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 life. (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 difficult 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.
Let us ask ourselves the question: what kind of tribe were the first all-Russian autocrats: Tatars, Mongols, Germans, Slavs, Jews, Vepsians, Merya, Khazars ...? What was the genetic affiliation of the Moscow tsars?
Take a look at the lifetime portraits of Peter I and his wife Catherine I.
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.
Catherine I (Marta Samuilovna Skavronskaya (Kruse)) - the Russian Empress since 1721 as the wife of the reigning emperor, since 1725 as the ruling empress, the second wife of Peter I the Great, the mother of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. In her honor, Peter I established the Order of St. Catherine (in 1713 ) and named the city of Yekaterinburg in the Urals (in 1723).
Portraits of 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 reference book on 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 life. 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 Cofra, court painter of the Danish king. It was most likely written in the summer or autumn of 1716, when the tsar was on a long visit to Copenhagen. Peter is depicted 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).
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 painted 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 sea battle" (Tsarskoe 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. Vishnyakov about the addition to the portrait of His Imperial Majesty "against the portrait of Her Imperial Majesty." Apparently, in the middle of the 18th century, the need arose to rehang the portraits, and I.Ya. Vishnyakov was given the task 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 sea battle” is stylistically very close - here we can already talk about the iconographic type of I. N. Nikitin - a portrait of Peter discovered relatively recently from a Florentine private collection, painted 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.
Used literature: V. Stasov "Gallery of Peter the Great" St. Petersburg 1903
The most expensive trophy of Peter I in the Northern War was, perhaps, the Polonyanka from Marienburg Marta Skavronskaya (nicknamed by the Russians Katerina Trubacheva), whom the tsar first saw in St. Petersburg under construction on Troitsky Island in the chambers of Alexander Menshikov at the end of 1703. she is indifferent...
Conclusion to the throne, 1717
Grigory MUSIKISKY
Before meeting Martha, Peter's personal life was going badly: as we know, it did not work out with his wife, not only was she old-fashioned, but also stubborn, unable to adapt to her husband's tastes. You can remember the beginning of their life together. I will only remind you that Empress Evdokia was forcibly taken to the Suzdal Intercession Monastery, in July 1699 she was tonsured under the name of nun Elena and lived there for a long time quite freely on the money of churchmen who were dissatisfied with the sovereign’s policy.
The long-term romance of the tsar with the blond beauty Anna Mons, whose vanity was certainly flattered by the tsar's courtship and luxurious gifts, also ended dramatically. But she did not love him, but was simply afraid, however, risking having an affair on the side with the Saxon envoy, for which Peter put the deceiver beloved under house arrest for a long time.
Portraits of Peter I
Unknown artists
We will trace in more detail about the twists and turns of the fate of Martha Skavronskaya during her reign, but here we will dwell only on her relationship with the king. So, the tsar drew attention to the pretty neat and clean Katerina, while Alexander Danilovich, without much resistance, gave her to Peter I.
Peter I and Catherine
Dementy SHMARINOV
Peter I takes Catherine from Menshikov
Unknown artist, from the collection of the Yegorievsk Museum
At first, Katerina was on the staff of numerous mistresses of the loving Russian Tsar, whom he carried everywhere with him. But soon, with her kindness, gentleness, disinterested humility, she tamed the incredulous king. She quickly became friends with his beloved sister Natalya Alekseevna and entered her circle, liking all of Peter's relatives.
Portrait of Princess Natalya Alekseevna
Ivan NIKITIN
Portrait of Catherine I
Ivan NIKITIN
In 1704, Katerina already became the civil wife of Peter, gave birth to a son, Paul, a year later - Peter. A simple woman felt the mood of the king, adapted to his difficult character, endured his oddities and whims, guessed his desires, responded vividly to everything that occupied him, becoming the closest person for Peter. In addition, she was able to create for the sovereign the comfort and warmth of a hearth, which he never had. The new family became a support for the king and a quiet welcome haven...
Peter I and Catherine
Boris CHORIKOV
Portrait of Peter the Great
Adrian van der WERFF
Peter I and Ekaterina riding in a shnyava along the Neva
18th century engraving
Among other things, Catherine had iron health; she rode horses, spent the night in inns, accompanying the king on his travels for months and quite calmly endured the hardships and hardships of the march, which are very difficult by our standards. And when it was necessary, she behaved absolutely naturally in the circle of European nobles, turning into a queen ... There was no military review, descent of a ship, ceremony or holiday, at which she would not be present.
Portrait of Peter I and Catherine I
Unknown artist
Reception at the Countess Skavronskaya
Dementy SHMARINOV
After returning from the Prut campaign, Peter married Catherine in 1712. By that time they already had two daughters, Anna and Elizabeth, the rest of the children, died before they were even five years old. They got married in St. Petersburg, the whole ceremony was arranged not as a traditional wedding celebration of the Russian autocrat, but as a modest wedding of Shautbenacht Peter Mikhailov and his fighting girlfriend (in contrast, for example, to the magnificent wedding of Peter's niece Anna Ioannovna and the Duke of Courland Friedrich Wilhelm in 1710. )
And Catherine, who was not educated, who had no experience of life at the top, really turned out to be the woman without whom the tsar could not do. She knew how to get along with Peter, to extinguish outbursts of anger, she could calm him down when the king had severe migraines or convulsions. Everyone then ran after "hearted friend" Ekaterina. Peter laid his head on her knees, she quietly said something to him (her voice seemed to fascinate Peter) and the king calmed down, then fell asleep and after a few hours woke up cheerful, calm and healthy.
Rest of Peter I
Mikhail SHANKOV
Peter, of course, loved Catherine very much, adored his beautiful daughters, Elizabeth and Anna.
Portrait of princesses Anna Petrovna and Elizaveta Petrovna
Louis CARAVACK
Alexey Petrovich
And what about Tsarevich Alexei, Peter's son from his first marriage? The blow to the unloved wife ricocheted and hit the child. He was separated from his mother and given to be raised by his father's aunts, whom he rarely saw and was afraid from childhood, feeling unloved. Gradually, a circle of opponents of Peter's reforms formed around the boy, who instilled pre-reform tastes in Alexei: the desire for external piety, inaction and pleasure. The prince lived happily in "his company" under the leadership of Yakov Ignatiev, got used to feasting in Russian, which could not but harm his health, which was not very strong by nature. At first, the tsarevich was taught to read and write by an educated and skillful rhetorician Nikifor Vyazemsky, and from 1703, a German, Doctor of Law Heinrich Huissen, who compiled an extensive curriculum for two years, became Alexei's tutor. According to the plan, in addition to studying the French language, geography, cartography, arithmetic, geometry, the prince practiced fencing, dancing, and horseback riding.
Johann Paul LUDDEN
It must be said that Tsarevich Alexei was not at all the shaggy, wretched, frail and cowardly hysteric that he was sometimes portrayed and portrayed hitherto. He was the son of his father, inherited his will, stubbornness, and responded to the king with deaf rejection and resistance, which was hidden behind demonstrative obedience and formal reverence. An enemy grew up behind Peter's back, who did not accept anything of what his father did and fought for... Attempts to involve him in state affairs were not crowned with particular success. Aleksey Petrovich was in the army, participated in campaigns and battles (in 1704 the prince was in Narva), performed various state orders of the tsar, but he did it formally and reluctantly. Dissatisfied with his son, Peter sent the 19-year-old prince abroad, where he studied somehow for three years, unlike his sparkling parent, preferring peace to everything else. In 1711, almost against his will, he married the Wolfenbüttel Crown Princess Charlotte Christina Sophia, sister-in-law of the Austrian Emperor Charles VI, and then returned to Russia.
Charlotte Christina Sophia of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel
Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich and Charlotte Christina Sophia of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel
Johann Gottfried TANNAUER Grigory MOLCHANOV
Aleksey Petrovich did not love the wife imposed on him, but he was a serf of his teacher Nikifor Vyazemsky Efrosinya and dreamed of marrying her. Charlotte Sophia gave birth to his daughter Natalya in 1714, and a year later - a son named Peter in honor of his grandfather. Nevertheless, until 1715, the relationship between father and son was more or less tolerable. In the same year, when she was baptized into the Orthodox faith, the queen was named Ekaterina Alekseevna.
Portrait of the family of Peter I.
Peter I, Ekaterina Alekseevna, eldest son Alexei Petrovich, daughters Elizabeth and Anna, younger two-year-old son Peter.
Grigory MUSIKII, Enamel on copper plate
The prince believed in his planid, being convinced that he was the only legitimate heir to the throne and, gritting his teeth, was waiting in the wings.
Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich
W. GREITBACH Unknown artist
But soon after giving birth, Charlotte Sophia died, she was buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral on October 27, 1915, and on the same day Peter handed a letter to Alexei Petrovich announcement to my son(written, by the way, on October 11), in which he accused the prince of laziness, an evil and stubborn disposition and threatened to deprive him of the throne: I will deprive you of your inheritance, I will cut you off like a member of the body affected by gangrene, and do not think that you are my only son and that I am writing this only for warning: I will truly fulfill it, because I have not regretted and do not regret my life for my Fatherland and people, then how can I pity you, indecent?
Portrait of Tsarevich Peter Petrovich as Cupid
Louis CARAVACK
On October 28, the long-awaited son Pyotr Petrovich was born to the tsar, "Shishechka", "Gut", as his parents later lovingly called him in letters. And the claims against the eldest son became more serious, and the accusations were more severe. Many historians believe that such changes were not without influence on Tsar Catherine and Alexander Danilovich Menshikov, who perfectly understood the unenviable fate of their fate if Alexei Petrovich came to the kingdom. After consulting with close people, Alexei abdicated the throne in his letter: "And now, thank God, I have a brother, to whom, God bless."
Portrait of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich
Johann Paul LUDDEN
Further more. In January 1716, Peter wrote a second accusatory letter, "The Last Reminder Yet," in which he demanded that the prince be tonsured a monk: And if you don’t do it, then I’ll deal with you as with a villain. And the son gave formal consent to this. But Peter perfectly understood that in the event of his death, a struggle for power would begin, the act of renunciation would become a mere piece of paper, you could leave the monastery, i.e. in any case, Alexei will remain dangerous for Peter's children from Catherine. It was a completely real situation, the king could find many examples from the history of other states.
In September 1716, Alexei received a third letter from his father from Copenhagen with an order to immediately come to him. Then the prince's nerves gave out and he decided to escape in despair ... Having passed Danzig, Alexei and Efrosinya disappeared, arriving in Vienna under the name of the Polish gentry Kokhanovsky. He turned to his brother-in-law, the Emperor of Austria with a request for patronage: I came here to ask the emperor ... to save my life: they want to destroy me, they want to deprive me and my poor children of the throne, ... and if the Caesar gives me to my father, then it's the same as executing me himself; yes, if my father had spared me, then my stepmother and Menshikov would not calm down until they tortured me to death or poisoned me. It seems to me that with such statements the prince himself signed his own death warrant.
Alexei Petrovich, prince
Engraving from 1718
Austrian relatives hid the unfortunate fugitives away from sin in the Tyrolean castle of Ehrenberg, and in May 1717 they transported him and Efrosinya, disguised as a page, to Naples in the castle of San Elmo. With great difficulty, alternating various threats, promises and persuasion, Captain Rumyantsev and diplomat Pyotr Tolstoy, sent to search, managed to return the prince to his homeland, where in February 1718 he officially abdicated in the presence of senators and reconciled with his father. However, soon Peter opened the investigation, for which the notorious Secret Chancellery was created. As a result of the investigation, several dozen people were captured, subjected to severe torture and executed.
Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich in Peterhof
Nikolay GE
Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei
Kuznetsovsky porcelain
In June, the Tsarevich himself ended up in the Peter and Paul Fortress. According to the legal norms of that time, Alexei was certainly perceived as a criminal. Firstly, having hit the run, the prince could be accused of treason. In Rus', in general, not a single person had the right to freely travel abroad until 1762, before the appearance of the manifesto On the Liberty of the Nobility. Moreover, go to a foreign sovereign. It was absolutely out of the question. Secondly, at that time, not only the one who committed something criminal, but also the one who intended this criminal was considered a criminal. That is, they were judged not only for deeds, but also for intentions, including intentions, even unspoken ones. It was enough to admit it during the investigation. And any person, a prince - not a prince, who confessed to something like that, was subject to the death penalty.
Interrogation of Tsarevich Alexei
book illustration
And Alexei Petrovich admitted during interrogations that in different years at different times he had all sorts of conversations with different people, in which he criticized his father's activities in one way or another. There was no obvious intent associated, for example, with a coup d'état in these speeches. It was just criticism. With the exception of one moment, when the prince was asked - if the Viennese Caesar went with troops to Russia or gave him, Alexei, troops in order to achieve the throne and overthrow his father, would he take advantage of this or not? The prince answered positively. They added fuel to the fire and the confession of the beloved Tsarevich Efrosinya.
Peter I went to court, emphasizing that this was a fair court, that this was a court of the highest officials of the state who were solving a state problem. And the king, being a father, has no right to make such a decision. He wrote two letters addressed to spiritual hierarchs and secular officials, in which he seemed to be asking for advice: ... I'm afraid of God, so as not to sin, for it is natural that people see less in their affairs than others in theirs. So are doctors: even if he was more skillful than all, he does not dare to treat his illness himself, but calls on others.
The clergy answered evasively: the tsar must choose: according to the Old Testament, Alexei is worthy of death, according to the New Testament, forgiveness, for Christ forgave the repentant prodigal son ... The senators voted for the death penalty; on June 24, 1718, a specially formed Supreme Court pronounced the death sentence. And on June 26, 1718, after another torture under unclear circumstances, Tsarevich Alexei was apparently killed.
Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich
George STUART
If it seemed to someone that I was trying to justify such a wild and cruel attitude of Peter towards his eldest son, then this is not so. I just want to understand what he was guided by, taking into account the laws and customs of that era, and not his emotions.
When Alexei Petrovich died in 1718, it seemed that the situation with the succession to the throne was resolved very well, the little prince Peter Petrovich, whom the tsar loved very much, was growing up. But in 1719 the child died. Peter did not have a single direct heir in the male line. And again this question remained open.
Well, the mother of the eldest son of Peter, the queen-nun Evdokia Lopukhina, meanwhile, was still in the Intercession Monastery, where she managed to create a real microcosm of the Moscow queen of the late 17th century, with an organized supply of food, things, the preservation of the court rituals of the Moscow sovereign and solemn trips to pilgrimage.
And everything would be fine, maybe it would have continued like this for a long time, Peter had nothing to do with the great battles and accomplishments, but in 1710 our queen managed to fall in love. Yes, not just like that, but, it seems, for real. In Major Stepan Bogdanov Glebov. She achieved a meeting with Glebov, an affair began, which was very superficial on his part, because the major understood that an affair with a queen, even a former one, could have consequences ... He gave Evdokia sables, arctic foxes, jewelry, and she wrote letters full of passion : You forgot me so soon. It’s not enough, it’s clear, your face, and your hands, and all your members, and the joints of your hands and feet are watered with my tears ... Oh, my light, how can I live in the world without you? Glebov was frightened by such a waterfall of feelings and soon began to miss dates, and then completely left Suzdal. And Dunya continued to write sad and ardent letters, not fearing any punishment ...
Evdokia Fedorovna Lopukhina, first wife of Peter I
Unknown artist
All these passions were discovered from the so-called Kikinsky search in the case of Tsarevich Alexei. In sympathy for Evdokia Feodorovna, the monks and nuns of the Suzdal monasteries, the Krutitsy Metropolitan Ignatius and many others were convicted. Among those arrested, purely by chance, was Stepan Glebov, who had love letters from the queen. Enraged, Peter gave the order to the investigators to come to grips with the nun Elena. Glebov very quickly admitted that lived fornication with the former empress, but denied participating in a conspiracy against the tsar, although he was tortured in a way that no one was tortured even at that cruel time: they pulled him up on the rack, burned him with fire, then locked him in a tiny cell, the floor of which was studded with nails.
In a letter to Peter, Evdokia Fedorovna confessed everything and asked for forgiveness: Falling down at your feet, I ask for mercy, that my crime of forgiveness, so that I do not die a worthless death. And I promise to continue to be a monk and remain in monasticism until my death, and I will pray to God for you, Sovereign.
Evdokia Fedorovna Lopukhina (Nun Elena)
Unknown artist
Peter fiercely executed everyone involved in the case. On March 15, 1718, the barely alive Glebov was impaled on Red Square and left to die. And so that he would not freeze ahead of time in the cold, he was "carefully" thrown over his shoulders with a sheepskin coat. A priest was on duty nearby, waiting for a confession, but Glebov never said anything. And one more touch to the portrait of Peter. He also took revenge on the unfortunate lover of his ex-wife and ordered that the name of Stepan Glebov be included in the list of anathemas, as the queen's lover. In this list, Glebov was in company with the worst criminals in Russia: Grishka Otrepyev, Stenka Razin, Vanka Mazepa ..., later Levka Tolstoy also got there ...
Evdokia Peter transferred in the same year to another, the Ladoga Assumption Monastery, where she spent 7 years until his death. There she was kept on bread and water in a cold cell with no windows. All the servants were removed, and only the faithful dwarf Agafya remained with her. The prisoner was so humble that the jailers here treated her with sympathy. In 1725, after the death of Peter I, the tsarina was transferred to Shlisselburg, where, under Catherine I, she was kept in strict secret custody. Again there was meager food and a cramped cell, though with a window. But despite all the hardships, Evdokia Lopukhina survived both her crowned husband and his second wife Ekaterina, so we will meet with her again ...
No less dramatic was the story of Maria Hamilton, who came from an ancient Scottish family and was on the staff of Ekaterina Alekseevna as a maid of honor. Maria, distinguished by her excellent beauty, quickly came to the attention of the monarch, who recognized in her gifts that it was impossible not to look with lust and for some time became his mistress. Possessing an adventurous character and an indomitable desire for luxury, the young Scot was already mentally trying on the royal crown, hoping to replace the aging Catherine, but Peter quickly lost interest in the beautiful girl, since there was no one in the world better than his wife...
Catherine the First
Maria did not get bored for a long time and soon found solace in the arms of the royal batman Ivan Orlov, a young and handsome guy. They both played with fire, because in order to sleep with the tsar's mistress, albeit a former one, one really had to be an eagle! By an absurd accident, during the search for the case of Tsarevich Alexei, suspicion of the loss of a denunciation written by Orlov himself fell on him. Not understanding what he was accused of, the batman fell on his face and confessed to the tsar in cohabitation with Maria Gamonova (as she was called in Russian), saying that she had two children born dead from him. During interrogation under a whip, Maria admitted that she poisoned two conceived children with some kind of drug, and immediately drowned the last one who was born in a night vessel, and ordered the maid to throw away the little body.
Peter I
Grigory MUSIKISKY Karel de MOOR
I must say that before Peter I, the attitude in Rus' towards bastards and their mothers was monstrous. Therefore, in order not to incur wrath and troubles, mothers mercilessly etched the fruits of sinful love, and in the event of their birth, they often killed them in various ways. Peter, first of all, caring for the state interests (a great thing ... there will be a small soldier over time), in the Decree of 1715 on hospitals, ordered that hospitals be established in the state for the maintenance shameful babies, whom wives and girls give birth to lawlessly and for the sake of shame sweep away in different places, which is why these babies die uselessly... And then he sternly decreed: And if such illegitimate children appear in the slaughter of those babies, and they themselves will be executed by death for such atrocities. In all provinces and cities, it was ordered in hospitals and near churches to open houses for the reception of illegitimate children, who at any time could be placed in a window that was always open for this purpose.
Mary was sentenced to death by beheading. Actually, according to the Code of 1649, the child killer is alive they bury their boobs in the ground, with their hands together and trample with their feet. It happened that the criminal lived in this position for a whole month, unless, of course, relatives were prevented from feeding the unfortunate woman and did not allow stray dogs to bite her. But Hamilton was waiting for another death. After the verdict was passed, many people close to Peter tried to appease him, pointing out that the girl acted unconsciously, out of fear, she was simply ashamed. Both tsarinas stood up for Maria Hamilton - Ekaterina Alekseevna and the widowed tsarina Praskovya Feodorovna. But Peter was adamant: the law must be fulfilled, and he was not able to cancel it. No doubt it also mattered that the babies killed by Hamilton could be the children of Peter himself, and this, like betrayal, the king could not forgive his former mistress.
Maria Hamilton before her execution
Pavel SVEDOMSKY
On March 14, 1719, in St. Petersburg, with a gathering of people, the Russian Lady Hamilton ascended the scaffold, where the chopping block was already standing, and the executioner was waiting. Until the last, Mary hoped for mercy, dressed up in a white dress, and when Peter appeared, she knelt before him. The sovereign promised that the hand of the executioner would not touch her: it is known that during the execution the executioner roughly grabbed the executed, stripped him naked and threw him on the chopping block...
Execution in the presence of Peter the Great
Everyone froze in anticipation of Peter's final decision. He whispered something in the ear of the executioner, and he suddenly waved his wide sword and in the blink of an eye cut off the head of a kneeling woman. So Peter, without breaking the promise given to Mary, at the same time tried out the executioner's sword brought from the West - a new tool of execution for Russia, first used instead of a rough ax. According to the memoirs of contemporaries, after the execution, the sovereign raised Mary's head by her luxurious hair and kissed her lips, which had not yet cooled down, and then read to all those gathered, frozen in horror, an explanatory lecture on anatomy (about the features of the blood vessels that feed the human brain), in which he was big lover and connoisseur...
After a demonstrative anatomy lesson, Maria's head was ordered to be sealed in alcohol in the Kunstkamera, where she lay in a jar, along with other monsters in the collection of the first Russian museum, for almost half a century. Everyone has long forgotten what kind of head it is, and visitors, hanging their ears, listened to the watchman’s tales that once Emperor Peter the Great ordered the head of the most beautiful of his court ladies to be cut off and her to be drunk in alcohol so that descendants would know what beautiful women were in those times. Carrying out an audit in the Peter's Kunstkamera, Princess Ekaterina Dashkova discovered alcoholized heads next to the freaks in two jars. One of them belonged to Willim Mons (our next hero), the other to Peter's mistress, chambermaid Hamilton. The empress ordered to bury them in peace.
Portrait of Peter I, 1717
Ivan NIKITIN
The last strong love of Tsar Peter was Maria Cantemir, daughter of the Sovereign of Moldavia Dmitry Cantemir and Cassandra Sherbanovna Cantakuzen, daughter of the Wallachian ruler. Peter knew her as a girl, but she quickly turned from a small thin girl into one of the most beautiful ladies of the royal court. Maria was very smart, knew several languages, was fond of ancient and Western European literature and history, drawing, music, studied the basics of mathematics, astronomy, rhetoric, philosophy, so it’s no wonder that the girl could easily enter and support any conversation.
Maria Cantemir
Ivan NIKITIN
The father did not interfere, but, on the contrary, with the support of Peter Tolstoy, contributed to the rapprochement of his daughter with the king. Catherine, who at first looked through her fingers at her husband's next passion, became alert when she learned about Mary's pregnancy. Surrounded by the tsar, it was seriously said that if she gave birth to a son, then Catherine could repeat the fate of Evdokia Lopukhina ... The tsarina made every effort to ensure that the child was not born (the family doctor, the Greek Palikula, Mary's doctor, who prepared the potion, was bribed to Peter Andreevich Tolstoy Promised to be an earl).
Portrait of Count Pyotr Andreyevich Tolstoy
Georg Gsell Johann Gonfried TANNAUER
During the Prut campaign of 1722, to which the whole court went, Catherine and the Kantemirov family, Maria lost her child. The king visited a woman blackened from grief and suffering, said a few kind words of consolation, and was like that ...
Maria Cantemir
The last years of his life were not easy for Peter I personally, youth passed, illnesses overcame him, he entered the age when a person needs close people who would understand him. Having become emperor, Peter I apparently decided to leave the throne to his wife. And that is why in the spring of 1724 he solemnly married Catherine. For the first time in Russian history, the empress was crowned with the imperial crown. Moreover, it is known that Peter personally laid the imperial crown on the head of his wife during the ceremony.
Proclamation of Catherine I as Empress of All Russia
Boris CHORIKOV
Peter I crowns Catherine
NX, from the collection of the Yegorievsk Museum
It would seem that everything is in order. An, no. In the autumn of 1724, this idyll was destroyed by the news that the empress was unfaithful to her husband. She had an affair with chamberlain Willim Mons. And again, the grimace of history: this is the brother of the same Anna Mons, with whom Peter himself was in love in his youth. Forgetting about caution and completely succumbing to feelings, Catherine brought her favorite as close as possible to herself, he accompanied her on all trips, lingered for a long time in Catherine's chambers.
Tsar Peter I Alekseevich the Great and Ekaterina Alekseevna
Upon learning of Catherine's infidelity, Peter was furious. For him, the betrayal of his beloved wife was a serious blow. He destroyed the will signed in her name, became gloomy and merciless, practically stopped communicating with Catherine, and since then access to it has become forbidden for her. Mons was arrested, put on trial "for cheating and illegal acts" and personally interrogated by Peter I. Five days after his arrest, he was sentenced to death on charges of bribery. William Mons was executed by beheading on November 16 in St. Petersburg. The body of the chamberlain lay on the scaffold for several days, and his head was alcoholized and kept in the Kunstkamera for a long time.
Portraits of Peter the Great
Trellis. Silk, wool, metallic thread, canvas, weaving.
Petersburg Tapestry Manufactory
The author of the pictorial original J-M. NATIE
And Peter again began to visit Maria Cantemir. But time has passed ... Mary, apparently, fell in love with Peter as a child, and this passion became fatal and the only one, she accepted Peter the way he was, but they missed each other a little in time, the emperor's life was approaching sunset. She did not forgive the repentant doctor and Count Peter Tolstoy, who were guilty of the death of her son. Maria Cantemir devoted the rest of her life to her brothers, participated in the political life of the court and secular intrigues, was engaged in charity work and remained faithful to her first and only love - Peter the Great until the end of her life. At the end of her life, the princess, in the presence of the memoirist Jakob von Stehlin, burned everything that connected her with Peter I: his letters, papers, two portraits framed with precious stones (Peter in armor and her own) ...
Maria Cantemir
book illustration
The consolation of Emperor Peter was the princesses, the beautiful daughters Anna, Elizabeth and Natalya. In November 1924, the emperor agreed to Anna's marriage to Karl Friedrich of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, who signed a marriage contract with Anna Petrovna. Daughter Natalya lived longer than the other children of Peter who died in childhood, and only these three girls were alive at the proclamation of the Russian Empire in 1721 and, accordingly, received the title of crown prince. Natalya Petrovna died in St. Petersburg of measles a month after the death of her father on March 4 (15), 1725.
Portraits of princesses Anna Petrovna and Elizaveta Petrovna
Ivan NIKITIN
Tsesarevna Natalya Petrovna
Louis CARAVACK
Portrait of Peter the Great
Sergey KIRILLOV Unknown artist
Peter I never forgave Catherine: after the execution of Mons, he only once, at the request of his daughter Elizabeth, agreed to dine with her. Only the death of the emperor in January 1725 reconciled the spouses.
Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, son of Alexei Mikhailovich, dying childless, did not appoint himself an heir. His elder brother John was weak both physically and mentally. It remained, as the people wished, "to be in the kingdom of Peter Alekseevich", the son from the second wife of Alexei Mikhailovich.
But the power was seized by the sister of John, Princess Sofya Alekseevna, and the ten-year-old Peter, despite the fact that he was married with his brother John and was called the king, was a disgraced king. They did not care about his education, and he was completely left to himself; but, endowed with all the gifts of nature, he found himself an educator and friend in the person of a native of Geneva, Franz Lefort.
To learn arithmetic, geometry, fortification and artillery, Peter found himself a teacher, the Dutchman Timmerman. The former Moscow princes did not receive a scientific education, Peter was the first to turn to Western foreigners for science. The conspiracy against his life failed, Sophia was forced to retire to the Novodevichy Convent, and on September 12, 1689, the reign of Peter the Great began, when he was about 17 years old. Here it is impossible to enumerate all the glorious deeds and reforms of Peter, which gave him the title of the Great; let's just say that he transformed and educated Russia on the model of the Western states and was the first to give impetus to her becoming a powerful state at the present time. In his hard work and concern for his state, Peter did not spare himself and his health. Our capital Petersburg, founded in 1703, on May 16, on the island of Lust Eiland, taken from the Swedes, owes its origin to him. Peter the Great was the founder of the Russian navy and regular army. He died in Petersburg on January 28, 1725.
Crook's Tale
Peter 1 thematic pictures
