Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, the son of Alexei Mikhailovich, dying childless, did not appoint an heir for himself. His elder brother John was weak both physically and mentally. All that remained, as the people also wished, was “to be in the kingdom for Peter Alekseevich,” the son from the second wife of Alexei Mikhailovich.

But the power was seized by John’s sister, Princess Sofya Alekseevna, and ten-year-old Peter, despite the fact that he was married with his brother John and was called the king, was a disgraced king. They did not care about his upbringing, and he was completely left to himself; but, being gifted with all the gifts of nature, he himself found himself a teacher and friend in the person of a Geneva native, Franz Lefort.

To learn arithmetic, geometry, fortification and artillery, Peter found himself a teacher, the Dutchman Timmerman. The previous Moscow princes did not receive a scientific education, Peter was the first to turn to Western foreigners for science. The conspiracy against his life failed, Sophia was forced to retire to the Novodevichy Convent, and on September 12, 1689, the reign of Peter the Great began, when he was just over 17 years old. It is impossible to list here all the glorious deeds and reforms of Peter, which gave him the nickname of the Great; Let's just say that he transformed and educated Russia on the model of Western states and was the first to give impetus to its becoming a powerful power at the present time. In his hard work and worries about his state, Peter did not spare himself and his health. Our capital St. Petersburg, founded in 1703, on May 16, on the island of Lust-Eyland, taken from the Swedes, owes its origin to him. Peter the Great was the founder of the Russian navy and regular army. He died in St. Petersburg on January 28, 1725.

Krivoshlyk's story

Peter 1 themed pictures

Professional historians have long come to the conclusion that almost all the documents and memories that have reached us about the childhood and youth of Peter I are forgeries, inventions or blatant lies. The Great Transformer's contemporaries apparently suffered from amnesia and therefore did not leave to their descendants any reliable information about the beginning of his biography.

The “oversight” of Peter I’s contemporaries was later corrected by the German historian Gerhard Miller (1705–1783), fulfilling the order of Catherine II. However, oddly enough, another German historian, Alexander Gustavovich Brickner (1834–1896), and not only him, for some reason did not believe Miller’s tales.

It is increasingly becoming obvious that many events did not occur as they were interpreted by official historians: they either did not happen, or they occurred in a different place and at a different time. For the most part, no matter how sad it is to realize, we live in a world of a story made up by someone.

Physicists joke: clarity in science is a form of complete fog. For historical science, whatever one may say, this statement is more than fair. No one will deny that the histories of all countries of the world are replete with dark spots.

What historians say

Let's see what the Pharisees put into the heads of their descendants from historical science about the first decades of the stormy activity of Peter the Great - the builder of the new Russia:

Peter was born on May 30 according to the Julian calendar or June 9 according to the Gregorian calendar in 1672, or in 7180 from the Creation of the World according to the Byzantine calendar, or in 12680 from the “Great Cold” in the village of Kolomenskoye, and perhaps in the village of Izmailovo near Moscow. It is also possible that the prince would be born in Moscow itself, in the Teremny Palace of the Kremlin;

his father was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov (1629–1676), and his mother was Tsarina Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina (1651–1694);

Tsarevich Peter was baptized by Archpriest Andrei Savinov in the Kremlin's Miracle Monastery, and perhaps in the Church of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea in Derbitsy;

The royal youth spent his childhood and youth in the villages of Vorobyovo and Preobrazhenskoye, where he supposedly served as a drummer in an amusing regiment;

Peter did not want to reign together with his brother Ivan, although he was listed as the tsar’s understudy, and spent all his time in the German Settlement, where he had fun in the “All-Joking, All-Drunken and Extravagant Council” and threw mud at the Russian Orthodox Church;

in the German Settlement, Peter met Patrick Gordon, Franz Lefort, Anna Mons and other outstanding historical figures;

On January 27 (February 6), 1689, Natalya Kirillovna married her 17-year-old son to Evdokia Lopukhina;

in 1689, after the suppression of the conspiracy of Princess Sophia, all power completely passed to Peter, and Tsar Ivan was removed from the throne and

died in 1696;

in 1695 and 1696, Peter made military campaigns with the aim of capturing the Turkish fortress of Azov;

in 1697–1698, as part of the Great Embassy, ​​the brilliant Transformer under the name of Pyotr Mikhailov, a sergeant of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, for some reason secretly went to Western Europe to acquire knowledge as a carpenter and joiner and to conclude military alliances, as well as paint his portrait in England;

after Europe, Peter zealously began the Great Transformations in all areas of the life of the Russian people, supposedly for their benefit.

It is impossible to consider all the vigorous activity of the brilliant Reformer of Russia in this short article - it is not the right format, but it is worth dwelling on some interesting facts of his biography.

Where and when was Tsarevich Peter born and baptized?

It would seem a strange question: German historians and interpreters, as it seemed to them, explained everything smoothly, presented documents, evidence and witnesses, memories of contemporaries. However, in this entire evidence base there are many strange facts that raise doubts about their reliability. Specialists who conscientiously studied the Petrine era were often deeply perplexed by the inconsistencies that were revealed. What is strange in the story of the birth of Peter I, presented by German historians?

Historians such as N. M. Karamzin (1766–1826), N. G. Ustryalov (1805–1870), S. M. Solovyov (1820–1879), V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841–1911) and many others We were surprised to note that the exact place and time of birth of the Great Transformer of the Russian land historical science unknown. The fact of the birth of the Genius is there, but there is no date! The same cannot happen. Somewhere this dark fact was lost. Why did Peter's chroniclers miss such a fateful event in the history of Russia? Where did they hide the prince? This is not some kind of serf, this is blue blood! There are only clumsy and unproven assumptions.

Historian Gerhard Miller reassured those too curious: Petrusha may have been born in the village of Kolomenskoye, and the village of Izmailovo sounds good to be written in golden letters in the annals of history. For some reason, the court historian himself was convinced that Peter was born in Moscow, but no one knew about this event except him, oddly enough.

However, Peter I could not have been born in Moscow, otherwise there would have been a record of this great event in the metric books of the Patriarch and the Moscow Metropolitan, but there is none. Muscovites also did not notice this joyful event: historians have not found any evidence of ceremonial events marking the birth of the prince. In the rank books (“sovereign ranks”) there were contradictory records about the birth of the prince, which indicates their probable falsification. And these books, as they say, were burned in 1682.

If we agree that Peter was born in the village of Kolomenskoye, then how can we explain the fact that on that day Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina was in Moscow? And this was recorded in the palace books. Perhaps she secretly went to give birth to the village of Kolomenskoye (or Izmailovo, according to another version of Miller), and then quickly and quietly returned. Why does she need such incomprehensible movements? Maybe so that no one will guess?! Historians have no clear explanation for such somersaults with Peter’s birthplace.

Those who are too curious get the impression that for some very serious reason, German historians, the Romanovs themselves and others like them tried to hide the place of Peter’s birth and tried, albeit crookedly, to pass off wishful thinking. The Germans (Anglo-Saxons) had a difficult task.

And there are also inconsistencies with the sacrament of Peter’s baptism. As you know, God’s anointed should have been baptized by the Patriarch or, at worst, the Metropolitan of Moscow, but not by some archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral, Andrei Savinov.

Official history reports that Tsarevich Peter was baptized on June 29, 1672 on the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul in the Miracle Monastery by Patriarch Joachim. Among others, Peter’s brother, Tsarevich Fyodor Alekseevich (1661 – 1682), also took part in the baptism. But there are also historical inconsistencies here.

For example, in 1672 Pitirim was patriarch, and Joachim became one only in 1674. Tsarevich Fyodor Alekseevich was a minor at that time and, according to the Orthodox canon, could not participate in baptism. Traditional historians cannot clearly interpret this historical incident.

Was Natalya Naryshkina the mother of Peter I

Why do historians have such doubts? Yes, because Peter’s attitude towards his mother was, to put it mildly, inappropriate. This can be confirmed by the lack of reliable evidence of their joint presence at any significant events in Moscow. The mother must be next to her son, Tsarevich Peter, and this would be recorded in some documents. And why did contemporaries, except German historians, never see Natalya Naryshkina and her son Peter together, even at his birth? Historians have not yet discovered reliable evidence.

But Natalya Kirillovna was seen more than once with the prince and later Tsar Ivan Alekseevich (1666–1696). Although Ivan’s year of birth is somewhat confusing. However, German historians could correct the date of birth. There were other oddities in Peter's relationship with his mother. For example, he never visited his sick mother, and when she died in 1694, he did not attend her funeral or wake. But Tsar Ivan Alekseevich Romanov was at the funeral, and at the funeral service, and at the wake of Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina.

Pyotr Alekseevich, or simply Min Herts, as he sometimes affectionately called himself, was more busy at that time important matters: he drank and had fun in the German Settlement with his German, or rather Anglo-Saxon, bosom friends. One can, of course, assume that the son and his mother, as well as with his beloved and unloved legal wife Evdokia Lopukhina, had a very bad relationship, but one cannot bury his own mother...

If we assume that Natalya Kirillovna was not Peter’s mother, then his shocking behavior becomes understandable and logical. Naryshkina’s son, apparently, was the one with whom she was constantly. And he was Tsarevich Ivan. And Petrusha was made the son of Naryshkina by such “Russian scientists” and historian-illusionists Russian Academy sciences such as Miller, Bayer, Schlozer, Fischer, Schumacher, Wintzsheim, Staehlin, Epinusse, Taubert...

Personality characteristics of Peter I

Who was this strange Tsarevich Petrusha? Everyone knows that Peter was more than two meters tall, and for some reason his feet were small! It happens, but it's still strange.

The fact that he was a crazy person with bulging eyes, a neurasthenic and a sadist is also known to everyone except the blind. But much else is unknown to the general public.

For some reason his contemporaries called him a great artist. Apparently because, pretending to be Orthodox, he brilliantly and incomparably played the role of the Russian Tsar. Although at the beginning of his career he played, admittedly, poorly. Apparently, it was difficult to get used to it, and I was drawn to my native land. Therefore, when he came to a run-down town called Zaandam (Saardam), he indulged in pleasures well, remembering his reckless childhood and youth.

Peter did not want to be the Russian Tsar, but wanted to be the ruler of the sea, that is, the captain of an English warship.

In any case, he spoke about such thoughts to the English king William III of Orange, that is, Prince Nosovsky, or Willem van Oranje-Nassau (1650–1702).

Duty, objective historical necessity and the demands of the procurators to accomplish great things did not allow Peter to give free rein to his personal passions, preferences, aspirations and ambitions. Reluctantly with his heart and teeth, the reformer of Russia had to submit to force majeure circumstances.

Peter differed sharply from his Russian prince brothers in many ways and, above all, in his contempt for the Russian people, for Russian history and culture. He hated Orthodoxy pathologically. It was not for nothing that the common Russian people considered him a fake tsar, a substitute and, in general, the Antichrist.

Peter only began to respond to Peter Alekseevich in the late 90s of the 17th century. And before that it was called simply - Piter, Petrus or even more original - Mein Herz. This German-Dutch transcription of his name was apparently closer and dearer to him. By the way, it was uncharacteristic of the Russian Orthodox tradition to give the princes the name Peter. This was closer to the Latins, since Saints Peter and Paul are in greater favor with Catholics and Protestants than with Orthodox Christians.

Peter possessed qualities unique to kings and kings. Judging by the “documents” that have reached us, he could be in several places at the same time or not be anywhere, both in time and in space. Peter loved to travel incognito, under a false name, for some reason to drag ships on land as if through water, break expensive dishes, break ancient masterpiece furniture, personally cut off the heads of mistresses and Orthodox clergy. He also liked to pull teeth without anesthesia.

But if he could now find out what feats, deeds and noble sayings were later attributed to him by German (Anglo-Saxon) court historians, then even his eyes would pop out of their sockets in surprise. Everyone knows that Peter was a carpenter and knew how to work on a lathe. And he did this work professionally.

This raises the question, how could he do the work of a simple joiner and carpenter so well? It is known that it takes several years or at least months to acquire skills in carpentry. When did Peter manage to learn all this while ruling the state?

The linguistic features of Peter I are interesting. Allegedly, for some reason he spoke his native Russian language poorly, like a foreigner, and wrote completely disgustingly and badly. But he spoke German fluently, and in the Low Saxon dialect. Piter also spoke Dutch and English well. For example, in the English Parliament and with representatives of Masonic lodges, he did without an interpreter. But with knowledge of the Russian supposedly native language, Peter let us down, although from the cradle he should, in theory, have been in a Russian spoken environment.

If you take a short excursion into the field of linguistics, you will notice that in Europe at that time modern literary languages ​​had not yet been formed. For example, in the Netherlands at that time there were five major equal dialects: Dutch, Brabantian, Limbourgish, Flemish and Low Saxon. In the 17th century, the Low Saxon dialect was widespread in some areas of northern Germany and northeastern Holland. It was similar to the English language, which clearly indicates their common origin.

Why was the Low Saxon dialect so universal and in demand? It turns out that in the Hanseatic trade union of the 17th century, the Low Saxon dialect, along with Latin, was the main one. Trade and legal documents were drawn up and theological books were written on it. Low Saxon was the lingua franca in the Baltic region, in cities such as Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck and others.

How it really was

An interesting reconstruction of the Peter the Great era was proposed by the modern historian Alexander Kas. It logically explains the existing contradictions and inconsistencies in the biography of Peter I and his entourage, as well as why the exact place of Peter’s birth was not known, why this information was and is being hidden.

According to Alexander Kas, this fact was hidden for a long time because Peter was born not in Moscow or even in Russia, but in distant Brandenburg, in Prussia. He is half German by blood and half Anglo-Saxon by upbringing, beliefs, faith and culture. From here it becomes clear why German was his native language, and in childhood he was surrounded by German toys: “a German screw carbine, a German map” and the like.

Peter himself recalled fondly his childhood toys when he was fairly drunk. According to the tsar, his children's room was upholstered in “Hamburg worm cloth.” Where did such good things come from in the Kremlin?! The Germans were not very welcome at the royal court at that time. It also becomes clear why Peter was surrounded entirely by foreigners.

Historians say that he did not want to reign with Ivan, was offended and retired to the German settlement. However, there is the fact that the German Settlement, as historians described it, did not exist in Moscow at that time. And they would not have allowed the Germans to engage in bacchanalia and mock the Orthodox faith. In polite society, one cannot even talk out loud about what Peter did with his Anglo-Saxon friends in the German Settlement. But in Prussia and the Netherlands these performances could well have taken place.

Why did Peter behave so unnaturally for a Russian prince? But because Peter’s mother was not Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, but his allegedly sister Sofya Alekseevna Romanova (1657–1704).

The historian S. M. Soloviev, who had the opportunity to delve into the archives, called her a “hero princess” who was able to free herself from the mansion, that is, get married. In 1671, Sofya Alekseevna married Friedrich Wilhelm Hohenzollern (1657–1713), the son of the Elector of Brandenburg. In 1672, their baby Petrus was born. Taking the Russian throne with the existing arrangement of princes was problematic for Petrus. But the Anglo-Saxon Sanhedrin thought differently and began clearing out contenders for the Russian throne and preparing its own candidate. The historian conventionally identified three attempts to seize the Russian throne.

All of them were accompanied by strange events. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov died very suddenly at the age of 47. This happened during the stay of the Great Embassy from the Netherlands, led by Conrad von Klenk, in Moscow in 1675-1676.

Apparently, Konrad von Klenk was sent to the Russian Tsar by the English King William III of Orange after Alexei Mikhailovich threatened him with sanctions. It seems that Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov was poisoned by the Anglo-Saxons. They were in a hurry to free the Russian throne for their candidate. The Hohenzollerns sought to capture Orthodox Russia and instill the Protestant faith in its people.

With this approach to the biography of Peter I, inconsistencies with his baptism are also removed. It is more correct to say that Peter was not baptized, but was baptized from the Latin faith to the Orthodox faith after the death of Alexei Mikhailovich. At this time, indeed, Joachim was already the patriarch, and brother Fyodor had reached adulthood. And then Peter began to be taught Russian literacy. According to the historian P. N. Krekshin (1684–1769), training began on March 12, 1677.

At this time in Russia there was a real pestilence against royalty. Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich quickly went to the next world, and for some reason Ivan Alekseevich was considered sick in body and spirit. The rest of the princes generally died in infancy.

The first attempt to place Peter on the throne in 1682 with the help of amusing regiments was not crowned with success - Petrusha’s years were not enough, and supposedly his brother Tsarevich Ivan Alekseevich was alive and well and was a legitimate contender for the Russian throne. Peter and Sophia had to return to their native Penates (Brandenburg) and wait for the next suitable opportunity. This can be confirmed by the fact that not a single official document has yet been found stating that Tsarevich Peter and his alleged sister, that is, mother, Sophia were in Moscow from 1682 to 1688.

The pedantic “Millers” and “Schletzers” found an explanation for the absence of Peter and Sophia in Moscow during these years. It turns out that since 1682 two tsars have ruled in Russia: Ivan and Peter under the regency of Sofia Alekseevna. It's like two presidents, two popes, two Queen Elizabeth IIs. However, in the Orthodox state there could not be such dual power!

From the explanation of the “Millers” and “Schletzers” it is known that Ivan Alekseevich ruled in public, and Pyotr Alekseevich was hiding in the village of Preobrazhenskoye, which at that time did not exist in the Moscow region. There was the village of Obrazhenskoye. Apparently, the name of the village, according to the plan of the Anglo-Saxon directors, was supposed to look like a symbol of the transformation of Russia. And in this non-existent village it was necessary to hide the modest drummer Petrus, who over time would turn into the Greatest Transformer of Russia.

But this was not the case! Peter was hiding in Prussia and preparing for a mission, or rather, he was being prepared. This is what really happened. This is reasonable and logical. But the officialdom convinces us of something else. The fact is that in the village of Preobrazhenskoye Peter was engaged in playing war, creating amusing regiments. For this purpose, the amusing fortress town of Preshburg was built on the Yauza River, which was stormed by brave guys.

Why Miller moved Presburg or Presburg (the modern city of Bratislava) from the bank of the Danube to the bank of the Yauza River is anyone's guess.

No less interesting is another story in the biography of Peter I - the story of how he discovered an English boat (vessel) in some barn in the village of Izmailovo. According to Miller, Peter loved to wander around the village of Izmailovo out of nothing to do and look into other people’s barns. What if there is something there! And exactly! In one barn he discovered an English boot!

How did he get there so far from the North Sea and his native England? And when did this epochal event happen? Historians mumble that it was somewhere in 1686 or 1688, but they are not sure of their assumptions.

Why does the information about this remarkable symbolic find look so unconvincing? Yes, because there could not be any English boots in Moscow sheds!

The second attempt to seize power in Russia by the Anglo-Saxons in 1685 also failed spectacularly. Soldiers of the Semenovsky (Simeonovsky) and Preobrazhensky regiments, dressed in German uniforms and waving flags with the date “1683” on them, tried for the second time to place Petrus Friedrichovich Hohenzollern on the throne.

This time, the German aggression was stopped by the archers under the leadership of Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Miloslavsky (1635-1685). And Peter, as before, had to flee the same way: to Prussia in transit through the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

The third German attempt to seize power in Russia began several years later and ended with Peter becoming the sole ruler of Russia on July 8, 1689, finally deposing his brother Ivan.

It is believed that Peter brought from Europe after the Great Embassy of 1697-1698, in which he allegedly participated, only foreign astrolabes and globes. However, according to surviving documents, weapons were also purchased, foreign troops were hired, and mercenaries were paid in advance for six months.

What happened in the end

Peter I was the son of Princess Sophia Alekseevna Romanova (Charlotte) and Friedrich Wilhelm of Hohenzollern (1657-1713), son of the Elector of Brandenburg and the first king of Prussia.

And it would seem, why should historians fence a garden here? Peter was born and raised in Prussia and in relation to Russia he acted as a colonialist. What's there to hide?

No one hid and is not hiding the fact that Sophia Augusta Frederica of Anhalt-Zerb, who disguised herself under the pseudonym of Catherine II, came from the same places. She was sent to Russia on the same mission as Peter. Frederica was to continue and consolidate his great deeds.

After the reforms of Peter I, the split in Russian society intensified. The royal court positioned itself as German (Anglo-Saxon) and existed on its own and for its own pleasure, while the Russian people were in a parallel reality. In the 19th century, this elite part of Russian society even spoke French in Madame Scherer’s salons and was terribly far from the common people.

The most expensive trophy of Peter I in the Northern War was, perhaps, Polonyanka from Marienburg Marta Skavronskaya (nicknamed by the Russians Katerina Trubacheva), whom the tsar first saw in St. Petersburg under construction on Trinity Island in the chambers of Alexander Menshikov at the end of 1703. Peter noticed the charming woman and did not stay for she's indifferent...

Conclusion on succession to the throne, 1717
Grigory MUSIKIYSKY

Before meeting Martha, Peter’s personal life was going very badly: things didn’t work out with his wife, as we know; not only was she old-fashioned, but also stubborn, unable to adapt to her husband’s tastes. You can remember the beginning of their life together. Let me just remind you that Queen Evdokia was forcibly taken to the Suzdal Intercession Monastery, in July 1699 she was tonsured under the name of nun Elena and lived there long time quite freely with the money of churchmen dissatisfied with the policy of the sovereign.

The tsar's long-term romance with the blond beauty Anna Mons, whose vanity was certainly flattered by the tsar's courtship and luxurious gifts, also ended dramatically. But she didn’t love him, she was simply afraid, risking, however, having an affair on the side with the Saxon envoy, for which Peter put his deceiving lover under house arrest for a long time.

Portraits of Peter I
Unknown artists

We will trace in more detail the twists and turns of Martha Skavronskaya’s fate during her reign, but here we will dwell only on her relationship with the tsar. So, the tsar drew attention to the pretty, neat and tidy Katerina, and Alexander Danilovich, without much resistance, gave her over to Peter I.

Peter I and Catherine
Dementy SHMARINOV

Peter I takes Catherine from Menshikov
Unknown artist, from the collection of the Yegoryevsk Museum

At first, Katerina was on the staff of numerous mistresses of the loving Russian Tsar, whom he took with him everywhere. But soon, with her kindness, gentleness, and selfless submission, she tamed the distrustful king. She quickly became friends with his beloved sister Natalya Alekseevna and entered her circle, liking all of Peter’s relatives.

Portrait of Princess Natalya Alekseevna
Ivan NIKITIN

Portrait of Catherine I
Ivan NIKITIN

In 1704, Katerina already became Peter’s common-law wife, gave birth to a son, Pavel, and a year later, Peter. The simple woman sensed the tsar’s moods, adapted to his difficult character, endured his oddities and whims, guessed his desires, and quickly responded to everything that interested him, becoming the closest person to Peter. In addition, she was able to create for the sovereign the comfort and warmth of a home, which he never had before. The new family became a support and a quiet, welcome haven for the king...

Peter I and Catherine
Boris CHORIKOV

Portrait of Peter the Great
Adrian van der WERFF

Peter I and Catherine riding in a shnyava along the Neva
18th century engraving of NH

Among other things, Catherine had iron health; she rode horses, spent the night in inns, accompanying the king on his travels for months and quite calmly endured the hardships and hardships of the campaign, which were very difficult by our standards. And when it was necessary, she behaved absolutely naturally in the circle of European nobles, turning into a queen... There was no military review, ship launching, ceremony or holiday at which she would not be present.

Portrait of Peter I and Catherine I
Unknown artist

Reception with Countess Skavronskaya
Dementy SHMARINOV

After returning from the Prut campaign, Peter married Catherine in 1712. By that time they already had two daughters, Anna and Elizabeth, the rest of the children died before they were even five years old. They got married in St. Petersburg, the whole ceremony was arranged not as a traditional wedding celebration of a Russian autocrat, but as a modest wedding of Schoutbenacht Peter Mikhailov and his fighting girlfriend (unlike, for example, the magnificent wedding of Peter's niece Anna Ioannovna and Duke of Courland Friedrich Wilhelm in 1710. )

And Catherine, uneducated and without any experience of life at the top, really turned out to be the woman the tsar could not do without. She knew how to get along with Peter, extinguish outbursts of anger, she could calm him down when the king began to have severe migraines or convulsions. Everyone then ran after their “heart friend” Ekaterina. Peter put his head on her lap, she quietly said something to him (her voice seemed to bewitch Peter) and the king fell silent, then fell asleep and a few hours later woke up cheerful, calm and healthy.

Rest of Peter I
Mikhail SHANKOV
Peter, of course, loved Catherine very much, adored his beautiful daughters, Elizabeth and Anna.

Portrait of princesses Anna Petrovna and Elizaveta Petrovna
Louis CARAVACQUE

Alexey Petrovich

And what about Tsarevich Alexei, Peter’s son from his first marriage? The blow to the unloved wife ricocheted into the child. He was separated from his mother and given to be raised by his father's aunts, whom he saw rarely and was afraid of from childhood, feeling unloved. Gradually, a circle of opponents of Peter’s reforms formed around the boy, who instilled in Alexey pre-reform tastes: the desire for external piety, inaction and pleasure. The Tsarevich lived cheerfully in “his company” under the leadership of Yakov Ignatiev, he got used to feasting in Russian, which could not but harm his health, which was not very strong by nature. At first, the prince was taught to read and write by an educated and skilled rhetorician, Nikifor Vyazemsky, and from 1703, Alexei’s teacher was a German, Doctor of Law Heinrich Huyssen, who compiled an extensive syllabus, designed for two years. According to the plan, in addition to studying French, geography, cartography, arithmetic, geometry, the prince practiced fencing, dancing, and horse riding.

Johann Paul LUDDEN

It must be said that Tsarevich Alexei was not at all the shaggy, wretched, frail and cowardly hysteric that he was sometimes portrayed as and has been portrayed to this day. He was the son of his father, inherited his will, stubbornness and responded to the king with dull rejection and resistance, which was hidden behind demonstrative obedience and formal veneration. An enemy grew up behind Peter's back, not accepting anything of what his father did or fought for... Attempts to involve him in government affairs were not crowned with much success. Alexey Petrovich was in the army, took part in campaigns and battles (in 1704 the prince was in Narva), carried out various state orders of the tsar, but did so formally and reluctantly. Dissatisfied with his son, Peter sent the 19-year-old prince abroad, where he somehow studied for three years, unlike his sparkling parent, preferring peace to everything else. In 1711, almost against his will, he married Wolfenbüttel Crown Princess Charlotte Christina Sophia, sister-in-law of the Austrian Emperor Charles VI, and then returned to Russia.

Charlotte Christina Sophia of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel

Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich and Charlotte Christina Sophia of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel
Johann-Gottfried TANNAUER Grigory MOLCHANOV

Alexey Petrovich did not love the wife forced on him, but he coveted the serfdom of his teacher Nikifor Vyazemsky, Efrosinya, and dreamed of marrying her. Charlotte Sophia gave birth to his daughter Natalya in 1714, and a year later - a son, named Peter in honor of his grandfather. Nevertheless, until 1715 the relationship between father and son was more or less tolerable. In the same year, upon baptism into the Orthodox faith, the queen was named Ekaterina Alekseevna.

Portrait of the family of Peter I.
Peter I, Ekaterina Alekseevna, eldest son Alexey Petrovich, daughters Elizabeth and Anna, youngest two-year-old son Peter.
Grigory MUSIKIYSKY, Enamel on copper plate

The prince believed in his plan, being convinced that he was the only legitimate heir to the throne and, gritting his teeth, waited in the wings.

Tsarevich Alexey Petrovich
V. GREITBAKH Unknown artist

But soon after giving birth, Charlotte Sophia died, she was buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral on October 27, 1915, and on the same day Peter handed Alexei Petrovich a letter Announcement to my son(written, by the way, on October 11), in which he accused the prince of laziness, evil and stubborn disposition and threatened to deprive him of the throne: I will deprive you of your inheritance, I will cut off you like a member of the body affected by gangrene, and do not think that you are my only son and that I am writing this only for warning: truly I will fulfill it, for for my Fatherland and people I did not and do not regret my life, then how Can I feel sorry for you, indecent one?

Portrait of Tsarevich Peter Petrovich in the form of Cupid
Louis CARAVACQUE

On October 28, the Tsar gave birth to his long-awaited son, Pyotr Petrovich, “Shishechka”, “Little Little Gut”, as his parents later lovingly called him in letters. And the claims against the eldest son became more serious, and the accusations became more severe. Many historians believe that such changes were not without influence on Tsar Catherine and Alexander Danilovich Menshikov, who perfectly understood the unenviability of their fate if Alexei Petrovich came to the kingdom. After consulting with close people, Alexey renounced the throne in his letter: “And now, thank God, I have a brother, to whom, God grant him health.”

Portrait of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich
Johann Paul LUDDEN

Further - more. In January 1716, Peter wrote a second letter of accusation, “One last reminder,” in which he demanded that the prince be tonsured a monk: And if you don’t do this, then I will treat you like a villain. And the son gave formal consent to this. But Peter understood perfectly well that in the event of his death, a struggle for power would begin, the act of renunciation would become a simple piece of paper, and one could leave the monastery, i.e. In any case, Alexey will remain dangerous for Peter’s children from Catherine. This was a completely real situation; the king could find many examples from the history of other states.

In September 1716, Alexey received a third letter from his father from Copenhagen with an order to immediately come to him. Here the prince’s nerves gave way and in despair he decided to escape... Having passed Danzig, Alexei and Euphrosyne disappeared, arriving in Vienna under the name of the Polish nobleman Kokhanovsky. He turned to his brother-in-law, the Austrian Emperor, with a request for protection: I came here to ask the emperor... to save my life: they want to destroy me, they want to deprive me and my poor children of the throne, ...and if the Tsar hands me over to my father, it’s the same as executing me himself; Yes, even if my father spared me, then my stepmother and Menshikov would not rest until they tortured me to death or poisoned me. It seems to me that with such statements the prince himself signed his own death warrant.

Alexey Petrovich, Tsarevich
Engraving 1718

Austrian relatives hid the unfortunate fugitives out of harm's way in the Tyrolean castle of Ehrenberg, and in May 1717 they transported him and Euphrosyne, disguised as a page, to Naples to the castle of San Elmo. With great difficulty, alternating various threats, promises and persuasion, captain Rumyantsev and diplomat Pyotr Tolstoy sent to search, managed to return the prince to his homeland, where in February 1718 he officially abdicated the throne in the presence of senators and reconciled with his father. However, Peter soon opened an investigation, for which the notorious Secret Chancellery was created. As a result of the investigation, several dozen people were captured, severely tortured and executed.

Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich in Peterhof
Nikolay GE

Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei
Kuznetsov porcelain

In June, the prince himself ended up in the Peter and Paul Fortress. According to the legal norms of that time, Alexei was certainly perceived as a criminal. Firstly, having gone on the run, the prince could have been accused of treason. In Rus', no one ever had the right to freely travel abroad until 1762, before the appearance of the manifesto on the freedom of the nobility. Moreover, go to a foreign sovereign. This was absolutely out of the question. Secondly, at that time, not only the one who committed something criminal, but also the one who intended this criminal intent was considered a criminal. That is, they were judged not only for deeds, but also for intentions, including intentions, even unspoken ones. It was enough to admit this during the investigation. And any person, a prince or not a prince, who was guilty of something like that was subject to the death penalty.

Interrogation of Tsarevich Alexei
Book illustration

And Alexey Petrovich admitted during interrogations that in different years at different times he and different people had all sorts of conversations in which he criticized his father’s activities in one way or another. There was no obvious intent associated, for example, with a coup d'etat in these speeches. This was precisely criticism. With the exception of one moment, when the Tsarevich was asked - if the Viennese Tsar went with troops to Russia or gave him, Alexei, troops to achieve the throne and overthrow his father, would he take advantage of this or not? The prince answered positively. The confessional testimony of Tsarevich Euphrosyne’s beloved also added fuel to the fire.

Peter I went to court, emphasizing that this was a fair court, that this was a court of the highest ranks of the state who were solving a state problem. And the king, being a father, does not have the right to make such a decision. He wrote two messages addressed to spiritual hierarchs and secular ranks, in which he seemed to ask for advice: ...I fear God so as not to sin, for it is natural that people see less in their affairs than others see in theirs. It’s the same with doctors: even if he was the most skilled of all, he would not dare to treat his own illness himself, but calls on others.

The clergy answered evasively: the king must choose: according to the Old Testament, Alexei is worthy of death, according to the New - forgiveness, for Christ forgave the repentant prodigal son... The senators voted for the death penalty; On June 24, 1718, a specially formed Supreme Court pronounced the death sentence. And on June 26, 1718, after further torture under unclear circumstances, Tsarevich Alexei was apparently killed.

Tsarevich Alexey Petrovich
George STEWART

If someone thought that I was trying to justify such a wild and cruel attitude of Peter towards his eldest son, then this is not so. I just want to understand what guided him, taking into account the laws and customs of that era, and not his emotions.

When Alexei Petrovich passed away in 1718, it seemed that the situation with the succession to the throne had been resolved very well, the little Tsarevich Pyotr Petrovich, whom the Tsar loved very much, was growing up. But in 1719 the child died. Peter did not have a single direct heir in the male line. Once again this question remained open.

Well, the mother of Peter’s eldest son, Tsarina-nun Evdokia Lopukhina, meanwhile, was still in the Intercession Monastery, where she managed to create a real microcosm of the Moscow queen of the late 17th century, with an organized supply of food, things, preservation of the court rituals of the Moscow empress and ceremonial trips to pilgrimage.

And everything would have been fine, maybe it would have continued like this for a long time, Peter, despite the great battles and accomplishments, had nothing to do with her, but in 1710 our queen managed to fall in love. Not just like that, but, it seems, for real. In Major Stepan Bogdanov Glebov. She achieved a meeting with Glebov, a romance began, which on his part was very superficial, because the major understood that an affair with the queen, even a former one, could have consequences... He gave Evdokia sables, arctic foxes, jewelry, and she wrote letters full of passion : You forgot me so quickly. It’s not enough that your face, and your hands, and all your members, and the joints of your hands and feet are watered with my tears... Oh, my light, how can I live in the world without you? Glebov was frightened by such a waterfall of feelings and soon began to miss dates, and then left Suzdal completely. And Dunya continued to write sad and passionate letters, without fear of any punishment...

Evdokia Fedorovna Lopukhina, first wife of Peter I
Unknown artist

All these passions emerged from the so-called Kikinsky search in the case of Tsarevich Alexei. Monks and nuns of Suzdal monasteries, Krutitsy Metropolitan Ignatius and many others were convicted of sympathy for Evdokia Fedorovna. Among those arrested purely by chance was Stepan Glebov, who was found love letters queen. Enraged Peter gave the order to the investigators to take a close look at the nun Elena. Glebov very quickly admitted that lived prodigal with the former empress, but denied participation in the conspiracy against the tsar, although he was tortured in a way that no one was tortured even at that cruel time: they were pulled on a rack, burned with fire, then locked in a tiny cell, the floor of which was studded with nails.

In a letter to Peter, Evdokia Fedorovna apologized for everything and asked for forgiveness: Falling at your feet, I ask for mercy, for forgiveness of my crime, so that I do not die a useless death. And I promise to continue to be a monk and to remain in monasticism until my death and I will pray to God for you, Sovereign.

Evdokia Fedorovna Lopukhina (nun Elena)
Unknown artist

Peter brutally executed everyone involved in the case. On March 15, 1718, on Red Square, the barely alive Glebov was impaled and left to die. And so that he would not freeze prematurely in the cold, a sheepskin coat was “carefully” thrown over his shoulders. A priest was on duty nearby, waiting for a confession, but Glebov said nothing. And one more touch to the portrait of Peter. He took revenge on his unlucky lover ex-wife also ordering that the name of Stepan Glebov be included in the list of anathemas, as the queen's lover. On this list, Glebov was in company with the most terrible criminals of Russia: Grishka Otrepiev, Stenka Razin, Vanka Mazepa..., and later Levka Tolstoy also ended up there...

Peter transferred Evdokia that same year to another, the Ladoga Assumption Monastery, where she spent 7 years until his death. There she was kept on bread and water in a cold cell without windows. All the servants were removed, and only the faithful dwarf Agafya remained with her. The prisoner was so humble that the jailers here treated her with sympathy. In 1725, after the death of Peter I, the queen was transferred to Shlisselburg, where under Catherine I she was kept in strict secret custody. Again there was scanty food and a cramped cell, albeit with a window. But despite all the hardships, Evdokia Lopukhina survived both her crowned husband and his second wife Ekaterina, so we will meet her again...

No less dramatic was the story of Maria Hamilton, who came from an ancient Scottish family and was on Ekaterina Alekseevna’s staff as a maid of honor. Maria, distinguished by her excellent beauty, quickly came to the attention of the monarch, who recognized her as talents that it was impossible not to look at with lust and for some time became his mistress. Possessing an adventurous character and an indomitable desire for luxury, the young Scot was already mentally trying on the royal crown, in the hope of replacing the aging Catherine, but Peter quickly lost interest in the beautiful girl, since there was no one better for him than a wife in the world...

Catherine the First

Maria was not bored for a long time and soon found solace in the arms of the royal orderly Ivan Orlov - a young and handsome guy. They both played with fire, because in order to sleep with the king’s mistress, even an ex-mistress, you really had to be an eagle! By an absurd accident, during the search for Tsarevich Alexei in the case, suspicion of the loss of a denunciation written by Orlov himself fell on him. Not understanding what he was accused of, the orderly fell on his face and confessed to the Tsar that he was cohabiting with Maria Gamonova (as she was called in Russian), saying that she had two children from him who were born dead. During interrogation under the whip, Maria admitted that she poisoned two conceived children with some kind of drug, and immediately drowned the last one that was born in a night boat, and told the maid to throw away the body.

Peter I
Grigory MUSICIYSKY Karel de MOOR

It must be said that before Peter I, the attitude in Rus' towards bastards and their mothers was monstrous. Therefore, in order not to incur anger and troubles on themselves, mothers mercilessly poisoned the fruits of sinful love, and if they were born, they often killed them in various ways. Peter, first of all, caring for the state interests (a great deal... there will be a small soldier over time), in the Decree of 1715 on hospitals, ordered that hospitals be established in the state to maintain shameful babies, whom wives and girls give birth to illegally and, for the sake of shame, are swept away to different places, which is why these babies die uselessly... And then he threateningly decided: And if such illegitimate births appear in the killing of those babies, and for such atrocities they themselves will be executed by death. In all provinces and cities, it was ordered to open houses in hospitals and near churches for the reception of illegitimate children, who at any day could be placed in the window, which was always open for this purpose.

Maria was sentenced to death by beheading. Actually, according to the Code of 1649, a child killer is alive buried in the ground up to their tits, with their hands together and trampled under their feet. It happened that the criminal lived in this situation for a whole month, unless, of course, the relatives did not interfere with feeding the unfortunate woman and did not allow stray dogs to chew her to death. But another death awaited Hamilton. After the verdict was pronounced, many people close to Peter tried to appease him, emphasizing that the girl acted unconsciously, out of fear, she was simply ashamed. Both queens stood up for Maria Hamilton - Ekaterina Alekseevna and the dowager queen Praskovya Fedorovna. But Peter was adamant: the law must be fulfilled, and he is not able to abolish it. Without a doubt, it was also important that the babies killed by Hamilton could have been the children of Peter himself, and it was this, like the betrayal, that the tsar could not forgive his former favorite.

Maria Hamilton before her execution
Pavel SVEDOMSKY

On March 14, 1719, in St. Petersburg, in front of a crowd of people, the Russian Lady Hamilton ascended the scaffold, where the scaffold already stood and the executioner was waiting. Until the last moment, Maria hoped for mercy, dressed up in white dress and when Peter appeared, she knelt before him. The Emperor promised that the executioner’s hand would not touch her: it is known that during the execution the executioner roughly grabbed the executed person, stripped him naked and threw him onto the block...

Execution in the presence of Peter the Great

Everyone froze in anticipation of Peter's final decision. He whispered something in the executioner’s ear, and he suddenly swung his wide sword and in the blink of an eye cut off the head of the kneeling woman. So Peter, without breaking his promise to Mary, at the same time tried out the executioner’s sword brought from the West - a new execution weapon for Russia, used for the first time instead of a crude ax. According to the recollections of contemporaries, after the execution, the sovereign raised Mary’s head by her luxurious hair and kissed her lips that were not yet cooled, and then read to all those gathered, frozen in horror, an intelligent lecture on anatomy (about the features of the blood vessels that feed the human brain), in which he a great lover and connoisseur...

After a demonstration lesson in anatomy, Maria’s head was ordered to be preserved in alcohol in the Kunstkamera, where it lay in a jar along with other monsters from the collection of the first Russian museum for almost half a century. Everyone had long since forgotten what kind of head it was, and visitors, ears hanging, listened to the watchman’s tales that once Tsar Peter the Great ordered the head of the most beautiful of his court ladies to be cut off and preserved in alcohol, so that descendants would know what kind of head it was. beautiful women were in those days. While conducting an audit in Peter's Kunstkamera, Princess Ekaterina Dashkova discovered heads preserved in alcohol next to the freaks in two jars. One of them belonged to Willim Mons (our next hero), the other to Peter’s mistress, maid of honor Hamilton. The Empress ordered them to be buried in peace.

Portrait of Peter I, 1717
Ivan NIKITIN

The last strong love of Tsar Peter was Maria Cantemir, the daughter of the Gospodar of Moldavia Dmitry Cantemir and Kassandra Sherbanovna Cantacuzen, the daughter of the Wallachian Gospodar. Peter knew her as a girl, but she quickly turned from a thin little girl into one of the most beautiful ladies of the royal court. Maria was very smart, knew several languages, was interested in ancient and Western European literature and history, drawing, music, studied the basics of mathematics, astronomy, rhetoric, philosophy, so it’s no wonder that the girl could easily join in and support any conversation.

Maria Cantemir
Ivan NIKITIN

The father did not interfere, but, on the contrary, with the support of Peter Tolstoy, helped bring his daughter closer to the tsar. Catherine, who at first turned a blind eye to her husband’s next hobby, became wary when she learned about Maria’s pregnancy. Those around the Tsar seriously said that if she gave birth to a son, then Catherine could repeat the fate of Evdokia Lopukhina... The Tsarina made every effort to ensure that the child was not born (the Greek family doctor Palikula, Mary’s doctor who prepared the potion, was bribed to Pyotr Andreevich Tolstoy promised the title of count).

Portrait of Count Pyotr Andreevich Tolstoy
Georg GZELL Johann Gonfried TANNAUER

During the Prut campaign of 1722, on which the entire court, Catherine and the Kantemirov family went, Maria lost her child. The king visited the woman, blackened from grief and suffering, and said several kind words as a consolation and was like that...

Maria Cantemir

Recent years life was not easy for Peter I in a personal sense, his youth passed, he was overcome by illness, he entered the age when a person needs close people who would understand him. Having become emperor, Peter I apparently decided to leave the throne to his wife. And that is why in the spring of 1724 he solemnly married Catherine. For the first time in Russian history, the empress was crowned with the imperial crown. Moreover, it is known that Peter personally placed the imperial crown on his wife’s head during the ceremony.

Proclamation of Catherine I as Empress of All Russia
Boris CHORIKOV

Peter I crowns Catherine
NH, from the collection of the Yegoryevsk Museum

Everything seemed to be in order. Ah, no. In the autumn of 1724, this idyll was destroyed by the news that the empress was unfaithful to her husband. She had an affair with Chamberlain Willim Mons. And again, a grimace of history: this is the brother of the same Anna Mons, with whom Peter himself was in love in his youth. Forgetting caution and completely succumbing to her feelings, Catherine brought her favorite as close to her as possible; he accompanied her on all her trips and stayed for a long time in Catherine’s chambers.

Tsar Peter I Alekseevich the Great and Ekaterina Alekseevna

Upon learning of Catherine's infidelity, Peter was furious. For him, the betrayal of his beloved wife was a serious blow. He destroyed the will signed in her name, became gloomy and merciless, practically stopped communicating with Catherine, and from then on access to him became prohibited for her. Mons was arrested, put on trial “for fraud and illegal acts” and interrogated personally by Peter I. Five days after his arrest, he was sentenced to death on charges of bribery. William Mons was executed by beheading on November 16 in St. Petersburg. The body of the chamberlain lay on the scaffold for several days, and his head was preserved in alcohol and kept for a long time in the Kunstkamera.

Portraits of Peter the Great
Trellis. Silk, wool, metal thread, canvas, weaving.
Petersburg Trellis Manufactory
Author of the picturesque original J-M. NATIE

And Peter again began to visit Maria Cantemir. But time passed... Maria, apparently, fell in love with Peter as a child and this passion became fatal and the only one, she accepted Peter as he was, but they missed each other a little in time, the emperor’s life was nearing sunset. She did not forgive the repentant doctor and Count Peter Tolstoy, who were guilty of the death of her son. Maria Cantemir devoted the rest of her life to her brothers, participated in the political life of the court and social intrigues, did charity work, and until the end of her life remained faithful to her first and only love - Peter the Great. At the end of her life, the princess, in the presence of the memoirist Jacob von Stehlin, burned everything that connected her with Peter I: his letters, papers, two portraits, framed precious stones(Peter in armor and his own)...

Maria Cantemir
Book illustration

The consolation of Emperor Peter remained the crown princesses, their beautiful daughters Anna, Elizabeth and Natalya. In November 1924, the emperor agreed to Anna's marriage with Karl Friedrich of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, who signed a contract for marriage with Anna Petrovna. Daughter Natalya lived longer than Peter’s other children who died in childhood, and only these three girls were alive at the time of the proclamation. Russian Empire in 1721 and accordingly received the title of princess. Natalya Petrovna died in St. Petersburg from measles a little over a month after the death of her father on March 4 (15), 1725.

Portraits of princesses Anna Petrovna and Elizaveta Petrovna
Ivan NIKITIN

Tsesarevna Natalya Petrovna
Louis CARAVACQUE

Portrait of Peter the Great
Sergey KIRILLOV Unknown artist

Peter I never forgave Catherine: after the execution of Mons, he agreed to dine with her only once, at the request of his daughter Elizabeth. Only the death of the emperor in January 1725 reconciled the spouses.

Rice. 1. False Peter the First and my reading of the inscriptions on his portrait

I borrowed the portrait from a video film where the Announcer says: “ But in another of his engravings, as in all subsequent portraits of other artists, we see a completely different person, unlike his relatives. It would seem absurd!

But the strangeness doesn’t end there either. In engravings and portraits of 1698, this man looks more like a 20-year-old youth. However, in Dutch and German portraits of 1697, the same person looks more like 30 years old.

How could this happen?»

I begin an epigraphic analysis of this portrait. A hint as to where to look for certain inscriptions is provided by the two previous portraits. First I read the inscription on the brooch attached to the headdress, which says: MIM YAR RURIK. In other words, this is another priest of Yar Rurik, although there is no signature of KHARAON. It may very well be that the absence of this highest spiritual title means that this priest did not recognize the spiritual priority of Rurik, although formally he was his priest. In this case, he was very suitable for the role of Peter's double.

Then I read the inscriptions on fur collar on the left, above the white frame: TEMPLE OF MARY YAR. I consider this inscription as a continuation of the previous one. And inside the fragment, surrounded by a white frame, I read the words in reverse color: MOSCOW MARY 865 YAR (YEAR). Moscow Mary meant Veliky Novgorod; however, already the first Romanov introduced real Christianity, and Patriarch Nikon under Alexei Mikhailovich eliminated all remnants of Russian Vedism from Muscovy. Consequently, Russian Vedists partly go to the Russian hinterland, partly move into the Russian diaspora in neighboring states. And the year 865 of Yar is 1721 AD , this is more than 70 years after Nikon’s reforms. By this time, the places of priests were no longer occupied by children, but by grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the priests removed by Nikon, and grandchildren and great-grandchildren often no longer speak the speech of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. But perhaps the year of the final design of this engraving, which was begun in 1698, is shown. But even in this case, the young man depicted is 6-8 years younger than Peter.

And on the lowest fragment, under the frame on the fur collar on the left, I read the word MASK. Then I read the inscription on the fur collar on the right: the top of the collar, diagonally, contains the inscription ANATOLY FROM Rus' MARY, and the line below - 35 ARKONA YARA. But the 35th Arkona Yara is the same as Moscow Mary, this is Veliky Novgorod. In other words, one of the ancestors of this Anatoly in the middle of the 17th century could actually have been a priest in this city, whereas after Nikon’s reforms he ended up somewhere in the Russian diaspora. It is possible that in Catholic Poland, which very diligently followed all the decrees of the Pope.

Rice. 2. Portrait of Peter by brush unknown artist late 18th century

So, we now know that the young man with bulging eyes was not Peter at all, but Anatoly; in other words, the replacement of the king was documented.

We see that this portrait was painted in Veliky Novgorod. But apart from the name of False Peter, this portrait did not bring any details, and, in addition, the artist was not even named, so this portrait was not entirely acceptable as an evidentiary document, which forced me to look for other canvases. And soon the desired portrait was found: “ Peter the Great, Emperor of All Russia, portrait of an unknown late artist18th century". Below I will show why the artist turned out to be unknown.

Epigraphic analysis of the second portrait of False Peter.

I chose this particular image of Peter, because on his silk baldric I read the word YARA at the bottom, deciding that the portrait belonged to the brush of the artist of their temple, Yara. And I was not mistaken. The letters were inscribed both in individual parts of the face and in the folds of clothing.

Rice. 3. My reading of the inscriptions on the portrait of Peter in Fig. 2

It is clear that if I suspected the presence of Russian inscriptions on the blue silk ribbon, then I started reading from there. True, since in direct color these letters are not visible in very contrasting, I switch to reverse color. And here you can see the inscription in very large letters: TEMPLE YAR, and on the collar there is an inscription MASK. This confirmed my preliminary reading. In modern reading this means: IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF YAR .

And then I moved on to reading the inscriptions on parts of the face. First - on the right side of the face, on the left at the viewer's point of view. On the lower strands of hair (I rotated this fragment 90 degrees to the right, clockwise). Here I read the words: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF RURIK. In other words, IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF RURIK .

On the hair above the forehead you can read the words: MIM OF THE TEMPLE OF RURIK. Finally, on the right from the viewer's point of view, on the left side of the face, one can read MASK OF ANATOLIUS FROM RURIK JAR JUTLAND. Firstly, it is confirmed that False Peter’s name was Anatoly, and, secondly, it turned out that he did not come from Holland, as many researchers assumed, but from neighboring Denmark. However, moving from one country to another at the end of the 17th century apparently did not pose a big problem.

Next, I move on to reading the inscription on the mustache. Here you can read the words: RIMA MIM. In other words, Danish by birth and Dutch by language, he was an agent of Roman influence. For the umpteenth time, the final center of action against Rus'-Russia is Rome!

But is it possible to verify this statement? - I'm looking at the armor on right hand, as well as the background behind the hand. However, for ease of reading, I rotate this fragment to the right by 90 degrees (clockwise). And here on the background in the form of fur you can read the words: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF ROME And RIMA MIM Rus' ROME. In other words, that before us is really an image not of the Emperor of Rus', but of a priest of Rome! And on the armor the arms can be read on every two plates: RIMA MIM. RIMA MIM.

Finally, on the fur collar next to the left hand you can read the words: RURIK RIMA MIM.

Thus, it becomes clear that the temples of Rurik existed back in the 18th century, and their priests, when creating portraits of deceased people (usually the priests of the Temple of Mary did this), usually wrote their titles, as well as names. This is exactly what we saw in this portrait. However, in a Christian country (where Christianity was official religion for more than a century) it was unsafe to advertise the existence of Vedic temples, which is why the artist of this portrait remained unknown.

Rice. 4. Rurik’s death mask and my reading of the inscriptions

Death mask of Peter.

Then I decided to look at foreign sites on the Internet. In the article, I read the “Great Embassy” section with interest. In particular, it said: “ His Grand Embassy, ​​numbering 250 participants, left Moscow in March 1697. Peter became the first king to travel outside his kingdom. The official purpose of the embassy was to give new breath to the coalition against the Ottoman Empire. However, Peter made no secret of the fact that he went to “observe and learn,” as well as to select foreign specialists for his new Russia. In the then Swedish city of Riga, the king was allowed to inspect the fortress, but to his greatest surprise, he was not allowed to take measurements. In Courland (the current region of the coast of Lithuania and Latvia), Peter met with the Dutch ruler, Frederick Casimir. The prince tried to convince Peter to join his coalition against Sweden. In Königsberg, Peter visited the Friedrichsburg fortress. He took part in attending artillery courses, and graduated from them with a diploma certifying that “Pyotr Mikhailov gained proficiency as a bombardier and skills in the use of firearms».

The following describes Peter's visit to Levenguk with his microscope and Witsen, who compiled a book describing northern and eastern Tartary. But most of all I was interested in the description of his secret meeting: “ On September 11, 1697, Peter had a secret meeting with King William of EnglandIII. Nothing is known about their negotiations, except that they lasted two hours and ended in an amicable parting. At that time, the English navy was considered the fastest in the world. King William assured that Peter should visit the English naval shipyards, where he would learn to understand the design of ships, carry out measurements and calculations, and learn to use instruments and tools. As soon as he arrived in England, he attempted to sail on the Thames» .

One gets the impression that it was in England that the best conditions existed for replacing Peter with Anatoly.

The same article published the death mask of Peter the Great. The caption underneath it reads: "DeathmaskofPeter. After 1725, St. Petersburg, from the original by Bartolomeo Rastrelli, after 1725, Bronze-tinted plaster. Case 34.5 x 29 x 33 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg." This death mask has On my forehead I read the inscription in the form of a strand of hair: MIMA RUSI ROME MASK. She confirms that this image does not belong to the Russian Emperor Peter the Great, but to the Roman priest Anatoly.

Rice. 5. Miniature by an unknown artist and my reading of the inscriptions

Miniature by an unknown artist.

I found it at the address with the signature: “Peter the Great (1672 - 1725) of Russia. Enamel miniature portrait by an unknown artist, late 1790s. #Russian #history #Romanov”, Fig. 5.

Upon examination, it can be argued that the largest number of inscriptions are in the background. I enhanced the miniature itself by contrast. To the left and above the head of the portrait I read the captions: RIMA RURIK YAR MARY TEMPLE AND ROME MIM AND ARKONA 30. In other words, it is now being clarified in which particular temple of Mary Rome the miniature was made: in the capital of the state of Rome, in the city a little to the west CAIRA .

To the left of my head, at hair level, I read the words in the background: MARY RUSI TEMPLE OF VAGRIA. Perhaps this is the address of the customer for the miniature. Finally, I read the writing on the character's face, on his left cheek (where the wart on the left side of the nose is missing), and here you can read the words below the shadow of the cheek: RIMA MIM ANATOLY RIMA YARA STOLITSY. So, the name Anatoly is once again confirmed, now written in rather large letters.

Rice. 6. A fragment of a picture from the Encyclopedia Britannica and my reading of the inscriptions

Picture of Peter from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here I read the inscriptions on the fragment where there is a bust portrait, fig. 6 though full picture much more extensive, Fig. 7. However, I singled out exactly the fragment and the size that suited me perfectly for epigraphic analysis.

The first inscription that I began to read was an image of a mustache. On them you can read the words: TEMPLE OF ROME MIMA, and then - continuation on the upper lip: RURIK, and then on the red part of the lip: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARA, and then on the lower lip: ANATOLIA ROME ARKONA 30. In other words, here we see confirmation of the previous inscriptions: again the name of Anatoly, and again its connection to the temple of Mary Rurik in the city near Cairo.

Then I read the inscription on the collar: 30 ARKONA YAR. And then I move on to look at the fragment to the left of Peter’s face, which I have outlined with a black frame. Here I read the words: 30 ARKONA YAR, which has already been read. But then come new and surprising words: ANATOLIA MARY TEMPLE IN ANKARA ROME. What is surprising is not so much the existence of a special temple dedicated to Anatoly, but the location of such a temple in the capital of Turkey, Ankara. I have not yet read such words anywhere. Moreover, the word ANATOLY can be understood not only as a person’s proper name, but also as the name of a locality in Turkey.

For now, I consider it sufficient to consider the inscriptions on the portraits. And then I am interested in the details of the substitution of the Russian Tsar, which can be found in printed works on the Internet.

Rice. 7. Picture from Encyclopedia Britannica online

Wikipedia's opinion on the substitution of Peter the Great.

In the article “Double of Peter I,” Wikipedia, in particular, states: “ According to one version, the replacement of Peter I was organized by certain influential forces in Europe during the Tsar’s trip to the Grand Embassy. It is alleged that of the Russian people who accompanied the Tsar on a diplomatic trip to Europe, only Alexander Menshikov returned - the rest are believed to have been killed. The purpose of this crime was to place a protege at the head of Russia, who pursued a policy beneficial to the organizers of the substitution and those who stood behind them. One of the possible goals of this substitution is considered to be the weakening of Russia».

Note that the history of the conspiracy to replace the Tsar of Rus' in this presentation is conveyed only from the side of facts, and, moreover, very vaguely. As if the Great Embassy itself had only the goal of creating a coalition against Ottoman Empire, and not the goal of replacing the real Romanov with his double.

« It is alleged that Peter I, according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, changed dramatically after returning from the Great Embassy. As evidence of the substitution, portraits of the king are given before and after his return from Europe. It is stated that in the portrait of Peter before his trip to Europe he had a long face, curly hair and a large wart under his left eye. In portraits of the king after his return from Europe, he had a round face, straight hair and no wart under his left eye. When Peter I returned from the Great Embassy, ​​he was 28 years old, and in his portraits after his return he looked about 40 years old. It is believed that before the trip the king was of heavy build and above average height, but still not a two-meter giant. The king who returned was thin, had very narrow shoulders, and his height, which was absolutely established, was 2 meters 4 centimeters. Such tall people were very rare at that time».

We see that the authors of these Wikipedia lines do not at all share the provisions that they present to the reader, although these provisions are facts. How can you not notice such dramatic changes in appearance? Thus, Wikipedia tries to present obvious points with some speculation, something like this: “ it is stated that two times two equals four" The fact that the person who arrived from the embassy was different can be seen by comparing any of the portraits in Fig. 1-7 with a portrait of the departed king, fig. 8.

Rice. 8. Portrait of the departed Tsar Peter the Great and my reading of the inscriptions

To the dissimilarity of facial features can be added the dissimilarity of implicit inscriptions on these two types of portraits. The real Peter is signed as “Peter Alekseevich”, the False Peter in all five portraits is signed as Anatoly. Although both were mimes (priests) of the temple of Rurik in Rome.

I will continue quoting Wikipedia: “ According to conspiracy theorists, soon after the double’s arrival in Russia, rumors began to spread among the Streltsy that the tsar was not real. Peter's sister Sophia, realizing that an impostor had come instead of her brother, led the Streltsy riot, which was brutally suppressed, and Sophia was imprisoned in a monastery».

Note that in this case, the motive for the uprising of the Streltsy and Sophia turns out to be extremely serious, while the motive for the struggle between Sophia and her brother for the throne in a country where only men have reigned until now (the usual motive of academic historiography) seems very far-fetched.

« It is alleged that Peter loved his wife Evdokia Lopukhina very much, and often corresponded with her when he was away. After the Tsar returned from Europe, on his orders, Lopukhina was forcibly sent to the Suzdal monastery, even against the will of the clergy (it is alleged that Peter did not even see her and did not explain the reasons for Lopukhina’s imprisonment in the monastery).

It is believed that after his return, Peter did not recognize his relatives and subsequently did not meet with them or his inner circle. In 1698, shortly after Peter’s return from Europe, his associates Lefort and Gordon died suddenly. According to conspiracy theorists, it was on their initiative that Peter went to Europe».

It is unclear why Wikipedia calls this concept a conspiracy theory. According to a conspiracy of the nobility, Paul the First was killed, the conspirators threw a bomb at the feet of Alexander the Second, the USA, England and Germany contributed to the elimination of Nicholas the Second. In other words, the West has repeatedly intervened in the fate of Russian sovereigns.

« Proponents of the conspiracy theory claim that the returning king was sick with tropical fever in a chronic form, while it can only be contracted in southern waters, and even then only after being in the jungle. The route of the Great Embassy passed along the northern sea route. The surviving documents of the Grand Embassy do not mention that the constable Pyotr Mikhailov (under this name the tsar went with the embassy) fell ill with a fever, while for the people accompanying him it was no secret who Mikhailov really was. After returning from the Grand Embassy, ​​Peter I, during naval battles, demonstrated extensive experience in boarding combat, having specific features, which can only be mastered through experience. Boarding combat skills require direct participation in many boarding battles. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I did not take part in naval battles, since during his childhood and youth Russia did not have access to the seas, with the exception of the White Sea, which Peter I did not visit often - mainly as an honorary passenger».

It follows from this that Anatoly was a naval officer who took part in the naval battles of the southern seas and suffered from tropical fever.

« It is alleged that the returning Tsar spoke Russian poorly, that he did not learn to write Russian correctly until the end of his life, and that he “hated everything Russian.” Conspiracy theorists believe that before his trip to Europe, the tsar was distinguished by his piety, and when he returned, he stopped observing fasts and attending church, mocked the clergy, began persecuting Old Believers and began to close monasteries. It is believed that in two years Peter forgot all the sciences and subjects that the educated Moscow nobility possessed, and at the same time acquired skills of a simple craftsman. According to conspiracy theorists, there is a striking change in Peter’s character and psyche after his return».

Again, there are clear changes not only in appearance, but also in Peter’s language and habits. In other words, Anatoly did not belong not only to the royal class, but even to the noble class, being a typical representative of the third class. In addition, there is no mention of the fact that Anatoly spoke fluent Dutch, which many researchers note. In other words, he came from somewhere in the Dutch-Danish region.

« It is alleged that the tsar, having returned from Europe, did not know about the location of the richest library of Ivan the Terrible, although the secret of the location of this library was passed from tsar to tsar. Thus, Princess Sophia allegedly knew where the library was located and visited it, and Peter, who came from Europe, repeatedly made attempts to find the library and even organized excavations».

Again, a specific fact is presented by Wikipedia as some “statements”.

« His behavior and actions are cited as evidence of Peter’s substitution (in particular, the fact that previously the tsar, who preferred traditionally Russian clothes, after returning from Europe no longer wore them, including royal clothes with a crown - conspiracy theorists explain last fact the fact that the impostor was taller than Peter and had narrower shoulders, and the tsar’s things did not fit him in size), as well as the reforms he carried out. It is argued that these reforms have brought much more harm to Russia than good. Peter’s tightening of serfdom, the persecution of Old Believers, and the fact that under Peter I in Russia there were many foreigners in the service and in various positions are used as evidence. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I set as his goal to expand the territory of Russia, including moving south towards Cherny and Mediterranean seas. One of the main goals of the Grand Embassy was to achieve an alliance of European powers against Turkey. While the returning king began the struggle to take possession of the Baltic coast. The war waged by the Tsar with Sweden, according to supporters of the conspiracy theory, was needed by Western states, who wanted to crush the growing power of Sweden with the hands of Russia. It is alleged that Peter I carried out foreign policy in the interests of Poland, Saxony and Denmark, which could not resist the Swedish king Charles XII».

It is clear that the raids of the Crimean khans on Moscow were a constant threat to Russia, and the rulers of the Ottoman Empire stood behind the Crimean khans. Therefore, the fight with Turkey was a more important strategic task for Russia than the fight on the Baltic coast. And Wikipedia’s mention of Denmark is consistent with the inscription on one of the portraits that Anatoly was from Jutland.

« As evidence, the case of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich is also cited, who in 1716 fled abroad, where he planned to wait on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire for the death of Peter (who was seriously ill during this period) and then, relying on the help of the Austrians, to become the Russian Tsar. According to supporters of the version of the replacement of the tsar, Alexei Petrovich fled to Europe because he sought to free his real father, imprisoned in the Bastille. According to Gleb Nosovsky, the impostor’s agents told Alexei that after his return he would be able to take the throne himself, since loyal troops were waiting for him in Russia, ready to support his rise to power. Returning Alexei Petrovich, according to conspiracy theorists, was killed on the orders of the impostor».

And this version turns out to be more serious compared to the academic version, where the son opposes his father for ideological reasons, and the father, without putting his son under house arrest, immediately applies capital punishment. All this in the academic version looks unconvincing.

Version by Gleb Nosovsky.

Wikipedia also presents the version of the new chronologists. " According to Gleb Nosovsky, initially he heard many times about the version of Peter’s substitution, but never believed it. At one time, Fomenko and Nosovsky studied an exact copy of the throne of Ivan the Terrible. In those days, the zodiac signs of the current rulers were placed on the thrones. By examining the signs placed on the throne of Ivan the Terrible, Nosovsky and Fomenko found that the actual date of his birth differs from the official version by four years.

The authors of the “New Chronology” compiled a table of the names of Russian tsars and their birthdays, and thanks to this table they found out that the official birthday of Peter I (May 30) does not coincide with the day of his angel, which is a noticeable contradiction in comparison with all the names of Russian tsars. After all, names in Rus' during baptism were given exclusively according to the calendar, and the name given to Peter violated the established centuries-old tradition, which in itself does not fit into the framework and laws of that time. Based on the table, Nosovsky and Fomenko found out that the real name, which falls on the official date of birth of Peter I, was “Isaky.” This explains the name of the main cathedral of Tsarist Russia, St. Isaac's Cathedral.

Nosovsky believes that the Russian historian Pavel Milyukov also shared the opinion that the tsar was a forgery in an article in the encyclopedia of Brockhausa and Evfron Milyukov, according to Nosovsky, without directly stating, repeatedly hinted that Peter I was an impostor. The replacement of the tsar by an impostor was carried out, according to Nosovsky, by a certain group of Germans, and together with the double, a group of foreigners came to Russia. According to Nosovsky, among Peter’s contemporaries there were very widespread rumors about the replacement of the tsar, and almost all the archers claimed that the tsar was a fake. Nosovsky believes that May 30 was actually the birthday not of Peter, but of the impostor who replaced him, on whose orders St. Isaac's Cathedral, named after him, was built».

The name “Anatoly” we discovered does not contradict this version, because the name “Anatoly” was a monastic name, and not given at birth. - As we see, the “new chronologists” have added another touch to the portrait of the impostor.

Historiography of Peter.

It would seem that it would be easier to look at the biographies of Peter the Great, preferably during his lifetime, and explain the contradictions that interest us.

However, this is where disappointment awaits us. Here's what you can read in the work: " There were persistent rumors among the people about Peter's non-Russian origin. He was called the Antichrist, the German foundling. The difference between Tsar Alexei and his son was so striking that suspicions about Peter’s non-Russian origin arose among many historians. Moreover, the official version of Peter’s origin was too unconvincing. She left and leaves more questions than answers. Many researchers have tried to lift the veil of strange reticence about the Peter the Great phenomenon. However, all these attempts immediately fell under the strictest taboo of the ruling house of the Romanovs. The phenomenon of Peter remained unsolved».

So, the people unequivocally asserted that Peter had been replaced. Doubts arose not only among the people, but even among historians. And then we read with surprise: “ Incomprehensibly, until the mid-19th century, not a single work with a complete historiography of Peter the Great was published. The first who decided to publish a complete scientific and historical biography of Peter was the wonderful Russian historian Nikolai Gerasimovich Ustryalov, already mentioned by us. In the Introduction to his work "History of the reign of Peter the Great" he sets out in detail why until now (mid-19th century) there is no scientific work on the history of Peter the Great" This is how this detective story began.

According to Ustryalov, back in 1711, Peter became eager to obtain the history of his reign and entrusted this honorable mission to the translator of the Ambassadorial Order Venedikt Schiling. The latter was provided with all the necessary materials and archives, but... the work was never published, not a single sheet of the manuscript has survived. What follows is even more mysterious: “The Russian Tsar had every right to be proud of his exploits and wish to pass on to posterity the memory of his deeds in a true, unadorned form. They decided to carry out his ideaFeofan Prokopovich , Bishop of Pskov, and teacher of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich,Baron Huysen . Official materials were communicated to both, as can be seen from Feofan’s essay, and as even more evidenced by the Emperor’s own handwritten note of 1714, preserved in his cabinet files: “Give all the journals to Giesen.”(1). It would seem that now the History of Peter I will finally be published. But that was not the case: “A skilled preacher, a learned theologian, Theophan was not a historian at all... That is why, when describing battles, he fell into inevitable mistakes; Moreover, he worked with obvious haste, a quick fix, made omissions that I wanted to fill in later”. As we see, Peter’s choice was unsuccessful: Feofan was not a historian and did not understand anything. Huysen's work also turned out to be unsatisfactory and was not published: “Baron Huysen, having in his hands authentic journals of campaigns and travels, limited himself to extracts from them until 1715, without any connection, entangling many trifles and extraneous matters into historical events.”.

In a word, neither this biography nor the subsequent ones took place. And the author comes to the following conclusion: “ Strict censorship of all historical research continued into the 19th century. So the work of N.G. himself Ustryalov, which is the first scientific historiography of Peter I, was subjected to severe censorship. From the 10-volume edition, only individual excerpts from 4 volumes have survived! Last time this fundamental study about Peter I (1, 2, 3 volumes, part of the 4th volume, 6 volumes) was published in a truncated version only in 1863! Today it is virtually lost and is preserved only in antique collections. The same fate befell the work of I.I. Golikov’s “Acts of Peter the Great,” which has not been republished since the century before last! Notes from the associate and personal turner of Peter I A.K. Nartov’s “Reliable narratives and speeches of Peter the Great” were first opened and published only in 1819. At the same time, with a meager circulation in the little-known magazine “Son of the Fatherland”. But even that edition underwent unprecedented editing, when out of 162 stories only 74 were published. This work was never reprinted; the original was irretrievably lost» .

The entire book by Alexander Kas is called “The Collapse of the Empire of the Russian Tsars” (1675-1700), which implies the establishment of an empire of non-Russian tsars. And in Chapter IX, entitled “How the royal dynasty was slaughtered under Peter,” he describes the position of Stepan Razin’s troops 12 miles near Moscow. And he describes many other interesting, but practically unknown events. However, he does not provide any more information about False Peter.

Other opinions.

Again, I will continue to quote the already mentioned Wikipedia article: “It is alleged that Peter’s double was an experienced sailor who participated in many naval battles and sailed a lot in the southern seas. It is sometimes claimed that he was a sea pirate. Sergei Sall believes that the impostor was a high-ranking Dutch Freemason and a relative of the King of Holland and Great Britain, William of Orange. It is most often mentioned that the real name of the double was Isaac (according to one version, his name was Isaac Andre). According to Baida, the double was from either Sweden or Denmark, and by religion he was most likely a Lutheran.

Baida claims that the real Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille, and that he was the famous prisoner who went down in history under the name Iron Mask. According to Baida, this prisoner was recorded under the name Marchiel, which can be interpreted as “Mikhailov” (under this name Peter went to the Grand Embassy). It is stated that Iron Mask was tall, carried himself with dignity, and was treated fairly well. In 1703, Peter, according to Baida, was killed in the Bastille. Nosovsky claims that the real Peter was kidnapped and most likely killed.

It is sometimes claimed that the real Peter was actually deceived into going to Europe so that some foreign forces could force him to subsequently pursue the policies they wanted. Without agreeing to this, Peter was kidnapped or killed, and a double was put in his place.

In one version of the version, the real Peter was captured by the Jesuits and imprisoned in a Swedish fortress. He managed to deliver a letter to King Charles XII of Sweden, and he rescued him from captivity. Later, Charles and Peter organized a campaign against the impostor, but the Swedish army was defeated near Poltava by Russian troops led by Peter’s double and the forces of Jesuits and Masons behind them. Peter I was captured again and hidden away from Russia - imprisoned in the Bastille, where he later died. According to this version, the conspirators kept Peter alive, hoping to use him for their own purposes.

Baida's version can be verified by examining the engravings of that time.

Rice. 9. Prisoner in an iron mask (illustration from Wikipedia)

Iron mask.

Wikipedia writes about this prisoner: “ Iron Mask (fr. Le masque de fer. Born around 1640, d. November 19, 1703) - a mysterious prisoner numbered 64389000 from the time of Louis XIV, held in various prisons, including (from 1698) the Bastille, and wore a velvet mask (later legends turned this mask into an iron one)».

Suspicions regarding the prisoner were as follows: “ Duke of Vermandois, illegitimate son of Louis XIV and Louise de La Vallière, who allegedly slapped his half-brother, the Grand Dauphin, and atoned for this guilt with eternal imprisonment. The version is implausible, since the real Louis of Bourbon died back in 1683, at the age of 16", according to Voltaire - " Iron Mask" was the twin brother of Louis XIV. Subsequently, dozens of different hypotheses were expressed about this prisoner and the reasons for his imprisonment.", some Dutch writers suggested that " The Iron Mask is a foreigner, a young nobleman, chamberlain to Queen Anne of Austria and the real father of Louis XIV. Lagrange-Chancel tried to prove in "L'année littéraire"(1759) that the Iron Mask was none other than Duke François de Beaufort, which was completely refutedN. Aulairein his "Histoire de la fronte" Reliable information about the “iron mask” was first given by the Jesuit Griffe, who was confessor in the Bastille for 9 years, in his “Traité des différentes sortes de preuves qui servent à établir la verité dans l’Histoire" (1769), where he gives the diary of Dujoncas, the royal lieutenant at the Bastille, and the list of the dead of the church of St. Paul. According to this diary, on September 19, 1698, a prisoner was delivered from the island of St. Margaret in a stretcher, whose name was unknown and whose face was constantly covered with a black velvet (not iron) mask».

However, I believe the simplest method of verification is epigraphic. In Fig. 9 shows " Prisoner in an iron mask in an anonymous engraving from the French Revolution"(same Wikipedia article). I decided to read the signature on the central character, fig. 10, slightly increasing the size of this fragment.

Rice. 10. My reading of the inscriptions on the image of the “Iron Mask”

I read the inscriptions on the wall above the prisoner’s bunk, starting from the 4th row of stonework above the sheet. And gradually moving from one row to another, lower one: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARA RUSSIA RURIK YAR THE SCYTHES MIMA OF THE WORLD MARA OF MOSCOW Rus' AND 35 ARKONA YAR. In other words, IMAGE OF A SCYTHIAN PRIEST OF THE TEMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN GODDESS MARA RURIK YAR WORLD MARA OF MOSCOW Rus' AND VELIKY NOVGOROD , which no longer corresponds to the inscriptions on the image of Anatoly, who was a mime (priest) of Rome (near Cairo), that is, the 30th Arkona Yar.

But the most interesting inscription is on a row of stonework at the level of the prisoner's head. On the left, its fragment is very small in size, and having enlarged it 15 times, I read the words as a continuation of the previous inscription: KHARAON YAR OF Rus' YAR OF RURIK TSAR, and then I read the inscription in large letters to the left of the head: PETRA ALEXEEVA, and to the right of the head - MIMA YARA.

So, the confirmation that the prisoner “Iron Mask” was Peter the Great is obvious. True, the question may arise - why? PETER ALEXEEV , not PETER ALEXEEVICH ? But the tsar pretended to be the artisan Pyotr Mikhailov, and the people of the third estate were called something like the Bulgarians now: not Pyotr Alekseevich Mikhailov, but Pyotr Alekseev Mikhailov.

Thus, Dmitry Baida’s version found epigraphic confirmation.

Rice. 11. Urbanoglyph of Ankara from a height of 15 km

Did the Temple of Anatolia exist? To answer this question, it is necessary to consider the urban glyph of Ankara, that is, the view of this city from a certain height. To complete this task, you can turn to Google’s “Planet Earth” program. The view of the city from above is called an urbanoglyph. In this case, a screenshot with the urban glyph of Ankara is shown in Fig. 11.

It should be noted that the image turned out to be low-contrast, which is explained by satellite photography through the entire thickness of the atmosphere. But even in this case, it is clear that on the left and above the inscriptions: “Ankara” the building blocks form the face of a mustachioed and bearded man in left profile. And to the left (west) of this person there are not entirely organized blocks of buildings, forming an area called “Yenimahalle”.

Rice. 12. Urbanoglyph of part of Ankara from a height of 8.5 km

I was just interested in these two objects. I isolated them from an altitude of 8.5 km and increased the contrast of the image. Now it is quite possible to read the inscriptions on it, fig. 15. However, it should be noted that the inscription: “Ankara” is gone completely, and only the last half of the inscription: “Yenimahalle” remains.

But you can understand that where no system was visible from a height of 15 km, now letters are visible from a height of 8.5 km. I read these letters on the decoding field, fig. 13. So, above the fragment of the word “Yenimahalle” I read the letter X of the word TEMPLE, and the letters “X” and “P” are superimposed on each other, forming a ligature. And just below I read the word ANATOLY, so that both read words form the desired phrase TEMPLE ANATOLIA . So such a temple really existed in Ankara.

However, the inscriptions of the Ankara urban glyph do not end there. The word “Anatolia” is superimposed with the digits of the number “ 20 ", and below you can read the words: YARA ARKONA. So Ankara was precisely the secondary Arkona Yar No. 20. And even lower I read the words: YAR 33. In terms of our usual chronology, they form the date: 889 A.D. . Most likely, they indicate the date of construction of the Temple of Anatolia in Ankara.

It turns out that the name “Anatoly” is not the proper name of False Peter, but the name of the temple in which he was trained. By the way, S.A. Sall, having read my article, suggested that the name Anatoly is associated with Turkey, with its Anatolia. I found this assumption quite plausible. However, now, in the course of epigraphic analysis, it has become clear that this was the name of a specific temple in the city of Ankara, which is now the capital of the Turkish Republic. In other words, the assumption was made more concrete.

It is clear that it was not the Temple of Anatolia that received its name from the monastic name of False Peter, but, on the contrary, the monk and executor of the will of the Orange family received his agent code name from the name of this temple.

Rice. 13. My reading of the inscriptions on the urban glyph of Ankara

Discussion.

It is clear that such a historical act (more precisely, an atrocity) as the replacement of the Russian Tsar of the Romanov dynasty requires comprehensive consideration. I tried to make my contribution and, through epigraphic analysis, either confirm or refute the opinion of researchers both about the personality of Peter the Great in captivity, and about the personality of the False Peter. I think I was able to move in both directions.

First of all, it was possible to show that the prisoner of the Bastille (since 1698) under the name “Iron Mask” was indeed the Tsar of Moscow Peter Alekseevich Romanov. Now we can clarify the years of his life: he was born on May 30, 1672, and died not on January 28, 1725, but on November 19, 1703. - So the last Tsar of All Rus' (since 1682) lived not 53 years, but only 31 years.

Since the Grand Embassy began in March 1697, it is most likely that Peter was captured somewhere at the end of 1697, then he was transferred from prison to prison until he ended up in the Bastille on September 19, 1698. However, he could have been captured in 1898. He spent 5 years and exactly 1 month in the Bastille. So what we have before us is not just another “conspiracy theory”, but the West using the chance to replace the Tsar of Muscovy, who did not understand the danger of secretly visiting Western countries. Of course, if the visit had been official, replacing the tsar would have been much more difficult.

As for False Peter, it was possible to understand that he was not only a protege of Rome (moreover, the real one, near Cairo, and not the nominal one, in Italy), but also received the agent name “Anatoly” after the name of the Anatoly Temple in Ankara. If at the time of the end of the embassy Peter was 26 years old, and Anatoly looked about 40 years old, then he was at least 14 years older than Peter, so the years of his life are as follows: he was born around 1658, and died on January 28, 1725, having lived 67 years, approximately twice as old as Peter.

The falsity of Anatoly as Peter is confirmed by five portraits, both in the form of canvases and in the form of a death mask and miniature. It turns out that the artists and sculptors knew very well who they were depicting, so the substitution of Peter was an open secret. And it turns out that with the accession of Anatoly, the Romanov dynasty was interrupted not only in the female line (for after arriving in Russia, Anatoly married a low-class Baltic woman), but also in the male line, for Anatoly was not Peter.

But it follows from this that the Romanov dynasty ended in 1703, having lasted only 90 years since 1613. This is a little more than Soviet power, which lasted from November 1917 to August 1991, that is, 77 years. But whose dynasty was established from 1703 to 1917, a period of 214 years, remains to be seen.

And from the fact that many of Anatoly’s portraits mention the temples of Mary Rurik, it follows that these temples successfully existed both in Europe and in the Ottoman Empire, and in Egypt back in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. AD so the real attack on the temples of Rurik could only begin after the accession of Anatoly to Rus', who became the persecutor of not only Russian Vedism, but also Russian Christian orthodoxy of the Byzantine model. Occupying the royal throne gave him the opportunity not only to attack Russian traditions and weaken the Russian people in an economic sense, but also to strengthen Western states at the expense of Russia.

Particular findings of this epigraphic research were the discovery of the Temple of Anatolia in Ankara and the identification of the number of Ankara as a secondary Arkona Yar. This was the twentieth Arkona Yar, which can be shown on the table by adding to it, Fig. 15.

Rice. 14. Updated Arkon numbering table

It can also be noted that the role of Ankara in the activities of Rome has not yet been sufficiently identified.

Conclusion.

It is possible that Peter's Great Embassy to Western countries was prepared in advance by Lefort and other acquaintances of Peter, but as one of the possible scenarios and not at all with the goal of overthrowing the Tsar and replacing him with another person, but to involve him in Western policy. He had a lot of reasons not to come true. However, when it happened, and in a secret way, it was already possible to deal with these foreigners differently from what diplomatic protocol required. Most likely, other circumstances arose that made it easier for Peter to be captured. For example, the scattering of part of the retinue across various reasons: some for taverns, some for girls, some for doctors, some for resorts. And when, instead of 250 courtiers and guards, only about two dozen people from the retinue remained, the capture of the royal person became not too difficult. It is quite possible that Peter’s intractability and adherence to principles on political and religious issues pushed the monarchs who received him to take the most decisive actions. But for now this is only speculation.

And only one thing can be considered as a proven fact: Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille as an “Iron Mask,” and Anatoly began to commit outrages in Russia, which he declared an empire in the Western manner. Although the word “king” meant “tse Yar”, that is, “this is the messenger of the god Yar”, while “emperor” is simply “ruler”. But other details must be found out from other sources.

Let us ask ourselves: what kind of tribe were the first all-Russian autocrats: Tatars, Mongols, Germans, Slavs, Jews, Vepsians, Meryas, Khazars...? What was the genetic background of the Moscow kings?

Take a closer look at the lifetime portraits of Peter I and his wife Catherine I.

A version of the same portrait, which came to the Hermitage in 1880 from the Velika Remeta monastery in Croatia, probably created by an unknown German artist. The king's face is very similar to that painted by Caravaque, but the costume and pose are different. The origin of this portrait is unknown.

Catherine I (Marta Samuilovna Skavronskaya (Kruse) - Russian empress from 1721 as the wife of the reigning emperor, from 1725 as the reigning empress, second wife of Peter I the Great, mother of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. In her honor, Peter I established the Order of St. Catherine (in 1713 ) and the city of Yekaterinburg in the Urals was named (in 1723).

Portraits of Peter I

Peter I the Great (1672-1725), founder of the Russian Empire, occupies a unique place in the history of the country. His deeds, both great and terrible, are well known and there is no point in listing them. I wanted to write about the lifetime images of the first emperor, and which of them can be considered reliable.

The first known portrait of Peter I is placed in the so-called. "Tsar's Titular Book" or "The Root of Russian Sovereigns", a richly illustrated manuscript created by the embassy order as a reference book on history, diplomacy and heraldry and containing many watercolor portraits. Peter is depicted as a child, even before ascending the throne, apparently at the end. 1670s - early 1680s. The history of this portrait and its authenticity are unknown.

Portraits of Peter I by Western European masters:

1685- engraving from an unknown original; created in Paris by Larmessen and depicts Tsars Ivan and Peter Alekseevich. The original was brought from Moscow by ambassadors - Prince. Ya.F. Dolgoruky and Prince. Myshetsky. The only known reliable image of Peter I before the coup of 1689.

1697- Portrait of work Sir Godfrey Kneller (1648-1723), the court painter of the English king, was undoubtedly painted from life. The portrait is in the English royal collection of paintings, at Hampton Court Palace. The catalog notes that the background of the painting was painted by Wilhelm van de Velde, a marine painter. According to contemporaries, the portrait was very similar; several copies were made from it; the most famous, the work of A. Belli, is in the Hermitage. This portrait served as the basis for the creation of a huge number of very different images of the king (sometimes faintly similar to the original).

OK. 1697- Portrait of work Pieter van der Werff (1665-1718), the history of its writing is unknown, but most likely it happened during Peter’s first stay in Holland. Purchased by Baron Budberg in Berlin and presented as a gift to Emperor Alexander II. It was located in the Tsarskoye Selo Palace, now in the State Hermitage.

OK. 1700-1704 engraving by Adrian Schonebeck from a portrait by an unknown artist. Original unknown.

1711- Portrait by Johann Kupetsky (1667-1740), painted from life in Carlsbad. According to D. Rovinsky, the original was in the Braunschweig Museum. Vasilchikov writes that the location of the original is unknown. I reproduce the famous engraving from this portrait - the work of Bernard Vogel, 1737.

A reworked version of this type of portrait depicted the king in full height and was in the hall General meeting Governing Senate. Now located in the Mikhailovsky Castle in St. Petersburg.

1716- portrait of work Benedicta Cofra, court painter of the Danish king. It was most likely written in the summer or autumn of 1716, when the Tsar was on a long visit to Copenhagen. Peter is depicted wearing St. Andrew's ribbon and the Danish Order of the Elephant around his neck. Until 1917 it was in Peter's Palace in the Summer Garden, now in the Peterhof Palace.

1717- portrait of work Carla Moora, who wrote to the king during his stay in The Hague, where he arrived for treatment. From the correspondence of Peter and his wife Catherine, it is known that the Tsar really liked the portrait of Moor and was bought by the prince. B. Kurakin and sent from France to St. Petersburg. I will reproduce the most famous engraving - the work of Jacob Houbraken. According to some reports, Moore's original is now in a private collection in France.

1717- portrait of work Arnold de Gelder (1685-1727), Dutch artist, student of Rembrandt. It was written during Peter’s stay in Holland, but there is no information that it was painted from life. The original is in the Amsterdam Museum.

1717 - Portrait of the work Jean-Marc Nattier (1686-1766), a famous French artist, was written during Peter’s visit to Paris, undoubtedly from life. It was purchased and sent to St. Petersburg, and later hung in the Tsarskoye Selo Palace. Now located in the Hermitage, however, there is no complete certainty that it is original painting, not a copy.

At the same time (in 1717 in Paris), the famous portrait painter Hyacinthe Rigaud painted Peter, but this portrait disappeared without a trace.

Portraits of Peter, painted by his court artists:

Johann Gottfried Tannauer (1680-c1737), Saxon, studied painting in Venice, court artist from 1711. According to entries in the "Jurnal" it is known that Peter posed for him in 1714 and 1722.

1714(?) - The original has not survived, only the engraving made by Wortmann exists.

A very similar portrait was recently discovered in the German city of Bad Pyrmont.

L. Markina writes: “The author of these lines introduced into scientific circulation an image of Peter from the collection of the palace in Bad Pyrmont (Germany), which recalls the visit of this resort town by the Russian emperor. The ceremonial portrait, which bore the features of a natural image, was considered the work of an unknown artist XVIII century. At the same time, the expression of the image, the interpretation of details, and baroque pathos betrayed the hand of a skilled craftsman.

Peter I spent June 1716 undergoing hydrotherapy in Bad Pyrmont, which had a beneficial effect on his health. As a token of gratitude, the Russian Tsar presented Prince Anton Ulrich Waldeck-Pyrmont with his portrait, which had been in private possession for a long time. Therefore, the work was not known to Russian specialists. Documentary evidence detailing all the important meetings during the treatment of Peter I in Bad Pyrmont did not mention the fact of his posing for any local or visiting painter. The Russian Tsar's retinue numbered 23 people and was quite representative. However, in the list of persons accompanying Peter, where the confessor and cook were indicated, the Hofmaler was not listed. It is logical to assume that Peter brought with him a finished image that he liked and reflected his idea of ​​the ideal monarch. Comparison of engravings by H.A. Wortman, which was based on the original brush by I.G. Tannauer 1714, allowed us to attribute the portrait from Bad Pyrmont to this German artist. Our attribution was accepted by our German colleagues, and the portrait of Peter the Great as the work of I. G. Tannauer was included in the exhibition catalogue."

1716- The history of creation is unknown. By order of Nicholas I, it was sent from St. Petersburg to Moscow in 1835, and was kept rolled up for a long time. A fragment of Tannauer's signature has survived. Located in the Moscow Kremlin Museum.

1710s Profile portrait, previously mistakenly considered to be the work of Kupetsky. The portrait was damaged by an unsuccessful attempt to renew the eyes. Located in the State Hermitage.

1724(?), Equestrian portrait, called "Peter I in the Battle of Poltava", purchased in the 1860s by Prince. A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky from the family of the deceased chamber-fourier in a neglected state. After cleaning, Tannauer's signature was discovered. Now located in the State Russian Museum.

Louis Caravaque (1684-1754), a Frenchman, studied painting in Marseille, became a court painter in 1716. According to contemporaries, his portraits were very similar. According to the entries in the "Journal", Peter painted from life in 1716 and in 1723. Unfortunately, the indisputable original portraits of Peter painted by Caravaque have not survived; only copies and engravings from his works have reached us.

1716- According to some information, it was written during Peter’s stay in Prussia. The original has not survived, but there is an engraving by Afanasyev, from a drawing by F. Kinel.

A not very successful copy from this portrait (added by ships of the allied fleet), created by an unknown person. artist, is now in the collection of the Central Naval Museum of St. Petersburg. (D. Rovinsky considered this painting to be original).

1723- the original has not survived, only an engraving by Soubeyran exists. According to "Jurnal", written during the stay of Peter I in Astrakhan. The last lifetime portrait of the Tsar.

This portrait of Caravacca served as the basis for a painting by Jacopo Amiconi (1675-1758), written around 1733 for the prince. Antioch Cantemir, which is located in the Peter's throne room of the Winter Palace.

Ivan Nikitich Nikitin (1680-1742), the first Russian portrait painter, studied in Florence, became the tsar's court artist around 1715. There is still no complete certainty about which portraits of Peter were painted by Nikitin. From "Jurnale" it is known that the tsar posed for Nikitin at least twice - in 1715 and 1721.

S. Moiseeva writes: “There was a special order from Peter, which ordered persons from the royal entourage to have his portrait by Ivan Nikitin in their house, and to charge the artist one hundred rubles for the execution of the portrait. However, royal portraits that could be compared with the creative handwriting I. Nikitin, almost did not survive. On April 30, 1715, the following was written in the “Journal of Peter”: “Ivan Nikitin painted His Majesty’s half persona. Based on this, art historians were looking for a half-length portrait of Peter I. In the end, it was suggested that this was the case.” The portrait should be considered “Portrait of Peter against the backdrop of a naval battle” (Tsarskoe Selo Museum-Reserve). For a long time, this work was attributed to either Caravaque or Tannauer. When studying the portrait, A. M. Kuchumov found out that the canvas has three later binders - two on top and one on the bottom, thanks to which the portrait became generational. A. M. Kuchumov cited the surviving account of the painter I. Ya. Vishnyakov about the addition to the portrait of His Imperial Majesty “against the portrait of Her Imperial Majesty.” Apparently, in the middle of the 18th century, the need arose to rehang the portraits, and I.Ya. Vishnyakov was given the task of increasing the size of the portrait of Peter I in accordance with the size of the portrait of Catherine. “Portrait of Peter I against the backdrop of a naval battle” is stylistically very close - here we can already talk about the iconographic type of I. N. Nikitin - the relatively recently discovered portrait of Peter from a Florentine private collection, painted in 1717. Peter is depicted in the same pose; noteworthy is the similarity in the writing of the folds and the landscape background."

Unfortunately, I could not find a good reproduction of “Peter against the backdrop of a naval battle” from Tsarskoe Selo (until 1917 in the Romanov Gallery of the Winter Palace). I will reproduce what I managed to get. Vasilchikov considered this portrait to be the work of Tannauer.

1717 - Portrait attributed to I. Nikitin and located in the collection of the Financial Department of Florence, Italy.

Portrait presented to Emperor Nicholas I c. S.S. Uvarov, who inherited it from his father-in-law, Gr. A.K. Razumovsky. Vasilchikov writes: “The legend of the Razumovsky family said that Peter, during his stay in Paris, went into the studio of Rigaud, who was painting a portrait of him, did not find him at home, saw his unfinished portrait, cut out his head from a large canvas with a knife and took it with him. gave it to his daughter Elizaveta Petrovna, and she, in turn, presented it to Count Alexei Grigorievich Razumovsky. Some researchers consider this portrait to be the work of I. Nikitin. Until 1917 it was kept in the Romanov Gallery of the Winter Palace; now in the Russian Museum.

Received from the Strogonov collection. In the Hermitage catalogs compiled in the mid-19th century, the authorship of this portrait is attributed to A.M. Matveev (1701-1739), however, he returned to Russia only in 1727 and could not paint Peter from life and, most likely, only made a copy from Moore's original for bar.S.G. Stroganov. Vasilchikov considered this portrait to be Moor’s original. This is contradicted by the fact that according to all surviving engravings from Moora, Peter is depicted in armor. Rovinsky considered this portrait to be Rigaud’s missing work.

Literature used: V. Stasov “Gallery of Peter the Great” St. Petersburg, 1903