"Portrait of Peter the Great".
Engraving from a painting by Benner.
However, dudes Peter also did not really like it. “It has come down to us,” he wrote in one of the decrees, “that the sons of eminent people in gishpan trousers and camisoles along Nevsky flaunt presumptuously. I’m ordering the governor of St. Petersburg: from now on, to catch these dandies and beat them with a whip on the well .. until a very obscene look remains from the Gishpan trousers.
Vasily Belov. Lad. Moscow, Young Guard. 1982
Ivan Nikitich Nikitin.
"Peter I against the backdrop of a naval battle."
1715.
Hasty and mobile, feverish activity, which began of itself in early youth, now continued out of necessity and was not interrupted almost until the end of life, until the age of 50. The Northern War, with its anxieties, with defeats at first and with victories later, finally determined Peter's way of life and informed the direction, set the pace of his transformative activity. He had to live from day to day, to keep up with the events that quickly rushed past him, to rush to meet the new state needs and dangers that arose daily, not having the leisure to take a breath, think again, figure out a plan of action in advance. And in the Northern War, Peter chose a role for himself that corresponded to his usual occupations and tastes learned from childhood, impressions and knowledge taken from abroad. It was not the role of either the sovereign-ruler, or the military commander-in-chief. Peter did not sit in the palace, like the former kings, sending decrees everywhere, directing the activities of his subordinates; but he seldom took himself at the head of his regiments, to lead them into the fire, like his adversary Charles XII. However, Poltava and Gangud will forever remain in the military history of Russia as bright monuments of Peter's personal participation in military affairs on land and at sea. Leaving his generals and admirals to act in the front, Peter took upon himself the less visible technical part of the war: he usually remained behind his army, organized its rear, recruited recruits, made plans for military movements, built ships and military factories, prepared ammunition, provisions and combat shells, stored everything, encouraged everyone, urged, scolded, fought, hung, jumped from one end of the state to the other, was something like a general feldzeugmeister, a general food master and a ship's chief master. Such tireless activity, which lasted for almost three decades, formed and strengthened the concepts, feelings, tastes and habits of Peter. Peter cast one-sidedly, but in relief, came out heavy and at the same time eternally mobile, cold, but every minute ready for noisy explosions - exactly like the iron cannon of his Petrozavodsk casting.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. "Course of Russian History".
Louis Caravacc.
"Peter I, Commander of the Four United Fleets in 1716".
1716.
Andrey Grigorievich Ovsov.
"Portrait of Peter I".
Enamel miniature.
1725. Hermitage,
St. Petersburg.
Dutch paintings appeared on the banks of the Neva in 1716, long before the museum was founded. This year, more than one hundred and twenty paintings were purchased for Peter I in Holland, and after that, almost the same number of paintings were bought in Brussels and Antwerp. Somewhat later, English merchants sent another one hundred and nineteen works to the king. The favorite subjects of Peter I were scenes from the life of "Dutch men and women", among the favorite artists - Rembrandt.
L. P. Tikhonov. Museums of Leningrad. Leningrad, Lenizdat. 1989
Ivan Nikitich Nikitin.
"Portrait of Peter I".
1717.
Jacob Houbraken.
"Portrait of Emperor Peter the Great".
Engraving after an original by Karl Moor.
1718.
Another portrait was painted by the Dutchman Karl Moore in 1717, when Peter traveled to Paris to hasten the end of the Northern War and prepare the marriage of his 8-year-old daughter Elizabeth with the 7-year-old French king Louis XV.
Parisian observers in that year portrayed Peter as a ruler who had learned his imperious role well, with the same penetrating, sometimes wild look, and at the same time a politician who knew how to get along pleasantly when meeting the right person. Peter was then already so aware of his importance that he neglected decency: when leaving a Parisian apartment, he calmly got into someone else's carriage, he felt like a master everywhere, on the Seine, as on the Neva. It is not like that with K. Moor. The mustache, as if glued on, is more noticeable here than on Kneller's. In the make-up of the lips, and especially in the expression of the eyes, as if painful, almost sad, one senses fatigue: you think that a person is about to ask permission to rest a little. His own greatness crushed him; there is no trace of youthful self-confidence, no mature contentment with one's work. At the same time, it must be remembered that this portrait depicts Peter, who came from Paris to Holland, to Spa, to be treated for an illness that buried him 8 years later.
Enamel miniature.
Portrait of Peter I (chest).
1712.
Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
"Family portrait of Peter I".
1712.
"The family of Peter I in 1717".
“Katerinushka, my dear friend, hello!”
So began dozens of letters from Peter to Catherine. There was indeed a warm cordiality in their relationship. Years later, a love game of a pseudo-unequal couple takes place in the correspondence - an old man, constantly complaining of illness and old age, and his young wife. Having received a parcel from Catherine with the glasses he needs, he sends jewelry in response: “Worthy presents on both sides: you sent me to help my old age, and I send to decorate your youth.” In another letter, in a youthful way, burning with a thirst for meeting and intimacy, the king again jokes: “Although I want to see you, but you, tea, much more, because I'm in[your] I was 27 years old, and you[my] 42 years was not. Ekaterina supports this game, she jokes in tone with her “hearty old friend”, is indignant and indignant: “It’s in vain that the old man was started!” She is deliberately jealous of the tsar now for the Swedish queen, now for the Parisian coquettes, to which he replies with feigned offense: “What do you write that I will soon find a lady [in Paris], and that is indecent for my old age.”
The influence of Catherine on Peter is enormous, and over the years it has been growing. She gives him something that the whole world of his outer life cannot give - hostile and complex. He is a stern, suspicious, heavy man - he is transformed in her presence. She and the children are his only outlet in the endless heavy circle of public affairs, from which there is no way out. Contemporaries recall amazing scenes. It is known that Peter was subject to attacks of deep blues, which often turned into fits of furious anger, when he crushed and swept everything in his path. All this was accompanied by terrible convulsions of the face, convulsions of the arms and legs. Holstein minister G. F. Bassevich recalls that as soon as the courtiers noticed the first signs of a seizure, they ran after Catherine. And then a miracle happened: “She began to talk to him, and the sound of her voice immediately calmed him, then she sat him down and took him, caressing, by the head, which she slightly scratched. This had a magical effect on him, and he fell asleep in a few minutes. In order not to disturb his sleep, she held his head on her chest, sat motionless for two or three hours. After that, he woke up completely fresh and alert.
She not only cast out a demon from the king. She knew his passions, weaknesses, quirks, and she knew how to please, please, simply and affectionately do something pleasant. Knowing how upset Peter was because of his “son”, the ship “Gangut”, who had somehow received damage, she wrote to the tsar in the army that the “Gangut” had arrived after a successful repair “to his brother “Forest”, with whom they have now copulated and stand in one place, which I saw with my own eyes, and it is truly joyful to look at them! No, neither Dunya nor Ankhen could ever write so sincerely and simply! The former seaport knew that more than anything else was dear to the great skipper of Russia.
"Portrait of Peter I".
1818.
Pyotr Belov.
"Peter I and Venus".
Probably, not all readers will be satisfied with me, because I did not tell about the Tauric Venus, which has long served as an adornment of our Hermitage. But I have no desire to repeat the story of her almost criminal appearance on the banks of the Neva, since this has already been written about more than once.
Yes, we wrote a lot. Or rather, they didn’t even write, but rewrote what was known before, and all historians, as if by agreement, unanimously repeated the same version, misleading readers. For a long time it was believed that Peter I simply exchanged the statue of Venus for the relics of St. Brigid, which he allegedly got as a trophy during the capture of Revel. Meanwhile, as it recently turned out, Peter I could not make such a profitable exchange for the reason that the relics of St. Brigid rested in the Swedish Uppsala, and Venus Tauride went to Russia because the Vatican wanted to please the Russian emperor, whose greatness Europe no longer doubted.
An ignorant reader will involuntarily think: if the Venus de Milo was found on the island of Milos, then the Venus of Tauride, presumably, was found in Tauris, in other words, in the Crimea?
Alas, it was discovered in the vicinity of Rome, where it had lain in the ground for thousands of years. "Venus the Pure" was carried in a special carriage on springs, which saved her fragile body from risky shocks on potholes, and only in the spring of 1721 did she appear in St. Petersburg, where the emperor was impatiently waiting for her.
She was the first antique statue that the Russians could see, and I would be skeptical if I said that she was greeted with unprecedented enthusiasm ...
Against! There was such a good artist Vasily Kuchumov, who in the painting “Venus the Most Pure” captured the moment the statue appeared in front of the king and his courtiers. Peter I himself looks at her point-blank, very resolutely, but Catherine harbored a smile, many turned away, and the ladies covered themselves with fans, ashamed to look at the pagan revelation. To swim in the Moscow River in front of all the honest people in what their mother gave birth - they were not ashamed, but to see the nakedness of a woman embodied in marble, they, you see, became shameful!
Realizing that not everyone would approve of the appearance of Venus on the paths of the Summer Garden of the capital, the emperor ordered to place her in a special pavilion, and sent sentries with guns for protection.
- What did you loose? they shouted to passers-by. - Go farther, it's not your mind's business .., royal!
The sentries were not in vain. People of the old school mercilessly scolded the Antichrist Tsar, who, they say, spends money on “naked girls, filthy idols”; passing by the pavilion, the Old Believers spat, crossing themselves, and others even threw apple cores and all evil spirits at Venus, seeing in the pagan statue something satanic, almost diabolical obsession - to temptations ...
Valentin Pikul. "What Venus held in her hand."
Johann Koprtzki.
"Peter the Great".
Among the great people of the past there was one amazing person who, not being a professional scientist, nevertheless was personally acquainted with many outstanding natural scientists at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries.
In Holland, he attended lectures by the famous chemist, botanist and physician G. Boerhaave (1668-1738), the same one who was the first to use the thermometer in medical practice. With him, he examined the exotic plants of the Leiden Botanical Garden. The local scientists showed him the newly discovered "microscopic objects" in Delft. In Germany, this man met with the president of the Berlin Scientific Society, the famous mathematician and philosopher G. Leibniz (1646-1716). With him, as well as with another famous mathematician and naturalist, H. Wolf (1679-1754), he was in friendly correspondence. In England, he was shown the famous Greenwich Observatory by its founder and first director, J. Flamsteed (1646-1720). In this country, Oxford scientists warmly received him, and some historians believe that during the inspection of the Mint, the director of this institution, Isaac Newton, spoke to him ...
In France, this man met professors at the University of Paris: the astronomer J. Cassini (1677-1756), the famous mathematician P. Varignon (1654-1722) and the cartographer G. Delisle (1675-1726). Especially for him, a demonstration meeting, an exhibition of inventions and a demonstration of chemical experiments were arranged at the Paris Academy of Sciences. At this meeting, the guest showed such amazing abilities and versatile knowledge that on December 22, 1717, the Paris Academy elected him as its member.
In a letter expressing gratitude for his election, the unusual guest wrote: “We want nothing more than to bring science to a better color through the diligence that we will apply.” And as subsequent events showed, these words were not a tribute to official courtesy: after all, this amazing person was Peter the Great, who “in order to bring the sciences to the best color” decided to create the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences ...
G. Smirnov. "Great, who knew all the greats." "Technology - youth" No. 6 1980.
Francesco Vendramini.
"Portrait of Peter I".
"Peter the Great".
XIX century.
Once A. Herzen called Peter I "a crowned revolutionary." And the fact that it really was so, that Peter was a mental giant, towering over the majority of his even enlightened compatriots, is evidenced by the most curious history of the publication in Russian of Kosmoteoros, a treatise in which the famous contemporary of Newton, the Dutchman H. Huygens, elaborated and developed the Copernican system.
Peter I, quickly realizing the falsity of geocentric ideas, was a staunch Copernican and in 1717, while in Paris, he bought himself a moving model of the Copernican system. Then he ordered the translation and publication of 1200 copies of Huygens' treatise, published in The Hague in 1688. But the order of the king was not carried out ...
The director of the St. Petersburg printing house M. Avramov, having read the translation, was horrified: the book, according to him, was saturated with "satanic deceit" and "devilish machinations" of the Copernican teachings. “Having trembled in heart and horrified in spirit,” the director decided to violate the direct order of the king. But since the jokes with Peter were bad, Avramov, at his own peril and risk, only dared to reduce the circulation of the "atheistic booklet of the mad author." Instead of 1200 copies, only 30 were printed - only for Peter himself and his closest associates. But this trick, apparently, did not hide from the king: in 1724, "The Book of the World, or Opinion on the Heavenly and Terrestrial Globes and Their Decorations" was published again.
"The atheistic scribe of a crazy author". "Technology - youth" No. 7 1975.
Sergei Kirillov.
Sketch for the painting "Peter the Great".
1982.
Nikolai Nikolaevich Ge.
"Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei."
Documents relating to the case of Tsarevich Alexei and stored in the State Archives of the Empire are numerous ...
Pushkin saw documents about the torture that the tsarevich was subjected to during the investigation, but in his "History of Peter" he writes that "the tsarevich died poisoned." Meanwhile, Ustryalov makes it clear that the prince died, unable to withstand the new tortures, which he was subjected to by order of Peter after the announcement of the death sentence. Peter apparently feared that the prince, sentenced to death, would take with him the names of accomplices who had not yet been named by him. We know that the Secret Chancellery and Peter himself searched for them for a long time after the death of the prince.
The official version said that after hearing the death sentence, the prince “felt a terrible convulsion all over his body, from which he died the next day”*. Voltaire, in his History of Russia in the Reign of Peter the Great, says that Peter appeared at the call of the dying Alexei, “both of them shed tears, the unfortunate son asked for forgiveness” and “his father forgave him publicly” **. But reconciliation was too late, and Alexei died from a stroke that had befallen him the day before. Voltaire himself did not believe this version, and on November 9, 1761, while working on his book about Peter, he wrote to Shuvalov: “People shrug their shoulders when they hear that the twenty-three-year-old prince died from a stroke while reading the sentence, which he should have hoped to cancel” ***.
__________________________________
* I. I. Golikov. Acts of Peter the Great, vol. VI. M., 1788, p. 146.
** Voltaire. History of the Russian Empire in the reign of Peter the Great. Translated by S. Smirnov, part II, book. 2, 1809, p. 42.
*** This letter was printed in the 34th volume of the 42-volume collection. op. Voltaire, published in Paris in 1817-1820 ...
Ilya Feinberg. Reading Pushkin's notebooks. Moscow, "Soviet Writer". 1985.
Christoph Bernard Franke.
"Portrait of Tsarevich Alexei, son of Peter I, father of Peter II."
extinguished candle
Tsarevich Alexei was strangled in the Trubetskoy bastion of the Peter and Paul Fortress. Peter and Catherine breathed freely: the problem of succession to the throne was solved. The youngest son grew up, touching his parents: “Our dear Shishechka often mentions his dearest dad, and with the help of God, he returns to his state and constantly has fun with the drilling of soldiers and cannon shooting.” And let the soldiers and cannons be wooden for the time being - the sovereign is glad: the heir, the soldier of Russia, is growing. But the boy was not saved either by the care of the nannies or the desperate love of his parents. In April 1719, having been ill for several days, he died before he had lived even three and a half years. Apparently, the disease that claimed the life of the baby was an ordinary flu, which always collected its terrible tribute in our city. For Peter and Catherine, this was a severe blow - the foundation of their well-being gave a deep crack. Already after the death of the empress herself in 1727, that is, eight years after the death of Pyotr Petrovich, his toys and things were found in her things - Natalya, who did not die later (in 1725), not other children, namely Petrusha. The clerical register is touching: “A golden cross, silver buckles, a whistle with bells with a golden chain, a glass fish, a jasper ready-made, a fuse, a skewer - a golden hilt, a tortoise-shell whip, a cane ...” So you see the inconsolable mother sorting through these gizmos.
At the funeral liturgy in the Trinity Cathedral on April 26, 1719, an ominous event occurred: one of those present - as it turned out later, the Pskov landrat and a relative of Evdokia Lopukhina Stepan Lopukhin - said something to the neighbors and laughed blasphemously. In the dungeon of the Secret Chancellery, one of the witnesses later testified that Lopukhin said: “Even him, Stepan, the candle has not gone out, there will be time for him, Lopukhin, from now on.” From the rack, where he was immediately pulled up, Lopukhin explained the meaning of his words and laughter: “He said that his candle did not go out because the Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich remained, thinking that Stepan Lopukhin would be good ahead.” Despair and impotence was filled with Peter, reading the lines of this interrogation. Lopukhin was right: his candle, Peter, was blown out, and the candle of the son of the hated Tsarevich Alexei flared up. The same age as the late Shishechka, the orphan Pyotr Alekseevich, not warmed by either the love of loved ones or the attention of nannies, grew up, and everyone who was waiting for the end of the tsar rejoiced - the Lopukhins and many other enemies of the reformer.
Peter thought hard about the future: he was left with Catherine and three "robbers" - Annushka, Lizanka and Natalyushka. And in order to untie his hands, on February 5, 1722, he adopted a unique legal act - the "Charter on the succession to the throne." The meaning of the “Charter” was clear to everyone: the tsar, breaking the tradition of transferring the throne from father to son and then to grandson, reserved the right to appoint any of his subjects as heirs. He called the old order "an unkind old custom." It was difficult to come up with a more vivid expression of autocracy - now the tsar controlled not only today, but also tomorrow of the country. And on November 15, 1723, a manifesto was published on the upcoming coronation of Ekaterina Alekseevna.
Evgeny Anisimov. "Women on the Russian Throne".
Yuri Chistyakov.
"Emperor Peter I".
1986.
"Portrait of Peter I against the backdrop of the Peter and Paul Fortress and Trinity Square."
1723.
In 1720, Peter laid the foundation for Russian archeology. In all dioceses, he ordered to collect ancient letters, historical manuscripts and early printed books from monasteries and churches. Governors, lieutenant governors and provincial authorities are ordered to inspect, disassemble and write off all this. This measure was not successful, and subsequently Peter, as we shall see, changed it.
N. I. Kostomarov. Russian history in the biographies of its main figures. St. Petersburg, "All". 2005 year.
Sergei Kirillov.
Study of Peter's head for the painting "Thoughts about Russia" (Peter the Great).
1984.
Sergei Kirillov.
Thoughts about Russia (Peter the Great).
1984.
P. Subeyran.
"PeterI».
Engraving from the original by L. Caravacca.
1743.
P. Subeyran.
"Peter I".
Engraving after the original by L. Caravacca.
1743.
Dmitry Kardovsky.
"The Senate of Peter the Great".
1908.
Peter denied himself and the Senate the right to issue verbal decrees. According to the General Regulations of February 28, 1720, only written decrees of the tsar and the Senate are legally obligatory for collegiums.
Sergei Kirillov.
"Portrait of Peter the Great".
1995.
Adolf Iosifovich Charlemagne.
"Peter I announces the Peace of Nishtad".
The conclusion of the Peace of Nystadt was celebrated with a seven-day masquerade. Peter was beside himself with joy that he had ended the endless war, and, forgetting his years and ailments, he sang songs and danced around the tables. The celebration took place in the building of the Senate. In the midst of the feast, Peter got up from the table and went to sleep on the yacht that stood on the banks of the Neva, ordering the guests to wait for his return. The abundance of wine and noise at this long celebration did not prevent the guests from feeling bored and burdened by the obligatory fun along with the fine for evasion (50 rubles, about 400 rubles for our money). A thousand masks walked, pushed, drank, danced for a whole week, and everyone was happy, happy when they lasted the service fun until the specified time.
V. O. Klyuchevsky. "Russian history". Moscow, Eksmo. 2005 year.
"Celebration at Peter's".
By the end of the Northern War, a significant calendar of annual court holidays proper was compiled, which included victorious celebrations, and from 1721 they were joined by the annual celebration of the Peace of Nystadt. But Peter especially liked to have fun on the occasion of the descent of a new ship: he was happy with the new ship, like a newborn brainchild. In that century they drank a lot everywhere in Europe, no less than now, and in the highest circles, especially the courtiers, perhaps even more. The Petersburg court did not lag behind its foreign models.
Thrifty in everything, Peter did not spare the cost of drinking, with which they sprayed a newly built swimmer. All the upper capital society of both sexes was invited to the ship. These were real sea drinking parties, those to which the saying goes or from which the saying goes that the sea is knee-deep drunk. They used to drink until General-Admiral old man Apraksin began to cry, overflow with burning tears, that he, in his old age, was left an orphan round, without a father, without a mother. And the Minister of War, His Serene Highness Prince Menshikov, will fall under the table, and his frightened Princess Dasha will come running from the ladies' half to take a piss and scrub her lifeless spouse. But the feast didn't always end so easily. At the table, Peter will flare up at someone and, irritated, will run away to the ladies' half, forbidding the interlocutors to disperse until he returns, and the soldier will be assigned to the exit. While Catherine did not calm the dispersed tsar, did not put him to bed and did not let him sleep, everyone sat in their places, drank and was bored.
V. O. Klyuchevsky. "Russian history". Moscow, Eksmo. 2005 year.
Jacopo Amigoni (Amiconi).
"Peter I with Minerva (with the allegorical figure of Glory)".
Between 1732-1734.
Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
Nikolai Dmitrievich Dmitriev-Orenburgsky.
The Persian campaign of Peter the Great. Emperor Peter I is the first to land on the shore.
Louis Caravacc.
"Portrait of Peter I".
1722.
Louis Caravacc.
"Portrait of Peter I".
"Portrait of Peter I".
Russia. XVIII century.
Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
Jean Marc Nattier.
"Portrait of Peter I in knightly armor."
The Journal of Peter the Great, published by Prince Shcherbatov half a century after Peter's death, is, according to historians, a work that we have the right to regard as the work of Peter himself. This “journal” is nothing more than the History of the Svean (that is, Swedish) war, which Peter waged for most of his reign.
Feofan Prokopovich, Baron Huissen, cabinet-secretary Makarov, Shafirov and some other close associates of Peter worked on the preparation of this "History". In the archives of the Cabinet of Peter the Great, eight preliminary editions of this work were kept, five of which were corrected by the hand of Peter himself.
Upon his return from the Persian campaign, having familiarized himself with the edition of the “History of the Svean War”, prepared as a result of four years of work by Makarov, Peter “with his usual fervor and attention, read the entire work with a pen in his hand and did not leave a single page uncorrected in it ... Few places of Makarov’s work survived: everything important, the main thing belongs to Peter himself, especially since the articles left by him unchanged were written out by the editor from his own draft papers or from journals edited by his own hand. Peter attached great importance to this work and, doing it, appointed a special day for his historical studies - Saturday morning.
"Portrait of Peter I".
1717.
Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
"Portrait of Peter I".
Copy from the original by J. Nattier.
1717.
"Emperor PeterIAlexeyevich".
"Portrait of PeterI».
Peter almost did not know the world: all his life he fought with someone, now with his sister, then with Turkey, Sweden, even Persia. Since the autumn of 1689, when the reign of Princess Sophia ended, out of the 35 years of his reign, only one year, 1724, passed quite peacefully, and from other years you can get no more than 13 peaceful months.
V. O. Klyuchevsky. "Russian history". Moscow, Eksmo. 2005.
"Peter the Great in his workshop".
1870.
Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
A. Shkhonebek. The head of Peter is made by A. Zubov.
"Peter I".
1721.
Sergei Prisekin.
"Peter I".
1992.
Saint-Simon was, in particular, a master of dynamic portraiture, able to convey contrasting features and thus create the person he writes about. Here is what he wrote about Peter in Paris: “Peter I, Tsar of Muscovy, both at home and throughout Europe and Asia acquired such a loud and well-deserved name that I will not take it upon myself to portray this great and glorious sovereign, equal to to the greatest men of antiquity, the wonder of this age, the wonder of the ages to come, the object of the greedy curiosity of all Europe. The exclusivity of this sovereign's journey to France, in its extraordinary nature, it seems to me, is worth it not to forget its slightest details and to tell about it without interruption ...
Peter was a man of very tall stature, very slender, rather thin; the face had a round, large forehead, beautiful eyebrows, the nose was rather short, but not too round at the end, the lips were thick; the complexion is reddish and swarthy, beautiful black eyes, large, lively, penetrating and well-defined, a look majestic and pleasant when he is in control of himself; otherwise, stern and stern, accompanied by a convulsive movement that distorted his eyes and his whole physiognomy and gave it a formidable look. This was repeated, however, not often; moreover, the wandering and terrible look of the king lasted only one moment, he immediately recovered.
His whole appearance revealed in him intelligence, thoughtfulness, grandeur and was not devoid of grace. He wore a round, dark brown, powderless wig that did not reach his shoulders; a tight-fitting dark camisole, smooth, with gold buttons, stockings of the same color, but did not wear gloves or cuffs - there was an order star on the chest over the dress, and a ribbon under the dress. The dress was often completely unbuttoned; the hat was always on the table; he did not even wear it in the street. With all this simplicity, sometimes in a bad carriage and almost without an escort, it was impossible not to recognize him by the majestic appearance that was characteristic of him.
How much he drank and ate at lunch and dinner is incomprehensible ... His retinue at the table drank and ate even more, and at 11 am exactly the same as at 8 pm.
The king understood French well and, I think, could speak this language if he wanted to; but, for greater grandeur, he had an interpreter; He spoke Latin and other languages very well…”
I think it will not be an exaggeration to say that there is no other equally magnificent verbal portrait of Peter, which we have just given.
Ilya Feinberg. "Reading Pushkin's Notebooks". Moscow, "Soviet Writer". 1985
August Tolyander.
"Portrait of Peter I".
The fact that Peter I, reforming the state-administrative administration of Russia, created 12 collegiums instead of the previous orders, is known to every schoolchild. But few people know which colleges Peter founded. It turns out that out of all 12 colleges, three were considered the main ones: military, naval and foreign affairs. Three colleges were in charge of the financial affairs of the state: revenues - the Chamber College, expenses - the State College, control - the Audit College. The affairs of trade and industry were conducted by commercial, manufactory and berg colleges. Completed a number of lawyers-college, the spiritual board - the synod - and the chief magistrate, who was in charge of city affairs. It is easy to see what a colossal development technology and industry have received over the past 250 years: affairs that were in charge of only two collegiums in the time of Peter the Great - the manufactory collegium and the berg collegium, are now managed by about fifty ministries!
"Technology for the youth". 1986
Documents of the Petrine era testify to the numerous portraits of the tsar, which belonged to the brush of Ivan Nikitin. However, none of the current portraits of Peter can be said with 100% certainty that he was created by Nikitin.1. Peter I against the backdrop of a naval battle. Was in the Winter Palace, at the end of the 19th century. was transferred to Tsarskoye Selo. Initially considered the work of Jan Kupetsky, then Tannauer. The attribution to Nikitin first arose in the 20th century and, it seems, is still not particularly supported by anything.
2. Peter I from the Uffizi Gallery. I already wrote about him in the first post about Nikitin. It was first studied in 1986, published in 1991. The inscription on the portrait and the data of Rimskaya-Korsakova's technical expertise testify in favor of Nikitinn's authorship. However, most art historians are in no hurry to recognize the portrait as the work of Nikitin, referring to the low artistic level of the canvas.
3. Portrait of Peter I from the collection of the Pavlovsk Palace.
A.A. Vasilchikov (1872) considered it the work of Caravacca, N.N. Wrangel (1902) - Matveeva. These radiographs seem to be evidence in favor of the authorship of Nikitin, although not 100%. The date of the work is not clear. Peter looks older than in portraits nos. 1 and 2. The portrait could have been created both before Nikitin's trip abroad and after it. If this is of course Nikitin.
4. Portrait of Peter I in a circle.
Until 1808, it belonged to the archpriest of the Russian Church in London Y. Smirnov. Until 1930 - in the Stroganov Palace, now in the State Russian Museum.
Attribution to Nikitin arose during the transfer to the Russian Museum. Reason: "Trusting their intuition and eye, art critics unmistakably identified the author - Ivan Nikitin." The attribution has been called into question by Moleva and Belyutin. According to the examination, the painting technique differs from Nikitin's technique and, in general, Russian portraits of the time of Peter the Great. However, the author's corrections make us believe that the portrait was painted from nature. (IMHO - this is true, which cannot be said about the three previous portraits).
Androsov concludes: "The only artist who could create in Russia a work of such depth and sincerity was Ivan Nikitin"
Argument "reinforced concrete", what can I say))
5. Peter I on his deathbed.
In 1762 he entered the Academy of Arts from the Old Winter Palace. In the inventory of 1763-73. was listed as "Portrait of the hand-written Sovereign Emperor Peter the Great", the author is unknown. In 1818 it was considered the work of Tannauer. In 1870 P.N. Petrov attributed the work to Nikitin on the basis of a note by A.F. Kokorinov. Note that none of the researchers, except for Petrov, saw this note, and the same story is repeated here as in the case of the “portrait of the outdoor hetman”.
Then, until the beginning of the 20th century. the authorship of the portrait was "shared" by Tannauer and Nikitin, after which the authorship of the latter was confirmed.
A technological study conducted in 1977 by Rimskaya-Korsakova confirmed that Nikitin was the author. From myself, I note that the coloring of the work is very complex, which is almost never found in other works by Nikitin (for example, a portrait of Stroganov, written around the same time). Peter himself is depicted in a complex perspective, but the drapery that covers his body looks shapeless. This brings to mind other reliable works by Ivan Nikitin, where the artist abandons the complex modeling of the body and folds and covers the torso of the depicted with a cloth.
There are other images of Peter I on his deathbed.
One painting is attributed to Tannauer. Here the deceased emperor lies approximately at the level of the painter's eyes, who refuses a complex angle (which Nikitin did not do very well with). At the same time, the drawing and painting are confident, and personally I like this work even more than the “Nikitinsky” one.
The third picture is a free copy of the second and is also attributed to Nikitin in some sources. Personally, it seems to me that such an attribution does not contradict the well-known Nikitin canvases. But could Ivan Nikitin simultaneously create two images of the dead Peter I, and so different in artistic merit?
6. There is another portrait of Peter I, previously considered the work of Nikitin. Now it is attributed to Caravaccus. The portrait is very different from all the previous ones.
7. Another portrait of Peter I, attributed to Nikitin. It is located in the Pskov Museum-Reserve, for some reason dates back to 1814-16.
Summing up, I note that the portraits of Peter I attributed to Nikitin differ greatly in terms of both the level of skill and the style of execution. The appearance of the king is also transmitted very differently. (In my opinion, there is some similarity only between "Peter against the backdrop of a naval battle" and "Peter from the Uffizi"). All this makes us think that the portraits belong to the brushes of various artists.
We can draw some conclusions and make some hypotheses.
The myth "Ivan Nikitin - the first Russian painter" began to take shape, apparently, at the beginning of the 19th century. In the hundred years that have elapsed since the era when the artist worked, Russian art has made a huge step forward and portraits of the time of Peter the Great (as well as painting in general) already seemed very primitive. But Ivan Nikitin had to create something outstanding, and, for example, a portrait of Stroganov to those people of the 19th century. obviously didn't. Since then, the situation has changed little. Talented, masterfully executed works, such as "Portrait of Chancellor Golovkin", "Portrait of Peter I in a circle", "Portrait of an outdoor hetman" were attributed to Nikitin without much evidence. In those cases where the artistic level of the work was not too high, Nikitin's authorship was questioned, while even clear evidence was ignored. Moreover, this situation has persisted to the present, as evidenced by the portraits of Peter and Catherine from the Uffizi.
All this is rather sad. Art historians can easily ignore such evidence of authorship, such as inscriptions on paintings and the results of an examination, if these data do not fit into their concept. (I do not claim that such evidence is absolutely reliable. Simply, if not they, then what? Not the notorious art history flair, which gives very different results). The essence of all concepts is often determined by opportunistic moments.
Professional historians have long come to the conclusion that almost all the documents and memoirs that have come down to us about the childhood and youth of Peter I are a fake, fiction or a blatant lie. The contemporaries of the Great Transformer apparently suffered from amnesia and therefore did not leave to their descendants any reliable information about the beginning of his biography.
The “oversight” of the contemporaries of Peter I was later corrected by the German historian Gerhard Miller (1705–1783), fulfilling the order of Catherine II. However, oddly enough, another German historian Alexander Gustavovich Brikner (1834-1896), and not only him, for some reason did not believe Miller's fairy tales.
Increasingly, it becomes obvious that many events did not take place the way official historians interpreted them: they either did not exist, or they took place in a different place and at a different time. For the most part, no matter how sad it is to realize, we live in a world of history invented by someone.
Physicists joke: clarity in science is a form of complete fog. For historical science, whatever one may say, such a statement is more than fair. No one will deny that the history of all countries of the world is replete with dark spots.
What do historians say
Let's see what the Pharisees from historical science put into the heads of the descendants of the first decades of the stormy activity of Peter the Great - the builder of new Russia:
Peter was born on May 30 according to the Julian calendar or on June 9 according to the Gregorian calendar in 1672, or in 7180 from the Creation of the World according to the Byzantine calendar, or in 12680 from the "Great Cold" in the village of Kolomenskoye, and, perhaps, in the village of Izmailovo under Moscow. It is also possible that the prince was born in Moscow itself, in the Terem Palace of the Kremlin;
his father was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov (1629–1676), and his mother was Tsarina Natalia Kirillovna Naryshkina (1651–1694);
tsarevich Peter was baptized by archpriest Andrey Savinov in the Miracle Monastery of the Kremlin, and, perhaps, in the church of Gregory of Neocaesarea in Derbitsy;
the tsar’s youth spent his childhood and youth in the villages of Vorobyov and Preobrazhensky, where he allegedly served as a drummer in an amusing regiment;
Peter did not want to reign with his brother Ivan, although he was listed as an understudy of the tsar, but spent all his time in the German Quarter, where he had fun in the “All-Joking, All-Drunken and Extravagant Cathedral” and poured mud on the Russian Orthodox Church;
in the German Quarter, Peter met Patrick Gordon, Franz Lefort, Anna Mons and other prominent historical figures;
On January 27 (February 6), 1689, Natalya Kirillovna married her 17-year-old offspring to Evdokia Lopukhina;
in 1689, after the suppression of the conspiracy of Princess Sophia, all power completely passed to Peter, and Tsar Ivan was removed from the throne and
died in 1696;
in 1695 and 1696, Peter made military campaigns to capture the Turkish fortress of Azov;
in 1697-1698, as part of the Great Embassy, the ingenious Converter under the name of Peter Mikhailov, a constable of the Preobrazhensky Regiment, for some reason secretly went to Western Europe to acquire knowledge as a carpenter and joiner and to conclude military alliances, as well as to paint his portrait in England;
after Europe, Peter zealously embarked on great transformations in all areas of the life of the Russian people, allegedly for the benefit of it.
It is impossible to consider all the vigorous activity of the ingenious Reformer of Russia in this short article - it is not the right format, but it is worth dwelling on some interesting facts of his biography.
Where and when was born and baptized Tsarevich Peter
It would seem a strange question: German historians, interpreters smoothly, as it seemed to them, explained everything, presented documents, testimonies and witnesses, memoirs of contemporaries. However, in all this evidence base there are many strange facts that cast doubt on their reliability. Specialists who conscientiously studied the Petrine era were often deeply perplexed by the revealed inconsistencies. What is strange in the story of the birth of Peter I, presented by German historians?
Historians such as N. M. Karamzin (1766–1826), N. G. Ustryalov (1805–1870), S. M. Solovyov (1820–1879), V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841–1911) and many others with surprise, they stated that the exact place and time of the birth of the Great Transformer of the Earth is unknown to Russian historical science. There is a fact of the birth of a Genius, but there is no date! The same cannot be. Somewhere this dark fact got lost. Why did the Petrine chroniclers miss such a fateful event in the history of Russia? Where did they hide the prince? This is not some kind of serf for you, this is blue blood! There are only one clumsy and unsubstantiated assumptions.
Historian Gerhard Miller reassured the curious too: Petrusha may have been born in the village of Kolomenskoye, and the village of Izmailovo sounds good in order to be inscribed in golden letters in the annals of history. For some reason, the court historian himself was convinced that Peter was born in Moscow, but no one knew about this event except him, oddly enough.
However, Peter I could not have been born in Moscow, otherwise there would have been a record of this great event in the parish registers of the patriarch and the Moscow Metropolitan, but it is not. Muscovites also did not notice this joyful event: historians have not found any evidence of solemn events on the occasion of the birth of the prince. In the discharge books (“sovereign ranks”), there were conflicting records about the birth of the prince, which indicates their likely falsification. Yes, and these books, as they say, were burned in 1682.
If we agree that Peter was born in the village of Kolomenskoye, then how to explain the fact that on that day Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina was in Moscow? And this was recorded in the bit palace books. Perhaps she secretly went to give birth in the village of Kolomenskoye (or Izmailovo, according to another version of Miller), and then quickly and quietly returned. And why does she need such incomprehensible movements? Maybe so that no one would guess?! Historians have no clear explanations for such somersaults with the birthplace of Peter.
Those who are too curious get the impression that for some very serious reason, German historians, the Romanovs themselves and others like them, tried to hide the birthplace of Peter and tried, albeit crookedly, to wishful thinking. The Germans (Anglo-Saxons) had a difficult task.
There are also inconsistencies with the sacrament of Peter's baptism. As you know, the anointed of God according to the rank should have been baptized by the patriarch or, at worst, the Metropolitan of Moscow, but not some archpriest of the Annunciation Cathedral Andrei Savinov.
The official history reports that Tsarevich Peter was baptized on June 29, 1672 on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul in the Miracle Monastery by Patriarch Joachim. Among others, Peter's brother, Tsarevich Fedor Alekseevich (1661 - 1682) also participated in the baptism. But there are also historical inconsistencies here.
For example, in 1672, Pitirim was the patriarch, and Joachim became so only in 1674. Tsarevich Fedor Alekseevich at that time was a minor and, according to the Orthodox canon, could not participate in baptism. Traditional historians cannot intelligibly interpret this historical incident.
Was Natalya Naryshkina the mother of Peter I
Why do historians have such doubts? Yes, because Peter's attitude towards his mother was, to put it mildly, inappropriate. This can be confirmed by the absence of reliable evidence of their joint presence at any significant events in Moscow. A mother should be next to her son, Tsarevich Peter, and this would be recorded in any documents. And why did contemporaries, except for German historians, never see Natalia Naryshkina and her son Peter together, even at their birth? Historians have not yet found reliable evidence.
But with the prince and later Tsar Ivan Alekseevich (1666–1696), Natalya Kirillovna was seen more than once. Although the year of Ivan's birth is somewhat confusing. However, German historians could also correct the date of birth. There were other oddities in Peter's relationship with his mother. For example, he never visited his sick mother, and when she died in 1694, he was not at her funeral and wake. But Tsar Ivan Alekseevich Romanov was at the funeral, and at the funeral service, and at the wake of Natalia Kirillovna Naryshkina.
Pyotr Alekseevich, or simply Min Hertz, as he sometimes affectionately called himself, at that time was busy with more important things: he was drinking and having fun in the German Quarter with his German, or rather, Anglo-Saxon bosom friends. One can, of course, assume that the son and his mother, as well as with his beloved-unloved legal wife Evdokia Lopukhina, had a very bad relationship, but not to bury his own mother ...
If we assume that Natalya Kirillovna was not Peter's mother, then his shocking behavior becomes understandable and logical. The son of Naryshkina, apparently, was the one with whom she was constantly. And he was Tsarevich Ivan. And Petrusha was made the son of Naryshkina by such “Russian scientists” and illusionist historians of the Russian Academy of Sciences as Miller, Bayer, Schlozer, Fischer, Schumacher, Wintzsheim, Shtelin, Epinuss, Taubert ...
Characteristics of the personality of Peter I
What kind of strange prince Petrusha was he? Everyone knows that Peter's height was more than two meters, and for some reason his feet were small! It happens, but it's still weird.
The fact that he was a psycho with bulging eyes, a neurasthenic and a sadist is also known to everyone, except for the blind. But much more is unknown to the general public.
For some reason, his contemporaries called him a great artist. Apparently, because, pretending to be Orthodox, he brilliantly and incomparably played the role of the Russian Tsar. Although at the beginning of his service career he played, to be honest, carelessly. Apparently, it was difficult to get used to, he was drawn to his native land. Therefore, when he came to a seedy town called Zaandam (Saardam), he indulged in pleasures well, recalling his childhood and reckless youth.
Peter did not want to be the Russian tsar, but wanted to be the master of the sea, that is, the captain of an English warship.
In any case, he spoke about such thoughts to the English king William III of Orange, that is, to Prince Nosovsky, or Willem van Oranje-Nassau (1650–1702).
Duty, objective historical necessity and the demands of the procurators to do great things did not allow Peter to give free rein to his personal passions, preferences, aspirations and ambitions. Reluctantly, the reformer of Russia had to submit to force majeure circumstances.
Peter differed sharply from his Russian brothers-princesses in many ways and, above all, in his contempt for the Russian people, for Russian history and culture. He hated Orthodoxy pathologically. No wonder the simple Russian people considered him a fake tsar, a substitute and, in general, the Antichrist.
Peter only in the late 90s of the XVII century began to respond to Peter Alekseevich. And before that, he was simply called - Piter, Petrus, or even more original - Mein Herz. This German-Dutch transcription of his name was apparently closer and dearer to him. By the way, it was uncharacteristic for the Russian Orthodox tradition to give the princes the name Peter. This was closer to the Latins, since Saints Peter and Paul are more favored by Catholics and Protestants than by the Orthodox.
Peter possessed qualities unique to kings and kings. Judging by the “documents” that have come down to us, he could be in several places at the same time or not be anywhere in both time and space. Peter loved to travel incognito, under a false name, for some reason to drag ships on the ground, as if on water, beat expensive dishes, break old masterpiece furniture, personally cut off the heads of mistresses and Orthodox clergymen. He also liked to pull out his teeth without anesthesia.
But if he could now find out what feats, deeds and noble statements were later attributed to him by court German (Anglo-Saxon) historians, then even his eyes would pop out of their sockets with surprise. Everyone knows that Peter was a carpenter and knew how to work on a lathe. And he did it professionally.
Here the question arises, how could he do the work of a simple carpenter and carpenter so well? It is known that it takes several years or at least months to acquire skills in carpentry. When did Peter manage to learn all this while ruling the state?
The linguistic features of Peter I are interesting. Allegedly, for some reason, he spoke badly in his native Russian, like a foreigner, but he wrote quite disgustingly and badly. But in German, he spoke fluently, and in the Lower Saxon dialect. Piter also spoke good Dutch and English. For example, in the English Parliament and with representatives of the Masonic lodges, he did without an interpreter. But with the knowledge of the Russian allegedly native language, Peter let us down, although from the cradle he should, in theory, be in the Russian conversational environment.
If you make a short digression into the field of linguistics, you will notice that in Europe at that time modern literary languages had not yet formed. For example, in the Netherlands at that time there were five major equal dialects: Dutch, Brabantian, Limburian, Flemish and Low Saxon. In the 17th century, the Low Saxon dialect was common in parts of northern Germany and northeastern Holland. It was similar to English, which clearly indicates their common origin.
Why was the Low Saxon dialect so universal and in demand? It turns out that in the Hanseatic trade union of the 17th century, the Low Saxon dialect, along with Latin, was the main one. Trade and legal documents were drawn up on it, and theological books were written. Lower Saxon was the language of international communication in the Baltic region, in cities such as Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck and others.
How was it really
An interesting reconstruction of the Petrine era was proposed by the modern historian Alexander Kas. It logically explains the existing contradictions and inconsistencies in the biography of Peter I and his entourage, as well as why the exact place of Peter's birth was not known, why this information was concealed and concealed.
According to Alexander Kas, for a long time this fact was hidden because Peter was not born in Moscow and not even in Russia, but in distant Brandenburg, in Prussia. He is half German by blood and Anglo-Saxon by upbringing, beliefs, faith and culture. From this it becomes clear why German was his native language, and in childhood he was surrounded by German toys: “German screw carbine, German map” and the like.
Peter himself recalled his childhood toys with warmth when he was quite drunk. According to the king, his children's room was upholstered with "wormy Hamburg cloth." Where did such goodness come from in the Kremlin?! The Germans were then not very favored at the royal court. It also becomes clear why Peter was surrounded entirely by foreigners.
Historians say that he did not want to reign with Ivan, he was offended and retired to the German Quarter. However, there is the fact that the German Quarter, as historians described it, did not exist in Moscow at that time. Yes, and would not allow the Germans to engage in orgy and mock the Orthodox faith. In a decent society, one cannot even speak aloud about what Peter was doing with his Anglo-Saxon friends in the German Quarter. But in Prussia and the Netherlands, these performances could well take place.
Why did Peter behave so unnaturally for a Russian prince? But because Peter's mother was not Natalya Kirillovna Naryshkina, but his alleged sister Sofya Alekseevna Romanova (1657–1704).
The historian S. M. Solovyov, who had the opportunity to delve into the archives, called her “hero-princess”, who was able to free herself from the tower, that is, get married. Sofya Alekseevna in 1671 married Friedrich Wilhelm Hohenzollern (1657–1713), son of the Elector of Brandenburg. In 1672, their baby Petrus was born. It was problematic for Petrus to occupy the Russian throne with the existing layout of the princes. But the Anglo-Saxon Sanhedrin thought differently and set about cleaning up the contenders for the Russian throne and preparing its own candidate. The historian conventionally singled out three attempts to seize the Russian throne.
All of them were accompanied by strange events. Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov died somehow very suddenly at the age of 47. This happened during the stay in Moscow of the Great Embassy from the Netherlands, headed by Konrad von Klenk in 1675-1676.
Obviously, Conrad von Klenk was sent to the Russian Tsar by the English King William III of Orange after Alexei Mikhailovich threatened him with sanctions. It seems that the Anglo-Saxons poisoned Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov. They were in a hurry to vacate the Russian throne for their candidate. The Hohenzollerns sought to seize Orthodox Russia and plant the Protestant faith among its people.
With this approach to the biography of Peter I, inconsistencies with his baptism are also removed. It is more correct to say that Peter was not baptized, but was baptized from the Latin faith into the Orthodox after the death of Alexei Mikhailovich. At this time, Joachim was indeed the patriarch, and brother Theodore had come of age. And then Peter began to teach Russian literacy. According to the historian P. N. Krekshin (1684–1769), training began on March 12, 1677.
At this time in Russia there was a real pestilence on royalty. Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich something quickly went to the next world, and Ivan Alekseevich for some reason was considered a sick body and spirit. The rest of the princes generally died in infancy.
The first attempt to seat Peter on the throne in 1682 with the help of amusing regiments was not successful - Petrusha's years were not enough, and supposedly the brother of Tsarevich Ivan Alekseevich was alive and well and was a legitimate contender for the Russian throne. Peter and Sophia had to return to their native Penates (Brandenburg) and wait for the next suitable opportunity. This can be confirmed by the fact that so far not a single official document has been found that Tsarevich Peter and his alleged sister, that is, mother, Sophia, were in Moscow from 1682 to 1688.
The pedantic “millers” and “schletsers” found an explanation for the absence of Peter and Sophia in Moscow during these years. It turns out that since 1682 two tsars ruled in Russia: Ivan and Peter under the regency of Sofya Alekseevna. It's like two presidents, two popes, two queens Elizabeth II. However, there could not be such dual power in an Orthodox state!
From the explanation of the "Millers" and "Shletsers" it is known that Ivan Alekseevich ruled in public, and Pyotr Alekseevich was hiding in the village of Preobrazhensky, which did not exist in the Moscow region at that time. There was the village of Obrazhenskoe. Apparently, the name of the village, according to the plan of the Anglo-Saxon directors, was supposed to look like a symbol of the transformation of Russia. And in this non-existent village, it was necessary to hide the modest drummer Petrus, who over time should have turned into the Greatest Transformer of Russia.
But this was not! Peter was hiding in Prussia and preparing for the mission, or rather, he was being prepared. This is what really happened. This is reasonable and logical. But officialdom convinces of something else. In the fact that in the village of Preobrazhensky, Peter was engaged in playing war, creating amusing regiments. For this, the amusing fortified town of Preshburg was built on the Yauza River, which was stormed by brave guys.
Why Miller moved Preshburg or Pressburg (the modern city of Bratislava) from the banks of the Danube to the banks of the Yauza River, one can only guess.
No less interesting is another story in the biography of Peter I - the story of how he discovered an English boat (ship) in some shed in the village of Izmailovo. According to Miller, Peter loved to wander around the village of Izmailovo and look into other people's sheds with nothing to do. And suddenly there is something there! And exactly! In one barn he found an English boat!
How did he get there so far from the North Sea and his native England? And when did this momentous event happen? Historians mumble that somewhere in 1686 or 1688, but are not sure of their assumptions.
Why is information about this remarkable symbolic find so unconvincing? Yes, because there could not be any English boats in Moscow sheds!
The second attempt to seize power in Russia by the Anglo-Saxons in 1685 also failed brilliantly. Soldiers of the Semyonovsky (Simeonovsky) and Preobrazhensky regiments, dressed in German uniforms and waving flags with the date "1683" on them, tried for the second time to seat Petrus Friedrichovich Hohenzollern on the throne.
This time the German aggression was stopped by archers under the leadership of Prince Ivan Mikhailovich Miloslavsky (1635-1685). And Peter had to, as in the previous time, to run all the same way: to Prussia in transit through the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.
The third attempt by the Germans to seize power in Russia began a few years later and ended with the fact that on July 8, 1689, Peter became the sole ruler of Russia, finally deposing his brother Ivan.
It is believed that Peter brought from Europe after the Great Embassy of 1697-1698, in which he allegedly participated, only foreign astrolabes and globes. However, according to the surviving documents, weapons were also purchased, foreign troops were hired, and the maintenance of mercenaries was paid in advance for six months.
What happened in the end
Peter I was the son of Princess Sofya Alekseevna Romanova (Charlotte) and Friedrich Wilhelm Hohenzollern (1657-1713), son of the Elector of Brandenburg and the first king of Prussia.
And it would seem, why do historians fence the garden here? Peter was born and brought up in Prussia and in relation to Russia he acted as a colonizer. What is there to hide?
No one hid and does not hide that Sophia Augusta Frederic of Anhalt-Tserbskaya, who disguised herself under the pseudonym of Catherine II, came from the same places. She was sent to Russia with the same task as Peter. Frederica was to continue and consolidate his great deeds.
After the reforms of Peter I, the split of Russian society intensified. The royal court positioned itself as German (Anglo-Saxon) and existed on its own and for its own pleasure, while the Russian people were in a parallel reality. In the 19th century, this elite part of Russian society even spoke French in the salons of Madame Scherer and was monstrously far from the common people.
He fearlessly introduced new traditions in Russia, cutting through a "window" to Europe. But one "tradition" would probably be the envy of all Western autocrats. After all, as you know, "no king can marry for love." But Peter the Great, the first Russian emperor, was able to challenge society, neglect brides of a noble family and princesses of Western European countries and marry for love ...
Peter was not even 17 years old when his mother decided to marry him. An early marriage, according to the calculations of Queen Natalia, should have significantly changed the position of her son, and with him her own. According to the custom of that time, the young man became an adult after marriage. Consequently, the married Peter will no longer need the care of his sister Sophia, the time will come for his reign, he will move from Preobrazhensky to the chambers of the Kremlin.
In addition, by marrying, the mother hoped to settle down her son, tie him to the family hearth, distract him from the German settlement, where foreign merchants and artisans lived, and hobbies that were not characteristic of the royal dignity. By a hasty marriage, finally, they tried to protect the interests of Peter's descendants from the claims of possible heirs of his co-ruler Ivan, who by this time was already a married man and was waiting for the addition of a family.
Evdokia Lopukhina
Tsarina Natalya herself found a bride for her son - the beautiful Evdokia Lopukhina, according to a contemporary, "a princess with a fair face, only an average mind and dissimilar dissimilar to her husband." The same contemporary noted that "the love between them was fair, but only lasted a year."
It is possible that the cooling between the spouses came even earlier, because a month after the wedding, Peter left Evdokia and went to Pereyaslav Lake to engage in sea fun.
Anna Mons
In the German settlement, the tsar met the daughter of a wine merchant, Anna Mons. One contemporary believed that this "girl was a fair and smart", while another, on the contrary, found that she was "mediocre wit and intelligence."
It is difficult to say which of them is right, but cheerful, loving, resourceful, always ready to joke, dance or keep up a secular conversation, Anna Mons was the complete opposite of the Tsar's wife - a limited beauty, which made melancholy with slavish humility and blind adherence to antiquity. Peter preferred Mons and spent his free time in her company.
Several letters from Evdokia to Peter have been preserved, and not a single answer from the king. In 1689, when Peter went to Lake Pereyaslav, Evdokia addressed him with gentle words: “Hello, my light, for many years. We ask for mercy, perhaps the sovereign, wake up to us without hesitation. And I am alive with the grace of my mother. Your fiancé Dunka beats with his forehead.
In another letter, addressed to “my sweetie,” “your fiancé Dunka,” who had not yet suspected a close break, asked permission to come to her husband herself for a date. Two letters of Evdokia belong to a later time - 1694, and the last of them is full of sadness and loneliness of a woman who is well aware that she is abandoned for another.
There was no longer an appeal to “darling” in them, the wife did not hide her bitterness and could not resist reproaches, called herself “merciless”, complained that she did not receive “a single line” in response to her letters. Family ties were not strengthened by the birth in 1690 of a son named Alexei.
She retired from the Suzdal Monastery, where she spent 18 years. Having got rid of his wife, Peter showed no interest in her, and she got the opportunity to live as she wanted. Instead of the meager monastic food, she was served food delivered by numerous relatives and friends. About ten years later she took a lover...
Only on March 6, 1711, it was announced that Peter had a new legal wife, Ekaterina Alekseevna.
The real name of Ekaterina Alekseevna is Marta. During the siege of Marienburg by Russian troops in 1702, Martha, a servant of pastor Gluck, was captured. For some time she was the mistress of a non-commissioned officer, Field Marshal Sheremetev noticed her, and Menshikov also liked her.
Menshikov called her Ekaterina Trubcheva, Katerina Vasilevskaya. She received Alekseevna's patronymic in 1708, when Tsarevich Alexei acted as her godfather at her baptism.
Ekaterina Alekseevna (Marta Skavronskaya)
Peter met Catherine in 1703 at Menshikov's. Fate prepared the former maid for the role of a concubine, and then the wife of an outstanding person. Beautiful, charming and courteous, she quickly won the heart of Peter.
And what happened to Anna Mons? The king's relationship with her lasted more than ten years and ceased through no fault of his own - the favorite got herself a lover. When this became known to Peter, he said: "To love the king, it was necessary to have a king in your head," and ordered her to be kept under house arrest.
An admirer of Anna Mons was the Prussian envoy Keyserling. Curious is the description of Keyserling's meeting with Peter and Menshikov, during which the envoy asked for permission to marry Mons.
In response to the request of Keyserling, the king said, “that he raised the maiden Mons for himself, with the sincere intention of marrying her, but since she was seduced and corrupted by me, he neither hears nor knows about her, nor about her relatives. ". At the same time, Menshikov added that "the girl Mons is really a vile, public woman, with whom he himself debauched." Menshikov's servants beat Keyserling and pushed him down the stairs.
In 1711, Keyserling still managed to marry Anna Mons, but he died six months later. The former favorite tried to get married again, but death from consumption prevented this.
Secret wedding of Peter the Great and Ekaterina Alekseevna.
Ekaterina differed from Anna Mons in her good health, which allowed her to easily endure the exhausting camp life and, at the first call of Peter, overcome many hundreds of miles of off-road. Catherine, in addition, possessed extraordinary physical strength.
The chamber junker Berholz described how the tsar once joked with one of his batmen, with the young Buturlin, whom he ordered to raise his large marshal's baton on his outstretched hand. He couldn't do it. “Then His Majesty, knowing how strong the hand of the Empress, gave her his staff across the table. She stood up and with extraordinary dexterity several times raised him above the table with her straight hand, which surprised us all a lot.
Catherine became indispensable to Peter, and the Tsar's letters to her quite eloquently reflect the growth of his affection and respect. “Come to Kyiv without delay,” the tsar wrote to Catherine from Zholkva in January 1707. “For God’s sake, come soon, and if it’s impossible to come soon, write back, because I’m not without sadness that I don’t hear or see you,” he wrote from St. Petersburg.
The tsar showed concern for Catherine and for his illegitimate daughter Anna. “If something happens to me by the will of God,” he made a written order at the beginning of 1708 before leaving for the army, “then three thousand rubles, which are now in the courtyard of Mr. Prince Menshikov, should be given to Ekaterina Vasilevskaya and the girl.”
A new stage in the relationship between Peter and Catherine came after she became his wife. In letters after 1711, the familiarly rude “hello, mother!” was replaced by a gentle: "Katerinushka, my friend, hello."
Not only the form of address has changed, but also the tonality of the notes: instead of laconic command letters, similar to the command of an officer to his subordinates, such as “how will this informer come to you, go here without delay”, letters began to come expressing tender feelings for a loved one .
In one of the letters, Peter advised to be careful during the trip to him: "For God's sake, drive carefully and don't leave the battalions for a hundred fathoms." Her husband brought her joy with an expensive gift, or overseas delicacies.
170 letters of Peter to Catherine have been preserved. Only very few of them are of a business nature. However, in them the tsar did not burden his wife with instructions to do something or check the completion of the task by someone else, nor with a request for advice, he only informed about what had happened - about the battles won, about his health.
“I finished the course yesterday, the waters, thank God, acted very well; how will it be after? - he wrote from Carlsbad, or: “Katerinushka, my friend, hello! I hear that you are bored, but I am not bored either, but we can reason that there is no need to change things for boredom.
Empress Ekaterina Alekseevna
In a word, Catherine enjoyed the love and respect of Peter. To marry an unknown captive and neglect the brides of the boyar family or the princesses of Western European countries was a challenge to customs, a rejection of time-honored traditions. But Peter allowed himself not such challenges.
Announcing Catherine as his wife, Peter also thought about the future of the daughters living with her - Anna and Elizabeth: "Even I am compelled to commit for this unknown path, so that if the orphans remain, they could have their own life."
Catherine was endowed with inner tact, a subtle understanding of the nature of her quick-tempered husband. When the king was in a state of rage, no one dared to approach him. It seems that she alone knew how to calm the Tsar, without fear to look into his eyes burning with anger.
The brilliance of the court did not eclipse the memories of her origin in her memory.
“The king,” wrote a contemporary, “could not be surprised by her ability and ability to turn, as he put it, into an empress, not forgetting that she was not born of her. They often traveled together, but always on separate trains, distinguished one by their grandeur in their simplicity, the other by their luxury. He loved to see her everywhere.
There was no military review, descent of the ship, ceremony or holiday, at which she would not appear. Another foreign diplomat also had the opportunity to observe Peter's attentiveness and warmth to his wife: “After dinner, the king and queen opened the ball, which lasted about three hours; the king often danced with the queen and little princesses and kissed them many times; on this occasion, he showed great tenderness for the queen, and it can be said with justice that, despite the unknown nature of her family, she is quite worthy of the mercy of such a great monarch.
This diplomat gave the only description of Catherine's appearance that has come down to us, coinciding with her portrait image: “At the present moment (1715), she has a pleasant fullness; her complexion is very white with an admixture of a natural, somewhat bright blush, her eyes are black, small, her hair of the same color is long and thick, her neck and arms are beautiful, her expression is meek and very pleasant.
Catherine really did not forget about her past. In one of her letters to her husband we read: “Although there is tea, you have new portomy, however, the old one does not forget,” - so she jokingly reminded that she had once been a laundress. In general, she coped with the role of the king's wife easily and naturally, as if she had been taught this role since childhood.
“His Majesty loved the female,” one of his contemporaries noted. The same contemporary recorded the king's reasoning: “Forgetting service for the sake of a woman is unforgivable. To be a prisoner of a mistress is worse than to be a prisoner in war; the enemy can rather have freedom, but the woman's fetters are long-term.
Catherine condescendingly treated the fleeting connections of her husband and even herself supplied him with "metresishki". Once, while abroad, Peter sent a reply to a letter from Catherine, in which she jokingly reproached him for having intimate relationships with other women. “But what to joke about fun, and we don’t have that, because we are old people and not like that.”
“Because,” the tsar wrote to his wife in 1717, “while drinking the waters of domestic fun, doctors are forbidden to use, for this reason I let my meter go to you.” Ekaterina’s answer was composed in the same spirit: “But I more think that you deigned to send this (metresishka) for her illness, in which she still resides, and deigned to go to The Hague for treatment; and I wouldn’t want, God forbid, that the galan of that litter would come as healthy as she came.”
Nevertheless, his chosen one had to fight with rivals even after her marriage to Peter and accession to the throne, because even then some of them threatened her position as wife and empress. In 1706 in Hamburg, Peter promised the daughter of a Lutheran pastor to divorce Catherine, since the pastor agreed to give his daughter only to his lawful spouse.
Shafirov had already received an order to prepare all the necessary documents. But, unfortunately for herself, the too trusting bride agreed to taste the joys of Hymen before his torch was lit. After that, she was escorted out, paying her a thousand ducats.
Chernysheva Avdotya Ivanovna (Evdokia Rzhevskaya)
The heroine of another, less fleeting passion was believed to be very close to a decisive victory and to a high position. Evdokia Rzhevskaya was the daughter of one of the first adherents of Peter, whose family in antiquity and nobility competed with the Tatishchev family.
As a fifteen-year-old girl, she was thrown into the bed of the tsar, and at the age of sixteen, Peter married her to an officer Chernyshev, who was looking for a promotion, and did not break off contact with her. Evdokia had four daughters and three sons from the king; at least he was called the father of these children. But, taking into account the too frivolous disposition of Evdokia, Peter's father's rights were more than doubtful.
This greatly reduced her chances as a favorite. According to the scandalous chronicle, she managed to achieve only the famous order: "Go and flog Avdotya." Such an order was given to her husband by her lover, who fell ill and considered Evdokia the culprit of his illness. Peter usually called Chernyshev: "Avdotya boy-woman." Her mother was the famous "Prince Abbess".
The adventure with Evdokia Rzhevskaya would not be of any interest if it were the only one of its kind. But, unfortunately, her legendary image is very typical, which is the sad interest of this page of history; Evdokia personified a whole era and a whole society.
The illegitimate offspring of Peter is equal in number to the offspring of Louis XIV, although, perhaps, the tradition exaggerates a little. For example, the illegitimacy of the origin of the sons of Mrs. Stroganova, not to mention others, is not historically verified by anything. It is only known that their mother, nee Novosiltseva, was a participant in orgies, had a cheerful disposition and drank bitter.
Maria Hamilton before her execution
The story of another lady-in-waiting, Mary Hamilton, is very curious. It goes without saying that the sentimental novel created from this story by the imagination of some writers remains a fantasy novel. Hamilton was, apparently, a rather vulgar creature, and Peter did not change himself, showing his love for her in his own way.
As is known, one of the branches of a large Scottish family, which competed with the Douglases, moved to Russia in the era preceding the great emigrant movement in the 17th century and approaching the time of Ivan the Terrible. This clan entered into kinship with many Russian surnames and seemed completely Russified long before the accession to the throne of the reformer tsar. Maria Hamilton was the granddaughter of Natalia Naryshkina's adoptive father, Artamon Matveev. She was not bad-looking and, having been accepted to the court, shared the fate of many like her. She caused only a fleeting flash of passion for Peter.
Having taken possession of her in passing, Peter immediately abandoned her, and she consoled herself with the royal batmen. Maria Hamilton was pregnant several times, but by all means got rid of the children. In order to bind to her one of her casual lovers, young Orlov, a rather insignificant person who treated her rudely and robbed her, she stole money and jewelry from the Empress.
All her big and small crimes were discovered quite by accident. A rather important document has disappeared from the king's office. Suspicion fell on Orlov, since he knew about this document, and spent the night outside the house. Summoned to the sovereign for interrogation, he was frightened and imagined that he was in trouble because of his connection with Hamilton. With a cry of "guilty!" he fell on his knees and repented of everything, telling both about the thefts that he took advantage of and about the infanticides known to him. The investigation and process began.
The unfortunate Mary was mainly accused of delivering malicious speeches against the empress, whose too good complexion aroused her ridicule. Indeed, a grave crime ... No matter what they say, this time Catherine showed quite a lot of good nature. She herself interceded for the criminal and even forced Tsarina Praskovya, who enjoyed great influence, to intercede for her.
The intercession of Tsaritsa Praskovya was all the more important because everyone knew how little, as a rule, she was inclined to mercy. According to the concepts of old Russia, there were many mitigating circumstances for such crimes as infanticide, and Tsaritsa Praskovya was in many respects a real Russian of the old school.
But the sovereign turned out to be inexorable: "He does not want to be either Saul or Ahab, violating the Divine law because of a burst of kindness." Did he really have such respect for God's laws? Maybe. But he got it into his head that several soldiers were taken from him, and this was an unforgivable crime. Mary Hamilton was tortured several times in the presence of the king, but until the very end she refused to name her accomplice. The latter thought only of how to justify himself, and accused her of all sins. It cannot be said that this ancestor of the future favorites of Catherine II behaved like a hero.
On March 14, 1714, Maria Hamilton went to the block, as Scherer said, "in a white dress adorned with black ribbons." Peter, who was very fond of theatrical effects, could not but respond to this latest trick of dying coquetry. He had the courage to be present at the execution and, since he could never remain a passive spectator, took a direct part in it.
He kissed the convict, admonished her to pray, supported her in his arms when she lost consciousness, and then left. It was a signal. When Mary raised her head, the king had already been replaced by the executioner. Scherer gave amazing details: “When the ax had done its job, the king returned, raised his bloody head that had fallen into the mud and calmly began to lecture on anatomy, naming all the organs affected by the ax and insisting on dissecting the spine. When he finished, he touched his lips to his pale lips, which he once covered with completely different kisses, threw Mary's head, crossed himself and left.
It is highly doubtful that the favorite Pyotr Menshikov, as some have argued, found it appropriate to take part in the trial and condemnation of the unfortunate Hamilton in order to protect the interests of his patroness Catherine. This rival was not at all dangerous for her. Some time later, Catherine found grounds for more serious anxiety. The dispatch of Campredon dated June 8, 1722 says: “The queen fears that if the princess gives birth to a son, then the king, at the request of the Wallachian ruler, will divorce his wife and marry his mistress.”
It was about Maria Cantemir.
Maria Cantemir
Gospodar Dmitry Kantemir, who was an ally of Peter during the unfortunate campaign of 1711, lost his possessions at the conclusion of the Prut Treaty. Having found shelter in St. Petersburg, he languished there in anticipation of the promised compensation for losses. For a long time it seemed that his daughter would reward him for what he had lost.
When Peter went on a campaign against Persia in 1722, his love affair with Maria Cantemir had been dragging on for several years and seemed close to the denouement, fatal for Catherine. Both women accompanied the king during the campaign. But Maria was forced to stay in Astrakhan, as she was pregnant. This further strengthened the confidence of her adherents in her victory.
After the death of little Peter Petrovich, Catherine no longer had a son whom Peter could make his heir. It was assumed that if, upon the return of the king from the campaign, Cantemir would give him a son, then Peter would not hesitate to get rid of his second wife just as he had freed himself from the first. According to Scherer, Catherine's friends found a way to get rid of the danger: returning, Peter found his mistress seriously ill after premature birth; feared even for her life.
Catherine triumphed, and the novel, which had almost killed her, seemed now doomed to the same vulgar end as all the previous ones. Shortly before the death of the sovereign, one obsequious subject, like Chernyshev and Rumyantsev, proposed "for appearance" to marry the princess, still beloved by Peter, although she had lost her ambitious hopes.
Fate successfully brought Catherine out of all the trials. The solemn coronation made her position completely inaccessible. The honor of the mistress was rehabilitated by marriage, and the position of the wife, vigilantly guarding the family hearth, and the empress, sharing all the honors given to high dignity, exalted her completely and gave her a very special place among the disorderly crowd of women, where the maids from the hotel walked hand in hand with their daughters. Scottish lords and with the Moldavian-Wallachian princesses. And suddenly, among this crowd, a completely unexpected image arose, the image of a chaste and respected friend.
The noble Polish lady who appeared in this role, a Slav by origin, but who received a Western upbringing, was charming in the full sense of the word. Peter enjoyed the company of Mrs. Senyavskaya in the gardens of Yavorov. They spent many hours together in the construction of the barge, in walks on the water, in conversations. It was a real idyll. Elizabeth Senyavskaya,
born Princess Lubomirskaya, was the wife of the crown hetman Senyavsky, a strong supporter of Augustus against Leshchinsky. She went through the rebellious life of a rough conqueror, avoiding slander. Peter admired not so much her rather mediocre beauty as her rare intelligence. He enjoyed her company.
He listened to her advice, which sometimes put him in a difficult position, since she supported Leshchinsky, but not the protégé of the tsar and her own husband. When the tsar informed her of his intention to release all the foreign officers he had invited to serve, she gave him an object lesson by sending away the German who was directing the orchestra of Polish musicians; even the little sensitive ear of the king could not endure the discord that began immediately.
When he spoke to her about his project to turn into a desert the Russian and Polish regions lying on the way of Charles XII to Moscow, she interrupted him with a story about a nobleman who, in order to punish his wife, decided to become a eunuch. She was charming, and Peter succumbed to her charm, pacified, ennobled by her presence, as if transformed by contact with this pure and refined nature, both gentle and strong ...
In 1722, Peter, feeling that his strength was leaving him, published the Charter on the succession to the throne. From now on, the appointment of an heir depended on the will of the sovereign. It is likely that the tsar chose Catherine, for only this choice can explain Peter's intention to proclaim his wife empress and start a magnificent ceremony for her coronation.
It is unlikely that Peter discovered statesmanship from his “hearty friend,” as he called Catherine, but she, as it seemed to him, had one important advantage: his entourage was at the same time her entourage.
In 1724, Peter was often ill. On November 9, the 30-year-old dandy Mons, the brother of Peter's former favorite, was arrested. He was accused of relatively minor embezzlement from the treasury at that time. Less than a week later, the executioner cut off his head. However, the rumor associated the execution of Mons not with abuse, but with his intimate relationship with the empress. Peter allowed himself to violate marital fidelity, but did not consider that Catherine had the same right. The Empress was 12 years younger than her husband...
Relations between the spouses became strained. Peter did not use the right to appoint a successor to the throne and did not bring the act of Catherine's coronation to its logical end.
The disease worsened, and Peter spent most of the last three months of his life in bed. Peter died on January 28, 1725 in terrible agony. Catherine, who was proclaimed Empress on the same day, left the body of her deceased husband unburied for forty days and mourned him twice daily. “The courtiers marveled,” a contemporary remarked, “where did so many tears come from the empress…”
: https://www.oneoflady.com/2013/09/blog-post_4712.html
According to various opinion polls, Peter I remains one of the most popular historical figures in our time. He is still glorified by sculptors, poets compose odes to him, politicians speak enthusiastically about him.
But did the real person Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov correspond to the image that, through the efforts of writers and filmmakers, was introduced into our consciousness?
Frame from the film "Peter the Great" based on the novel by A. N. Tolstoy ("Lenfilm", 1937 - 1938, directed by Vladimir Petrov,
in the role of Peter - Nikolai Simonov, in the role of Menshikov - Mikhail Zharov):
This post is quite lengthy. , consisting of several parts, is dedicated to exposing the myths about the pen of the Russian emperor, which still roam from book to book, from textbook to textbook, and from film to film.
Let's start with the fact that the majority represents Peter I absolutely not the way he really was.
According to the films, Peter is a huge man with a heroic physique and the same health.
In fact, with a height of 2 meters 4 centimeters (really huge in those days, and very impressive in our times), he was incredibly thin, with narrow shoulders and torso, a disproportionately small head and leg size (about 37 sizes, and this despite such and such height!), with long arms and spider-like fingers. In general, an absurd, awkward, clumsy figure, a freak of a freak.
The clothes of Peter I, which have survived to this day in museums, are so small that there can be no talk of any heroic physique. In addition, Peter suffered from nervous attacks, probably of an epileptic nature, he was constantly ill, he never parted with a first-aid kit with a lot of medicines that he took daily.
Do not trust the court portrait painters and sculptors of Peter.
For example, a well-known researcher of the Petrine era, historian E. F. Shmurlo
(1853 - 1934) describes his impression of the famous bust of Peter I by B. F. Rastrelli:
"Full of spiritual power, unyielding will, an imperious gaze, intense thought make this bust related to Michelangelo's Moses. This is a truly formidable king, capable of causing awe, but at the same time majestic, noble."
Otdako more accurately conveys the appearance of Peter plaster mask taken from his face in 1718 father of the great architect B. K. Rastrelli when the king was investigating the betrayal of Tsarevich Alexei.
This is how the artist describes it A. N. Benois (1870 - 1960):“Peter’s face became at that time gloomy, directly terrifying with its menacingness. One can imagine what impression this terrible head, placed on a giant body, must have produced, while still shifting eyes and terrible convulsions that turned this face into a monstrously fantastic image.
Of course, the real appearance of Peter I was completely different from what appears before us on his formal portraits.
For example, these:
Portrait of Peter I (1698) by a German artist
Gottfried Kneller (1648 - 1723)
Portrait of Peter I with the signs of the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called (1717)
works by the French painter Jean-Marc Nattier (1685 - 1766)
Please note that between the writing of this portrait and the manufacture of the lifetime mask of Peter
Rastrelli has only been a year. What, are they similar?
The most popular at present and highly romanticized
according to the time of creation (1838) portrait of Peter I
works by French artist Paul Delaroche (1797 - 1856)
Trying to be objective, I cannot fail to note that monument to Peter I , works of the sculptor Mikhail Shemyakin , made by him in the USA and installed in the Peter and Paul Fortress in 1991 , also does not correspond much to the real image of the first Russian emperor, although, quite possibly, the sculptor sought to embody the same "monstrously fantastic image" about which Benoit spoke.
Yes, Peter's face was made from his death wax mask (cast by B. K. Rastrelli). But Mikhail Shemyakin at the same time consciously, achieving a certain effect, increased the proportions of the body by almost one and a half times. Therefore, the monument turned out to be grotesque and ambiguous (some people admire it, while others hate it).
However, the very figure of Peter I is also very ambiguous, about which I want to tell everyone who is interested in Russian history.
At the end of this part another myth about death of Peter I .
Peter did not die because he caught a cold, saving a boat with drowning people during a flood in St. Petersburg in November 1724 (although there really was such a case, and it led to an exacerbation of the tsar's chronic illnesses); and not from syphilis (although from his youth, Peter was extremely promiscuous in his relationships with women and had a whole bunch of venereal diseases); and not from the fact that he was poisoned by some "specially donated sweets" - all these are widespread myths.
The official version, announced after the death of the emperor, according to which the cause of his death was pneumonia, does not hold water.
In reality, Peter I had a neglected inflammation of the urethra (he had suffered from this disease since 1715, according to some sources, even since 1711). The disease worsened in August 1724. The attending physicians, the Englishman Gorn and the Italian Lazzaretti, unsuccessfully tried to cope with it. From January 17, 1725, Peter did not get out of bed, on January 23 he lost consciousness, into which he never returned until his death on January 28.
"Peter on his deathbed"
(artist N. N. Nikitin, 1725)
The doctors performed the operation, but it was too late, 15 hours after it, Peter I died without regaining consciousness and without leaving a will.
So, all the stories about how at the last moment the dying emperor tried to draw his last will on his will, but managed to write only "Leave everything..." , are also nothing more than a myth, or if you want a legend.
In the next short part so as not to make you sad, I will bring historical anecdote about Peter I , which, however, also refers to the myths about this ambiguous personality.
Thank you for attention.
Sergei Vorobyov.