The most expensive trophy of Peter I in the Northern War was, perhaps, Polonyanka from Marienburg Marta Skavronskaya (nicknamed by the Russians Katerina Trubacheva), whom the tsar first saw in St. Petersburg under construction on Trinity Island in the chambers of Alexander Menshikov at the end of 1703. Peter noticed the charming woman and did not stay for she's indifferent...

Conclusion on succession to the throne, 1717
Grigory MUSIKIYSKY

Before meeting Martha, Peter’s personal life was going very badly: things didn’t work out with his wife, as we know; not only was she old-fashioned, but also stubborn, unable to adapt to her husband’s tastes. You can remember the beginning of their life together. Let me just remind you that Queen Evdokia was forcibly taken to the Suzdal Intercession Monastery, in July 1699 she was tonsured under the name of nun Elena and lived there for a long time quite freely with the money of churchmen who were dissatisfied with the policy of the sovereign.

The tsar's long-term romance with the blond beauty Anna Mons, whose vanity was certainly flattered by the tsar's courtship and luxurious gifts, also ended dramatically. But she didn’t love him, she was simply afraid, risking, however, having an affair on the side with the Saxon envoy, for which Peter put his deceiving lover under house arrest for a long time.

Portraits of Peter I
Unknown artists

We will trace more details about the twists and turns of Martha Skavronskaya’s fate during her reign, but here we will dwell only on her relationship with the tsar. So, the tsar drew attention to the pretty, neat and tidy Katerina, and Alexander Danilovich, without much resistance, gave her over to Peter I.

Peter I and Catherine
Dementy SHMARINOV

Peter I takes Catherine from Menshikov
Unknown artist, from the collection of the Yegoryevsk Museum

At first, Katerina was on the staff of numerous mistresses of the loving Russian Tsar, whom he took with him everywhere. But soon, with her kindness, gentleness, and selfless submission, she tamed the distrustful king. She quickly became friends with his beloved sister Natalya Alekseevna and entered her circle, liking all of Peter’s relatives.

Portrait of Princess Natalya Alekseevna
Ivan NIKITIN

Portrait of Catherine I
Ivan NIKITIN

In 1704, Katerina already became Peter’s common-law wife, gave birth to a son, Pavel, and a year later, Peter. The simple woman sensed the tsar’s moods, adapted to his difficult character, endured his oddities and whims, guessed his desires, and quickly responded to everything that interested him, becoming the closest person to Peter. In addition, she was able to create for the sovereign the comfort and warmth of a home, which he never had before. New family became for the king a support and a quiet, welcome haven...

Peter I and Catherine
Boris CHORIKOV

Portrait of Peter the Great
Adrian van der WERFF

Peter I and Catherine riding in a shnyava along the Neva
18th century engraving of NH

Among other things, Catherine had iron health; she rode horses, spent the night in inns, accompanying the king on his travels for months and quite calmly endured the hardships and hardships of the campaign, which were very difficult by our standards. And when it was necessary, she behaved absolutely naturally in the circle of European nobles, turning into a queen... There was no military review, ship launching, ceremony or holiday at which she would not be present.

Portrait of Peter I and Catherine I
Unknown artist

Reception with Countess Skavronskaya
Dementy SHMARINOV

After returning from the Prut campaign, Peter married Catherine in 1712. By that time they already had two daughters, Anna and Elizabeth, the rest of the children died before they were even five years old. They got married in St. Petersburg, the whole ceremony was arranged not as a traditional wedding celebration of a Russian autocrat, but as a modest wedding of Schoutbenacht Peter Mikhailov and his fighting girlfriend (unlike, for example, the magnificent wedding of Peter's niece Anna Ioannovna and Duke of Courland Friedrich Wilhelm in 1710. )

And Catherine, uneducated and without any experience of life at the top, really turned out to be the woman the tsar could not do without. She knew how to get along with Peter, extinguish outbursts of anger, she could calm him down when the king began to have severe migraines or convulsions. Everyone then ran after their “heart friend” Ekaterina. Peter put his head on her lap, she quietly said something to him (her voice seemed to bewitch Peter) and the king fell silent, then fell asleep and a few hours later woke up cheerful, calm and healthy.

Rest of Peter I
Mikhail SHANKOV
Peter, of course, loved Catherine very much, adored his beautiful daughters, Elizabeth and Anna.

Portrait of princesses Anna Petrovna and Elizaveta Petrovna
Louis CARAVACQUE

Alexey Petrovich

And what about Tsarevich Alexei, Peter’s son from his first marriage? The blow to the unloved wife ricocheted into the child. He was separated from his mother and given to be raised by his father's aunts, whom he saw rarely and was afraid of from childhood, feeling unloved. Gradually, a circle of opponents of Peter’s reforms formed around the boy, who instilled in Alexei pre-reform tastes: the desire for external piety, inaction and pleasure. The Tsarevich lived cheerfully in “his company” under the leadership of Yakov Ignatiev, he got used to feasting in Russian, which could not but harm his health, which was not very strong by nature. At first, the prince was taught to read and write by an educated and skilled rhetorician, Nikifor Vyazemsky, and from 1703, Alexei’s teacher was a German, doctor of law Heinrich Huyssen, who compiled an extensive curriculum designed for two years. According to plan, in addition to studying French, geography, cartography, arithmetic, geometry, the prince practiced fencing, dancing, and horse riding.

Johann Paul LUDDEN

It must be said that Tsarevich Alexei was not at all the shaggy, wretched, frail and cowardly hysteric that he was sometimes portrayed as and has been portrayed to this day. He was the son of his father, inherited his will, stubbornness and responded to the king with dull rejection and resistance, which was hidden behind demonstrative obedience and formal veneration. An enemy grew up behind Peter's back, not accepting anything of what his father did or fought for... Attempts to involve him in government affairs were not crowned with much success. Alexey Petrovich was in the army, took part in campaigns and battles (in 1704 the prince was in Narva), carried out various state orders of the tsar, but did so formally and reluctantly. Dissatisfied with his son, Peter sent the 19-year-old prince abroad, where he three years He studied somehow, unlike his sparkling parent, preferring peace to everything else. In 1711, almost against his will, he married Wolfenbüttel Crown Princess Charlotte Christina Sophia, sister-in-law of the Austrian Emperor Charles VI, and then returned to Russia.

Charlotte Christina Sophia of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel

Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich and Charlotte Christina Sophia of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel
Johann-Gottfried TANNAUER Grigory MOLCHANOV

Alexey Petrovich did not love the wife forced on him, but he coveted the serfdom of his teacher Nikifor Vyazemsky, Efrosinya, and dreamed of marrying her. Charlotte Sophia gave birth to his daughter Natalya in 1714, and a year later - a son, named Peter in honor of his grandfather. Nevertheless, until 1715 the relationship between father and son was more or less tolerable. In the same year, upon baptism into the Orthodox faith, the queen was named Ekaterina Alekseevna.

Portrait of the family of Peter I.
Peter I, Ekaterina Alekseevna, eldest son Alexey Petrovich, daughters Elizabeth and Anna, youngest two-year-old son Peter.
Grigory MUSIKIYSKY, Enamel on copper plate

The prince believed in his plan, being convinced that he was the only legitimate heir to the throne and, gritting his teeth, waited in the wings.

Tsarevich Alexey Petrovich
V. GREITBAKH Unknown artist

But soon after giving birth, Charlotte Sophia died, she was buried in the Peter and Paul Cathedral on October 27, 1915, and on the same day Peter handed Alexei Petrovich a letter Announcement to my son(written, by the way, on October 11), in which he accused the prince of laziness, evil and stubborn disposition and threatened to deprive him of the throne: I will deprive you of your inheritance, I will cut you off like a member of the body affected by gangrene, and do not think that you are my only son and that I am writing this only for warning: truly I will fulfill it, for for my Fatherland and people I did not and do not regret my life, then how Can I feel sorry for you, indecent one?

Portrait of Tsarevich Peter Petrovich in the form of Cupid
Louis CARAVACQUE

On October 28, the Tsar gave birth to his long-awaited son, Pyotr Petrovich, “Shishechka”, “Little Little Gut”, as his parents later lovingly called him in letters. And the claims against the eldest son became more serious, and the accusations became more severe. Many historians believe that such changes were not without influence on Tsar Catherine and Alexander Danilovich Menshikov, who perfectly understood the unenviability of their fate if Alexei Petrovich came to the kingdom. After consulting with close people, Alexey renounced the throne in his letter: “And now, thank God, I have a brother, to whom, God grant him health.”

Portrait of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich
Johann Paul LUDDEN

Further more. In January 1716, Peter wrote a second letter of accusation, “One last reminder,” in which he demanded that the prince be tonsured a monk: And if you don’t do this, then I will treat you like a villain. And the son gave formal consent to this. But Peter understood perfectly well that in the event of his death, a struggle for power would begin, the act of renunciation would become a simple piece of paper, and one could leave the monastery, i.e. In any case, Alexey will remain dangerous for Peter’s children from Catherine. This was a completely real situation; the king could find many examples from the history of other states.

In September 1716, Alexey received a third letter from his father from Copenhagen with an order to immediately come to him. Here the prince’s nerves gave way and in despair he decided to escape... Having passed Danzig, Alexei and Euphrosyne disappeared, arriving in Vienna under the name of the Polish nobleman Kokhanovsky. He turned to his brother-in-law, the Austrian Emperor, with a request for protection: I came here to ask the emperor... to save my life: they want to destroy me, they want to deprive me and my poor children of the throne, ...and if the Tsar hands me over to my father, it’s the same as executing me himself; Yes, even if my father spared me, my stepmother and Menshikov would not rest until they tortured me to death or poisoned me. It seems to me that with such statements the prince himself signed his own death warrant.

Alexey Petrovich, Tsarevich
Engraving 1718

Austrian relatives hid the unfortunate fugitives out of harm's way in the Tyrolean castle of Ehrenberg, and in May 1717 they transported him and Euphrosyne, disguised as a page, to Naples to the castle of San Elmo. With great difficulty, alternating various threats, promises and persuasion, captain Rumyantsev and diplomat Pyotr Tolstoy sent to search, managed to return the prince to his homeland, where in February 1718 he officially abdicated the throne in the presence of senators and reconciled with his father. However, Peter soon opened an investigation, for which the notorious Secret Chancellery was created. As a result of the investigation, several dozen people were captured, severely tortured and executed.

Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich in Peterhof
Nikolay GE

Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei
Kuznetsov porcelain

In June, the prince himself ended up in the Peter and Paul Fortress. According to the legal norms of that time, Alexei was certainly perceived as a criminal. Firstly, having gone on the run, the prince could have been accused of treason. In Rus', no one ever had the right to freely travel abroad until 1762, before the appearance of the manifesto on the freedom of the nobility. Moreover, go to a foreign sovereign. This was absolutely out of the question. Secondly, at that time, not only the one who committed something criminal, but also the one who intended this criminal intent was considered a criminal. That is, they were judged not only for deeds, but also for intentions, including intentions, even unspoken ones. It was enough to admit this during the investigation. And any person, a prince or not a prince, who was guilty of something like that was subject to the death penalty.

Interrogation of Tsarevich Alexei
Book illustration

And Alexey Petrovich admitted during interrogations that in different years in different time he is with different people had all sorts of conversations in which he criticized his father’s activities in one way or another. There was no obvious intent associated, for example, with a coup d'etat in these speeches. This was precisely criticism. With the exception of one moment, when the prince was asked - if the Viennese emperor went with troops to Russia or gave him, Alexei, troops to achieve the throne and overthrow his father, would he take advantage of this or not? The prince answered positively. The confessional testimony of Tsarevich Euphrosyne’s beloved also added fuel to the fire.

Peter I went to court, emphasizing that this was a fair court, that this was a court of the highest ranks of the state who were solving a state problem. And the king, being a father, does not have the right to make such a decision. He wrote two messages addressed to spiritual hierarchs and secular ranks, in which he seemed to ask for advice: ...I fear God so as not to sin, for it is natural that people see less in their own affairs than others do in theirs. It’s the same with doctors: even if he was the most skilled of all, he would not dare to treat his own illness himself, but calls on others.

The clergy answered evasively: the king must choose: according to Old Testament Alexei is worthy of death, according to the New - forgiveness, for Christ forgave the repentant prodigal son... The senators voted for the death penalty; On June 24, 1718, a specially formed Supreme Court pronounced the death sentence. And on June 26, 1718, after further torture under unclear circumstances, Tsarevich Alexei was apparently killed.

Tsarevich Alexey Petrovich
George STEWART

If someone thought that I was trying to justify such a wild and cruel attitude of Peter towards his eldest son, then this is not so. I just want to understand what guided him, taking into account the laws and customs of that era, and not his emotions.

When Alexei Petrovich passed away in 1718, it seemed that the situation with the succession to the throne had been resolved very successfully, the little Tsarevich Pyotr Petrovich, whom the Tsar loved very much, was growing up. But in 1719 the child died. Peter did not have a single direct heir in the male line. Once again this question remained open.

Well, the mother of Peter’s eldest son, Tsarina-nun Evdokia Lopukhina, meanwhile, was still in the Intercession Monastery, where she managed to create a real microcosm of the Moscow queen of the late 17th century, with an organized supply of food and things, preservation of the court rituals of the Moscow empress and ceremonial trips to pilgrimage.

And everything would have been fine, perhaps it would have continued like this for a long time, Peter, despite the great battles and accomplishments, had nothing to do with her, but in 1710 our queen managed to fall in love. Not just like that, but, it seems, for real. In Major Stepan Bogdanov Glebov. She achieved a meeting with Glebov, a romance began, which on his part was very superficial, because the major understood that an affair with the queen, even a former one, could have consequences... He gave Evdokia sables, arctic foxes, jewelry, and she wrote letters full of passion : You forgot me so quickly. It’s not enough that your face, and your hands, and all your members, and the joints of your hands and feet are watered with my tears... Oh, my light, how can I live in the world without you? Glebov was frightened by such a waterfall of feelings and soon began to miss dates, and then left Suzdal completely. And Dunya continued to write sad and passionate letters, without fear of any punishment...

Evdokia Fedorovna Lopukhina, first wife of Peter I
Unknown artist

All these passions emerged from the so-called Kikinsky search in the case of Tsarevich Alexei. Monks and nuns of Suzdal monasteries, Krutitsy Metropolitan Ignatius and many others were convicted of sympathy for Evdokia Feodorovna. Among those arrested purely by chance was Stepan Glebov, from whom the queen’s love letters were found. The enraged Peter gave the order to the investigators to take a close look at the nun Elena. Glebov very quickly admitted that lived prodigal with the former empress, but denied participation in the conspiracy against the tsar, although he was tortured in a way that no one was tortured even at that cruel time: they were pulled on a rack, burned with fire, then locked in a tiny cell, the floor of which was studded with nails.

In a letter to Peter, Evdokia Fedorovna apologized for everything and asked for forgiveness: Falling at your feet, I ask for mercy, for forgiveness of my crime, so that I do not die a useless death. And I promise to continue to be a monk and to remain in monasticism until my death and I will pray to God for you, Sovereign.

Evdokia Fedorovna Lopukhina (nun Elena)
Unknown artist

Peter brutally executed everyone involved in the case. On March 15, 1718, on Red Square, the barely alive Glebov was impaled and left to die. And so that he would not freeze prematurely in the cold, a sheepskin coat was “carefully” thrown over his shoulders. A priest was on duty nearby, waiting for a confession, but Glebov said nothing. And one more touch to the portrait of Peter. He took revenge on his unlucky lover ex-wife also ordering that the name of Stepan Glebov be included in the list of anathemas, as the queen's lover. On this list, Glebov was in company with the most terrible criminals of Russia: Grishka Otrepiev, Stenka Razin, Vanka Mazepa..., and later Levka Tolstoy also ended up there...

Peter transferred Evdokia that same year to another, the Ladoga Assumption Monastery, where she spent 7 years until his death. There she was kept on bread and water in a cold, windowless cell. All the servants were removed, and only the faithful dwarf Agafya remained with her. The prisoner was so humble that the jailers here treated her with sympathy. In 1725, after the death of Peter I, the queen was transferred to Shlisselburg, where under Catherine I she was kept in strict secret custody. Again there was scanty food and a cramped cell, albeit with a window. But despite all the hardships, Evdokia Lopukhina survived both her crowned husband and his second wife Ekaterina, so we will meet her again...

No less dramatic was the story of Maria Hamilton, who came from an ancient Scottish family and was on Ekaterina Alekseevna’s staff as a maid of honor. Maria, distinguished by her excellent beauty, quickly came to the attention of the monarch, who recognized her as talents that it was impossible not to look at with lust and for some time became his mistress. Possessing an adventurous character and an indomitable desire for luxury, the young Scot was already mentally trying on the royal crown, in the hope of replacing the aging Catherine, but Peter quickly lost interest in the beautiful girl, since there was no one better for him than a wife in the world...

Catherine the First

Maria was not bored for a long time and soon found solace in the arms of the royal orderly Ivan Orlov, a young and handsome guy. They both played with fire, because in order to sleep with the king’s mistress, even an ex-mistress, you really had to be an eagle! By an absurd accident, during the search for Tsarevich Alexei in the case, suspicion of the loss of a denunciation written by Orlov himself fell on him. Not understanding what he was accused of, the orderly fell on his face and confessed to the Tsar that he was cohabiting with Maria Gamonova (as she was called in Russian), saying that she had two children from him who were born dead. During interrogation under the whip, Maria admitted that she poisoned two conceived children with some kind of drug, and immediately drowned the last one that was born in a night boat, and told the maid to throw away the body.

Peter I
Grigory MUSICIYSKY Karel de MOOR

It must be said that before Peter I, the attitude in Rus' towards bastards and their mothers was monstrous. Therefore, in order not to incur anger and troubles on themselves, mothers mercilessly poisoned the fruits of sinful love, and if they were born, they often killed them. different ways. Peter, first of all, caring for the state interests (a great deal... there will be a small soldier over time), in the Decree of 1715 on hospitals, ordered that hospitals be established in the state to maintain shameful babies, whom wives and girls give birth to illegally and, for the sake of shame, are swept away to different places, which is why these babies die uselessly... And then he threateningly decided: And if such illegitimate births appear in the killing of those babies, and for such atrocities they themselves will be executed by death. In all provinces and cities, it was ordered to open houses in hospitals and near churches for the reception of illegitimate children, who at any day could be placed in the window, which was always open for this purpose.

Maria was sentenced to death by beheading. Actually, according to the Code of 1649, a child killer is alive buried in the ground up to their tits, with their hands together and trampled under their feet. It happened that a criminal lived in such a situation whole month, unless, of course, the relatives did not interfere with feeding the unfortunate woman and did not allow stray dogs to chew her to death. But another death awaited Hamilton. After the verdict was pronounced, many people close to Peter tried to appease him, emphasizing that the girl acted unconsciously, out of fear, she was simply ashamed. Both queens stood up for Maria Hamilton - Ekaterina Alekseevna and the dowager queen Praskovya Fedorovna. But Peter was adamant: the law must be fulfilled, and he is not able to abolish it. Without a doubt, it was also important that the babies killed by Hamilton could have been the children of Peter himself, and it was this, like the betrayal, that the tsar could not forgive his former favorite.

Maria Hamilton before her execution
Pavel SVEDOMSKY

On March 14, 1719, in St. Petersburg, in front of a crowd of people, the Russian Lady Hamilton ascended the scaffold, where the scaffold already stood and the executioner was waiting. Until the last, Maria hoped for mercy, dressed up in a white dress and, when Peter appeared, knelt before him. The Emperor promised that the executioner’s hand would not touch her: it is known that during the execution the executioner roughly grabbed the executed person, stripped him naked and threw him on the block...

Execution in the presence of Peter the Great

Everyone froze in anticipation of Peter's final decision. He whispered something in the executioner’s ear, and he suddenly swung his wide sword and in the blink of an eye cut off the head of the kneeling woman. So Peter, without breaking his promise to Mary, at the same time tried out the executioner’s sword brought from the West - a new execution weapon for Russia, used for the first time instead of a crude ax. According to the recollections of contemporaries, after the execution, the sovereign raised Mary’s head by her luxurious hair and kissed her lips that were not yet cooled, and then read to all those gathered, frozen in horror, an intelligent lecture on anatomy (about the features of the blood vessels that feed the human brain), in which he a great lover and connoisseur...

After a demonstration lesson in anatomy, Maria’s head was ordered to be preserved in alcohol in the Kunstkamera, where it lay in a jar along with other monsters from the collection of the first Russian museum for almost half a century. Everyone had long since forgotten what kind of head it was, and visitors, ears hanging, listened to the watchman’s tales that once Tsar Peter the Great ordered the head of the most beautiful of his court ladies to be cut off and preserved in alcohol, so that descendants would know what kind of head it was. beautiful women were in those days. While conducting an audit in Peter's Cabinet of Curiosities, Princess Ekaterina Dashkova discovered heads preserved in alcohol next to the freaks in two jars. One of them belonged to Willim Mons (our next hero), the other to Peter’s mistress, maid of honor Hamilton. The Empress ordered them to be buried in peace.

Portrait of Peter I, 1717
Ivan NIKITIN

The last strong love of Tsar Peter was Maria Cantemir, the daughter of the Gospodar of Moldavia Dmitry Cantemir and Kassandra Sherbanovna Cantacuzen, the daughter of the Wallachian Gospodar. Peter knew her as a girl, but she quickly turned from a skinny little girl into one of the most beautiful ladies of the royal court. Maria was very smart, knew several languages, was interested in ancient and Western European literature and history, drawing, music, studied the basics of mathematics, astronomy, rhetoric, philosophy, so it is no wonder that the girl could easily join and support any conversation.

Maria Cantemir
Ivan NIKITIN

The father did not interfere, but, on the contrary, with the support of Peter Tolstoy, helped bring his daughter closer to the tsar. Catherine, who at first turned a blind eye to her husband’s next hobby, became wary when she learned about Maria’s pregnancy. Those around the Tsar seriously said that if she gave birth to a son, then Catherine could repeat the fate of Evdokia Lopukhina... The Tsarina made every effort to ensure that the child was not born (the Greek family doctor Palikula, Mary’s doctor who prepared the potion, was bribed to Pyotr Andreevich Tolstoy promised the title of count).

Portrait of Count Pyotr Andreevich Tolstoy
Georg GZELL Johann Gonfried TANNAUER

During the Prut campaign of 1722, on which the entire court, Catherine and the Kantemirov family went, Maria lost her child. The king visited the woman, blackened with grief and suffering, said a few kind words of consolation and was like that...

Maria Cantemir

Last years life was not easy for Peter I in a personal sense, his youth passed, he was overcome by illness, he entered the age when a person needs close people who would understand him. Having become emperor, Peter I apparently decided to leave the throne to his wife. And that is why in the spring of 1724 he solemnly married Catherine. For the first time in Russian history, the empress was crowned with the imperial crown. Moreover, it is known that Peter personally placed the imperial crown on his wife’s head during the ceremony.

Proclamation of Catherine I as Empress of All Russia
Boris CHORIKOV

Peter I crowns Catherine
NH, from the collection of the Yegoryevsk Museum

Everything seemed to be in order. Ah, no. In the autumn of 1724, this idyll was destroyed by the news that the empress was unfaithful to her husband. She had an affair with Chamberlain Willim Mons. And again, a grimace of history: this is the brother of the same Anna Mons, with whom Peter himself was in love in his youth. Forgetting caution and completely succumbing to her feelings, Catherine brought her favorite as close to her as possible; he accompanied her on all her trips and stayed for a long time in Catherine’s chambers.

Tsar Peter I Alekseevich the Great and Ekaterina Alekseevna

Upon learning of Catherine's infidelity, Peter was furious. For him, the betrayal of his beloved wife was a serious blow. He destroyed the will signed in her name, became gloomy and merciless, practically stopped communicating with Catherine, and from then on access to him became prohibited for her. Mons was arrested, put on trial “for fraud and illegal acts” and interrogated personally by Peter I. Five days after his arrest, he was sentenced to death on charges of bribery. William Mons was executed by beheading on November 16 in St. Petersburg. The body of the chamberlain lay on the scaffold for several days, and his head was preserved in alcohol and for a long time was kept in the Kunstkamera.

Portraits of Peter the Great
Trellis. Silk, wool, metal thread, canvas, weaving.
Petersburg Trellis Manufactory
The author of the picturesque original J-M. NATIE

And Peter again began to visit Maria Cantemir. But time passed... Maria, apparently, fell in love with Peter as a child and this passion became fatal and the only one, she accepted Peter as he was, but they missed each other a little in time, the emperor’s life was nearing sunset. She did not forgive the repentant doctor and Count Peter Tolstoy, who were guilty of the death of her son. Maria Cantemir devoted the rest of her life to her brothers, participated in political life court and social intrigues, was engaged in charity work and until the end of her life remained faithful to her first and only love- Peter the Great. At the end of her life, the princess, in the presence of the memoirist Jacob von Stehlin, burned everything that connected her with Peter I: his letters, papers, two portraits framed with precious stones (Peter in armor and his own)...

Maria Cantemir
Book illustration

The consolation of Emperor Peter remained the crown princesses, their beautiful daughters Anna, Elizabeth and Natalya. In November 1924, the emperor agreed to Anna's marriage with Karl Friedrich of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp, who signed a contract for marriage with Anna Petrovna. Daughter Natalya lived longer than the other children of Peter who died in childhood, and only these three girls were alive at the proclamation of the Russian Empire in 1721 and accordingly received the title of crown princess. Natalya Petrovna died in St. Petersburg from measles a little over a month after the death of her father on March 4 (15), 1725.

Portraits of princesses Anna Petrovna and Elizaveta Petrovna
Ivan NIKITIN

Tsesarevna Natalya Petrovna
Louis CARAVACQUE

Portrait of Peter the Great
Sergey KIRILLOV Unknown artist

Peter I never forgave Catherine: after the execution of Mons, he agreed to dine with her only once, at the request of his daughter Elizabeth. Only the death of the emperor in January 1725 reconciled the spouses.

In this essay we will talk about two paintings, equally famous both in the history of French and Russian art. These are portraits of Peter I and Catherine I by the famous French portrait painter Jean-Marc Nattier. Their fame is due, on the one hand, to their high quality and the fact that they are very representative examples of ceremonial French portraiture, which in the 18th century retained the features of solemnity and representativeness characteristic of similar works of the previous century. On the other hand, the fact that they are of paramount importance in the iconography of Peter and Catherine. In addition, both paintings are undisputed masterpieces in Nattier’s work.

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

According to the descriptions of contemporaries, both Russian and foreigners, Catherine was not a woman of brilliant beauty, but pretty. She, apparently, possessed some kind of inner charm that impressed even the noble guests who came to Russia.

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

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

Nattier portrays Catherine as still young with a rustic but pleasant face, illuminated by a friendly smile. Catherine’s dark eyes look softly and seriously, her face is by no means devoid of expression and thought, her image is distinguished by some kind of unobtrusively emphasized grandeur. Usually female images Nattier is also striking in his lack of any individual characteristics and complete thoughtlessness. Nattier is the creator of this type of portrait, characteristic of the mid-century.

Our portrait, like all works of this time, is somewhat mannered, but to a more moderate extent than others. There is an ease and freedom in it, clearly dictated by the character of the model.

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

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

Peter I visited France this spring. The trip had great political significance. Previous attempts to establish friendly relations with France during the lifetime of Louis XIV were unsuccessful. The aging king treated the young, rising Russian state with suspicion and apprehension and did not want to meet with its king. After the death of Louis XIV, Peter renewed his attempts at rapprochement, in which he succeeded. He arrived in Paris on a semi-official visit to conduct negotiations of a wide variety of nature. Catherine remained in Holland, in The Hague. The evil tongues of his contemporaries claimed that Peter insisted on this because of the too free manner of demeanor that was characteristic of the queen. If this style, with a stretch, was suitable for democratic Holland, then it was in no way acceptable for the French court with its outwardly strict etiquette. It seems to me that this was not the case at all. Peter, himself not distinguished by the sophistication of his upbringing in the European sense of the word, hardly demanded it from others, in particular from Catherine. During her stay in Holland, the queen performed whole line his quite business errands. However, this has nothing to do with our topic. All that is important to us is that Catherine was in The Hague and that J.-M. came there to complete the portrait of the queen ordered by Peter. Nattier. Some time later, Nattier was summoned by Peter from The Hague to Paris to paint his portrait this time. There, the very good attitude of the tsar towards the artist, which was created at the first acquaintance, deteriorated, since Nattier violated the existing agreement with Peter and refused to go with him to St. Petersburg, frightened by the most fantastic fables told about Russia.

This is, in brief, the history of portrait painting that is repeated everywhere.

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

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

And here is what the daughter of the artist Nattier, Madame Toke, writes in her memoirs about her father: “He (Nattier) barely had time to finish the portrait when the queen wrote such praises about this image to the king, who was in Paris at that time, that the king wished him as much as possible to see sooner, he ordered Mr. Nattier to immediately return to Paris and bring with him a portrait of the Empress, which was done. Chance decided that on the evening of the portrait's arrival, the Tsar should have dinner with the Duke d'Anten. The enthusiasm that aroused in the Tsar the extraordinary similarity of the portrait forced him, despite the fact that only the head had been completed, to take the portrait with him to dinner, where he was installed under the canopy, right in the banquet hall. The very next day, Mr. Nattier began to paint a portrait of the king himself, with which the latter was as pleased as with his other works...” ( Mme Tocque. Abrege de la vie de J.-M. Nattier. Memoires inedits sur la vie et les ouvrages de l "Academie royale, t. II. Paris, 1854, pp. 352-354.). Next comes the story of how Nattier did not dare to go to Russia and how Peter was angry with him for this. At the end of the story about their relationship there is another paragraph that is extremely interesting to us: “...The king was so offended by this refusal that, in order to show his dissatisfaction to the artist, he demanded the unexpected removal of the original from Mr. Buat, where it was made from miniature by royal command; this was the reason that the portrait was never completed or paid for...” This passage is the main source from which information about Nattier's work on the portraits is drawn. He completely amazed me: based on Madame Toke’s data, the portrait remained “unfinished”, in it “only the head was done...”, but who did the rest? Who finally signed and dated the portrait? After all, it hangs on the wall, beautiful and complete, and with all its essence refutes the data of the artist’s daughter! Moreover, what does Mrs. Toke's last phrase mean about the original portrait seized from Buat? What's it about? we're talking about? Or does madam just have this way of expressing herself? She perhaps wanted to say that the painting was the original for miniature copies of Buat? All this was more than mysterious and required the most serious consideration.

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

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

Pierre de Nolac, who published a monograph on Nattier in 1905 ( P. de Nolhac. Nattier. Paris, 1905, p. 240.) and republished it in 1910 ( P. de Nolhac. Nattier. Paris, 1910, p.p. 25, 28.), in general, I was convinced that both the portrait of Peter and the portrait of Catherine were lost, although they were always in the Romanov Gallery of the Winter Palace or, for a relatively very short time, in Tsarskoe Selo. Louis Reo, one of the most famous art historians in world science, who spent a long time in St. Petersburg, acted even more strangely: in 1922 he wrote a special article dedicated to the portraits of Peter and Catherine ( L. Reau. Portraits francais de Pierre le Grand. - “Gazette des Beaux - Arts”, 1922, p. 304.), reproducing a portrait of Catherine in it, obviously having received a photo from the Hermitage, and then with amazing credulity, without bothering himself with any doubts, he cited Ms. Toke’s text about the incompleteness of the portrait. He repeats this in his major work on French artists in Russia, where in the corresponding chapter he writes about Peter I, “who did not have the opportunity to exile a subject of the French king to Siberia for disobedience, confiscated the unfinished portrait of Catherine without paying for it” ( L. Reau. Histoire de l "Expansion de l" art francais moderne. Le monde slave et l "orient. Paris, 1924, p. 84.). This approach to work amazed me. Further, wherever in the literature I came across a mention of the portrait of Catherine, it was always spoken about in the words of Madame Toke.

I had to plunge headlong into clarifying all these unexpected misunderstandings. First of all, I decided to engage in a careful analysis of Ms. Toke's text, and then compare it with some other source of the same time and, preferably, of the same nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 2, 1717, Peter writes to Catherine from Paris: “The tapestry work here is very glorious, so they came to my portrait that Mop and his both painted, which Mop and the other that the Frenchman wrote... in order to do a few tapitsere work here, so same i fine small ones, because that master is still alive, who did it in England with me and now here... P.S. The French painter Natira came here along with his nephew or Orlikov, tell that painter to take with him the picture that he painted from the Battle of Levenhop ...” ( Letters from Russian sovereigns. Issue I. No. 95, 1717, 2/V.).

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

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

From these letters, or more precisely from Catherine’s letter, one can draw a very clear conclusion: if the queen does not send Moor’s portraits, due to the fact that they are not ready and, naturally, are not suitable for copies in tapestry or in miniature, but sends them without any reservations The portrait was made by Nattier, which means it is completed and there can be no doubt about it. This is the most decisive among the arguments to refute the words of Madame Toquet. This is confirmed by the description of dinner at D'Anten's, in which nothing is written about the condition of the portrait.

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

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

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

Having taken up the iconography of Catherine I more seriously, I was convinced from the same edition by Rovinsky that there was a portrait that almost exactly repeated the image of Catherine created by Nattier. I did not find the portrait itself, but the engraving from it. It depicts Catherine with the same facial expression and smile as in Nattier's portrait, with the same hairstyle with sideburns and ring-shaped curls, crowned with the same diadem. Catherine is wearing the same type of dress as in Nattier’s portrait, but not overloaded with embroidery and jewelry. The robe falls off the shoulders a little differently. The portrait is full-length, rather than half-length, and seems more intimate than ours. But that makes all the difference. One would think that this was a slight liberty of the engraver, who changed, as was often done, the costume of the depicted woman and the cut of the image, if not for Rovinsky’s message that this engraving is the work of the engraver Gubraken (Houbraken) from a portrait made by K. Moor ( D. A. Rovinsky. Decree. cit., p. 749.).

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

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

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

I was naturally particularly interested in the portrait engraved by Houbraken and close to Nattier. This portrait, which Rovinsky writes as unconditionally Moor’s, turned out to not belong to him at all. N. I. Nikulina published an authentic portrait of Catherine by K. Moore ( N. I. Nikulina. Unpublished portrait of Catherine I by Karel Moor. - Messages State. Hermitage. L., 1958, No. 14, pp. 21-23.). There was a well-founded reattribution of a small oval portrait with a beautiful darkish gray-blue color scheme, Moore's signature and the date 1717. This portrait was acquired by the Hermitage and, after clearing, identified. It has nothing in common with Nattier’s portrait or Houbraken’s engraving; it reveals a completely different, somewhat colder understanding of the image. The portrait is restrained and a little dry.

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

Since there was a mistake with Moor’s portrait, we can assume that Houbraken’s original for the engraving was the portrait of A. Boonen.

Having come to this conclusion, I already considered the research completed, when suddenly I received new data that forced me to immediately begin to continue the work.

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

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

“...By order of Her Majesty, it was given to the French painter Nattier, who in Amsterdam painted a portrait of Her Majesty, in addition to the 50 chervonets given to him - another fifty chervonets...” ( TsGIAL, f. 468, op. 43, d. 4, l. 8.).

Under each of these documents there was a certificate of receipt of money, written in Nattier's hand and his signature. These documents revealed everything: the first “issue” told the whole story of the portrait in three lines. Nattier “painted the great person of Her Majesty in The Hague...” - this is, of course, our portrait. I tried to prove that it was completed, but here it is simply clear from the context. Madame Toquet and after her L. Reo and others accused Peter of not paying for the portrait, but now it became clear that this was a lie.

There was also a third “issue”: “... July 1717, on the 19th day, to the painter Natey, who was in Holland, for a letter from the person of His Majesty and others in credit - red notes...” ( TsGIAL, f. 468, op. 43, d. 4, l. 71.) - and again the artist’s signature.

This means that the portrait of Peter was paid for in Paris. A comparison of costs suggests that the portraits were paid equally: for the portrait of Catherine and another small one - 100 chervonets; for a portrait of Peter and “other things to count” - also 100 chervonets. The painter Nattier did not have any complaints against Peter.

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

Houbraken's engraving was haunted by the same demon of confusion as other portraits of Catherine. Its author was confused with extraordinary speed. Russian diplomats and art lovers also found foreign names rather difficult, and they rearranged them with ease.

The “issues” also unravel a number of other knots. Firstly, Staehlin turns out to be right when he said that Nattier wrote according to a model. The sample, however, was not delivered from St. Petersburg, as he believed (I still think that he was confused with Tanauer’s), but, of course, Nattier painted the second portrait based on the model of the first.

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

These are the conclusions allowed to be drawn from documents that lay hidden for more than two hundred and fifty years. They all helped put it in its place, attribute the Houbraken engraving, and learn about the existence of another portrait of Nattier. Despite all my efforts, I have not yet been able to find the “little person” of Catherine by Nattier.

The personality of Peter 1 rightfully occupies one of the dominant places in the history of the Russian state. And the point is not even that it was this man who founded the Empire as such, but that during the reign of Peter, Russia received a completely new vector of development. Thousands of historical and biographical books have been written creating a portrait of Peter 1, but historians to this day cannot unambiguously characterize the activities of this man. Some of them deify the first Russian emperor, describing his innovations in the state system and foreign policy. Others, on the contrary, try to show him as a tyrant and despot, citing excessive harshness and cruelty towards his subjects. But the portrait of Peter 1, the photo of which is presented below, depicts a purposeful and educated man.

The first emperor is also criticized for ill-conceived innovations aimed, according to historians, at eradicating everything Russian, replacing it with Western values. However, both of them clearly agree on one thing: he was truly a controversial, significant and great figure in the history of the Russian state.

Judge not lest ye be judged

If you carefully study the historical portrait of Peter 1, created by the authors of countless works, you can come to a simple conclusion: such large-scale personalities cannot be judged one-sidedly. Strict distinctions like “white and black” are unacceptable here. In addition, in order to criticize or, conversely, praise, it is necessary to clearly understand the laws and foundations that existed at that time. And what sometimes seems wild and scary to our contemporaries was a simple everyday occurrence for different segments of the population of Russia at the beginning of the 18th century.

A portrait of Peter the Great cannot be drawn up using modern moral values. This approach will be “flat” and emotional. It will prevent a sober assessment of the historical reality of the Moscow state, and then Russian Empire XVIII century.

Therefore, you just need to try to objectively focus on a neutral biography of the first Russian emperor and everything that was connected with him. After all, such individuals, as a rule, leave a mark not only in politics and government.

Education is the basis of a future personality

Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov was born on May 30, 1672. Like all the royal offspring, the future sovereign received exclusively home education. And we must admit that, even by modern times, it was not bad. The teachers revealed in the boy a great tendency to foreign languages and exact sciences. In other words, the future emperor already from childhood combined humanitarian and technical aspirations. Although he still gave preference to practical sciences.

The youngest son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and Natalya Naryshkina, little Peter, grew up as an amazingly active and strong child. In addition to his penchant for science, he enjoyed climbing fences, fighting with noble peers from his inner circle and committing other pranks characteristic of this age.

Handicraft is an occupation worthy of kings

All biographers without exception have always been especially surprised by the tsar’s son’s passion for simple working crafts, in which he showed interest at a very young age. Not a single historical portrait of Peter 1 is complete without a description of how he could spend hours watching the work of a lathe or happily breathe in the hot fumes of the palace forge.

The interest of the royal son did not go unnoticed. Special craftsmen were assigned who began to teach Peter the basics of the simplest crafts: turning and forging. It must be taken into account that this did not come at the expense of the young heir’s main academic schedule. The exact sciences, the study of languages, and the basics of military affairs have not been canceled. Already with early childhood the future sovereign received a comprehensive and high-quality education (contrary to the opinion of some Western historians that home education in Russia in those years was characterized by one-sidedness and unprofessionalism).

However, you would never call the emperor a “simpleton”, looking at how the artist Antropov painted the portrait of Peter 1: the royal regalia, posture and look speak of a great and powerful man. And even though at the time of the creation of the picture the emperor had been dead for almost 50 years, the author portrayed him very reliably.

Coronation and exile

The political portrait of Peter 1 should begin to be painted in 1682. After the death of the childless Tsar, young Romanov was elevated to the throne. However, this happened bypassing his older brother Ivan, which the Miloslavsky party (relatives of Peter’s older sister Sophia) did not fail to take advantage of to organize a palace coup. The Miloslavskys successfully used the Streltsy unrest, and as a result, the Naryshkin clan, to which Peter’s mother belonged, was almost destroyed. Ivan was appointed “senior” king, and Sophia became the ruler-regent.

The Streltsy revolt and the outright cruelty of the murders had a very serious impact on the personality of Peter the Great. Many historians associate the further, not always balanced, actions of the tsar with these events.

Sophia, having become the sole mistress of the country, practically exiled the little king to Preobrazhenskoye, a small fiefdom near Moscow. It was here that Peter, having gathered the noble ignoramuses of his inner circle, created the famous “amusing regiments”. Military formations had real uniforms, officers and soldiers and were subject to real army discipline. Peter, of course, was the commander-in-chief. To entertain the young king, a “amusing fortress” was built, which, honing their “combat skills,” was stormed by the amusing army. However, few people then guessed that it was this childish fun of boys running around with wooden guns and sabers that would lay the foundation for the famous and formidable Peter's Guard.

Not a single portrait of Peter 1 is complete without mentioning Alexander Menshikov. They met there, in Preobrazhenskoye. The groom's son in subsequent years became the emperor's right-hand man and one of the most powerful men in the Empire.

Miloslavsky's coup

The weakness and illness of the “senior” Tsar Ivan constantly forced the ruler Sophia to think about complete autocracy in the country. Surrounded by nobles from the powerful Miloslavsky clan, the ruler was fully confident that she would be able to usurp power. However, Peter stood in the way of the throne. He was God's anointed and rightful king.

In August 1689, Sophia decided to stage a coup d'état, the purpose of which was to eliminate Peter and seize the throne. However, faithful people warned the young tsar, and he managed to leave Preobrazhenskoye, taking refuge in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery. The monastery was not chosen by chance. Powerful walls, ditches and underground passages presented an insurmountable barrier for Sophia's foot archers. According to all the rules of military science, Sophia had neither the time nor the means to carry out an assault. In addition, the elite command of the Streltsy units openly hesitated, not knowing which side to choose.

Who made the decision to retreat specifically to Trinity-Sergievo? Not a single historical portrait of Peter 1 mentions this. In short, this place turned out to be fatal for Sophia and very successful for the king. The nobles supported Peter. Combat detachments of noble cavalry and infantry of the “amusing” and faithful archers surrounded Moscow. Sophia was convicted and imprisoned in a monastery, and all associates from the Miloslavsky clan were executed or exiled.

After the death of Tsar Ivan, Peter became the sole owner of the Moscow throne. Perhaps it was the events described that prompted him to seriously reorganize the entire Russian way of life. After all, representatives of the “good old time” in the person of the Streltsy and Miloslavskys constantly tried to physically eliminate the young sovereign, instilling in him a subconscious fear, which, as contemporaries who painted Peter 1 claimed, was reflected on his face and haunted him in his soul almost until his death. Even painters noticed and recreated the unusually strong, but at the same time extremely tired face of the king. The artist Nikitin, whose portrait of Peter 1 is surprising in its simplicity and absence of imperial paraphernalia, conveyed precisely such a strong-willed and powerful, but deeply sincere person. True, art critics are inclined to “take away” part of Nikitin’s fame, citing a drawing style that was uncharacteristic for the beginning of the century.

Window to Europe - German settlement

Against the background of these events, the young tsar’s aspirations for everything European look quite natural. One cannot fail to note the role of Kukui, a German settlement that the emperor loved to visit. The friendly Germans and their neat way of life differed sharply from what Peter saw in the rest of Moscow. But the point, of course, is not about neat houses. The Emperor became imbued with the very way of life of this small piece of Europe.

Many historians believe that it was Kukui’s visit that partly shaped the historical portrait of Peter 1. In short, future pro-Western views. We must not forget about the acquaintances the tsar made on the German reservation. There he met a retired Swiss officer who became the main military adviser, and the charming future favorite of the first emperor. Both of these people played an important role in the history of Russia.

Access to the sea is a strategic task

Peter is becoming more and more interested in the fleet. Specially hired Dutch and English craftsmen teach him the tricks and intricacies of ship construction. In the future, when multi-gun battleships and frigates will sail under the Russian flag, Peter will need his knowledge of the nuances of shipbuilding more than once or twice. He identified all defects and defects in construction himself. It was not for nothing that he was called the Tsar Carpenter. Peter 1 could really build a ship from stem to stern with his own hands.

However, during his youth, the Moscow state had only one access to the sea - in the city of Arkhangelsk. European ships, of course, called at this port, but geographically the place was too unfavorable for serious trade relations (due to the long and expensive delivery of goods deep into Russia). This thought, of course, visited not only Pyotr Alekseevich. His predecessors also fought for access to the sea, mostly unsuccessfully.

Peter the Great decided to continue the Azov campaigns. Moreover, the war with Turkey, which began in 1686, continued. The army, which he trained in the European way, was already an impressive force. Several military campaigns were made against the sea city of Azov. But only the latter was successful. True, the victory came at a high price. Small, but built for that period according to last word engineering thought, the fortress claimed many Russian lives.

And although the fact of the capture of Azov in Europe was perceived quite skeptically (precisely because of the ratio of losses), this was the first real strategic victory of the young tsar. And most importantly, Russia finally gained access to the sea.

North War

Despite the outright skepticism of European politicians, Peter 1 begins to think about the Baltic. The ruling elite at that time was seriously concerned about the growing ambitions of another young strategist - This is partly why the Europeans supported the Moscow Tsar in his desire to obtain part of the coastal Baltic lands to open shipyards and ports there. It seemed that it was quite possible for Russia to have two or three ports, and the inevitable war for the Baltic would seriously weaken Sweden, which, although it would defeat the weak Russians, would be seriously bogged down in the mainland of wild Muscovy.

Thus began the long Northern War. It lasted from 1700 to 1721 and ended with the unexpected defeat of the Swedish army near Poltava, as well as the establishment of the Russian presence in the Baltic.

Reformer

Of course, without serious economic and political changes in Russia, Peter 1 would not have cut through the famous “window to Europe.” The reforms affected literally the entire way of life of the Moscow state. If we talk about the army, then it received its formation precisely in the Northern War. Peter found resources for its modernization and organization according to the European model. And if at the beginning of hostilities the Swedes were dealing with unorganized, often poorly armed and untrained units, then at the end of the war it was already a powerful European army that knew how to win.

But it was not only the personality of Peter the Great, who possessed remarkable talent as a commander, that allowed him to win great victory. The professionalism of his closest generals and devotees is a topic for long and meaningful conversations. Entire legends are written about the heroism of a simple Russian soldier. Of course, no army could win without a serious rear. It was military ambitions that spurred the economy of old Russia and brought it to a completely different level. After all, the old traditions could no longer fully meet the needs of the growing army and navy. Almost everyone lifetime portrait Peter 1 depicts him in military armor or with military paraphernalia. The artists paid tribute to the emperor's merits.

Not by an army alone

The portrait of Peter 1 will not be complete if we limit ourselves only to economic and military victories. The Emperor must be given credit for developing and implementing reforms in the field of government. First of all, this is the establishment of the Senate and collegiums instead of the outdated ones working on the class principle Boyar Duma and orders.

The “Table of Ranks” developed by Peter gave rise to the emergence of so-called social elevators. In other words, the Table of Contents made it possible to receive benefits and nobility solely on merit. Changes also affected diplomacy. Instead of the ancient fur coats and hats of the noble boyars who represented Russia, embassies with diplomats of the European level appeared.

The description of the portrait of Peter 1 will be incomplete if we talk about it only in superlatives. It is worth noting that with the general geopolitical growth of Russia, life ordinary people within the country has not changed much, and in some cases (for example, conscription) has become worse. The life of a simple serf was worth less than the life of a horse. This was especially noticeable during Peter’s “global” construction projects. Thousands of people died building the most beautiful city in Europe - St. Petersburg. No one counted the dead during the construction of the Ladoga Canal... And many young guys never became soldiers, dying under the sticks of officers introducing discipline in military units.

Precisely for complete neglect human life the first emperor is criticized, accusing him of senseless cruelty and a huge number of unjustified victims. In addition, we are everywhere faced with facts of the activities of Peter 1 that are striking in their inhumanity.

There is only one thing that can be said in defense of this man. The first emperor of Russia never moved away from his people to the distances that subsequent rulers allowed themselves. A thousand times the enemy's cannonball could have torn him to pieces. Dozens of times Pyotr Alekseevich Romanov could simply drown on imperfect sea vessels. And during global construction projects, he slept in the same barracks with sick construction workers, risking contracting illnesses for which there were no cures at that time.

Of course, the emperor was protected from enemy bullets better than an ordinary soldier, he was treated by good doctors, and he had a much greater chance of not dying from the flu than an ordinary peasant. However, let's finish the description of the portrait of Peter 1 with a memory of the cause of his death. The emperor died from pneumonia, which he received while rescuing a simple guard soldier from the cold water that overflowed the banks of the Neva. A fact that may not be so remarkable in comparison with the actions of his entire life, but it speaks volumes. It is unlikely that any of the modern “powers of this world” are capable of such an act...

According to various sociological surveys, Peter I remains one of the most popular in our time. historical figures. Sculptors still exalt him, poets compose odes to him, and politicians speak enthusiastically about him.

But did it match a real man Peter Alekseevich Romanov to the image that, through the efforts of writers and filmmakers, was introduced into our consciousness?

Still from the film "Peter the Great" based on the novel by A. N. Tolstoy (Lenfilm, 1937 - 1938, director Vladimir Petrov,
in the role of Peter - Nikolai Simonov, in the role of Menshikov - Mikhail Zharov):

This post is quite lengthy in content. , consisting of several parts, is dedicated to exposing the myths about the first Russian emperor, which still wander from book to book, from textbook to textbook, and from film to film.

Let's start with the fact that the majority imagines Peter I to be absolutely different from what 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 (indeed, huge in those days, and quite impressive in our times), he was incredibly thin, with narrow shoulders and torso, a disproportionately small head and foot size (about size 37, and this is with so tall!), with long arms and spider-like fingers. In general, an absurd, awkward, clumsy figure, a freak of a freak.

The clothes of Peter I, preserved 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, was constantly ill, and never parted with a traveling first aid kit containing many medications that he took daily.

Peter's court portrait painters and sculptors should not be trusted either.
For example, the famous researcher of the Peter I 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, an unyielding will, a commanding gaze, an intense thought, this bust is related to Michelangelo’s Moses. This is a truly formidable king, capable of causing awe, but at the same time majestic and noble.”

This more accurately conveys the appearance of Peter plaster mask taken from his face in 1718 the father of the great architect - B. K. Rastrelli , when the tsar was conducting an investigation into the treason of Tsarevich Alexei.

This is how the artist describes it A. N. Benois (1870 - 1960):“At this time, Peter’s face became gloomy, downright terrifying in its menacingness. One can imagine what impression this terrible head, placed on a gigantic body, must have made, with darting 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 ceremonial portraits.
For example, these:

Portrait of Peter I (1698) by a German artist
Gottfried Kneller (1648 - 1723)

Portrait of Peter I with the insignia 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 painting of this portrait and the making of Peter’s lifetime mask
Rastrelli was only a year old. Are they really similar?

Most popular currently and highly romanticized
in accordance with the time of creation (1838) portrait of Peter I
work French artist Paul Delaroche (1797 - 1856)

Trying to be objective, I cannot help but note that monument to Peter I , works of sculptor Mikhail Shemyakin , made by him in the USA and installed V Peter and Paul Fortress in 1991 , also little corresponds to the real image of the first Russian emperor, although, quite possibly, the sculptor sought to embody that same "monstrously fantastic image" , which Benoit spoke about.

Yes, Peter's face was made from his death wax mask (cast by B.K. Rastrelli). But Mikhail Shemyakin 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 figure of Peter I himself is very ambiguous, which is what I want to tell everyone who is interested in Russian history.

At the end of this part about another myth concerning death of Peter I .

Peter did not die from catching a cold while saving a boat with drowning people during a flood in St. Petersburg in November 1724 (although such a case actually happened, 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 sexually transmitted diseases); and not because he was poisoned with some “specially gifted 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 stand up to criticism either.

In fact, Peter I had advanced inflammation of the urethra (he suffered from this disease since 1715, according to some sources, even since 1711). The disease worsened in August 1724. The attending physicians, the Englishman Horn and the Italian Lazzaretti, tried unsuccessfully to cope with it. From January 17, 1725, Peter no longer got out of bed; on January 23, he lost consciousness, to which he never returned until his death on January 28.

"Peter on his deathbed"
(artist N. N. Nikitin, 1725)

Doctors performed the operation, but it was too late; 15 hours after the operation, 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 write his last will on his will, but only managed to write "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’ll give you historical anecdote about Peter I , which, however, also refers to the myths about this ambiguous personality.

Thank you for attention.
Sergey Vorobiev.

Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, the son of Alexei Mikhailovich, dying childless, did not appoint an heir for himself. His elder brother John was weak both physically and mentally. All that remained was, as the people also wished, “to be in the kingdom for Peter Alekseevich,” the son from the second wife of Alexei Mikhailovich.

But the power was seized by John’s sister, Princess Sofya Alekseevna, and ten-year-old Peter, despite the fact that he was married with his brother John and was called the king, was a disgraced king. They did not care about his upbringing, and he was completely left to himself; but, being gifted with all the gifts of nature, he himself found himself a teacher and friend in the person of a Geneva native, Franz Lefort.

To learn arithmetic, geometry, fortification and artillery, Peter found himself a teacher, the Dutchman Timmerman. The previous Moscow princes did not receive a scientific education, Peter was the first to turn to Western foreigners for science. The conspiracy against his life failed, Sophia was forced to retire to the Novodevichy Convent, and on September 12, 1689, the reign of Peter the Great began, when he was just over 17 years old. It is impossible to list here all the glorious deeds and reforms of Peter, which gave him the nickname of the Great; Let's just say that he transformed and educated Russia on the model of Western states and was the first to give impetus to its becoming a powerful power at the present time. In his hard work and worries about his state, Peter did not spare himself and his health. Our capital St. Petersburg, founded in 1703, on May 16, on the island of Lust-Eyland, taken from the Swedes, owes its origin to him. Peter the Great was the founder of the Russian navy and regular army. He died in St. Petersburg on January 28, 1725.

Krivoshlyk's story

Peter 1 themed pictures