Abstract: The concept of "freedom" is one of the pillars for identifying ideas about the social ideal and one of the guidelines in attempts at social construction of the modern era. The object of this study is the political thought of Russia in the 18th century. The subject of the research is the formation and evolution of the concept of “freedom” in the socio-political texts of Russian authors of the 18th century. The purpose of this article was to identify the specifics of the concept of "freedom", presented in the texts of statesmen and politicians of the 18th century, in relation to the texts created in the pre-Petrine tradition and the texts of the European Enlightenment. The basic research method is the textual analysis of the works of Russian political authors of the 18th century, in its various versions: semantic (including hermeneutics), genetic, comparative. The main conclusion is that the reception of the concept of "freedom" from the texts of the European Enlightenment and the formation, on this basis, of the political concept of "freedom", began in the second third of the 18th century, as evidenced by the texts of V.N. Tatishcheva. This reception ended in the 1780s in the form of three basic interpretations of the concept of "freedom" – liberal (texts by N.I. Panin and his associates), conservative (texts by M.M. Shcherbatov) and democratic (texts by A.N. Radishchev).

Abstract: S.E. Desnitsky's views on public administration occupy a special place in the history of managerial thought in Russia of the XVIII century. This place is determined by the fact that, unlike all those who wrote on management topics in that era, he was not an official. He was an observer and an expert, which gave him the opportunity to system analyze and develop a set of proposals for improving governance in Russia. The subject of the article is the set of views of S.E. Desnitsky, designated here as the "management concept". The purpose of the study is to identify the basic elements of this concept. The reference method is a combination of systematic and semantic analysis of Desnitsky's texts, in comparison with the texts of figures of the European Enlightenment. The main conclusion of the article is the complex of semantic blocks identified by the author, the combination of which makes up Desnitsky's management concept. The author comes to the conclusion that Desnitsky saw the purpose of management in introducing organizational principles into "natural" relations and, first of all, into property relations. Desnitsky supplemented the universal principle of the "common good" with the principles of the welfare of the state and estate management. To solve management problems, he proposed to follow two organizational principles: separation of powers and multi-level management. For each of the "authorities" allocated to him, he defined tasks peculiar only to her and the tools necessary for their solution. The preservation of the unity of governance in the state, according to Desnitsky, is achieved by highlighting the law as the main instrument of governance.

Abstract: “Dedication” by P. P. Shafirov is one of the few texts of the early XVIII century that reflects goal-setting of public administration through the concept of “value”. The object of this article is the establishment of Russian administrative thought in the early XVII century. The subject of this article is the process of development of the concept of “value” as fundamental in substantiation of the goal of public administration. The author attempts to reveal the content of this concept in the text of “Dedication” in juxtaposition to the texts of Western European philosophers of the XVII century who rely on the concepts of “value” and “common good”, and to the similar in tasks texts of Russian authors – P. P. Shafirov and his contemporaries. The main conclusion consists in determination of fundamental difference between the Russian and the European concept of “value”. It implies that in Russia, the concept of “value” is primarily attributed to the state, while in Europe the basic concept was the “common good”. Shafirov deemed it possible to interpret the “state value” not only as creation of the conditions for expansion superiority and strength of the state, but also as the “value to its nationals”. It opened the door for transformation of “state value” into the “common”. Such transformation was not complete, which resulted in parallel existence of the two concepts: “value of state” and “common value”