About author
Abstract. This article provides an overview of the evolution of scholarly perspectives on the Era of Palace Coups in Russia. It highlights the significance of historicism as a general methodological principle in the process of the era’s historiographical rehabilitation. The imperative to establish causal relationships between historical phenomena predetermined the dependence of scholarly assessments on the resolution of the issue concerning the fate of Peterine legacy. This context brought to the fore the study of the stability of “new” institutions and the resilience potential of “old” orders following the death of Peter the Great. The article demonstrates that the “normalization” of the Era of Palace Coups in academic discourse is conditioned by, firstly, the conclusion of its logical character as a transitional period between two “great” reigns of the 18th Century. The Successors of the first emperor were evaluated by testing the conformity of their actions with his reformist course. This strategy is most evident in the dynamics of historiographical assessments of Anna Ioannovna’s reign. Secondly, the application of an institutional approach to phenomena such as favoritism and palace coups proved relevant. In the author’s view, assessing the activities of Peter’s Successors through a specific modal focus — namely, as rulers compelled to address problems created by the founder of the Russian Empire — inevitably rationalizes their behavior and endows them with the status of historical actors.
Keywords: Peter the Great, Anna Ioannovna, Peterine legacy, Palace Coups, historiographical rehabilitation, axiological turn, institutional analysis.