Lifetime portraits of Peter I

PETER I

Peter the Great (1672-1725), the 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 about which of them can be considered reliable.

The first of the famous portraits of Peter I was placed in the so-called. "Royal Titular" or "The Root of the Russian Sovereigns", a richly illustrated manuscript created by the embassy order as a guide to history, diplomacy and heraldry and containing many watercolor portraits. Peter is depicted as a child, even before his accession to the throne, apparently in con. 1670s - early. 1680s. The history of the creation 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 the 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 1689 coup.

1697- Job portrait Sir Godfrey Kneller (1648-1723), the court painter of the English king, is undoubtedly painted from nature. The portrait is in the English royal collection of paintings, in the palace of Hampton Court. There is a note in the catalog 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 various images of the king (sometimes slightly similar to the original).

OK. 1697- Job portrait Pieter van der Werf (1665-1718), the history of its writing is unknown, but most likely it happened during Peter's first stay in Holland. Bought by Baron Budberg in Berlin, and presented as a gift to Emperor Alexander II. Was in the Tsarskoye Selo Palace, now in the State Hermitage.

OK. 1700-1704 engraving by Adrian Schkhonebeck from a portrait by an unknown artist. The original is 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 a famous engraving from this portrait - the work of Bernard Vogel 1737

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

1716- portrait of work Benedict Kofra, 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 in the St. Andrew's ribbon and the Danish Order of the Elephant around his neck. Until 1917 he was in Peter's Palace in the Summer Garden, now in the Peterhof Palace.

1717- portrait of work Carla Moora, who wrote 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 liked the portrait of Moor very much, and was bought by Prince. B. Kurakin and sent from France to St. Petersburg. I reproduce the most famous engraving - the work of Jacob Houbraken. According to some reports, Moor's original is now in a private collection in France.

1717- portrait of work Arnold de Gelder (1685-1727), Dutch painter, student of Rembrandt. Written during Peter's stay in Holland, but there is no evidence that he 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 painted during Peter's visit to Paris, undoubtedly from nature. It was bought and sent to St. Petersburg, later hung in the Tsarskoye Selo Palace. It is now in the Hermitage, however, there is no complete certainty that this is an original painting, and not a copy.

Then (in 1717 in Paris) Peter was painted by the famous portrait painter Hyacinthe Rigaud, but this portrait disappeared without a trace.

Portraits of Peter painted by his court painters:

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

1714(?) - The original has not survived, only an 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 the 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 carried 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, the baroque pathos betrayed the hand of a skilled craftsman.

Peter I spent June 1716 on hydrotherapy in Bad Pyrmont, which had a beneficial effect on his health. As a sign of gratitude, the Russian tsar presented Prince Anton Ulrich of Waldeck-Pyrmont with his portrait, which had been privately owned 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 retinue of the Russian Tsar numbered 23 people and was quite representative. However, in the list of persons accompanying Peter, where the confessor and the cook were indicated, the Hoffmaler 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 of a monarch. Comparison of the engraving by H.A. Wortman, which was based on the original brush by I.G. Tannauer of 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 J. G. Tannauer, was included in the exhibition catalog."

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

1710s Profile portrait, previously erroneously considered the work of Kupetsky. The portrait is 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", bought in the 1860s by Prince. A.B. Lobanov-Rostovsky at the family of the deceased camera-furier in a neglected state. After cleaning, Tannauer's signature was found. Now it is in the State Russian Museum.

Louis Caravaque (1684-1754), a Frenchman, studied painting in Marseilles, became a court painter from 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, there are no indisputable original portraits of Peter painted by Caravaccus, only copies and engravings from his works have come down to us.

1716- According to some reports, it was written during Peter's stay in Prussia. The original has not been preserved, there is an engraving by Afanasyev, from a drawing by F. Kinel.

Not very successful (supplemented by the ships of the allied fleet) copy from this portrait, created by unknown. artist, is now in the collection of the Central Naval Museum of St. Petersburg. (D. Rovinsky considered this picture to be original).

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

1723- the original has not been preserved, only the engraving by Soubeyran exists. According to the "Yurnale", written during the stay of Peter I in Astrakhan. The last lifetime portrait of the king.

This portrait of Caravacca served as the basis for a painting by Jacopo Amiconi (1675-1758), written in ca. 1733 for the book. 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 court painter of the tsar from about 1715. There is still no complete certainty about which portraits of Peter were written by Nikitin. From the "Yurnale" it is known that the tsar posed for Nikitin at least twice - in 1715 and 1721.

S. Moiseeva writes: "There was a special order of Peter, ordering persons from the royal environment to have in the house his portrait by Ivan Nikitin, and the artist to take a hundred rubles for the execution of the portrait. However, royal portraits that could be compared with creative style On April 30, 1715, the journal of Peter the Great wrote the following: “His Majesty’s half person was painted by Ivan Nikitin.” Based on this, art historians were looking for a half-length portrait of Peter I. In the end, it was suggested that this 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 Caravak or Tannauer. When examining the portrait by A. M. Kuchumov, it turned out that the canvas has three later filings - two above and one below, thanks to which the portrait became generational.A. M. Kuchumov cited the surviving account of the painter I. Ya. 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 to increase 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 - a relatively recently discovered portrait of Peter from a Florentine private collection, written in 1717. Peter is depicted in the same pose, attention is drawn to the similarity of 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 Tsarskoye Selo (before 1917 in the Romanov Gallery of the Winter Palace). I 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 gr. S.S. Uvarov, who got it from his father-in-law. A.K. Razumovsky. Vasilchikov writes: “The tradition of the Razumovsky family said that Peter, during his stay in Paris, went to the studio of Rigaud, who painted a portrait of him, did not find him at home, saw his unfinished portrait, cut his head out of a large canvas with a knife and took it with him. gave it to his daughter, Elizaveta Petrovna, and she, in turn, granted it to Count Alexei Grigoryevich 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 collection of the Stroganovs. In the catalogs of the Hermitage, compiled in the middle of the 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 Moor's original for bar.S.G. Stroganov. Vasilchikov considered this portrait to be the original of Moor. This is contradicted by the fact that according to all the surviving engravings from Moor, Peter is depicted in armor. Rovinsky considered this portrait to be the missing work of Rigaud.

References:

V. Stasov "Gallery of Peter the Great" St. Petersburg 1903
D. Rovinsky "Detailed dictionary of Russian engraved portraits" v.3 St. Petersburg 1888
D. Rovinsky "Materials for Russian iconography" v.1.
A. Vasilchikov "On the portraits of Peter the Great" M 1872
S. Moiseev "On the history of the iconography of Peter I" (article).
L.Markina "ROSSIKA of Petrovsky time" (article)

This essay will focus on two paintings equally known in the history of French and Russian art. These are portraits of Peter I and Catherine I by the famous French portrait painter Jean-Marc Nattier. Their fame is due, on the one hand, to their high quality and the fact that they are very revealing examples of a ceremonial French portrait, which preserved in the 18th century the features of solemnity and representativeness characteristic of similar works of the previous century. On the other hand, the fact that they are of paramount importance in the iconography of Peter and Catherine. In addition, both paintings are absolute masterpieces in the work of Nattier.

From an iconographic point of view, the portrait of Catherine is more interesting. If the image of Peter is significantly idealized by the artist and even to some extent theatrical, then the portrait of his wife seems to more directly convey the essence of the depicted.

According to the descriptions of contemporaries, both Russians and foreigners, Catherine was not a woman of brilliant beauty, but pretty. She, apparently, possessed some kind of inner charm, which appealed even to distinguished guests coming to Russia.

It is known that she had a firm and strong character with the ability to be soft and self-possessed. She was the only person capable of taming Peter's heavy outbursts of anger and distracting from the fits of gloominess that sometimes attacked him. Catherine could not be denied intelligence and some kind of innate rationality, expressed in the fact that she managed to do exactly what was most necessary at the moment. These properties are quite clear in her letters addressed both to Peter and to other persons.

Many of these qualities are expressed in one way or another in Nattier's portrait. Naturally, when creating the image of the Russian queen, the artist tried to bring out the positive features of Catherine. Her pettiness, rudeness, even cruelty, also noted by contemporaries who met her, were not reflected in the portrait created by the artist. But what is invested in it is not, as is often the case, fiction.

Nattier depicts Catherine still young with a rustic but pleasant face, illuminated by a friendly smile. Catherine's dark eyes look softly and seriously, her face is by no means devoid of expression and thought, the image is distinguished by some unobtrusively emphasized grandeur. Usually, the female images of Nattier are striking both in the absence of any individual characteristics and in complete thoughtlessness. Nattier is the creator of this type of portrait, typical of the middle of the century.

Our portrait, like all the works of this time, is somewhat mannered, but to a more moderate degree than others. It has an ease and freedom, clearly dictated by the nature of the model.

Catherine is smartly and richly dressed. The accessories surrounding her are lush and somewhat heavy. The portrait is emphatically official, depicting the empress of a powerful country, with which all of Europe reckons. Probably, based on the conditions of the order, Nattier from the very beginning sets himself the goal of portraying her as such.

The history of this very famous portrait is well known and documented. It was painted before the portrait of Peter in 1717 in Holland.

Peter I visited France this spring. The trip was of great political importance. Previous attempts to establish friendly relations with France during the life of Louis XIV were unsuccessful. The aging king regarded the young rising Russian state with suspicion and apprehension and did not wish to meet with its tsar. After the death of Louis XIV, Peter resumed his attempts at rapprochement, in which he succeeded. He arrived in Paris on a semi-official visit to conduct negotiations of the most varied nature. Catherine remained in Holland, in The Hague. The evil tongues of contemporaries claimed that Peter insisted on this because of the too free manner of keeping himself, which was characteristic of the queen. If this style, with a stretch, was suitable for democratic Holland, then it was in no way unacceptable for the French court with its outwardly strict etiquette. It seems to me that this was not the case at all. Peter, himself not distinguished by the sophistication of education in the European sense of the word, hardly demanded it from others, in particular from Catherine. The queen, during her stay in Holland, carried out a number of his completely businesslike assignments. However, this has nothing to do with our topic. The only important thing for us is that Catherine was in The Hague and that J.-M. Nattier. Some time later, Nattier was called by Peter from The Hague to Paris to perform this time his portrait. There, the very good attitude of the tsar towards the artist that was created at the first meeting deteriorated, since Nattier violated the existing agreement with Peter and refused to go to Petersburg with him, frightened by the most fantastic fables told about Russia.

Such is briefly the history of portrait painting that is repeated everywhere.

Everything stated seems clear and distinct. Each fact is confirmed by many documents. The whole study of portraits comes down, it would seem, to taking into account the information available about them. However, while reading various documents of the 18th and 19th centuries, I suddenly discovered that they contradict each other, and the objective data of the portraits contradict them.

As it was said, a large elegant portrait of Catherine I hangs in the halls of the Hermitage, it has a clear and extensive signature: Peint a la Haye par Nattier le Jeune a 1717, that is - Written in The Hague by Nattier the Younger in 1717. Everything is clear and clear, not raises no doubts and has long been a textbook truth.

And here is what the daughter of the artist Nattier, Madame Toque, writes in her memoirs about her father: “As soon as he (Nattier) managed to finish the portrait, the queen wrote such praises about this image to the king, who was in Paris at that time, such praises that the king wished him as much as possible rather to see, he ordered Mr. Nattier to immediately return to Paris and bring with him a portrait of the Empress, which was done. Chance wanted the tsar to dine with Duke d'Antin on the evening of the portrait's arrival. was installed under a canopy, right in the banquet hall. The next day, Mr. Nattier began to paint a portrait of the king himself, with which the latter was just as pleased as with his other works ... "( Mme Tocque. Abrege de la vie de J.-M. Nattier. Memoires inedits sur la vie et les ouvrages de l "Academie royale, t. II. Paris, 1854, p.p. 352-354.). Next comes the story of how Nattier did not dare to go to Russia and how Peter was angry with him for this. At the end of the story about their relationship, there is another paragraph that is extremely interesting to us: “... The king was so offended by this refusal that, in order to show his dissatisfaction with the artist, he demanded an unexpected withdrawal of the original from Mr. miniature by royal command; this was the reason that the portrait was never completed or paid for ... ”This passage is the main source from which information is drawn on Nattier's work on portraits. He completely struck me: based on the data of Ms. Toque, the portrait remained “incomplete”, in it “only the head was completed ...”, but who did the rest? Who finally signed and dated the portrait? After all, it hangs on the wall, beautiful and finished, and with all its essence refutes the data of the artist's daughter! Besides, what does Madame Toque's last phrase mean about the original of the portrait confiscated from Buat? What is it about? Or does Madame just have such a way of expressing herself? Maybe she wanted to say that the picture was the original for miniature copies of Buat? All this was more than mysterious and required the most serious consideration.

Since the picture is very famous, it is quite natural that I was not the first to explore it. First, I had to find out what my colleagues said about her.

Oddly enough, the contradictions between the data of the picture and the documents about it did not bother them at all.

Pierre de Nolac, who published a monograph on Nattier in 1905 ( P. de Nolhac. Nattier. Paris, 1905, p. 240.) and republished it in 1910 ( P. de Nolhac. Nattier. Paris, 1910, p.p. 25, 28.), was generally convinced that both the portrait of Peter and the portrait of Catherine were lost, although they were all the time in the Romanov Gallery of the Winter Palace or, for a relatively short time, in Tsarskoye Selo. Louis Reo, one of the most famous art critics in the world of science, who had been in St. Petersburg for a long time, acted even more strangely: in 1922 he wrote a special article devoted to portraits of Peter and Catherine ( L. Reau. Portraits francais de Pierre le Grand. - "Gazette des Beaux - Arts", 1922, p. 304.), reproducing in it a portrait of Catherine, obviously having received a photo from the Hermitage, and then, with amazing credulity, without bothering himself with any doubts, he cited Ms. Tox's text about the incompleteness of the portrait. He repeats this in his major work on French artists in Russia, where in the corresponding chapter he writes about Peter I, “who had no opportunity to exile a subject of the French king to Siberia for disobedience, confiscated an unfinished portrait of Catherine without paying for it” ( L. Reau. Histoire de l "Expansion de l" art francais moderne. Le monde slave et l "orient. Paris, 1924, p. 84.). This approach to work amazed me. Further, wherever in literature I met a mention of a portrait of Catherine, it was always spoken of in the words of Mrs. Tox.

I had to plunge headlong into clearing up all these unexpected misunderstandings. First of all, I decided to take up a careful analysis of Ms. Toquet's text, and then to compare it with some other source of the same time and, preferably, of the same character.

Upon careful study of the text, I was struck by the contradiction contained in it: at the beginning of this passage, Madame Toquet wrote: “He had hardly finished the portrait when ...” or “he had not had time to finish the portrait”, which is a form of completed action, at the end In the same text, she claimed that "the portrait was never completed", that "only the head was completed." This contradiction reinforced my doubts. And before I noticed it, it seemed to me that Madame, at best, was confusing something, and at worst, she was conveying some misinformation she needed for a number of reasons, but after the discovery of this discrepancy, my suspicions intensified. I wanted to find those letters in which Catherine allegedly praised her portrait to Peter. I hoped that among the praises of the portrait I would find some elements of description. Having studied the "Correspondence of Russian Sovereigns" ( Letters of Russian sovereigns. Issue I. M., 1861-1862.), the edition is very complete and detailed, I was convinced that letters of such content were not published - obviously, they were not. Considering, however, that any letter, even one written by a Russian tsarina, might be lost, I did not base any assumptions on this shaky foundation.

I was also surprised that the miniaturist Buat had the unfinished portrait to make miniatures from it. I have never heard of a miniaturist being given an unfinished portrait to copy in the early 18th century. It was inexpedient and contrary to all ideas of that time.

In the Hermitage there is a miniature of Catherine I by this master. Having familiarized myself with it, I was sadly convinced that it would not help dispel doubts - the field of the miniature covered only Catherine's head. What remained below, whether the image of the shoulders, chest, arms, dress, lace, jewelry - is unclear, since the image was cut off to the neck.

There was another way out - to look at the engraving from the portrait of Catherine. There was one, and it was done by Dupin. Unfortunately, the portrait was not engraved immediately after the completion of the work, but in 1775 ( L. Reau. Histoire de l "Expansion de l" art francais moderne. Le monde slave et l "orient, p. 83.) and in 1776 ( D. A. Rovinsky. A detailed dictionary of Russian engraved portraits. St. Petersburg, 1887, p. 748.) years. The engraving did not differ in any way from our portrait, as if repeating it, and judging by it, there was no need to talk about its incompleteness. But even the engraving could not serve as any proof of Madame Tox's mistake. It was completed many years after the portrait was painted, and during this time anyone could finish the image.

All the usual methods of research turned out to be untenable, and it was necessary to look for some other ways to achieve the truth. The case of the completion of the portrait by another artist was, by the way, quite probable. In the workshops of fashionable portrait painters, there were specialists in painting backgrounds, costumes, even individual details. It is known that this is how Chardin began his career in the workshop of N. Kuapel. The portrait might not have been painted from beginning to end by Nattier, but it was necessary to know who completed it and when. Of course, numerous attacks against Peter I, who allegedly did not pay for the painting, were also unpleasant, but in the end one could reconcile with this, if only to know the truth.

With great interest, I immersed myself in French and Russian documents of the 18th century in order to find something useful for my topic.

The French memoirist Duclos, in his two-volume Secret Memoirs ( Duclos. Memoires secrets sur les regnes de Louis XIV et Louis XV. Paris, 1791, p. 230.) there was a description of the famous dinner given in honor of Peter by Duke d "Antin. Catherine's portrait did appear in it, but, from the author's point of view, it was not brought there by Peter, but was obtained somewhere by the duke himself, who wanted to please Peter with the contemplation of the image his wife. In all likelihood, if the memoirist did not fantasize, the duke got it from Buat, who made miniatures from him. By the way, this option seems more logical than the one in which Peter brings the portrait of his wife with him to the reception. Judging by the memoirs, Peter was pleasantly surprised by the appearance of the portrait and even regarded its appearance as a purely French courtesy of the owners. These words of Peter are cited in a number of sources on completely different occasions. Saint-Simon tells a similar story with the appearance of the portrait at dinner ( L. Reau. Histoire de l "Expansion de l" art francais moderne. Le monde slave et l "orient, p. 74.), only in its version, at a dinner at the Duke d'Anten, but territorially in a different place, there was a portrait of Peter I himself, made in one hour by the artist Udri. the presence of a medal with his image, etc. It is exceptionally difficult to deal with memoirs, especially those claiming to be historic, one must constantly be in a wary and distrustful state in relation to their authors. what Peter said, but took only one description: "Catherine's portrait was placed in the dining room under a richly decorated canopy. "Imagine the customs of the French court of the early 18th century and its still fairly strict etiquette, I cannot imagine how Duke d" Antin demonstrated under a brocade canopy, an unfinished portrait, in which, among a large empty canvas, even with a primary sketch of the composition, only about the finished head of Catherine. Such a violation of customs seems to me completely impossible. To be presented in such a ceremonial way, the portrait had to be completed.

And, finally, the final confirmation of my assumptions is already in documents of a more “serious” nature, namely: in the correspondence of Peter and Catherine.

On May 2, 1717, Peter writes to Catherine from Paris: “The tapicere work here is very glorious, that’s why they sent my partrete, that they wrote Mop i both of their own, which Mop i another, that the Frenchman wrote ... in order to make a few of them here, so i small enamels, moreover, that master is still alive, who made in England with me i now here... .. .” ( Letters of Russian sovereigns. Issue I. No. 95, 1717, 2/V.).

On May 15, Catherine answered Peter's request as follows: “... I sent the French painter Natier to your mercy with Orlikov, and with him my portrait, which he painted. And now I couldn’t send your and my friend’s portraits, which More painted, so that he took them to himself to finish and as soon as he completes them, I will immediately send them by courier to your mercy ... ”( Letters of Russian sovereigns. Issue I. No. 217, 1717, 5/V.).

On May 19, Peter thanks his wife for the portrait he sent: “Thank you for sending the portrait (and not hari, it’s only a pity that it’s old, the one who sent it said it was a nephew, otherwise it’s possible to inflict punishment for these words ...)” ( Letters of Russian sovereigns. Issue I. No. 96, 1717, 19/V.).

From these letters, or rather from the letter of Catherine, one can draw a very unambiguous conclusion: if the queen does not send portraits of Moor, because they are not ready and, of course, are not suitable either for copies in tapestry or in miniature, but sends without any reservations portrait made by Nattier, then it is completed and there can be no doubt about it. This is the most decisive among the arguments for refuting the words of Madame Toque. It is also confirmed by the description of the dinner at d'Anten, in which nothing is written about the state of the portrait.

My reasoning is also supported by an x-ray from the painting, which does not confirm the possibility of outside interference in the painting of the portrait. This argument for me in this case was not primary, since the x-ray shows traces of severe damage to the picture, which interfere with its general characteristics. The totality of everything clarifies the solution of the problem. However, the complications with finding out the fate of the portrait did not end there.

When I was looking through various sources of the 18th century, I looked into the most interesting collection of stories by J. Shtelin “Genuine anecdotes about Peter the Great” ( I. Shtelin. Genuine anecdotes about Peter the Great. Moscow, 1820.). Shtelin himself did not know Peter. He wrote down his “jokes” from the words of people close to Peter, mostly from the stories of Nikita Obolensky. In one of the jokes I. Shtelin. Decree. cit., part I, pp. 93-96. It should be noted that in the book of G. K. Friedenburg "Portraits and other images of Peter the Great". SPb., 1872, pp. 15-16, the author also states: “In addition to the portrait of the Sovereign, he also described a copy from the portrait of the Empress, brought from St. Petersburg and ... presented her seated ...”) Shtelin describes in detail Catherine's stay in The Hague, and how the Frenchman Nattier painted her portrait in that city based on ... the original brought from St. Petersburg. Only this was not enough for me! My new task was to find out everything about this version and then either accept it or reject it. The correspondence between Peter and Catherine did not seem to make it possible to agree with Shtelin, but there were no specific stories about the artist's work in it. The expression "his portrait, which he (Nattier) painted" from Catherine's letter could be used without great accuracy. Peter's joke “it's a pity that it's old” also seemed to indicate that the portrait was painted from nature, but Peter could say this about any image of a different character.

I had to look for what kind of portraits of Catherine I could be brought to Holland. Such a portrait existed and, according to the great connoisseur of Russian engraving Rovinsky ( D. A. Rovinsky. Decree. cit., p. 743.) was indeed sent to Holland. It was a portrait made in 1714 by Tanauer. Apparently, this portrait was not brought by Catherine, but was sent later with a specific purpose “for grumbling”, that is, for translation into engraving. Apparently, this fact of bringing the portrait from St. Petersburg formed the basis of the legend created by Shtelin.

Having taken up more seriously the iconography of Catherine I, I was convinced from the same edition of Rovinsky that there was a portrait that almost exactly repeated the image of Catherine created by Nattier. I did not search until the portrait itself, but before the engraving from it. It depicts Catherine with the same facial expression and smile as in the portrait of Nattier, with the same hairstyle with "temporaries" and ring-shaped curls "acroshkers", crowned with the same diadem. Catherine is wearing the same type of dress as in the portrait of Nattier, but not overloaded with embroidery and jewelry. A little differently, the mantle falls from the shoulders. The chest portrait, not the waist, seems more intimate than ours. But therein lies the difference. One might have thought that this was a slight liberty of the engraver, who changed, as was often done, the costume of the depicted and the section of the image, if it were not for Rovinsky's message that this engraving is the work of the engraver Houbraken (Houbraken) from a portrait made by K. Moor ( D. A. Rovinsky. Decree. cit., p. 749.).

K. Moore, like Nattier, painted a portrait of Catherine in The Hague (Rovinsky mistakenly transferred the scene to Amsterdam.) You remember that it is this portrait, as unfinished, that Catherine mentions in a letter to Peter. Upon completion, it was given, along with a portrait of Peter, to be engraved by Houbraken. On December 24, 1717, Kurakin wrote to the tsar that both portraits had been taken from the engraver and would be sent to Russia in March by land. Kurakin sent Peter "for approbation" test prints from the engraving boards. Rovinsky does not know where the originals of Moor and Houbraken's boards have gone ( D. A. Rovinsky. Decree. cit., p. 750.). But at the moment it is more important for us that in 1717 a portrait of Catherine was made, essentially repeating the standard of Nattier. This fact seems to finally explain Shtelin's words about painting portraits from the original. The old man, not being himself an eyewitness to the events and writing them down many years later, and even from other people's words, confused whether Nattier wrote from a model or his portrait serves as a model. He apparently still heard that the Tanauer portrait was sent to Holland, and combined all these different facts together. Thus, one could conclude that it is not recommended to particularly trust old sources.

I would not have made this sad conclusion if another thread had not broken, the strength of which I wanted to test.

Having become interested in the iconography of Catherine, I decided not only in relation to Nattier, but also in a broader sense, to continue my studies of her portraits.

Naturally, I was particularly interested in the portrait engraved by Houbraken and close to Nattier. This portrait, which Rovinsky writes about as unconditionally Moorian, turned out not to belong to him at all. N. I. Nikulina published a genuine portrait of Catherine by K. Moor ( N. I. Nikulina. Unpublished portrait of Catherine I by Karel Moor. - Messages State. Hermitage. L., 1958, No. 14, pp. 21-23.). There was a well-founded reattribution of a small oval portrait with a beautiful darkish gray-blue color scheme, signed by Moor and dated 1717. This portrait was purchased by the Hermitage and identified after clearing. It has nothing in common with the portrait of Nattier and with the engraving of Houbraken, it shows a completely different, some kind of colder understanding of the image. The portrait is restrained and a bit dry.

Catherine I was clearly unlucky. A web of confusion shrouded all her portraits without exception. But if N. I. Nikulina dealt with Moor, and I, to some extent, with Nattier, then there was still a portrait from which Houbraken's engraving was made. Whose was this portrait, so similar to the large image of Nattier? As if some conclusions about this can be drawn from Rovinsky's hint. He reports without indicating his reasons: “... in Amsterdam (or, more precisely, The Hague - he confuses them. - I. N.) a portrait of her (Catherine I), written by Arnold de Boonen, is shown, indistinguishable from Moor's, engraved Gubraken" ( D. A. Rovinsky. Decree. cit., p. 744.).

Since there was an error with Moor's portrait, it can be assumed that Houbraken's original for the engraving was the portrait of A. Boonen.

Having come to this conclusion, I already considered the study completed, when suddenly new data appeared, which forced me to immediately begin to continue the work.

Vera Andreeva, an employee of the Pavlovsk Museum, brought me this new and very important data, which can easily fit on a half piece of paper. She discovered them while working on her theme, dedicated to the work of Russian artists of the 18th century. The accidental discovery that she shared with me made it possible to clarify all the conclusions and draw new ones, from my point of view, explaining everything.

These are the documents that got me so excited. These were extracts from the account books of Peter I for 1717: “... By order of Her Majesty, it was given to the French painter Natya, who painted a large person of Her Majesty in The Hague and another, small one - chervonets ...” ( TsGIAL, f. 468, op. 43, d. 4, l. four.).

“... By order of Her Majesty, it was given to the French painter Natya, who in Amsterdam painted a portrait of Her Majesty in addition to the 50 chervonets given to him - another fifty chervonets ...” ( TsGIAL, f. 468, op. 43, d. 4, l. eight.).

Under each of these documents there was evidence of receipt of money, written by Nattier and his signature. These documents revealed everything: in the first "issue" in three lines, the whole history of the portrait was told. Nattier "painted a large person of Her Majesty in The Hague ..." - this is, of course, our portrait. I tried to prove that it was completed, but here it is simply evident from the context. Mrs. Toque, followed by L. Reo and others, accused Peter of not paying for the portrait, now it became clear that this was a lie.

There was also a third "issue": "... 1717 July on the 19th day of the painter Natey, who was in Holland, for the letter of the person of His Majesty and others in offset - chervonny ..." ( TsGIAL, f. 468, op. 43, d. 4, l. 71.) - and again the signature of the artist.

This means that the portrait of Peter was paid for back in Paris. A comparison of the cost suggests that the portraits were paid equally: for a portrait of Catherine and a small one - 100 chervonets; for a portrait of Peter and "other credits" - also 100 chervonets. The painter Nattier had no complaints against Peter.

Another secret was also revealed: Nattier painted not one of our portraits of Catherine, but painted two of them - a large one and a small one. "Small" is the original Houbraken engraving. By the way, it is very characteristic that the engraving does not have the signature of the artist, that is, Moor, but there is only one - the signature of the engraver Houbraken. The “small portrait” was, apparently, a reduced repetition of the large one, in which, as mentioned above, the artist left the head unchanged, but rewrote the costume and a number of details. Maybe it, not so crushed and loaded, was made specifically for engraving by Houbraken. Such "simplified" portraits for engraving were performed quite often in the 18th century.

Houbraken's engraving was haunted by the same demon of confusion as other portraits of Catherine. Its author was confused with unusual speed. Foreign names were still difficult for Russian diplomats and art lovers, and they rearranged them with ease.

"Issues" unravel a number of knots. Firstly, Stehlin turns out to be right when he said that Nattier wrote according to the model. True, the sample was not delivered from St. Petersburg, as he believed (I still think that he confused it with the Tanauer one), but, of course, Nattier painted the second portrait on the model of the first.

The not entirely clear phrase of Madame Toque, who claimed that Peter, angry with her father, ordered the “original portrait of the queen” to be removed from Buat’s workshop, also finds its explanation. It was about a large portrait of Catherine, which served as the original for other portraits.

These are the conclusions allowed to draw documents that have lain under wraps for more than two hundred and fifty years. They all helped to put in place, to attribute the Houbraken engraving, to find out about the existence of another portrait of Nattier. Despite all my efforts, I have not yet been able to find Catherine's "little person" by Nattier.

Documents of the Petrine era testify to the numerous portraits of the tsar, which belonged to the brush of Ivan Nikitin. However, none of the current portraits of Peter can be said with 100% certainty that he was created by Nikitin.

1. Peter I against the backdrop of a naval battle. Was in the Winter Palace, at the end of the 19th century. was transferred to Tsarskoye Selo. Initially considered the work of Jan Kupetsky, then Tannauer. The attribution to Nikitin first arose in the 20th century and, it seems, is still not particularly supported by anything.

2. Peter I from the Uffizi Gallery. I already wrote about him in the first post about Nikitin. It was first studied in 1986, published in 1991. The inscription on the portrait and the data of Rimskaya-Korsakova's technical expertise testify in favor of Nikitinn's authorship. However, most art historians are in no hurry to recognize the portrait as the work of Nikitin, referring to the low artistic level of the canvas.


3. Portrait of Peter I from the collection of the Pavlovsk Palace.
A.A. Vasilchikov (1872) considered it the work of Caravacca, N.N. Wrangel (1902) - Matveeva. These radiographs seem to be evidence in favor of the authorship of Nikitin, although not 100%. The date of the work is not clear. Peter looks older than in portraits nos. 1 and 2. The portrait could have been created both before Nikitin's trip abroad and after it. If this is of course Nikitin.


4. Portrait of Peter I in a circle.
Until 1808, it belonged to the archpriest of the Russian Church in London Y. Smirnov. Until 1930 - in the Stroganov Palace, now in the State Russian Museum.
Attribution to Nikitin arose during the transfer to the Russian Museum. Reason: "Trusting their intuition and eye, art critics unmistakably identified the author - Ivan Nikitin." The attribution has been called into question by Moleva and Belyutin. According to the examination, the painting technique differs from Nikitin's technique and, in general, Russian portraits of the time of Peter the Great. However, the author's corrections make us believe that the portrait was painted from nature. (IMHO - this is true, which cannot be said about the three previous portraits).
Androsov concludes: "The only artist who could create in Russia a work of such depth and sincerity was Ivan Nikitin"
Argument "reinforced concrete", what can I say))

5. Peter I on his deathbed.
In 1762 he entered the Academy of Arts from the Old Winter Palace. In the inventory of 1763-73. was listed as "Portrait of the hand-written Sovereign Emperor Peter the Great", the author is unknown. In 1818 it was considered the work of Tannauer. In 1870 P.N. Petrov attributed the work to Nikitin on the basis of a note by A.F. Kokorinov. Note that none of the researchers, except for Petrov, saw this note, and the same story is repeated here as in the case of the “portrait of the outdoor hetman”.
Then, until the beginning of the 20th century. the authorship of the portrait was "shared" by Tannauer and Nikitin, after which the authorship of the latter was established.
A technological study conducted in 1977 by Rimskaya-Korsakova confirmed that Nikitin was the author. From myself, I note that the coloring of the work is very complex, which is almost never found in other works by Nikitin (for example, a portrait of Stroganov, written around the same time). Peter himself is depicted in a complex perspective, but the drapery that covers his body looks shapeless. This brings to mind other reliable works by Ivan Nikitin, where the artist abandons the complex modeling of the body and folds and covers the torso of the depicted with a cloth.
There are other images of Peter I on his deathbed.

One painting is attributed to Tannauer. Here the deceased emperor lies approximately at the level of the painter's eyes, who refuses a complex angle (which Nikitin did not do very well with). At the same time, the drawing and painting are confident, and personally I like this work even more than the “Nikitinsky” one.

The third picture is a free copy of the second and is also attributed to Nikitin in some sources. Personally, it seems to me that such an attribution does not contradict the well-known Nikitin canvases. But could Ivan Nikitin simultaneously create two images of the dead Peter I, and so different in artistic merit?

6. There is another portrait of Peter I, previously considered the work of Nikitin. Now it is attributed to Caravaccus. The portrait is very different from all the previous ones.

7. Another portrait of Peter I, attributed to Nikitin. It is located in the Pskov Museum-Reserve, for some reason dates back to 1814-16.

Summing up, I note that the portraits of Peter I attributed to Nikitin differ greatly in terms of both the level of skill and the style of execution. The appearance of the king is also transmitted very differently. (In my opinion, there is some similarity only between "Peter against the backdrop of a naval battle" and "Peter from the Uffizi"). All this makes us think that the portraits belong to the brushes of various artists.
We can draw some conclusions and make some hypotheses.
The myth "Ivan Nikitin - the first Russian painter" began to take shape, apparently, at the beginning of the 19th century. In the hundred years that have elapsed since the era when the artist worked, Russian art has made a huge step forward and portraits of the time of Peter the Great (as well as painting in general) already seemed very primitive. But Ivan Nikitin had to create something outstanding, and, for example, a portrait of Stroganov to those people of the 19th century. obviously didn't. Since then, the situation has changed little. Talented, masterfully executed works, such as "Portrait of Chancellor Golovkin", "Portrait of Peter I in a circle", "Portrait of an outdoor hetman" were attributed to Nikitin without much evidence. In those cases where the artistic level of the work was not too high, Nikitin's authorship was questioned, while even clear evidence was ignored. Moreover, this situation has persisted to the present, as evidenced by the portraits of Peter and Catherine from the Uffizi.
All this is rather sad. Art historians can easily ignore such evidence of authorship, such as inscriptions on paintings and the results of an examination, if these data do not fit into their concept. (I do not claim that such evidence is absolutely reliable. Simply, if not they, then what? Not the notorious art history flair, which gives very different results). The essence of all concepts is often determined by opportunistic moments.

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

The portrait I borrowed from the video where the Announcer says: " But already on his other engraving, as well as on all subsequent portraits of other artists, we see a completely different person, unlike his relatives. It would seem absurd!

But the oddities don't end there either. On the engravings and portraits of 1698, this man looks more like a 20-year-old boy. However, in the Dutch and German portraits of 1697, the same person looks more like 30 years old.

How could this happen?»

I am starting an epigraphic analysis of this portrait. A clue to where to look for certain inscriptions are 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 CHARAOH. It may very well be that the absence of this highest spiritual rank means that this priest did not recognize the spiritual priority of Rurik, although he was formally 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 YARA. I consider this inscription as a continuation of the previous one. And inside the fragment circled in white, I read the words in inverted color: MOSCOW MARY 865 YARA (YEAR). Under Mary's Moscow, Veliky Novgorod was understood; however, already the first Romanov introduces real Christianity, and Patriarch Nikon, under Alexei Mikhailovich, eliminates all remnants of Russian Vedism from Muscovy. Consequently, Russian Vedists partly go to the Russian hinterland, partly go to the Russian diaspora in neighboring states. And the year 865 Yar is 1721 A.D. , this is more than 70 years after Nikon's reforms. By this time, the places of the priests were no longer occupied by children, but by the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the priests removed by Nikon, and the 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 depicted young man is 6-8 years younger than Peter.

And on the very bottom 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 Yar, this is the same as Mary's Moscow, this is Veliky Novgorod. In other words, one of the ancestors of this Anatoly in the middle of the 17th century could actually be a priest in this city, while after Nikon's reforms he ended up somewhere in the Russian diaspora. It is possible that in Catholic Poland, which very diligently carried out all the decrees of the Pope.

Rice. 2. Portrait of Peter by an unknown artist at the end of the 18th century

So, we now know that the young man with the bulging eyes was not Peter at all, but Anatoly; in other words, the substitution of the king is 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, moreover, the artist was not even named, so this portrait was not entirely acceptable as an evidence document, which made me look for other canvases. And soon the desired portrait was found: “ Peter the Great, Emperor of All Russia, portrait by an unknown late artistXVIII century» . Below I will show why the artist was unknown.

Epigraphic analysis of the second portrait of the False Peter.

I chose this particular image of Peter, because on his silk baldric I read the word YARA below, deciding that the portrait belonged to the painter of their Yar temple. And I was not mistaken. The letters were inscribed both in separate 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 a blue silk ribbon, then I began reading from it. True, since in the direct color these letters are not very contrasting, I go to the inverted color. And here you can see the inscription, made in very large letters: TEMPLE YAR, and on the collar - the inscription MASK. This confirmed my preliminary reading. In modern terms, this means: IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF YAR .

And then I moved on to reading the inscriptions on the 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 ANATOLY MASK FROM RURIK YAR JUTLAND. Firstly, it is confirmed here that False Peter was called Anatoly, and, secondly, it turned out that he does not come from Holland, as many researchers have suggested, but from neighboring Denmark. However, the transition 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, Dane by birth and Dutch by language, was an agent of Rome's influence. For the umpteenth time, the final center of action against Rus'-Russia is Rome!

But can this claim be verified? - I examine the armor on the right hand, as well as the background behind the hand. True, for readability, 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 ROMA MIM Rus' RIMA. In other words, about the fact that before us is really the image of not the emperor of Rus', but the priest of Rome! And on armor, hands can be read on every two plates: ROMA MIM. RIMA MIM.

Finally, on the fur collar next to the left arm, one can read the words: RURIK ROME MIM.

Thus, it becomes clear that the temples of Rurik existed as early as the 18th century, and their priests, creating portraits of dead 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 had been the official religion for more than a century), it was not safe to advertise the existence of Vedic temples, which is why the artist of this portrait remained unknown.

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

Death mask of Peter.

Then I decided to look on the Internet for foreign sites. In the article, I read the section “The Great Embassy” with interest. In particular, it said: " His Grand Embassy, ​​numbering 250 participants, left Moscow in March 1697. Peter became the first king to leave his kingdom. The official purpose of the embassy was to give a 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 to recruit foreign specialists for his new Russia. In the then Swedish city of Riga, the tsar was allowed to inspect the fortress, but to his great 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 persuade Peter to join his coalition against Sweden. In Königsberg, Peter visited the fortress of Friedrichsburg. He took part in visiting artillery courses, and graduated with a diploma certifying that "Peter Mikhailov received skills as a bombardier and skills in the use of firearms».

The following describes a visit by Peter Leeuwenhoek 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: 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 a friendly parting. At that time, the English navy was regarded as 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, make measurements and calculations, and learn how to use instruments and tools. As soon as he arrived in England he tried to sail the Thames» .

One gets the impression that it was in England that the best conditions were formed for the replacement of Peter by Anatoly.

The same article published the death mask of Peter the Great. The caption underneath 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 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 Emperor of Russia 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: “PetertheGreat (1672 - 1725) of Russia. Enamel miniature portrait by an unknown artist, late 1790s. #Russian #history #Romanov”, Fig.5.

Upon inspection, it can be argued that the largest number of inscriptions is on the background. The miniature itself I strengthened in contrast. To the left and above the head of the portrait, I read the captions: ROMA RURIK YARA MARY TEMPLE AND ROME MIM AND ARKONA 30. In other words, now it is specified in which particular temple of Mary of 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 the head at the level of the hair, I read in the background the words: MARY Rus' TEMPLE OF VAGRIA. Perhaps this is the address of the customer of the thumbnail. Finally, I read the inscriptions on the character's face, on his left cheek (where the wart on the left side of his nose is missing), and here you can read the words below the shadow of the cheek: RIMA MIM ANATOLY RIMA JAR STOLITSY. So, once again, the name of Anatoly is confirmed, now written in rather large letters.

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

Painting of Peter from the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Here I read the inscriptions on the fragment, where there is a bust portrait, fig. 6, although the full picture is much larger, 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 is the 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: MARY'S TEMPLE MASK, and further - on the lower lip: ANATOLY ROMA ARKONA 30. In other words, here we see a confirmation of the previous inscriptions: again the name of Anatoly, and again his link to the temple of Mary Rurik in the city near Cairo.

Then I read the inscription on the collar: 30 ARKONA YARA. And then I turn to the consideration of the fragment to the left of Peter's face, which I circled with a black frame. Here I read the words: 30 ARKONA YARA that has already been read. But then there are new and amazing words: ANATOLY MARY TEMPLE IN ANKARA ROME. It is not so much the existence of a special temple dedicated to Anatolia that is surprising, but the location of such a temple in Ankara, the capital of Turkey. I have not yet read such words anywhere. Moreover, the word ANATOLY can be understood not only as a proper name of a person, but also as the name of a locality in Turkey.

For the time being, 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. Painting from Encyclopædia Britannica online

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

In the article “The Double of Peter I”, Wikipedia, in particular, states: “ According to one version, the substitution of Peter I was organized by some 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 put his protege at the head of Russia, who pursued a policy that was beneficial to the organizers of the substitution and those who stood behind them. One of the possible goals of this substitution is the weakening of Russia».

Note that the history of the conspiracy to change 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 the 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 alleged that in the portrait of Peter, before traveling to Europe, he had an elongated face, curly hair and a large wart under his left eye. In the portraits of the king after returning 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 on his portraits after his return he looked to be about 40 years old. It is believed that the king before the trip was of a dense build and above average height, but still not a two-meter giant. The returned king was thin, had very narrow shoulders, and his height, which was established quite accurately, was 2 meters 4 centimeters. Such tall people were a rarity 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 a striking change in appearance? Thus, Wikipedia tries to present obvious provisions with some speculation, something like this: “ it is said 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. eight.

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

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

I will continue to quote Wikipedia: According to supporters of the conspiracy theory, soon after the arrival of the double in Russia, rumors began to spread among the archers that the tsar was not real. Peter's sister Sophia, realizing that an impostor had arrived instead of her brother, led a streltsy revolt, which was brutally suppressed, and Sophia was imprisoned in a monastery».

Note that in this case, the motive of the uprising of the archers and Sophia turns out to be extremely serious, while the motive of Sophia's struggle with her brother for the throne in a country where only men have reigned so far (a common motive of academic historiography) seems to be very far-fetched.

« It is alleged that Peter loved his wife Evdokia Lopukhina very much, often corresponded with her when he was away. After the return of the king 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 either with them or with 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 not clear why Wikipedia calls this concept conspiracy theories. According to a conspiracy of the nobility, Paul the First was killed, the conspirators threw a bomb at the feet of Alexander II, the USA, England and Germany contributed to the elimination of Nicholas II. In other words, the West has repeatedly interfered in the fate of Russian sovereigns.

« Supporters of the conspiracy theory argue that the returned king was ill with a tropical fever in a chronic form, while it can only be contracted in southern waters, and even then only after visiting the jungle. The route of the Great Embassy passed by the northern sea route. The surviving documents of the Great 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 Great Embassy, ​​Peter I during naval battles demonstrated extensive experience in boarding combat, which has specific features that can only be mastered by experience. Boarding combat skills require direct participation in many boarding battles. Before traveling 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 honored passenger».

It follows from this that Anatoly was a naval officer who took part in the naval battles of the southern seas, having been ill with tropical fever.

« It is alleged that the returned tsar spoke Russian poorly, that he did not learn to write correctly in Russian until the end of his life, and that he "hated everything Russian." Conspiracy theorists believe that before traveling to Europe, the tsar was distinguished by piety, and when he returned, he stopped fasting, attending church, mocked the clergy, began persecuting the 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 owned, and at the same time acquired skills of a simple craftsman. There is a striking, according to conspiracy theorists, change in the character and psyche of Peter after returning».

Again, there are clear changes not only in Peter's appearance, but also in Peter's language and habits. In other words, Anatoly did not belong not only to the royal, but even to the nobility, being a typical representative of the third estate. In addition, there is no mention that Anatoly spoke Dutch fluently, 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 finding this library was passed from tsar to tsar. So, Princess Sophia allegedly knew where the library was 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 given out by Wikipedia for some "statements".

« As evidence of the substitution of Peter, his behavior and actions are given (in particular, the fact that the tsar, who used to prefer traditional Russian clothes, no longer wore it after returning from Europe, including royal clothes with a crown - conspiracy theorists explain the latter fact by the fact that the impostor was taller than Peter and had narrower shoulders, and the things of the king did not fit him), as well as his reforms. It is argued that these reforms have done far more harm to Russia than good. As evidence, the tightening of serfdom by Peter, and the persecution of the 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 the Black and Mediterranean Seas. One of the main goals of the Grand Embassy was to achieve an alliance of European powers against Turkey. While the returned king began the struggle for mastery of the Baltic coast. The war with Sweden conducted by the tsar, according to supporters of the conspiracy theory, was needed by Western states that wanted to crush the growing power of Sweden with the hands of Russia. It is alleged that Peter I pursued a 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 against Turkey was a more important strategic task for Russia than the fight on the Baltic coast. And the Wikipedia mention of Denmark is consistent with the inscription on one of the portraits that Anatoly was from Jutland.

« As proof, the case of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich is cited, who fled abroad in 1716, where he planned to wait for the death of Peter (who was seriously ill during this period) on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire and then, relying on the help of the Austrians, become the Russian Tsar. According to supporters of the version of the substitution of the king, Alexei Petrovich fled to Europe because he sought to free his real father, imprisoned in the Bastille. According to Gleb Nosovsky, the agents of the impostor announced to 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 coming to power. Aleksey Petrovich, who returned, is believed by conspiracy theorists to have been killed on the orders of an impostor.».

And this version turns out to be more serious than the academic one, 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 of Gleb Nosovsky.

Wikipedia also sets out a version of the new chronologists. " According to Gleb Nosovsky, initially he heard many times about the version of Peter's substitution, but he never believed in 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. Examining the signs placed on the throne of Ivan the Terrible, Nosovsky and Fomenko found out 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 compared to all the names of Russian tsars. After all, names in Rus' at baptism were given exclusively according to the holy 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. Nosovsky and Fomenko, on the basis of the table, found out that the real name, which falls on the official date of birth of Peter I, was "Isakiy". This explains the name of the main cathedral of tsarist Russia, St. Isaac's.

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

The name "Anatoly" revealed by us does not contradict this version, because the name "Anatoly" was a monastic one, and not given at birth. - As you can see, the "new chronologists" have added another touch to the portrait of the impostor.

Historiography of Peter.

It would seem that what is easier is to consider the biographies of Peter the Great, preferably lifetime ones, 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 the non-Russian origin of Peter. He was called the Antichrist, the German foundling. The difference between Tsar Alexei and his son was so striking that many historians suspected Peter's non-Russian origin. Moreover, the official version of the origin of Peter was too unconvincing. She left and leaves more questions than answers. Many researchers have tried to lift the veil of strange reticence about the Petrine phenomenon. However, all these attempts instantly 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: In an incomprehensible way, until the middle of the 19th century, not a single work was published with a complete historiography of Peter the Great. The first who decided to publish a complete scientific and historical biography of Peter was the remarkable Russian historian Nikolai Gerasimovich Ustryalov, already mentioned by us. In the introduction to his work "History of the reign of Peter the Great" he details 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 was eager to get the history of his reign and entrusted this honorary mission to the translator of the Posolsky Prikaz 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 was preserved. 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. Thought he undertook to fulfillFeofan Prokopovich , Bishop of Pskov, and teacher of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich,Baron Huysen . Official materials were communicated to both of them, as can be seen from the writings of Theophanes, and as the sovereign’s handwritten note of 1714, preserved in his cabinet affairs, testifies even more: “Give all the journals to Gizen”(one). It would seem that now the History of Peter I will finally be published. But it was not there: “A skillful preacher, a learned theologian, Theophan was not a historian at all ... From that, describing the battles, he fell into inevitable mistakes; moreover, he worked with obvious haste, in a hurry, made omissions that he wanted to supplement later.. As we can see, Peter's choice was unsuccessful: Feofan was not a historian and did not understand anything at all. Huysen's work also turned out to be unsatisfactory and was not published: “Baron Huysen, having authentic journals of campaigns and travels in his hands, limited himself to extracts from them until 1715, without any connection, entangling many trifles and outside affairs into historical events”.

In a word, neither this biography nor subsequent ones took place. And the author comes to this conclusion: The strictest censorship of all historical research continued into the 19th century. So the work of N.G. Ustryalov, which is the first scientific historiography of Peter I, was subjected to severe censorship. From the 10-volume edition, only separate excerpts from 4 volumes have been preserved! The last time this fundamental study about Peter I (1, 2, 3 vols, part of the 4th vol, 6 vols) was published in a truncated version only in 1863! Today it is actually lost and is preserved only in antique collections. The same fate befell the work of I.I. Golikov "Acts of Peter the Great", which has not been reprinted since the century before last! Notes of an associate and personal turner of Peter I A.K. Nartov "Reliable Narratives and Speeches of Peter the Great" were first opened and published only in 1819. At the same time, a scanty circulation in the little-known magazine "Son of the Fatherland". But even that edition underwent an unprecedented revision, when only 74 out of 162 stories were published. This work was not republished anymore, the original was irretrievably lost.» .

The entire book by Alexander Kas is called "The collapse of the empire of Russian tsars" (1675-1700), which implies the establishment of an empire of non-Russian tsars. And in chapter IX, under the title "How the royal dynasty was cut out under Peter," 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 give more information about the False Peter.

Other opinions.

Again, I will continue to quote the already named 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 stated 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 Bayda, the double was either from Sweden or Denmark, and by religion he was most likely a Lutheran.

Bayda 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 of the Iron Mask. According to Baida, this prisoner was recorded under the name Marchiel, which can be interpreted as "Mikhailov" (under this surname Peter went to the Great Embassy). It is stated that the Iron Mask was tall, carried himself with dignity, and was treated reasonably well. In 1703, Peter, according to Bayda, was killed in the Bastille. Nosovsky claims that the real Peter was kidnapped and most likely killed.

It is sometimes argued that the real Peter was actually tricked into traveling to Europe so that some foreign powers could force him to subsequently pursue the policies they wanted. Not 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 convey the letter to the King of Sweden, Charles XII, and he rescued him from captivity. Later, Karl 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 again captured 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.

Bayda's version can be verified by examining engravings from that time.

Rice. 9. The prisoner in the iron mask (illustration from Wikipedia)

Iron mask.

Wikipedia writes about this prisoner: Iron Mask (fr. Le masque de fer. Born circa 1640, d. November 19, 1703) - a mysterious prisoner under the number 64389000 of the times of Louis XIV, kept in various prisons, including (since 1698) the Bastille, and wearing a velvet mask (later legends turned this mask into an iron one)».

The suspicions about the prisoner were as follows: Duke of Vermandois, illegitimate son of 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 -" The Iron Mask was the twin brother of Louis XIV. Subsequently, dozens of various hypotheses were expressed about this prisoner and the reasons for his imprisonment.", some Dutch writers suggested that " Iron Mask "- a foreigner, a young nobleman, a chamberlain of Queen Anne of Austria and the real father of Louis XIV. Lagrange-Chansel tried to prove in "L'annee litteraire(1759) that the Iron Mask was none other than Duke François de Beaufort, which has been completely refutedN. Aulairein hisHistoire de la fronte". Reliable information about the "iron mask" was given for the first time 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 vérité dans l'Histoire” (1769), where he gives the diary of Dujoncas, the royal lieutenant in 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 brought 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, as I believe, the simplest method of verification is epigraphic. On fig. 9 depicted " Prisoner in an iron mask in an anonymous print 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 masonry above the sheet. And gradually moving from one row to another, lower: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARY Rus' RURIK YAR SKIF MIMA OF THE WORLD MARY OF MOSCOW Rus' AND 35 ARKONY YAR. In other words, IMAGE OF THE PRIEST-SCYTHIAN OF THE TEMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN GODDESS MARY RURIK YAR MIRA MARY OF MOSCOW Rus' AND GREAT 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, a fragment of it is very small in size, and having increased it 15 times, I read the words as a continuation of the previous inscription: KHARAOH YAR Rus' YAR RURIK KING, and then I read the inscription, made in large letters to the left of the head: PETRA ALEKSEEV, and to the right of the head - MIMA YARA.

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

Thus, the version of Dmitry Bayda found epigraphic confirmation.

Rice. 11. Ankara urban glyph 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 accomplish this task, you can turn to the Google Earth program. The view of the city from above is called the urbanoglyph. In this case, a screenshot with the Ankara urban glyph is shown in fig. eleven.

It should be noted that the image turned out to be low-contrast, which is explained by photographing from a satellite through the entire thickness of the air of the atmosphere. But even in this case, it is clear that on the left and above the inscription: "Ankara" building blocks form the face of a mustachioed and bearded man in the left profile. And to the left (west) of this person are not quite ordered building blocks, forming an area called "Enimahalle".

Rice. 12. Urban glyph of part of Ankara from a height of 8.5 km

I was just interested in these two objects. I selected them from a height of 8.5 km and increased the contrast of the image. Now it is quite possible to read the inscriptions on it, fig. 15. True, it should be noted that the inscription: “Ankara” has completely disappeared, and only the last half of the inscription: “Enimahalle” has remained.

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 decryption field, fig. 13. So, above the fragment of the word "Enimahalle" 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 words read form the desired phrase TEMPLE OF ANATOLY . 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 ARKONY. So Ankara was just the secondary Arkona Yar No. 20. And even lower I read the words: 33 YARA YEAR. In terms of the usual chronology for us, they form the date: 889 A.D. . Most likely, they mean 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, after reading my article, suggested that the name of Anatolia is connected with Turkey, with its Anatolia. I considered this assumption quite plausible. However, now, during the epigraphic analysis, it turned out that this was the name of a particular temple in the city of Ankara, which is now the capital of the Turkish Republic. In other words, the assumption was concretized.

It is clear that the temple of Anatolia did not get 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 its code name agent from the name of this temple.

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

Discussion.

It is clear that such a historical act (more precisely, atrocity), as the substitution of the Russian Tsar of the Romanov dynasty, requires a comprehensive consideration. I tried to make my contribution and, by means of 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 False Peter. I think I've managed 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" really was the Tsar of Moscow, Peter Alekseevich Romanov. Now you can specify 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 Great 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 another "conspiracy" fiction, but the use by the West of a chance to replace the Tsar of Muscovy, who did not understand the danger of secret visits to Western countries. Of course, if the visit were official, it would be much more difficult to replace the king.

As for False Peter, it was possible to understand that he was not only a protege of Rome (moreover, it was a real one, next to Cairo, and not a nominal one, in Italy), but also received the undercover 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 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, about twice as long as Peter.

The falsification 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 perfectly well who they depict, 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 along the female line (for after arriving in Russia, Anatoly married a low-class Baltic woman), but also along the male line, because 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 the Soviet power, which lasted from November 1917 to August 1991, that is, 77 years. But whose dynasty was established from 1703 to 1917, for a period of 214 years, remains to be seen.

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

Particular finds of this epigraphic study were the finding of the temple of Anatolia in Ankara and the determination of the number of Ankara as a secondary Arkona Yar. It was the twentieth Arkona Yar, which can be shown on the table by adding to it, fig. fifteen.

Rice. 14. Replenished numbering table Arkon

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 the Great Embassy of Peter the Great to the 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 aim of overthrowing the tsar and replacing him with another person, but to involve him in Western politics. He had a lot of reasons not to materialize. However, when it happened, and in a secret way, it was already possible to deal with these foreigners in a way that was not required by diplomatic protocol. Most likely, there were other circumstances that facilitated the capture of Peter as a prisoner. For example, the scattering of part of the retinue for various reasons: some for taverns, some for girls, some for doctors, some for resorts. And when instead of 250 courtiers and guards there were only a dozen or two people from the retinue, the capture of a royal person became not too difficult. It is quite possible that Peter's intractability and his adherence to principles on political and religious issues prompted the monarchs who received him to take the most decisive action. But for now, this is just speculation.

And as a proven fact, only one thing can be counted: Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille as an "Iron Mask", and Anatoly began to rampage 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 the rest of the details must be clarified from other sources.

Alekseevich Romanov (1672-1725) - the largest figure in Russian and world history.

The time of his reign (1682-1725) was the time of a sharp turn in the fate 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, lifestyle, and relations with people.

Inquisitive, inquisitive by nature, young Peter did not receive a systematic education. Sincerity and diligence 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. Six years on the throne was his half-brother - Fedor Alekseevich.

From the age of ten, he became co-ruler with his brother Ivan, under the regency of his sister Sophia. Over the years, the future emperor was increasingly occupied with his "amusing" army and the German settlement, and Sofya Alekseevna began to be disturbed by the activity of the young tsar.

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

The main activities of Peter I

Domestic policy:

• centralization of power;
• decree on single inheritance (1714);
• table of ranks (1722);
• the creation of a metallurgical industry;
• protectionism policy;
• military reform, the creation of a regular army;
• population census;
• creation of the Senate and colleges;
• administrative reform, creation of provinces;
• the abolition of the patriarchate, the creation of the Synod;
• construction of cities, a new capital - St. Petersburg;
• succession decree (1722);
• formation of vocational education;
• cultural reforms.

Foreign policy:

• the 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 of the Russian state, its significant international position. The great reformer died in January 1725, before he could name his successor.

The results of the reign of Peter I

• modernization and Europeanization of Russia;
• development of industry and trade;
• strengthening the army and navy;
• the growth of the bureaucracy;
• access to the Baltic Sea;
• strengthening the international prestige of Russia;
• deterioration of the position of the peasantry;
• cultural development;
• Russia became an empire.