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 was returned to his homeland by cunning and promises of forgiveness.
The investigation showed that high treason was evident. The prince was put on trial and sentenced to death. However, there are many mysteries and omissions left 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-killer king.” The diametrically opposed judgments on this issue were well known to N.N. Ge. The artist was worried about something else: immersing his characters in the authentic objective environment of the Peterhof Monplaisir Palace, he recreated in the picture the psychological severity of the conflict between the consciousness of national duty and paternal feelings. N.N. Ge, as it were, expands the scope 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 was then shown in 1872 in Moscow at an exhibition dedicated to the 200th anniversary of Peter I.
Among the paintings known to the general public from childhood and living in the historical and cultural memory of the people is the famous painting by Nikolai Nikolaevich Ge “Peter I interrogating Tsarevich Alexei in Peterhof.” More often this picture is simply called “Tsar Peter and Tsarevich Alexei.” The family drama of Tsar-Transformer Peter I is one of the most notable pages of Russian history. N. Ge painted this painting almost 150 years ago, reproductions of which have been 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 from 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 involuntarily became interested in 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 painting depicts the moment when Peter I had to experience a difficult drama between the consciousness of national duty and paternal 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 ancient boyar families who hated Peter I for his reforms and for his 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 towards the father, who forcibly exiled the young queen Evdokia to the Suzdal monastery. The heir of Peter I became not the continuer of his father's affairs, but their enemy, detractor and conspirator. Subsequently, he had to flee 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 heir-reformer in the person of his son. The conflict, which N. Ge based the plot of the film, grows 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 extremely simply, the romantic excitement of his previous gospel paintings has given way to strict historical objectivity, therefore everything in his painting is vitally accurate - the chosen situation, the setting, the artistic characteristics, and the composition of the entire work. However, when starting to work on the painting, N. Ge was faced with a choice. Many then were confident in the guilt of the “son-killer tsar,” and the prince himself was declared a victim of his 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. For N. Kostomarov, the machinations of Tsarevich Alexei were proven, and the execution was natural. True, he also stipulates 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 we decisively condemn the prince, then in this case we must compare him with his “virtuous” father, but the artist could not decide to do this. And he had no reason for this, for he himself admitted: “I had sympathy for Peter, but after studying many documents, I saw that there could be no sympathy. I inflated my sympathies for Peter, said that his public interests were higher than his father’s feelings, and this justified cruelty, but killed the ideal.” And then N. Ge decided to combine the efforts of a historian and an artist. He works tirelessly in the Hermitage, studying all the paintings and graphic images of Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei. In Monplaisir in Peterhof, he visited Peter’s room, looked at his clothes and personal belongings, then returned to his workshop and began making sketches and drawings.
At first, in pencil sketches, Peter I was depicted alone: sitting at the table with his head down, he is thinking painfully. Before him lie documents that irrefutably prove his son’s guilt. But so far the family drama that N. Ge so wanted to artistically materialize is not felt, and a new sketch appears. On it, the powerful figure of the seated king is silhouetted against the background of a window, in the rays of bright daylight. The son stands nearby, tired and hopelessly hanging his head. But the artist refused this option, since the exaltation of one hero at the expense of another was too obvious. In the final version of the painting, 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 man, stands as if shackled, looking down in confusion.
The diffused light of a cloudy day and restrained color give the painting real intonation; all the artist’s attention is focused on the psychological expressiveness of faces and figures - their facial expressions, gestures, poses. After a heated argument, Peter’s outburst of anger gives way to painful confidence in his son’s guilt. All the words have been said, all the accusations have been made, a tense, nervous silence reigns in the room. Peter I inquisitively and intently peers at Tsarevich Alexei, trying to discern and unravel him, still not abandoning hope for his son’s repentance. Under his father’s gaze, he lowered his eyes, but the dialogue between them continues internally, in complete silence.
In N. Ge’s film, the moment of action is surprisingly precisely chosen, which allows you to understand what happened and guess about the future. And it says a lot that it will be terrible. And first of all, the red tablecloth falling to the floor, an insurmountable barrier separating the figures of father and son. With this, N. Ge achieved the main thing: the death sentence was ready to be signed not by the crowned executioner, but by the father wounded in the very heart - a state politician who had weighed everything, but still a hesitant person. The tragic collision of the painting is hidden, as it were, inside; the artist dispenses with striking color shocks here, the canvas is softly lit, 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 action, but also participate in the characterization of the characters in the picture. Simple furniture and “Dutch” paintings hanging on the walls speak of Peter’s simple tastes, and in this European-looking room Alexey, who was brought up in towers, feels like a stranger. Fear of his father, lack of understanding 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 appears as he really was, without embellishment or exaggeration, and it must be admitted 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, prudent, prudent and kind, cheerful, a lover of carousing.” Nikolai Ge, according to him, sympathized with the unfortunate fate of the prince when he painted his picture.
None of the historical documents mention that Peter I ever interrogated his son one-on-one in Peterhof. The interrogations of the prince were conducted 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 characters in order to enhance the deeper penetration into the life and psychology of the era. The artist put this meeting at the center of his painting, 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 duty as a father, would not dare to raise public opinion against himself by condemning the legitimate heir to the throne, as Alexei continued to be count. This unfulfilled, illusory hope continues to fuel his internal resistance. He was not a powerless victim; his stubbornness and firm refusal to submit to his father’s will has his own line of behavior, his own courage, therefore he is not a pathetic coward (although sometimes he was seen as such), 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. The artist was in Monplaisir only once and subsequently said that “deliberately once, so as not to ruin the impression that I took away from there.”
The painting was a great success at the First Exhibition of the Itinerants, held in November 1871. Russian writer M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin said about N. Ge’s “The Last Supper”: “The external setting of the drama has ended, but its instructive meaning for us has not ended.” By the same principle, the artist built his picture about Tsar Peter and Tsarevich Alexei - the dispute is over, the voices have died down, the outbursts of passions have subsided, the answers are predetermined, and everyone - both the audience and history - knows the continuation and outcome of the matter. But the echo of this dispute continues to sound in the Peterhof room, in contemporary Russia, and in our days. This is a dispute about the historical destinies of the country and the price that people 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 imperial family liked N. Ge’s work, and Alexander II asked to keep the painting for himself. 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 king, and for P.M. Tretyakov write a repetition. The artist replied that without the consent of P.M. Tretyakov will not do this, and Pavel Mikhailovich said that N. Ge would write a repetition for the Tsar. And so it happened. After the exhibition, the painting was given to P.M. Tretyakov, and for Alexander II N. Ge wrote a repetition, which is now in the Russian Museum.
There is no information that Peter personally interrogated Alexei. The artist Nikolai Ge, although he studied the archives, came up with a scene in which the king and the pretender to the throne are shown, first of all, as father and son. For the painter's contemporaries, the topic was sensitive - the plots of the past were being rethought, the attitude to history was humanized. Now in Alexei’s case, the emphasis was on the young man’s personal relationship with his father, and Peter was spoken of as a cruel, unyielding man who sacrificed his son for the Fatherland. However, at the beginning of the 18th century, the struggle for power was commonplace, which included the murder of relatives, even children. Moreover, this was familiar to Peter, who by that time had blood on his hands not just up to his elbows, but up to his very shoulders.
The plot of the picture
His son Alexei also met in one of the rooms of the Monplaisir Palace. There is no information that this actually happened. Moreover, in 1718, when the prince was returned from Europe, the building was still under construction. Ge focused on the psychological duel, skimping on authenticity.
Even sitting Peter gives the impression of being energetic and excited. Alexey is like a melting candle. His fate is predetermined. The sharp angle of the table and the diverging lines of the floor separate the heroes.
Monplaisir. (wikipedia.org)
The topic was not chosen by chance - the 200th anniversary of Peter I was approaching. “Ten years spent in Italy had an influence 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 Peter’s reform. This feeling was so strong that I involuntarily became interested in Peter and, under the influence of this passion, conceived my painting “Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei,” Ge wrote. But after studying the archives, plunging into the darkness of the turn of the 17th-18th centuries, the artist, impressed by the cruelty of the autocrat, changed his plan: “I inflated my sympathy for Peter, said that his public interests were higher than the feelings of his father, and this justified his cruelty, but killed the ideal."
The painting was prepared specifically for the first exhibition of the Itinerants in 1871. Pavel Tretyakov bought it even before the exhibition - immediately after he saw the canvas in the studio. At the exhibition, the painting made an impression on Alexander II, who wanted to buy it - but no one dared to inform the emperor that it had already been sold. To resolve this problem, Ge was asked to write an author's copy for Tretyakov, and give the original to Alexander II.
Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei in Peterhof. (wikipedia.org)
Context
Peter was dissatisfied with his eldest son: there was no help from him in state affairs, there was no desire to raise the Fatherland from its knees, and he even thought of taking monastic vows. The emperor was categorical - either correct yourself, or you will be left without an inheritance, that is, without power: “Be aware that I will greatly deprive you of your inheritance, like a gangrenous oud, and do not imagine that I am only writing this as a warning - I will fulfill it in truth, for for My Fatherland and the people did not and do not regret their belly, then how can I feel sorry for You indecent.”
Alexey conspired with the Austrians, fled to Italy and decided to wait there for his father’s death, and then ascend to the Russian throne with the support of the Austrians. The latter were ready to support the prince with the expectation of intervention on Russian territory.
Alexey Petrovich. (wikipedia.org)
A few months later, Alexey was found. The Italians refused to hand him over to the Russian envoys, but allowed a meeting, during which Peter’s letter was handed over to the prince. The father guaranteed his son forgiveness in exchange for returning to Russia: “If you are afraid of me, then I reassure you and promise to God and His court that you will not be punished, but I will show you the best love if you listen to my will and return. If you don’t do this, then... as your sovereign, I declare you a traitor and will not leave all the ways for you, as a traitor and scolder of your father, to do what God will help me with in my truth.”
The returned Alexei was deprived of the right to succession to the throne, forcing him to take an oath to renounce the throne. Immediately after the solemn ceremony in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, an investigation into the prince’s case began, although even the day before he was granted forgiveness on the condition of admitting all the wrongdoings committed. Alexei was tried and sentenced to death as a traitor. After his death in the Peter and Paul Fortress (according to the official version, from a blow, according to the most likely, from torture), Peter stated that Alexei, having heard the verdict, repented and rested in peace, in a Christian way.
The fate of the author
Nikolai Ge was born in Voronezh into a military family, a descendant of a French nobleman who emigrated to Russia during the Great Revolution. Nikolai spent his childhood on his father’s estate in Ukraine, where the boy graduated from high school, after which he entered the university, intending to become a mathematician. However, art played a role: Karl Bryullov’s painting “The Last Day of Pompeii” impressed the young man so much that in St. Petersburg, instead of studying equations, Nikolai began attending evening classes at the Academy of Arts, where he soon transferred permanently.
For one of his student works, Ge received the right to retire abroad. He will spend the next 13 years in Italy, from where he will come as a complete Westerner. Immediately after his return, the painter will become one of the initiators of the organization of the Wanderers Association, where he is hired as treasurer, bearing in mind his mathematical education. After the first exhibition, I. N. Kramskoy wrote: “He reigns decisively. His picture made a stunning impression on everyone.” We were talking about the painting “Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei in Peterhof.”
Nikolai Ge while working on the painting “The Crucifixion”. (wikipedia.org)
Ge's next works no longer aroused such enthusiasm. Those close in spirit, including Leo Tolstoy, supported the painter, but critics, the public and buyers did not. Even such a progressive collector as Pavel Tretyakov refused to purchase Ge’s paintings. Dejected and disappointed, the painter decides to leave the hustle and bustle of St. Petersburg and goes to the Ivanovsky farmstead he bought in the Chernigov province.
“Four years of living in St. Petersburg and pursuing art, the most sincere, led me to the conclusion that it is impossible to live like this. Everything that could constitute my material well-being ran counter to what I felt in my soul... Since I simply love art as a spiritual activity, I must find a way for myself, regardless of art. I went to the village. I thought that life there was cheaper, simpler, I would manage and live from it, and art would be free...” Ge explained his decision.
On the farm, he worked on the land, helped the peasants, and was a stove maker. He communicated a lot with Leo Tolstoy, who supported his spiritual quest. In silence, he writes on gospel themes - the so-called “Passion Cycle”. And the last 10 years of his life he devotes himself to paintings about the crucifixion of Christ. To create it, Ge forces the sitters to pose chained to the cross. Even he himself, already an elderly man, decides to experience this state.
Contemporaries did not understand his later works. For example, Alexander III, who very much loved and appreciated the early Ge, looking at the “Crucifixion”, said: “... we will somehow understand this, but the people... they will never appreciate it, it will never be clear to them.”
"Crucifixion" (wikipedia.org)
Immediately after the artist’s death in 1894, his children, fearing for the fate of the artistic heritage, transported everything to Yasnaya Polyana. Tolstoy promised them to convince Tretyakov to buy everything and place it in the gallery. The collector undertook to prepare a separate room and exhibit Ge’s works, but this never happened.
Nikolay Ge.
Peter I interrogates Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich in Peterhof.
1871. Oil on canvas. 135.7 x 173.
Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia.
The failure of recent 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 proposed a psychological interpretation of the plot, presenting the painting as a drama of a clash of personalities - adherents of opposing life values. Tsarevich Alexei was well educated, knew several foreign languages and, in essence, he in no way opposed the reforms, but he was disgusted by the despotic and harsh forts of the reign of Peter I. It is still not clear whether he was actually the initiator preparing to seize power in Russia, or became an involuntary hostage of his entourage, dissatisfied with the policies of the monarch. The prince fled to the West, from where he was returned and tortured to death in the Peter and Paul Fortress with the knowledge and order of his own father.
In a historical painting, the painter conveys the internal state of the characters. The apparent calmness of both, without gestures or 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 painting. After studying the documents and a heated argument, Peter is no longer angry, but is bitterly convinced of his son’s betrayal. But before signing the sentence, he peers into Alexei’s face, still not losing hope of seeing repentance in him. The prince lowered his eyes under his father’s gaze, but the silent dialogue continues. The hanging edge of the blood-colored tablecloth is symbolic: it not only separates the characters, but seems to foreshadow 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 stir up 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 wanted, mainly, to convey to the viewer that the death sentence was signed not by the crowned executioner, but by a parent wounded in the heart, who made a decision in the interests of the state.
This picture gives off a chill. Dark walls and the cold mouth of the fireplace, stone floor, pale cold light, barely dispelling the twilight of the large hall. But the main cold is in the relationship between father and son, who have become irreconcilable opponents. The floor, laid out in 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 turned out to be the problem of the moral dignity of the individual. In 1892, he wrote in his “Notes”: “Ten years spent in Italy had an influence 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 Peter’s reform. This feeling was so strong that I involuntarily became fascinated by Peter... Historical pictures are hard to paint... A lot of research needs to be done, because people in their social struggle are far from ideal. While painting the painting “Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei,” I had sympathy for Peter, but then, after studying many documents, I saw that there could be no sympathy. I inflated my sympathy for Peter, said that his public interests were higher than his father’s feelings, and this justified his cruelty, but killed the ideal...”
The picture was met with great interest. Worldview disputes flared up around her, which to some extent have not subsided to this day. 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.
The failure of recent 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 proposed a psychological interpretation of the plot, presenting the painting as a drama of a clash of personalities - adherents of opposing life values.
Tsarevich Alexei was well educated, knew several foreign languages and, in essence, he in no way opposed the reforms, but he was disgusted by the despotic and harsh forts of the reign of Peter I.
It is still not clear whether he actually initiated the preparations for the seizure of power in Russia, or whether he became an involuntary hostage of his entourage, dissatisfied with the policies of the monarch. The prince fled to the West, from where he was returned and tortured to death in the Peter and Paul Fortress with the knowledge and order of his own father.
In a historical painting, the painter conveys the internal state of the characters. The apparent calmness of both, without gestures or 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 painting. After studying the documents and a heated argument, Peter is no longer angry, but is bitterly convinced of his son’s betrayal. But before signing the sentence, he peers into Alexei’s face, still not losing hope of seeing repentance in him. The prince lowered his eyes under his father’s gaze, but the silent dialogue continues. The hanging edge of the blood-colored tablecloth is symbolic: it not only separates the characters, but seems to foreshadow 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 stir up 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 wanted, mainly, to convey to the viewer that the death sentence was signed not by the crowned executioner, but by a parent wounded in the heart, who made a decision in the interests of the state.
This picture gives off a chill. Dark walls and the cold mouth of the fireplace, stone floor, pale cold light, barely dispelling the twilight of the large hall. But the main cold is in the relationship between father and son, who have become irreconcilable opponents. The floor, laid out in 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 turned out to be the problem of the moral dignity of the individual. In 1892, he wrote in his “Notes”: “Ten years spent in Italy had an influence 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 Peter’s reform. This feeling was so strong that I involuntarily became fascinated by Peter... Historical pictures are hard to paint... A lot of research needs to be done, because people in their social struggle are far from ideal. While painting the painting “Peter I and Tsarevich Alexei,” I had sympathy for Peter, but then, after studying many documents, I saw that there could be no sympathy. I inflated my sympathy for Peter, said that his public interests were higher than his father’s feelings, and this justified his cruelty, but killed the ideal...”
The picture was met with great interest. Worldview disputes flared up around her, which to some extent have not subsided to this day. 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.
