Reading time: 8 min

Peter I is a great Russian emperor and an incredibly attractive and creative person, so interesting facts from the biography of the tsar of the Romanov dynasty will be of interest to everyone. I will try to tell you something that is definitely impossible to find in any school textbooks.

Peter the Great, according to the new style, was born on June 8, according to the sign of the zodiac - twins. It is not surprising that it was Peter the Great who became the innovator for the conservative Russian Empire. Gemini is an air sign that is characterized by ease of decision-making, a sharp mind and amazing imagination. Only the "horizon of expectation" usually does not justify itself: the rough reality is too different from blue dreams.

An unusual fact about the character of Peter the Great

According to the calculations of the square of Pythagoras, the character of Peter 1 consists of three units, which means that the emperor was distinguished by a calm character. It is believed that it is a person with three or four units that is most suitable for working in government structures.

For example, a person with one or five, six units has a despotic character and is ready to “go over their heads” for the sake of power. So, Peter the Great had all the prerequisites for occupying the royal throne.

Is it an heir?

There is an opinion that Peter the Great is not the native son of Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov. The fact is that the future emperor was distinguished by strong health, unlike his brother Fedor and sister Natalia. But this is only an assumption. But the birth of Peter was predicted by Simeon of Polotsk, he informed the sovereign that he would soon have a son who would go down in Russian history as a great ruler!

But the wife of the Emperor Catherine I was of peasant origin. By the way, this is the first woman who was aware of all state affairs. Peter discussed everything with her and listened to any advice.

Innovator

Peter the Great introduced many new ideas into Russian life.

• While traveling in Holland, I noticed that skating is much more convenient if they are not tied to shoes, but are attached tightly to special boots.

• In order for the soldiers not to confuse right and left, Peter I ordered hay to be tied to the left leg, and straw to the right. During drill training, the commander, instead of the usual "right - left", commanded "hay - straw". By the way, only educated people used to be able to distinguish between right and left.
• Peter intensively fought against drunkenness, especially among the courtiers. In order to completely eradicate the disease, he came up with his own system: to give out iron, seven-kilogram medals for each spree. Such an award was hung around the neck in the police station and it was necessary to walk with it for at least 7 days! It was impossible to take pictures on your own, and it was dangerous to ask someone else.
• Peter I was impressed by the beauty of overseas tulips; he brought flower bulbs from Holland to Russia in 1702.

Peter I's favorite pastime is dentistry, with such interest he pulled out bad teeth from everyone who just asked. But sometimes he got so carried away that he could vomit healthy ones too!

Substitution of Peter I

The most unusual and interesting fact in Russian history. Researchers A. Fomenko and G. Nosovsky argue that the fact of substitution was and provide strong evidence to confirm. In those days, the names of the future heirs to the throne were given in accordance with the day of the angel of the Orthodox canons, and this is where the discrepancy opened up: the birthday of Peter the Great falls on the name Isakiy.

Peter the Great from his youth was distinguished by his love for everything Russian: he wore a traditional caftan. But after a two-year stay in Europe, the sovereign began to wear exclusively fashionable European clothes and never again put on his once beloved Russian caftan.

• Researchers claim that the impostor who returned from distant countries had a body structure that was different from Peter the Great. The impostor was taller and thinner. It is believed that Peter 1 actually wasn’t two meters tall before, this is logical, because his father’s height was 170 cm, his grandfather’s was 167. And the king who came from Europe was 204 cm. Therefore, there is a version that the impostor did not wear favorite clothes of the king due to size discrepancies.
• Peter I had a mole on his nose, but after his stay in Europe, the mole mysteriously disappeared, this is confirmed by numerous portraits of the sovereign.
• When Peter returned from a trip abroad, he did not know where the oldest library of Ivan the Terrible was located, although the secret of its location was inherited. Princess Sophia constantly visited her, and the new Peter could not find a repository of rare editions.
• When Peter returned from Europe, his companions consisted of the Dutch, although when the tsar was just setting off on his journey, there was a Russian embassy with him, consisting of 20 people. Where did the 20 Russian subjects go during the two years of the tsar's stay in Europe remains a mystery.
• After arriving in Russia, Peter the Great tried to bypass his relatives and associates, and then got rid of everyone in various ways.

It was the archers who announced that the returned Peter was an impostor! And staged a riot, which was brutally suppressed. This is very strange, because only close associates of the king were selected for the archery troops, the title of archer was inherited with the confirmation of the king.

Therefore, each of these people was clearly dear to Peter the Great before his trip to Europe, and now he suppressed the uprising in the most cruel way, according to historical data, 20 thousand people were killed. After that, the army was completely reorganized.

In addition, while in London, Peter the Great imprisoned his wife Lopukhina in a monastery without announcing the reason and married a peasant woman, Marta Samuilovna Skavronskaya-Kruse, who in the future would become Empress Catherine I.

The researchers note that the calm and fair Peter the Great became a real despot after returning from a foreign campaign.

All his orders were aimed at the destruction of Russian heritage: Russian history was rewritten by German professors, many Russian chronicles disappeared without a trace, a new chronology system was introduced, the usual measures of measurement were abolished, repressions against the clergy, the eradication of Orthodoxy, the distribution of alcohol, tobacco and coffee, a ban on cultivation of medicinal amaranth and much more.

Whether this is really so, one can only guess, all the historical documents of those times that we have cannot be considered valid, because. Everything has been rewritten many times. It remains only to guess and assume, you can also watch a film on this topic.

In any case, Peter I is a significant personality in Russian history.

I promised to write this article to my longtime readers (on various resources of the World Wide Web) a long time ago. So I apologize for making you wait. But, firstly, I wanted to properly recall the events of our distant history in order to back up my words with weighty arguments. Secondly, after my condemnation of the personality of Peter and good reviews about Lenin, one of the readers ordered an article comparing these two, in any case, great historical figures.

I'm a little disappointed in advance. Comparison in its pure form will not work, because how can you compare the incomparable? Too different historical eras, different levels of development of technology and knowledge, and finally - completely different thinking.

And, perhaps, the most important thing. The reader asked me to compare specifically, they say, Peter gave the country something, Lenin - something. However, if Peter managed to hold out at the state helm for almost 40 years (considering that he began to rule on his own since 1689, having eliminated his half-sister Sophia, at the same time, he was officially king already at the age of 10, i.e. in 1682- m), then the reign of Vladimir Ilyich, as you know, was short (1917-1923), where the years from the end of 1917 until 1922 were spent on collecting Russian lands (under the new name of the USSR). In other words, fate simply did not give the first head of the Soviet government time to do something.

And yet, I will take the liberty of “at the request of the working people” to draw some parallels. But I will not compare the activities of Peter and Lenin in their pure form, but the time of Peter the Great and the time of the formation of Soviet power (ie, the Lenin-Stalin period). I think that it would be more correct, because. unlike Peter's reforms, the Soviet reforms required not one, but two generations of rulers.

From "medieval" Russia to "new" Russia

Again, among the reader's responses in response to my condemnation of Tsar Peter I, there was such a statement: they say, thanks to him, Russia from the Middle Ages "jumped" into the New Age (well, something like that, I'm sorry, if I don't accurately convey).

I hope no one will argue that the very concepts of "Middle Ages" and "New Time" are very arbitrary? What do you propose to take as a starting point in order to determine that before such and such a year there was the "Middle Ages", and then - already the "New Time"? - What indicators - technical, public? ..

Let's start with the technical ones. Let us take as a starting point the appearance in the army of one or another power of firearms. And what will we get? - Yes, roughly speaking (according to the generally accepted chronology, which, by the way, is also very, very conditional), the XIV century. And in Russia too. Let's remember that "mattresses" (such primitive cannons) appeared on the walls of the still white-stone Kremlin, i.e. under Dmitry Donskoy.

Well, this is already too much, “mattresses” were only in the Moscow Kremlin, therefore, they are not an indicator for the whole country. Let's take as a starting point the creation of the first regular army with uniform uniforms and firearms. In the case of Russia, this is the archery army, which, as you know, appeared with us under Ivan the Terrible (it is believed that in 1550 from the first three thousand archers).

Looking ahead, I will say that PeterI, undoubtedly, greatly modified the army, but NOT TECHNICALLY, but organizationally. Since the time of Ivan IV, small arms have generally undergone little change. Yes, in the middle of the 17th century (shortly BEFORE the birth of Peter), the archery squeakers (in fact, the Russian musket) were replaced by screw squeaks (that is, rifled ones). Peter decides to replace them with a lightweight musket (fusee), which made life a little easier for a soldier (especially if he was short or not distinguished by heroic strength).

Please note that the majority of Peter's soldiers had smoothbore guns. Screw squeakers, or, as they were renamed in the German way under the Western tsar, fittings, armed only the best shooters. What am I leading to? - And to the fact that it is clearly not worth talking about revolutionary rearmament under Peter.

Yes, a regular military fleet appeared, but before that it did not exist at all. And Russian people (who lived by the sea) knew how to manage sailing ships before (we’ll also talk about this).

In other words, in the sense of a technical jump from "one" time to "another" did not happen under Peter.

Do not think that before you is a kind of ignoramus who does not know what is customary in historical science to take as the beginning of the "New Time". I know I know. Such a turning point is considered to be the Bourgeois “revolution” in England (well, in this case I cannot write such a word without quotation marks and laughter) of 1640-1649. It is also called the English Civil War (the latter is much more like the truth). It is believed that as a result, England turned from feudal to bourgeois (if you like, early capitalist). Those. historians take as a starting point a kind of “breakthrough” from feudalism to capitalism, a new type of organization of society.

Now answer me: did anything similar happen in Russia under Peter? “Obviously not. Serfdom, as it was, and remains. Wage workers, as a class, are not even outlined. They were replaced by a purely Petrine invention - "possession peasants" (we will also talk about the situation of the peasantry in more detail), i.e. farmers attached to early production (manufactory) along with their village. That's right, why pay when you can not pay ...

From all of the above, only one conclusion suggests itself: yes, the country has changed, but the jump from one era to another has NOT HAPPENED!

Russia generally manages to "pass the exams externally" for capitalism. Again, very conditionally, but we will assume that “Russian capitalism” in its purest form will begin from the year of the abolition of serfdom (1861), and already in 1917 it will be put to an end. And thank God!

It is thanks to this that we, the one and only Russian people in the world, will preserve our great and broad Russian soul, not spoiled by the mania for money, as in the West, where this “value” has been planted for centuries. Indeed, even under feudalism, there are such things as COURAGE, HONOR, COURAGE, which are valued by the ruling class (nobility) much higher than money. Under capitalism, the ruling class is the bourgeoisie. To rule, they rule, but they themselves are also SLAVES. Their own money - the ONLY value for them ...

And here is the first weak-a-a-abenkaya such a parallel of Peter with the Soviet government (why weak, read above). In 1917, Russia, "surrendering capitalism externally", with terrible pain (did you want otherwise during childbirth?), Stepped into a new society. Much fairer than the bourgeois! No matter how you twist it, the power of the Soviets (of which Lenin was the embodiment) truly forced the country to step into a new era, strikingly different from all previous ones. Moreover, on the whole Earth we were the first in this experience of ours (as well as in space).

In what form did the country go to Peter I

I dare not argue that the young tsar did not get the country in the best possible shape: it lost access to the Black and Baltic Seas, without a regular fleet, with a semi-regular army, the organization of which should have been changed long ago, with an extremely intricate control system. In addition, Russia was still tormented (and will be for a long time) by the raids of the Crimean Khanate from the south.

The next Russian-Turkish war (1672-1681), in which the Crimean Tatars traditionally fought for the sultan, only died down. The western outskirts of the Russian kingdom did not live quietly either. Ukraine (more precisely, only its eastern part), as you know, returned to the bosom of Russia only under the father of the young tsar, Alexei Mikhailovich. Consequently, the Commonwealth (for all its fragmentation and internal turmoil) had its own plans for a new seizure of our western lands.

Strictly speaking, the then Tsarevich Peter had no rights to the throne. In seniority, Fyodor Alekseevich succeeded his father. But the sickly Fyodor died in 1682, before he was 21 years old. By the way, the elder brother Peter also had thoughts about the need for transformations, as history shows us. Alas, fate did not give him time to implement them.

I will not retell the period of the two kingdoms (the only case in our history when the throne was shared by two kings: Peter and his half-brother Ivan), there is already plenty written about this. Something else is important for us, just to understand that in order to get real power into his own hands, the young king, of course, had to sweat. Indeed, in order to send her half-sister Sophia, who was the ruler with two young brothers, to the monastery, it was first necessary to at least enlist the support of most of the service people, incl. and archers (with whom Peter had no relationship throughout his life, to put it mildly).

And here is the second (I will not tire of repeating, very illusory) parallel for you - the Bolsheviks, with Lenin at the head, got the country in an even worse form: devastated by the First World War and completely mediocre (but in fact - treacherous) policy of the Provisional "government" (also to me , "rulers"), is about ready to fall to pieces. The army, on the other hand, was a completely decomposed mass of soldiers. And here it is important to note that the decay was not due to the efforts of the Bolsheviks, as it is now fashionable to imagine, but, first of all, thanks to the theft of quartermasters and disgusting command.

Let's summarize. Peter got a heavy burden, but at least the question of the further existence of the country did not arise then. But with the coming to power of the Bolsheviks (in their case, there were no rights at all, that is, this power still had to be taken and retained), the question was exactly that. I earnestly ask you to remember for the future, this is important.

Army

It is obvious that, without a strong army, the state can forget about a quiet life (and even more so, about the return of lost lands). In the case of our long-suffering Russia, forever surrounded by enemies, this truth is three times true.

The archery army, inherited by the young tsar from his predecessors, was not drawn to the role of such an army. It is not permissible for a military man to engage in trade, keep mills, etc. in his free time from service. Alas, the archers lived just like that, because their salary was small, not to say negligible.

The regiments of the foreign (or new) system were, as they say, a prototype.

And, if we evaluate "by the top", then we only have to admire the fact that Peter, by the end of his reign, gave the country a regular army. But not everything is as simple as it seems at first glance.

There was one undoubted advantage in the organization of the streltsy troops. Sagittarius are FREE people who did not pay tax (that is, poll tax). Thus, the honor of the position of a serviceman was emphasized, he was not a serf. And I repeat once again, a warrior, of course, should live only by service, more precisely, he should have enough salary received for military work. In return, he is obliged to constantly hone his skills and be ready at the first call to defend the Motherland, if necessary, then lay down his head.

The issue with the archers could be resolved by dismissing those who “stayed too long” and “bargained” from service, raising salaries to the required level, promoting (and if necessary, training) young capable commanders. I am more than sure that none of the same archers would have anything against rearmament. But to deprive the military people of their personal freedom by no means followed!

Peter, in transforming the army, took the path of least resistance. Instead of raising the attractiveness of the service with high salaries, the opportunity to climb the corporate ladder, the transition to the privileged class, which would give a person the right not to pay tax (in modern terms, taxes), the young king introduced a system of recruitment sets, when they were driven into the service in a direct sense of a stick.

In fairness, it is worth mentioning that at first, a peasant soldier was freed from serfdom, but this was only at first. Then, even after pulling off the 25-year-old "strap", the serviceman again became the property of the master. And if the landowner refused him, then the old soldier had to look for a new master!

It is understandable. Why look for funds, think about how to replenish the treasury, if you can force a person against his will. To those who, having read up to this point, will say, they say, the tsar's treasury was empty, I will ask the question: where, then, did the “Highest Prince” Menshikov steal his millions? And rumors about his theft have reached our days only because he was the "most luminous" close servant of the sovereign. Now think about it, how many less thieves could there be? Here, by the way, the parallel is no longer with the Soviet government, but with the modernity surrounding us (regarding the thieves).

I already wrote about weapons at the very beginning. It must be admitted that with what he could, Peter I rearmed the army (then they simply hadn’t thought of the best yet). We also acknowledge that thanks to the young tsar, in the army he created, they began to study the advanced methods of combat that were used at that time in Europe. And here we come to the most interesting ...

Techniques were studied, but whom did Peter invite as a teacher? - Of course, foreign officers. Often, without checking who they are and where they came from. And the trouble is not that many of them turned out to be dubious personalities, but that, entering the Russian service, they did not even know the Russian language.

Peter, inviting foreigners, did an unforgivable thing - he put them in command positions. If they were simply in the position of advisers to Russian officers, they would not bring harm. But they were entrusted with directly commanding the soldiers, yesterday's peasants, who often could not read or write, who did not know what "right" and "left" were. It is not difficult to guess how the newly minted colonels and generals (let us note that they received double, against Russian officers, salary) from the banks of the Elbe and the Rhine sought the execution of orders: by scuffle, sticks and whips.

In those days, corporal punishment was a ubiquitous phenomenon in all countries. However, it's one thing when he hits his own. In this case, it is possible (at least sometimes) to avoid punishment, because you understand what it can follow. And it's completely different when your commander is a foreigner, and you don't understand each other. In the second case, daily cuffs are simply inevitable. I’m already silent about the huge gap between soldiers and officers speaking different languages.

And if we add to this that the majority of foreigners who came to the Russian service treated the country and the people who sheltered them with deliberate arrogance (they are from “civilized” Europe, where, unlike Russia, there were not even real baths, and Muslims learned to wash their hands before eating during the Crusades), then the picture is completely bleak.

And one more little detail. The uniform of the archers, of course, was not so beautiful, but is it necessary to prove that high boots in the conditions of the Russian mudslide are much more reliable than the new-fangled shoes in which the army was shod? Yes, and linen shirts and caftans warmed better than uniforms (due to the theft of other officials, they often sprawled at the seams).

Fleet

The creation of a regular navy is the undoubted merit of Peter I. Here even I, although not his fan, but I will have to agree. Agree, forgive me my age-old causticity, with a caveat.

There was no fleet, but there were attempts to create one, as well as experience in navigation and shipbuilding. The first hardly deserves attention, here the ship "Eagle" comes to mind, built under the father of Peter I Alexei Mikhailovich, burned by Stenka Razin's "robbers". And earlier - the privateer flotilla of Ivan the Terrible in the Baltic during the Livonian War. Neither one nor the other can be compared with what Peter did.

But Russian navigation and shipbuilding is worth a stop. The only major port in the time of Peter was, unfortunately, freezing Arkhangelsk (by that time the Russians had already reached the Pacific coast, but our presence there was still very small). Accordingly, the Pomors were the then Russian navigators.

Of course, the unsightly Pomeranian kochi (other names are kocha, kochmora, kochmara) in their appearance could not compete with the beautiful sailing ships of the same Dutch, British and Swedes. Well, the task before them was completely different. But these seemingly not very beautiful ships coped well with sailing in the northern latitudes among broken ice and shallow water. The Pomors knew part of the future Northern Sea Route, the way to Mangazeya (the first Russian polar city in Western Siberia).

As for the secrets of shipbuilding, they were inherited from generation to generation. At first, they tried to attract Pomeranian shipbuilders, along with foreigners, to the construction of ships of a new type, but later Peter, true to his Western predilections, refused the Pomeranian experience. Moreover, in 1719 he allowed the Pomors to leave their old ships, but forbade building new ones, threatening them with exile to hard labor. By a special act, it was forbidden to send goods from Arkhangelsk on the ships of the “former case”. Well, isn't it arrogance?

Peter did not stand on ceremony with the population of the Russian North, he was of little interest that the Pomors were not serfs. If he needed slaves, he simply turned his subjects into them.

In 1712, Peter I took 500 Pomors to serve in the Navy, in 1713 - 550, in 1715 - 2000. Moreover, he took the best young workers, dooming their families to a starvation existence, ruin and poverty. Thousands of families then lost their breadwinners.

In a personal decree to the Arkhangelsk governor dated October 9, 1714, Peter I writes: “ In the Sumy prison, on the Mezen and in other places where there are the best workers who go to the sea for fishing and animal trade on the bogs, recruit 500 sailors, and that they should not be old, not crippled, namely, that they should not be older in years 30 years».

Needless to say, having got into the Peter's fleet, hereditary sailors, like their brothers in misfortune in the Peter's army, often found themselves subordinate to foreigners who did not put Russian people in anything (and do not put them today!).

And how similar it is to the story with archers, isn't it?! Why try to interest hereditary sailors with high salaries, if you can simply drive them onto ships with sticks? And no one was interested, we repeat, that these are freedom-loving people who from childhood did not bend their backs to anyone.

God alone knows how much the Russian fleet lost from the fact that discipline in its ranks (as in the army) was initially scuffle-killing, and not based on friendship and mutual assistance, according to the customs of the Pomors!

/Vladimir Glybin, especially for "Army Bulletin"/

Do you have regular bouts of fear of certain things or phenomena? Obviously, this is a phobia - an obsessive state of fear. There are a huge number of varieties of phobias: an obsessive fear of blushing - erythrophobia, fear of enclosed spaces - claustrophobia, fear of sharp objects - oxyphobia, fear of heights - hypsophobia. And there is even a fear of experiencing fear: phobophobia.

Here, for example, is a phobia described by a famous doctor. “He is frightened by the girl playing the flute; as soon as he hears the first note played on the flute, he is terrified.” The fear of the flute is called aulophobia, and the physician who described this condition was Hippocrates.

Nowadays, doctors have more than 500 different phobias. No one definitely knows what the cause of the phobia is. Some experts believe that the nature of the phenomenon is psychological, others - that it is biological. But there is more and more evidence that it is a combination of both. It is known that phobia tends to be inherited. If one of your parents had a phobia, you may have a predisposition to it, but not necessarily to the same one.

Some phobias are more serious than others. If your fears are seriously interfering with your life, you should seek professional help. Every person has phobias to one degree or another, just not everyone is in a hurry to admit it. The Greats were no exception. Here is a brief description of the phobias of some of them.

Napoleon was afraid of horses

One of the greatest historical characters, the conqueror of Europe, Napoleon Bonaparte was afraid, what would you think? - white horses. Psychiatrists see here as many as two phobias: the fear of horses (hippophobia) and the fear of white (leukophobia). Numerous paintings, where Bonaparte is depicted riding a white horse, are nothing more than the artist's fantasy. The little artilleryman hated and feared these animals, though they were never in his stables.

Peter the Great avoided free space

However, the Russian autocrats were not without some phobias. When visiting the house of Peter the Great and his summer palace in St. Petersburg, the modesty of the autocrat is striking: low ceilings, small rooms. In the summer house, the so-called “false ceiling” is generally arranged: a lower one is suspended from a higher one, creating the feeling of a box. Turns out it's not about modesty. The king could not feel comfortable in large spacious rooms with high ceilings. This indicates ecophobia and spaceophobia (fear of one's home and empty spaces). These phobias of Peter were not limited: all his life he suffered from acarophobia (fear of insects).

Generalissimo's fears

The fears of Comrade Stalin, obviously, largely determined the tragic fate of many of his associates. So, the Generalissimo suffered from toxicophobia (fear of poisoning). Stalin was also pathologically afraid of air travel (aviaphobia). So, being the commander in chief, he was never at the front. And he went to Potsdam for a peace conference by train under heavy guard. In addition, Stalin's famous night vigils make it possible to suspect that he has somniphobia (fear of going to bed). It is known that he fell asleep in a state of complete exhaustion, to which he brought himself at night.

Gogol foresaw the future

Nikolai Gogol from his youth suffered from tatephobia (fear of being buried alive). This fear was so excruciating that he repeatedly gave a written order to bury him only when signs of obvious decomposition appeared. In addition, from the age of thirty, Gogol suffered from pathophobia - the fear of the diverse.

Fear of women: it happens

The outstanding Russian artist, author of The Demon, Mikhail Vrubel was afraid of the women he liked (kaliginephobia). In his youth, because of an unsuccessful love, he cut his chest with a knife. Lost and timid in front of the object of his love, the artist easily resorted to the services of prostitutes. From one of them, he contracted syphilis, which led him to loss of vision and damage to the nervous system.

Name: Peter
Middle name: Alekseevich
Last name: Romanov
Date of birth: May 30 (June 9), 1672
Date of death: January 28 (February 8), 1725
Diagnoses during life: gonorrhea, Kozhevnikov's syndrome, uremia, utetritis, urethral stricture, cystitis, pyelonephritis (?), arterial hypertension
Cause of death: stroke

Barbarian who civilized his Russia; he who built cities, but did not want to live in them; he who punished his wife with a whip and gave the woman wide freedom - his life was great, rich and useful in public terms, in private terms, such as it turned out
August Strindberg.

Tsarevich Peter Alekseevich, the future first Russian emperor, was the fourteenth (!) child of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. However, the first from his second wife, Tsaritsa Natalia Naryshkina. In Russian mythology, the first emperor occupies a triple position - firstly, he got the position of a superman, given to him for his high growth (two meters three centimeters) and remarkable strength. Secondly, this is a kind of symbol of the renewal of everything - and it is clear why: a window to Europe, shaving beards, the Battle of Poltava and all that. And thirdly, at the same time the greatest anti-hero is a cruel person (with fits of kindness and justice), a persecutor of the “old and good” and all that. Usually, even his death seems mythological - the author remembers very well how they taught at school that an absolutely healthy person, Peter the Great, at the beginning of 1725 (in the prime of his life - only 52 years old!) Caught a cold, saving drowning sailors and died. In fact, the history of the illness of Peter the Great is very extensive, and the final diagnosis is mysterious. But let's talk about everything in order.

It is curious that if we begin to analyze the history of the relationship between the first Russian emperor and medicine, we will again see duality: on the one hand, from a very young age, we have a motley anamnesis of Peter Alekseevich, on the other hand, the tsar himself from his youth showed his interest in medicine.

Peter as a doctor

To begin with - a little history (and the history of art as well). Do you remember Rembrandt's famous painting "The Anatomy Lesson of Doctor Tulp"? In fact, this is not quite a picture. What is the first thing we see when entering a private clinic? That's right, diplomas of varying degrees of pathos and a photograph of the team. But what were the doctors of the 17th century to do? That's right, invite an artist. And the more pretentious the artist, the steeper the clinic. Sorry, there were no clinics then. And there were guilds.

A person entered the Weight Chamber of Amsterdam, where the residence of the Guild of Surgeons was located, sees a gallery of portraits - and immediately understands who the real doctor is, and how much money doctors can now pour out to the artist. It got to the coolest: for example, to Rembrandt. And since it’s not very correct to simply write a group portrait, traditionally surgeons ordered their portrait in the entourage of a very interesting lesson: an anatomy lesson. This is how the most, perhaps, the most famous corporate "photo shoot" of the 17th century appeared: "The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Tulp."

Anatomy Lesson by Dr. Tulp

At the time of the order to Rembrandt (1632), three “anatomy lessons” were already hanging in the ward, written in 1603, 1619 and 1625, but Dr. Nicholas Tulp (or Tulp - he took a surname in honor of the Dutch tulips) was not yet the head of the guild. Then, when another doctor, Dr. Deiman, will head the guild, Rembrandt will paint a new portrait - “The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Deiman” (1652). After Deiman, the guild will be led by Frederic Ruysch. In 1670, the artist Adrian Bakker and in 1683 the artist Jan van Nek would write two more "Anatomy Lessons of Dr. Ruysch" - on the first one there will be an autopsy with a demonstration of the inguinal canal, on the second Ruysch will open the baby.

The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Ruysch by Adrian Bakker

Why are we telling this? And to the fact that fourteen years after writing the second portrait, Ruysch had an unusual guest. On September 17, 1697, Peter, who visited Holland with the Great Embassy under the guise of an officer of the Preobrazhensky Regiment Peter Mikhailov, asked the burgomaster of Amsterdam to personally introduce him to an outstanding physician and anatomist (by that time, Ruysch was already known for his embalming method and his amazing collection of anatomical preparations).
Peter was delighted and left an entry in the guest book: “I, the undersigned, while traveling to see most of Europe, visited here in Amsterdam to gain knowledge, the need for which I always had, examined here things, among which I last but not least, he saw the art in the anatomy of Mr. Ruysch and, as is customary in this house, signed it with his own hand. Peter".

One of the exhibits of the Ruysch collection

Two decades later, Peter, having learned that Ruysch planned to sell his collection, ordered to buy it out - the Kunstkamera would begin with this, but for now the tsar himself "fell ill" with surgery. He tried to attend as many surgeries as possible. It is authentically known that St. Petersburg surgeons were afraid to carry out complex operations without calling the tsar for them. In 1717, while in Paris, Peter learned about the skill of the local ophthalmic surgeon Voolgyuz and asked him to perform a demonstrative operation especially for him. They write that a certain homeless man with walleyes was found, on which Voolgyuz showed the operation of squeezing the walleye.

Peter constantly sought to improve his skills as a surgeon. So, especially for Peter I, the then-famous anatomical atlas of Gottfried Bidloo “Anatomy of the human body in 105 tables” (Anatomy humani corporis), published in 1685 in Amsterdam, was translated into Russian. This translation, by the way, was exclusively for one reader, and remained in the manuscript. The king himself constantly took part in autopsies - while his actions were sometimes very cruel.

So, they write that in 1705 the peasant Kozma Zhukov was accused of intent to regicide, sentenced to death, and after death appointed for an autopsy. Moreover, the tsar was often personally present at the autopsies of his relatives - for example, he endorsed the autopsy of his daughter-in-law, who died suddenly, the wife of Tsarevich Alexei (he also personally took part in the torture), Princess Charlotte. As an Austrian resident reported to his homeland, “After opening the body, Peter saw blood spasms, unexpectedly ordered nothing to be taken out, everything was sewn up again and ordered about the burial.” Apparently, the emperor wanted to make sure that his son had not poisoned his not very beloved wife.

Princess Charlotte

In general, Peter's curiosity sometimes reached inhuman cynicism. So, when the widow of his brother Fyodor, Marfa Matveevna, died, he also wanted to be present at the autopsy. The fact is that Fedor Alekseevich, who was in very poor health (his legs almost did not work), after the death of his first wife, he married an 18-year-old young and beautiful Marfa, and died a few months later, and the widow, according to Tatishchev, “was a girl by left him." And now, 33 years later, Marfa Matveevna, who led a reclusive lifestyle, died. As the historian Pyotr Dolgorukov wrote, the tsar "wanted to know the truth about this brief marriage." He was convinced - and ordered to fulfill the will of the queen, transferring her huge wealth into the possession of her brother, General Fyodor Matveyevich Apraksin. And Peter I ordered his beloved sister Natalya Alekseevna not to be buried until he returned from Europe - and the body was kept for more than a year on the glacier.

Marfa Matveevna Apraksina

However, Peter not only watched. We do not know whether he personally opened the bodies of his relatives or his subordinates. However, the fact that he performed operations on his subjects (and not only) is known for certain.
The simplest operation that Peter learned to do during the Great Embassy is the removal of a diseased tooth. As a historical anecdote, a tale is given quite in the spirit of Peter, how the future emperor saw a wandering dentist, took him to a tavern, gave him a drink and persuaded him to teach him to pull his teeth. After that, he regularly practiced on his subjects. The well-known Russian historical journalist Sergei Shubinsky, who wrote at the turn of the 19th-20th years, cites the following story (already with a touch of folklore):

“The valet of the sovereign Poluboyarov married a girl whom he did not like at all. She was forced to marry him, because Peter himself wanted this marriage, and his relatives considered such a party to be very profitable. After the wedding, the sovereign noticed that Poluboyarov was constantly cloudy and preoccupied, and asked him about the reason. Poluboyarov admitted that his wife stubbornly avoided his caresses, excused by a toothache. "Good," said Peter, "I'll teach her." The next day, when Poluboyarov was at work in the palace, the sovereign unexpectedly went to his apartment, called his wife and asked her: "I heard that you have a toothache?" “No, sir,” answered the young woman, trembling with fear, “I am well.” - "I see you are a coward," said Peter, "it's okay, sit down on this chair, closer to the light." Poluboyarova, fearing the royal wrath, did not dare to object and silently obeyed. Peter pulled out her healthy tooth and affectionately remarked: "From now on, obey your husband and remember that the wife must be afraid of her husband, otherwise she will be without teeth." Returning to the palace, the sovereign called Poluboyarov and, smiling, said to him: "Go to your wife; I cured her; now she will not disobey you."

Anecdotes are anecdotes, but the famous bag with the teeth removed by Peter I is a historical reality. It was indeed kept in the Kunstkamera. It is also known that Peter personally carried out more serious operations. So, it is reported (not as an anecdote) about the removal of an inguinal tumor from the manufacturer Tamsen and about the treatment of dropsy in the wife of the merchant Borgete.

Anamnesis vitae

What do we know about the health of Peter himself? Unfortunately, we do not have the earliest information about the anamnesis of the future emperor, at least - more or less trustworthy. Moreover, many important documents relating to the health and illnesses of Peter died as a result of improper storage - they were already lost under Catherine II. So, for example, there is no protocol for the autopsy of Peter - we can judge him only by references to his contemporaries. A lot of information is given to us by the “History of Peter”, written by Alexander Pushkin, who, by the way, by the end of his short life (we refer you to the corresponding chapter of our book) turned from a talented varmint who wrote not only great poems, but also stupid epigrams that spoiled life for everyone indiscriminately, in a very good historian who knew how to work with sources. “Tsidulki” give us a lot - notes that Peter sent to his wife, Catherine I (aka Marta Skavronskaya, aka Marta Kruse, aka Ekaterina Alekseevna Mikhailova).

Let's summarize what we know. Firstly, it must be said right away that Peter was not at all ugly, as it has become fashionable to write now ("Shemyakin truthfully portrayed the emperor with a disproportionately small head, etc /"). All independent testimonies of those people who had no reason to flatter Peter say the same thing at different times: very tall, perfectly built, thin, muscular, beautiful face.

Portrait of a young Peter by Kneller

Here is what Princess Sophia of the Palatinate wrote about him:
“The king is tall, he has beautiful features and a noble posture; he has great quickness of mind, his answers are quick and correct. But with all the virtues that nature has endowed him with, it would be desirable that there be less rudeness in him. This sovereign is very good and at the same time very bad; morally, he is a complete representative of his country. If he had received a better education, then a perfect person would have come out of him, because he has many virtues and an extraordinary mind.

princess sophia

The only thing that frightened everyone who communicated with the king was the spasm that at times disfigured his face.

“... The look is majestic and friendly, when he watches himself and restrains himself, otherwise severe and wild, with convulsions on his face, which are not often repeated, but distort both the eyes and the whole face, frightening everyone present. The convulsion usually lasted for an instant, and then his gaze became strange, as if confused, then everything immediately took on a normal look, ”the famous French memoirist, Louis de Rouvroy, Duke of Saint-Simon, described this symptom.
Contemporaries wrote that this symptom appeared after the horror of the streltsy revolt experienced at the age of ten, which Vasily Klyuchevsky vividly describes: “Peter ... stood on the Red Porch of the Kremlin next to his mother ... when the archers picked up Artamon Matveev and his other supporters on spears , [among whom were the mentors of the prince] ... the May horrors of 1682 were indelibly engraved in his memory.

Streltsy rebellion in 1682. Streltsy dragging Ivan Naryshkin out of the palace. While Peter I comforts his mother, Princess Sophia watches with satisfaction. Painting by A. I. Korzukhin, 1882

However, there is evidence that Peter had "nervous attacks" from early childhood. The same Pushkin is looking for other reasons for the emergence of such a neurological status: “the queen (Peter’s mother - ed.), going one spring to a monastery, when crossing an overflowing stream, got scared and woke up Peter, who was sleeping in her arms, with her screams. Peter was afraid of water until the age of 14. Prince Boris Aleksandrovich Golitsyn, his Chief Chamberlain, cured him. Sometimes the seizures led to fainting.

Sudden fits of anger are superimposed on this, the king could suddenly, for no reason at all, beat those close with a club or fist. We have already spoken about the pathological cruelty of the king, which sporadically manifested itself, for example, in his personal participation in the execution of archers. We also observe attacks of sudden motor activity - Peter could suddenly jump up from the table and run into another room to stretch himself. There were other mental symptoms as well. So, Peter the Great suffered from the fear of high ceilings and in many rooms where he lived, he demanded to equip a low false ceiling, which many sources erroneously call agoraphobia (in fact, it is spaciophobia - the fear of empty spaces).

Of course, the neurological status of the tsar could not but be affected by his addiction to alcohol - we are well aware of the All-Joking, All-Drunken and Wildest Cathedrals of Peter I, from which not everyone got out alive.

What caused all this complex of symptoms? Some authors try to attribute neurosyphilis to the king, referring to urological symptoms, which will be discussed later. Alas, too much does not fit here - neither in urology, nor in neurology. We still dare to suggest that the tsar has Kozhevnikov syndrome as a symptom (focal convulsive seizures with an emerging myoclonic tic), as a disease - perhaps a “frozen” Kozhevnikov-Rasmussen syndrome (usually it begins in early childhood and leads to serious disability). Of course, accurate diagnosis without magnetic resonance and even positron emission tomography is impossible. But alas, we will never see Peter's PET.

St. Petersburg, Peter and Paul Fortress. Sculptor Mikhail Shemyakin (USA).

The mannequin of this man is in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg. The sculptor Mikhail Shemyakin (USA, expelled from the USSR) did not dissemble much about the image of a great man, and there was no need - he copied one to one from a mannequin in the Hermitage, conscientiously fulfilled the terms of the contract. Creative torment was unnecessary. Hyper-realistic sculpture - the image of Peter the Great, like Russia itself. One-to-one head with the "original face" from the death mask. Huge and disproportionate parts of the body are striking: a small and ugly head, thin legs, a huge torso and stomach.

In the works of art and writings of all Russian historians, Peter I is depicted as a parade and heroic figure. However, for the most part, they do not always correspond to reality, behind his accomplishments everyone forgets the negative, pathological features of the monarch - cruelty, debauchery, drunkenness, which bring him closer to the personality of his predecessor Ivan the Terrible than to the humanistic ideals of the Enlightenment.

Peter as a child.

Who is Peter's father? There are actually two theories, two great Georgian princes from the Bagration family are registered in Peter's fathers, these are:

Archil II - King of Imereti (1661-1663) and Kakheti (1664-1675), lyric poet, eldest son of King Vakhtang V of Kartli. One of the founders of the Georgian colony in Moscow.
Heraclius I - King of Kartli (1688-1703), King of Kakheti (1703-1709). Son of Prince David and Elena Diasamidze, grandson of King Teimuraz I of Kartli and Kakheti.

It is likely that it was Heraclius who could become the father, it was Heraclius who stayed at the time suitable for the conception of the king in Moscow, while Archil moved to Moscow only in 1681.

It can be assumed that Peter inherited the pathographic features from his Georgian relatives, since his description fit the Bagration family with accuracy. But not in essence, not even visually, but in character, Peter definitely, in no way, belonged to the Romanov family, he was a real Caucasian in all his habits.

Yes, he inherited the unthinkable cruelty of the Moscow tsars, but this feature could have come to him on the maternal side, since their whole family was more Tatar. It was this feature that gave him the opportunity to turn the county Horde principality of Muscovy into the Russian Empire.

It seems that at that time everyone knew about the relationship of the king. So Princess Sophia wrote to Prince Golitsyn: “You can’t give power to a Basurman!” Peter's mother, Natalya Naryshkina, was also terribly afraid of what she had done, and repeatedly declared: "He cannot be a king!" Yes, and the king himself, at the moment when the Georgian princess was being married to him, declared publicly: “I won’t marry namesakes!”

In physical development, Peter was an accelerator. Large from birth, at the age of eleven he looked 14-15 years old. Everyone noted his high growth and outstanding physical strength. At the same time, with a height of 203 cm, his figure was dysplastic - he wore shoes 39, and clothes - 48 sizes. He had narrow shoulders for his height, small palms, a disproportionately large belly, and his head was small compared to his body. The artist Gottfried Kneller, who painted a portrait of Peter I, gave the following description of his appearance: “With his great stature, his legs seemed very thin to me, his head often jerked convulsively to the right.”

His voice was loud, and his movements were jerky, he walked so fast that his companions always could not keep up with his wide step. Even in early childhood, some haste and impatience were noticed in his behavior. Peter was distinguished by a lively temperament and increased nervous excitability from nature. Energetic, enterprising, courageous, with a developed practical intellect, the king aroused sympathy among ordinary people. Peter loved noisy drinking parties, which used to go on for several days in a row.

Unknown artist. Peter the Great in a Dutch tavern.

He affectionately called alcohol "Ivashka Khmelnitsky." There have been suggestions about Peter's homosexual inclinations, based on the facts that, in the absence of a woman, he forced the orderly to go to bed with him, but this was dictated more by fear of sleeping alone than by pathological attraction. And yet his cheerful character was sometimes overshadowed by outbursts of anger, which arose more and more often with age, from which his associates fled because of fear. Among representatives of the Orthodox Church, Peter was tacitly considered the Antichrist. During trips abroad, Peter I stunned European aristocrats with a vulgar, almost muzhik manner of communication. Later, in 1717, during Peter's stay in Paris, Duke Saint-Simon wrote down his impression of Peter: “He was very tall, ...; his nose is rather short, but not too short, and is somewhat thick towards the end; the lips are rather large, the complexion is reddish and swarthy, ... ; a look majestic and friendly when he watches himself and restrains himself, otherwise severe and wild, with convulsions in the face, which are not often repeated, but distort both the eyes and the whole face, frightening all present. The convulsion usually lasted for an instant, and then his glance became strange, as if bewildered, then everything immediately took on a normal look.

Unknown artist. Portrait of Peter I

During experiences, emotional stress or fatigue, Peter developed a tic that affected the left side of his face and neck. These paroxysms, as a rule, were followed by dysphoria, when he could not bear not only the presence of strangers, but even his best friends. The Hungarian Cardinal Kollonitz, describing the tics of the Russian emperor, found an original explanation for them: “His left eye, left arm and left leg suffered from the poison that was given to him during the life of his brother, but now only a frozen look in the eye and the constant movement of his hand remain. and legs". Peter was also tormented by paroxysmal headaches, which only Catherine could calm down. He laid his head on her knees and fell asleep like that, and after waking up a few hours later, the attack was amnesic. There were cases when Peter's nervous tic turned into a convulsive attack and led to loss of consciousness. So, some experts (according to Vivian Green) suggested that Peter had temporal lobe epilepsy. In 1710, the Danish diplomat Just Yul described a fit of rage that happened to Peter on the background of alcohol intoxication during a solemn entry into Moscow after the victory in the Battle of Poltava: pale, with a face distorted by convulsions, making “terrible movements of the head, mouth, arms, shoulders, hands and feet”, the king attacked the guilty soldier and began to “ruthlessly cut him with a sword”. Peter tried to treat painful conditions with overseas medicines like a powder prepared from the stomach and wings of a magpie. Although the attacks often had a psychogenic onset, one cannot rule out exogenous hazards that affected Peter's body and could cause epileptic activity. First of all, this is alcohol, which Peter consumed in large quantities (abuse was in the nature of domestic drunkenness more likely than alcoholism). Also in November 1693 - January 1694. he was seriously ill with a "fever" (possibly encephalitis), the attacks of which made themselves felt in the future. However, the diagnosis is more likely not of epilepsy, but of an organic personality disorder that developed against the background of alcohol dependence and was accompanied by tic disorder, epileptiform seizures, and emotional lability with dysphoria.

Artist Alexei Petrovich Antropov. See lifetime portraits of Peter I.

Peter often gave vent to his hands - guilty officials, sometimes even close friends, such as Menshikov and Lefort, were personally beaten by the emperor for misconduct. For such punishments, he had a special club. Among the most innocent sadistic hobbies of the emperor is pulling out the teeth of the courtiers (though not as a punishment, but to help with a toothache). When Peter's companions became ill from what they saw in the Dutch anatomical theater, he ordered them to bend down to the dissected corpse and tear the muscles with their teeth. Peter loved to watch torture and torment.

Unknown artist. Portrait of Peter I → See Peter I (1672-1725) in painting.

During the conspiracy of 1689, he ordered that the hands and feet of the conspirators be cut off before they were beheaded. Three years later, after the uprising of the archers, Peter personally acted as an executioner, chopping heads with an ax. When the participation in the conspiracy of the heir's mother, Evdokia Lopukhina, was revealed, and it turned out that, being exiled to a monastery, she was in love with Major Glebov, Peter ordered to put him on a stake, and in order to prolong the suffering, it was winter, to put a hat on him and a fur coat.

Vasily Ivanovich Surikov. Morning of the archery execution. 1881.

.

Already at the very beginning of his reign, Peter I showed great interest in anatomy. Gradually, it turned into a mania: the king personally (or under his supervision) dissected the corpses of his closest relatives. He maniacally searched for confirmation of certain conjectures: were his sisters poisoned, did his brother's wife remain a virgin? What explained such a passion for Peter I, in the Rodina magazine, No. 11, 2012, says historian Alexei Morokhin

Already during his first trip abroad in 1697, Peter showed himself as an enthusiastic visitor to the anatomical theaters in Amsterdam and Leiden. Returning to Russia, in 1699 the tsar ordered lectures on anatomy to be organized in Moscow with demonstrations on corpses, and he himself took an active part in these events. The sovereign also loved to be personally present at the anatomy of corpses and even considered himself a “great surgeon” (sending those sentenced to death under the knife).

This sovereign interest was usually explained as the eccentricity of the monarch, who thus demonstrated his absolute power over his subjects. However, the monarch had his reasons. First of all, this concerned finding out the causes of death of the king's relatives.

For the first time, Peter's keen interest in the causes of death of his family members manifested itself in October 1715, when his daughter-in-law, the wife of Tsarevich Alexei, Crown Princess Charlotte Christina Sophia, died shortly after giving birth. Peter "watched the anatomy of the crown princess", that is, he was present at the autopsy. We find the details of this “watching” in the report of the Austrian resident in Russia A. Pleyer: “After opening the body, Peter saw blood spasms, unexpectedly ordered nothing to be taken out, everything was sewn up again and ordered about the burial.”

It would be too easy to explain this only by royal eccentricity. Peter, being well aware of the difficult family life of his son, having received news that changes began to occur with the remains of the deceased daughter-in-law, he could well suspect Tsarevich Alexei (or his entourage) of poisoning his unloved wife, to find out this, he wanted to find out the causes of the death of his daughter-in-law and personally was present at the autopsy of her body.

Shortly thereafter, on December 31, 1715, another daughter-in-law of Peter I, Tsarina Marfa Matveevna, the widow of his elder brother, Tsar Fedor Alekseevich, died. A representative of the Apraksin family, Marfa Matveevna, at the age of 18, was married off to a recently widowed and sick tsar. He soon died and his young wife, who became a widow two months after the wedding, "as many reliable people claimed, she remained a maiden after him." According to Prince P. Dolgorukov, the tsar "wanted to know the truth about this short marriage." Peter I, with his characteristic cynicism, did not stop before examining the corpse: only after making sure with his own eyes of the virginity of his deceased daughter-in-law.

However, the personal participation of Peter I in the autopsy of the body of his brother's widow can hardly be explained only by his increased interest in the family life of Fyodor Alekseevich. The tsar could be interested in Marfa Matveevna's short dying illness, which could necessitate an autopsy of her body to determine the causes of death.

On June 18, 1716, “Princess Natalya Alekseevna, Peter's beloved sister, died. Neither Peter nor his wife, Tsarina Ekaterina Alekseevna, was in St. Petersburg in 1716: they were on a trip abroad. In this regard, the king instructed his sister to look after his young children - daughters Anna and Elizabeth and son Peter. Natalia wrote twice a week, on Monday and Friday, to her brother and daughter-in-law, informing them about the health of the children. Natalya, in turn, was followed by Menshikov.

Having received the news of the death of his beloved sister, on August 26, Peter informed Menshikov "not to bury him until his return." The monarch again wanted to personally verify the naturalness of his sister's death. The body of the princess was embalmed and left in the palace "until the return of His Majesty" - in the glacier (in fact, the corpse was frozen). Returning from Europe in October 1717, the tsar, even after finding out the causes of his sister's death, delayed the funeral for another month. Only on November 17 did her funeral take place. That is, the corpse of Natalia was not buried for almost a year and a half.

On May 1, 1718, another sister of Peter, Ekaterina Alekseevna, died. All the time since the founding of St. Petersburg, the tsar demanded her relocation there from Moscow. Catherine refused. Peter began to suspect something was wrong. In April 1718, he ordered the force to deliver her to the capital. But the order was not carried out.

Another incident happened. Ekaterina Alekseevna was quickly buried in Moscow. But the king ordered to remove the corpse from the grave and dissect it, which was done on May 20, 1718. The second time the princess was reburied on May 24.

In addition to relatives, Peter anatomized or was present at the autopsy of other close associates - court stewards and life doctors. He was terribly afraid that the poisoning enemies could get to him.

When Peter's physical health deteriorated, Catherine took a lover Wilhelm Mons, the brother of the German tsar's previously mentioned passion. Upon learning of the betrayal, the emperor did not touch his wife, but executed the latter, and ordered his head to be alcoholized and taken to Catherine's bedroom as a reminder of her infidelity.

In 1709, Peter developed urolithiasis complicated by uremia. He suffered from strangury accompanied by severe pain. Peter, who loved to brag about his medical knowledge, applied it to himself as well. So, the silver catheters with which he independently bougiens the urethra have been preserved.

Peter I in the last years of his life. From the book: V.O. Klyuchevsky. "Russian history".

His health became critical at the end of January 1725. Peter I died on January 28, 1725, according to the official version, from pneumonia. The autopsy documents stated the following: “a sharp narrowing in the region of the back of the urethra, hardening of the neck of the bladder and anton fire”, that is, with the greatest probability, death followed from inflammation of the bladder, which turned into gangrene due to urinary retention caused by urethral stricture.

Boris Chorikov. Death of Peter the Great.

After the death of Peter, his body was also opened: Ekaterina, Menshikov and other people from the court circle were looking for evidence of poisoning.

They began to bury him 40 days after his death. And this funeral lasted for ... 6 years. The coffin of Peter was installed in the Peter and Paul Cathedral - for a long farewell.

sad horror

At three o'clock in the afternoon, the coffin with the body of Peter began to be carried out through the open window of the Winter House - he did not pass through any door - and they lowered him down to the embankment along a specially built porch and stairs. The procession was opened by 48 trumpeters and 8 timpani players. The lingering sounds of the regimental trumpets and the roar of the timpani and drums of the regiments that stood along the Neva set a mourning motif. At that moment, sobbing was heard in the crowd. And there were a lot of people. Thousands of Petersburgers crowded along the entire embankment, in the windows, on the roofs, along the railing of the bridge built across the Neva, looking with greedy attention at something that had never happened before in Russia - they were burying the emperor! The people were overwhelmed by the mournful melodies of the regimental bands, the dull roar of drums, the heavy blows of the timpani, the singing of churchmen, the glare and rattling of weapons, the smoke of dozens of censers rising to the sky. The continuous ringing of church bells rushed over the Neva, went into the low sky. All noises and sounds at regular intervals were muffled by cannon fire. These volleys made a particularly depressing impression: throughout the many hours of the ceremony, measured - in a minute - shots were heard from the bolter guns of the Peter and Paul Fortress. And the beats of this gigantic metronome poured into everyone, as Feofan Prokopovich wrote, "a kind of sad horror."

He was betrayed to the earth only on May 21, 1731; the heart and entrails of the king were buried separately at the bottom of the grave.

.
Testament of Peter the Great

The program of actions of the emperor's heirs, according to the "Testament", contained 14 main points and began with the words: "In the name of the holy and inseparable Trinity, we, Peter, the emperor and autocrat of all Russia, to all our descendants and successors on the throne and the government of the Russian nation." The instructions were listed below:

1. To keep the Russian people in a state of continuous war, so that the soldier is hardened in battle and does not know rest: leave him alone only to improve the finances of the state, to reorganize the army and in order to wait for the time convenient for the attack. Thus, to use peace for war and war for peace in the interests of expanding the limits and increasing prosperity of Russia.
2. To summon by all possible means military leaders from the most enlightened countries in times of war and scientists in times of peace, so that the Russian people may take advantage of other countries without losing anything of their own.
3. In any case, intervene in the affairs and strife of Europe, especially Germany, which, as the nearest, is of more direct interest.
4. Divide Poland, maintaining unrest and constant strife in it, attracting the strong to their side with gold, influence the Sejms, bribe them in order to have influence on the elections of kings, hold their supporters in these elections, provide them with patronage, introduce Russians there troops and temporarily leave them there until the opportunity presents itself to leave them there permanently. If, however, neighboring states begin to create difficulties, then they should be appeased by the temporary fragmentation of the country until it will be possible to take back what was given to them.
5. Make as big captures as possible from Sweden and provoke her into attacks so that there is a reason for her capture. To do this, break all ties between Denmark and Sweden and constantly play them off.
6. All Russian emperors to marry only German princesses.
7. England: seek an all-round union.
8. Move north to the Baltic and south to the Black Sea.
9. Move as close as possible to Constantinople and India (he who possesses them will be the owner of the world). To this end, initiate constant wars against Turkey and Persia, establish shipyards on the Black Sea, gradually take possession of both this sea and the Baltic, for they are needed for the implementation of the plan - to conquer Persia, reach the Persian Gulf, restore, if possible, the ancient trade of the Levant through Syria and reach India as a world storage point. By mastering it, you can do without English gold.
10 Austria: openly support the alliance, but secretly provoke ill will against her, the ultimate goal is to establish a Russian protectorate over her.
11. Together with Austria to push the Turks.
12. Proclaim yourself the defender of the Orthodox in the Commonwealth, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire in order to further subjugate these powers.
13. When Sweden, Persia, Poland, Turkey and Austria are defeated, the armies are united, and the Black and Baltic Seas are guarded by the fleet, then it is proposed in special secrecy to propose first to France (in the text - the “Treaty of Versailles”), and then to Germany (in the text - "Vienna Treaty") to divide the spheres of influence in the world. If one of them accepts the offer (and this will inevitably happen) - destroy the remaining enemy first, and then the survivor. The outcome of the struggle will be predetermined, since Russia at that time will already have the whole East and most of Europe.
14. If both refuse the offer, then between them it is necessary to unleash a war and exhaust them both. After that, Russia should send ground forces to Germany, and fleets from the Sea of ​​Azov and Arkhangelsk to the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic, respectively. This will isolate France and Germany and hasten their surrender, and after that Europe will be de facto conquered.

Thus, the "Testament" instructs Peter's successors to conduct continuous military operations, subjugate all of Europe through wars and diplomatic intrigues, divide Poland, neutralize Turkey and conquer India, thus achieving complete Eurasian hegemony. Some of Peter's "precepts" had already been "fulfilled" by the time the falsification appeared (for example, dynastic alliances with the German states, active involvement of the cultural experience of the West, expansion of access to the Black Sea and the partition of Poland), which made the rest of the "plans" more convincing → Wikipedia.