The Iron Mask (French: Le masque de fer) is a mysterious prisoner from the time of Louis XIV, who was held in various prisons, including the Bastille, and wore a velvet mask (later legends turned this mask into an iron one). Died November 19, 1703.
A mask is a symbol of transformation, change and at the same time concealment, mystery. The mask is endowed with the ability to transform what is present into what is desired, to overcome the edge of one’s own nature; This is the magical aspect of transformation, characteristic of both the masks of religious rituals and the masks of theatrical performances (derived from the former). The mask is also endowed negative meaning. So, according to belief, changing identities is characteristic of evil spirits(“The undead do not have their own appearance, they walk in disguises”). This is due to the extremely negative attitude of the church towards national holidays, including an element of carnival, “change of disguise.”
The first information about a man named “Iron Mask” appeared in the Dutch work “Mémoires secrets pour servir à l’histoire de Perse” in 1745. According to these memoirs, the "Iron Mask" is the Duke of Vermandois, the illegitimate son of King Louis XIV and Madame Lavaliere, who slapped his half-brother, the Grand Dauphin, and atoned for this guilt with eternal imprisonment. According to the official version, Vermandois died in his youth in 1683. Voltaire, in his “Siècle de Louis XIV” (1751), aroused general interest in this mysterious personality, regarding whom various hypotheses were expressed.
Some Dutch writers suggested that the "iron mask" was a foreigner, a young nobleman, chamberlain to Queen Anne of Austria and the real father of Louis XIV. Reliable information about the “iron mask” was first given by the Jesuit Griffay, who was confessor in the Bastille for 9 years, in his “Traité des différentes sortes de preuves qui servent à établir la vérité dans l'Histoire” (1769), where he cites the diary of the royal lieutenant in Bastille and list of the dead of St. Paul's Church. According to this diary, on September 19, 1698, a prisoner was delivered 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.
This prisoner died, according to the diary, on November 19, 1703. In general, Griffay was inclined to the opinion expressed in “Mémoires secrets” about the identity of the “iron mask.” In the seventh edition of the Philosophical Dictionary, in the article Anne of Austria, Voltaire returned to the history of the “iron mask”, pointing out that he knows more than Griffay, but, as a Frenchman, must remain silent.
One modern interpreter of Nostradamus, a specialist in the field of esoteric numerology, suggests that between quatrains 96 and 95 of Centuria I there is - in addition to location - a certain hidden connection that can be traced on the basis of Kabbalistic doctrines, the relationship between combinations of letters of the Hebrew alphabet and digital manipulations known as called the "Kabbalah of the Nine Chambers". Probably the religious leader mentioned in quatrain 96 of Centuria I (“destroyer of temples and sects”) should be the mysterious child about whom Nostradamus writes in quatrain 95 of the same Century
“Near the monastery they will find a child - one of two twins,
Coming from an old monastic family.
His fame, influence over sects and eloquence will be such that everyone will say:
This is the person we need."
Commentators of the 19th century - and some of the modern ones - traditionally associated this quatrain with the personality of the French king Louis XIV. There was a legend that he was the illegitimate son of Cardinal Mazarin and had a twin brother. To avoid problems with the succession to the throne, Louis's brother was imprisoned as an infant, where he eventually grew old and died without uttering a single word in his life. Nobody knew this prisoner, and he went down in history under the name Iron Mask. However, recent research has shown that the old interpretation of quatrain 95 of Centuria I is incorrect, because although the man in the iron mask existed, he was not the twin brother of Louis XIV. Accordingly, there is no reason to deny that the character of this quatrain is a child who later became the leader of traditional Christianity (see quatrain 96). However, even if this version is finally confirmed, the words about the origin of the child from an “ancient monastic family” should not be taken in a literal sense - perhaps Nostradamus symbolically characterized the deep religious beliefs of this person.
A twin or double can act as a twin symbol, embodying the principle of duality of all phenomena. The image of the double suggests duality of elements, balanced symmetry and a dynamic balance of opposing forces. Duality can develop along two lines - this is both a bifurcation and a doubling of a being. The belief in the existence of doubles of people and animals is characteristic of many cultures. The image of a double is usually associated with tragic themes, since, like any manifestation of multiplicity, doubling has suffering and evil as its attribute. So, for example, in German folklore the image of a doppleganger (literally translated as “double ghost”) appears, meeting which promises death to a person; a similar idea exists in Scottish folklore. Another aspect of the image is associated with the figure of the double as the personification of the spiritual principle, the soul. The ancient Egyptians believed that a double, ka, is an exact copy of a person, invisible ordinary people. Not only people have Ka, but also gods, plants and animals, even stones. The deity's double could tell the priests about the past and future. The Romans believed that every person has a double spirit - a protective genius.
favorite and mistress of King Louis XIV
Versions about the identity of the person “Iron Mask”
Illegitimate brother of Louis XIV. The publisher added a note to this article stating that the “iron mask” was the elder brother of Louis XIV, the illegitimate son of Anne of Austria, whose belief in sterility was refuted by the birth of this son; she then gave birth to Louis XIV by her husband. Louis XIV, having learned, already of age, about this brother, ordered him to be imprisoned. Linguet, in his Bastille devoilée, names the Duke of Buckingham as the father of the iron mask. St. Michel published a book in which he tried to prove the secret marriage of Queen Anne with Mazarin.
Twin brother of Louis XIV. Abbe Soulavi, who published Mémoires du Maréchal de Richelieu (London and Paris, 1790), tried to prove that the “iron mask” was the twin of Louis XIV. Louis XIII ordered this prince to be raised secretly in order to prevent the misfortunes which were predicted to happen to the royal house from this double birth. After Mazarin's death, Louis XIV learned of his brother's birth, ordered him to be imprisoned and, due to their striking resemblance, forced him to wear an iron mask. During the revolution, this opinion was considered the most correct.
Adventurer Mattioli. According to other sources, the prisoner with the black velvet mask was recorded in the Bastille lists under the name Marchioli. Cenac de Milhan expressed the opinion, on the basis of Italian documents, that the “iron mask” was none other than Mattioli, the minister of Charles Ferdinand of Mantua. Roy-Fazillac joined this opinion in his “Recherches historiques et critiques sur l’homme au masque de fer” (Paris, 1800). Mattioli promised Louis XIV in 1678 that he would persuade his duke to give France the fortress of Casale; he received 100,000 crowns and expensive gifts, but betrayed this secret to Savoy, Spain and Austria. To take revenge on him, the French government lured him into their territory and imprisoned him first on the island of St. Margaret, then in the Bastille.
Other versions. Jung (1873), together with Riese (“Die eiserne Maske”, Greifswald, 1876), claims that the “iron mask” was the Lorraine nobleman Armoise, who in 1672 stood at the head of a conspiracy against Louis XIV in the Spanish Netherlands and was captured in 1673. Others , early discarded and clearly fantastic, versions identified the Iron Mask with Nicolas Fouquet, the minister of Louis XIV, who died in the Bastille, or with the Englishman Duke of Monmouth, who rebelled against James II and was executed in 1685. Alexandre Dumas described the “iron mask” in the novel Vicomte de Bragelon, as the supposed twin brother of the Sun King Louis XIV. His personal jailer was Charles de Batz, Count D'Artagnan.
Igor Merkulov
By the way, Louise-Françoise de Labeaume-Leblanc (French: Louise-Françoise de La Baume Le Blanc, de la Vallière and de Vaujours; August 6, 1644, Tours - June 7, 1710) - Duchess de La Vallière and de Vaujour, favorite of Louis XIV.
She was a maid of honor to Princess Henrietta of Orleans. Despite the fact that she was not very beautiful and had a slight limp, she managed to charm the king with her comeliness and friendly disposition. She had four children by him, of whom two survived: Marie-Anne de Bourbon, Mademoiselle de Blois (born 1666) and Louis, Count of Vermandois (born 1667), a supposed prisoner of the Iron Mask.
In dualistic mythologies, one of the twins is endowed with positive symbolism, and the other with negative symbolism, and then together they symbolize mutually balanced good and evil principles. In such cases, as a rule, the motive of rivalry between twin brothers is introduced (the Egyptian myth of Osiris and Set and the Slavic myth of Belobog and Chernobog). In addition, one often encounters the motif of the marriage of twins - brother and sister, symbolizing the unity of the opposites embodied in their images (for example, the marriage of the Egyptian Osiris and Isis). Sometimes the twins were assigned two fathers - an ordinary person and a totem, in more developed mythological traditions - a god; sometimes they were considered the children of an immortal father and a mortal mother. Divine and human characteristics in this case, as a rule, remain separately expressed. So, for example, one of the twins is endowed with immortality and symbolizes the eternal spiritual principle of a person, his soul, while the other twin is mortal and personifies the bodily principle subject to destruction. For example, in Greco-Roman mythology, the Dioscuri - the mortal Castor and the immortal Pollux were the sons of Leda and, accordingly, King Tyndareus and Zeus. There is an ancient Indo-European cult of twins. Its characteristic features are the connection of the twin characters with horses (Ashvins - “having horses” - were depicted in the form of two horses), with the sun and with the change of day and night (Dioscuri appear in the sky in the form of the morning and evening star of the constellation Gemini, Ashvins personify the morning and evening twilight), with the alternation of life and death (Castor and Pollux alternately reside in Hades and Olympus).
Quatrains, centuries and prophecies of Nostradamus about the events of world history
On November 19, 1703, a prisoner who went down in history as “the man in the iron mask” died in the Bastille. The secret of the life of this man who was a life prisoner Louis XIV, has been of interest to historians and writers for many centuries. However, many are concerned about the question: did he exist at all or is it just a fiction and legend?
The most famous legends about the Iron Mask are the works Voltaire. Back in 1751, he writes about how a certain young prisoner arrived on the island of St. Margaret with an iron mask on his face. Later, the assistant to the Minister of War came to pick him up Marquise de Louvois and transported him to the Bastille, where the prisoner was kept in luxurious conditions. Fed with exquisite dishes, dressed in best clothes and carried out any order. Even the governor himself set his table. All this indicated that this prisoner came from a noble family.
Later, Voltaire mentioned the Iron Mask again in another of his books. He wrote that the prisoner wore this mask even in front of the doctor. And all because his facial features bore an amazing resemblance to some very famous person at court. And even later, Voltaire directly stated that the masked prisoner was the brother of Louis XIV. This version is one of the most popular, especially in cinema and literature.
Five most interesting versions:
The prisoner in the iron mask was the twin brother of Louis XIV.
Louis XIII They predicted that if he had twins, they would bring him misfortune and quick death. Therefore, when his two twin sons were born, he hid one of them away from home. When Louis XIV, already king, found out about his brother, he found him and imprisoned him forever, putting an iron mask on him so that no one would ever know their secret.
The prisoner in the iron mask was the older half-brother of Louis XIV.
According to this version, the masked man was the elder brother of the king, whom Anne of Austria gave birth to her lover, and not her legal husband, King Louis XIII. Fearing the wrath of her husband, Anna was forced to hide the baby.
The prisoner and Louis XIV are the sons of Anne of Austria, but not the king.
There is also a version according to which Louis XIV and the “man in the iron mask” were really brothers, maternal brothers. But none of them were the king's son. Consequently, neither one nor the other had legal rights to the throne. But if the father of the “man in the iron mask” was one of the many lovers of Anne of Austria, then the father of the future Louis XIV was Cardinal Mazarin. Using his influence at court, the cardinal could leave his son as the future king, and keep Anne of Austria's second child a secret.
The prisoner's Italian origin.
After his death, the mysterious prisoner was buried under the name Marchioli. In this regard, speculation arose about the possible Italian roots of the prisoner. Allegedly the prisoner's real name was Ercole Antonio Mattioli. And during burial, due to confusion in languages, they could have written it incorrectly. But the spy Mattioli really entered history. He first appeared at French court in 1678 and posed as a Spanish minister. Later, he pulled off a series of scams, tried to reveal the king’s state secrets, and was severely punished for this. He was put in prison and always had an iron mask on his face. However, this version has many controversial nuances.
Three prisoners in velvet masks.
The version that is most supported by facts.
On the island of St. Margaret, and then in the Bastille, as many as three prisoners were kept for almost thirty years, whose faces were covered with masks. True, they were velvet, not iron. One of them is truly the adventurer Mattioli. Second - Minister Nicolas Fouquet, who was imprisoned due to a conflict with the king. Due to his duty, he knew so many royal secrets that it was impossible to allow him contact with other people. Fouquet was so smart that he took insurance: in the event of his violent death, some state secrets would emerge from the hands of people loyal to Fouquet and would destroy the king. Therefore, Louis XIV was forced to leave the disgraced minister alive.
And finally, the third masked prisoner - Eustache Doge. It is believed that this was a priest who learned about Louis XIV's affair with Madame Montespan. For which he paid with freedom.
The events of November 20, 1703 still attract historians today. On this day, a prisoner was secretly buried in the cemetery near St. Paul's Church, who went by the name Iron Mask in the prison registry. Until now, researchers are speculating about what kind of personality was hidden behind the mask.
Charlotte Elisabeth of Bavaria d'Orléans
Rumors about the mysterious Iron Mask began to spread during the reign of Louis XIV, and they were spread by the widow of the Duke of Orleans, Charlotte Elizabeth of Bavaria. She claimed that for a number of years a strange prisoner in an iron mask was held in the Bastille and died.
Bastille
These rumors gave rise to many speculations about the identity of the prisoner, some suggested that he was an English lord who was involved in a conspiracy against the English king William III.
Louise de La Valliere
In 1745, the book “Secret Notes on the History of Persia” by an unknown author was published, which further concentrated rumors around the identity of the mysterious prisoner. The book talks about tragic fate the hero Giafer, who was the illegitimate son of Shah Abas, in whom the image of Louis XIV was recognizable. Giafer slapped his half-brother Sefi Mirza (Grand Dauphin) and was imprisoned for life in the Bastille as punishment.
Louise de La Vallière and her children from Louis XIV Mademoiselle de Blois and Count of Vermandois
If you believe the book, then the prisoner was the Count of Vermandois - the great French admiral - the illegitimate son of Louis XIV and his favorite Louise de La Vallière.
Anne of Austria, Maria Theresa and Dauphin Louis
The image of the Iron Mask troubled the minds of the great French. Thus, in 1751, Voltaire wrote the book “The Age of Louis XIV,” in which he reveals the story of a mysterious prisoner who was forced to wear an iron mask for the rest of his life. The book immediately became a bestseller. And only twenty years later Voltaire revealed the secret of the iron mask to readers. It turned out that under the mask was hidden the elder brother of Louis XIV, the son of Anne of Austria and her favorite. The Iron Mask became the main character in the works of J. Chancel de Lagrange, Seneca de Millan, A. Griffe, Abbot Papon, S. Lenge and others.
Voltaire
Voltaire, by revealing the secret of the Iron Mask, dealt a strong blow to the prestige of the royal family. And in 1775, by order of the Parisian minister Amelo, in order to conceal the secret, a special 120th sheet, which described the history of the prisoner’s admission to prison, was removed and destroyed from the Bastille. This fact further removed the mystery from being solved.
Cardinal Mazarin
At the end of the 18th century, a new version of the Iron Mask was born. According to her, there were twin brothers - the children of the Queen of France. The real son of Louis XIII was allegedly imprisoned in the fortress, and the throne was taken by the son of Anne of Austria and Cardinal Mazarin.
Napoleon Bonaparte
This assumption refuted the right of the Bourbon throne, starting with Louis XIV. This hypothesis suited the supporters of Napoleon Bonaparte, who claimed in 1801 that Napoleon was a descendant of the Iron Mask.
Storming of the Bastille
In 1789, the famous Taking of the Bastille took place, and then the archives of the prison were made public. It turned out that the man in the Iron Mask was brought to the Bastille by the governor of Saint-Mars from the island of Sainte-Marguerite, where he was in the company of eight other political criminals in the fortress of Pignerol. Saint-Mars at that time was the commandant of the Pignerol fortress and served under the command of Charles de Bas Castelmore (we recognize d'Artagnan).
Louis XIV
It turned out that the Iron Mask was one of these eight. The research process was further complicated by the fact that each of the prisoners was named not by name, but by a conventional nickname. It turned out that one of the eight was Count Lozen, who was later released.
Queen Maria Theresa of Austria
Throughout the 19th century, the issue of establishing the identity of the Iron Mask was studied by a whole team of scientists and historians, and interest in this topic did not wane in the 20th century. New works by A. Lang, M. Duvivier, J. Mongredien, playwright M. Pagnol. In 1970, books by P.-J. were published. Arreza "Iron Mask" Finally a solved riddle” and J.-C. Ptifis "Iron Mask - the most mysterious prisoner in history." The book by P.-M. became sensational. Dijols Nabo or the Iron Mask" in 1978. The author is convinced that the servant of Queen Maria Theresa, the Moor Nabo, was hiding under the mask.
The mystery of the Iron Mask has worried various writers for centuries: N. Karamzin, A. de Vigny, A.S. Pushkin, V. Hugo, A. Dumas the father, P. Moreau, A. Decaux, J. Bordoneva.
At different times, based on the same facts, writers and historians, librarians and scientists tried to defend completely different hypotheses, which confirmed that the mystery of the Iron Mask has not yet been solved.
Rice. 1. False Peter the First and my reading of the inscriptions on his portrait
I borrowed the portrait from a video film where the Announcer says: “ But in another of his engravings, 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 youth. However, in Dutch and German portraits of 1697, the same person looks more like 30 years old.
How could this happen?»
I begin an epigraphic analysis of this portrait. A hint as to where to look for certain inscriptions is provided by the two previous portraits. First I read the inscription on the brooch attached to the headdress, which says: MIM YAR RURIK. In other words, this is another priest of Yar Rurik, although there is no signature of KHARAON. It may very 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.
Then I read the inscriptions on the fur collar on the left, above the white frame: TEMPLE OF MARY YAR. I consider 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 MARY 865 YAR (YEAR). Moscow Mary meant Veliky Novgorod; however, already the first Romanov introduced real Christianity, and Patriarch Nikon under Alexei Mikhailovich eliminated all remnants of Russian Vedism from Muscovy. Consequently, Russian Vedists partly go to the Russian hinterland, partly move into the Russian diaspora in neighboring states. And the year 865 of Yar is 1721 AD , this is more than 70 years after Nikon’s reforms. By this time, the places of priests were no longer occupied by children, but by grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the priests removed by Nikon, and grandchildren and great-grandchildren often no longer speak the speech of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. But perhaps the year of the final design of this engraving, which was begun in 1698, is shown. But even in this case, the young man depicted is 6-8 years younger than Peter.
And on the very bottom fragment, under the frame on the fur collar on the left, I read the word MASK. Then I read the inscription on the fur collar on the right: the top of the collar, diagonally, contains the inscription ANATOLY FROM Rus' MARY, and the line below - 35 ARKONA YARA. But the 35th Arkona Yara is the same as Moscow Mary, this is Veliky Novgorod. In other words, one of the ancestors of this Anatoly in the middle of the 17th century could actually have been a 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 diligently followed all the decrees of the Pope.
Rice. 2. Portrait of Peter by an unknown artist of the late 18th century
So, we now know that the young man with bulging eyes was not Peter at all, but Anatoly; in other words, the replacement of the king was documented.
We see that this portrait was painted in Veliky Novgorod. But apart from the name of False Peter, this portrait did not bring any details, and, in addition, the artist was not even named, so this portrait was not entirely acceptable as an evidentiary document, which forced me to look for other canvases. And soon the desired portrait was found: “ Peter the Great, Emperor of All Russia, portrait of an unknown late artist18th century". Below I will show why the artist turned out to be unknown.
Epigraphic analysis of the second portrait of False Peter.
I chose this particular image of Peter, because on his silk baldric I read the word YARA at the bottom, deciding that the portrait belonged to the brush of the artist of their temple, Yara. And I was not mistaken. The letters were inscribed both in individual parts of the face and in the folds of clothing.
Rice. 3. My reading of the inscriptions on the portrait of Peter in Fig. 2
It is clear that if I suspected the presence of Russian inscriptions on the blue silk ribbon, then I started reading from there. True, since in direct color these letters are not visible in very contrasting, I switch to reverse color. And here you can see the inscription in very large letters: TEMPLE YAR, and on the collar there is an inscription MASK. This confirmed my preliminary reading. In modern reading this 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 at the viewer's point of view. On the lower strands of hair (I rotated this fragment 90 degrees to the right, clockwise). Here I read the words: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF RURIK. In other words, IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF RURIK .
On the hair above the forehead you can read the words: MIM OF THE TEMPLE OF RURIK. Finally, on the right from the viewer's point of view, on the left side of the face, one can read MASK OF ANATOLIUS FROM RURIK JAR JUTLAND. Firstly, it is confirmed that False Peter’s name was Anatoly, and, secondly, it turned out that he did not come from Holland, as many researchers assumed, but from neighboring Denmark. However, moving 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, Danish by birth and Dutch by language, he was an agent of Roman influence. For the umpteenth time, the final center of action against Rus'-Russia is Rome!
But is it possible to verify this statement? - I'm looking at the armor on 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 on the background in the form of fur you can read the words: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF ROME And RIMA MIM Rus' ROME. In other words, that before us is really an image not of the Emperor of Rus', but of a priest of Rome! And on the armor the arms can be read on every two plates: RIMA MIM. RIMA 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 back in the 18th century, and their priests, when creating portraits of deceased people (usually the priests of the Temple of Mary did this), usually wrote their titles, as well as names. This is exactly what we saw in this portrait. However, in a Christian country (where Christianity has 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.
Rice. 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 the “Great Embassy” section with interest. In particular, it said: “ His Grand Embassy, numbering 250 participants, left Moscow in March 1697. Peter became the first king to travel outside his kingdom. The official purpose of the embassy was to give new breath to the coalition against the Ottoman Empire. However, Peter made no 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 greatest surprise, he was not allowed to take measurements. In Courland (the current region of the coast of Lithuania and Latvia), Peter met with the Dutch ruler, Frederick Casimir. The prince tried to convince Peter to join his coalition against Sweden. In Königsberg, Peter visited the Friedrichsburg fortress. He took part in attending artillery courses, and graduated from them with a diploma certifying that “Pyotr Mikhailov gained proficiency as a bombardier and skills in the use of firearms».
The following describes 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 King William of EnglandIII. Nothing is known about their negotiations, except that they lasted two hours and ended in an amicable parting. At that time, the English navy was considered the fastest in the world. King William assured that Peter should visit the English naval shipyards, where he would learn to understand the design of ships, carry out measurements and calculations, and learn to use instruments and instruments. As soon as he arrived in England, he attempted to sail on the Thames» .
One gets the impression that it was in England that the best conditions existed for replacing Peter with Anatoly.
The same article published the death mask of Peter the Great. The signature underneath it reads: "DeathmaskofPeter. After 1725, St. Petersburg, from the original by Bartolomeo Rastrelli, after 1725, Bronze-tinted plaster. Case 34.5 x 29 x 33 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg." This one has death mask on my forehead I read the inscription in the form of a strand of hair: MIMA RUSI ROME MASK. She confirms that this image does not belong to the Russian Emperor Peter the Great, but to the Roman priest Anatoly.
Rice. 5. Miniature by an unknown artist and my reading of the inscriptions
Miniature by an unknown artist.
I found it at the address with the signature: “Peter the Great (1672 - 1725) of Russia. Enamel miniature portrait by an unknown artist, late 1790s. #Russian #history #Romanov”, Fig. 5.
Upon examination it can be stated that greatest number the inscriptions are on the background. I enhanced the miniature itself by contrast. To the left and above the head of the portrait I read the captions: RIMA RURIK YAR MARY TEMPLE AND ROME MIM AND ARKONA 30. In other words, it is now being clarified in which particular temple of Mary Rome the miniature was made: in the capital of the state of Rome, in the city a little to the west CAIRA .
To the left of my head, at hair level, I read the words in the background: MARY RUSI TEMPLE OF VAGRIA. Perhaps this is the address of the customer for the miniature. Finally, I read the writing on the character's face, on his left cheek (where the wart on the left side of the nose is missing), and here you can read the words below the shadow of the cheek: RIMA MIM ANATOLY RIMA YARA STOLITSY. So, the name Anatoly is once again confirmed, now written in rather large letters.
Rice. 6. A fragment of a picture from the Encyclopedia Britannica and my reading of the inscriptions
Picture of Peter from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Here I read the inscriptions on the fragment, where there is a bust portrait, fig. 6, although the full picture is much broader, Fig. 7. However, I singled out exactly the fragment and the size that suited me perfectly for epigraphic analysis.
The first inscription that I began to read was an image of a mustache. On them you can read the words: TEMPLE OF ROME MIMA, and then - continuation on the upper lip: RURIK, and then on the red part of the lip: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARA, and then on the lower lip: ANATOLIA ROME ARKONA 30. In other words, here we see confirmation of the previous inscriptions: again the name of Anatoly, and again its connection to the temple of Mary Rurik in the city near Cairo.
Then I read the inscription on the collar: 30 ARKONA YAR. And then I move on to look at the fragment to the left of Peter’s face, which I outlined with a black frame. Here I read the words: 30 ARKONA YAR, which has already been read. But then come new and surprising words: ANATOLIA MARY TEMPLE IN ANKARA ROME. What is surprising is not so much the existence of a special temple dedicated to Anatoly, but the location of such a temple in the capital of Turkey, Ankara. I have not yet read such words anywhere. Moreover, the word ANATOLY can be understood not only as a person’s proper name, but also as the name of a locality 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.
Rice. 7. Picture from Encyclopedia Britannica online
Wikipedia's opinion on the substitution of Peter the Great.
In the article “Double of Peter I,” Wikipedia, in particular, states: “ According to one version, the replacement of Peter I was organized by certain influential forces in Europe during the Tsar's trip to the Grand Embassy. It is alleged that of the Russian people who accompanied the Tsar on a diplomatic trip to Europe, only Alexander Menshikov returned - the rest are believed to have been killed. The purpose of this crime was to place a protege at the head of Russia, who pursued a policy beneficial to the organizers of the substitution and those who stood behind them. One of the possible goals of this substitution is considered to be the weakening of Russia».
Note that the history of the conspiracy to replace the Tsar of Rus' in this presentation is conveyed only from the side of facts, and, moreover, very vaguely. As if the Great Embassy itself had only the goal of creating a coalition against Ottoman Empire, and not the goal of replacing the real Romanov with his double.
« It is alleged that Peter I, according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, changed dramatically after returning from the Great Embassy. Portraits of the king before and after his return from Europe are given as evidence of the substitution. It is stated that in the portrait of Peter before his trip to Europe he had a long face, curly hair and a large wart under his left eye. In portraits of the king after his return from Europe, he had a round face, straight hair and no wart under his left eye. When Peter I returned from the Great Embassy, he was 28 years old, and in his portraits after his return he looked about 40 years old. It is believed that before the trip the king was of heavy build and above average height, but still not a two-meter giant. The king who returned was thin, had very narrow shoulders, and his height, which was absolutely established, was 2 meters 4 centimeters. So tall people were very rare at that time».
We see that the authors of these Wikipedia lines do not at all share the provisions that they present to the reader, although these provisions are facts. How can you not notice such dramatic changes in appearance? Thus, Wikipedia tries to present obvious points with some speculation, something like this: “ it is stated that two times two equals four" The fact that the person who arrived from the embassy was different can be seen by comparing any of the portraits in Fig. 1-7 with a portrait of the departed king, fig. 8.
Rice. 8. Portrait of the departed Tsar Peter the Great and my reading of the inscriptions
To the dissimilarity of facial features can be added 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 is signed as Anatoly. Although both were mimes (priests) of the temple of Rurik in Rome.
I will continue quoting Wikipedia: “ According to conspiracy theorists, soon after the double’s arrival in Russia, rumors began to spread among the Streltsy that the tsar was not real. Peter's sister Sophia, realizing that an impostor had come instead of her brother, led the Streltsy riot, which was brutally suppressed, and Sophia was imprisoned in a monastery».
Note that in in this case The motive for the uprising of the Streltsy and Sophia turns out to be extremely serious, while the motive for the struggle between Sophia and her brother for the throne in a country where only men have reigned until now (the usual motive of academic historiography) seems 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 Tsar returned from Europe, on his orders, Lopukhina was forcibly sent to the Suzdal monastery, even against the will of the clergy (it is alleged that Peter did not even see her and did not explain the reasons for Lopukhina’s imprisonment in the monastery).
It is believed that after his return, Peter did not recognize his relatives and subsequently did not meet with them or his inner circle. In 1698, shortly after Peter’s return from Europe, his associates Lefort and Gordon died suddenly. According to conspiracy theorists, it was on their initiative that Peter went to Europe».
It is unclear why Wikipedia calls this concept a conspiracy theory. According to a 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 the Second. In other words, the West has repeatedly intervened in the fate of Russian sovereigns.
« Proponents of the conspiracy theory claim that the returning king was sick with tropical fever in a chronic form, while it can only be contracted in southern waters, and even then only after being in the jungle. The route of the Great Embassy passed along the northern sea route. The surviving documents of the Grand Embassy do not mention that the constable Pyotr Mikhailov (under this name the tsar went with the embassy) fell ill with a fever, while for the people accompanying him it was no secret who Mikhailov really was. After returning from the Grand Embassy, Peter I demonstrated during naval battles great experience boarding combat, having specific features, which can only be mastered through experience. Boarding combat skills require direct participation in many boarding battles. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I did not take part in naval 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».
It follows from this that Anatoly was a naval officer who took part in the naval battles of the southern seas and suffered from tropical fever.
« It is alleged that the returning Tsar spoke Russian poorly, that he did not learn 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 his piety, and when he returned, he stopped fasting and 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 possessed, and at the same time acquired skills of a simple craftsman. According to conspiracy theorists, there is a striking change in Peter’s character and psyche after his return».
Again, there are clear 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 class, but even to the noble class, being a typical representative of the third class. In addition, there is no mention of the fact 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, having returned from Europe, did not know about the location of the richest library of Ivan the Terrible, although the secret of the location of this library was passed from tsar to tsar. Thus, Princess Sophia allegedly knew where the library was located and visited it, and Peter, who came from Europe, repeatedly made attempts to find the library and even organized excavations».
Again, a specific fact is presented by Wikipedia as some “statements”.
« His behavior and actions are cited as evidence of Peter’s substitution (in particular, the fact that previously the tsar, who preferred traditionally Russian clothes, after returning from Europe no longer wore them, including royal clothes with a crown - conspiracy theorists explain the latter fact by the fact that the impostor was taller than Peter and had narrower shoulders, and the king’s things did not fit him in size), as well as the reforms he carried out. It is argued that these reforms have brought much more harm to Russia than good. Peter’s tightening of serfdom, the persecution of Old Believers, and the fact that under Peter I in Russia there were many foreigners in the service and in various positions are used as evidence. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I set as his goal to expand the territory of Russia, including moving south towards the Black and Mediterranean Seas. One of the main goals of the Grand Embassy was to achieve an alliance of European powers against Turkey. While the returning king began the struggle to take possession of the Baltic coast. The war waged by the Tsar with Sweden, according to supporters of the conspiracy theory, was needed by Western states, who wanted to crush the growing power of Sweden with the hands of Russia. It is alleged that Peter I carried out 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 with Turkey was a more important strategic task for Russia than the fight on the Baltic coast. And Wikipedia’s mention of Denmark is consistent with the inscription on one of the portraits that Anatoly was from Jutland.
« As evidence, the case of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich is also cited, who in 1716 fled abroad, where he planned to wait on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire for the death of Peter (who was seriously ill during this period) and then, relying on the help of the Austrians, to become the Russian Tsar. According to supporters of the version of the replacement 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 impostor’s agents told Alexei that after his return he would be able to take the throne himself, since loyal troops were waiting for him in Russia, ready to support his rise to power. Returning Alexey Petrovich, according to conspiracy theorists, was killed on the orders of the impostor».
And this version turns out to be more serious compared to the academic version, where the son opposes his father for ideological reasons, and the father, without putting his son under house arrest, immediately applies capital punishment. All this in the academic version looks unconvincing.
Version by Gleb Nosovsky.
Wikipedia also presents the version of the new chronologists. " According to Gleb Nosovsky, initially he heard many times about the version of Peter’s substitution, but never believed 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. By examining the signs placed on the throne of Ivan the Terrible, Nosovsky and Fomenko found that the actual date of his birth differs from the official version by four years.
The authors of the “New Chronology” compiled a table of the names of Russian tsars and their birthdays, and thanks to this table they found out that the official birthday of Peter I (May 30) does not coincide with the day of his angel, which is a noticeable contradiction in comparison with all the names of Russian tsars. After all, names in Rus' during 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. Based on the table, Nosovsky and Fomenko found out that the real name, which falls on the official date of birth of Peter I, was “Isaky.” This explains the name of the main cathedral. Tsarist Russia Isaakievsky.
Nosovsky believes that Russian historian Pavel Miliukov also shared the opinion that the tsar was a forgery in an article in the encyclopedia of Brockhausa and Evfron Miliukov, according to Nosovsky, without directly stating, he repeatedly hinted that Peter I was an impostor. The replacement of the tsar by an impostor was carried out, according to Nosovsky, by a certain group of Germans, and together with the double, a group of foreigners came to Russia. According to Nosovsky, among Peter’s contemporaries there were very widespread rumors about the replacement of the tsar, and almost all the archers claimed that the tsar was a fake. Nosovsky believes that May 30 was actually the birthday not of Peter, but of the impostor who replaced him, on whose orders the building was built. Saint Isaac's Cathedral named after him».
The name “Anatoly” we discovered does not contradict this version, because the name “Anatoly” was a monastic name, and not given at birth. - As we see, the “new chronologists” have added another touch to the portrait of the impostor.
Historiography of Peter.
It would seem that it would be easier to look at the biographies of Peter the Great, preferably during 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 Peter's non-Russian origin. He was called the Antichrist, the German foundling. The difference between Tsar Alexei and his son was so striking that suspicions about Peter’s non-Russian origin arose among many historians. Especially official version Peter's origin was too unconvincing. She left and leaves more questions than answers. Many researchers have tried to lift the veil of strange reticence about the Peter the Great phenomenon. However, all these attempts immediately fell under the strictest taboo of the ruling house of the Romanovs. The phenomenon of Peter remained unsolved».
So, the people unequivocally asserted that Peter had been replaced. Doubts arose not only among the people, but even among historians. And then we read with surprise: “ Incomprehensibly, until the mid-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 wonderful Russian historian Nikolai Gerasimovich Ustryalov, already mentioned by us. In the Introduction to his work "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 became eager to obtain the history of his reign and entrusted this honorable mission to the translator of the Ambassadorial Order Venedikt Schiling. The latter was given all necessary materials and archives, but... the work was never published, not a single sheet of the manuscript has survived. What follows 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. They decided to carry out his ideaFeofan Prokopovich , Bishop of Pskov, and teacher of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich,Baron Huysen . Official materials were communicated to both, as can be seen from Feofan’s work, and as even more evidenced by the Emperor’s own handwritten note of 1714, preserved in his cabinet files: “Give all the journals to Giesen.”(1). It would seem that now the History of Peter I will finally be published. But it was not there: “A skilled preacher, a learned theologian, Theophan was not a historian at all... That is why, when describing battles, he fell into inevitable mistakes; Moreover, he worked with obvious haste, a quick fix, made omissions that I wanted to fill in later". As we see, Peter’s choice was unsuccessful: Theophan was not a historian and did not understand anything. Huysen's work also turned out to be unsatisfactory and was not published: “Baron Huysen, having in his hands authentic journals of campaigns and travels, limited himself to extracts from them until 1715, without any connection, entangling historical events a lot of little things and extraneous matters".
In a word, neither this biography nor the subsequent ones took place. And the author comes to the following conclusion: “ Strict censorship of all historical research continued into the 19th century. So the work of N.G. himself Ustryalov, which is the first scientific historiography of Peter I, was subjected to severe censorship. From the 10-volume edition, only individual excerpts from 4 volumes have survived! Last time this fundamental study about Peter I (1, 2, 3 volumes, part of the 4th volume, 6 volumes) was published in a truncated version only in 1863! Today it is virtually lost and is preserved only in antique collections. The same fate befell the work of I.I. Golikov’s “Acts of Peter the Great,” which has not been republished since the century before last! Notes from the associate and personal turner of Peter I A.K. Nartov’s “Reliable narratives and speeches of Peter the Great” were first opened and published only in 1819. At the same time, with a meager circulation in the little-known magazine “Son of the Fatherland”. But even that edition underwent unprecedented editing, when out of 162 stories only 74 were published. This work was never 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 an empire of non-Russian tsars. And in Chapter IX, entitled “How the royal dynasty was slaughtered under Peter,” he describes the position of Stepan Razin’s troops 12 miles near Moscow. And he describes many other interesting, but practically unknown events. However, he does not provide any more information about False Peter.
Other opinions.
Again I will continue to quote the already mentioned Wikipedia article: “It is alleged that Peter’s double was an experienced sailor who participated in many naval battles, sailed a lot in 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. It is most often mentioned that the real name of the double was Isaac (according to one version, his name was Isaac Andre). According to Baida, the double was from either 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 he was the famous prisoner who went down in history under the name 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 Grand Embassy). It is stated that Iron Mask was tall, carried himself with dignity, and was treated fairly well. 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 claimed that the real Peter was actually deceived into going to Europe so that some foreign forces could force him to subsequently pursue the policies they wanted. Without 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, Charles 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 captured again and hidden away from Russia - imprisoned in the Bastille, where he later died. According to this version, the conspirators kept Peter alive, hoping to use him for their own purposes.
Baida's version can be verified by examining the engravings of that time.
Rice. 9. Prisoner in an iron mask (illustration from Wikipedia)
Iron mask.
Wikipedia writes about this prisoner: “ Iron Mask (fr. Le masque de fer. Born around 1640, d. November 19, 1703) - a mysterious prisoner numbered 64389000 from the time of Louis XIV, held in various prisons, including (from 1698) the Bastille, and wore a velvet mask (later legends turned this mask into an iron one)».
Suspicions regarding the prisoner were as follows: “ Duke of Vermandois, illegitimate son of Louis XIV and Louise de La Vallière, who allegedly slapped his half-brother, the Grand Dauphin, and atoned for this guilt with eternal imprisonment. The version is implausible, since the real Louis of Bourbon died back in 1683, at the age of 16", according to Voltaire - " Iron Mask" was the twin brother of Louis XIV. Subsequently, dozens of different hypotheses were expressed about this prisoner and the reasons for his imprisonment.", some Dutch writers suggested that " The Iron Mask is a foreigner, a young nobleman, chamberlain to Queen Anne of Austria and the real father of Louis XIV. Lagrange-Chancel tried to prove in "L'année littéraire"(1759) that the Iron Mask was none other than Duke François de Beaufort, which was completely refutedN. Aulairein his "Histoire de la fronte" Reliable information about the “iron mask” was first given by the Jesuit Griffet, who was confessor in the Bastille for 9 years, in his “Traité des différentes sortes de preuves qui servent à établir la verité dans l’Histoire" (1769), where he gives the diary of Dujoncas, the royal lieutenant at the Bastille, and the list of the dead of the church of St. Paul. According to this diary, on September 19, 1698, a prisoner was delivered 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 method of verification is epigraphic. In Fig. 9 shows " Prisoner in an iron mask in an anonymous engraving from the French Revolution"(same Wikipedia article). I decided to read the signature on the central character, fig. 10, slightly increasing the size of this fragment.
Rice. 10. My reading of the inscriptions on the image of the “Iron Mask”
I read the inscriptions on the wall above the prisoner's bunk, starting from the 4th row of stonework above the sheet. And gradually moving from one row to another, lower one: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARA Rus' RURIK YAR THE SCYTHES MIMA OF THE WORLD MARA OF MOSCOW Rus' AND 35 ARKONA YAR. In other words, IMAGE OF A SCYTHIAN PRIEST OF THE TEMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN GODDESS MARA RURIK YAR WORLD MARA OF MOSCOW Rus' 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 Arkona Yar.
But the most interesting inscription is on a row of stonework at the level of the prisoner's head. On the left, its fragment is very small in size, and having enlarged it 15 times, I read the words as a continuation of the previous inscription: KHARAON YAR OF Rus' YAR OF RURIK TSAR, and then I read the inscription in large letters to the left of the head: PETRA ALEXEEVA, and to the right of the head - MIMA YARA.
So, the confirmation that the prisoner “Iron Mask” was Peter the Great is obvious. True, the question may arise - why? PETER ALEXEEV , but not PETER ALEXEEVICH ? But the tsar pretended to be the artisan Pyotr Mikhailov, and the people of the third estate were called something like the Bulgarians now: not Pyotr Alekseevich Mikhailov, but Pyotr Alekseev Mikhailov.
Thus, Dmitry Baida’s version found epigraphic confirmation.
Rice. 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 urban glyph of Ankara, that is, the view of this city from a certain height. To complete this task, you can turn to Google’s “Planet Earth” program. The view of the city from above is called an urbanoglyph. In this case, a screenshot with the urban glyph of Ankara is shown in Fig. eleven.
It should be noted that the image turned out to be low-contrast, which is explained by satellite photography through the entire thickness of the atmosphere. But even in this case, it is clear that on the left and above the inscriptions: “Ankara” the building blocks form the face of a mustachioed and bearded man in left profile. And to the left (to the west) of this person there are not entirely orderly blocks of buildings that form an area called “Yenimahalle”.
Rice. 12. Urbanoglyph of part of Ankara from a height of 8.5 km
I was just interested in these two objects. I isolated them from an altitude 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” is gone completely, and only the last half of the inscription: “Yenimahalle” remains.
But you can understand that where no system was visible from a height of 15 km, now letters are visible from a height of 8.5 km. I read these letters on the decoding field, fig. 13. So, above the fragment of the word “Yenimahalle” I read the letter X of the word TEMPLE, and the letters “X” and “P” are superimposed on each other, forming a ligature. And just below I read the word ANATOLY, so that both read words form the desired phrase TEMPLE ANATOLIA . So such a temple really existed in Ankara.
However, the inscriptions of the Ankara urban glyph do not end there. The word “Anatolia” is superimposed with the digits of the number “ 20 ", and below you can read the words: YARA ARKONA. So Ankara was precisely the secondary Arkona of Yar No. 20. And even lower I read the words: YAR 33. In terms of our usual chronology, they form the date: 889 A.D. . Most likely, they indicate the date of construction of the Temple of Anatolia in Ankara.
It turns out that the name “Anatoly” is not the proper name of False Peter, but the name of the temple in which he was trained. By the way, S.A. Sall, having read my article, suggested that the name Anatoly is associated with Turkey, with its Anatolia. I found this assumption quite plausible. However, now, in the course of epigraphic analysis, it has become clear 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 made more concrete.
It is clear that it was not the Temple of Anatolia that received its name from the monastic name of False Peter, but, on the contrary, the monk and executor of the will of the Orange family received his agent code name from the name of this temple.
Rice. 13. My reading of the inscriptions on the urban glyph of Ankara
Discussion.
It is clear that such a historical act (more precisely, an atrocity) as the replacement of the Russian Tsar of the Romanov dynasty requires comprehensive consideration. I tried to make my 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 the False Peter. I think I was able 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 we can clarify the years of his life: he was born on May 30, 1672, and died not on January 28, 1725, but on November 19, 1703. - So the last Tsar of All Rus' (since 1682) lived not 53 years, but only 31 years.
Since the Grand Embassy began in March 1697, it is most likely that Peter was captured somewhere at the end of 1697, then he was transferred from prison to prison until he ended up in the Bastille on September 19, 1698. However, he could have been captured in 1898. He spent 5 years and exactly 1 month in the Bastille. So what we have before us is not just another “conspiracy” invention, but the West using the chance to replace the Tsar of Muscovy, who did not understand the danger of secretly visiting Western countries. Of course, if the visit had been official, replacing the tsar would have been much more difficult.
As for False Peter, it was possible to understand that he was not only a protege of Rome (moreover, the real one, near Cairo, and not the nominal one, in Italy), but also received the agent name “Anatoly” after the name of the Anatoly Temple in Ankara. If at 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 around 1658, and died on January 28, 1725, having lived 67 years, approximately twice as old as Peter.
The falsity of Anatoly as Peter is confirmed by five portraits, both in the form of canvases and in the form of a death mask and miniature. It turns out that the artists and sculptors knew very well who they were depicting, so the substitution of Peter was an open secret. And it turns out that with the accession of Anatoly, the Romanov dynasty was interrupted not only in the female line (for after arriving in Russia, Anatoly married a low-class Baltic woman), but also in 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 Soviet power, which lasted from November 1917 to August 1991, that is, 77 years. But whose dynasty was established from 1703 to 1917, a period of 214 years, remains to be seen.
And from the fact that many of Anatoly’s portraits mention the temples of Mary Rurik, it follows that these temples successfully existed both in Europe and in the Ottoman Empire, and in Egypt back in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. AD so the real attack on the temples of Rurik could only begin after the accession of Anatoly to Rus', who became the persecutor of not only Russian Vedism, but also Russian Christian orthodoxy of the Byzantine model. Occupying the royal throne gave him the opportunity not only to attack Russian traditions and weaken the Russian people in an economic sense, but also to strengthen Western states at the expense of Russia.
Particular findings of this epigraphic research were the discovery of the Temple of Anatolia 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 adding to it, Fig. 15.
Rice. 14. Updated 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 Peter’s Great Embassy to Western countries was prepared in advance by Lefort and other acquaintances of Peter, but as one of the possible scenarios and not at all with the goal of overthrowing the Tsar and replacing him with another person, but for involvement in 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 differently from what diplomatic protocol required. Most likely, other circumstances arose that made it easier for Peter to be captured. For example, the scattering of part of the retinue for various reasons: some to taverns, some to girls, some to doctors, some to resorts. And when, instead of 250 courtiers and guards, only about two dozen people from the retinue remained, the capture of the royal person became not too difficult. It is quite possible that Peter’s intractability and adherence to principles on political and religious issues pushed the monarchs who received him to take the most decisive actions. But for now this is only speculation.
And only one thing can be considered as a proven fact: Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille as an “Iron Mask,” and Anatoly began to commit outrages 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 other details must be found out from other sources.
Literature.
- Chudinov V.A. About St. Petersburg according to Sally's statements..
- Vakolyuk Yarik. Nevsky Gate (2015). September 2, 2015.
It’s very good that there are so many caring people on VO, and they very often suggest what to write about. For example, after the material about the IF castle, many wanted to learn more about the mythical Iron Mask and the castle on the island of Sainte-Marguerite, in which he was kept based on Dumas’ novel “The Vicomte de Bragelonne or Ten Years Later.” And it turns out that it is possible (and should be told) about all this! Through various ingenious calculations, it seems that it was possible to establish that this same prisoner was born around 1640, and died on November 19, 1703. Under number 64389000, he was kept in various prisons, including (from 1698) the Bastille, and he was kept there wearing a velvet mask (and only in later legends did it turn into an iron one).
The best version of the “iron mask” from the 1962 film of the same name with Jean Marais in the role of D’Artagnan.
This mysterious man was first written about in the book “Secret Notes on the History of the Persian Court”, published in Amsterdam in 1745 - 1746, and it was there that it was reported that the “Iron Mask” was the Duke of Vermandois, the son of King Louis XIV and his mistress Louise de La Vallière, who was imprisoned for slapping the Dauphin. However, this story is completely implausible, since the real Louis of Bourbon died in 1683, when he was 16 years old.
1962 film: Cardinal Mazarin instructs D'Artagnan to bring a prisoner from the island of Sainte-Marguerite to replace the seriously ill king of France.
Then the great Voltaire had a hand in the drama of The Iron Mask. In his essay “The Age of Louis XIV” (1751), he was the first to write that the “Iron Mask” was none other than the twin brother of Louis XIV, absolutely similar to him, and therefore very dangerous as a possible usurper.
A prisoner in an iron mask in an anonymous engraving from the time of the French Revolution.
Dutch writers, who had no love for France and tried to cast a shadow on its kings at every opportunity, declared that the “Iron Mask” was... the chamberlain and lover of Queen Anne of Austria and therefore the real Pope of Louis XIV. Then the Jesuit Griffe, who served as confessor in the Bastille fortress for nine years, spoke about the “Iron Mask”, and in 1769 published an essay in which he cited the diary of the royal lieutenant of the Bastille, according to which on September 19, 1698, a prisoner was brought here from the island of St. Margaret in a sedan chair, whose the name was unknown, and the face was covered with a black velvet (but not iron) mask.
And here it is, the island - everything is exactly like in the movies!
He died on November 19, 1703. Well, as for Voltaire, in his “Philosophical Dictionary” in an article about Anne of Austria, he wrote that he knew more than Griffe knew, but since he was French, he was forced to remain silent.
Why in the 1929 movie “The Iron Mask” did they cover the prisoner’s entire head with this same mask? How to scratch it?
That is, this was the eldest, but illegitimate son of Anna of Austria, and that, supposedly, the confidence in her infertility by the birth of this child was refuted; but then she gave birth to Louis XIV from her legal husband, and Louis XIV, having reached adulthood, found out about all this and ordered his brother to be imprisoned in a fortress. Immediately, insinuations worthy of Dumas himself appeared: “The Iron Mask” is the son of the Duke of Buckingham, the “Iron Mask” is the fruit of the marriage of Anne of Austria with Cardinal Mazarin, the “child of love” from the captain of the cardinal’s guard Doge de Cavoye, Prince of Condé, and so on, and everything like that.
From film to film the mask became more and more terrible...
Abbot Suliavi also claimed in 1790 that the “Iron Mask” was the twin brother of Louis XIV, whom Louis XIII ordered to be raised in secret so that the misfortunes predicted for him associated with the birth of twins would not come true. Well, after the death of Cardinal Mazarin, Louis XIV found out everything, but ordered his brother to be imprisoned, and besides, because of their striking similarity, he ordered him to wear a mask. During the Great french revolution this point of view was generally accepted and it was on its basis that A. Dumas wrote his novel.
And even scarier... and stupider!
There is information that the prisoner in the black velvet mask was listed under the name Mattioli in the Bastille lists. And it seems that it was the adventurer Antonio Mattioli, who in 1678 promised Louis XIV to surrender the Casale fortress with the help of treachery. For this dark deed, he supposedly received 100,000 crowns, but then revealed this secret to Savoy, Spain and Austria simultaneously. For this he was caught and first kept on the island of Sainte-Marguerite, and then transferred to the Bastille. This assumption was supported by most historians of the late 19th century.
Plan of Fort Royal from 1775.
Then the cryptanalyst Etienne Bazery deciphered a certain document, on the basis of which he concluded that the unfortunate prisoner in the mask was General Vivien de Bulonde, but there was also such a point of view that the “Iron Mask” was the nobleman Armoise, who in 1672 in the Spanish Netherlands plotted against Louis XIV, but was captured in 1673 and imprisoned in the Bastille.
Watchtower and carronade of Fort Royal.
But there were also such versions, well, simply of a clearly fantastic nature. For example, the “Iron Mask” was identified with the disgraced superintendent Nicolas Fouquet, the guilty minister of Louis XIV, who actually died in Pignerol, or the English Duke of Monmouth, who rebelled against King James II and was then executed in 1685.
View of Fort Royal from the sea.
There is also a version, quite worthy of the pen of Bushkov and some authors here at VO, that this is how the enemies of Russia hid the real Tsar Peter I, who went to Europe with the “Grand Embassy”, and was replaced, and in his place came to Russia someone sent by the Jesuits or Freemasons an impostor hostile to everything Russian.
Fort wall.
In 1963, Charles Benecroute, a French historian, “gave birth” to another version: in his opinion, the “Iron Mask” was none other than Cardinal Mazarin himself. They say it was like this: in 1614, a 12-year-old albino native was taken from Polynesia to France, who was like two peas in a pod like Cardinal Mazarin. This similarity was noticed by the Duke de Gaulle in 1655. He decided to replace Mazarin with a native, and he did it just fine. The native took the place of the first minister (that’s how he “takes” some!) under Louis XIV, and the “iron mask” was put on Mazarin himself.
Gate to the fort.
In 1976, the Soviet researcher Yu. Tatarinov expressed his assumption that there were several “iron masks”: first it was the ex-minister Fouquet, then the loser Mattioli and the same Estache Doget. In any case, all these people were then taken to the island of Sainte-Marguerite - the largest of the Lérins Islands, which is located just a kilometer from the famous city of Cannes on the French Riviera. This island itself stretches from east to west for 3 km, and its width is only 900 m. It is on this piece of land that the main tourist site of the island stands - Fort Royal, a fort and at the same time a prison, where the famous “Iron Mask” and where he threw plates out the window calling for help.
Camera of the Iron Mask.
At first, that is, back in the days Ancient Rome, the island was called Lero. Then the crusaders, setting off for the Holy Land, built a chapel on it in honor of St. Margaret of Antioch. In the 14th century, a certain Raymond Feraud invented that Saint Margaret lived on this island, leading a community of virgin nuns on it.
Church of St. Margaret. Here the prisoner prayed and confessed.
But already in 1612, Claude de Laurent, Duke of Chevreuse, began to own the island. And soon Fort Royal was built on it. In 1635 the Spaniards captured the island, but two years later the French drove them away. Then, just like the Château d'If, Fort Royal became a royal prison, but during the 18th century, the local settlement of Sainte-Margaret grew and grew, as it had to serve the garrison located on the island.
Maritime Museum with the Iron Mask camera.
On the eve of World War II, two concrete pillboxes were built on the island of Sainte-Marguerite to defend the island.
Today, the entire island of Sainte-Marguerite is overgrown with a dense forest of eucalyptus and pine trees. In the village on the island there are about twenty buildings, designed primarily to serve tourists. Well, in the fort itself there is a Maritime Museum, where you can see finds discovered on sunken Roman and Arab ships, and where it is open to tourists former cameras, and, of course, the chamber of the “Iron Mask” and the Roman tanks in which the Romans kept freshly caught fish. For lovers of war memorials, there is a small cemetery of French soldiers who participated. Crimean War, and also a cemetery for North African soldiers who fought for France during the Second World War. There is also a small estate there that belongs to Vijaya Mallya, an Indian millionaire and owner of the Formula 1 Force India team. Well, he’s such an eccentric fellow that he wanted to have a villa there for himself, but that’s all the attractions there are.