The last minutes of Peter's life 1. Death of Peter I. History and reasons. Transfer of the body to the cathedral

On November 21, Peter was the first in the capital to cross the ice across the Neva, which had risen only the day before. This prank of his seemed so dangerous that the head of the coast guard, Hans Jurgen, even wanted to arrest the offender, but the emperor rode past him at high speed and did not pay attention to his threats.

On December 20, he took part in a grand drinking party organized on the occasion of the election of the new “Prince-Pope of the All-Drunken Council,” and January 1725 began especially stormily, partying at the wedding of his batman Vasily Pospelov and at two assemblies - with Count Tolstoy and Vice Admiral Cornelius Cruys .

The sick emperor especially amazed everyone when on January 6, in the cold, he marched at the head of the Preobrazhensky Regiment along the banks of the Neva, then went down onto the ice and stood during the entire church service while the Jordan, an ice hole carved in the ice, was consecrated. All this led to that Peter caught a bad cold, went to bed, and from January 17 began to experience terrible torment. This illness turned out to be the last in his life.

There are several versions about the diagnosis of Peter's fatal illness. The French ambassador to Russia, Campredon, reported to Paris: the tsar “summoned to himself an Italian doctor, a friend of mine (Dr. Azariti - V.B.), with whom I wished to consult privately.” Campredon further wrote that, according to Azariti, “urinary retention is a consequence of an old venereal disease, from which several small ulcers have formed in the urinary canal.”

The German doctors who treated Peter, the Blumentrost brothers, were against surgical intervention, and when the English surgeon Horn did perform the operation, it was already too late and Peter soon began to have “Antonov fire,” as gangrene was called in Rus' at that time. Convulsions followed, followed by delirium and deep fainting. For the last ten days, if the patient regained consciousness, he screamed terribly, for his torment was terrible.

In brief moments of relief, Peter prepared for death and received communion three times in the last week. He ordered the release of all debtors from prison and cover their debts from his own sums, ordered the release of all prisoners, except for murderers and state criminals, and asked to serve prayers for him in all churches, not excluding churches of other faiths.

Catherine sat at his bedside, not leaving the dying man for a minute. Peter died on January 28, 1725 at just after six in the morning. Catherine herself closed his mouth and eyes and, having done this, left the small office room, or “desk,” as it was called, into the adjacent hall, where they were waiting to proclaim her successor to Peter.

Opinions differ regarding the diagnosis of Peter's last illness. The author of the fundamental work “History of Medicine in Russia” V. Richter believed that Peter died due to inflammation caused by urine retention, not to mention what was the cause of the inflammation. Another prominent medical historian, N. Kupriyanov, believed that Peter’s death was caused by inflammation of the bladder, which turned into gangrene, and from urine retention. And finally, the conclusion made in 1970 by a group of Moscow venereologists who studied all the surviving documentary evidence about Peter’s illness and death is also not without interest. Professors N. S. Smelov, A. A. Studnitsyn, Doctor of Medical Sciences T. V. Vasilyeva and Candidate of Medical Sciences O. I. Nikonova came to the conclusion that Peter “apparently suffered from a malignant disease of the prostate gland or bladder or urolithiasis,” which turned out to be the cause of his death.

* * *

Peter I died without leaving a will. The heirs to the throne could be considered: firstly, the son of the executed Alexei - Peter, secondly, the daughters of Peter I and Catherine - Anna and Elizabeth, thirdly - the nieces of Peter I, the daughters of his older brother Ivan Alekseevich - Anna, Catherine and Praskovya . Anna occupied the ducal throne in Courland at this time, Catherine was a duchess in Mecklenburg, and Praskovya lived in Moscow, unmarried. Fourthly, Ekaterina Alekseevna, crowned with the imperial crown.

Three hours after Peter’s death, senators, members of the Holy Synod and generals gathered in the next hall - generals and admirals of all ranks and civil ranks from actual state councilors to the chancellor. They gathered on their own initiative as soon as they learned of the death of the emperor. However, when everyone arrived in the hall next to the desk, there were already officers from both guards regiments standing in a close group in one of the corners of the hall.

Disputes about the right to the empty throne unfolded instantly. Each of the dignitaries expressed their likes and dislikes in one way or another, but the officers remained silent. When P. A. Tolstoy was the first to speak out in favor of the empress, the guards unanimously supported him.

Catherine’s opponents began to murmur, but Lieutenant Colonel of the Preobrazhensky Regiment Ivan Buturlin, who was present in the hall, walked up to the window, pushed the frame and waved his hand. Drumming could be heard through the open window...

This argument, which turned out to be the most compelling, crossed out all the considerations of the dignitaries about the advantages of kinship and the rights of any of the possible contenders for the throne. It was also important that the second lieutenant colonel of the Preobrazhenites was His Serene Highness Prince and Generalissimo of all Russian troops Alexander Danilovich Menshikov, whose sympathy for Catherine no one present doubted.

* * *

A huge coffin the size of an oblique sazhen (the Russian measure of length - an oblique sazhen - was 216 cm) was hardly squeezed into the cramped office where Peter died, turning it around and tilting it in all directions. For forty days, the whole of St. Petersburg, dignitaries, clergy and merchants from Moscow and cities close to the new capital, said goodbye to the embalmed body of the emperor.

And three weeks after Peter’s death, on February 22, the youngest of his daughters, six-year-old Natalya, died, and there was one more coffin in the Winter Palace.

During the preparation of the funeral ceremony, it turned out that the coffin with the body of the emperor did not fit through the door, and then, by order of the chief funeral director, Feldzeich-Master General, Senator and Cavalier, Count Jacob Bruce, one of the windows was turned into a door, and a spacious platform was erected to the window below , on both sides of which there were wide stairs draped with black cloth.

...At noon on March 10, 1725, three cannon shots announced the start of the emperor’s funeral. Past the regiments lined up along the bank of the Neva, Peter's coffin was carried down the stairs to the embankment, and eight horses covered with black velvet blankets carried the coffin to the piers of the main pier, and from there to a wooden platform specially built on the ice of the Neva, leading to the Peter and Paul Fortress.

More than thirty banners were carried behind the coffin. And the first of them were: the yellow standard of the Russian Navy, the black and gold double-headed eagle imperial banner and the white flag of Peter with the emblem depicted on it - a steel chisel of a sculptor carving an unfinished statue out of stone.

And in front of this banner group were members of the deceased’s family and two “first senators.” The order in which they followed the coffin spoke volumes to both dignitaries and foreign diplomats, for it, this order, accurately reflected the balance of power and the importance of each of these people at court.

The first to go was now the Dowager Empress Ekaterina Alekseevna. She was supported on both sides by Field Marshal and His Serene Highness Prince Menshikov and the Grand Chancellor, Count Golovkin.

Following them were the daughters of Peter and Catherine - seventeen-year-old Anna and fifteen-year-old Elizabeth, then Peter's nieces - Tsarevna Praskovya Ivanovna and Duchess of Mecklenburg Ekaterina Ivanovna, and behind them were the relatives on the mother of the deceased - the Naryshkins. Along with them were the nine-year-old grandson of the deceased, the son of the executed Alexei - Peter and Anna Petrovna's fiancé, Duke of Holstein Karl-Friedrich. From the fact that the Duke was in this procession, it must be assumed that he was considered a member royal family, although there was no wedding yet.

... In less than ten years, almost all of these people will die. Only the Great Chancellor Golovkin and the daughter of Peter I, Elizabeth, will be long-livers...

Peter's coffin was placed in the Peter and Paul Cathedral, which was still under construction at that time, and it stood there unburied for six years. And only after that the coffin with the body of the deceased was buried...

So, characters drama that took place in the Russian capital of St. Petersburg at the very beginning of 1725:

Peter I (1672-1725) - Russian Tsar since 1782, Emperor since 1721. He had a hot and quick temper. He cut a “window to Europe”, cut down the Swedes near Poltava, cut the beards of the boyars... He introduced European innovations using traditional Russian methods.

Catherine I (1684-1727), aka Martha Rabe, aka Marta Skavronskaya, aka Marta Skovoroschenko, aka Ekaterina Vasilevskaya, aka Ekaterina Mikhailova - the second wife of Peter the Great. From the common people. Nationality is difficult to clearly establish. According to different versions - Lithuanian, Swedish, Polish... Ukrainian.

We skip the “education” column, since it was limited only to the ability to run a household. She was captured by the Russians in 1702, being a servant of Pastor Gluck, married to a Swedish dragoon. At first, the “noble Sheremetyev” took the captive as a laundress, then the “noble darling” begged her for happiness, that is, Menshikov, and Peter took her from him, and in 1703 she became his favorite.

Petra gave birth to eleven children, almost all of them died in childhood, including her son Peter Petrovich. Let us draw the reader's attention to the fact that two more heroines of our drama - daughters Anna and Elizabeth - were born in 1708 and 1709, respectively, i.e., before Catherine's official marriage, which took place in 1712. Daughters were considered illegitimate, which, among other things, complicated their struggle for the throne. Catherine was also baptized before her marriage, in 1708.

There is no crime in this, if not for one “but” - her godfather was Peter’s son, Tsarevich Alexei (1690-1718), who was 6 years younger than Martha (later executed by Peter). In the eyes of Orthodox Russians, the situation with the Tsar’s marriage looked extremely unnatural. It turned out that Peter married his granddaughter (Ekaterina’s patronymic - ALEXEEVNA - was given by her godfather), and Ekaterina became the stepmother of her father (even if it was her godfather). But the fact remains that the former servant became the Russian Tsarina in 1712, and in 1721, after Peter took the title of Emperor, the Empress.

Then the most interesting thing begins - all Russian queens (except Marina Mnishek) were titled queens by their husbands. And Peter in 1724 crowned Catherine as an independent empress, personally placing the crown on her. After the death of Peter in 1725, Catherine was enthroned by Menshikov as an autocratic empress, but in fact Menshikov and the Supreme Privy Council ruled for her. That is, Martha’s career in Russia looks like this: captive - maid of the nobles - maid of the tsar - favorite of the tsar - mother of the tsar’s children - goddaughter of the tsarevich - tsarina by her husband (the tsar’s wife) - empress by her husband - empress in her own right - autocratic empress.

Menshikov Alexander Danilovich (1673-1729) - favorite of Peter I and Catherine I. The son of a groom (according to other sources, a peasant). He began his career as a seller of pies, later became the orderly of Peter I. His Serene Highness, Actual Privy Councilor, Full Admiral, Field Marshal, and then Generalissimo. Ruler of St. Petersburg. Minister of Defense (President of the Military College in 1718-1724 and 1726-1727).

He was the first Russian to become an academician of a foreign Academy of Sciences. By the end of his life he had 150,000 serfs, hundreds of servants, many palaces and carriages. The actual ruler of the state under Catherine I and at the beginning of the reign of Peter II. Emperor Peter II was stripped of all titles and wealth. He was exiled in 1727 to Berezov (lower Ob River). He died in poverty. No one is to blame for Menshikov’s fall except himself. Success turned his head so much that he began to behave defiantly not only towards noble nobles, but also towards the emperor.

Peter II (1715-1730) - Russian emperor since 1727. Grandson of Peter I, son of Tsarevich Alexei EXECUTED by Peter I. The nobles, led by Menshikov, who were to one degree or another involved in the execution of Alexei, were very afraid of Peter II’s accession to the throne. But during the two years of Catherine I’s reign, Menshikov managed to gain such strength that he even betrothed his daughter to Pyotr Alekseevich.

He decided that the prince was now completely in his hands and contributed to the proclamation of Peter as emperor. However, plans to remove Peter from inheritance seemed unfeasible to his contemporaries. Peter Alekseevich is the only male descendant of Peter the Great and the only one from the male line of the Romanov family who survived after the death of Peter I.

At that time, only paternal inheritance was legitimate in the eyes of the people. In 1725, Catherine I's entourage, with the help of the guard, managed to DELAY Peter's accession to the throne. In 1727, Catherine herself, at the suggestion of Menshikov, bequeathed the throne to Peter II. Also in 1727, Menshikov was severely punished by Peter II, including for his participation in the execution of Tsarevich Alexei. Peter II died of smallpox. The Romanov dynasty ACTUALLY ended there.

Anna Petrovna (1708-1728) - daughter of Peter the Great and Ekaterina Alekseevna. At the time of her death, Petra was engaged to the Duke of Holstein-Hotthorn, with whom she gave birth to a son, Karl Peter Ulrich, in 1728. And this Karl Peter Ulrich later became Emperor Peter III (Peter Fedorovich), after Anna’s sister, the childless Elisaveta Petrovna, handed over the throne to him. Soon, Emperor Peter Fedorovich was overthrown by his wife Catherine II. She was succeeded by their son Paul I, then the sons of Paul - Alexander I and Nicholas I - were kings, then Alexander II - the son of Nicholas I, then Alexander III - the son of Alexander II and, finally, the famous Nicholas II Romanov - son Alexandra III. Thus, all Russian tsars, starting with Peter III, in the male line are not Romanovs at all, but typical Holstein-Hotthorns (you’ll break your tongue before you pronounce them), who finally became Russified by the third generation (Alexander I).

There is the following historical anecdote about this.

“In one of the liberal salons of Moscow in the 70s of the 19th century, a dispute arose about whether there was much Russian blood in the then heir to the throne, Alexander Alexandrovich? It was known that he considered himself purely Russian. To resolve the dispute, they turned to the famous historian Solovyov, who was among the guests. Soloviev asked that they bring him half a glass of red wine and a jug of drinking water.

Soloviev began his explanation like this:

“Let red wine be Russian blood, and water be German. Peter I married a German woman, Catherine I...”

And the historian poured half a glass of clean water into a glass of red wine.

Then he continued:

"Their daughter, Anna, married a German, the Duke of Holstein."

Soloviev drank half a glass of diluted wine and topped it up with water. He repeated this operation, then mentioning the marriages of Peter III with the German Catherine II, Paul I with the German Maria Fedorovna, Nicholas I with the German Alexandra Fedorovna, Alexander II with the German Maria Alexandrovna... As a result, almost pure water remained in the glass.

The historian raised his glass:

“That’s how much Russian blood there is in the heir to the Russian throne!”

Let us add that Alexander Alexandrovich himself married the fiancee of his deceased brother, the Danish princess Dagmara (Empress Maria Feodorovna). And their son, Emperor Nicholas II, married a German woman, Alice (Empress Alexandra Feodorovna).

Thus, despite the fact that Anna, having become engaged to the Duke, abdicated the throne for herself and her offspring, ONLY HER offspring were entrenched on the Russian throne. Peter I needed the act of abdication so that a foreign duke would not rule Russia. Peter knew that the Duke needed Russia only to solve the problems of his little Holstein. Despite this act, there was an attempt to transfer the Russian throne to Anna and the Duke after the death of Catherine I. The cost of such acts can be seen in the example of Anna Petrovna herself.

Catherine I, dying, bequeathed the throne to Peter II, but indicated that if he died childless, the throne should pass to Anna or her heirs. Peter II died childless and did not cancel Catherine’s act, but members of the Supreme Privy Council violated the will of the empress and arbitrarily invited another Anna to the throne - Ioannovna - the daughter of Peter I’s brother. And Anna Petrovna’s heir (she died immediately after his birth, even before Peter’s death II) became emperor in 1761 only thanks to the coup of 1741, when Anna’s sister, Elizabeth, seized power.

Elisaveta Petrovna (1709-1761) - daughter of Peter the Great and Ekaterina Alekseevna. In 1741, the Guard was enthroned as a result of a coup d'etat.

Karl Friedrich of Holstein of Gottorp, simply - Duke of Holstein (1700-1739). Since 1725 - the husband of Peter the Great's daughter Anna, the founder of the dynasty that ruled Russia until 1917. Bassevich - President of the Privy Council and minister of this duke, a person extremely interested in the elevation of the Duke's mother-in-law Catherine or the Duke's wife Anna to the vacated Russian throne - left notes in his diaries in which he indicated, among other things, that the hand of Peter I became ossified when he wanted to write the name of his successor, but his voice became numb when he wanted to say this name to his daughter Anna Petrovna, the duke's wife. Bassevich's notes served as one of the main sources on the issue of the death of Peter the Great for subsequent historians.

This is how the famous historian S. M. Solovyov describes last days life of Emperor Peter the Great.

“The troubles from the Mons story were joined by the troubles from the incorrigible Menshikov, from whom Peter was forced to take away the presidency of the Military Collegium; Prince Repnin was appointed its president. Makarov and members of the Supreme Court were also accused of bribery. All this affected Peter’s health. He lived to live only the 53rd year of his life.

Despite frequent bouts of illness and the fact that he had long called himself an old man, the emperor could hope to live for a long time and be able to dispose of the great inheritance in accordance with the interests of the state. But his days were already numbered; no nature could withstand such activity for long. When Peter arrived in St. Petersburg in March 1723 upon returning from Persia, he was found much healthier than he was before the campaign.

In the summer of 1724 he became very ill, but in the second half of September he apparently began to recover, from time to time he walked in his gardens and swam along the Neva. On September 22, he had a severe seizure; they say he became so irritated by it that he killed the doctors, cursing them with donkeys; then he recovered again; On 29 September he was present at the launching of the frigate, although he told the Dutch resident Wild that things were feeling a little weak. Despite the fact that at the beginning of October he went to inspect the Ladoga Canal, contrary to the advice of his physician Blumentrost, then he went to the Olonets iron factories, forged there with his own hands a strip of iron weighing three pounds, from there he went to Staraya Russa to inspect the saltworks, in early November went by water to St. Petersburg, but here, near the town of Lakhty, seeing that a boat sailing from Kronstadt with soldiers had run aground, he could not resist, he himself went to him and helped pull the ship off the shoal and save people, and stood waist-deep in water.

The seizures immediately resumed; Peter arrived in St. Petersburg sick and could no longer recover; the Mons case also could not contribute to recovery. Peter was no longer doing much business, although he appeared publicly as usual. On January 17, 1725, the illness worsened; Peter ordered a mobile church to be erected near his bedroom and on the 22nd he confessed and received communion; the strength began to leave the patient, he no longer screamed, as before, from severe pain, but only moaned.

On the 26th he became even worse; all criminals who were innocent of the first two counts and of murder were released from hard labor; On the same day, the blessing of oil was performed on the sick person. The next day, the 27th, all those who were sentenced to death or hard labor according to military articles were forgiven, excluding those guilty of the first two counts, murderers and those convicted of repeated robbery; those nobles who did not come to the review on time were also forgiven.

On the same day, at the end of the second hour, Peter demanded paper, began to write, but the pen fell out of his hands, from what was written they could only make out the words “give everything ...”, then he ordered to call his daughter Anna Petrovna so that she could write under his dictation , but when she approached him, he could not say a word. The next day, January 28, at the beginning of the sixth hour of midnight, Peter the Great passed away. Catherine was with him almost constantly; She closed his eyes."

I ask the reader to pay attention to two phenomena of the LAST MOMENT in this drama. At the last moment, Peter cannot write the name of the heir, although before that he could write, and then he cannot pronounce this ill-fated name, although before that he speaks freely and calls his daughter.

Soloviev, like Karamzin before him, wrote a huge work on the history of Russia. But Karamzin ended his “History of the Russian State” with a description of the events of the early 17th century. Therefore, primary sources on the history of the 17th-18th centuries. (where the life of Peter the Great fits completely) was raised by Soloviev in his 29-volume “History of Russia since Ancient Times.” And all subsequent historians were mainly engaged in rewriting Solovyov’s history in other words, clarifying and supplementing something.

Therefore, we will quote here mainly the work of Sergei Mikhailovich. True, Solovyov lived and worked in a country led by people considered to be descendants of Peter I and Catherine I, and, naturally, he could not describe all the unpleasant moments, the whole underbelly of the relationship between the crowned couple. The quotation from Solovyov’s work begins with “troubles from the Mons story.” This is how the historian himself describes Mons's story.

“Catherine’s coronation took place in Moscow with great triumph on May 7, 1724. But six months later, Catherine experienced terrible trouble: the favorite and ruler of her Patrimonial Chancellery, Chamberlain Mons, brother of the famous Anna Mons, was captured and executed.

1) took the village of Orsha and its villages from Princess Praskovya Ivanovna under the jurisdiction of the Empress’s Patrimonial Office and took the quitrent for himself.

2) To refuse that village, he sent the former prosecutor of the Voronezh court court, Kutuzov, and then sent him to the estates of the Nizhny Novgorod empress for search, without demanding him from the Senate.

3) He took 400 rubles from the peasant of the village of Toninsky Solenikov for making him a groom in Her Majesty’s village, and this Solenikov is not a peasant, but a townsman.

Together with Mons, his sister, Matryona Balk, was caught, who was beaten with a whip and exiled to Tobolsk; secretary of Mons Stoletov, who, after being whipped, was exiled to Rogerwick to hard labor for 10 years; the famous jester chamber footman Ivan Balakirev, who was beaten with batogs and exiled to Rogervik for three years. The following sentence was read to Balakirev: “You, while serving from service and from engineering teaching, took upon himself the buffoonery and through Vilim Mons achieved his court Imperial Majesty, and while at court he served Vilim Mons and Yegor Stoletov in bribes." (S. Solovyov "History of Russia from ancient times")

The description is very boring and reserved. It turns out that a certain bribe-taker Mons, who was the ruler of the empress's estates, was executed. Moreover, Mons clearly does not deserve this guilt death penalty, maximum - prison. And none of Mons’ accomplices were executed. But Solovyov has one word that hints at the real reason for the execution of Mons - Peter's wife's FAVORITE. If we replace the word "favorite" with the word "lover", we will find the real reason for the execution.

This can be found in other historical evidence, and they say that Peter I, shortly before his death, suspected his wife Catherine of infidelity, in whom he had previously doted on and to whom he had no intention of transferring the throne in the event of his death. When Peter collected sufficient, in his opinion, evidence of his wife’s infidelity, he ordered the execution of Mons. And in order not to expose himself as a “horned” spouse in front of foreign courts and his own subjects, he “attached” economic crimes to Mons, which, if desired, were easy to find in almost every official of those times (and not only those).

They say that before his execution, Mons could not take his eyes off the pole on which his head would appear in a few minutes. Catherine did her best to pretend that she was indifferent to the fate of Mons. When he went to the chopping block, she and her daughters were learning new dances. After the execution, Peter put the queen in a sleigh and took her to her lover’s head. Catherine passed the test - she smiled calmly. Then Mons's head, preserved in alcohol in a glass vessel, was placed in her chambers. And Peter at the same time broke the mirror with the words: “Do you see this glass? The contemptuous substance from which it is composed was purified by fire and now serves as the decoration of my palace. But with one blow of my hand it will again turn into the dust from which it was taken.” “Is your palace any better now?” - Ekaterina found something to answer.

So, pay attention - the events associated with the execution of Mons and Catherine’s loss of Peter’s trust occurred just two months before the death of the king. In Mons's papers they also found facts compromising Peter's closest associates. New executions were expected in St. Petersburg. The names of Menshikov (whom Peter alienated and removed from his post as head of the military department), the Tsar's cabinet secretary Makarov and other associates were mentioned. They said that Peter was going to do to Catherine the same way as the English king Henry VIII did to Anne Boleyn, that is, to execute her for treason. Courtier Andrei Osterman later took credit for the fact that he persuaded Peter not to chop off his wife’s head. The argument was this: after this, not a single decent European prince would marry Catherine’s daughters. But even with this – the most successful – outcome, Catherine’s destiny in the near future remained a monastery with prison conditions.

Here the example of Peter’s first wife, Evdokia Lopukhina, is indicative. When the king began to walk with Anna Mons, she created a scene of jealousy and forbade him to come to her bedroom. This was all Peter needed - he quickly divorced the queen and imprisoned her in a monastery. A few words must also be said about this woman, because in historiography she is incorrectly represented as a downtrodden old Russian woman who does not stick her nose out of the girl’s room and is only concerned with children and housework. This idea is incorrect. If we talk modern language, then Evdokia was the winner of the Miss Queen 1689 beauty contest.

As some sources indicate, Peter chose her from the many noble beauties who were brought to Moscow for royal matchmaking. According to other sources, Peter married Evdokia on the advice of his mother, but in any case there is no doubt that the queen was a beautiful, well-read girl with a very domineering character, and certainly did not plan a monastic career for herself. And she didn’t get bored at the monastery for long - she soon turned up with Major (according to other sources - captain) Stepan Glebov, who became her lover. Peter is not the only one to have extramarital affairs! When Peter learned about the adventures of his ex-wife, he made the conditions of her detention prison-like and decided to get a confession from Glebov.

Here is what contemporaries report about this: “Undoubtedly, Glebov had a love affair with Queen Evdokia. This was proven to him by the testimony of witnesses and intercepted letters from the empress to him. But, despite this evidence, he invariably continued to deny the accusations. He remained firm in his testimony and never brought the slightest accusation against the honor of the empress, which he defended even during the most various tortures to which he was subjected by order and in the presence of the king. These tortures lasted for six weeks and were the most cruel to which criminals are subjected, wanting to snatch from them. their recognition. But all the cruelty of the king, which went so far as to force the prisoner to walk on boards studded with iron points, was in vain.

During the execution on Moscow Square, the Tsar approached the victim and conjured him with all the holiest things in religion to confess his crime and think that he would soon have to appear before God. The condemned man turned his head carelessly to the king and answered in a contemptuous tone: “You must be as much a fool as the tyrant if you think that now, after I have not confessed to anything, even under the most unheard of tortures that you inflicted on me “, I will dishonor a decent woman, and this is at an hour when I no longer have any hope of staying alive. Go, monster,” he added, spitting in his face, “get away and let those whom you did not give the opportunity to live in peace die in peace.” ".

Although the sources’ testimony about Glebov is contradictory. There is evidence that they tortured him not to confess his love affair with the queen, but to extract the names of his accomplices in preparing the coup. But one way or another, life former queen changed dramatically.

Here is the testimony of an associate of Peter I: “She was imprisoned within the four walls of the Shlisselburg fortress, after she had to endure the conviction and death in prison of her only son Alexei Petrovich, the death of her brother Abram Lopukhin, who was beheaded in a large Moscow square, as well as the death his lover Glebov, who was impaled in the same square on charges of treason...

She stayed in this prison from 1719 until May 1727. And her only company and only helper was an old dwarf who was sent to prison with her so that she could cook food and wash clothes. This was too little help and often useless. Sometimes she was even a burden, since several times the queen was forced, in turn, to look after the dwarf herself, when the ailments of this unfortunate creature did not allow her to do anything." (Franz Villebois "Tales of the Russian Court")

In such conditions she lived until the death of her rival Catherine I, then she tried to free herself from monasticism and become regent of the throne with her young grandson, but no luck. She also outlived her grandson. Evdokia died in 1731 from melancholy, at the age of 62.

And here is an example of Peter’s attitude towards his daughters from Catherine - Anna and Elizabeth. Eyewitnesses indicate that Peter was greatly enraged by Mons's testimony, and because of this, his attacks of anger became dangerous for everyone who came across his path. In this state, he almost killed his own daughters. Every now and then the king's face would convulse; sometimes he would take out his hunting knife and in the presence of his daughters he hit the table and the wall with them, kicked his feet and waved his arms. As he left, he slammed the door so hard that it fell apart.

It is clear that the first son of the royal family, Alexei Petrovich, who grew up among such passions, could not be inflamed with special love for his stern father, could not forgive him for his mother’s imprisonment in a monastery, for which he paid with his life.

Let's add to this the unenviable fate of Peter's mistress, Maria Hamilton, executed in 1719. Peter himself carefully escorted the dressed-up beauty to the scaffold, and until the last minute she hoped for pardon, remembering her lover’s words that the executioner’s hand would not touch her. The hand didn’t touch... the ax touched. Peter raised his mistress’s head and began to lecture those present on anatomy, showing blood vessels and vertebrae. He did not miss a single opportunity to enlighten his “dark” people. Then he crossed himself, kissed his pale lips and threw his head into the mud... The head of Maria Hamilton, preserved in alcohol, was kept for a long time in the Kunstkamera along with the head of the unlucky Mons. Catherine II ordered the heads to be buried.

I specifically dwell on the fates of people close to Peter, not to mention strangers. Contemporaries had nothing against the fact that Peter executed the rebel archers - this was a generally accepted measure at that time. Enlightened Europe was outraged by the fact that the tsar PERSONALLY cut off the heads of the archers.

Based on the purpose of the article, I have brought together the facts that happened in different time. As a result, Peter the Great appeared as such a monster. He was not a monster, of course, although he was a tough ruler. The picture of executions staged one after another looks impressive, but the fact of the matter is that they were arranged artificially. During the 36 years that Peter actually ruled the state, enough facts of repression can be cited, but if you divide them into years of rule, then the number of repressions per year is not so great - it cannot be compared with Ivan the Terrible. Moreover, at that time, harsh punishments were the norm not only in Asia, but also in enlightened Europe.

I’m not even talking about Henry VIII of England - Bluebeard, who exterminated his wives, priests, mentors, etc. I’m not talking about Charles IX of France with his Night of St. Bartholomew, when they killed thousands of Huguenot nobles, who they themselves had invited to the wedding for the sake of reconciliation . Re-reading the memoirs of the enlightened Philippe de Commines about the war of Charles of Burgundy with Louis IX, I often came across cases of the destruction of entire cities of HIS own country, and the main thing that amazes me is the routineness with which the rulers did this, often without any fault of the townspeople, simply for tactical reasons.

Let's say the king of France learned that the English king was advised to capture the cities of E and Saint-Valery in order to arrange a winter quarters in them. The King of France, without a moment's hesitation, burns his own cities so that the British do not winter in them. And so on throughout the book.

Here is an example of another king. An older contemporary of Peter I, Louis XIV, the “Sun King,” could leave a man in prison for LIFE just because he had been caring for a sick prisoner for several days. What if this prisoner managed to reveal some secret to his temporary cellmate?

Compared to the morals of that time, Peter does not look like such a harsh ruler, if only because he knew how to forgive minor offenses, but only THOSE people whom he considered useful for the country. Peter limited torture. And he punished, as a rule, FOR A CASE, and not just like that. When we learn from the media that a mother strangled her newborn child, what do we say about such mothers? Usually the following is “to kill such few.” Maria Hamilton was executed precisely because she strangled her newborn child, plus she also turned out to be a thief. Peter executed her reluctantly - he was only fulfilling the duty of a ruler. Before execution, he told her: “Without violating Divine and State laws, I cannot save you from death.

So, accept execution and believe that God will forgive you of your sins, pray only to him with repentance and faith." And Monsu said: “I feel sorry for you, I’m very sorry, but there’s nothing to do, we need to execute you...” Still, it’s not enough In addition, he turned out to be a thief. Glebov and Evdokia were involved in the investigation of a conspiracy in which Tsarevich Alexey was also involved in anti-state activities, and the archers generally raised an anti-government armed uprising. Until then, power will remain power if it knows how to defend itself. At that time (as indeed now), the government did not know any other methods of defense other than executions and prisons.

So, let's analyze the psychological state of Empress Catherine Alekseevna at the end of 1724. It's not difficult to do this. What was a man supposed to think, elevated from the very bottom to the pinnacle of power, sitting in a luxurious palace among obsequious servants and looking at the head of his lover floating in a jar of alcohol? After all, it is her fault that she floats there. Maybe... Mons is Mons - he is a man... But the head of Maria Hamilton, Peter’s mistress, Catherine’s closest friend (it was Maria who robbed her) is also floating somewhere in alcohol...

But okay, Hamilton - she was not an official wife... The official (much more official) wife Evdokia is in prison, her own son is in the next world... That is, Catherine should not have seen the most rosy future for herself. And although I really don’t like it when writers describe the thoughts of historical figures, say, Napoleon or Stalin (they seem to know these thoughts), Catherine’s feelings at that time are obvious, since they stem from universal human behavior. And she wasn’t such an extraordinary person that she wouldn’t worry about herself and her children in that situation.

Now let's trace another chain of events. The first was the murder, by order of Peter, of the heir to the throne Alexei in 1718. The second event was the publication in 1722 of Peter’s decree on succession to the throne. The decree begins like this: “Everyone knows how arrogant our son Alexei was by Absalom’s wickedness...”. Based on this very “Absalomian anger” of his son, Peter actually canceled the rights to the throne of his son Alexei and his grandson, Peter. Because according to the decree, the king had the right to appoint his heir himself. Thus, the old, traditionally sanctioned order of transfer was abolished. royal power from father to eldest son, and in the event of the death of the eldest son - to the grandson (if the grandson was absent, the throne passed to youngest son etc.).

Now the throne could go to Pyotr Alekseevich only if he managed to please his grandfather. And although in the eyes of the entire country he was the only legitimate heir, in churches the royal family was remembered as follows: “Our most pious sovereign Peter the Great, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia, our most pious great empress Ekaterina Alekseevna. And the noble empresses of the crown princesses. Grand Duchess Paraskeva Feodorovna. And the blessed Grand Duke Peter Alekseevich. And the faithful princesses and grand duchesses." That is, Peter stood lower than his princess aunts.

The third event, which we have already mentioned, is the coronation of Catherine as an independent empress, which took place six months before Peter convicted his wife of treason. That is, if something had happened to Peter, then the former servant would have had a great chance of overtaking Peter’s grandson and becoming an autocratic empress, citing the fact that she was ALREADY an empress and became one by the will of Peter.

After all, despite the fact that Catherine was on the verge of death, EXTERNALLY she was still an empress. So Catherine was faced with a dilemma - either death/monastery (if Peter lives), or autocratic power over one of the greatest countries in the world if Peter dies.

If such a dilemma faced only Catherine alone, then it would not be so bad. But the same dilemma faced Menshikov, who, for all his shortcomings, cannot be called stupid. He was an intelligent, active, brave man who STILL possessed enormous power, especially in the guard. And if you psychologically put yourself in the place of Menshikov and Ekaterina, you can easily reproduce general progress their thoughts. I will add that none of them are special moral principles was not burdened.

Now another distraction. Let's fast forward 228 years - from January St. Petersburg to March Moscow. Some historians consider Stalin's death to be violent, citing appropriate arguments for this. They say that the chief of the leader’s security suddenly sent his subordinates to rest, citing the order of Comrade Stalin, and members of the Politburo did not call doctors for a long time, saying that Comrade Stalin was simply fast asleep, etc., etc. But the violent nature of Stalin’s death is difficult to prove, more difficult than the violent death of Peter the Great.

The seventy-four-year-old man could have died simply from old age, besides, a year before his death, Stalin quit smoking, and giving up such a long-term habit, such a sedative as a smoking pipe, could hardly have a positive effect on health. And who knows, whether Stalin had previously allowed people sitting directly outside his door to rest. After all, there were still many armed guards around the perimeter of the dacha and on its territory. And the members of the Politburo could really be afraid to disturb the sleep of the all-powerful ruler. But nevertheless, one cannot immediately exclude the possibility that Stalin was “helped” to die.

After all, shortly before his death, Stalin began collecting incriminating evidence against Beria and his bloody activities as head of the security and internal affairs agencies. Beria had many faithful people in these bodies and could do something through them to save his life. Despite the apparent thoroughness, the protection of the Soviet leaders was, in my opinion, not entirely thought out. They were guarded and served by security units. And thus the head of these bodies acquired special power - the life of the bearers of supreme power depended on him. And this is in addition to the opportunities that control over the country's security provided. The security of top management, in my opinion, should be handled by a separate (albeit small) unit, which does not report to anyone other than the first person of the country.

I turned to the example of Stalin in order to show that, unlike Peter, he had a better understanding of the characters of people. Those historians who believe that Stalin was killed unanimously point out that what led to his death was that in the last years of his life he removed his many years of assistants - the head of his office, Lieutenant General A.N. Poskrebyshev, chief of security, Lieutenant General N.S. Vlasik. But I, on the contrary, believe that such steps were absolutely correct. Since Stalin’s death could only be threatened at that time by his CLOSE AROUND. And he took measures to replace this environment. In addition, Stalin removed Beria from direct leadership of security and internal affairs, leaving behind him the post of deputy head of government. Perhaps Stalin simply did not have time to complete the next “update” of his inner circle.

Peter is a different matter. If in relation to Menshikov he acted approximately in the same way as Stalin in relation to Beria (he left him in power for now, but deprived him of direct leadership of the military department), then in relation to other close persons he did not show such management. But in vain. At the end of 1724, almost all people with access to the Tsar's life support were interested in his death. After all, when it became obvious that the queen was unfaithful to him, the emperor’s gaze had to inevitably turn towards his grandson, Peter Alekseevich, as the only possible heir to the throne. Judge for yourself - after what happened, he could not appoint Catherine as his heir.

Firstly, Peter was very jealous and did not forgive betrayals. Secondly, in accordance with traditional monarchical ideas, the betrayal of the monarch’s wife was equated with high treason. Thirdly, in the papers of Mons they found many documents that revealed the enormous abuses of the queen and her entourage. That is, there was a smell of not only amorous, but also direct treason. Peter could not transfer the throne to his daughter Anna because she was betrothed to the Duke of Holstein. In addition, Anna officially renounced her right to the Russian throne.

Peter perceived his other daughter, Elizabeth, as a frivolous person and not ready to rule. In addition, they planned to marry her to King Louis XV of France, and the youngest daughter could not become an empress at the age of sixteen, bypassing her mother and older sister. This would greatly complicate her rule, and the same Menshikov would seize real power. Plus, both daughters, as we already wrote, were considered illegitimate in the eyes of the people (and Germans at that) and did not have a sacred right to the throne. And most importantly, they were very close to Catherine, and their mother’s betrayal sharply dropped their prestige in the eyes of their father.

So, there was only one contender left. The same one who would soon become Peter II. Firstly, the ten-year-old boy had not yet done anything to deserve his grandfather’s dislike. Yes, he was the son of the traitor Alexei, but the wound inflicted by Alexei on Peter the Great had already healed, and besides, Peter the grandson did not know either his father or his mother, he grew up an orphan, and this was his advantage over the crown princes. Secondly, Peter Jr. grew up in new Russia, from childhood he was surrounded by his grandfather’s associates and he could see in his grandson the successor of his work (certainly no worse than Catherine and the princesses).

Thirdly, all of Russia considered the boy the natural heir to the throne. And contemporaries unanimously point out that Peter the Great all the time hesitated in relation to his grandson and from time to time showed him strong affection. Naturally, in 1724 the hesitation should have ended, and Peter should have settled on the candidacy of his grandson as heir. But Peter the Grandson lived separately from his grandfather and had his own entourage, so people from Peter the Great’s entourage could fear that with the coming to power of Peter II and the return to active work of Peter the Great’s first wife, Evdokia, they would lose their influence. And some of them (participants in the murder of the father of the heir and the son of Evdokia, Alexei) were afraid of losing their lives.

Thus, Catherine, Anna, Elisaveta, Menshikov, Makarov (Peter’s secretary through whom official documents passed - pay attention to this!) and numerous servants surrounding the tsar, including cooks and doctors, were interested in the immediate death of Peter the Great. And there is nothing surprising in the fact that the death of Peter I came soon. The opposite would be surprising. Of course, I am far from blaming everyone; it is unlikely that 16-year-old Elizabeth and most of the palace servants were privy to anything.

But the situation developed in such a way that it would be possible to easily formulate a small liquidation brigade of people from the tsar’s inner circle, depriving uninitiated persons of access to him under one pretext or another. So, we know that during his illness Tolstoy, Golovnin, Apraksin were allowed to visit the Tsar, but Yaguzhinsky and Osterman were not allowed in so as not to tire the monarch. This is evidence from the French envoy Campredon - Tolstoy and Golovnin, who were admitted to Peter, were ardent supporters of Catherine’s accession. It’s more difficult with Apraksin - there were two brothers. One was for Catherine, the other was for Peter the grandson. Which one of them was allowed in, do you think?

Now let's look at how exactly events could develop. I offer four options, ranking them in descending order of crime.

1) Peter the Great was poisoned by the people closest to him. Possibly poisoned DURING an ILLNESS that began independently of the will of the poisoners.

2) These closest people, knowing that the king had attacks of illness from time to time, decided to wait for one of the attacks and, with improper treatment, brought him to the grave, depriving doctors uninitiated in the conspiracy from access to Peter.

3) Those closest to him grabbed the king’s illness like a drowning man clutches at a straw, and then the same as in the second point: taking advantage of the king’s helpless state, they sent him to the next world. Psychologically, it would be more accurate to say that they did not “send”, but rather PUSHED the king to the grave.

4) Peter’s illness and death were natural, but the tsar’s entourage falsified his last will, preventing the transfer of the throne to the rightful heir, Peter Alekseevich.

As you can see, I completely exclude only the fifth, most “non-criminal” option, with the famous words “give everything…”. With a numb hand and voice. That is, the version that, with the light hand of the historian Solovyov, became official and textbook, and now roams all textbooks.

How did Solovyov's version appear? Its main source was the “Notes” of the Duke of Holstein’s chief assistant, Bassevich, whom we mentioned in the biography of the Duke. Moreover, even before Solovyov, Bassevich’s materials were used by the famous Voltaire. They also cite the report of the Saxon diplomat I. Lefort that at night Peter I wanted to write something, he took a pen, wrote a few words, but they could not be made out. As already mentioned, Bassevich is a person extremely interested in the accession of Catherine I, and therefore his testimony must be treated very carefully. And the Saxon clearly learned everything he reported from third or fourth hand. Thus, the question arises: why did such an astute historian Soloviev accept such dubious testimony of the Holstein minister on faith? We will answer this question before we object to Solovyov and Bassevich on the merits.

To understand Solovyov’s credulity in Bassevich’s version, it is necessary to say a few words about the historian himself. Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov was born in 1820 in the family of a priest and teacher of the Law of God, that is, he clearly did not belong to the top of society. And it was only thanks to his talent and hard work that he achieved very high government positions. Soloviev became a Doctor of Science at the age of 27, at 30 - an ordinary professor, at 51 - the rector of the Moscow state university, one of the leading universities in the country, at the age of 52 - an academician. He was also dean of the history department and director of the Armory Chamber. Soloviev taught students, gave public lectures, and studied social activities, closely followed all the new developments in the field of literature, history, historiography, political science, geography...

And despite this, he managed to write many historical works, including the colossal 29-volume “History of Russia since Ancient Times.” This work was written from 1851 until the scientist’s death in 1879. Of course, such a career in Tsarist Russia could have been made not just by a talented and hardworking person. A certain loyalty to the authorities was also required here. And Russia during the time of Solovyov was led by the descendants of Catherine I and her daughter Anna Petrovna. These were Anna's great-grandsons - Alexander I (ruled from 1801 to 1825), Nicholas I (ruled from 1825 to 1856) and great-great-grandson - Alexander II (ruled from 1856 to 1881). Moreover, please note that the throne was passed on to Anna’s descendants by her sister (another daughter of Catherine I) Elisaveta Petrovna. That is, Russia, at the time when Solovyov wrote his work, was ruled by the descendants of people who in 1725 desperately fought the grandson of Peter the Great - Peter II. And although Peter II later briefly took the throne, he was unable to secure his offspring on it, since he died at less than 15 years of age.

Of course, such a scientist as Solovyov would not falsify history to please the kings, but he did not bother. Remember, speaking about Mons, he called him not a lover, but a favorite of the great-great-grandmother of the Tsars, Catherine I, that is, it seems that he told the truth, and did not offend the Tsars and the Grand Dukes. In other words, Soloviev was as free during his work as any Soviet historian writing the history of the CPSU. Yes, he could find and introduce new facts and documents into historical circulation, discover new biographies, clarify details - all this was welcomed by the authorities. But he had to work only in the political direction that was set from above. A Soviet historian would not have been allowed to criticize the Party or Lenin, and Solovyov was not free to write about the deeds of the Romanovs.

Yes, of course, at that time a liberal professorial anti-government front had already begun to form, and Sergei Mikhailovich himself was by no means of the most conservative views. But openly anti-government professors in those days could be counted on one hand, and they were constantly trying to deprive them of their departments, rather than appointing them as teachers to the grand dukes. In addition, there was such a thing as censorship, and if Solovyov had been disliked by the authorities, they would not have published his “History...” every year.

We know that historians, starting with Karamzin, were allowed to criticize kings, but not the ancestors of the royal dynasty.

So, the entourage of Nicholas (not yet an emperor) grumbled when Karamzin described the atrocities of Ivan the Terrible - they say, is it really possible to write about TSARs like that... But, on the other hand, a description of the atrocities of the penultimate and the outright inability to rule of the last of the Rurikovichs (Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich) seemed to show readers that the ancient dynasty had degenerated, and the accession of the Romanovs was a natural continuation of Russian history - despite the fact that there were a lot of descendants of Rurik in Rus' (including the liberator of Moscow - Prince Pozharsky). And when Pushkin, in his brilliant work “Boris Godunov,” writes about the Romanovs as the hope of the fatherland, he works precisely in this format. And really, how could Solovyov tell the tsars - the same Alexander II: “Not only did your great-grandmother Catherine II kill your great-grandfather Peter III, but your great-great-great-grandmother Catherine I also killed your great-great-great-grandfather Peter I.” How can the Tsar look people in the eye, having such bloodthirsty grandmothers?

“King. Things happen behind the wall that make you feel terrible. Do you know, I suppose, what a royal palace is? Behind the wall, people crush each other, cut up their brothers, strangle their sisters... In a word, everyday, everyday life goes on.” (E. Schwartz "Ordinary Miracle")

Solovyov’s interests (not to “pin” the murder of Peter on Catherine) coincided with the interests of Bassevich. After all, if Peter is calling Anna, then after the words “Give everything...” you should logically put “... Anna.” Anna is the wife of the Duke of Holstein, whose interests Bassevich then fanatically defended. He would have included the Duke as his heir, but no one would have believed him.

Now let's consider the objections to Solovyov's version on the merits. First, let us give a quote taken from the same “History...” by Solovyov, where we're talking about about the events that occurred two years after the death of Peter, before the death of his wife and successor Catherine I. Then the question was who would succeed Catherine herself: her daughters with Peter - Anna and Elizabeth, or the grandson of Peter the Great and his first wife Evdokia Lopukhina - Pyotr Alekseevich. It was at this time that Menshikov went over to Peter’s side, deciding to become related to him. “It remained to obtain the empress’s consent to the marriage of the Grand Duke and Princess Menshikova.

His Serene Highness took advantage of the fact that his daughter was arranged to marry the Polish native Count Sapega, but the Empress took this groom for her niece Skavronskaya, and Menshikov, as a reward, began to ask for consent to marry his daughter to the Grand Duke. The Empress agreed. Is it necessary to explain this agreement by the mere decline in moral strength in Catherine, which some reported? foreign ministers to her courts, or did Catherine see the impossibility of removing the Grand Duke from the throne in favor of one of her daughters and thought that she was strengthening their position by uniting with the future emperor a person whose gratitude she had the right to count on?

Be that as it may, the matter was decided in March 1727, and this decision horrified the crown princes and their followers. Both crown princesses (Anna and Elisaveta - S.A.) threw themselves at the feet of their mother, imploring her to think about the disastrous consequences of the step she had taken: Tolstoy came to their aid with his ideas: he spoke about the danger that the empress exposes her children and her own faithful servants; threatened that the latter, not being able to be useful to her from now on, would be forced to leave her; he himself would rather put his life in danger than calmly wait for the dire consequences of her consent to Menshikov’s request.

Catherine defended herself, saying that she could not change her word given for family reasons, and the marriage of the Grand Duke with Menshikova would not change her secret intentions regarding the succession to the throne. Despite the fact that Tolstoy’s performances made a strong impression on Catherine, and the Duke of Holstein began to hope for victory; Tolstoy's speech was put on paper: Bassevich carried it in his pocket and read it to everyone. But the joy was short-lived: Menshikov had a second secret audience, and the matter was finally decided." (S. Solovyov "History of Russia from Ancient Times")

History is full of various secrets and mysteries. Even yesterday's news is sometimes overgrown with rumors and speculation, let alone those events that took place several centuries ago.

According to numerous testimonies, in the last years of his life Peter I developed serious health problems, in particular, signs of urolithiasis began to appear. When studying the emperor’s letters to his wife, we can conclude that 5-6 years before his death, he practically never parted with his medications. To restore his health, the emperor repeatedly received treatment at Russian and foreign resorts famous for their mineral waters. In the summer of 1724, he underwent a course of treatment with water twice (in June and August) in the Moscow region and Olonets province. During this period, the emperor's illness began to take on an inflammatory character. It got to the point that operator V. Gorn had to insert a catheter. The treatment helped, and by the autumn of 1724 Peter I began to feel somewhat better. His health even allowed him to go by sea to Shlisselburg and Lakhta. But here the emperor caught a bad cold. This happened in November, when he spent a long time waist-deep in icy water - rescuing sailors from a boat that ran aground off the coast of Lakhta. From that time on, the emperor's health deteriorated completely. But, despite this, almost until the end of his days, Peter I led a busy life. He was studying government activities, participated most actively in the life of the city. It is known, for example, that in October 1724, Peter I was one of those who extinguished the fire that occurred on Vasilyevsky Island. In early November, the emperor personally attended the wedding of a German baker. In addition, the emperor attended various social events. His eldest daughter Anna was betrothed to the Duke of Holstein in November 1724. On this occasion, festivities were held in the palace for two weeks, some of which were attended by Peter I. On December 18, the fifteenth birthday of Elizabeth, the future empress of Russia, was celebrated, and just two days later the emperor attended the election of a new “prince-pope” (a comic position established Peter I). The beginning of 1725 turned out to be no less eventful. Peter attended one wedding, and also visited the assemblies of P. Tolstoy and K. Kreutz.

By mid-January, the emperor felt so bad that he ordered a camp church to be placed in the chambers adjacent to his bedroom. The attacks were so painful that the patient’s screams were heard throughout the palace. Prayers were held in churches, and on January 27 an amnesty was declared for all prisoners sentenced to death or hard labor (the only exceptions were murderers and persons convicted of repeated robbery). Despite the efforts of the court doctors, Peter was getting worse. On January 26, he suffered an attack, as a result of which Peter I lost speech and lost the right half of his body. Early in the morning of January 28, 1724, the first Emperor of Russia died.

According to the testimony of Jacob Shtelin (a figure Russian Academy Sciences), on February 2, 1724, an autopsy of the body was performed by the court physician Paulson and the operator Horn. Unfortunately, no documents recording the results of this medical research have survived to this day. After the death of the emperor, his archives were kept in the basements of the Winter Palace. Only decades later, already during the reign of Catherine II, an attempt was made to sort out the documents. As a result, it turned out that many papers were lost due to exposure to water that penetrated into the basements during seasonal floods. But in some works you can read that the autopsy did not confirm urolithiasis as the cause of the emperor’s death. In particular, Shtelin writes: “When opening the imperial body, they found hardening in the neck of the bladder and Antonov fire (i.e., gangrene) in parts near the bladder, and it was so swollen and hardened that it was difficult to cut it with an anatomical knife.”

Some researchers put forward a version of poisoning. But when studying all the known facts, it does not seem consistent.

A few years before his death, namely in 1722, Peter I issued a decree according to which the eldest in the male line of the family does not necessarily become the heir to the throne. From now on, the emperor himself could appoint his own successor. But it was Peter I who was unable to take advantage of this right. The disease developed so rapidly, the attacks were so severe and painful, that the emperor was unable to leave behind any instructions as to who he saw as his successor. As you know, the dying man managed to write only two words: “Give everything.” This is what led to the fact that in subsequent decades, kings were elevated to the throne not by law, but by force. The sudden deaths and lack of wills of subsequent rulers gave rise to a whole series of palace coups. And only 75 years after the death of Peter I, the law on succession to the throne issued by him was repealed.

What Peter I died from is not the only question associated with this significant figure. Some modern researchers, based on known facts, it is assumed that he was replaced by another person during the so-called “Great Embassy” (1697-1698). This once again confirms that history is full of secrets that we really want to unravel.

Chapter 2

Illness and death of Peter I

Peter the Great, the first Russian emperor, had stronger health than his ancestors, but tireless work, many experiences and a not always correct (to put it mildly) way of life led to the fact that illnesses gradually began to take hold of him.

From a young age, as a result of fear, Peter was obsessed with “nervous attacks,” which were manifested by tilting his neck to the left side and moving the muscles on his face. A.S. Pushkin in his “History of Peter” writes that “the queen (Natalya Kirillovna. - B.N.), going one spring to a monastery, while crossing a flooded stream, she got scared and with her screams woke up Peter, who was sleeping in her arms. Peter was afraid of water until he was 14 years old. Prince Boris Alexandrovich Golitsyn, his chief chamberlain, cured him.” True, A.S. Pushkin immediately adds: “Miller doesn’t believe that.” In the “History of Peter” there are also repeated references to colds, fevers, fevers, “scorbutica” with severe paroxysms, as well as painful conditions “with a hangover”.

Russian historian M.I. Semevsky, based on a study of Peter I’s letters to Catherine I, writes: “As can be seen from his own tsidulki, five, six years before his death, Peter rarely parted with his medications. In the letters there are quite often news of his illnesses: he suffers from “hemorrhoids.” B.N.), then blockages or an upset stomach, lack of appetite, then “he gets rhea” (?), in general he “can’t do much.”

On the advice of doctors, Peter I repeatedly resorted to treatment with mineral waters both in Russia and abroad - in Baden (1698, 1708), Carlsbad (1711, 1712), Bad Pyrmont (1716).

The St. Petersburg Historical Archives preserved the original medical history of Peter I from 1716, written by physician L.L. Blumentrost on the eve of the sovereign’s trip to the Czech Republic, to the waters. As follows from this ten-page document, the leading symptoms were moderate disturbances in the gastrointestinal tract, reminiscent of chronic colitis.

Robert Erskine, descendant of a noble Scottish noble family, was born in Alvay in 1677. For two years he studied medicine in Paris under the supervision of the prominent surgeon and anatomist Du Bernay. In 1700, at the University of Utrecht (Holland), he defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Medicine and Philosophy. In 1703 in England he was elected a member of the Royal Society. In 1706, Robert Erskine came to Russia and was admitted to public service. At first, Erskine was the personal physician of His Serene Highness Prince A.D. Menshikov.

Peter I drew attention to Erskine as a “noble, courteous, straightforward and well-mannered man,” and when his physician Johann Donel died in 1711, he invited him to take the vacant position. Having become a life physician, Erskine was constantly under Peter I, accompanying the Tsar on all his trips and military campaigns.

Leaving the resort of Spa (Belgium), where he was treated in the summer of 1717 with local waters, he ordered Doctor Erskine, who accompanied him, to issue the following certificate to the city authorities: “I, the undersigned, Privy Councilor and Chief Physician of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, hereby testify that His Majesty , going to Spa, suffered loss of appetite from weakening of the gastric fibers, had swelling of the legs, biliary colic and pallor of the face. Using the waters of Spa, His Majesty took the trouble to go to the Geronster spring, 3/4 of a mile from the city, knowing that the waters were more beneficial on the spot. Although His Majesty used the waters in other places in the past, he did not find anywhere that would bring him as much benefit as the waters of Spa. R. Areskin. July 24 days, 1717."

In memory of his treatment at the Spa, Peter I sent here a memorial plaque made of black marble with a Latin inscription. The main city square and the Puhon spring are named after him. In 1856, in the main colonnade near the springs, a magnificent bust of the emperor, donated by A. Demidov, was placed in the workshop of the famous sculptor Rauch (see: A.B. Mirsky. Medicine of Russia XVI-XIX centuries. M., 1996, p. 79 ).

In January 1719, Peter I, with the empress and dignitaries, went to the “martial waters” in the Olonets province, equipped thanks to the efforts of the head of the Konchezersky metallurgical plants, Colonel Wilhelm Gecking. In March 1720, Peter I came there for the second time and stayed there for 16 days. Overjoyed by the relief as a result of the treatment, Peter I promoted Gecking to general.

In 1721, in Astrakhan, during a campaign in Persia, Peter I first experienced attacks of urinary retention. In the winter of 1723 these attacks intensified. The court physicians had a rather difficult job with the sovereign’s patient, since he could not follow the strict diet prescribed to him for a long time. In general, abstinence was not in the nature of his impetuous, passionate nature; it was difficult for him to endure the prohibition imposed by the doctors from going out into the fresh air. And as soon as he felt better, shots were immediately heard from the serfs of the St. Petersburg Bastille - a signal that the sovereign was feeling better and had allowed himself to ride along the Neva. However, the consequence of such premature walks and feasts with hearty dishes and “Ivashka Khmelnitsky” was the resumption of the disease.

In June 1724, Peter I went to the Moscow region, to the Möller Ugodsky factories, where healing mineral springs were discovered. In August - a new trip to the Olonets province, to the Marcial Waters resort, which was founded in 1717. According to A.K. Nartov, regular consumption of mineral waters improved the sovereign’s well-being and appetite, the burning sensation in the mouth disappeared, and kidney function improved. Exacerbations of suffering became more and more frequent; In the summer and autumn of 1724, the sovereign was very unwell and, willy-nilly, did not part with medications, but they were of little help. In the summer of 1724, the disease took on an inflammatory character. The emperor was treated by Lavrenty Blumentrost and the surgeon Paulson. Doctor Nikolai Bidloo was called from Moscow for the consultation. Operator Wilhelm Horn inserted the catheter. Life physician and archiatr V. Richter wrote later that “perhaps the catheter, delivered with great pain and almost without any benefit, caused this inflammation.”

In September 1724, the emperor began to recover and gave hope for recovery. Considering himself completely healthy, he undertook a sea voyage to Shlisselburg and Lakhta. While taking part in rescuing soldiers and sailors from a boat that ran aground near Lakhta, he caught a bad cold. According to the report of the emperor’s personal physician, Doctor of Medicine L.L. Blumentrost, in the treatment of a cold received during the rescue of soldiers drowning in the Gulf of Finland near Lakhta in November 1724, they used rubbing hot goose fat with grated garlic into both halves of the chest, and for “aches in the back of the head on the eve of bad weather” - applying leeches. Sea buckthorn and rose hip juice were also prescribed.

Being present at severe frost On January 6, 1725, at the Baptism ceremony, he caught an even worse cold and on January 16 became hopeless. On January 16, things got worse, “severe chills” appeared, and the king took to bed. According to the historian E.F. Shmurlo, “death knocked on the royal doors.”

The physician who treated the emperor, Blumentrost, turned for advice to the then famous European doctors Hermann Burgaav in Leiden and Ernst Stahl in Berlin; in addition, he gathered for a consultation all the doctors who were in St. Petersburg. But nothing helped. Acute urinary retention occurred. Attack followed attack. Peter I experienced terrible torment. However, some doctors did not lose hope of salvation and tried to instill it in others. Thus, the Italian doctor Azzariti, who practiced in St. Petersburg, assured the courtiers that the disease was completely curable and the tsar would soon take up state affairs again. Indeed, the night from January 20 to 21 passed calmly, the fever went away, and “the cleansing became more correct.”

By January 22, the fever had subsided, but the patient was bothered by general bodily weakness and a sharp headache. On January 23, an “operation” (possibly a puncture or high section of the bladder) took place, resulting in the removal of approximately two pounds of purulent urine. The pain during the attacks these days was so severe that the emperor’s screams were heard not only in the palace, but throughout the entire area. The “attacks” mentioned by contemporaries were most likely episodes of acute urinary dysfunction due to stricture (narrowing) of the urethra. Blumentrost and Bidloo did not leave the patient’s bedside.

On January 25, during catheterization of the bladder, about a liter of purulent, foul-smelling urine was extracted. Exhausted by the painful procedure, the emperor fell asleep for a while, but soon he “fainted.” The next day, a new attack of fever began, accompanied by convulsions, during which the patient lost consciousness. On January 26, having cheered up, Peter I asked for food, but while eating he suddenly had a convulsive attack, he lost consciousness for more than two hours, after which the emperor lost the ability to speak and control his right limbs.

The chronology of the dying sufferings of Peter I is given in “The History of Peter” by A.S. Pushkin:

On the 22nd he confessed and took communion. All St. Petersburg doctors gathered with the sovereign. They were silent; but everyone saw Peter’s desperate state. He no longer had the strength to scream and only moaned, emitting urine.

By the evening of the 26th he felt worse. He was anointed.

On the 27th those present began to say goodbye to him. He greeted everyone with a quiet gaze. Then he said with effort: “after”... Everyone left, obeying last time his will. He didn't say anything anymore. He suffered for 15 hours, groaning, constantly tugging his right hand, his left was already paralyzed. Peter stopped moaning, his breathing stopped - at 6 o'clock in the morning on January 28, Peter died in the arms of Catherine.

During the autopsy, they found “hardening in the neck of the bladder and Antonov fire” (inflammation). N. Kupriyanov believes that, most likely, death resulted from inflammation of the bladder, which turned into gangrene, and from urine retention.

V. Richter devoted a separate chapter of his major work on the history of medicine in Russia to medical remarks about the last illness and death of Peter the Great. He wrote: “Many foreign doctors falsely consider stone disease to be the cause of his death, which followed on January 28, 1725. Dissection (autopsy. - B.N.), carried out after his death, resolved all doubts, since they could not find the stones. Other authors have equally unfairly attributed the disease to its consequence of the syphilitic phase. Most foreigners believe main reason boil near the bladder. The most absurd thing, however, is the opinion of those who believe that the cause of Peter the Great’s last illness was the poison given to him during his youth. A detailed and fair description of the illness and death of Emperor Peter the Great belongs to Academician Shtelin (published on German in Leipzig in 1785 - B.N.), who borrowed them from the lips of the Gough surgeon Paulson, who, under the supervision of Blumentrost, used the emperor.”

In recent years, the illness and death of Peter I have again attracted the attention of researchers. So, G.M. Yakovlev, I.L. Anikin and S.Yu. Trokhachev write in the Military Medical Journal (1990, No. 12): “The history of the tsar’s illness, apparently, has not survived to this day (we are obviously talking about the history of the illness with which, back in 1715, young Blumentrost, on the advice of R. Erskine went to the countries of Western Europe to find out the opinion of famous European doctors about the emperor’s illness. B.N.), but there are reviews of it by three famous European experts: Bernard Albin (1653–1721), Johann Brain (1680–1764) and Johann Brunner (1653–1727). The consultants came to the conclusion that Peter I had “hypochondria, scurvy, body exhaustion, melancholy and blood stagnation.” Translating these diagnoses into the language of modern medicine, the authors of the article believe that most likely we are talking about chronic hepatitis, the presence of which is indirectly confirmed by successful treatment with mineral waters; A possible causative factor for this disease was regular consumption of alcoholic beverages. As for the immediate cause of death, they suggest either prostate adenoma, which in its final stage led to acute urinary retention and the development of uremia (urinary bleeding), or urethral stricture, which developed as a result of the inflammatory process. At the same time, the authors resolutely refute the claims of some foreign doctors, in particular R. Goldwyn, that the court doctors allegedly suspected Peter I of syphilis, for which he was allegedly treated in 1706–1708. mercury preparations, and just as strongly support the opinion of V. Richter, who gave, in their words, “a brilliant, highly professional rebuke to supporters of the above-mentioned point of view.”

By the way, the “syphilitic” version was also supported by the well-known Soviet historian, academician M.P. Pokrovsky, who poured black paint on the pre-revolutionary history of Russia for ideological purposes. Taking advantage of the disagreements among specialists in establishing the diagnosis of Peter I’s illness, he did not miss the opportunity to tar the personality of the emperor: “Peter died, as is known, from the consequences of syphilis, which he received, in all likelihood, in Holland and was poorly treated by the doctors of that time.”

N.I. Gusakov in the brochure “Peter I and Medicine” (M., 1994) states that Peter I suffered from urolithiasis, as well as partial obstruction of the urethra after suffering and poorly treated gonorrhea. In addition, he also mentions the version of the poisoning of Peter I, referring to those described by A.S. Pushkin in his “History of Peter” contains convulsions, paralysis of the left arm, loss of vision and “burning in the stomach,” which, according to N.I. Gusakov, can be considered as signs of poisoning with some kind of poison, in particular arsenic.

Studying historical and literary sources dedicated to the death of Peter the Great, Yu.A. Molin, a highly qualified forensic expert with extensive experience in his specialty, drew attention to the version of poisoning. It was formulated most clearly by Dr. historical sciences N.M. Moleva on the pages of the “Medical Newspaper” (No. 111 of February 15, 1989). In her opinion, the exacerbation of the illness in January was preceded by the consumption of a new type of candy, given by someone to the emperor. A few hours later, the patient experienced vomiting, cyanosis of the nails, numbness in the hands, and a burning sensation in the abdomen.

Having carefully analyzed the hypothesis of N.M. Molevoy, Yu.A. Molin came to the conclusion that the symptoms she listed (by the way, which the sovereign had previously) can characterize both individually and collectively a variety of diseases and are by no means pathognomonic (mandatory) for poisoning due to ingestion of any poison with food. are.

Despite the fact that the formation of expert conclusions is extremely difficult, a careful analysis of the facts allowed Yu.A. Molin to make the following statement: a long history of the disease (about 8 years since treatment on the waters in the Spa), a pronounced positive effect from the use of mineral water, a fairly characteristic clinical picture, especially in the last year of life (fever attacks provoked by hypothermia, purulent cystitis - inflammation bladder, progressive urethral stricture, persistent swelling of the face, ascertained by contemporaries and recorded by a mask removed immediately after death), the absence of reliable signs of poisoning (the above mentioned burning in the abdomen, vomiting, convulsive twitching of muscle groups fit well into the picture of complicated somatic pathology) indicate that , that Peter I probably suffered from urethral stricture, complicated by purulent cystitis, an ascending infection with the development of severe pyelonephritis (inflammation of the renal pelvis and kidney tissue), and at the final stage of the disease - uremia (flooding the body with toxic metabolic products) and urosepsis.

A pronounced renal pathology caused the appearance of another formidable manifestation in Peter I, which for some reason was not noted by any of the researchers. Yu.A. Molin believes that in the last years of his life the emperor suffered from periodic rises in blood pressure, which doctors fought by placing leeches on the back of his head. From his point of view, a characteristic combination of symptoms (sudden loss of speech functions, paralysis of the right limbs, temporary loss of consciousness, convulsions) indicates that several hours before his death, Peter I suffered an acute cerebrovascular accident with hemorrhage in the left hemisphere of the brain as a consequence another sharp rise in blood pressure. This complication is often observed in cases of advanced, not properly treated nephritis.

Yu.A. Molin does not insist on the indisputability of this posthumous diagnosis, however, returning again and again to understanding the entire complex of data on the illness of Peter I, he considers this judgment reasoned and objective.

Illness and death of Peter 1

Peter 1 (born May 30 (June 9), 1672 - death January 28 (February 8), 1725) - the first Russian emperor, from. He died in the Winter Palace, he was 52 years old. There were many legends about the death of Peter 1.

On the eve of death

1725, January 27 - the imperial palace in St. Petersburg was surrounded by reinforced security. The first Russian Emperor Peter 1 was dying in terrible agony. During the last 10 days, convulsions gave way to deep fainting and delirium, and in those minutes when the sovereign regained consciousness, he screamed terribly from unbearable pain.

For last week, in moments of short-term relief, the emperor took communion three times. According to his order, all arrested debtors were released from prison and their debts were covered from the royal sums. All churches, including those of other faiths, held prayer services for him. Relief did not come...

Possible causes of death of Peter 1

The emperor's stormy life made itself felt. By the age of 50, he had a bunch of ailments. Uremia bothered him more than other diseases. In the last year of his life, the sovereign, on the advice of doctors, went to mineral waters for treatment, however, even during treatment, from time to time he was engaged in heavy physical labor. So, in June 1724, at the Ugoda factories of the Mellers, he forged several strips of iron with his own hands, in August he was at the launching of a frigate, and then set off on a long and tiring journey along the route: Shlisselburg - Olonetsk - Novgorod - Staraya Russa - Ladoga Canal.

Catherine's betrayal

There is a version that the sovereign was poisoned by people from his inner circle. This is how they could react to the loss of royal favor. A few months before Peter's death, the Tsar's relationship with his wife Catherine completely fell apart.

Returning home from a trip, the tsar, according to one common version, received evidence of adultery between his wife Catherine and 30-year-old Willie Mons, the brother of the emperor's former favorite. Mons was accused of bribery and theft and, according to the court verdict, his head was cut off. As soon as Catherine hinted at a pardon, the sovereign in anger broke a mirror of fine workmanship, in an expensive frame. “This is the most beautiful decoration of my palace. I want it and I will destroy it!” The wife realized that her husband’s angry words contained a hint of her own fate, but she asked restrainedly: “Does this make your palace any better?” The Emperor nevertheless subjected Catherine to a difficult test - he took her to look at the severed head of Mons...

Catherine understood well that the best she could now count on was a dull old age in a monastery. Unless... Unless the husband dies suddenly without writing a will. Then she, as the empress crowned in 1724, can take the throne by law.

Kaznokrad Menshikov

The well-known embezzler, His Serene Highness, was under investigation for more than 10 years. The control commission was able to discover that he had stolen more than a million state rubles, so that, as the Prussian envoy Axel von Mardefeld noted in his notes: “The prince... out of fear and in anticipation of the outcome of the matter, became completely haggard and even fell ill.” And then, as if on purpose, in November 1724, new financial frauds of the prince surfaced - food supplies to the army at inflated prices. They themselves were relatively modest (compared to previous years), but Menshikov transferred this profit to a bank in Amsterdam. “Yeah, I’ve decided to run away abroad!” - the sovereign decided.

The fate of the son of the court groom Alexander Danilovich Menshikov...

A special investigation was launched, which was entrusted to one of the tsar’s most trusted representatives - Fiscal General Alexei Myakinin. Moreover, it was completely inopportune that it became known about the papers of Mons, with whom His Serene Highness was in correspondence, seeking Catherine’s intercession. In his letters, Menshikov assured the German “of eternal friendship and devotion,” which infuriated Peter. As a result, Peter excommunicated Menshikov from himself: he forbade him to appear in the palace, and deprived him of the presidency of the Military Collegium. In fact, he found himself under house arrest in his palace.

People who were mean to him, accused of even much less significant fraud, have already been severely punished. “Most likely,” according to Doctor of Historical Sciences Nikolai Pavlenko, “Menshikov could share the fate of all embezzlers, especially since his main intercessor Catherine, due to her adultery, lost influence on the sovereign.” So Prince Menshikov became an involuntary ally of Ekaterina Alekseevna - the early death of the emperor was salvation for him too.

Kidney disease. Cold

1721 - in Astrakhan, during a campaign in Persia, the king first experienced attacks of urinary retention. 1723, winter - these attacks intensified. The court doctors had a very difficult job with the royal patient, since he could not follow the strict diet prescribed to him for a long time. The pain became more and more frequent.

1724, summer and autumn - the emperor felt very bad and, willy-nilly, did not part with medications, but there was not much help from them. In the summer of 1724, the disease took on an inflammatory character. The sovereign was treated by Lavrenty Blumentrost and the surgeon Paulson. 1724, September - the king began to recover and gave hope for recovery.

1724, November - while participating in the rescue of soldiers and sailors drowning in the Gulf of Finland from a boat that ran aground near Lakhta, he caught a bad cold.

1725, January 6 - being in severe frost at the Baptism ceremony, he caught an even worse cold and on January 16 became hopeless. January 16 brought deterioration, “severe chills” appeared, and the emperor took to bed. As the historian E.F. put it. Shmurlo, “death knocked on the royal doors.”

Acute urinary retention occurred. The attacks followed one after another. The king experienced terrible torment. But some doctors did not lose hope of salvation and made attempts to instill hope in those around them. Thus, a doctor from Italy, Azzariti, who practiced in St. Petersburg, assured the courtiers that the disease was completely curable and the tsar would soon be able to take up state affairs again. Indeed, the night from January 20 to 21 was calm, the fever went away, and “the cleansing became more correct.”

At first, Anna was Lefort’s mistress, until she exchanged her favorite for Peter 1...

By January 22, the fever had subsided, but the patient suffered from general bodily weakness and a sharp headache. On January 23, an “operation” (maybe a puncture or high section of the bladder) was performed, as a result of which about 2 pounds of purulent urine were removed. The pain during the attacks these days was so strong that the king’s screams were heard not only in the palace, but throughout the entire area, then the pain became so strong that the patient only moaned dully, biting the pillow. The “attacks” mentioned by contemporaries may have been episodes of acute urinary dysfunction due to stricture (narrowing) of the urethra.

On January 25, during catheterization of the bladder, about a liter of purulent, foul-smelling urine was removed. Exhausted by the painful procedure, the patient fell asleep for a short time, but soon he “fainted.” The next day, a new attack of fever began, accompanied by convulsions, during which the sovereign lost consciousness. On January 26, having cheered up, the Tsar asked for food, but while eating he suddenly had a convulsive attack, he lost consciousness for more than two hours, after which Peter 1 lost the ability to speak and control his right limbs.

Syphilis

One of the versions of the death of Peter 1 is described by Kazimir Waliszewski. The historian in the book “Peter the Great” states: “On September 8, 1724, the diagnosis of the disease was finally revealed: it was sand in the urine, complicated by the return of a poorly treated venereal disease.”

The Soviet historian M. Pokrovsky seized on this version and ruled out kidney disease, leaving only syphilis. “Peter died, as is known, from the consequences of syphilis, which he apparently received in Holland and was poorly treated by the doctors of that time,” he wrote.

Later, Doctor Azzariti, whom Peter summoned, confirmed that the sovereign actually had a long-standing venereal disease, which was not completely cured.

After the death of Peter 1, Campredon reported that “the source of the disease was old and poorly cured syphilis.”

It should be noted that only one diplomat of all those accredited at the Russian court reported this diagnosis to the tsar. It’s unlikely that others would have missed such juicy information.

Death

His body remained unburied for 40 days. And all this time, Catherine, proclaimed empress, cried twice a day over her husband’s body.

Doctors' opinion. Our days

Commented doctor of medicine Sciences, Professor L.L. Khundanov.

- Of course, it’s quite difficult to make a diagnosis after several centuries...

And yet, taking into account the testimony of contemporaries and written sources, we can try to reconstruct the history of Peter the Great’s illness. Perhaps the fact that the sovereign suffered from urethral stricture should be considered proven. It is known that the king, who loved to boast of his knowledge of medicine, found it possible to apply it to himself. The silver catheters with which he independently drilled the urethra have been preserved...

Hypothermia and alcohol could certainly cause an exacerbation of the chronic process. I don’t want to evaluate the actions of the doctors who treated the Tsar, but it seems that not all possible means were used, even at that time. In case of multi-day urinary retention, catheterization was performed only once. Maybe we should have thought about cystotomy - an operation widely practiced by surgeons of the 18th century. Although it is quite possible to assume that the emperor could have opposed this operation, and the doctors were unable or were afraid to convince him.

In our days, resolving the issue of the possible poisoning of Peter 1, without having any test results or examinations, is a very frivolous matter. Although some of the symptoms during the course of the disease do not quite fit into the clinical picture of ascending pyelonephritis and urosepsis. Also A.S. Pushkin in his “History of Peter” writes about convulsions, paralysis of the left arm, and loss of speech. “Burning in the stomach” can also be considered a sign of poisoning with some kind of poison. Such symptoms, if desired, can be classified as arsenic poisoning. But we should immediately make a reservation that at the beginning of the 18th century, arsenic and mercury preparations were widely used in the treatment of many ailments, and a patient with kidney damage could easily experience an overdose, causing a clinical picture similar to poisoning.