Once I have already analyzed the portraits of the man who returned from the Great Embassy to the West under the name of Peter the Great. In the article I have placed a portrait of False Peter with my deciphers, fig. 1.
Beginning of the article
Figure: 1. False Peter the First and my reading of the inscriptions on his portrait.
I borrowed the portrait from the video, where the Announcer says: “But in his other engraving, as in all subsequent portraits of other artists, we see a completely different person, unlike his relatives. It would seem absurd!
But the strangeness doesn't end there either. In engravings and portraits of 1698, this man looks more like a 20-year-old boy. However, in the Dutch and German portraits of 1697, the same person looks more like 30 years old.
How could this have happened?"
I proceed to an epigraphic analysis of this portrait. The two previous portraits serve as a hint as to where to look for certain inscriptions. First, I read the inscription on the brooch attached to the headdress, where it says: MIM YARA RYURIK. In other words, this is another priest of Yar Rurik, although there is no signature of CHARAOH. It may well be that the absence of this highest spiritual title means that this priest did not recognize the spiritual priority of Rurik, although formally he was his priest. In this case, he was very suitable for the role of Peter's double.
Promotional video:
Then I read the inscriptions on the fur collar on the left, above the white frame: THE TEMPLE OF MARA YAR. I regard this inscription as a continuation of the previous one. And inside the fragment, surrounded by a white frame, I read the words in reverse color: MOSCOW MARA 865 YARA (YEAR). Mary's Moscow meant Veliky Novgorod; however, already the first Romanov introduced real Christianity, and Patriarch Nikon under Alexei Mikhailovich eliminated all the remnants of Russian Vedism from Muscovy. Consequently, Russian Vedists partly go to the Russian outback, partly go to the Russian diaspora in neighboring states. And the year 865 of Yar is 1721 YEAR FROM THE BIRTH OF CHRIST, this is more than 70 years after Nikon's reforms. By this time, the places of the priests were no longer occupied by children, but by the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the priests removed by Nikon, and the grandchildren and great-grandchildren often no longer speak the speech of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. But probably,shows the year of finalization of this print, which began in 1698. But even in this case, the depicted young man is 6-8 years younger than Peter.
And on the very bottom fragment under the frame on the fur collar on the left, I read the word MASK. Then I read the inscription on the fur collar on the right: the top of the collar diagonally contains the inscription ANATOLIA FROM RUSSIA MARA, and on the line below - 35 ARKONA YARA. But the 35th Arkona Yar is the same as the Moscow of Mary, this is Veliky Novgorod. In other words, one of the ancestors of this Anatoly in the middle of the 17th century could be a real priest in this city, whereas after Nikon's reforms he ended up somewhere in the Russian diaspora. It is possible that in Catholic Poland, which very zealously carried out all the decrees of the Pope.
Figure: 2. Portrait of Peter by an unknown artist of the late 18th century.
So, we now know that the young man with rolled-out eyes was not Peter at all, but Anatoly; in other words, the substitution of the king is documented.
We see that this portrait was painted in Veliky Novgorod. But besides the name of False Peter, this portrait did not bring any details, and, moreover, the artist was not even named, so this portrait was not entirely acceptable as a proof document, which made me look for other canvases. And soon the necessary portrait was found: "Peter the First, Emperor of All Russia, a portrait of an unknown artist of the late 18th century." Below I will show why the artist turned out to be unknown.
Epigraphic analysis of the second portrait of False Peter
I stopped my choice on this image of Peter, because on his silk sling I read the word YARA below, deciding that the portrait belonged to the brush of the artist from the temple of Yar. And I was not wrong. The letters were inscribed both in individual parts of the face and in the folds of clothing.
Figure: 3. My reading of the inscriptions on the portrait of Peter in fig. 2.
It is clear that if I suspected the presence of Russian inscriptions on the blue silk ribbon, then I started reading with it. However, since these letters are not very contrasting in direct color, I switch to reversed color. And here you can see the inscription made in very large letters: YAR TEMPLE, and on the collar - the inscription MASK. This confirmed my preliminary reading. In the modern reading it means: IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF YAR.
And then I moved on to reading the inscriptions on parts of the face. First - on the right side of the face, on the left with the viewer's point of view. On the lower strands of hair (I rotated this piece 90 degrees to the right, clockwise). Here I read the words: RURIK TEMPLE MASK. In other words, an IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF RURIK.
On the hair above the forehead you can read the words: MIM TEMPLE OF RURIK. Finally, on the right from the viewer's point of view, on the left side of the face, one can read ANATOLY'S MASK FROM RURIK YAR JUTLAND. Firstly, it is confirmed here that the False Peter's name was Anatoly, and, secondly, it turned out that he did not come from Holland, as many researchers suggested, but from neighboring Denmark. However, the transition from one country to another at the end of the 17th century, apparently, did not pose a big problem.
Next, I move on to reading the inscription on the mustache. Here you can read the words: RIMA MIM. In other words, Dane by birth and Dutch by language, was an agent of the influence of Rome. For the umpteenth time, Rome is the ultimate center of action against Russia-Russia!
But can this statement be verified? - I look at the armor on the right hand, as well as the background behind the hand. However, for ease of reading, I rotate this fragment to the right by 90 degrees (clockwise). And here, against the background in the form of fur, you can read the words: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF ROME and ROME MIM RUSSIA ROMA. In other words, that before us is really the image not of the emperor of Russia, but of the priest of Rome! And on armor, hands can be read on every two plates: RIMA MIM. ROME MIM.
Finally, on the fur collar next to the left hand you can read the words: RURIK RIMA MIM.
Thus, it becomes clear that the temples of Rurik existed in the 18th century, and their priests, creating portraits of dead people (usually the priests of the temple of Mary), usually wrote their titles and names. This is what we saw in this portrait. However, in a Christian country (where Christianity had been the official religion for more than a century), it was unsafe to advertise the existence of Vedic temples, which is why the artist of this portrait remained unknown.
Figure: 4. Rurik's death mask and my reading of the inscriptions.
Death mask of Peter
Then I decided to look at foreign sites on the Internet. In the article, I read with interest the section "The Great Embassy". In particular, it said: “His Great Embassy, which numbered 250 members, left Moscow in March 1697. Peter became the first king to travel outside his kingdom. The official goal of the embassy was to give a new breath to the coalition against the Ottoman Empire. However, Peter did not make a secret of the fact that he went to “observe and learn,” as well as to select foreign specialists for his new Russia. In the then Swedish city of Riga, the king was allowed to inspect the fortress, but to his great surprise, he was not allowed to take measurements. In Courland (the current coastal region of Lithuania and Latvia), Peter met with the Dutch ruler, Frederic Casimir. The prince tried to convince Peter to join his coalition against Sweden. In Königsberg, Peter visited the Friedrichsburg fortress. He took part in attending artillery courses, and graduated with a diploma certifying that "Peter Mikhailov received mastery as a bombardier and skills in the use of firearms."
The following is a description of Peter's visit to Levenguk with his microscope and Witsen, who compiled a book describing northern and eastern Tartary. But most of all I was interested in the description of his secret meeting: “On September 11, 1697, Peter had a secret meeting with the King of England William III. Nothing is known about their negotiations, except that they lasted two hours and ended in a friendly breakup. At the time, the English navy was considered the fastest in the world. King William assured that Peter should visit the British naval shipyards, where he will learn to understand the construction of ships, take measurements and calculations and learn how to use instruments and instruments. As soon as he arrived in England, he tried to sail on the Thames."
One gets the impression that it was in England that the best conditions were created for Anatoly to replace Peter.
The same article published the death mask of Peter the Great. The caption reads: “DeathmaskofPeter. After 1725, St Petersburg, from the original by Bartolomeo Rastrelli, after 1725, Bronze-tinted plaster. Case 34.5 x 29 x 33 cm. © State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg. " On this death mask on the forehead, I read the inscription in the form of a strand of hair: MIMA RUSI ROMA MASK. She confirms that this image belongs not to the emperor of Russia Peter the Great, but to the Roman priest Anatoly.
Figure: 5. Miniature by an unknown artist and my reading of the inscriptions.
Miniature by an unknown artist
I found it at the address with the signature: “PetertheGreat (1672 - 1725) ofRussia. Enamel miniature portrait by an unknown artist, late 1790s. #Russian #history #Romanov , fig. 5.
On examination, it can be argued that the largest number of inscriptions are in the background. I strengthened the miniature itself in contrast. On the left and above the head of the portrait, I read the signatures: ROME RURIK YARA MARA TEMPLE AND ROMA MIM, AND ARKONA 30. In other words, it is now being specified in which particular temple of Mary of Rome the miniature was made: in the capital of the state of Rome, in a city just west of CAIRO.
To the left of the head, at the level of the hair, I read against the background the words: MARY RUSS TEMPLE OF VAGRIA. Perhaps this is the address of the customer of the miniature. Finally, I read the inscriptions on the character's face, on his left cheek (where there is no wart on the left side of the nose), and here you can read the words below the shadow of the cheek: RIMA MIM ANATOLY RIMA YARA STOLITSY. So, the name of Anatoly is once again confirmed, now written in rather large letters.
Figure: 6. A fragment of a picture from the Britannica and my reading of the inscriptions.
Peter's painting from Encyclopedia Britannica
Here I read the inscriptions on the fragment where there is a bust portrait, fig. 6, although the complete picture is much more extensive, Fig. 7. However, I selected exactly that fragment and of the size that suited me perfectly for epigraphic analysis.
The first lettering that I began to read is a mustache. On them you can read the words: TEMPLE OF ROME MIMA, and then - a continuation on the upper lip: RYURIKA, and then - on the red part of the lip: MASK OF THE TEMPLE MARA, and then on the lower lip: ANATOLIA OF ROME ARKONA 30. In other words, we see here confirmation of the previous inscriptions: again the name of Anatoly, and again his binding to the temple of Mary Rurik of the city near Cairo.
Then I read the inscription on the collar: 30 ARKONA YAR. And then I move on to examining the fragment to the left of Peter's face, which I have circled with a black frame. Here I read the words: 30 ARKONA YAR, which has already been read. But then there are new and amazing words: ANATOLIA MARA TEMPLE IN ANKARA, ROMA. The surprise is not so much the existence of a special temple dedicated to Anatolia, as the location of such a temple in the Turkish capital Ankara. I have not read such words anywhere else. Moreover, the word ANATOLIA can be understood not only as a person's proper name, but also as the name of a place in Turkey.
For now, I consider it sufficient to consider the inscriptions on the portraits. And then I am interested in the details of the substitution of the Russian tsar, which can be found in printed works on the Internet.
Figure: 7. Picture from the Encyclopedia Britannica online.
Wikipedia's opinion on the substitution of Peter the Great
In the article "The Double of Peter I" Wikipedia, in particular, states: "According to one version, the substitution of Peter I was organized by some influential forces in Europe during the Tsar's trip to the Great Embassy. It is alleged that of the Russian people who accompanied the tsar on a diplomatic trip to Europe, only Alexander Menshikov returned back - the rest are believed to have been killed. The purpose of this crime was to put at the head of Russia his protégé, who pursued a policy beneficial to the organizers of the substitution and those who stood behind them. The weakening of Russia is considered one of the possible goals of this substitution.
Note that the history of the conspiracy to change the Tsar of Russia in this presentation is conveyed only from the side of facts, and, moreover, it is very vague. As if the Great Embassy itself had only the goal of creating a coalition against the Ottoman Empire, and not the goal of replacing the real Romanov with his double.
“It is claimed that Peter I, according to the recollections of his contemporaries, changed dramatically after his return from the Great Embassy. Portraits of the tsar before and after his return from Europe are cited as proof of the substitution. It is alleged that in the portrait of Peter, before his trip to Europe, he had an elongated face, curly hair and a large wart under his left eye. In the portraits of the king after his return from Europe, he had a round face, straight hair, and there was no wart under his left eye. When Peter I returned from the Grand Embassy, he was 28 years old, and in his portraits after his return he looked about 40 years old. It is believed that the king before the trip was of a solid build and above average height, but still not a two-meter giant. The king who returned, however, was thin, had very narrow shoulders, and his height, which is absolutely established,was 2 meters 4 centimeters. People so tall were very rare at that time."
We see that the authors of these lines of Wikipedia do not at all share the provisions that they present to the reader, although these provisions are facts. How can you not notice such a striking change in appearance? Thus, Wikipedia tries to present the obvious propositions with some conjectures, something like this: "it is asserted that two times two equals four." The fact that the person who came from the embassy was different can be seen by comparing any 1 of the portraits in Fig. 1-7 with a portrait of the departed king, fig. 8.
To the dissimilarity of facial features, one can add the dissimilarity of implicit inscriptions on these two types of portraits. The real Peter is signed as "Peter Alekseevich", the False Peter in all five portraits - as Anatoly. Although both were mimes (priests) of the Rurik temple of Rome.
I will continue to quote Wikipedia: “According to the supporters of the conspiracy theory, soon after the arrival of the double in Russia, rumors began to spread among the archers that the tsar was not real. Peter's sister Sophia, realizing that an impostor had arrived instead of her brother, led an archery riot, which was brutally suppressed, and Sophia was imprisoned in a monastery."
Note that in this case, the motive for the uprising of the Streltsy and Sophia turns out to be extremely serious, while the motive of Sophia's struggle with her brother for the throne in a country where only men have reigned until now (the usual motive of academic historiography) seems to be very far-fetched.
“It is alleged that Peter loved his wife Evdokia Lopukhina very much, and often corresponded with her when he was away. After the return of the tsar from Europe, on his order, Lopukhina was forcibly sent to the Suzdal monastery even against the will of the clergy (it is argued that Peter did not even see her and did not explain the reasons for Lopukhina's imprisonment in the monastery).
It is believed that after his return, Peter did not recognize his relatives and subsequently did not meet either with them or with his inner circle. In 1698, shortly after Peter's return from Europe, his associates Lefort and Gordon died suddenly. According to the conspiracy theorists, it was on their initiative that Peter went to Europe."
It is unclear why Wikipedia calls this concept a conspiracy theory. According to the conspiracy of the nobility, Paul the First was killed, the conspirators threw a bomb at the feet of Alexander the Second, the USA, England and Germany contributed to the elimination of Nicholas II. In other words, the West has repeatedly interfered in the fate of the Russian sovereigns.
“Supporters of the conspiracy theory argue that the returned king was sick with tropical fever in a chronic form, while it can only be infected in the southern waters, and even then only after visiting the jungle. The route of the Great Embassy was the northern sea route. The surviving documents of the Grand Embassy do not mention that the sergeant Peter Mikhailov (under this name the tsar went with the embassy) fell ill with a fever, while for the people accompanying him it was no secret who Mikhailov really was. After returning from the Grand Embassy, Peter I during naval battles demonstrated extensive experience in boarding combat, which has specific features that can only be mastered by experience. Boarding combat skills require direct participation in many boarding battles. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I did not take part in sea battles, since during his childhood and youth Russia had no access to the seas, with the exception of the White Sea, which Peter I did not visit often - mainly as an honorary passenger."
From this it follows that Anatoly was a naval officer who took part in the naval battles of the southern seas, having recovered from tropical fever.
“It is alleged that the tsar who returned spoke poorly in Russian, that he had not learned to write Russian correctly until the end of his life, and that he“hated everything Russian”. Conspiracy theorists believe that before his trip to Europe, the tsar was distinguished by piety, and when he returned, he stopped observing fasts, attending church, mocked the clergy, began persecuting Old Believers and began to close monasteries. It is believed that in two years Peter forgot all the sciences and subjects that the educated Moscow nobility owned, and at the same time acquired the skills of a simple artisan. There is a striking, according to the conspiracy theorists, change in the character and psyche of Peter after his return."
Again, there are obvious changes not only in appearance, but also in Peter's language and habits. In other words, Anatoly did not belong not only to the royal, but even to the nobility, being a typical representative of the third estate. In addition, it is not mentioned that Anatoly spoke fluent Dutch, which many researchers note. In other words, he came from somewhere in the Dutch-Danish region.
“It is alleged that the tsar, upon returning from Europe, did not know about the location of the richest library of Ivan the Terrible, although the secret of finding this library was passed from tsar to tsar. Thus, Tsarevna Sophia allegedly knew where the library was located and visited it, and Peter, who came from Europe, made several attempts to find the library and even organized excavations.”
Again, a specific fact is given by Wikipedia for some "statements".
“As evidence of the substitution of Peter, his behavior and actions are cited (in particular, the fact that earlier the tsar, who preferred traditionally Russian clothes, after returning from Europe no longer wore them, including the royal clothes with a crown - conspiracy theorists explain the last fact by the fact that the impostor was taller than Peter and had narrower shoulders, and the king's things did not suit him in size), as well as the reforms he was carrying out. It is argued that these reforms have done much more harm to Russia than good. Peter's tightening of serfdom, and the persecution of the Old Believers, and the fact that under Peter I, many foreigners were in the service and in various positions in Russia were used as evidence. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I set out to expand the territory of Russia, including moving south towards the Black and Mediterranean Seas. One of the main goals of the Grand Embassy was to achieve an alliance of the European powers against Turkey. While the returning tsar began to fight for the seizure of the Baltic coast. The tsar's war with Sweden, according to the supporters of the conspiracy theory, was needed by the Western states, which wanted to crush the gaining power of Sweden with the hands of Russia. It is alleged that Peter I pursued foreign policy in the interests of Poland, Saxony and Denmark, which could not resist the Swedish king Charles XII. "It is alleged that Peter I pursued foreign policy in the interests of Poland, Saxony and Denmark, which could not resist the Swedish king Charles XII. "It is alleged that Peter I pursued foreign policy in the interests of Poland, Saxony and Denmark, which could not resist the Swedish king Charles XII."
It is clear that the raids of the Crimean khans on Moscow were a constant threat to Russia, and the rulers of the Ottoman Empire stood behind the Crimean khans. Therefore, the fight against Turkey was a more important strategic task for Russia than the fight on the Baltic coast. And the mention of Denmark by Wikipedia is consistent with the inscription on one of the portraits that Anatoly was from Jutland.
“As proof, the case of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich is also cited, who fled abroad in 1716, where he planned to wait on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire for the death of Peter (who was seriously ill at that time) and then, relying on the help of the Austrians, to become the Russian Tsar. According to supporters of the version of the substitution of the tsar, Alexei Petrovich fled to Europe because he sought to free his real father, imprisoned in the Bastille. According to Gleb Nosovsky, the agents of the impostor announced to Alexei that after his return he would be able to take the throne himself, since loyal troops awaited him in Russia, ready to support his coming to power. The returned Alexey Petrovich, according to the conspiracy theorists, was killed by order of the impostor."
And this version turns out to be more serious compared to the academic one, where the son opposes the father for ideological reasons, and the father, without putting his son under house arrest, immediately applies the capital punishment. All this looks unconvincing in the academic version.
Gleb Nosovsky's version
Wikipedia also provides a version of the new chronologists. “According to Gleb Nosovsky, initially he heard many times about the version of Peter's substitution, but never believed in it. At one time, Fomenko and Nosovsky studied an exact copy of the throne of Ivan the Terrible. In those days, the zodiac signs of the current rulers were placed on the thrones. Examining the signs placed on the throne of Ivan the Terrible, Nosovsky and Fomenko found out that the actual date of his birth differs from the official version by four years.
The authors of "New Chronology" compiled a table of the names of Russian tsars and their birthdays, and thanks to this table, they found out that the official birthday of Peter I (May 30) does not coincide with the day of his angel, which is a noticeable contradiction in comparison with all the names of the Russian tsars. After all, names in Russia at baptism were given exclusively according to the calendar, and the name given to Peter violated the established centuries-old tradition, which in itself does not fit into the framework and laws of that time. Nosovsky and Fomenko, on the basis of the table, found out that the real name, which falls on the official date of birth of Peter I, was "Isaac". This explains the name of the main cathedral of Tsarist Russia, St. Isaac's.
Nosovsky believes that the Russian historian Pavel Milyukov also shared the opinion about the forgery of the tsar in an article in the encyclopedia of Brockhausazai and Euphron Milyukov, according to Nosovsky, without directly claiming, repeatedly hinted that Peter I was an impostor. The substitution of the tsar with an impostor was carried out, according to Nosovsky, by a group of Germans, and together with a double, a group of foreigners arrived in Russia. According to Nosovsky, rumors about the substitution of the tsar were very widespread among Peter's contemporaries, and almost all the archers claimed that the tsar was forged. Nosovsky believes that May 30 was actually not the birthday of Peter, but the impostor who replaced him, on whose orders St. Isaac's Cathedral was built, named after him."
The name “Anatoly” revealed by us does not contradict this version, for the name “Anatoly” was a monastic name, and not given at birth. - As you can see, the "new chronologists" have added another touch to the portrait of the impostor.
Peter's historiography
It would seem, what is easier - to consider the biographies of Peter the Great, preferably in his lifetime, and explain the contradictions that interest us.
However, this is where disappointment awaits us. Here's what you can read in the work: “There were persistent rumors among the people about the non-Russian origin of Peter. They called him the Antichrist, the German foundling. The difference between Tsar Alexei and his son was so striking that many historians suspected Peter's non-Russian origins. Moreover, the official version of Peter's origin was too unconvincing. She left and leaves more questions than answers. Many researchers have tried to lift the curtain of a strange lack of understanding about the Peter the Great phenomenon. However, all these attempts instantly fell under the strictest taboo of the ruling house of the Romanovs. The phenomenon of Peter remained unsolved.”
So, the people unequivocally argued that Peter was replaced. Doubts have arisen not only among the people, but even among historians. And then we read with surprise: “In an incomprehensible way, until the middle of the 19th century, not a single work with a complete historiography of Peter the Great was published. The first who decided to publish a complete scientific and historical biography of Peter was the already mentioned remarkable Russian historian Nikolai Gerasimovich Ustryalov. In the Introduction to his work "The History of the Reign of Peter the Great," he sets out in detail why until now (mid-19th century) there is no scientific work on the history of Peter the Great. " This is how this detective story began.
According to Ustryalov, back in 1711, Peter was eager to get the history of his reign and entrusted this honorary mission to the translator of the Ambassadorial Order, Venedict Schilling. The latter was provided with all the necessary materials and archives, but … the work never came out, not a single sheet of the manuscript survived. Further, it is even more mysterious: “The Russian Tsar had every right to be proud of his exploits and wish to pass on to posterity the memory of his deeds in a true, unadorned form. Feofan Prokopovich, Bishop of Pskov, and the teacher of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich, Baron Huysen, undertook to fulfill his idea. Both of them were given official materials, as can be seen from Theophan's work, and as evidenced by the Tsar's own handwritten note in 1714, preserved in his cabinet files: "Give all the journals to Giesen" (1). Seemingly,now the History of Peter I will finally be published. But that was not the case: “A skilful preacher, learned theologian, Theophanes was not a historian at all … Therefore, describing battles, he fell into inevitable mistakes; moreover, he worked with obvious haste, in haste, making omissions that he wanted to add later. " As we can see, Peter's choice was unfortunate: Theophanes was not a historian and did not understand a thing. Huissen's work also turned out to be unsatisfactory and was not published: "Baron Huissen, having in his hands genuine journals of campaigns and travels, limited himself to extracts from them until 1715, without any connection, entangling many trifles and outside affairs into historical events."moreover, he worked with obvious haste, in haste, making omissions that he wanted to add later. " As we can see, Peter's choice was unfortunate: Theophanes was not a historian and did not understand a thing. Huissen's work also turned out to be unsatisfactory and was not published: "Baron Huissen, having in his hands genuine journals of campaigns and travels, limited himself to extracts from them until 1715, without any connection, entangling many trifles and outside affairs into historical events."moreover, he worked with obvious haste, in haste, making omissions that he wanted to add later. " As we can see, Peter's choice was unfortunate: Theophanes was not a historian and did not understand a thing. Huissen's work also turned out to be unsatisfactory and was not published: "Baron Huissen, having in his hands genuine journals of campaigns and travels, limited himself to extracts from them until 1715, without any connection, entangling many trifles and outside affairs into historical events."entangling in historical events many little things and the affairs of outsiders. "entangling in historical events many little things and the affairs of outsiders."
In a word, neither this biography nor subsequent ones took place. And the author comes to the following conclusion: “The strictest censorship in relation to all historical research continued in the 19th century. So the work of N. G. Ustryalov, who is the first scientific historiography of Peter I, was subjected to the most severe censorship. From 10 volumes, only individual excerpts from 4 volumes have survived! The last time this fundamental study about Peter I (1, 2, 3 tons, part of the 4th volume, 6 tons) was published in a truncated version only in 1863! Today it is virtually lost and has survived only in antique collections. The same fate befell the work of I. I. Golikov's "Acts of Peter the Great", which has not been reprinted since the century before last! Notes of an associate and personal turner of Peter I A. K. Nartov's "Reliable Narrations and Speeches of Peter the Great" were first opened and published only in 1819. At the same time, a scanty circulation in the little-known magazine "Son of the Fatherland". But even that edition underwent an unprecedented revision, when only 74 of 162 narratives were published. This work was no longer reprinted, the original was irretrievably lost."
The entire book by Alexander Kas is called "The collapse of the empire of the Russian tsars" (1675-1700), which implies the establishment of the empire of non-Russian tsars. And in Chapter IX, under the title "How the Tsar's Dynasty Was Cut Under Peter," he describes the standing of Stepan Razin's troops 12 miles near Moscow. And he describes many other interesting, but practically unknown events. However, he does not give more information about False Peter.
Other opinions
Again I will continue to quote the already named Wikipedia article: “It is alleged that Peter's double was an experienced sailor who participated in many naval battles, who sailed a lot in the southern seas. It is sometimes claimed that he was a sea pirate. Sergei Sall believes that the impostor was a high-ranking Dutch Freemason and a relative of the King of Holland and Great Britain, William of Orange. Most often it is mentioned that the real name of the double was Isaac (according to one version, his name was Isaac Andre). According to Baida, the doppelganger was either from Sweden or Denmark, and by religion he was most likely a Lutheran.
Baida claims that the real Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille, and that it was he who was the famous prisoner who went down in history as the Iron Mask. According to Baida, this prisoner was recorded under the name Marchiel, which can be interpreted as "Mikhailov" (under this name, Peter went to the Great Embassy). The Iron Mask is said to be tall, dignified, and reasonably well treated. In 1703, Peter, according to Baida, was killed in the Bastille. Nosovsky claims that the real Peter was kidnapped and most likely killed.
It is sometimes argued that the real Peter was actually tricked into a trip to Europe so that some foreign forces could force him to subsequently pursue the policy they wanted. Not agreeing to this, Peter was kidnapped or killed, and a double was put in his place.
In one version of the version, the real Peter was captured by the Jesuits and imprisoned in a Swedish fortress. He managed to deliver a letter to King Charles XII of Sweden, and he rescued him from captivity. Later, Karl and Peter organized a campaign against the impostor, but the Swedish army was defeated near Poltava by Russian troops led by Peter's double and the forces of Jesuits and Masons behind them. Peter I was again captured and hidden away from Russia - imprisoned in the Bastille, where he later died. According to this version, the conspirators saved Peter's life, hoping to use him for their own purposes.
Baida's version can be verified by looking at the engravings of the time.
Figure: 9. Prisoner in an iron mask (illustration from Wikipedia).
Wikipedia writes about this prisoner: “The Iron Mask (French Le masque de fer. Born around 1640s, d. November 19, 1703) is a mysterious prisoner number 64389000 of the time of Louis XIV, who was held in various prisons, including (from 1698 to) Bastille, and wearing a velvet mask (later legends turned this mask into an iron one).
The suspicions regarding the prisoner were as follows: “The Duke of Vermandois, illegitimate son of Louis XIV and Louise de Lavaliere, who allegedly slapped his half-brother, the Great Dauphin, and atoned for this guilt with eternal imprisonment. The version is implausible, since the real Louis of Bourbon died back in 1683, at the age of 16”, according to Voltaire,“The Iron Mask”was the twin brother of Louis XIV. Subsequently, dozens of various hypotheses were expressed about this prisoner and the reasons for his imprisonment ", some Dutch writers suggested that the" Iron Mask "was a foreigner, a young nobleman, chamberlain of Queen Anne of Austria and the real father of Louis XIV. Lagrange-Chancelle tried to prove, in L'année littéraire (1759), that the Iron Mask was none other than Duke François de Beaufort, which was completely refuted by N. Aulaire in his "Histoire de la fronde". Reliable information about the "iron mask" was given for the first time by the Jesuit Griffe, who was 9 years old confessor in the Bastille, in his "Traité des différentes sortes de preuves qui servent à établir la vérité dans l'Histoire" (1769), where he cites the diary of Dujoncas, the royal lieutenant in the Bastille, and the list of the deceased at St. Paul's Church According to this diary, on September 19, 1698, a prisoner was brought from the island of St. Margaret in a stretcher, whose name was unknown and whose face was constantly covered with a black velvet (not iron) mask. "and a list of the deceased of St. Paul's Church. According to this diary, on September 19, 1698, a prisoner was brought from the island of St. Margaret in a stretcher, whose name was unknown and whose face was constantly covered with a black velvet (not iron) mask. "and a list of the deceased of St. Paul's Church. According to this diary, on September 19, 1698, a prisoner was brought from the island of St. Margaret in a stretcher, whose name was unknown and whose face was constantly covered with a black velvet (not iron) mask."
However, I believe the simplest verification method is epigraphic. In fig. 9 depicts "Prisoner in an iron mask on an anonymous engraving during the French Revolution" (same Wikipedia article). I decided to read the signature on the central character, fig. 10 by slightly increasing the size of this fragment.
Figure: 10. My reading of the inscriptions on the image of the Iron Mask.
I read the inscriptions on the wall above the prisoner's bunk, starting from the 4th row of masonry above the sheet. And gradually passing from one row to another, lower: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARA RUSSIA RURIK YAR SKIF MIM WORLD MARA MOSCOW RUSSIA AND 35 ARKONA YAR. In other words, the IMAGE OF THE PRIEST-Scythian of the TEMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN GODDESS MARA RURIK YAR OF THE WORLD MARA OF MOSCOW RUSSIA AND VELIKY NOVGOROD, which no longer corresponds to the inscriptions on the image of Anatoly, who was a mime (priest) of Rome (near Cairo), that is, the 30th Yara.
But the most interesting inscription is on a row of stonework at the level of the prisoner's head. On the left, a fragment of it is very small in size, and having enlarged it 15 times, I read the words as a continuation of the previous inscription: CHARAON YARA RUS YAR RURIK TSAR, and then I read the inscription in large letters to the left of the head: PETER ALEKSEEV MIMA YARA.
So, the confirmation that the prisoner "Iron Mask" was Peter the Great is obvious. True, the question may arise - why is PETR ALEXEEV, and not PETR ALEXEEVICH? But the tsar posed as the artisan Peter Mikhailov, and the people of the third estate were called approximately the same as the Bulgarians now: not Peter Alekseevich Mikhailov, but Peter Alekseev Mikhailov.
Thus, Dmitry Baida's version found epigraphic confirmation.
Figure: 11. Urbanoglyph of Ankara from a height of 15 km.
Did the Temple of Anatolia exist? To answer this question, it is necessary to consider the urbanoglyph of Ankara, that is, a view of this city from a certain height. To accomplish this task, you can refer to the Google Earth Planet program. The view of the city from above is called an urbanoglyph. In this case, a screenshot of the Ankara urbanoglyph is shown in Fig. eleven.
It should be noted that the image turned out to be of low contrast, which is explained by satellite photography through the entire thickness of the atmospheric air. But even in this case, it is clear that on the left and above the inscription: "Ankara", the building blocks form the face of a mustachioed and bearded man in the left profile. And to the left (west) of this person are not quite well-ordered blocks of construction, forming an area called "Yenimakhalle".
Figure: 12. Urbanoglyph of part of Ankara from a height of 8.5 km.
I was just interested in these two objects. I selected them from a height of 8.5 km and increased the contrast of the image. Now it is quite possible to read the inscriptions on it, fig. 15. However, it should be noted that the inscription: "Ankara" has gone completely, and only the last half of the inscription: "Yenimakhalle" remained.
But you can understand that where no system was visible from a height of 15 km, now letters are visible from an altitude of 8.5 km. I read these letters on the decryption field, fig. 13. So, above the fragment of the word "Yenimakhalle" I read the letter X of the word TEMPLE, with the letters "X" and "P" superimposed on each other, forming a ligature. And just below I read the word ANATOLIA, so that both words I read form the desired phrase TEMPLE OF ANATOLIA. So such a temple really existed in Ankara.
However, the inscriptions of the Ankara urbanoglyph do not end there. The word "Anatolia" is superimposed with the numbers "20", and below you can read the words: YARA ARKONA. So Ankara was just the secondary Arkona of Yar No. 20. And even below I read the words: 33 YARA YARA. In terms of the chronology we are accustomed to, they form the date: 889 YEAR FROM THE BIRTH OF CHRIST. Most likely, they mean the date of the construction of the Temple of Anatolia in Ankara.
It turns out that the name "Anatoly" is not the proper name of False Peter, but the name of the temple in which he was trained. By the way, S. A. Sall, after reading my article, suggested that Anatoly's name is associated with Turkey, with its Anatolia. I found this assumption quite plausible. However, now, in the course of an epigraphic analysis, it turned out that this was the name of a specific temple in the city of Ankara, which is now the capital of the Turkish Republic. In other words, the assumption was concretized.
It is clear that not the Anatolian temple got its name from the monastic name of False Peter, but, on the contrary, the monk and executor of the will of the Orange family got his agent code name from the name of this temple.
Figure: 13. My reading of the inscriptions on the urbanoglyph of Ankara.
Discussion
It is clear that such a historical act (more precisely, an atrocity), as a substitution for the Russian tsar of the Romanov dynasty, requires comprehensive consideration. I tried to make my own contribution and, through epigraphic analysis, either confirm or refute the opinion of researchers both about the personality of Peter the Great in captivity and about the personality of False Peter. I believe I managed to move in both directions.
First of all, it was possible to show that the prisoner of the Bastille (since 1698) under the name "Iron Mask" was indeed the Tsar of Moscow, Peter Alekseevich Romanov. Now you can specify the years of his life: he was born on May 30 [June 9], 1672, and died not on January 28 [February 8], 1725, but on November 19, 1703. - So the last tsar of all Russia (since 1682) lived not 53 years, but only 31 years.
Since the Grand Embassy began in March 1697, it is likely that Peter was captured sometime at the end of 1697, then he was transferred from prison to prison, until he was in the Bastille on September 19, 1698. However, he could have been captured in 1898. In the Bastille, he spent 5 years and exactly 1 month. So this is not just another "conspiracy" invention, but the use by the West of the chance to replace the Tsar of Muscovy, who did not understand the danger of secret visits to Western countries. Of course, if the visit were official, it would be much more difficult to replace the king.
As for the False Peter, we managed to understand that he was not only a protege of Rome (moreover, it was real, next to Cairo, and not nominal, in Italy), but also received the agent name "Anatoly" after the Anatoly temple in Ankara. If at the time of the end of the embassy Peter was 26 years old, and Anatoly looked about 40 years old, then he was at least 14 years older than Peter, so the years of his life are as follows: he was born in about 1658, and died on January 28, 1725, having lived 67 years, approximately twice the age of Peter.
The falseness of Anatoly as Peter is confirmed by five portraits, both in the form of canvases and in the form of a death mask and miniature. It turns out that the painters and sculptors knew perfectly well who they were portraying, so the substitution of Peter was Openly's secret. And it turns out that with the accession of Anatoly, the Romanov dynasty was interrupted not only along the female line (for after arriving in Russia, Anatoly married a low-class Baltic woman), but also along the male line, for Anatoly was not Peter.
But it follows from this that the Romanov dynasty ended in 1703, having lasted only 90 years since 1613. This is a little more than the Soviet power, which existed from November 1917 to August 1991, that is, 77 years. But whose dynasty established from 1703 to 1917, for a period of 214 years, remains to be seen.
And from the fact that many portraits of Anatoly mention the temples of Mary Rurik, it follows that these temples successfully existed both in Europe and in the Ottoman Empire, and in Egypt at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. AD so that a real attack on the temples of Rurik could only begin after the accession of Anatoly to Russia, who became the persecutor not only of Russian Vedism, but also of the Russian Christian Orthodoxy of the Byzantine type. The occupation of the royal throne gave him the opportunity not only to make an attack on Russian traditions and weaken the Russian people in an economic sense, but also to strengthen the Western states at the expense of Russia.
Private finds of this epigraphic study were the finding of the temple of Anatoly in Ankara and the identification of the number of Ankara as a secondary Arkona Yar. This was the twentieth Arkona Yar, which can be shown on the table by completing it, fig. 15.
Figure: 14. Completed Arkon numbering table.
It can also be noted that the role of Ankara in the activities of Rome has not yet been sufficiently identified.
Conclusion
It is possible that the Great Embassy of Peter to the Western countries was prepared in advance by Lefort and other acquaintances of Peter, but as one of the possible scenarios, and not at all with the aim of overthrowing the tsar and replacing him with another person, but for drawing him into Western politics. He had a lot of reasons not to come true. However, when it happened, and in a secret way, it was already possible to deal with these foreigners not as required by the diplomatic protocol. Most likely, other circumstances appeared that facilitated the capture of Peter. For example, the scattering of part of the suite for various reasons: some for taverns, some for girls, some for doctors, some for resorts. And when, instead of 250 courtiers and guards, only a dozen of the retinue remained, the capture of the royal person became not too difficult a matter. Quite possible,that Peter's intransigence and his adherence to principles on political and religious issues pushed the monarchs who received him to take the most decisive actions. But so far this applies only to assumptions.
And as a proven fact, one can count only one thing: Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille as an "Iron Mask", and Anatoly began to rampage in Russia, which he declared an empire in the Western manner. Although the word "king" meant "tse Yar", that is, "this is the messenger of the god Yar", while "emperor" is simply "ruler". But the rest of the details must be found out from other sources.
Chudinov Valery Alekseevich