Brief description of Peter 1 Tolstoy. The Image of Peter I in Russian Literature of the 18th-20th Centuries

The bright, strong image of Peter I at all times aroused great interest from historians, publicists and writers. Biographies, essays, historical novels - different authors at different times tried to comprehend the role of this outstanding personality in the history of the Russian state. It cannot be said that the character of the great king, his deeds are evaluated unambiguously. Some consider Peter to be a great reformer who saved Russia and opened up new prospects for development, while others consider him an eccentric autocrat who disrupted the smooth course of history. A. N. Tolstoy, the author of several works, to varying degrees revealing the colorful character of Peter I, was also studying the contradictory nature of the Russian emperor, which is a kind of excursion into the era of the powerful emperor. For the first time, the “revolutionary tsar” appears in A. N. Tolstoy’s story “Peter’s Day”. Here, Peter I appears before the reader as opposed to the people, and indeed to all of Russia, a tyrant who took on the impossible task of single-handedly reshaping Russia according to the European model. Further, the author creates the play “On the Rack”, the interpretation of the image of the protagonist in which is not much different from that given in the previous work: Peter is still alone in his desire for reformism, state transformations. Interpreting the personality of the king in this way, the writer expresses his opinion about his activities: all the aspirations and undertakings of Peter are inappropriate, untimely. But, apparently, in the depths of his soul, A. N. Tolstoy doubted the indisputability of his conclusions and, according to the author's contemporaries, continued painstaking work on documents of the 17th-18th centuries. As a result, the novel "Peter I" was published, where Peter appears to the reader no longer as a lone autocrat, but as a large-scale personality, "the people's king." The writer does not set himself the goal of acquainting us with the biography of the emperor, does not sing his praises, but does not brand him as a henchman of the West. The author takes on the task of explaining the historical significance of the Petrine era, revealing the image of the main character, showing all its versatility and inconsistency. On the one hand - the presentation of the impartial features and actions inherent in Peter: detailed descriptions of drunken revelry, rudeness, cruelty. On the other hand, a sincere desire to transform a great state, purposefulness, democracy, selflessness. Learning a trade outside of Russia, Peter surprised noble foreigners with his disregard for the imperial status, generally accepted principles: “After work, he visits a nondescript port tavern, where, sitting over a mug, he smokes a pipe and cheerfully talks with the most uncouth people and laughs at their jokes, not at all such cases, without caring about respect for oneself. But he also knows how to be complaisant, royally splendid and dignified: “The Tsar, dressed in a Russian dress, in clean hands a silk handkerchief, was humble, his head was lowered, his face was thin. For the third week I did not take a pipe in my mouth, did not drink wine ... ". “It’s either an academician, or a hero, or a navigator, or a carpenter ...”, - this is how A.S. Pushkin wrote about Peter the Great, and this is exactly what A.N. Tolstoy. But after all, character is formed under the influence of certain conditions: social status, measure of responsibility, attitude of others - all this creates the prerequisites for the development of certain qualities, makes a person develop certain skills. Based on this, the life of Peter the Great can be imagined as a constant struggle, starting with defending the right to autocracy and ending with the desire to change the inert way of life of boyar Russia. A person who opposes himself to the majority and at the same time is responsible for the fate of the country, the people, must have a strong character and a tough hand. There are three turning points in Tolstoy's novel that shape Peter's personality: a visit to Arkhangelsk, the first Azov campaign, and the debacle near Narva. In all these cases, Peter sacrifices his pride, voluntarily goes through shame for the sake of the state. And his defeats have a much greater influence on the formation of character than subsequent victories. “Confusion is a good lesson...,” he says after the defeat of the Russian army, which he has been creating for ten years. “We are not looking for glory ... And they will beat them ten more times, then we will overcome ...”.

When reading the novel, you note the high skill of the author, who was able to accurately and vividly convey the dynamic character of the protagonist through seemingly insignificant details - gestures, expressions: "...Peter snatched the whip from the groom and furiously buttoned it up ...", ".. Frowning, Pyotr Alekseevich hit his horse and again jumped in the saddle”, “tanned, thin, short-haired, in a narrow black velvet jacket, in pants with bubbles, he rushed up the stairs ...”. Swift, decisive, self-confident - this is exactly what a person described in this way seems to be. A man to whose name the epithet Great was rightfully added.

What power is hidden in it!

And what a fire in this horse!

Where are you galloping, proud horse,

And where will you lower your hooves?

O mighty lord of fate!

Are you not so above the abyss

At a height, an iron bridle

Raised Russia on its hind legs?

A. S. Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman"

The image of Peter I is striking in its power. It is felt in everything: in growth, in physical strength, in the range of feelings, in work and revelry. Peter bears little resemblance to a European sovereign: he tortures and executes with his own hands, beats those close to him (although for a cause!), Drinks excessively, arranges wild amusements. But after all, he managed to make Russia an advanced power, to instill European culture in the country.

The writer almost does not give detailed descriptions of the appearance of the king, drawing him as if with strokes. Here is Peter the young man: “Peter's eyes widened with curiosity. But he remained silent, clenching his small mouth. For some reason it seemed that if he crawled ashore - long-armed, long - Lefort would laugh at him. But in his mature years after the capture of Narva: “Peter swiftly entered the vaulted knight's hall in the castle. He seemed taller, his back was extended, his chest was breathing noisily. And only through the eyes of a foreigner does the writer give a detailed description of him: “He is a man of high stature, handsome, strong build, agile and dexterous. His face is round, with a stern expression, his eyebrows are dark, his hair is short, curly and darkish. He was wearing a twill caftan, a red shirt and a felt hat."

Tolstoy often emphasizes the tsar's nervousness: quivering nostrils, bulging eyes, head twitching in anger, omitted letters while writing, when he is in a hurry, omitted words, when, "getting excited, he began to speak unintelligibly, choked with haste, as if he wanted to say much more than that, than there were words in the tongue. Peter was always in a hurry, because from an early age he realized that he was faced with a great task: to make Russia as rich and strong as the European states. The king spends his nights without sleep, thinking: “He surprised me, but what of it? What it was - sleepy, impoverished, unmovable, such is Russia. What a shame! The shame of the rich, the strong. And here it is not clear with what forces to push people aside, to tear their eyes out. And then he thinks, like a person far away from us and terrible in his barbarity of the era: “Decree, perhaps, to issue some kind of terrible? Hang it up, overthrow it." And he flogged, hung, cut beards, drove people to backbreaking hard labor. All this is true - we must remember at what cost Russia entered Europe. But after all, even before Peter they were flogged and hung. And he, although, according to Pushkin, wrote decrees, as if with a whip, he acted for the good of the state.

Pyotr Alekseevich also understood that everyone should learn, and he was the first. With naivety, he says to the German princess: “I know fourteen crafts, but it’s still bad, I came here for these. You have kings to be - a kind thing. But me, mother, I must first learn to carpentry myself.

The most striking character trait that surprised both foreigners and his own was that Peter did not disdain to deal with simple, "mean" people. Moreover, for the sake of business, it was not shameful for him to obey the artisans, who called him simply by his first name. Peter studied not only crafts, but also sciences, arts, especially military affairs. He also knew several foreign languages, personally examining people sent abroad. Pushkin wrote about him: “Now an academician, now a hero, now a navigator, now a carpenter.”

Almost all of his reign was spent in wars. The transformations themselves served primarily to achieve victory over Sweden. What is Peter like in battle? Tolstoy shows us that this hero does not strive, like Charles XII, to constantly emphasize his courage. After the defeat near Narva, the tsar leaves without fear that he will be accused of cowardice. He is above it. During this period, his most characteristic feature is especially clearly manifested: failures and difficulties not only cannot force him to change his goal, but encourage him to fight even more resolutely for its achievement. “I was embarrassed - a good lesson,” he says, having learned about the defeat of the Russian army, for the creation of which he put almost ten years of his life. We are not looking for glory. And they will beat them ten more times, then we will overcome.

A. Tolstoy at the end of the novel emphasizes that Peter considered the war a difficult and difficult matter, an everyday “bloody suffering”, a state need, contrasting it with the Swedish king, who fights for glory. This opposition can also be seen in the military talents of both monarchs: the talented Charles, carried away by victories, is finally defeated by Peter, for whom the victory and the fate of his state are inseparable.

It is impossible to fully embrace the image of Peter the Great. Alexei Nikolaevich Tolstoy failed to do this in his entire life, leaving the novel unfinished. But we know that in the first quarter of the 18th century, the emperor experienced the glory of victory at Poltava, at sea, peace with the defeated enemy, the rise of Russia. Much in Petra is not clear to us today. But his love for the country, the ability to learn from others are qualities that we cannot but appreciate.

The historical novel "Peter 1" is an inexhaustible source of detailed and very interesting information about the time of Peter the Great, about social conflicts, state and cultural reforms, about life, customs and people of that turbulent era. And most importantly...

Now an academic, now a hero. Now a navigator, now a carpenter. He is an all-encompassing soul On the throne was an eternal worker. A. S. Pushkin Alexei Nikolayevich Tolstoy came to literature at a difficult, critical time, when centuries-old...

P-n loved Russia very much, knew its history well and often referred to the past of his country. In this past, he was interested in the image of Peter I, his character (complex and contradictory) and the ambiguous attitude to his reforms of both contemporaries and subsequent ones ...

The bright, colorful figure of Peter the Great and his era excited and excite the imagination of artists of many generations, from Lomonosov to the present day. One of the significant works on this topic is the novel by Alexei Tolstoy, the content of which is ...

Starting work on the novel "Peter the Great", Alexei Nikolayevich Tolstoy admitted: "I have been aiming at "Peter" for a long time. I saw all the stains on his jacket, I heard his voice, but Peter remained a mystery to me in the historical fog. Later, the writer defined the central problem of his novel as "the formation of a personality in an era." At the beginning of the book, pre-Petrine Rus' is drawn. Poor, dark, ruined by riots, theft and exorbitant taxes. “Over Moscow, over cities, over hundreds of counties, spread over the vast land, centenary twilight sour - poverty, servility, homelessness.” “No crafts, no troops, no navy… One thing is to tear three skins, and even those are thin…” All segments of the population are dissatisfied with the existing order of life. The need for radical reforms is clear to the “man with a whipped ass”, and to the poor nobleman, and to Prince Vasily Golitsyn.

The country needed a reformer. History itself chooses Peter for this mission, who was the spokesman not only of his personal will, but also of the requirements of the era. In the first chapters, young Peter is very far from the great mission destined for him. He is completely absorbed by the struggle for power, carried away by the bright, noisy, boredom-free world of Kukuy settlement, cruel fun, wine, women. "Kukuyskiy kutilka" begins to realize the need for change when he sees real sea merchant ships in Arkhangelsk and "the proud contempt of foreigners, covered with amiable smiles." Looking back at the past, he thinks: “And what has been done over the years - not the devil: he dabbled!” Peter is aware of the need to "swing at more": to fight for Russia's access to the Black and Baltic Seas - without this Russia would not exist! Failure and disgrace near Azov "bribed him with a mad bit." Fun is over, great deeds for the good of Russia have begun.

The personal fate of Peter is closely intertwined with the fate of Russia. As the most valuable feature of his personality, Tolstoy notes the unfailing service to the Fatherland. Without sanctimonious arrogance, he recognizes the justice of the speeches of foreigners and learns from Europe to trade, build ships, sail the seas. Without admiration and self-abasement, he learns the craft himself and forces others to learn, hires the best European specialists as teachers. Severely and decisively, he cracks down on his personal enemies (Sofya, the rebel archers, the boyars), but not so much out of personal revenge, but because they have become a brake on the path to the transformation of Russia. Forces the boyars to shave boars, brush their teeth, dress in foreign clothes, gather for assemblies, know politeness, learn languages. Peter is concerned about the development of culture, education, and hence the prosperity of Russia.

Any undertaking aimed at the benefit of Russia meets with the unconditional support of the sovereign, is perceived by him as a personal victory, causes pride that the Russians are getting on their feet and can successfully compete with the Europeans. Hardworking and unpretentious, Peter valued people according to their intelligence, talent, business and moral qualities, and not according to their nobility. He nominated and brought closer to himself only those who in one way or another served Russia. Aleksey Tolstoy portrays the tsar as a talented military leader, an army reformer who knows how to draw useful lessons even from defeats. Driving across the field, where the “Narva embarrassment” once happened, Peter says with merciless frankness: “My army died here ... Karl found great glory in these places, and we - strength. Here we learned - from what end should the radish be eaten, but buried forever the ossified antiquity, from which we almost accepted the final death ... ”He considers the war a historical necessity,“ a state need ”, unlike Karl, who is interested in war for the sake of war. The Swedish king does not think about his country, about his army, which he risks, he does not want anything from life, except for “the roar and smoke of cannons, the clang of crossed iron, the screams of wounded soldiers and the spectacle of a trampled field smelling of burning and blood.” How Peter differs from him when, preparing for the decisive assault on Narva, he says to Menshikov: “It’s impossible to retreat from Narva for the second time ... Narva is the key to the whole war ... We need to take the city quickly, and we don’t want to shed much blood ...” And when taking Yuryev orders Sheremetev: “Do your own thing, for God just don’t lose people in vain ...” Here Peter is portrayed as a true humanist, a wise military leader.

The writer managed to recreate the multifaceted personality of Peter, formed by a certain environment and historical era. Cruelty, rudeness, despotism are combined in him with talent, love of life, perseverance, breadth of soul, patriotism. This duality of Peter is explained by the realities of Russian life. Peter acts as dictated by the era that raised him, he is, to a large extent, the son of his time. First - the influence of historical events on Peter, then - the ever-increasing influence of Peter himself, his reforming activities on the events of the era - such is the logic of the development of the image of the king in the novel. In the center of the narrative is the powerful process of the revival of Russia, driven by the mind and will of the central hero of the novel, which ensured the political, economic and national independence of the state, which has become a European power from a backward country.

Image of Peter I in the novel by A.N. Tolstoy "Peter I "

In the novel "Peter I" A. N. Tolstoy depicted time, events, people, their way of life and customs with historical truthfulness. "In order to understand the secret of the Russian people, its greatness," the author wrote, "it is necessary to know its past well and deeply: our history, its root knots, the tragic and creative eras in which the Russian character was tied up."

A. N. Tolstoy widely covered the most important events of the Petrine era, showed the role of the most diverse segments of the population in them and the enormous historical significance of the figure of Peter I.

On the pages of the novel, Tsarevich Peter appears in the scene of the Streltsy rebellion, when his mother, Natalya Kirillovna, takes the boy out onto the porch: "Chubby-faced and blunt, he stretched out his neck. His eyes are round, like those of a mouse ..." He saw the massacre, the exorbitant cruelty of the archers , incited by Khovansky and Vasily Golitsyn. These events left an indelible mark on the prince's soul and caused a nervous shock.

Peter grew up very mobile, excitable, impressionable; it was impossible to keep him in the greenhouse atmosphere of the palace, where his two brothers withered away.

There was a struggle for power, and Peter shocked the boyars with his frivolous behavior, inappropriate games for the king, scratches, bruises and pimples on his hands.

Peter was drawn to the German settlement; he is very interested in life on Kukui, where he is surprised at everything: "And why is this? And what is this for? And how is it arranged?" He will remain so for the rest of his life, thanks to his lively curiosity, he will constantly study, pass everything through himself, not be afraid of any work, no difficulties. He must reach everything himself; to carry out reforms, he needs independence of mind, lack of authority.

A. N. Tolstoy shows the extraordinary endurance of Peter, who could go without sleep, without food for a day, forcing everyone in the amusing army to unconditionally accept his rules of the game, which eventually turned into a serious study of military science. Comrades in these games are boys from the common people, smart, loyal and brave - the core of the future guard.

In one of the chambers of the Transfiguration Palace, a ship workshop was organized, where, under the guidance of the Germans, they built models of galleys and ships, studied arithmetic and geometry. Boris Golitsyn advised Peter to build a shipyard on Lake Pereyaslavl and sent him a load of necessary literature, and Natalya Kirillovna said: "You gave birth to a good son, you will turn out to be smarter than everyone, give it time. His eyes are sleepless ..."

Peter, who loved the German woman Anna Mons (later crossed out of his heart for betrayal), was married to A. Lopukhina, a young, stupid and primitive girl who wanted her husband to sit near her skirt. But Peter from morning to evening was in labor and worries - funny ships were built on Lake Pereyaslavl.

Having learned from Uncle Lev Kirillovich about Sophia's conspiracy, that the royal power hangs in the balance, Peter recalls the horrors of his childhood, the execution of the Naryshkins' supporters, and he has a seizure. He rides to Trinity; Sophia, having learned about this, says: "It is free for him, enraged, to run." Counting on the troops, she was mistaken: the archers went to Peter, despite the threats of Sophia. "Like a dream from memory - power was leaving, life was leaving" from Sophia.

The situation in the country forced Peter to be cruel and merciless (often beyond measure); terrible theft, desolation, backwardness aroused terrible anger in him.

Peter matured very much after the defeat near Azov; failure hardened him, he became stubborn, angry, businesslike. He sets his sights on a new campaign; to do this, it strengthens its combat power: it builds a fleet in Voronezh. And two years later, the victory was not long in coming.

Cruel and implacable was Peter's struggle with the boyars; he broke the way of the old boyar duma, now admirals, engineers, generals, foreigners sat in it - they were all like-minded people of the young tsar.

A. N. Tolstoy describes in detail the profound changes in the mind of Peter after a trip abroad. There was much that was extraordinary and wondrous for the Russian eye. Peter recalled sleepy, impoverished and clumsy Russia, he does not yet know "what forces to push people aside, to tear their eyes ... The devil brought them to be born a king in such a country!" All these thoughts arouse in him furious anger at his own people and envy of foreigners. The first impulse is to hang, to overthrow. "But who, whom? The enemy is invisible, incomprehensible, the enemy is everywhere, the enemy is in himself ..."

In Holland, Peter works as a sailor at a shipyard, is not afraid of any work, and studies shipbuilding. The personality of Peter is actively formed, his active, state mind is revealed, everything in him is subordinated to the main goal: to turn his country on the path leading from vegetation and isolation to progress, to the introduction of the Russian state into the circle of advanced states as a great power. He aims at a war with a strong enemy - Sweden, in order to have access to the Baltic Sea. Realizing that for this you need to be well equipped and armed, he decides to build factories in the Urals.

The defeat near Narva did not break Peter, but forced him to act: "... they have not yet learned how to fight ... for a cannon to fire here, it must be loaded in Moscow." He begins a thorough preparation and three years later, having come out with a new army, with new guns against the Swedes, he wins, standing firmly on the shores of the Baltic Sea.

Acting as a realist writer, A. N. Tolstoy truthfully describes the foundation of the new capital of Russia - the city of St. Petersburg. Peasants work in terrible conditions: in swamps, half-starved, skinned, sick; the city is built on human bones.

A. N. Tolstoy looks at Peter not only as a major historical figure, who is subject to thousands of people, but also conveys the ability of the king to keep friendship and respect for Lefort, listen to his advice. The death of Lefort was a huge loss for Peter: "There will be no other such friend ... Joy - together and care - together."

A. N. Tolstoy widely shows the abundance of folk talents that Peter noticed and sent to study abroad, as he understood that without young scientists it was impossible to make changes in the country. Peter valued people not for ranks and titles, but for talent, skills, dexterity and diligence, so there were many people from the people in his environment: these are Aleksashka Menshikov, and the Brovkin family, and Fedor Sklyaev, and Kuzma Zhemov, and the Vorobyov brothers, and many others.

There were nobles and boyars who understood and supported the tsar: Prince Romodanovsky, the skilled commander Sheremetyev, diplomat Pyotr Tolstoy, Admiral Golovin, deacon Venus.

The grander Peter's plans, the tougher his character becomes, he is inexorable towards those who hinder progress, hinder the implementation of his ideas.

The merchants played a very important role in the tsar's reforms: "God tied us with one rope, Pyotr Alekseevich, where you are, there we are," Ivan Brovkin says to Peter on behalf of the merchants.

Despite the scale of the reforms of Peter I, they not only did not improve the lot of the people, but, on the contrary, led to increased exploitation, increased requisitions from poor peasants. They were driven thousands of miles away to build ships and cities, separating them from their families, to mine iron, and they were beaten to death in soldiers. All this is also covered in the novel.

A. N. Tolstoy created a monumental image of Peter I, but this is not an ideal figure of the “crown-bearer”. He depicted the most complex interweaving of rough and affectionate, good and evil, humane and cruel in it. But, of course, Peter I was a man of genius in terms of his potential and the scale of the transformations carried out in Russia.

Introduction

“Any person is contradictory, any one carries in his soul and manifests in his actions light and darkness, good and evil. Why, then, is there so much controversy about the tsar-reformer? Obviously, because Peter's reforms largely determined the historical path of Russia and, therefore, turning to Peter, we turn in many respects to the origins of our culture, our civilization, we are trying to understand something very important in ourselves.

Petrine time is quite well studied by Russian historians. Conflicting assessments of the personality and deeds of Peter the Great attracted the attention of many people, which was the reason for the existence of a mass of scientific, popular science and fiction on this topic. In my work, I would like to consider the image of Peter I from different angles, in accordance with the theme of the work

PeterI in historical science

In this section, I would like to reflect several different opinions of the most famous historians.

For example, N.M. Karamzin, recognizing this sovereign as the Great, approached the assessment of his activities much more carefully. He severely criticizes Peter for his excessive passion for foreign countries, the desire to make Russia Holland. A sharp change in the "old" way of life and national traditions undertaken by the emperor, according to the historian, is far from always justified. As a result, Russian educated people "became citizens of the world, but ceased to be, in some cases, citizens of Russia."

The well-known historian S.M. Solovyov. In his books, he showed the organicity and historical readiness of the reforms: “The need to move on a new path was realized; At the same time, the duties were determined: the people got up and gathered on the road; but someone was waiting; waiting for the leader; the leader has appeared ”The historian believed that the emperor saw his main task in the internal transformation of Russia, and the northern war with Sweden was only a means to this transformation.

All these views and assessments became generally accepted in the domestic historiography of Peter I. They were shared by Solovyov’s student and successor in the Department of Russian History of Moscow University V.O. Klyuchevsky. But, unlike his teacher, Klyuchevsky was much more critical about the results of the reforms, showing the discrepancy between their intention and results. “Autocracy in itself is repugnant as a political principle. It will never be recognized by the civil conscience. But you can put up with a face in which this unnatural force is combined with self-sacrifice, ”he wrote, concluding a description of Peter I and, as it were, apologizing for mistakes and costs.

As V.Ya Ulanov writes, “Muscovites did not recognize in Peter either a blessed tsar, or a Russian person, or an Orthodox firstborn of the Russian church. The opposition could not look at Peter's strange deeds point-blank, was not able to embrace and master them with his mind. Very often in the speeches of Muscovites one could hear that Peter did not look like a real tsar, that his ancestors did not act like that, that he was not a real tsar. Many accused him of imposture, and some even believed that he was the newly appeared Antichrist.

But even later the great reformer did not escape reproaches addressed to him by his descendants. The most consistent criticism of Peter as the destroyer of national life dates back to the Slavophiles. And in the 20th century, Peter also won a lot of biased views and not always fair critics.

I would like to dwell on several of the most prominent opponents of Peter I.

The student of Klyuchevsky P.N. Milyukov. In his works, he develops the idea that the reforms were carried out by Peter spontaneously, from time to time, under the pressure of specific circumstances, without any logic and plan, they were "reforms without a reformer." He also mentions that only "at the cost of ruining the country, Russia was elevated to the rank of a European power."

And another author, best known for his accusatory articles against the emperor, I.L. Solonevich. Peter for Solonevich was the source of all the troubles of Russia, for he, "breaking with the soil and tradition of Muscovite Rus', instead of the previously existing people's monarchy, created the St. Petersburg noble empire." Instead of the interests of all estates, according to Solonevich, this state expressed the interests of only the nobility. It is impossible not to notice that Peter really did a lot for Russia, just as it cannot be denied that, as Gumilyov notes, Peter was a man of his time, who should appear and carry out all his deeds just then, and not 100 and not 100 years later.

Finishing the topic of criticism, I just want to add that, in spite of everything,

his extremely versatile development and stormy, but purposeful activity in almost all spheres of public and state life are amazing. The people to this day remember Peter, call him the Great, and consider him closer to the people in spirit than other kings.

It is impossible not to notice that Peter really did a lot for Russia, just as it cannot be denied that, as Gumilyov notes, Peter was a man of his time, who should appear and carry out all his deeds just then, and not 100 and not 100 years later.

PeterI in art

There are many portraits of Peter painted by both our and foreign masters: Kneller, Leroy, Caravak.

But I would like to dwell on some reviews about the appearance of Peta I.

“Tall and strong, of an ordinary physique, agile, lively and dexterous in all movements; a round face with a somewhat stern expression, dark eyebrows and hair, short and curly… He walks with long strides, waving his arms and holding his hand on the handle of a new ax,” Numen wrote in his notes.

And again: “The king is very tall, slightly hunched, his head is usually lowered. He is dark-haired and has a stern look on his face; apparently has a quick mind and quick wits "there is some majesty in manners, but there is not enough restraint," - an excerpt from the archive of the Vedas. Foreign Affairs of France in 1717.

It can be seen that these two descriptions, created in different places, are very similar to each other and are not far from the truth. In appearance, Peter was a handsome man of very tall height - exactly 2.045 meters, - swarthy - "so swarthy, as if born in Africa," says one of his contemporaries, strong physique, stately appearance, with some shortcomings in demeanor and annoying sickness, spoiling general impression.

Peter dressed sloppily, casually, and often changed clothes, military and civilian, sometimes choosing an extremely strange costume.

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude about his appearance with the phrase of the Hungarian cardinal: "There is nothing outstanding in his personality, appearance and manners, indicating his royal origin."

PeterI in literature

Very many Russian writers and poets turned to the image of Peter in their works, understanding and interpreting it differently: some paid more attention to the features of the tyrant who ruined Russia with reforms; someone admired his transformative activity.

In the final part of my work, I would like to dwell on the works of Pushkin - "Poltava" and "The Bronze Horseman" and see the differences in the image of Peter in these poems.

For the first time to the image of the great Russian emperor A.S. Pushkin converted in 1828 in his poem Poltava. The work was based on one of the greatest victories of Peter and the Russian army - the victory at Poltava. Here we see in front of us Peter the commander, leading the troops to victory. The combination of "terrible" and "beautiful", "sonorous voice" - all this makes Peter not just majestic, but endowed with superhuman features, called to the Russian throne by divine power. The image of Peter is a symbol of rising Russia, therefore it is devoid of any negative features, shortcomings, in all lines the praise of the great emperor sounds:

Only you erected, the hero of Poltava,

Huge monument to myself.

This is how Peter I is shown in the poem "Poltava". Later, in 1833, Pushkin created another work dedicated to the theme of Peter the Great - the poem "The Bronze Horseman". But in it, Peter is depicted from a completely different perspective. Although in the introduction to the poem the emperor is still shown as a far-sighted, intelligent politician, some change in the author's assessment of the personality of the great king is already felt here. In "Poltava" we see before us a beautiful, living embodiment of divine power, and in "The Bronze Horseman" we also encounter something unearthly, but by no means beautiful, but frightening:

In the unshakable height

Over the perturbed Neva

Standing with outstretched hand

Idol on a bronze horse.

Here it is shown that Peter is not only majestic, but also cruel. He, without thinking about himself, cares only about the people, dreaming, even at the cost of strength, to make them more enlightened.

Oh, mighty lord of fate!

Are you not so above the abyss

At a height, an iron bridle

Raised Russia on its hind legs?

From these poems one can understand Pushkin's attitude towards Peter the Great. The poet admires the mind, foresight of the bold reformer, but he is also repelled by the cruelty and ruthlessness of the emperor.

Conclusion

Peter the Great is often compared with Napoleon I. “Yes, he was, like Napoleon, an idealist, a dreamer, a great poet of action, this woodcutter with calloused hands, this soldier-mathematician, gifted with less eccentricity of fantasies, a more sensible consciousness of possibilities and more realistic plans for the future ".

Contemporaries considered Peter the best shipbuilder. Under Peter 1 Russia