Ceremonial portrait of Peter 1. Lifetime portraits of Peter I

Are you here: Family and relationships

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 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- Job portrait Jean-Marc Nattier (1686-1766), a famous French artist, was painted during Peter's visit to Paris, undoubtedly from life. 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 survived, 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 posture 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, 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 inherited 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 nature 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 Peter the Great" (article)

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

Portraits of Peter I by Western European masters:

OK. 1700-1704 engraving by Adrian Schkhonebeck from a portrait by an unknown artist. The original is unknown.

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.

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.

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

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 sea 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, 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.

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.

Used literature: V. Stasov "Gallery of Peter the Great" St. Petersburg 1903

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 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 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 life. 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 survived, 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 posture 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, 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 nature 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)

The personality of Peter 1 rightfully occupies one of the leading places in the history of the Russian state. And the point is not even that it was this person who founded the Empire as such, but that during the reign of Peter the Great, Russia received a completely new vector of development. Thousands of historical and biographical books have been written that create a portrait of Peter 1, but historians cannot unequivocally characterize the activities of this person to this day. Some of them deify the first Russian emperor, describing his innovations in the state system and foreign policy. Others, on the contrary, try to show him as a tyrant and despot, citing excessive harshness and cruelty towards their subjects. But the portrait of Peter 1, the photo of which is presented below, depicts a purposeful and educated person.
The first emperor is also criticized for ill-conceived innovations, aimed, according to historians, at the eradication of everything Russian, replacing it with Western values. However, both of them unequivocally agree on one thing: it was really an ambiguous, significant and great figure in the history of the Russian state.
Judge not lest ye be judged
If you carefully study the historical portrait of Peter 1, created by the authors of countless works, you can come to a simple conclusion: such large-scale personalities cannot be judged one-sidedly. Strict distinctions according to the type of "white and black" are unacceptable here. In addition, for criticism or, conversely, praise, it is necessary to clearly understand the laws and principles that existed at that time. And what sometimes seems wild and scary to our contemporaries was a simple routine for different segments of the Russian population at the beginning of the 18th century.
A portrait of Peter the Great cannot be drawn using modern moral values. This approach will be "flat" and emotional. It will prevent a sober assessment of the historical reality of the Muscovite state, and then the Russian Empire of the 18th century.
Therefore, you just need to try to objectively focus on the neutral biography of the first Russian emperor and everything connected with him. After all, such individuals, as a rule, leave a mark not only in politics and the state system.
Education is the basis of the future personality
Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov was born on May 30, 1672. Like all royal offspring, the future sovereign received exclusively home education. And I must admit that, even by today's times, it was not bad. The educators revealed in the boy a great propensity for foreign languages and the exact sciences. In other words, in the future emperor, since childhood, humanitarian and technical aspirations were combined. Although he still gave preference to practical sciences.
The youngest son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Natalya Naryshkina, little Peter, grew up as an amazingly mobile and strong child. In addition to his penchant for science, he gladly climbed fences, fought with noble peers from his inner circle and committed other pranks typical of this age.
Handicraft is an occupation worthy of kings
The special surprise of all biographers, without exception, has always been caused by the tsar's son's passion for simple working crafts, in which he showed interest at a very young age. Not a single historical portrait of Peter 1 is complete without a description of how he could watch the work of a lathe for hours or breathed with pleasure the hot fumes of the palace forge.
The interest of the royal offspring did not go unnoticed. Special artisans were allocated, who began to teach Peter the basics of the simplest crafts: turning and forging. At the same time, it must be taken into account that this did not go to the detriment of the main educational schedule of the young heir. The exact sciences, the study of languages, the basics of military affairs have not been canceled. Already from early childhood, the future sovereign received a multilateral and high-quality education (contrary to the opinion of some Western historians that the home education of Russia in those years was distinguished by one-sidedness and unprofessionalism).
However, you can’t call the emperor a “simpleton” for anything, looking at how the artist Antropov painted a portrait of Peter 1: royal regalia, posture and look speak of a great and powerful person. And even though at the time of the creation of the painting the emperor had not been alive for almost 50 years, the author portrayed him very reliably.
Crowning and exile
The political portrait of Peter 1 should begin to be painted from 1682. After the death of the childless tsar, the young Romanov was elevated to the throne. However, this happened bypassing his older brother Ivan, which the Miloslavsky party (relatives of Peter's older sister Sophia) did not fail to take advantage of to organize a palace coup. The Miloslavskys successfully used the streltsy unrest, and as a result, the Naryshkin clan, to which Peter's mother belonged, was almost destroyed. Ivan was appointed "senior" tsar, and Sophia became the ruler-regent.
The Streltsy rebellion and the outright brutality of the murders had a very serious impact on the personality of Peter the Great. Many historians associate the further, not always balanced, actions of the king precisely with these events.
Sophia, becoming the sole mistress of the country, practically exiled the little tsar to Preobrazhenskoye, a small estate near Moscow. It was here that Peter, having gathered the noble undergrowth of his inner circle, created the famous "amusing regiments". Military formations had real uniforms, officers and soldiers, and were subject to real army discipline. Peter, of course, was the commander-in-chief. For the entertainment of the young king, a “funny fortress” was built, which, honing their “combat skills”, was stormed by a funny army. However, few people then guessed that it was this children's fun of boys running around with wooden guns and sabers that would lay the foundation for the famous and formidable Peter's Guard.
Not a single portrait of Peter 1 is complete without a mention of Alexander Menshikov. They met there, in Preobrazhensky. The groom's son in later years became the emperor's right hand and one of the most powerful men in the Empire.
Miloslavsky coup
The weakness and sickness of the "senior" Tsar Ivan constantly forced the ruler Sophia to think about complete autocracy in the country. Surrounded by nobles from the powerful Miloslavsky clan, the ruler was in full confidence that she would be able to usurp power. However, on the way to the throne stood Peter. He was God's anointed and full king.
In August 1689, Sophia decided on a coup d'etat, the purpose of which was to eliminate Peter and seize the throne. However, faithful people warned the young tsar, and he managed to leave Preobrazhenskoye, hiding in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The monastery was not chosen by chance. Powerful walls, ditches and underground passages were an insurmountable obstacle for Sophia's foot archers. According to all the rules of military science, Sophia had neither time nor money for an assault. In addition, the elite command of the streltsy units frankly hesitated, not knowing which side to choose.
Who made the decision to retreat exactly to Troitse-Sergiev? Not a single historical portrait of Peter 1 mentions this. In short, this place turned out to be fatal for Sophia and very successful for the tsar. The nobles supported Peter. The fighting detachments of the noble cavalry and the infantry of the "amusing" and faithful archers surrounded Moscow. Sophia was convicted and imprisoned in a monastery, and all the associates from the Miloslavsky clan were executed or exiled.
After the death of Tsar Ivan, Peter became the sole owner of the Moscow throne. Perhaps it was the events described that prompted him to seriously reorganize the entire Russian way of life. After all, the representatives of the “good old time” in the person of the Streltsy and the Miloslavskys constantly tried to physically eliminate the young sovereign, instilling in him a subconscious fear, which, according to contemporaries drawing Peter 1, was reflected on his face and haunted his soul almost until his death. Even painters noticed and recreated the unusually strong, but at the same time extremely tired face of the king. The artist Nikitin, whose portrait of Peter 1 is amazing in its simplicity and lack of imperial paraphernalia, just conveyed such a strong-willed and powerful, but deeply sincere person. True, art historians tend to "take away" part of the glory from Nikitin, referring to the drawing style that was uncharacteristic for the beginning of the century.
Window to Europe - German settlement
Against the background of these events, the aspirations of the young tsar for everything European look quite natural. It is impossible not to note the role of Kukuy - a German suburb, which the emperor liked to visit. Friendly Germans and their neat way of life differed sharply from what Peter saw in the rest of the same Moscow. But the point, of course, is not in neat houses. The sovereign was imbued with the very way of life of this small piece of Europe.
Many historians believe that it was the visit to Kukuy that partly formed the historical portrait of Peter 1. In short, future pro-Western views. We must not forget about the acquaintances made by the tsar on the German reservation. There he met a retired Swiss officer who became the main military adviser, and a charming - the future favorite of the first emperor. Both of these people played an important role in the history of Russia.
Access to the sea is a strategic task
Peter is more and more interested in the fleet. Specially hired Dutch and English craftsmen teach him the tricks and tricks of building ships. In the future, when multi-gun battleships and frigates will sail under the Russian flag, Peter will need more than once or twice to know the nuances of shipbuilding. He determined all defects and defects in construction himself. They didn't call him the Carpenter King for nothing. Peter 1 could really build a ship from bow to stern with his own hands.
However, during his youth, the Muscovite state had only one outlet to the sea - in the city of Arkhangelsk. European ships, of course, called at this port, but geographically the place was too unfortunate for serious trade relations (due to the long and expensive delivery of goods into the depths of Russia). This thought visited, of course, not only Pyotr Alekseevich. His predecessors also fought for access to the sea, mostly unsuccessfully.
Peter the Great decided to continue the Azov campaigns. Moreover, the war with Turkey that began in 1686 continued. The army, which he trained in a European way, was already an impressive force. Several military campaigns were made against the sea city of Azov. But only the last one was successful. True, the victory came at a high price. Small, but built for that period according to the latest engineering ideas, the fortress claimed many Russian lives.
And although the fact of the capture of Azov in Europe was perceived rather skeptically (precisely because of the ratio of losses), this was the first real strategic victory of the young king. And most importantly, Russia finally got access to the sea.
North War
Despite the frank skepticism of European politicians, Peter 1 begins to think about the Baltic. The ruling elite was at that time seriously concerned about the growing ambitions of another young strategist - This is partly why the Europeans supported the Muscovite tsar in his desire to get part of the coastal Baltic lands to open shipyards and ports there. It seemed that it was quite possible to have two or three Russian ports, and the inevitable war for the Baltic would seriously weaken Sweden, which, although it would defeat the weak Russians, would seriously get bogged down in the mainland of wild Muscovy.
Thus began the long Northern War. It lasted from 1700 to 1721 and ended with the unexpected defeat of the Swedish army near Poltava, as well as the assertion of the Russian presence in the Baltic.
Reformer
Of course, without serious economic and political changes in Russia, Peter 1 would not have cut through the famous “window to Europe”. The reforms affected literally the entire way of life of the Moscow state. If we talk about the army, then it received its formation precisely in the Northern War. Peter found resources for its modernization and organization on the European model. And if at the beginning of hostilities the Swedes dealt with unorganized, often poorly armed and untrained units, then at the end of the war it was already a powerful European army that could win.
But not only the personality of Peter the Great, who had a remarkable talent as a commander, allowed him to win a great victory. The professionalism of his closest generals and devotees is a topic for long and meaningful conversations. There are whole legends about the heroism of a simple Russian soldier. Of course, no army could win without a serious rear. It was military ambitions that spurred the economy of old Russia and brought it to a completely different level. After all, the old traditions could no longer fully meet the needs of the growing army and navy. Almost every lifetime portrait of Peter 1 depicts him in military armor or with military paraphernalia. Artists paid tribute to the merits of the emperor.
Not a single army
The portrait of Peter 1 will not be complete if we limit ourselves only to economic and military victories. The emperor must be given credit for developing and implementing reforms in the field of state administration. First of all, this is the establishment of the Senate and colleges instead of the obsolete ones and working according to the class principle of the Boyar Duma and orders.
The "Table of Ranks" developed by Peter gave rise to the emergence of so-called social elevators. In other words, the Table gave the opportunity to receive benefits and the nobility solely on merit. The changes also affected diplomacy. Instead of the old fur coats and hats of the well-born boyars who represented Russia, embassies appeared with diplomats already of a European level.
The description of the portrait of Peter 1 will be incomplete if we talk about him only in superlatives. It is worth noting that with the general geopolitical growth of Russia, the life of ordinary people within the country has not changed much, and in some cases (for example, recruitment duty) has become worse. The life of a simple serf was worth less than the life of a horse. This was especially noticeable during the "global" Peter's construction projects. Thousands of people died building the most beautiful city in Europe - St. Petersburg. No one counted the dead even during the construction of the Ladoga Canal ... And many young guys never became soldiers, dying under the canes of officers who introduced discipline in military units.
It is for the complete disregard for human life that the first emperor is criticized, imputing to him senseless cruelty and a huge number of unreasonable victims. In addition, we are everywhere confronted with the facts of the activities of Peter 1 that are striking in their inhumanity.
Only one thing can be said in defense of this man. The first emperor of Russia never moved away from his people at the distances that subsequent rulers allowed themselves. A thousand times the enemy cannonball could have torn him apart. Dozens of times, Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov could simply drown on imperfect sea vessels. And during global construction projects, he slept in the same barracks with sick builders, risking catching ailments, for which at that time there was no cure.
Of course, the emperor was better protected from enemy bullets than an ordinary soldier, he was treated by good doctors, and he had much more chances not to die from the flu than an ordinary peasant. However, let's finish the description of the portrait of Peter 1 with a memory of the cause of his death. The emperor died of pneumonia, which he received while rescuing a simple guard soldier from the cold water of the Neva River that had come out of the banks. The fact, perhaps, is not so remarkable in comparison with the deeds of his entire life, but it speaks volumes. It is unlikely that any of the modern "powerful ones" is capable of such an act ...

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 RUSSIA 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 of the late 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 Russia-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 RUSSIA ROME. In other words, about the fact that before us is really the image of not the emperor of Russia, 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 ROMA 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 construction 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 RUSSIA 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 painting 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 Russia 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 for the uprising of the archers and Sophia turns out to be extremely serious, while the motive for Sophia’s struggle with her brother for the throne in a country where only men still reigned (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 the 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 chronic dengue fever, 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 honorary 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 observing fasts, 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, it is not mentioned 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 Russia 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. Further 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 reprinted 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 Bayda, 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 fairly 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 RUSSIA RURIK YAR SKIF MIMA OF THE WORLD MARY OF MOSCOW RUSSIA 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 RUSSIA 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 RUSSIA 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. Urban glyph of Ankara from a height of 15 km

Did the temple of Anatolia exist? To answer this question, it is necessary to consider the urban glyph of Ankara, that is, the view of this city from a certain height. To 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, in the course of 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 Russia (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 theological" 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 the False Peter, it was possible to understand that he was not only a protege of Rome (moreover, a real one, near 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 depicted, 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 begin only after the accession of Anatoly in Russia, 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 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.

Editor's Choice

What kind of fish can be salted at home: choices and cooking tips Salt white fish

Fish is a source of nutrients necessary for the life of the human body. It can be salted, smoked,...

What is yantra, types of yantra meaning

Elements of Eastern symbolism, Mantras, mudras, what do mandalas do? How to work with a mandala? Skillful application of the sound codes of mantras can...

wood burning technology

Modern tool Where to start Burning methods Instruction for beginners Decorative wood burning is an art, ...

How to calculate the specific gravity in different areas?

The formula and algorithm for calculating the specific gravity in percent There is a set (whole), which includes several components (composite ...

Geography of beef cattle breeding (cattle, pigs, sheep), poultry farming

Animal husbandry is a branch of agriculture that specializes in breeding domestic animals. The main purpose of the industry is...

Analysis of the company's market share is an effective tool for a successful business What share in sales is considered the norm

Market share of a company How to calculate a company's market share in practice? This question is often asked by beginner marketers. However,...

The seventh technological mode is cognitive

First mode (wave) The first wave (1785-1835) formed a technological mode based on new technologies in textile...

Types of one-part sentences

§one. General data Recall: sentences are divided into two-part, the grammatical basis of which consists of two main members - ...

The concept of dialect. What is a dialect? Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and linguistic terms

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia gives the following definition of the concept of a dialect (from the Greek diblektos - conversation, dialect, dialect) - this is ...

New

Popular