About author
Abstract. The discussion is devoted to revising traditional and renewing new scholarly problems related to the study of the Era of Palace Coups, a period rich in controversial events. Leading Russian specialists in 18th Century Russian history are invited to reflect on the reigns of Peter the Great’s immediate Successors in the context of the persistence of historiographical myths, which typically have an axiological underpinning. The authors focus on the adherence of the Great Reformer’s Successors to his policies and the coherence of their efforts with the overall vector of Russian modernization in the Peterine model. The questions posed concern the likely need to reconsider assessments of historical actors of the Post-Peterine Period, as well as the scientific validity of an isolationist approach to this period to reveal its cultural intrinsic value. The discussion materials summarize the existing historiographic picture of Russian history from the Second Quarter to the Middle of the 18th Century.
Overall, the discussion participants are quite unanimous in their assessment of the era as a time of adjustments to the reformist course and in their skepticism about the potential of olden time after the death of the first Emperor. At the same time, a wide range of opinions is represented regarding the institution of Autocracy, as well as the supposed unconditional value of the European-oriented development path established by Peter the Great. The journalistic tone of some of these statements suggests that even today, three Centuries after the death of the Sovereign-Carpenter, his legacy has not yet become a subject of exclusively academic interest. Prospects for further study of Russian history from 1725 to 1762 are seen in expanding empirical data, turning to the history of everyday life, and intensifying historical and biographical research.
Keywords: Peter the Great’s legacy, the Era of Palace Coups, Reforms, historiographic myth.