Holy Synod and Political Crisis of Interregnum

The features of the development of the dynastic crisis of the interregnum of 1825 through the prism of the functioning of one of the key public authorities - the Holy Synod is discussed in the article. An analysis of the literature allows us to conclude that in modern historiography, the events of t...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	M. S. Belousov, T. V. Lebenkova
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	RU
Publicado:	Tsentr nauchnykh i obrazovatelnykh proektov 2020
Materias:	political crisis interregnum nicholai i synod oath coup d’etat Slavic languages. Baltic languages. Albanian languages PG1-9665
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/6aaadf623edc4fd892d9ec73045fdd56
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:6aaadf623edc4fd892d9ec73045fdd56
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:6aaadf623edc4fd892d9ec73045fdd562021-12-02T07:58:11ZHoly Synod and Political Crisis of Interregnum2225-756X2227-129510.24224/2227-1295-2020-5-340-358https://doaj.org/article/6aaadf623edc4fd892d9ec73045fdd562020-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.nauka-dialog.ru/jour/article/view/1513https://doaj.org/toc/2225-756Xhttps://doaj.org/toc/2227-1295The features of the development of the dynastic crisis of the interregnum of 1825 through the prism of the functioning of one of the key public authorities - the Holy Synod is discussed in the article. An analysis of the literature allows us to conclude that in modern historiography, the events of the oath to Grand Duke Konstantin received conflicting estimates. It is noted that as a result there were several interpretative schemes of what happened in the capital on November 27. An appeal to the workflow of the Synod makes it possible to assert that from the point of view of the logic of the functioning of the state apparatus, a coup d’etat took place. An analysis of everyday activities, the key bureaucratic formulas in the protocols leads to the conclusion that the bureaucratic reaction to the oath to Konstantin did not correspond to the established traditions and was distinguished by haste and internal contradictions. This was reflected primarily in the decisions of November 27: the Synod decides on the oath, relying on oral reports from the synodal members, but the next day duplicates its own decision, referring to the jurisdiction of the Senate. Moreover, a comparison with the events of December 12-14 shows that the accession to the throne of Nikolai Pavlovich was carried out in accordance with the order established in the previous century and was distinguished by deliberate legal accuracy and consistency.M. S. BelousovT. V. LebenkovaTsentr nauchnykh i obrazovatelnykh proektovarticlepolitical crisisinterregnumnicholai isynodoathcoup d’etatSlavic languages. Baltic languages. Albanian languagesPG1-9665RUНаучный диалог, Vol 0, Iss 5, Pp 340-358 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	RU
topic	political crisis interregnum nicholai i synod oath coup d’etat Slavic languages. Baltic languages. Albanian languages PG1-9665
spellingShingle	political crisis interregnum nicholai i synod oath coup d’etat Slavic languages. Baltic languages. Albanian languages PG1-9665 M. S. Belousov T. V. Lebenkova Holy Synod and Political Crisis of Interregnum
description	The features of the development of the dynastic crisis of the interregnum of 1825 through the prism of the functioning of one of the key public authorities - the Holy Synod is discussed in the article. An analysis of the literature allows us to conclude that in modern historiography, the events of the oath to Grand Duke Konstantin received conflicting estimates. It is noted that as a result there were several interpretative schemes of what happened in the capital on November 27. An appeal to the workflow of the Synod makes it possible to assert that from the point of view of the logic of the functioning of the state apparatus, a coup d’etat took place. An analysis of everyday activities, the key bureaucratic formulas in the protocols leads to the conclusion that the bureaucratic reaction to the oath to Konstantin did not correspond to the established traditions and was distinguished by haste and internal contradictions. This was reflected primarily in the decisions of November 27: the Synod decides on the oath, relying on oral reports from the synodal members, but the next day duplicates its own decision, referring to the jurisdiction of the Senate. Moreover, a comparison with the events of December 12-14 shows that the accession to the throne of Nikolai Pavlovich was carried out in accordance with the order established in the previous century and was distinguished by deliberate legal accuracy and consistency.
format	article
author	M. S. Belousov T. V. Lebenkova
author_facet	M. S. Belousov T. V. Lebenkova
author_sort	M. S. Belousov
title	Holy Synod and Political Crisis of Interregnum
title_short	Holy Synod and Political Crisis of Interregnum
title_full	Holy Synod and Political Crisis of Interregnum
title_fullStr	Holy Synod and Political Crisis of Interregnum
title_full_unstemmed	Holy Synod and Political Crisis of Interregnum
title_sort	holy synod and political crisis of interregnum
publisher	Tsentr nauchnykh i obrazovatelnykh proektov
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/6aaadf623edc4fd892d9ec73045fdd56
work_keys_str_mv	AT msbelousov holysynodandpoliticalcrisisofinterregnum AT tvlebenkova holysynodandpoliticalcrisisofinterregnum
_version_	1718398851962896384

Holy Synod and Political Crisis of Interregnum

Ejemplares similares