>

Peter 1 portraits in chronological order. About the portraits of Peter I and Catherine I by Jean-Marc Nattier. Death mask of Peter

Alekseevich Romanov (1672-1725) is a major figure in Russian and world history.

The time of his reign (1682-1725) was a time of a sharp turn in the destinies of the fatherland. Like any large-scale personality, Peter I was full of contradictions, which had a great influence on the nature of his reforms, way of life, and relationships with people.

Inquisitive, inquisitive by nature, young Peter did not receive a systematic education. Sincerity and hard work were combined in him with cruelty and intolerance.

Peter's path to autocracy was long. At the age of four he lost his father, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. For six years his half-brother, Fyodor Alekseevich, was on the throne.

From the age of ten he became co-ruler of his brother Ivan, under the regency of his sister Sophia. Over the years, the future emperor became more and more interested in his “amusing” army and the German settlement, and Sofya Alekseevna began to worry about the activity of the young king.

The Streltsy uprising organized by the princess in 1689 failed, Sophia was imprisoned in a monastery, and her half-brother Ivan actually abandoned the reign (died in 1696).

The main activities of Peter I

Domestic policy:

  • centralization of power;
  • decree on unified inheritance (1714);
  • table of ranks (1722);
  • creation of the metallurgical industry;
  • protectionist policy;
  • military reform, creation of a regular army;
  • population census;
  • creation of the Senate and collegiums;
  • administrative reform, creation of provinces;
  • abolition of the patriarchate, creation of the Synod;
  • city ​​construction, new capital- St. Petersburg;
  • decree on succession to the throne (1722);
  • formation of professional education;
  • reforms in the cultural sphere.

Foreign policy:

  • capture of Azov;
  • "Great Embassy" (1697-1698);
  • Russian-Turkish war (1710-1713);
  • Northern War (1700-1721);
  • Russian-Persian War (1722-1723).

In 1721, Peter I proclaimed himself Emperor of All Russia, thereby declaring the power Russian state, its significant international situation. The great reformer died in January 1725, without having time to name his successor.

Results of the reign of Peter I

  • modernization and Europeanization of Russia;
  • development of industry and trade;
  • strengthening the army and navy;
  • growth of the bureaucracy;
  • access to the Baltic Sea;
  • strengthening Russia's international authority;
  • deterioration of the situation of the peasantry;
  • development of culture;
  • Russia became an empire.

Often my historical research follows the principle “He went to Odessa and came out to Kherson.” That is, I was looking for information on one topic, but found it on a completely different issue. But also interesting. So it is this time. Meet: Peter 1 through the eyes of foreign artists... Well, okay, a couple of ours were there too.

Peter I, nicknamed Peter the Great, Russian Tsar in 1697. Based on the original by P. Van der Werff. Versailles.

Portrait of Peter the Great. XVIII century. J.-B. Weiler. Louvre.


Portrait of Tsar Peter the Great. XVIII century. Unknown. Louvre.

Portrait of Tsar Peter I. 1712. J.-F. Dinglinger. Dresden.

I didn’t understand what nationality the artist is. It seems that he is still French, since he studied in France. I transcribed his last name as French, but who knows...

Portrait of Peter the Great. XVIII-XIX centuries Unknown artist of the Russian school. Louvre.

Portrait of Peter the Great. 1833. M.-V. Jacotot based on an original by a Dutch artist. Louvre.

Portrait of Peter the Great. Until 1727. Sh. Bois. Louvre.

Portrait of Peter the Great. Around 1720. P. Bois the Elder. Louvre.

Peter the Great (presumable). XVII century N. Lanyo. Chantilly.

This portrait, of course, made me fall. I don’t understand where they saw Peter here.

Well, we're done with the portraits, let's look at the paintings.

An incident from the youth of Peter the Great. 1828. C. de Steben. Museum of Fine Arts in Valenciennes.


Yes, that golden-haired youth is the future Tsar Peter I. Wow!

Peter the Great in Amsterdam. 1796. Pavel Ivanov. Louvre.

Louis XV pays a visit to Tsar Peter at the Lediguieres' mansion on May 10, 1717. XVIII century L.M.Zh. Ersan. Versailles.


If anyone doesn’t understand, the French king settled down in the arms of our king.


Lifetime portraits of Peter I

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.

First of famous portraits 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 creating huge amount a variety of 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 of the work 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), famous French artist, 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).

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.

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

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” (Tsarskoye 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 bindings - 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 mid-17th century I century there was a need to rehang 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 while Peter was in Paris, he 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.

References:

V. Stasov "Gallery of Peter the Great" St. Petersburg 1903
D. Rovinsky "Detailed dictionary of Russian engraved portraits" vol. 3 St. Petersburg, 1888
D. Rovinsky “Materials for Russian iconography” vol.1.
A. Vasilchikov "On portraits of Peter the Great" M 1872
S. Moiseev "On the history of the iconography of Peter I" (article).
L. Markin "RUSSIA of Peter's time" (article)

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 the 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 into Russian outback, partly transfer to 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 an unknown artist of the 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 it means: IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF YAR .

And then I moved on to reading the inscriptions on parts of the face. First - on right side faces, on the left from 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 look at the armor on the 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 Christian country(where Christianity has been the 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”, and also 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 Tartaria. 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 instruments. 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 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. Portraits of the king before and after his return from Europe are given as evidence of the substitution. 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 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, which has specific features that 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 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 fasting 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.

Authors " 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 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 ruling house 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 lays out in detail why it is still (mid-19th century) scientific work on the history of Peter the Great is missing" 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 given all 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 work, 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 it was not there: “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: “ The strictest 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 basic research about Peter I (1, 2, 3 volumes, part of the 4th volume, 6 volumes) in a truncated version was published 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 “As under Peter royal dynasty cut out,” he describes the standing 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, sailed a lot in 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.

Bayda claims that real Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille, and that it was he who 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 Louis XIV and Louise de La Valliere, 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 a 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 on an anonymous engraving from the times French Revolution "(same Wikipedia article). I decided to read the signature on central character, rice. 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 , but 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. eleven.

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 of 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” invention, 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 (and the real one, near Cairo, and not the nominal one in Italy), but also received the agent name “Anatoly” after 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.

One of the most significant and at the same time odious figures in Russian history- this is Peter I. Moreover, opponents of Peter’s policy, first of all, reproach the emperor with a sharp turn towards the West, to the detriment of Russian identity. And such a discussion has been going on for quite a long time, almost from the moment these very reforms were carried out, with a sharp escalation in the mid-19th century, which is known as the dispute between Slavophiles and Westerners. Such interest in the personality of the emperor, undoubtedly multifaceted, could not help but be reflected in the works of painters.

By far the most famous historical picture, dedicated to Peter I, is the canvas by Nikolai Ge “Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei” (1871). The artist depicts a significant moment in Russian history, which ultimately leads to half a century of palace coups. According to the notes of his contemporaries, at first Gyo planned to show the emperor not as a cruel executioner, but as a father who oversteps his fatherly feelings for the benefit of the state, but work on the plot of the picture gradually changed the artist’s opinion about Peter. As a result, the main emphasis was placed on the psychologism of the characters. Thus, Tsarevich Alexei is illuminated with a deathly pale light, which suggests that his fate is sealed. Although his eyes are lowered to the floor, he does not feel remorse, he does not believe his father’s hard-heartedness. Peter's face, on the contrary, is effectively sculpted with contrasting chiaroscuro. One feels that the emperor’s calmness is ostentatious; passions are boiling inside him. The painting was positively received by the public and was purchased by P. Tretyakov.