's interest in Russia dates back into his early years: to be specific, to 1669, and after a lapse of nearly thirty years continued without abatement until his death in 1716.12 In hismeetings with Peter and his many letters and memoranda to him and others in his immediate circle, he sought every possible contact in order to discover, catalog and influence. Initially he became excited about the potentialities of the vast empire to the East when he recognized that Russia could "be the first connecting link between Europe and the Far-East."l 3 As his contacts with various Russian officials increased, he widened his interests to include almost every perspective on Russia and its development. He proposed everything from the establishment of the equivalent of a modern department (college) of education, to investigations into the deviation of the magnetic needle, to expeditions to the Behring Straits. All along he kept in mind that Russia was the ideal place for what has since been termed "modernization"; he thought that one could inscribe Russia's "tabula rasa" with proper Western ideas.14 He kept in mind also one overriding diplomatic goal: he wanted the conclusion of a political alliance between Russia and the Germanies in order to reestablish the European balance of power that France and Turkey had upset even before Peter acceded to the Russian throne.

Leibniz made his first proposals in August, 1697, to Peter Lefort, one of the tsar's principal advisers. He wanted the following to be done for Russia:
1) Form a general establishment for the sciences and the arts.
2) Attract capable foreigners.
3) Import from abroad those things that merit it.
4) Have some of your subjects travel, with the necessary precautions.
5) Educate the people.    
6) Have an exact description of the country made in order to determine    ~
its needs.    
7) Supply that which it lacks. 16

His next major proposal came in December, 1708. Leibniz now realized better Peter I's basic efforts to reorganize Russia and thus developed more specific suggestions. "Russia," he wrote, "would be especially receptive to a reasonable, planned spiritual growth. I also hold that [Russia] is still a tabula rasa and in the sciences is not yet like an old pot that has taken on a foreign flavor. Many mistakes that have crept into our system could be avoided. It can thus attain a proper intonation and harmony, like a new city built all at once and according to a special design. Old cities on the other hand, grow gradually and are built in a disorganized way.''17

Some historians have argued that Leibuiz's idea of Russia as a tabula rasa adversely influenced Peter, since he was led to believe that he could mould Russia any way he chose. Upon closer investigation, however, it seems more precise to argue that it was Peter's and his assistants' contacts with Leibniz that gave the philosopher the impression that Russia was a blank page, and that he often formed proposals accordingly.

Leibniz wrote the 1708 proposals just three years before he and Peter met for the first of three times. This particular meeting took place at Torgau in 1711. On 31 October 1711 Leibniz wrote of this occasion to Electress Sophia. "It was the wish of the Duke [Anton Ulrich] for me to get to know the tsar who showed me his great kindness several times. Two days after the departure of S.A.S. [Anton Ulrich] I waited upon the tsar and dined at his table.''

Apparently the two were at first generally introduced, and then on 30 October Leibniz was asked to join the tsar for a longer conversation.19 They talked about diplomatic points, and Leibniz left memoranda about other matters he wanted to discuss; he may have mentioned all of these topics at the meeting. In one of these proposals, he asked if

1) His Imperial Majesty is inclined to establish a supervisory body [Generaldirektion] for taking up studies and sciences in His great Empire...,
4) a few capable foreigners could [not] advance many Russians so much in a short time that You would have little need for them any more . . .,
5) it would be useful to translate into Russian an Encyclopedia of a sound and easy [rzetten] plan of all the sciences; . . .,
12) to establish grammar schools
13) gymnasia, academics and upperschools . . .,
21) His Imperial Majesty [does not] want to provide a permanent college with a president or a director, and supply it with a certain authority and income;    20

In another piece he proposed that

Your Imperial Majesty set up a Collegium which . . . should have the direction of studies, arts and sciences in Your Tsarist Empire.... This college should have supervision over all schools and teachers, publishing houses, the whole book system [Buchwesen] and the paper trade, also over medications, drugstores, and sunilars, over the salt and coal mining works, and finally over intentions and manufactures and new import trade houses [einfahrender Commerczen]. This college should, therefore, contain a college of health [sanitatis], a college for mining and a supervisor of dietary matters. . ."21

Since this quotation from matters proposed for discussion at Torgau contains in embryonic form thoughts similar to those possibly put forth shortly thereafter for a collegial system, Liselotte Richter may be correct in suggesting that one of the proposals for such a system originated with Leibniz in 1711 or 1712.22 One reason that Richter's suggestion is so persuasive is that she is able to demonstrate that one of the proposals in the Russian archives (hereafter called memorandum-L) is similar to a variety of Leibniz's earlier thoughts and ideas and could well have grown out of the proposals he drew up in 1711. Since this proposal is part of a whole set that was accessible to Peter when he made up his mind about the collegial system, it is important indeed to determine if Leibniz was its author. Ever since Woldemar Guerrier's publications of the 1860s, most historians have accepted his confusing conclusion that Heinrich von Fick, a German in the service of Peter, gave the tsar this principal inspiration for the design of the collegial system. Guerrier had left little doubt that Fick was its author and dated it 1716, but he included it in his book on Peter and Leibniz.23 It took ninety years before &uerrier's conclusion could be overturned: in 1930 with A. R. Cederberg's rejection of Fick's authorship of memorandum-L. After reading through Fick's notes and writings, Cederberg felt "that [Guerrier] might be in error" about assigning memorandum-L to Fick. "The same," he thought, "goes for several other memoranda assigned to Fick, including the 'General Reflections about the Order and Economy of the Finances in Russia and their Improvement' and, in addition, the 'Instructions for the Chancellory of Confiscation' since the style of these memoranda deviates completely from that of Fick."24

It is at this point that the situation becomes fascinating for the modern historian; the debate about Leibniz's influence on Peter's colleges continued merrily around this one crucial undated and unsigned memorandum—memorandum-L. Konrad Bittner maintained that memorandum-L could not have originated with Leibniz;25 Chuchmarov (in 1957 and 1960) misinterpreted Guerrier's discussion and ascribed it to Leibniz.26 In a very real sense, however, this debate is totally irrelevant. The files do not contain just the memorandum ascribed to Leibniz but at least thirteen letters and memoranda, two of which are particularly relevant here: one of these is the unsigned and undated memorandum-L, the other is undated and unsigned as well.27 Since Peter at one point relied heavily on the second memorandum for his own conceptualization of the colleges, one needs to demonstrate clearly to what extent memorandum-L influenced the Tsar.

Before going ahead with the untangling of the possible impact of the two
memoranda, one word of caution about the readiness with which Richter ascribed memorandum-L to Leibniz and a statement about the other memorandum. Although one cannot quarrel with most of what Richter presents, she overlooks one serious consideration. Since she argues that Leibniz submitted memorandum-L to Peter either in 1711 or 171i, why does he not mention it in the follow-up letters of 16 January 1712 to Count G. I. Golovkin or in some of his other subsequent letters?28 Also, since Leibniz did not return with enthusiastic persistence—as was his custom—to a discussion of a complete collegial system, one must explain the reason for this deviation from his customary behavior.29

Yet are these objections to Richter's analysis sufficient to disprove her major point, namely that Leiboiz wrote memorandum-L? It is true that Leibniz did not follow up on a complete collegial system as one might expect from his usual style, but a review of the documents provides a clue for this behavior. After listing the names of nine colleges in memorandum-L, Leibniz told the tsar that he was only providing a detailed description of the inner workings of one college, the "Gelehrten-Collegium," to serve as a guide to the functioning of the others. If Peter accepted the arrangement of that example, he should use a similar pattern for the other colleges, except for those of foreign affairs and war.30 Leibniz thus had little reason to return to a discussion of the other colleges in later correspondence; the college of sciences provided a detailed example for all colleges. Furthermore, Leibuiz and Peter met again in 1712, and a discussion of what he had in rnind may well have taken place then.

If this extemal evidence bolsters the case for Leibniz's authorship of memorandum-L, the internal evidence is even more convincing. (going beyond Richter's reflection that Leibniz's Weltanschanung harmonizes with that expressed in memorandum-L,31 one may detect major overlappings between the proposals he made in 1711 and memorandum-L. In both sets of documents Leibniz argued for the natural cooperation of all the sciences, mentioned the importance of and the ways of teaching the young, and pointed out the need for one essential supportive institution for these efforts, a sound library 32

Having established Leibniz's authorship of memorandum-L, the question of the originator and date of the other paper still remains. The names not only of General Adam Weyde and Jacob Bruce come to mind, but also that of Fick, especially since Cederberg showed that memorandum-L was not from his pen. Unfortunately the answer to this question remains as unresolved as that of the memorandum's precise date.
This excursion into the authorship of two of several memoranda available to Peter after 1711 helps to refine the understanding of the interaction between Leibniz and Peter and to shed more light on the impact of the Swedish model. In order to clarify the situation even more though, the modern historian has an advantage of being able to use the flow-chart. Although the one devised here may be overly narrow because it is based only on nomenclature, a caveat introduced by E. von Puttkamer,33 it facilitates the discussion.

Even the most superficial review of the attached chart reveals one critical date in Peter's mental development: 23 March 1715.34 He had conceptualized by this time the basic format of the college system. By any measure of evaluation, the chart also shows that he did not use memorandum-L directly for his notes. Since the order in which he listed the colleges in 1715 is exactly the same as the order of the colleges in the other undated and unsigned memorandum, it is more reasonable to conclude that he used that particular memorandum more than memorandum-L in the formulation of this particular conceptualization. Indeed, given the fact that memorandum-L was probably written around 1711-12, Peter may not have had it current in his mind when he wrote his plan in 1715. All the same, memorandum-L may have helped Peter in two ways: first, it may have prepared his thinking for the other memorandum's more immediate impact, and second, it may have aided him to go beyond some of the suggestions of that other memorandum.

The flowchart designed for this discussion moreover shows a clear relationship between the original Swedish model, the other memorandum, and Peter's notes of 1715. Does this relationship mean, however, that the collegial system, as established in 17I8-19, reflected only the impact of this memorandum and of the Swedish model? Further, since Leibniz's immediate influence did not come through memorandum-L, to what degree did he modify Peter's thinking?

A short review of Peter's own development may now be heIpful. The tsar first learned of the collegial system on his 1697 trip to Western Europe,35 thought about it in 1702,36 and then heard about it again in the confrontation with the Swedish monarchy.37 It is thus quite possible that in 1711 Leibniz confirmed ideas already reasonably well formulated by Peter. This reinforcement could have been especially meaningful since Leiboiz and Peter met for a second time in 1712.38 But while it is known that they talked several times between November 9th and 20th at Carlsbad, Teplitz, and on the way to Dresden, it is unfortunately not known what they discussed. It is clear that Leibniz was accepted into Russian service as a Geheimer Justizrat at an annual salary of one thousand thalers.39 It is also clear according to all indications that Leibniz and his patron did not remain restricted to any one subject in their conversations; certainly the two talked about a treaty between Peter and Charles VI and several "desiderata" LeiLniz wanted from Russia.40 They may also have dealt with the furtherance of the sciences in Russia, and topics Leibniz had taken up on 10 August 1712.41 Later the philosopher wrote, perhaps tongue in cheek, that "je dois etre en quelque fagon le Solon de la Russie . . .42

If nothing else, proposals sirnilar to that submitted to Peter as memorandum-L and outlined on other occasions, struck root with Peter soon after these discussions, and at the end of 1715-Fick received orders "to familiarize hirnself with the [Swedish] judicial and administrative order and to copy those regulations and decrees on whose basis the colleges were established and are directed."43 As Wittrarn puts it, Fick was to engage in espionage and to hire for the Russian service at least one administrator from every Swedish central bureau. At about the sarne time, General Weyde was ordered to hire for Russia experienced judicial experts in Livland and at foreign universities.44 Somewhat later, in 1717, Peter ordered Bruce to start altering the collegial system to Russia's particular needs; but work did not progress satisfactorily until Fick took it over.45

Shortly before, tsar and philosopher had met for a third time at Pyrmont; in the second half of June, 1716, Leibniz stayed in Peter's vicinity for one week and later accompanied him to Herrenhausen. Again it is difficult to deterrnine what was taken up in their conversations; but Leibniz did include some of the points he had presented in a letter to Vice-Chancellor Peter Pavlovich Shafrov, some others in a note on the magnetic needle's deviation in Russia, and still others into a draft proposal on the betterment of the arts and sciences in Russia 46    

The last of these is of greatest interest here. Although Leibniz did not speak of a collegial system in this "Draft of a Memorandum on the Improvement of the Arts and Sciences in the Russian Empire," or even of a college of sciences, he did return to the points he raised many times before. Briefly, this memorandum is a summary of everything he had recommended for Russia ever since at least 1708, especially as it pertained to the establishment of an education system in Russia.47

Whether or not Peter received these final thoughts of the Aufklarer, by the end of 1717 he had refined the basic structural pattern for the collegial system in cooperation with the Silesian Ananias Christian Pott von Luberas and Bruce, and under the strong leadership of Fick, and in 1717-18 he issued orders to establish the.first nine colleges.48

Again, even if memorandum-L did not influence Peter directly in the establishment of these colleges—or even the few that followed—LeiDniz may have influenced Peter. Several suggestions that were not directly incorporated into the coIlegial system as such can be found in some other connections and at some other points in the tsar's administrative bureaucracy. Most interestingly, Peter initially set up the same number of colleges that Leibuiz had proposed/ They are "I) An Etats-College, II) A War-College, III) A Finance Col1ege, IV) A Police-College, V) A Justice-College, VI) A Commerce-College, VII) A College for Religion, VIII) A College for Revision, IX) A College for Science."49 Much more importantly, the names. of most of Peter's onginal nine colleges are similar to those on Leibniz's suggested list, while the purposes of the units established later also converge. Even if this influence had been channeled through Fick, his final outline of the overall system resembles very much the proposals Leibniz had submitted. As Kliuchevskii put it: "The ukaze of 12 December 17I8 set up the first nine colleges of Foreign Relations, State Revenue, Justice Revision, 'Control of all receipts and expenditure', i.e., a Department of Financial Control, Army, Admiralty, Commerce, Mines and
Manufactures

The most convincing evidence for Leibuiz's influence emerges in regard to the Holy Synod and the Academy. Leibniz's suggestion for a Religions-Collegium may well be related to the Spiritual Regulations of 1721 and the Most Holy Governing Synod. It is of interest here that the oath for the members of the Synod referred to this administrative unit as a college. The oath went like this: "I acknowledge the Monarch of AI1 Russias, our Gracious Lord, to be the Final Judge of this College.''51 Indeed, "The church . . . received the humble place of a department of the State, one among the other departments, controlled by a lay official...."52 The sarne direct administrative overlap cannot be traced to Leibniz's suggestion for a police college. But what influence did his idea have on the establishment, in 1718, ofthe office of General-Politseimeister of St. Petersburg. 53

Yet most interesting is the relationship between Leibuiz's proposals for a college of science and Peter's efforts to accomplish something similar toward the end of his reign. Although he never established a College of Sciences as such, he started the Academy. Leibniz had suggested something similar since 1711, and included a Gelehrten-Collegium (College of Scientists) in several proposals, even implying some sort of central direction. All along, he had felt the Academy to be the best method for the advance of the sciences as well as their practical-social application.54 His proposals for a centrally-directed advance of Russia's academic efforts stemmed directly from his work with the Academy in Berlin.55 However, the Academy in Russia was only started after his death on 28 November 1724, and then in coordination with the ideas of Christian Wolff and several Russian academicians, as well as Peter's personal physician, Blumentrost. Perfeckij may have been correct when he wrote that "The academy which the philosopher saw as a learned institution, Blumentrost transformed into an active organ to which the sovereign even intended to subordinate the schools; for the start, he [Peter] created a sort of ministry of education and culture."56

One conclusion that may be drawn from this renewed look at Leibniz and Peter is not unfamiliar: namely that Peter designed a central administrative bureaucratic structure according to several foreign models. One must add an important supplemental point to this generalization: he incorporated many models and did not take the Swedish model without substantial alterations.

Yet one cannot simultaneously accept Yaney's statement that "Peter only utilized Western models and concepts; he did not emulate them, nor did he want to."57 It would seem that if a monarch adopts, however modified, the administrative models of other societies, he is emulating. But that is surely not the present point. Peter was an eighteenth-century monarch for whom the issue of national boundaries or administrative territorialities was not as important as to later writers about him; his quest was for workability of the Russian administration.58

Another conclusion that can be drawn is that the link between Leibniz and
Peter was not only that of two brilliant minds, but also that of a similar interest in major reorganizational efforts. Thus the concerns of the two men overlapped in a number of areas, and Leibniz confirmed and reinforced many of Peter's reform ideas. All the same, Leibniz's hopes and wishes were those of the scientist, Peter's those of statesman. The scientist makes suggestions, the statesman must weed them out and arrive at workable possibilities. In both men we detect, though, a sense of recognition, an understanding of the others' modernity. In regard to the colleges, Leibniz's proposals usuatly remained limited to one specific aspect of the system—its scientific and educational implications—and often lacked understanding of Russia's situation. Russia may have been a tabula rasa, but that did not mean that the tsar could erect a new building without reference to tradition and to the implications of the materials that were being used. 59 Peter thus had to remain within the framework of what was possible and useful under the specific circumstances.60

Nevertheless, the tsar was able to adopt several suggestions put forth by Leibniz. They agreed not only on the need for the establishment of a collegial. system but also on most of the specific colleges proposed by Leibniz. In some instances, Leibniz's proposals helped Peter carry further the reorganization than other recommendations for the collegial system had indicated for him. Beyond this, the adoption of the German concept of Wissenschaft as nauka, and the state's future role in the determination of educational policy, are major contributions of Leibniz both to Peter and to Russia.61

Appalachian State University

TABLE ONE



Sweden's Colleges after the    Revisions of Gust. Adolphus   



Kanzleicollegium (1634)   
Kriegscollegium (1634)   
Admiralitatscollegium   
(1634)
Kammercollegium (1634)   
Generalbergamt (163 7)   
Commerzcollegium (1651)   
S t a t s k o n t o r e t ( 1 6 8 0 )
Kammercollegium (1689)   
   
   
...   

G. W. Leibniz's recommen.    /dated 1711: memorandum-L   




Etats-Collegium
Kriegs-Collegium
Finanzen-Collegium

Polizey-Collegium
Justice-Collegium
Commerc-Collegium
R e l i g i o n s - C o l l e g i u m
RevisionsCollegium
Gelehrt-Collegium
(Wissenschaftskollegium)
~

Unsigned and undated memorandum of 1715 available to Peter 
 
Justitsei kol.   
Kanseliarnii kol.   
Inestrannikb del K.
Admiralitet kol.   
Krigs-kol.   
Kamer-kol.   
Stats-kantor   
Kommertsii kol.

Peter l's list of Colleges
dated 23 March 1715



\

Iustits K.
Kantseliariuchiu-Admiraliteiskoi K.
Krikhs-K.
Kamer K.
Komertsu K.




NOTES

1. Cf. especially E. Amburger, "Neue Veroffentlichungen uber Leibniz und Russland," Zeitschrift fur slawische Philologie, 21 (1952),193-98; Ernst Benz, Leibniz und Peter der Grosse. Der Beitrag Leibnizens zur russischen Kultur-, Religions- und Wirtschaftspolitik seiner Zeit (Leiboiz zu seinem 300. Geburtstag, 1646-1946) (Berlin: de Grnyter,1947); Konrad Bittner, "Slavica bei G. W. v. Leibniz," GermanosCavica, 1 (1931-32), Heft 1,1- 32, Heft 2, 161-234 and 509-57; V. I. Chuchmarov, "G. V. Leiboits i russkaia kultura nachala 18 stoletiia," Vestnik istorii mirovoi kul'tury, 4 (July-Aug. 1957), 120-32; also appeared in German translation in Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Philologie, 8 (1960),94-107; Woldemar Guerrier, Leibniz in seinen Beziehungen zu Russland und Peter dem Grossen Eine geschichtliche Darstellung dieses Verhatltnisses nebst den darauf bezaglichen Briefen und Denkschriften, parts one and two (St. Petersburg and Leibzig: Eggers,1873) (also in    r5 Russian under V. I. Gere and published by the Academy of Sciences in 1871 and 1873); Eugen Perfeckij, "Car Peter I. a. Leiboiz," Sbornik Filosofcke Fa*ulty University Komensceho v Bratislava, 3, No. 34 (8), (Bratislava, 1924-25); Moritz C. Posselt, Peter der Grosse und Leibaitz (Dorpat and Moscow: Severin, 1843); E. V. Puttkamer, "Einflusse schwedischen Rechts auf die Reformen Peters des Grossen," Zeitschrift fuer ausla'nd isches offentiiches Recht und Volkerrecht, 19 (Aug. 1958), 377-84; Liselotte Richter, Leibniz und sein Russlandbild (Berlin: Adademie-Verlag,1946).    F

 2. Amburger, "Neue Veroffentlichungen"; Benz, Leibniz und Peter; Bittner, "Slavica"; Chuchmarov, "Leitnits i russkaia kultura"; Guerrier, Leibniz in seinen Bezichungen; Pos- selt,Peter und Leibnitz; Edmund Pfleiderer, Gottiried Wilhelm Leibnitz als Patriot, Staats- mann undBildungstr~ger(Leipzig: Fues,1870);L.N. Pushkarev, "Akademiia Nauk i russ- kaia kul'tura XVIII veka," Voprosy istorti, No.5 (1974), pp. 28-38; Richter, Leibniz und    p sein Russlandbild, especially 11742; and others, including Puttkamer, "Einflilsse schwe-    !t dischen Rechts." Some writers, like B. B. Kafengauz and N. I. Pavlenko in their Rossiia v pervoi chetrerti XVIII v i preobrazovanfia Petra ~ [Ocherki istorii SSSR: Period feodalizma . . .1 (Moscow: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR,1954), especially pp; 296-303, do not mention his recommendations.

3. German authors tend to attribute a greater degree of foreign influence than their Russian counterparts.

4. See, for example, N. P. Eroshkin, Istoriia gosudarstrennykh uchrezhdenli dorevoliatsionnoi Rossii (Moscow: "Vysshaia shkola," 1968), chart for the pre-Petrine period.

5. About the reforms as a whole, refer to E. Amburger, Geschichte derBehordenorganisation Russlands von Peter dem Grossen bis 1917 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), pp. 615; M. M. Bogoslovskii, Petr Velikii i ego reforma (Moscow: "Kooperativnoe izdatel'stvo," 1920), especially pp. 98 ff; N. F. Demidova, "Biurokratizatsiia gosudarstvennogo apparata absoliutizma v XVII-XVIII vv.," inAbsoliutizm v Rossii {XVII-XVIII vv.) (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), pp.223-30; lurii V. Got'e, Istoriia Oblastnago Upravleniia v Rossii ot Petra I do Ekateriny II, 2 vols. (Moscow: G. Lissner and D. Sobko,19i 3), I, 36 ff; Marc Raeff, Imperial Russia, 1682-1825: The Coming of Age of Modern Russia (New York: A. A. Knopf.,1971), especiallyp.73;"TheRussianAutocracyand Its Officials," Harvard Slavic Studies, 4 (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1957), especially 77-91; R. Wittram, Peter I. Czar und Kaiser, 2 vols (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,1964), especially II, 112 ff; and George L. Yaney, The Systematization of Russian Government: Social Evolution in the Domestic Administration of Imperial Russia, 1711-190S (ChampaignUrbana: Univ. of Illinois Press,1973), passim.

6. From 1715 to 1721,Petercreated twelve colleges: see Eroshkin, Istoriia, p. 87. The long-range impact of the introduction of the colleges as the arm of the Senate is discussed in the works already cited. It may be useful to add here Sergei M. Troitskii, Russkii absolintizm i dvoriantsvo v XVIII v. (Moscow: Nauka, 1974), p. 42 ff, and to note Mark Raeff's change of opinion about the dating of the impact of the reforms from his earlier "Russian Autocracy" to his later Imperial Russia.
\    ~
7. E:roshkin,Istorlia, pp.87-94,Wittram,Peter,II,112-14.Cf. also for the later period especially G. G. Telberg, Pravitel'strual shchii Senat i samod erzharnaia vlast' v nachale XIX veka (Moscow: 1914).

8. Raeff, Imperial Russra, p. 19, for the quote, and check Yaney, Systematizafion, pp. 66-67.

9. Got'e, Istoriia, p. 46, and John A. A~mstrong, The European Administrative Elite (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press,1973), p. 33.
    
10. Yaney, Systematization, p. 65
      
11. Ibid, pp. 85-90. On administrative practices inWestern Europe, seeHansHaus-    p herr, Verwaltungseinheit und Resorttrennung vom Ende des 17. biszumlRegirrndes19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: Alcademie-Verlag, 1953). Since Yaney provides such a discussion, it would be interesting to know how he reacts to read~ng A. Wolfgang Gerloff, Stauts- theorieund Stautspraxisdeskameralistischen Verwaltungsstnates (Breslau: Marcus-Verlag, 1937), pp. 27-28, which shows that Leibniz could have had little influence on adaunis- trative practices in Western Europe, since his philosophical statements characterized hirn as a precursor of enlightened absolutist

12. For its beginnings, see Benz, Leitniz und Peter, pp. 3-6, Pfleiderer, Patriot, Stea fsmann und Bildungstrtiger, pp.37-49, and for its continuation Kurt Muller and Gisela KroneIt, Leben und Werk von Gottiried Wilhelm Leibniz: Eine Chronik (Frankfurt: Klostermann,1969), especially the entry on p.127.

13. Richter, Russlandbild, p. 41.

14. This theme returned time and time again, see especially Guerrier, Beziehungen, II,95,121, and 176.

15. These efforts may be seen in several memoranda which are discussed throughout Guerrier's Beziehungen, in several places of Richter's Russlandbild, especially pp. 57-71, and in most of the other works about Leibuiz and Peter. Refer also to Pfleiderer, Patriot Staatsmann und Bildungstrager, pp. 37-302, for an interesting analysis.

16. Guerrier, Beziehungen, II, 14-19 (the quote is onp. 16). Also Richter,Russlandbild, pp. 44-45, and compare Le1bniz to Peter, 3 Aug. 1697, Richter, ibid. pp. 20-23. FOI the dating of the memoranda and letters, see also Muller and Kronert, Chronik, p. 147.

17. Guerrier, Bezichungen, II, 95, and Richter, Russlandbild, p. 63. Several years be- fore, namely in 1699, Leibniz had also interested himself ~n Russia when he spoke of var- ious plansto civilize that country. See Milller and Krunert, Chrotzik, p. 159, and E. Bode- man, Der Briefivechsel des Gottpried Wilhelm Leibniz in der kon~lichen offentlichen Bibtiothek zu Hannover (Hannover: Hahnische Buchhandlung, 1889), p.194.
18. Richter, Russlandbild, p. 48.

19. Muller and Krunert,Chronik,p.226;Benz,LeibuizundPeter, p. lO,givesthe dates incorrectly as 28 or 29 Oct. 1710.

20. Richter, Russlandbild, pp.14-15.

21. Guerrier, Beziehungen, II, 181; for the text of the whole set of proposals, see pp. 1?4-83; Richter, Russlandbild, p. 49; also discussed in Benz, LeiLniz und Peter, p. 10, and G. StieleI,G. W. Leibuiz:einLebenderWissenschaft, Weisheitund Grosse (Paderborn: Schoningh,1950), p.74.

22. Richter, Russlandbild, pp. 133-41.

23. Guerr~er, Beziehungen, II, 364-69, for memorandum-L (the discussion of it is in ibid., I, 181-86).
 
24. A. R. Cederberg, "Heinrich Fick. Ein Beitrag zur russischen Geschichte des achtzehuten Jahrhunderts," Acta et Commentationes Tartuensis (Dorpatensis), B. (Humaniora), 17 (Taltu-Dorpat. K. Mattiesen, l930), 1-160, especially 61-62.

25. Benz, Leibniz und Peter, 54145.

26. Chuchmarov, "Leibaits i russkaia kultura," pp. 1 30-3 1; the same in Deutsche Zeitschnft, VIII, 104-05.

27. Guerrier, Beziehungen, II, 364-69 for memorandum-L, and Zakonodatel tnye A kty Petra I, ed. N. A. Voskresenskii, intro. Boris I. Syromiatnikov, I: Akty o byvshikh gosudarstvennykh ustanovlenliakh (Moscow-Leningrad: Akademiinauk SSSR, 1945), 272-75, for the other memorandum.

28. Guerrier, Bezichungen, 11, 200-08, especially 205; see also 264-67. Cf. Wittram, Peter, II, n. 115,533-34.

29. Richter, Russlandbild, 138, seems too ready with her explanation.

30. Guerrier, Beziehungen, II, 365-66.

31. Richter,Russlandbild, 139-40

32. These are points not brought out by Richter

33. Puttkamer, "Einflusse schwedischen Rechts," p. 378.

34. Zakonodatel 'nye akty, p. 213.

35. R. Wittram, "Peters des Grossen erste Reise in den Westen," lahrbBcher ~r Ge- schichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge, 3, Heft 4 (1955), 373.403, especially 398-99. See also Franciss Lee, Poleipomena, or Dissertatfon Theological, Mathematical and Physical . . . 2 vols, (London: A. Strahan, 1752), I, 1-12: "Proposals Given to Peter the Great, Czar of Muscovy, Anno MDCXCVIII, at His Own Request."
36. Amburger, Behordenorganisation, p. 6.

37. Ibid., p. 8. About his relations with the Swedish prisoners of war, see Curt Friedrich von Wreech, Wahrhaffte und umsfflndliche Historie von denen schwedischen Gefangenen fnRusslandundSiberien (Sorau: 1725).

38. Miiller and Krunert, Chronik, p. 232.

39. Guerrier, Beziehungen, II, 268-9.

40. Ibid., pp. 26~69.

41. Ibid., pp. 217-20: "Denkschrift uber die Forderung der Wissenschaften in Russland den Zaren."
 
42. Ibid., p. 272.

43. Cederbert, "Ein BeitIag," pp. 12-13.

44. Wittram, Peter, I, 114-15.

45. Cederberg, "Ein Beitrag," p. 25, and Zakonodatel'nye akty, p, 221. About Fick and his role in Russia, see also A. Kizevetter, "Heinrich Fick in russischen Diensten," Germanoslavica: Vierteljahresschrift fuer die Erforschung der germanischslawischen Kulturbeziehungen, 1, Heft 1-4 (Brunn: Rohrer, 1931-32),593-601.

46. Guerrier, Beziehungen, Il, 344-60. Miiller and Krunert, Chronik, p. 258, placed the crucial memorandum-L at the later date, but according to Richter, Russlandbild, this is not correct. About Shafirov, refer to William E. Butler, intro. and ed., P. P. Shafirov, A Discourse Concerning the Just Causes of the War Between Sweden and Russia: l 700-1721 (New York: Oceana, 1973).

47; This most sophisticated statementof Leibuiz' concern, although it probably never got sent off to Russia, is dated 1716, and is outlined in the "Concept einer Denkschrift uber die Verbesserung der Kunste und Wissenschaften unrussischen Reich," in Guerrier, Beziehungen, II, 348-60.

48. Cederberg, "Ein Beitrag," p. 26; Eroshkin, Istoriia, p. 87; Kafengauz and Pavlenko, Ocherki istorii SSSR, p. 297; Wittram, Peter, II, 115-16, and Zakonodatel'nye akty, p.216ff.

49. Guerrier, Beziehungen, II, 365; Richter, Russlandbild, p. 134.

50. V. O. Klinchevskii, Peter the Great. trans. Liliana Archibald (New York: St. Martins,l958),p.211.

51. N. Zernov, "Peter the Great and the Establishment of the Russian Church," Church Quarterly Review, 125 (Jan.-March 1938), 271. 52.1bid., 272.

53. Eroshkin, Istoriia, chart on Peter's reforms.

54. Richter, Russlandbild, pp. 118-19. About the subject ingeneral, refer to Pushkarev, "Alcademna Nauk."

55. Leibniz, however, opposed the idea that the academy in Berlin set up a branch in Russia; Benz, Leitniz und Peter, pp. 76-77.

56. Perfec}cij, "Car Peter I. a Leibniz," p. 261.

57. Yaney, Systematization, p. 65.

58. Compare, though, HausheII, Verwaltungseinheit und Resorttrennung, p. 42.

59. Leibniz talked about this in 1 7 1 1 : see Guerrier, Beziehungen, II, 1 76-77.

60. Raeff, Imperial Russra, p. 69, presents a similar point of view.

61. Cf. A. Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture: A History to 1860 (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1963), especially pp. 28~7, and Wittram, Peter, II, 115-16, 119.




    ,