Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Gennikolai. "Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich" in the Tretyakov Gallery The author of the painting Tsar Peter interrogates Tsarevich Alexei
A. TREFILOVA: Good afternoon, 12 hours 7 minutes in the capital, today we have a serious story, you are all called in for interrogation. Tatyana Pelipeyko is here in the studio, good afternoon, Tanya. Do you want to be interrogated?
T. PELIPEYKO: No, no, of course, I will say something. (everyone laughs)
A. TREFILOVA: You will be a witness. Tatyana Karpova, Deputy Head of the Painting Department of the 2nd half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. I think, Tan, that you are the boss, in fact, today. Hello.
Tatiana Karpova: Hello.
A. TREFILOVA: We have a painting by Nikolai Ge "Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich in Peterhof." Well, in principle, everyone knows from the school curriculum, they usually call it “Tsar Peter and Tsarevich Alexei” - this is some kind of popular name, I would say. Yes? Have you heard this? What do you call the picture yourself? Hardly that long, right?
Tatiana Karpova: Yes, that's what we call it.
A. TREFILOVA: Pyotr and Alexei, right? Just?
A. TREFILOVA: +7 985 970-45-45 is the SMS number. Now Tanya will ask you a question, you will receive the prizes that Tanya has already chosen. Well, on the site, whoever has the opportunity, you can see - this picture is posted. For those who do not have the opportunity, we will now try to describe it. Well, at least in a nutshell, that Peter is sitting on a chair and a sad prince with a very high forehead, head down, is standing opposite. Do you agree Tan? Here, in general, to remember what it is, from the school curriculum? He sits, he stands. No? (laughs)
T.KARPOVA: That's exactly right. Now we probably do not really imagine that the composition itself, the very solution of this historical plot was innovative for its time.
A. TREFILOVA: I just want to sort out the prizes now approximately, while we remember the picture, then we will delve into the details. OK?
Tatyana Karpova: Okay, please, yes.
A. TREFILOVA: Tanya, show me what you have? What do you have in your pocket?
T. PELIPEYKO: We have catalogs of the gallery's current exhibitions, which were sent to us specifically for this draw. So, we have Alexei Supov, this exhibition, I remind you, continues in the Engineering Corps, and this is the story of an artist who, after all, did not fit into the early Soviet era and, as a result, remained abroad. There are works here and which he still did here, and which he did there. In general, this is to a large extent such a study and filling in many gaps in the general idea.
A. TREFILOVA: Impressive, impressive in size.
T. PELIPEYKO: Yes, an impressive catalogue, an impressive exposition: what didn't fit was placed in the corridors and on the stairs. So, also the Corps of Engineers. And, finally, everyone is highly recommended to go to Krymsky Val to see an exhibition dedicated to the poster, which was given the name "The Artist and Time", and, in general, this is indeed the case. The poster, as the genre most connected with the momentary, in many respects, when it is built chronologically, allows us to understand not only the development of style, but also the development of historical events. But the question is also historical. Historical, of course, associated with the Tretyakov Gallery. So, what other picture of Ge, besides the picture “Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei”, is also in the State Tretyakov Gallery and is also written on a plot from the history of Russia in the 18th century? Please name.
A. TREFILOVA: +7 985 970-45-45 is the SMS number, don't forget to subscribe. And I suggest you do this. Let's listen to how our painting, which we now have here "Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich in Peterhof", got into the Tretyakov Gallery, and then we will go deeper. The curator of the painting, Svetlana Kopyrina, will tell us about this.
THE PATH TO THE GALLERY
S. KOPYRINA: The painting "Interrogation of Tsarevich Alexei by Emperor Peter I in Peterhof", as it was originally called, was conceived by Nikolai Ge in 1870 under the influence of the country's general preparations for the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Peter I. When Nikolay Ge finished work on the painting, Tretyakov visited his studio and offered the author to buy the painting for 3,000 rubles. A year later, the first exhibition of the association of the Wanderers took place, at which the painting was a great success.
Among other things, the imperial family liked it, and Alexander II asked to leave the painting behind. None of the emperor's retinue dared to report that the painting had already been sold. Then, in search of a way out of the current situation, they turned to Nikolai Ge with a request to transfer the picture to the tsar, and write a repetition for Tretyakov. But the artist, having not received the consent of the collector, returns the painting after the exhibition to Tretyakov. And as recorded in the reports of the Academy of Arts, Professor Nikolai Nikolaevich Ge performed for His Majesty the Sovereign Emperor and His Highness Grand Duke Nikolai Konstantinovich a repetition of the painting "Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei." Thus was the fate of the famous painting. It is exhibited in the halls of the Tretyakov Gallery. The first author's repetition is in the Russian Museum.
A. TREFILOVA: Svetlana Kopyrina, curator of the Tretyakov Gallery, told us how Nikolai Ge's painting ended up in the Tretyakov collection. A man of his word, after all, was Nikolai Nikolaevich, right? I did not write to Tretyakov, so to speak, a double of this picture, I gave it as promised.
Tatyana Karpova: Yes, of course. Although, Pavel Mikhailovich really did not like it when artists did repetition.
T. PELIPEYKO: Well, what kind of collector can fall in love with this?
Tatyana Karpova: But I had to put up with it.
A. TREFILOVA: But he still received the original in the collection.
T. KARPOVA: And gradually Pavel Mikhailovich has such powerful competitors as Alexander II and then Alexander III, with whom it will gradually become more and more difficult for him to compete. But, nevertheless, the artists tried to go towards Pavel Mikhailovich, realizing that he was the first to conceive this museum of Russian national art, and whenever they could do it, they, nevertheless, went towards Pavel Mikhailovich.
A. TREFILOVA: Tatyana, well, let's look at the picture then and at the same time try to understand what the royal family could like there so much? Well, who, where?
T. KARPOVA: Well, indeed, in this picture we see only 2 actors - this is Peter I, who is sitting, and Tsarevich Alexei, who is standing with his arms down along his body, with his eyes lowered to the floor.
A. TREFILOVA: And where is the scene? Where is it all happening?
Tatyana Karpova: This is an interesting question. Ge places his heroes in Peterhof.
A. TREFILOVA: In my opinion, the prince was never interrogated, right?
T. KARPOVA: Although, there never was an interrogation of the prince. And they took place in Moscow, in the Kremlin Palace. And then, when he was transported to St. Petersburg and placed in the Peter and Paul Fortress.
T. PELIPEYKO: Then, probably, they didn’t take them to Peterhof for interrogation.
Tatiana Karpova: Yes, they didn't take him there. And I think Ge certainly knew about it. He approached the preparation for writing this picture very seriously, he was advised by the remarkable historian Kostomarov, who was once a teacher of history at the first Kyiv gymnasium, which Ge graduated from. And when Ge, after his long stay in Italy, returned to Russia, he resumed relations with Kostomarov, and painted a portrait of Kostomarov, and they were connected by such long friendly and creative relations. Therefore, Ge probably knew this, but he preferred not to portray Peter I and Alexei either in the Peter and Paul Fortress or in the Kremlin Palace, but to choose this interior of the Monplaisir Palace in Peterhof with paintings by Dutch artists that Peter I loved, which he collected, which he bought. With this rather dark interior, this checkered floor, which already carries such a peculiar load. This is also a metaphor for the regularity of the Petrine era, this desire for order, order. This is both black and white, something that Ge was aware of both in the personality of Peter I and in the personality of the prince himself.
T. PELIPEYKO: So he chooses this particular interior, which is really, after all, an interior or is it also assembled, symbolic? Real?
T. KARPOVA: This is a real interior, but Ge wrote that he was in Monplaisir only once, and did not return there on purpose.
T. PELIPEYKO: That is, unlike many of those who were engaged in historical painting, he did not make these numerous sketches with the study, there, of the texture of the fabric corresponding to the era, and so on, so on, so on? Does he not have such historical naturalism?
Tatiana Karpova: No, he doesn't have that. There is one pictorial sketch, there are graphic sketches. He, of course, studied in the Hermitage the portrait of Tsarevich Alexei by the artist Tannauer, and numerous portraits of Peter, and the death mask of Peter - he did all this. But we will not see such a literal adherence to historical realities in his works. Rather, he needed, here, to convey the very spirit of history, the very atmosphere. And, of course, he draws the attention of the audience, and, in general, so to speak, he himself is concentrated, first of all, on the conflict. And he translates this very acute historical conflict into such a worldview conflict, a psychological conflict. And unlike other artists who have worked in the field of history painting, Ge does not need a large number of characters.
A. TREFILOVA: Well, the interrogation should be carried out, in principle, in front of officials - there is also some violation here.
T. KARPOVA: The interrogation should be carried out in front of officials. But if he portrayed, apparently, this crowd of people, then it would divert attention from this dialogue, from this duel between Peter and Alexei.
T. PELIPEYKO: Although, nevertheless, we can theoretically assume - I don’t know if there is historical evidence - that the father and son, despite such an official situation of bringing to responsibility, what is called legally, he could still talk to him in private ?
T.KARPOVA: Perhaps, yes. There may have been a moment when they spoke in private.
T. PELIPEYKO: Because someone, but Peter, could neglect conventions, even legal ones.
Tatyana Karpova: Yes, there may have been such a moment, but it most likely did not take place in Peterhof, because we have no evidence that such conversations between Peter I and Alexei took place in Peterhof.
A. TREFILOVA: Tan, tell me, did the artist have any models? So no one posed?
T. KARPOVA: It is known that a certain St. Petersburg official Zaionchkovsky posed for him for the figure of the prince, and his such a pitiful figure, his such a frail appearance, such humility in his appearance - Ge needed it to create the image of Tsarevich Alexei. This is also interesting, because this moment of such a small person, this theme of a small person, so popular, so transparent, one of the central ones both in literature and in the art of the 2nd half of the 19th century, also resonates here to some extent. Because Tsarevich Alexei is completely at the mercy of the emperor, depressed, absorbed by this powerful power. And despite the fact that Peter is sitting, and Tsarevich Alexei is standing ...
T. PELIPEYKO: Yes, if, so to speak, to present it in expanded form, then the prince ...
T.KARPOVA: It does not rise in any way.
T. PELIPEYKO: The height of the father will be much lower, which, in my opinion, historically also did not correspond to reality, but no sources described him anywhere.
T.KARPOVA: No, Alexei, he was a big man.
A. TREFILOVA: Did Kostomarov have a strong influence on the artist from the point of view of history? Still, whether he pities the prince or not, that's what I want to understand. Did he support Kostomar's ideas that the tsarevich was guilty? Here, I just think he doesn't really think of him as pathetic and small. Still, it is quite so, evenly and strictly stands, and holds up perfectly.
T. KARPOVA: Well, it was Kostomarov who introduced Ge to these historical documents. And Kostomarov himself - he was well aware of how difficult this situation was from some moral, ethical positions. Although the general mood in society, on the eve of this celebration of the anniversary of Peter I, was, as it were, the general vector of these assessments of Peter's personality - it was, of course, so panegyric. Because in Peter they saw a major historical figure, a reformer, a very consistent person in carrying out his reforms. And in this sense, they criticized the modern ruler of Russia, Alexander II, in which they condemned this lack of consistency and lack of will in carrying out reforms and in such a Europeanization of Russia. And Ge himself - when he came from Italy and conceived this picture, he wrote that “10 years spent in Italy had an impact on me, and I returned from there a perfect Italian, seeing everything in Russia in a new light. I felt in everything and everywhere the trace of Peter's reform. This feeling was so strong that I was involuntarily carried away by Peter. And under the influence of this hobby, he conceived his painting “Peter and Tsarevich Alexei”. That is, it was such the first impulse of Ge.
T. PELIPEYKO: Here, perhaps, it is also interesting, after all, this is his first coming to large-format historical work. I do not mean the historical genre, when he takes something from antiquity, something from Italian life, there are such works, namely from history, as such, here is a big story connected with big characters.
A. TREFILOVA: At the same time, everything is violated. The place of action is different, there are no people.
T. PELIPEYKO: But the most interesting thing, after all. What is the reason for his turn to these historical works? After all, while working in Italy, he already created a lot of works, well, not only in Italy, on religious, first of all, subjects. That's what took him away from them at that moment for a certain period? How were they perceived, first of all, in Russia, what he did?
Tatyana Karpova: What he did in the historical genre...
T. PELIPEYKO: No, not in the historical genre. Namely, in the genre of religious mythology.
T. KARPOVA: Well, Ge's attitude has always been very uneven, and Ge's work has always been very uneven. And it has known ups and downs. And he knew some kind of delight of the public, unconditional success and complete failures.
T. PELIPEYKO: That is, he had failures, and he switched to some other genre?
Tatyana Karpova: His painting The Last Supper was enthusiastically received in Russia. He received the title of professor for this picture, and it brought him, in general, very loud fame and fame. But now his next paintings on gospel stories - these are "Messengers of the Resurrection", "Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane" no longer met with such enthusiasm.
T. PELIPEYKO: So, is there some kind of breakdown in him at this moment? He is unsure or...
Tatyana Karpova: He returned to Russia after this very long absence. I returned to this very politicized atmosphere of St. Petersburg at that time, to the atmosphere of passion for history, Russian history, which, of course, was interpreted and perceived from the position of today, that is, that day, the 70s.
T. PELIPEYKO: So, in general, this is some kind of allegory in a certain way. All these, many historical works of modern life.
T. KARPOVA: Ge was also very interested in this. And he is at the origins of the creation of a partnership of traveling art exhibitions. And, in fact, the program of fellowship - it was focused on the national genre, national landscape, national history, although there it was not forbidden, and plots related to the gospel issues were not excluded. And so Ge tried to master this historical genre in his work, to turn to the history of Russia in the 18th century.
T. PELIPEYKO: Tatyan, you said that this is definitely focused on the history and reforms of Alexander II and so on. Do we have any evidence that speaks about the political views of Ge himself during this period? Well, or at least about sympathy?
T.KARPOVA: Well, Ge was a European-oriented person.
A. TREFILOVA: Well, Tan, I just put a person in a dead end. (laughs)
Tatyana Karpova: He was more of a Westerner.
T. PELIPEYKO: No, well, well, here he is painting a portrait of Herzen. But he paints a portrait simply as an order, he doesn’t care if Herzen is there or someone or? ..
T. KARPOVA: No, he paints a portrait of Herzen out of an inner impulse.
A. TREFILOVA: So here, too, he could probably just paint a portrait of Peter. Nevertheless, he chose this very topic of reform and this whole story with the prince.
Tatyana Karpova: Yes. Well, I began to talk about the fact that the first impulse was his enthusiasm for the personality of Peter I and gratitude to him for trying to make Russia a European country, in any case, somehow energetically direct it along the path of European development. But studying the documents, immersing himself in these documents, he writes that he stirred up sympathy for Peter in himself, but he understood that this complete sympathy could not be. That historical figures, including Peter I, are not ideal.
T. PELIPEYKO: So he wanted some kind of ideal reformer? Here Peter is too cruel and cruel, right? Alexander II is doing everything too slowly. Now they are starting to remind us again of how many perceived Gorbachev's reforms in the second half of the 1980s: “Well, why so slowly? Why so little? Well, you have to, you have to!” It's real. Was this the case under Alexander II, perhaps in the eyes of some contemporaries?
T. KARPOVA: Well, public enthusiasm for Alexander II in the 1960s, when these reforms began, already in the early 1970s was replaced by some disappointment in how these reforms were going. This, in fact, causes a wave of the populist movement. But myself - I'm just talking about the background, the atmosphere in which this picture was created - as for Ge himself, at the first congress of artists, he expressed his deep gratitude to Alexander II for supporting him and buying his painting "The Last Supper "at one time and stopped various disputes around this picture, the competence to portray this plot in this way, the incompetence. Therefore, Ge tried to always be objective. But this St. Petersburg period in the life of Ge, as we know, and we talked about it - today we are not the first program dedicated to Ge - was replaced by disappointment in these historical plots, which did not give him this absolute ideal, an absolutely ideal hero.
A. TREFILOVA: And he naively hoped.
T. KARPOVA: And then he leaves, as we know, from St. Petersburg, buys himself a house on a farm in the Chernigov province and again turns to the gospel stories.
A. TREFILOVA: Let's break now for brief news, and then turn again to Ge's painting "Tsar Peter and Tsarevich Alexei."
NEWS
A. TREFILOVA: Tatiana Karpova, deputy head of the painting department of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, here in our studio. And along with it is the picture of Nikolai Ge "Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich in Peterhof." And Tatyana Pelipeyko already has winners and gifts for them.
T. PELIPEYKO: Yes, yes. We have already announced gifts, these are catalogs of current exhibitions of the Tretyakov Gallery, and with the answers, of course, this time it was curious. Many, as historical paintings by Nikolai Ge, placed Jesus, the Sanhedrin, and what is natural, and so on. But, gentlemen, after all, gospel or biblical stories are not historical stories, let's distinguish the genre, that's it. And then we talked about the history of Russia and the 18th century, and got Tatyan. And we got "Menshikov in Berezov", Surikov, and we got "Stepan Razin", which.
A. TREFILOVA: Well, okay, okay, that's it, shame on you. It's embarrassing for everyone.
T. PELIPEYKO: And we also received Princess Tarakanova, and so on. No. Well, I think all those who answered that way, they will rummage around the Internet, in reference books, if they are curious about it, and they will figure it out. And among the correct answers ... Well, the correct answer, the works that are in the Tretyakov Gallery, are “Catherine II at the coffin of Empress Elizabeth” - that is, here is also such a line, thrown from Catherine to Peter through his daughter.
A. TREFILOVA: And again two.
T. PELIPEYKO: And again, two, but maybe Tatyana will tell us a few words about this picture after I announce those who managed to give us the correct answers earlier than others - this is Sergey, whose phone number begins with 298-, Andrey - 055 first 3 digits and Lydia - 250. Congratulations to everyone, as well as those who answered correctly, but did not have time to answer and receive a prize. However, play with us.
A. TREFILOVA: Before Tatyana, we will just talk about the parallels of these paintings, maybe if they exist. Comrades, you need to go to the Tretyakov Gallery - then it will be easy for you to answer questions. Here, as a guest, the well-known, I would say, the famous journalist Melor Sturua came here as a guest. Now he lives in America, and once studied in Moscow. And while studying in Moscow, like any Muscovite, of course, he did not go to the Tretyakov Gallery. Rather, he walked, but rarely. That is why he told us about what he liked the most in this Tretyakov Gallery.
FAVORITE PICTURE
M. STURUA: Of course, I haven't been to the Tretyakov Gallery for a long time, I confess. But when I lived in Moscow, I went there from time to time. Like any Muscovite who thinks that he can visit the Tretyakov Gallery at any time, I went there only when my friends came either from Georgia or from abroad. Naturally, they were drawn to the Tretyakov Gallery, and I, groaning, walked along with them. And so gradually fell in love with this amazing museum.
My favorite artists represented in the Tretyakov Gallery are Repin and Vrubel. A very strange combination, perhaps, but that's how it is. When I was young, I liked Repin more. Then, when I became somewhat more mature and, oddly enough, romantic, I switched to Vrubel.
Of course, all these demonic pictures of the sky, as he painted it, were amazing. But in my youth, of course, Repin pulled me more, I was pulled by these living people who looked at me from his canvases. Apparently, my classical, or something, education had an effect on this, because I always loved the artists of the Renaissance. And then this love somehow passed to the artists of the later period of the 19th century, French, such as David. Again, these revolutionary and romantic figures, like, say, Napoleon on horseback and so on. And then, little by little, I moved to the Wanderers. And here Repin, of course, captivated me.
A. TREFILOVA: Well, Tanya, do you understand? We somehow think that the gallery will not go anywhere, of course, and we will be able to go there someday.
T. PELIPEYKO: Well, it is. Because many go to some new temporary exhibitions or to some altered part of the exposition. And, indeed, especially if the exhibition is large, after that a person has already seen enough, he is not always able to disconnect from this and go through the old halls again. And yes, maybe for this it is worth coming specifically to see sometimes the main exposition, and not just doing it in parallel with a visit to some exhibition, especially a large one.
A. TREFILOVA: Well, come on, you wanted to ask.
T. PELIPEYKO: Yes, in fact, yes. Here, a few words about this work, since we asked a question about it, about the work "Catherine II at the coffin of Empress Elizabeth." Is it a stylistic continuation of this work or is it some kind of new attempt?
T. KARPOVA: Well, this is a continuation, to some extent, of the theme of the history of Russia in the 18th century. But this picture is much more populated than the picture "Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei in Peterhof." And there is no such psychological tension in it. She is much more, so to speak, sluggish emotionally. And so we talked with you about the fact that Ge knew these ups and downs, and failures. And she no longer met with such a response as Peter and Alexei. And Ge himself understood this. And, in fact, after this picture, he decides to leave Petersburg, leave historical subjects. 2 historical paintings were enough for me, he will say. And he decides to return to the circle of these gospel stories in search of his own ephemeral, as he said.
A. TREFILOVA: And by the way, what were the responses, Tanya, to this picture, Tsarevich Alexei and Peter? Basically, how was it received?
T.KARPOVA: There were a lot of responses. And naturally, the picture of Ge was not so much discussed as the historical figures themselves, Peter I and Alexei. And they interpreted this picture in completely different ways. I think that Ge here retains just such a measure of objectivity, he is not on the side of Peter and not on the side of Alexei. And different, so to speak, art critics, writers - Stasov, and Saltykov-Shchedrin, and later Kostomarov responded to this picture - they begin to attribute rather their views, their attitude to this story to Ge.
A. TREFILOVA: That is, it seemed to everyone that Ge was on his side, right?
T. KARPOVA: It seemed to someone that Peter was portrayed as such a beast, a despot, and Ge's sympathies are on the side of Alexei. It seemed to someone that, on the contrary, this is an apology for Peter and Ge forgets about the cruelty of this time. Just Ge himself wrote about the evolution of his views while working on this picture: “During the painting of the painting “Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei”, I had sympathy for Peter. But then, having studied many documents, I saw that there could be no sympathy. I inflated my sympathy for Peter, saying that his social interests were higher than the feelings of his father, and this justified his cruelty, but killed the ideal.
A. TREFILOVA: I must say that the prince was, in fact, not at all as wild as sometimes people tried to imagine him. He was very educated, knew, as I understand it, several languages.
Tatyana Karpova: Yes, he was very educated. He was a more educated person than Peter I.
A. TREFILOVA: And he was not at all against, in fact, the reform, but he was against the methods, as far as I understand, these?
T. KARPOVA: He was against the methods, he was against this, such an accelerated pace, well, as we would say now, of the development of Russia, which, as it seemed to him, Peter I imposed.
A. TREFILOVA: What about shock therapy?
T. KARPOVA: And this investigation showed that he had his own program, which, of course, horrified Peter. And the last straw in the course of this investigation was the testimony of Efrosinya, who was expecting a child from Alexei at that moment, and Alexei was going to marry her. By that time, his legal wife had already died. And she showed that in the event that he came to the Russian throne, Alexei was going to abandon Petersburg, make Moscow the capital again, spend the summer months in Yaroslavl, end the wars, reduce the army and navy.
A. TREFILOVA: And here, probably, the priest could not stand it.
T. PELIPEYKO: Well, yes, no peace, no war, disband the army, something like that.
T.KARPOVA: But Peter wanted to have an heir. He understood that his strength was also leaving. And he knew that his work could perish. He started a lot, but he needed to keep it going. And in the end, this leads to...
A. TREFILOVA: That is, there is also a personal drama, in fact, we must not forget about it.
Tatyana Karpova: This is also a personal drama. But in general, to read these letters, their correspondence. He demands that the prince change, that he change his nature or become a monk.
A. TREFILOVA: Listen, but the fact that, after all, Ge moved the scene and these Dutch paintings - isn't it on purpose to show how alien the prince is here? The situation is not at all his, incomprehensible, perhaps, to him, the boyar. It looks kind of lonely there.
T.KARPOVA: Well, that situation was hardly incomprehensible to Tsarevich Alexei. Because Tsarevich Alexei - he knew German and French very well, he knew Latin.
A. TREFILOVA: But here, you know how? This is the father's house, that is, he ended up on the territory of Peter.
Tatiana Karpova: To some extent, yes, it is possible. But as far as Dutch painting is concerned, it was nothing new to him. Peter sent him to Germany to study. Well, it’s true, then there was such an episode: when Tsarevich Alexei returned from Germany and Peter decided to test his knowledge in drawing, in geometry, Alexei was already so afraid of his father that he shot himself in the right hand, just to avoid this exam. That is, these relationships were personally very difficult. Because if, now, we look through this whole history of their relationship, then when ... Tsarevich Alexei was the son of Peter's unloved first wife Evdokia Lopukhina, Peter I was forcibly married at the age of 17, that is, without his consent. He submitted to this will of his mother on this occasion.
T. PELIPEYKO: Well, obviously, at that moment I did not realize the consequences of this kind, including.
Tatyana Karpova: Perhaps I didn't realize these consequences. When Tsarevich Alexei was 2 years old, Peter I met Anna Mons in a German settlement, with whom he began a relationship. When Alexei was 4 years old, Peter I had already left Alexei's mother Evdokia Lopukhin. And when Tsarevich Alexei was 8 years old, he practically lost his mother, because Peter I forcibly tonsured Evdokia Lopukhin as a nun and forbade Tsarevich Alexei to see his mother. And when, during one of the absences of Peter I, Tsarevich Alexei, violating this will of his father, went to the monastery in Suzdal, where she was, this caused the terrible wrath of Peter I. That is, he was separated from his mother. Peter I had very little contact with him. And Alexei was crushed by this will of Peter, the character of Peter.
A. TREFILOVA: Tanya, tell me, did Ge have children? So I just don't know, did he have any family?
Tatiana Karpova: Yes, he had a wonderful family. He had 2 sons.
A. TREFILOVA: Because, as I understand it, the picture was painted, he was already about 40 years old, and at that moment he should also understand the problem of fathers and children, I guess.
Tatyana Karpova: Yes, of course. Well, it's an eternal problem. Because our children are not always like us and do not always want to continue our business. Almost every parent faces this.
A. TREFILOVA: Yes, but not everyone calls for interrogation.
T. PELIPEYKO: But not everyone lives at the top of a hereditary monarchy.
T.KARPOVA: Well, yes, yes. But the complexity of this situation - it was that not only there was a conflict of characters, in general, the very nature of these 2 personalities. But it was also about the future.
T. PELIPEYKO: But Ge himself, after all, broke his fate. He studied at the Physics and Mathematics University, then jumped to painting. Who knows what his parents thought and said about this, or guardians, or any adults who were next to him. You can also guess.
A. TREFILOVA: Tanya, why - I just, again - I don’t know, a historical fact, why such a, as you say, prince is disproportionate? Long arms, a huge forehead - here he is somehow unsightly, it seems to me, so awkward. Is it so portrait? Real, right?
T. PELIPEYKO: What has been strengthened?
T. KARPOVA: Well, this elongated face of the prince - it really takes his features of Ge from the existing lifetime portraits. Apparently he needed...
T. PELIPEYKO: And the figure itself? Are these long fingers, long arms?
Tatyana Karpova: Long fingers, long arms. I personally did not come across such detailed descriptions of his appearance.
T. PELIPEYKO: That is, here he is refining it in the same way that he changes the interior against historical reality.
T. KARPOVA: This is the contrast of such a dense, energetic figure of Peter and such a weak-willed, elongated one.
A. TREFILOVA: To me, here, he does not seem weak-willed at all, to be honest.
Tatiana Karpova: Well, at least the silhouette is like that.
A. TREFILOVA: Maybe in some way submissive?
T.KARPOVA: There is some kind of humility and depression in this. Although, if we look closely at the face and close-up, when we examine the face of the prince in detail, we see that he remains in his positions.
A. TREFILOVA: That is, he was simply tired of arguing at this moment, it seems to me. He realized that it was impossible to prove something.
T. KARPOVA: He did everything that Peter I demanded of him. He abdicated in favor of his brother Peter Petrovich. And despite this, all the same, Peter continues to persecute him, and he is sentenced to death.
A. TREFILOVA: But exactly the idea itself, the very point of this dispute - did Kostomarov prompt Ge?
Tatiana Karpova: I don't think so. I think that Ge, the composition of this picture is his personal creative idea.
A. TREFILOVA: That is, it is simply obvious that a lot has already happened before, and what happened after, we just know now, because we know.
T. PELIPEYKO: But he knew too.
Tatiana Karpova: Well, he knew a lot.
T. PELIPEYKO: These heroes did not know everything yet.
T. KARPOVA: So I started talking about at the beginning of this program that Ge translates this historical conflict into such a psychological conflict of these 2 personalities, 2 worldviews. And Ge's experience of working on portraits helps him a lot here. And all the major masters of the historical painting of the 2nd half of the 19th century - they were all brilliant portrait painters - and Kramskoy, and Repin, and the same Ge. And I already had to say on other occasions in our program that, here, Surikov's large canvases - they also stick to the faces, on the characters of the main characters.
T. PELIPEYKO: Well, Surikov is still very fond of color, after all.
T.KARPOVA: Here, yes. But this dialogue, these 2 people. This atmosphere, which is between them, it is, of course ... Here, we first of all see these faces.
A. TREFILOVA: Pay attention: they are directly divided into 2 parts, the picture is practically. There is a feeling that yes.
T. KARPOVA: And here is this tablecloth, a heavy carpet tablecloth, which Ge spied on the picture of one of the small Dutchmen, as he writes, hanging down with these red and black tones.
A. TREFILOVA: Visually, this separates the picture.
T. KARPOVA: In which there is something sinister - he also introduces it not by chance. And it seems to me that this carpet, also red and black, which Repin has in his painting “Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son”, is like such and such, a paraphrase of Ge’s move, including. This picture had a very great influence on historical painting, on Russian historical painting. And then, here, in Surikov's painting "Morning of the Streltsy Execution", here is this dialogue of views, such a furious look of Peter and the red-bearded archer. He, too, will permeate the picture.
A. TREFILOVA: At the same time, they are almost the same height. Although, Peter is sitting.
T. PELIPEYKO: No, no, no, Peter is much taller if he gets up.
A. TREFILOVA: No. Now, when he is sitting and the prince is standing, there is not much difference between them. Is there such a thing?
T. PELIPEYKO: Yes, exactly. That is, the prince is very reduced against, apparently, his real growth.
A. TREFILOVA: But at the same time, it seems to me that simply, if he were a little more pitiful, prince, this would belittle the image of Peter. Still, they have a dialogue going on. There is no such thing as a hunted animal, what is it ...
Tatyana Karpova: Yes. No, it does not make him either caricature or exceptionally pitiful. Although, the prince, of course, he probably found out - this Ge could not help but know - during all these interrogations, he completely surrenders his entire entourage. After all, the prince tried to escape abroad. That is, he understood that this persecution was going on, that, despite the fact that he agreed at first during the correspondence with Peter to renounce his rights to the throne and agreed to take the veil as a monk, but he did not do this voluntarily, he waited, the entourage of Tsarevich Alexei waited. And Tsarevich Alexei flees from Russia. There was a circle of people who help him do this, and he runs to his own, as if trying to find help in Austria. He flees to Vienna.
A. TREFILOVA: Well, actually, he ruined himself with this - he ran over to political opponents.
T.KARPOVA: To political opponents. Moreover, it became known later that it was not revealed during these interrogations that when he realized that the Austrian emperor was not ready to fully support him - that is, he was hidden, then he was transported, Tsarevich Alexei to Italy, to Naples - he turned to the worst enemies of Peter I, to the Swedish king. That is, he rushed about, undertook various ...
A. TREFILOVA: And we had an influence during the painting, we know that Tretyakov came when the work was already completed, he came to the studio, whether Kostomarov or someone else came there, and how strong the influence was, here, to do just that, but not differently? Or did Ge not let anyone in? In general, how much pressure was put on him? Apparently, the atmosphere itself - we talked about the fact that then they just started talking about reforms again.
T. KARPOVA: You know, this question arose about Ge and his relationship with Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy. Ge was always, as it were, open to various ideas, in general, a person who lived such an active mental life and communicated with the color of the intelligentsia of that time. But how could he not have been in such spiritual slavery with Tolstoy, although he shared his plans with him and Tolstoy gave him his advice.
A. TREFILOVA: But Ge did it his own way.
Tatyana Karpova: Yes. He was the autocratic master of his creativity. He just needed, probably, such a discussion of his plans. And this entire St. Petersburg period in the life of Ge - he was marked by constant active communication with Stasov, and with Kostomarov, and with Saltykov-Shchedrin, with a very wide range of artists, writers, and scientists of that time.
A. TREFILOVA: We have 2 minutes left to listen to the announcement from Yakov Shirokov. Tatyana Karpova was our guest. The only last question: where is the picture now? Is it on permanent display? Where can you find it?
T.KARPOVA: It hangs in the permanent exhibition. I want to say that we are preparing for the anniversary exhibition of Ge.
T. PELIPEYKO: Yes, when exactly?
Tatyana Karpova: We will celebrate the 180th anniversary of his birth. We have restored, our wonderful restorers have restored the Sanhedrin Court.
T. PELIPEYKO: Which many people specially went to, by the way.
Tatyana Karpova: Yes, there was such an exhibition-presentation of this painting, this unique restoration. Our restorers have restored another large painting by Khe "Messengers of the Resurrection".
T. PELIPEYKO: Well, well, well, when will we see?
T.KARPOVA: In 2011 we will see this exhibition.
A. TREFILOVA: At least show me a restored one?
T. PELIPEYKO: Well, can you show this picture?
Tatyana Karpova: A restored painting.
T. PELIPEYKO: Show me at least for a while.
T.KARPOVA: We will make the frame and show it. And even before this exhibition, our plans include the reconstruction of the Ge hall. We are now preparing for this reconstruction, where we will try. Perhaps it will still work out before the anniversary exhibition, to exhibit "Messengers of the Resurrection".
A. TREFILOVA: Tatyana Karpova, deputy head of the painting department of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Tatyana Pelipeyko, Anna Trefilova. Announcements from Yakov Shirokov. Thanks, happy.
Y. SHIROKOV: During the summer lull, all halls of the Tretyakov Gallery are open to visitors who can not only get acquainted with the permanent exhibition of the museum, but also have time to see a number of exhibitions representing both Russian and Soviet art, as well as the work of our compatriots abroad.
On Krymsky Val there is an exhibition "American Artists from the Russian Empire". Works of several generations who emigrated from Russia and ended up in the United States in the first half of the last century. There is also a large exposition introducing the history of Russian and Soviet posters, and through them with the history of our country. Moreover, you can see both masterpieces of this art field known since childhood, as well as unique originals of poster stencils, “ROSTA Windows” and “TASS Windows”, as well as sketches of works by famous masters of the genre.
Another exhibition in the halls in Lavrushinsky Lane invites you to go on a journey with famous Russian painters of the 18th - early 19th centuries. Several hundred works, including paintings by Bryullov, Vereshchagin, Surikov, Benois, Polenov, created by artists on trips around Russia and abroad.
And, of course, there is still time to catch the exhibition of Alexander Deineka's graphics from the collection of the Kursk Art Gallery. The exposition is open on Krymsky Val.
The platform for young art at Winzavod offers an exhibition by Sergei Ogurtsov "Exodus". The combination of natural materials with video projections, the artist's installations about the desire of art to go beyond the human.
There is still one week to catch the exhibition "Geysers of the Subconscious-3" in the gallery on Solyanka. Painting, graphics, video installations, as well as dolls and body painting from surrealist artists from Russia and the CIS countries.
And in the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts in the department of personal collections, the exhibition "The Age of Faberge" continues. The peculiarity of the current exposition is that for the first time the works that the Link of Times Foundation has acquired over the past 5 years are shown here.
multimedia film
Year of publication: 2015
Russian language
A film about the famous painting by N.N. Ge reveals the circumstances of the tragic confrontation between Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei (1690-1718), Peter's eldest son from his first wife Evdokia Lopukhina. Not being a supporter of his father's reforms, in 1717 he fled to Vienna, where he negotiated with the Austrians and Swedes. Alexei managed to return to his homeland by cunning and promises of forgiveness.
The investigation showed: treason is evident. The prince was put on trial and condemned to death. However, there are many mysteries and inconsistencies in this story.
It is not surprising that in the 19th century the personality of Peter I was often associated with the image of the “son-killing tsar”. Diametrically opposed judgments on this issue were well known to N.N. Ge. The artist was worried about something else: by immersing his characters in the true subject environment of the Peterhof Monplaisir Palace, he recreated in the picture the psychological sharpness of the conflict between the consciousness of public duty and paternal feelings. N.N. Ge, as it were, expands the scope of the problems of the banal dispute between the old and young generations, emphasizing the irreconcilable antagonism between the former boyar Russia and the new Peter's Russia.
The painting was a great success at the First Traveling Exhibition in 1871, and then was shown in 1872 in Moscow at an exhibition dedicated to the 200th anniversary of Peter I.
The failure of the latest religious paintings forced Ge to abandon this topic for a while. He again turned to history, this time Russian, dear and close to his soul.
At the First Traveling Exhibition Ge showed his new work "Peter I Interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich in Peterhof". The artist offered a psychological interpretation of the plot, presenting the canvas as a drama of a clash of personalities - adherents of opposing life values.
Tsarevich Alexei was well educated, knew several foreign languages, and, in fact, he did not oppose the reforms in any way, but he was disgusted by the despotic and harsh forts of the reign of Peter I.
Until now, it is not clear whether he actually initiated the preparations for the seizure of power in Russia, or whether he became an unwitting hostage of his entourage, dissatisfied with the policy of the monarch. The prince fled to the West, from where he was returned and tortured to death by torture in the Peter and Paul Fortress with the knowledge and on the orders of his own father.
In a historical canvas, the painter conveys the internal state of the characters. The ostentatious calmness of both, without gestures and external effects, is deceptive. This is a drama of experiences, a drama of mental anguish and difficult choices.
Ge very accurately chose the moment that he reflected in his picture. After studying the documents and a heated argument, Peter is no longer angry, but bitterly assures himself of his son's betrayal. But before signing the verdict, he peers into Alexei's face, still not losing hope of seeing repentance in him. The prince lowered his eyes under the gaze of his father, but the silent dialogue continues. The hanging edge of the blood-colored tablecloth is symbolic: it not only separates the characters, but seems to herald the tragic resolution of this conflict.
The European atmosphere of the hall in Monplaisir is alien to the prince, who grew up in towers, and plays against him. But Alexei, confident that the emperor would not dare to raise society against himself and would not be able to step over his father's feelings, stubbornly remains silent. He remains Peter's opponent to the end.
The artist mainly wanted to convey to the viewer that the death sentence was signed not by a crowned executioner, but by a parent wounded in the heart, who made a decision in the interests of the state.
This picture is cold. Dark walls and a cold mouth of a fireplace, a stone floor, a pale cold light, barely dispelling the twilight of a large hall. But the main coldness is in the relationship between father and son, who have become irreconcilable opponents. The floor, drawn into black and white squares, resembles a chessboard, and the real characters on it are like two opposing pieces in a historical chess game.
In this tragic collision, the most important problem for the artist was the problem of the moral dignity of the individual. In 1892, he wrote in his Notes: “Ten years spent in Italy had an impact on me, and I returned from there a perfect Italian, seeing everything in Russia in a new light. I felt in everything and everywhere the influence and trace of the Petrine reform. This feeling was so strong that I was involuntarily carried away by Peter ... It is hard to paint historical pictures ... You have to do a lot of research, because people in their social struggle are far from ideal. During the painting of the painting "Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei" I had sympathy for Peter, but then, having studied many documents, I saw that there could be no sympathy. I inflated my sympathy for Peter, saying that his public interests were higher than his father’s feelings, and this justified his cruelty, but killed the ideal ... ”.
The painting was received with great interest. Worldview disputes flared up around her, to some extent they have not subsided so far. The canvas was immediately acquired by Pavel Mikhailovich Tretyakov, and now it is rightfully considered one of the most famous Russian historical works mentioned in textbooks and school anthologies.
Among the paintings known to the general public since childhood and living in the historical and cultural memory of the people, is the famous painting by Nikolai Nikolaevich Ge “Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei in Peterhof”. More often this picture is simply called "Tsar Peter and Tsarevich Alexei." The family drama of the reforming tsar Peter I is one of the most remarkable pages of Russian history. Almost 150 years ago, N. Ge painted this picture, reproductions of which are reproduced in numerous art publications and postcards.
In 1872, an exhibition dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the birth of Peter I was to be held in Moscow. This gave N. Ge the idea to paint a picture of the life of the great reformer tsar: “I felt everywhere and in everything the influence and trace of Peter's reform. This feeling was so strong that I was involuntarily carried away by Peter and, under the influence of this passion, I conceived my painting "Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei."
From the turbulent history of Tsar Peter, the artist in his picture depicts the moment when Peter I had to endure a difficult drama between the consciousness of the state debt and fatherly feelings. The fate of the firstborn of Tsar Peter was tragic, many circumstances played their fatal role in it. First of all, the environment in which the young Tsarevich Alexei was brought up was the environment of his mother, the boyar daughter Evdokia Lopukhina. These were the offspring of the old boyar families, who hated Peter I for the transformations and for the harsh struggle with the "big beards".
The character of Tsarevich Alexei himself was also the direct opposite of his father's - with his inexhaustible energy, enterprise, iron will and insatiable thirst for activity. And resentment against his father, who forcibly exiled the young Empress Evdokia to the Suzdal Monastery. The heir of Peter I did not become the successor of his father's affairs, but their enemy, detractor and conspirator. Subsequently, he had to flee from his native country, but returned to Russia, he was declared a criminal and now appears before the menacing eyes of his father. But here was not only the great personal tragedy of Peter the father, who lost his reformer heir in the face of his son. The conflict, put by N. Ge as the basis of the plot of the picture, develops from a purely family one and already reflects a historical tragedy. This tragedy was typical for all of Russia, when Peter I, breaking the old days, built a new state on blood.
The events are interpreted by N. Ge in an extremely simple way, the romantic excitement of his former gospel canvases has given way to strict historical objectivity, therefore everything in his picture is vitally authentic - the chosen situation, the setting, the artistic description, and the composition of the entire work. However, starting to work on the picture, N. Ge faced a choice. Many then were convinced of the guilt of the "son-killing king", and the prince himself was declared the victim of a treacherous father. However, the historian N. I. Kostomarov, whom N. Ge knew well and considered him an outstanding talent, a historian with a clear mind, did not agree with such coverage of events. The intrigues of Tsarevich Alexei for N. Kostomarov were proven, and the execution was logical. True, and he makes a reservation that Peter I himself made an enemy out of his son.
This is the situation N. Ge found himself in when he had to take a certain point of view or look for a historical guiding thread himself. If you strongly condemn the prince, then in this case it is necessary to compare him with the "virtuous" father, and the artist could not decide on this. Yes, and he had no reason for this, for he himself admitted: “I had sympathy for Peter, but, having studied many documents, I saw that there could be no sympathy. I inflated my sympathy for Peter, saying that his public interests were higher than the feelings of his father, and this justified cruelty, but killed the ideal. And then N. Ge decided to combine the efforts of a historian and an artist. He worked tirelessly in the Hermitage, studying all the pictorial and graphic images of Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei. In Peterhof's Monplaisir, he visited Peter's room, examined his clothes, personal belongings, then returned to his studio and began to make sketches and sketches.
At first, in pencil sketches, Peter I was depicted alone: sitting at the table and lowering his head, he painfully meditates. Before him are documents that irrefutably prove the guilt of his son. But so far, the family drama, which N. Ge so wanted to materialize artistically, is not felt, and a new sketch appears. On it, the mighty figure of the seated king is given in silhouette against the background of a window, in the rays of bright daylight. A son stands nearby - tired and hopelessly lowering his head. But the artist also refused this option, since it was too obvious to exalt one hero at the expense of another. In the final version of the picture, Peter I sits at the table and looks at his son with a gaze. A stormy explanation has just taken place, and Tsar Peter seems to be waiting for an answer from his son. The prince, like a ghost, stands as if chained, looking down in confusion.
The scattered light of an overcast day, the restrained coloring give the picture a real intonation, all the artist's attention is focused on the psychological expressiveness of faces and figures - their facial expressions, gestures, postures. After a heated argument, Peter's outburst of anger is replaced by an agonizing conviction that his son is guilty. All the words have been spoken, all the accusations have been made, and a tense, nervous silence reigns in the room. Inquisitively and intently, Peter I peers at Tsarevich Alexei, trying to discern, unravel him, still not leaving hope for his son's repentance. Under the gaze of his father, he lowered his eyes, but the dialogue between them continues internally, in complete silence.
In N. Ge's picture, the moment of action is surprisingly accurately chosen, which allows you to understand what happened and guess about the future. And that it will be terrible, says a lot. And above all, the red tablecloth falling to the floor, separating the figures of father and son with an insurmountable barrier. By this, N. Ge achieved the main thing: it was not the crowned executioner who was ready to sign the death sentence, but the father wounded in the very heart - a state politician who weighed everything, but still a wavering person. The tragic collision of the picture is hidden, as it were, inside, the artist dispenses here with striking color strokes, the canvas is lit softly, almost imperceptibly. The colors in his painting do not glow, do not glow like hot coals, but live neutrally in a darkened space.
All the details are carefully written out on the canvas; they not only specify the place and time of the action, but also participate in the characterization of the characters in the picture. Simple furniture, “Dutch” paintings hanging on the walls speak of Peter's simple tastes, and in this European-looking room, Alexei, brought up in towers, feels like a stranger. Fear of his father, misunderstanding of his affairs, fear of punishment made Alexei wary and secretive. But he also had other character traits, which the historian M.P. wrote about. Pogodin: “In sincere, sincere letters to friends, he is what he really was, without embellishment and exaggeration, - and it must be confessed that all these documents speak more in his favor than to his detriment. He was a pious man, of course, inquisitive in his own way, judicious, prudent and kind, cheerful, a hunter of revelry. Nikolai Ge, according to him, sympathized with the unfortunate fate of the prince when he painted his picture.
None of the historical documents mentions that Peter I ever interrogated his son one on one in Peterhof. The interrogations of the prince were carried out in an official setting, and, of course, N. Ge knew about this. But he deliberately transfers the action to Peterhof and limits the circle of actors in order to more strengthen the deep penetration into the life and psychology of the era. It was this meeting that the artist put forward in the center of his picture, since it allowed him to focus all his attention on the main thing - on the tragedy, in which the characters were two close people. At this decisive moment in his life, Tsarevich Alexei was still capable of passive resistance, he had not yet lost faith that Tsar Peter would not dare to step over his father's duty, would not dare to raise public opinion against himself, condemning the legitimate heir to the throne, as Alexei continued to be count. This unfulfilled, illusory hope continues to nourish his inner resistance. He was not a powerless victim, in his stubbornness, firm unwillingness to obey the will of his father, there is his own line of conduct, his courage, therefore he is not a miserable coward (although sometimes he was seen that way), but an opponent of Peter.
This required from N. Ge completely different forms and means of artistic expression, generalization - without petty, careful copying of nature. In Monplaisir, the artist was only once and later said that "intentionally once, so as not to break the impression that I took out of there."
The painting was a great success at the First Exhibition of the Wanderers, held in November 1871. Russian writer M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin said about N. Ge's "The Last Supper": "The external setting of the drama is over, but its instructive meaning for us has not ended." According to the same principle, the artist built his picture of Tsar Peter and Tsarevich Alexei - the dispute is over, the voices died down, the explosions of passion subsided, the answers were predetermined, and everyone - both the audience and history - know the continuation and outcome of the case. But the echo of this dispute continues to sound both in the Peterhof room, and in Russia contemporary to the artist, and in our days. This is a dispute about the historical fate of the country and about the price that a person and humanity have to pay for the forward movement of history.
When N. Ge was already finishing work on the painting, P. M. Tretyakov came to his studio and said that he was buying his canvas from the author. At the exhibition, the work of N. Ge was liked by the imperial family, and Alexander II asked to leave the painting behind. None of the emperor's retinue dared to report that the painting had already been sold. Then, in search of a way out of the current situation, they turned to N. Ge and asked him to transfer the painting to the tsar, and for P.M. Tretyakov to write a repetition. The artist replied that without the consent of P.M. Tretyakov will not do this, but Pavel Mikhailovich said that let N. Ge write a repetition for the tsar. And so it happened. After the exhibition, the painting was handed over to P.M. Tretyakov, and for Alexander II N. Ge wrote a repetition, which is now in the Russian Museum.
"Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei in Peterhof" (1871).
Canvas, oil. 135.7 x 173 cm.
State Tretyakov Gallery
Moscow
The painting depicts the historical and family drama of the reformer Tsar Peter I. Tsarevich Alexei, the first-born of Peter I, was a man of difficult fate. This was largely due to the circumstances of his life, which did not depend on the will of the young heir. He was brought up in a boyar environment, who hated Peter for his transformations and for the harsh struggle with these same boyars, or rather, with their backward and mossy views. The tsarevich's mother, Evdokia Lopukhina, is also from a boyar family.
The character of Tsarevich Alexei was the exact opposite of his father's. In addition, he felt a strong resentment for his mother, whom Peter forcibly exiled to the Suzdal monastery. So the heir became not the successor of his father's affairs, but their enemy, moreover, a conspirator. He fled Russia, but was returned and declared a criminal.
And in this rank, he appears before a formidable father.
Who can now say what both felt at the moment depicted in the picture? This can only be guessed at. One thing is clear: a tragedy is depicted. A historical tragedy that was characteristic of all of Russia: it was hard for Peter I to break the old days and literally build a new state on blood. And he needed an assistant, the closest person - a son. But, unfortunately, he lost the heir-reformer in the person of his son. And here a personal tragedy begins: in this case, he lost his son forever, because it was impossible for an energetic father with an iron will and an insatiable thirst for activity to maintain only family relations with an ideological enemy.
In the picture of N. Ge, everything is historically authentic, up to the composition. Although one can only imagine the artist's doubts about how to correctly depict the scene, what to focus on. After all, many then were sure of the guilt of the "son-killing king", and the prince himself was declared the victim of a treacherous father. But the historian N.I. helped the artist in this matter. Kostomarov, who believed that Tsarevich Alexei acted unsightly towards his father and that his execution was a natural retribution. But the artist himself doubted that public interests could be higher than paternal feelings.
And here comes the picture. The mighty figure of the seated king is depicted with a gaze fixed on his son. A son is standing nearby - tired, with his head hopelessly bowed. A stormy explanation has already taken place, and Peter seems to be waiting for an answer from his son. He is already sure of his guilt, but it seems that still does not leave hope for his repentance. But the prince stands as if chained, looking down in confusion. Historian M.P. Pogodin claims that “in sincere, sincere letters to friends, he is what he really was, without embellishment and exaggeration, and it must be confessed that all these documents speak more in his favor than to his detriment. He was a pious man, of course, inquisitive in his own way, judicious, prudent and kind, cheerful, a hunter of revelry. Nikolai Ge, according to him, sympathized with the unfortunate fate of the prince when he painted his picture.
However, Tsarevich Alexei was not a powerless victim: he was stubborn and did not want to obey the will of his father - this has its own courage, he is an equal opponent of Peter.
This picture will always be relevant. Yes, the dispute between the heroes of the canvas is over, the passions have subsided, all the words have been said, the continuation and outcome of the case are also known to everyone. But the echo of this dispute continues to sound today - this is a dispute about the historical paths of the country and the price that the ruler has to pay for his actions.
