In 1698, a prisoner was brought to the Bastille, whose face was hidden by a terrible iron mask. His name was unknown, and in prison he was numbered 64489001. The aura of mystery created gave rise to many versions of who this masked man could be.

Prisoner in an iron mask in an anonymous engraving from the French Revolution (1789).
The authorities knew absolutely nothing about the prisoner transferred from another prison. They were ordered to place the masked man in the most remote cell and not talk to him. After 5 years the prisoner died. He was buried under the name Marcialli. All the deceased’s belongings were burned, and the walls were torn apart so that no notes remained.
When the Bastille fell at the end of the 18th century under the onslaught of the French Revolution, the new government published documents that shed light on the fate of the prisoners. But there was not a single word about the man in the mask.


Bastille is a French prison.
The Jesuit Griffe, who was a confessor in the Bastille at the end of the 17th century, wrote that a prisoner was brought to prison wearing a velvet (not iron) mask. In addition, the prisoner only put it on when someone appeared in the cell. From a medical point of view, if the prisoner actually wore a mask made of metal, it would invariably disfigure his face. The iron mask was “made” by writers who shared their assumptions about who this mysterious prisoner really could be.

The Man in the Iron Mask.
The masked prisoner was first mentioned in the Secret Notes of the Persian Court, published in 1745 in Amsterdam. According to the Notes, prisoner No. 64489001 was none other than the illegitimate son of Louis XIV and his mistress Louise Françoise de La Vallière. He bore the title of Duke of Vermandois, allegedly slapped his brother the Grand Dauphin, for which he ended up in jail. In fact, this version is implausible, because the illegitimate son of the French king died at the age of 16 in 1683. And according to the records of the confessor of the Bastille, Jesuit Griffe, the unknown was imprisoned in 1698, and he died in 1703.

Still from the film “The Man in the Iron Mask” (1998).
Francois Voltaire, in his work "The Age of Louis XIV", written in 1751, first indicated that the Iron Mask could well be the twin brother of the Sun King. To avoid problems with the succession to the throne, one of the boys was raised secretly. When Louis XIV learned of his brother’s existence, he doomed him to eternal imprisonment. This hypothesis explained the presence of the prisoner’s mask so logically that it became the most popular among other versions and was subsequently filmed more than once by directors.

The Italian adventurer Ercole Antonio Mattioli could be hiding under the mask.
There is an opinion that the famous Italian adventurer Ercole Antonio Mattioli was forced to wear the mask. The Italian in 1678 entered into an agreement with Louis XIV, according to which he undertook to force his duke to surrender the fortress of Casale to the king in exchange for a reward of 10,000 crowns. The adventurer took the money, but did not fulfill the contract. Moreover, Mattioli gave out this state secret to several other countries for a separate reward. For this treason, the French government sent him to the Bastille, forcing him to wear a mask.


Russian Emperor Peter I.
Some researchers have put forward completely implausible versions about the man in the iron mask. According to one of them, this prisoner could be the Russian Emperor Peter I. It was during that period that Peter I was in Europe with his diplomatic mission (“Grand Embassy”). The autocrat was allegedly imprisoned in the Bastille, and a figurehead was sent home instead. Like, how else can we explain the fact that the tsar left Russia as a Christian who revered traditions, and returned back as a typical European who wanted to break the patriarchal foundations of Rus'.

In the late autumn of 1703 in Paris, the body of a mysterious prisoner was buried in a cemetery. The name of the deceased was hidden under the pseudonym Iron Mask. Since the second half of the eighteenth century, scientists and researchers have been arguing about who the masked prisoner was, whose last refuge was the Bastille. The legend became the basis for gossip and the search for candidates for the role of the prisoner. The information is still kept secret, and the work “The Iron Mask” fuels readers’ interest in the events of that era.

Origin story

The real name of the Bastille prisoner, who became the reason for speculation and legends, is unknown. His second pseudonym turned out to be prison number: 64489001. Researchers suggest that the young man’s date of birth is close to the forties of the seventeenth century, and throughout his life the man managed to visit several prisons. It is curious that the iron mask worn by the prisoner turned out to be a fiction. In reality, the prisoner wore a velvet mask, which helped to remain unrecognized and did not cause inconvenience. His identity was unknown even to the guards.

For the first time they started talking about the prisoner of the Bastille during the reign. The widow of the king's brother, Charlotte Elizabeth of Bavaria, in letters to a relative sent in 1711, shared the gossip that was circulating at court. The woman wrote that they were talking at court about a mysterious prisoner, whose identity remains unknown, since his face is constantly covered with an iron mask. Charlotte insisted that Mr. X, hiding under the metal, was an English lord who participated in a conspiracy against King William of Orange III of England.

Then information about the unknown person in custody was announced in the “Secret Notes on the History of Persia,” published in 1745. In imitation of Montesquieu, the anonymous author created a research work in an artistic style. An unknown writer described the story of Giaffer, the illegitimate son of Louis XIV, who was imprisoned for slapping his half-brother, the Dauphin. The illegitimate son of the king and Louise de La Vallière was allegedly placed under prison supervision at the age of 16.

Engraving "Iron Mask"

In 1751 he published a book entitled “The Age of Louis XIV.” Having been imprisoned in the Bastille twice, the writer knew first-hand what was happening in prison. Voltaire saw those who served the Iron Mask. Despite the fact that he did not have the real facts, the writer assumed that the brother of the French king was hiding under the veil of secrecy. Voltaire believed that the son and her favorite was hiding from the public eye in the Bastille.

Legends and versions

Ideas about the origin of the mysterious person were put forward by Chancel de Langrange, Cenac de Melyan, Griffet, Abbot Papon, Lenguet, Charpentier and Soulavi. Some claimed that the Bourbon secret, which consisted in the queen’s dishonesty, was to blame. While preserving the name of the prisoner, by order of the royal family, the sheet with his data was excluded from the Bastille register. It is reliably known that the information was on sheet 120 and was certified in 1698, at the time of the prisoner’s arrival.

Gossips of the eighteenth century said that there had been a palace coup, as a result of which the king's twin brother was sitting on the throne, and the true ruler was under lock and key. This assumption left a mark on the reputation of the Bourbons and the authenticity of the pedigree. At the beginning of the 19th century, this theory was propagated by supporters who claimed that Napoleon was a descendant of the true king.

Ercole Mattioli was named among the contenders for the role of the Iron Mask. The Italian adventurer was famous for the agreement concluded with the king in 1678. Mattioli sold state secrets, for which he was transported to the Bastille.

This is not the only version about a prisoner not of blue blood. General Bulond could also be hiding behind a mask. Information from the secret diaries of Louis XIV suggests that the general was imprisoned after an offense committed during the Nine Years' War.

It is known from reliable sources that the Iron Mask was kept in the company of eight other criminals in the fortress of Pignerol. The story of the fellow sufferers is not impressive. Some were transferred to other prisons and died, some were released. The debate about who the mysterious man hiding behind the iron mask could be continues to this day.

Film adaptations

In the legend of the Iron Mask, there are discrepancies and inconsistencies that give rise to interesting plots that directors use in film adaptations. The legend of the mysterious prisoner of the Bastille became the basis for several full-length films. They starred recognized actors, thanks to whom you want to watch the films again and again.

The story of the mysterious prisoner was first presented on the big screen in 1962. The film was directed by Henri Decoin. The main character was incarnate, sent to rescue the prisoner. The Musketeer does not make it in time and finds the cell empty, since the daughter of the head of the Bastille, who is in love with him, helped the Iron Mask escape.

Still from the film "Iron Mask"

In 1976, the public was offered a new interpretation, in which the main character was portrayed. The plot described the twin brother of the king, who fell in love with the daughter of a cellmate. Louis transferred the prisoner to the island of Saint-Margaret, having learned about his feelings, and shackled his face in a mask. At this time, D'Artagnan helped the head of government replace his brothers in order to carry out a palace coup.

In 1998, he played the roles of Louis XIV and his twin Philip, shackled in an iron mask, in the film of the same name. The film was remembered for its scale and big names of artists, because it starred, and. Today the film is considered the largest film adaptation of the story of the prisoner of the Bastille.

Rice. 1. False Peter the First and my reading of the inscriptions on his portrait

I borrowed the portrait from a video film where the Announcer says: “ But in another of his engravings, as in all subsequent portraits of other artists, we see a completely different person, unlike his relatives. It would seem absurd!

But the strangeness doesn’t end there either. In engravings and portraits of 1698, this man looks more like a 20-year-old youth. However, in Dutch and German portraits of 1697, the same person looks more like 30 years old.

How could this happen?»

I begin an epigraphic analysis of this portrait. A hint as to where to look for certain inscriptions is provided by the two previous portraits. First I read the inscription on the brooch attached to the headdress, which says: MIM YAR RURIK. In other words, this is another priest of Yar Rurik, although there is no signature of KHARAON. It may very well be that the absence of this highest spiritual title means that this priest did not recognize the spiritual priority of Rurik, although formally he was his priest. In this case, he was very suitable for the role of Peter's double.

Then I read the inscriptions on the fur collar on the left, above the white frame: TEMPLE OF MARY YAR. I consider this inscription as a continuation of the previous one. And inside the fragment, surrounded by a white frame, I read the words in reverse color: MOSCOW MARY 865 YAR (YEAR). Moscow Mary meant Veliky Novgorod; however, already the first Romanov introduced real Christianity, and Patriarch Nikon under Alexei Mikhailovich eliminated all remnants of Russian Vedism from Muscovy. Consequently, Russian Vedists partly go to the Russian hinterland, partly move into the Russian diaspora in neighboring states. And the year 865 of Yar is 1721 AD , this is more than 70 years after Nikon’s reforms. By this time, the places of priests were no longer occupied by children, but by grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the priests removed by Nikon, and grandchildren and great-grandchildren often no longer speak the speech of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. But perhaps the year of the final design of this engraving, which was begun in 1698, is shown. But even in this case, the young man depicted is 6-8 years younger than Peter.

And on the very bottom fragment, under the frame on the fur collar on the left, I read the word MASK. Then I read the inscription on the fur collar on the right: the top of the collar, diagonally, contains the inscription ANATOLY FROM Rus' MARY, and the line below - 35 ARKONA YARA. But the 35th Arkona Yara is the same as Moscow Mary, this is Veliky Novgorod. In other words, one of the ancestors of this Anatoly in the middle of the 17th century could actually have been a priest in this city, whereas after Nikon’s reforms he ended up somewhere in the Russian diaspora. It is possible that in Catholic Poland, which very diligently followed all the decrees of the Pope.

Rice. 2. Portrait of Peter by an unknown artist of the late 18th century

So, we now know that the young man with bulging eyes was not Peter at all, but Anatoly; in other words, the replacement of the king was documented.

We see that this portrait was painted in Veliky Novgorod. But apart from the name of False Peter, this portrait did not bring any details, and, in addition, the artist was not even named, so this portrait was not entirely acceptable as an evidentiary document, which forced me to look for other canvases. And soon the desired portrait was found: “ Peter the Great, Emperor of All Russia, portrait of an unknown late artist18th century". Below I will show why the artist turned out to be unknown.

Epigraphic analysis of the second portrait of False Peter.

I chose this particular image of Peter, because on his silk baldric I read the word YARA at the bottom, deciding that the portrait belonged to the brush of the artist of their temple, Yara. And I was not mistaken. The letters were inscribed both in individual parts of the face and in the folds of clothing.

Rice. 3. My reading of the inscriptions on the portrait of Peter in Fig. 2

It is clear that if I suspected the presence of Russian inscriptions on the blue silk ribbon, then I started reading from there. True, since in direct color these letters are not visible in very contrasting, I switch to reverse color. And here you can see the inscription in very large letters: TEMPLE YAR, and on the collar there is an inscription MASK. This confirmed my preliminary reading. In modern reading this means: IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF YAR .

And then I moved on to reading the inscriptions on parts of the face. First - on the right side of the face, on the left at the viewer's point of view. On the lower strands of hair (I rotated this fragment 90 degrees to the right, clockwise). Here I read the words: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF RURIK. In other words, IMAGE FROM THE TEMPLE OF RURIK .

On the hair above the forehead you can read the words: MIM OF THE TEMPLE OF RURIK. Finally, on the right from the viewer's point of view, on the left side of the face, one can read MASK OF ANATOLIUS FROM RURIK JAR JUTLAND. Firstly, it is confirmed that False Peter’s name was Anatoly, and, secondly, it turned out that he did not come from Holland, as many researchers assumed, but from neighboring Denmark. However, moving from one country to another at the end of the 17th century apparently did not pose a big problem.

Next, I move on to reading the inscription on the mustache. Here you can read the words: RIMA MIM. In other words, Danish by birth and Dutch by language, he was an agent of Roman influence. For the umpteenth time, the final center of action against Rus'-Russia is Rome!

But is it possible to verify this statement? - I look at the armor on the right hand, as well as the background behind the hand. However, for ease of reading, I rotate this fragment to the right by 90 degrees (clockwise). And here on the background in the form of fur you can read the words: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF ROME And RIMA MIM Rus' ROME. In other words, that before us is really an image not of the Emperor of Rus', but of a priest of Rome! And on the armor the arms can be read on every two plates: RIMA MIM. RIMA MIM.

Finally, on the fur collar next to the left hand you can read the words: RURIK RIMA MIM.

Thus, it becomes clear that the temples of Rurik existed back in the 18th century, and their priests, when creating portraits of deceased people (usually the priests of the Temple of Mary did this), usually wrote their titles, as well as names. This is exactly what we saw in this portrait. However, in a Christian country (where Christianity has been the official religion for more than a century), it was unsafe to advertise the existence of Vedic temples, which is why the artist of this portrait remained unknown.

Rice. 4. Rurik’s death mask and my reading of the inscriptions

Death mask of Peter.

Then I decided to look at foreign sites on the Internet. In the article, I read the “Great Embassy” section with interest. In particular, it said: “ His Grand Embassy, ​​numbering 250 participants, left Moscow in March 1697. Peter became the first king to travel outside his kingdom. The official purpose of the embassy was to give new breath to the coalition against the Ottoman Empire. However, Peter made no secret of the fact that he went to “observe and learn,” as well as to select foreign specialists for his new Russia. In the then Swedish city of Riga, the king was allowed to inspect the fortress, but to his greatest surprise, he was not allowed to take measurements. In Courland (the current region of the coast of Lithuania and Latvia), Peter met with the Dutch ruler, Frederick Casimir. The prince tried to convince Peter to join his coalition against Sweden. In Königsberg, Peter visited the Friedrichsburg fortress. He took part in attending artillery courses, and graduated from them with a diploma certifying that “Pyotr Mikhailov gained proficiency as a bombardier and skills in the use of firearms».

The following describes Peter's visit to Levenguk with his microscope and Witsen, who compiled a book describing northern and eastern Tartary. But most of all I was interested in the description of his secret meeting: “ On September 11, 1697, Peter had a secret meeting with King William of EnglandIII. Nothing is known about their negotiations, except that they lasted two hours and ended in an amicable parting. At that time, the English navy was considered the fastest in the world. King William assured that Peter should visit the English naval shipyards, where he would learn to understand the design of ships, carry out measurements and calculations, and learn to use instruments and tools. As soon as he arrived in England, he attempted to sail on the Thames» .

One gets the impression that it was in England that the best conditions existed for replacing Peter with Anatoly.

The same article published the death mask of Peter the Great. The caption underneath it reads: "DeathmaskofPeter. After 1725, St. Petersburg, from the original by Bartolomeo Rastrelli, after 1725, Bronze-tinted plaster. Case 34.5 x 29 x 33 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg." This death mask has On my forehead I read the inscription in the form of a strand of hair: MIMA RUSI ROME MASK. She confirms that this image does not belong to the Russian Emperor Peter the Great, but to the Roman priest Anatoly.

Rice. 5. Miniature by an unknown artist and my reading of the inscriptions

Miniature by an unknown artist.

I found it at the address with the signature: “Peter the Great (1672 - 1725) of Russia. Enamel miniature portrait by an unknown artist, late 1790s. #Russian #history #Romanov”, Fig. 5.

Upon examination, it can be argued that the largest number of inscriptions are in the background. I enhanced the miniature itself by contrast. To the left and above the head of the portrait I read the captions: RIMA RURIK YAR MARY TEMPLE AND ROME MIM AND ARKONA 30. In other words, it is now being clarified in which particular temple of Mary Rome the miniature was made: in the capital of the state of Rome, in the city a little to the west CAIRA .

To the left of my head, at hair level, I read the words in the background: MARY RUSI TEMPLE OF VAGRIA. Perhaps this is the address of the customer for the miniature. Finally, I read the writing on the character's face, on his left cheek (where the wart on the left side of the nose is missing), and here you can read the words below the shadow of the cheek: RIMA MIM ANATOLY RIMA YARA STOLITSY. So, the name Anatoly is once again confirmed, now written in rather large letters.

Rice. 6. A fragment of a picture from the Encyclopedia Britannica and my reading of the inscriptions

Picture of Peter from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here I read the inscriptions on the fragment, where there is a bust portrait, fig. 6, although the full picture is much broader, Fig. 7. However, I singled out exactly the fragment and the size that suited me perfectly for epigraphic analysis.

The first inscription that I began to read was an image of a mustache. On them you can read the words: TEMPLE OF ROME MIMA, and then - continuation on the upper lip: RURIK, and then on the red part of the lip: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARA, and then on the lower lip: ANATOLIA ROME ARKONA 30. In other words, here we see confirmation of the previous inscriptions: again the name of Anatoly, and again its connection to the temple of Mary Rurik in the city near Cairo.

Then I read the inscription on the collar: 30 ARKONA YAR. And then I move on to look at the fragment to the left of Peter’s face, which I outlined with a black frame. Here I read the words: 30 ARKONA YAR, which has already been read. But then come new and surprising words: ANATOLIA MARY TEMPLE IN ANKARA ROME. What is surprising is not so much the existence of a special temple dedicated to Anatoly, but the location of such a temple in the capital of Turkey, Ankara. I have not yet read such words anywhere. Moreover, the word ANATOLY can be understood not only as a person’s proper name, but also as the name of a locality in Turkey.

For now, I consider it sufficient to consider the inscriptions on the portraits. And then I am interested in the details of the substitution of the Russian Tsar, which can be found in printed works on the Internet.

Rice. 7. Picture from Encyclopedia Britannica online

Wikipedia's opinion on the substitution of Peter the Great.

In the article “Double of Peter I,” Wikipedia, in particular, states: “ According to one version, the replacement of Peter I was organized by certain influential forces in Europe during the Tsar’s trip to the Grand Embassy. It is alleged that of the Russian people who accompanied the Tsar on a diplomatic trip to Europe, only Alexander Menshikov returned - the rest are believed to have been killed. The purpose of this crime was to place a protege at the head of Russia, who pursued a policy beneficial to the organizers of the substitution and those who stood behind them. One of the possible goals of this substitution is considered to be the weakening of Russia».

Note that the history of the conspiracy to replace the Tsar of Rus' in this presentation is conveyed only from the side of facts, and, moreover, very vaguely. As if the Great Embassy itself had only the goal of creating a coalition against the Ottoman Empire, and not the goal of replacing the real Romanov with his double.

« It is alleged that Peter I, according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, changed dramatically after returning from the Great Embassy. Portraits of the king before and after his return from Europe are given as evidence of the substitution. It is stated that in the portrait of Peter before his trip to Europe he had a long face, curly hair and a large wart under his left eye. In portraits of the king after his return from Europe, he had a round face, straight hair and no wart under his left eye. When Peter I returned from the Great Embassy, ​​he was 28 years old, and in his portraits after his return he looked about 40 years old. It is believed that before the trip the king was of heavy build and above average height, but still not a two-meter giant. The king who returned was thin, had very narrow shoulders, and his height, which was absolutely established, was 2 meters 4 centimeters. Such tall people were very rare at that time».

We see that the authors of these Wikipedia lines do not at all share the provisions that they present to the reader, although these provisions are facts. How can you not notice such dramatic changes in appearance? Thus, Wikipedia tries to present obvious points with some speculation, something like this: “ it is stated that two times two equals four" The fact that the person who arrived from the embassy was different can be seen by comparing any of the portraits in Fig. 1-7 with a portrait of the departed king, fig. 8.

Rice. 8. Portrait of the departed Tsar Peter the Great and my reading of the inscriptions

To the dissimilarity of facial features can be added the dissimilarity of implicit inscriptions on these two types of portraits. The real Peter is signed as “Peter Alekseevich”, the False Peter in all five portraits is signed as Anatoly. Although both were mimes (priests) of the temple of Rurik in Rome.

I will continue quoting Wikipedia: “ According to conspiracy theorists, soon after the double’s arrival in Russia, rumors began to spread among the Streltsy that the tsar was not real. Peter's sister Sophia, realizing that an impostor had come instead of her brother, led the Streltsy riot, which was brutally suppressed, and Sophia was imprisoned in a monastery».

Note that in this case, the motive for the uprising of the Streltsy and Sophia turns out to be extremely serious, while the motive for the struggle between Sophia and her brother for the throne in a country where only men have reigned until now (the usual motive of academic historiography) seems very far-fetched.

« It is alleged that Peter loved his wife Evdokia Lopukhina very much, and often corresponded with her when he was away. After the Tsar returned from Europe, on his orders, Lopukhina was forcibly sent to the Suzdal monastery, even against the will of the clergy (it is alleged that Peter did not even see her and did not explain the reasons for Lopukhina’s imprisonment in the monastery).

It is believed that after his return, Peter did not recognize his relatives and subsequently did not meet with them or his inner circle. In 1698, shortly after Peter’s return from Europe, his associates Lefort and Gordon died suddenly. According to conspiracy theorists, it was on their initiative that Peter went to Europe».

It is unclear why Wikipedia calls this concept a conspiracy theory. According to a conspiracy of the nobility, Paul the First was killed, the conspirators threw a bomb at the feet of Alexander the Second, the USA, England and Germany contributed to the elimination of Nicholas the Second. In other words, the West has repeatedly intervened in the fate of Russian sovereigns.

« Proponents of the conspiracy theory claim that the returning king was sick with tropical fever in a chronic form, while it can only be contracted in southern waters, and even then only after being in the jungle. The route of the Great Embassy passed along the northern sea route. The surviving documents of the Grand Embassy do not mention that the constable Pyotr Mikhailov (under this name the tsar went with the embassy) fell ill with a fever, while for the people accompanying him it was no secret who Mikhailov really was. After returning from the Grand Embassy, ​​Peter I, during naval battles, demonstrated extensive experience in boarding combat, which has specific features that can only be mastered through experience. Boarding combat skills require direct participation in many boarding battles. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I did not take part in naval battles, since during his childhood and youth Russia did not have access to the seas, with the exception of the White Sea, which Peter I did not visit often - mainly as an honorary passenger».

It follows from this that Anatoly was a naval officer who took part in the naval battles of the southern seas and suffered from tropical fever.

« It is alleged that the returning Tsar spoke Russian poorly, that he did not learn to write Russian correctly until the end of his life, and that he “hated everything Russian.” Conspiracy theorists believe that before his trip to Europe, the tsar was distinguished by his piety, and when he returned, he stopped fasting and attending church, mocked the clergy, began persecuting Old Believers and began to close monasteries. It is believed that in two years Peter forgot all the sciences and subjects that the educated Moscow nobility possessed, and at the same time acquired skills of a simple craftsman. According to conspiracy theorists, there is a striking change in Peter’s character and psyche after his return».

Again, there are clear changes not only in appearance, but also in Peter’s language and habits. In other words, Anatoly did not belong not only to the royal class, but even to the noble class, being a typical representative of the third class. In addition, there is no mention of the fact that Anatoly spoke fluent Dutch, which many researchers note. In other words, he came from somewhere in the Dutch-Danish region.

« It is alleged that the tsar, having returned from Europe, did not know about the location of the richest library of Ivan the Terrible, although the secret of the location of this library was passed from tsar to tsar. Thus, Princess Sophia allegedly knew where the library was located and visited it, and Peter, who came from Europe, repeatedly made attempts to find the library and even organized excavations».

Again, a specific fact is presented by Wikipedia as some “statements”.

« His behavior and actions are cited as evidence of Peter’s substitution (in particular, the fact that previously the tsar, who preferred traditionally Russian clothes, after returning from Europe no longer wore them, including royal clothes with a crown - conspiracy theorists explain the latter fact by the fact that the impostor was taller than Peter and had narrower shoulders, and the king’s things did not fit him in size), as well as the reforms he carried out. It is argued that these reforms have brought much more harm to Russia than good. Peter’s tightening of serfdom, the persecution of Old Believers, and the fact that under Peter I in Russia there were many foreigners in the service and in various positions are used as evidence. Before his trip to Europe, Peter I set as his goal to expand the territory of Russia, including moving south towards the Black and Mediterranean Seas. One of the main goals of the Grand Embassy was to achieve an alliance of European powers against Turkey. While the returning king began the struggle to take possession of the Baltic coast. The war waged by the Tsar with Sweden, according to supporters of the conspiracy theory, was needed by Western states, who wanted to crush the growing power of Sweden with the hands of Russia. It is alleged that Peter I pursued a foreign policy in the interests of Poland, Saxony and Denmark, which could not resist the Swedish king Charles XII».

It is clear that the raids of the Crimean khans on Moscow were a constant threat to Russia, and the rulers of the Ottoman Empire stood behind the Crimean khans. Therefore, the fight with Turkey was a more important strategic task for Russia than the fight on the Baltic coast. And Wikipedia’s mention of Denmark is consistent with the inscription on one of the portraits that Anatoly was from Jutland.

« As evidence, the case of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich is also cited, who in 1716 fled abroad, where he planned to wait on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire for the death of Peter (who was seriously ill during this period) and then, relying on the help of the Austrians, to become the Russian Tsar. According to supporters of the version of the replacement of the tsar, Alexei Petrovich fled to Europe because he sought to free his real father, imprisoned in the Bastille. According to Gleb Nosovsky, the impostor’s agents told Alexei that after his return he would be able to take the throne himself, since loyal troops were waiting for him in Russia, ready to support his rise to power. Returning Alexey Petrovich, according to conspiracy theorists, was killed on the orders of the impostor».

And this version turns out to be more serious compared to the academic version, where the son opposes his father for ideological reasons, and the father, without putting his son under house arrest, immediately applies capital punishment. All this in the academic version looks unconvincing.

Version by Gleb Nosovsky.

Wikipedia also presents the version of the new chronologists. " According to Gleb Nosovsky, initially he heard many times about the version of Peter’s substitution, but never believed it. At one time, Fomenko and Nosovsky studied an exact copy of the throne of Ivan the Terrible. In those days, the zodiac signs of the current rulers were placed on the thrones. By examining the signs placed on the throne of Ivan the Terrible, Nosovsky and Fomenko found that the actual date of his birth differs from the official version by four years.

The authors of the “New Chronology” compiled a table of the names of Russian tsars and their birthdays, and thanks to this table they found out that the official birthday of Peter I (May 30) does not coincide with the day of his angel, which is a noticeable contradiction in comparison with all the names of Russian tsars. After all, names in Rus' during baptism were given exclusively according to the calendar, and the name given to Peter violated the established centuries-old tradition, which in itself does not fit into the framework and laws of that time. Based on the table, Nosovsky and Fomenko found out that the real name, which falls on the official date of birth of Peter I, was “Isaky.” This explains the name of the main cathedral of Tsarist Russia, St. Isaac's Cathedral.

Nosovsky believes that the Russian historian Pavel Milyukov also shared the opinion that the tsar was a forgery in an article in the encyclopedia of Brockhausa and Evfron Milyukov, according to Nosovsky, without directly stating, repeatedly hinted that Peter I was an impostor. The replacement of the tsar by an impostor was carried out, according to Nosovsky, by a certain group of Germans, and together with the double, a group of foreigners came to Russia. According to Nosovsky, among Peter’s contemporaries there were very widespread rumors about the replacement of the tsar, and almost all the archers claimed that the tsar was a fake. Nosovsky believes that May 30 was actually the birthday not of Peter, but of the impostor who replaced him, on whose orders St. Isaac's Cathedral, named after him, was built».

The name “Anatoly” we discovered does not contradict this version, because the name “Anatoly” was a monastic name, and not given at birth. - As we see, the “new chronologists” have added another touch to the portrait of the impostor.

Historiography of Peter.

It would seem that it would be easier to look at the biographies of Peter the Great, preferably during his lifetime, and explain the contradictions that interest us.

However, this is where disappointment awaits us. Here's what you can read in the work: “ There were persistent rumors among the people about Peter's non-Russian origin. He was called the Antichrist, the German foundling. The difference between Tsar Alexei and his son was so striking that suspicions about Peter’s non-Russian origin arose among many historians. Moreover, the official version of Peter’s origin was too unconvincing. She left and leaves more questions than answers. Many researchers have tried to lift the veil of strange reticence about the Peter the Great phenomenon. However, all these attempts immediately fell under the strictest taboo of the ruling house of the Romanovs. The phenomenon of Peter remained unsolved».

So, the people unequivocally asserted that Peter had been replaced. Doubts arose not only among the people, but even among historians. And then we read with surprise: “ Incomprehensibly, until the mid-19th century, not a single work with a complete historiography of Peter the Great was published. The first who decided to publish a complete scientific and historical biography of Peter was the wonderful Russian historian Nikolai Gerasimovich Ustryalov, already mentioned by us. In the Introduction to his work "History of the reign of Peter the Great" he sets out in detail why until now (mid-19th century) there is no scientific work on the history of Peter the Great" This is how this detective story began.

According to Ustryalov, back in 1711, Peter became eager to obtain the history of his reign and entrusted this honorable mission to the translator of the Ambassadorial Order Venedikt Schiling. The latter was provided with all the necessary materials and archives, but... the work was never published, not a single sheet of the manuscript has survived. What follows is even more mysterious: “The Russian Tsar had every right to be proud of his exploits and wish to pass on to posterity the memory of his deeds in a true, unadorned form. They decided to carry out his ideaFeofan Prokopovich , Bishop of Pskov, and teacher of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich,Baron Huysen . Official materials were communicated to both, as can be seen from Feofan’s work, and as even more evidenced by the Emperor’s own handwritten note of 1714, preserved in his cabinet files: “Give all the journals to Giesen.”(1). It would seem that now the History of Peter I will finally be published. But it was not there: “A skilled preacher, a learned theologian, Theophan was not a historian at all... That is why, when describing battles, he fell into inevitable mistakes; Moreover, he worked with obvious haste, in haste, making omissions that he wanted to fill in later.”. As we see, Peter’s choice was unsuccessful: Feofan was not a historian and did not understand anything. Huysen's work also turned out to be unsatisfactory and was not published: “Baron Huysen, having in his hands authentic journals of campaigns and travels, limited himself to extracts from them until 1715, without any connection, entangling many trifles and extraneous matters into historical events.”.

In a word, neither this biography nor the subsequent ones took place. And the author comes to the following conclusion: “ Strict censorship of all historical research continued into the 19th century. So the work of N.G. himself Ustryalov, which is the first scientific historiography of Peter I, was subjected to severe censorship. From the 10-volume edition, only individual excerpts from 4 volumes have survived! The last time this fundamental study about Peter I (1, 2, 3 volumes, part of the 4th volume, 6 volumes) was published in a stripped-down version only in 1863! Today it is virtually lost and is preserved only in antique collections. The same fate befell the work of I.I. Golikov’s “Acts of Peter the Great,” which has not been republished since the century before last! Notes from the associate and personal turner of Peter I A.K. Nartov’s “Reliable narratives and speeches of Peter the Great” were first opened and published only in 1819. At the same time, with a meager circulation in the little-known magazine “Son of the Fatherland”. But even that edition underwent unprecedented editing, when out of 162 stories only 74 were published. This work was never reprinted; the original was irretrievably lost» .

The entire book by Alexander Kas is called “The Collapse of the Empire of the Russian Tsars” (1675-1700), which implies the establishment of an empire of non-Russian tsars. And in Chapter IX, entitled “How the royal dynasty was slaughtered under Peter,” he describes the position of Stepan Razin’s troops 12 miles near Moscow. And he describes many other interesting, but practically unknown events. However, he does not provide any more information about False Peter.

Other opinions.

Again, I will continue to quote the already mentioned Wikipedia article: “It is alleged that Peter’s double was an experienced sailor who participated in many naval battles and sailed a lot in the southern seas. It is sometimes claimed that he was a sea pirate. Sergei Sall believes that the impostor was a high-ranking Dutch Freemason and a relative of the King of Holland and Great Britain, William of Orange. It is most often mentioned that the real name of the double was Isaac (according to one version, his name was Isaac Andre). According to Baida, the double was from either Sweden or Denmark, and by religion he was most likely a Lutheran.

Baida claims that the real Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille, and that he was the famous prisoner who went down in history under the name Iron Mask. According to Baida, this prisoner was recorded under the name Marchiel, which can be interpreted as “Mikhailov” (under this name Peter went to the Grand Embassy). It is stated that Iron Mask was tall, carried himself with dignity, and was treated fairly well. In 1703, Peter, according to Baida, was killed in the Bastille. Nosovsky claims that the real Peter was kidnapped and most likely killed.

It is sometimes claimed that the real Peter was actually deceived into going to Europe so that some foreign forces could force him to subsequently pursue the policies they wanted. Without agreeing to this, Peter was kidnapped or killed, and a double was put in his place.

In one version of the version, the real Peter was captured by the Jesuits and imprisoned in a Swedish fortress. He managed to deliver a letter to King Charles XII of Sweden, and he rescued him from captivity. Later, Charles and Peter organized a campaign against the impostor, but the Swedish army was defeated near Poltava by Russian troops led by Peter’s double and the forces of Jesuits and Masons behind them. Peter I was captured again and hidden away from Russia - imprisoned in the Bastille, where he later died. According to this version, the conspirators kept Peter alive, hoping to use him for their own purposes.

Baida's version can be verified by examining the engravings of that time.

Rice. 9. Prisoner in an iron mask (illustration from Wikipedia)

Iron mask.

Wikipedia writes about this prisoner: “ Iron Mask (fr. Le masque de fer. Born around 1640, d. November 19, 1703) - a mysterious prisoner numbered 64389000 from the time of Louis XIV, held in various prisons, including (from 1698) the Bastille, and wore a velvet mask (later legends turned this mask into an iron one)».

Suspicions regarding the prisoner were as follows: “ Duke of Vermandois, illegitimate son of Louis XIV and Louise de La Vallière, who allegedly slapped his half-brother, the Grand Dauphin, and atoned for this guilt with eternal imprisonment. The version is implausible, since the real Louis of Bourbon died back in 1683, at the age of 16", according to Voltaire - " Iron Mask" was the twin brother of Louis XIV. Subsequently, dozens of different hypotheses were expressed about this prisoner and the reasons for his imprisonment.", some Dutch writers suggested that " The Iron Mask is a foreigner, a young nobleman, chamberlain to Queen Anne of Austria and the real father of Louis XIV. Lagrange-Chancel tried to prove in "L'année littéraire"(1759) that the Iron Mask was none other than Duke François de Beaufort, which was completely refutedN. Aulairein his "Histoire de la fronte" Reliable information about the “iron mask” was first given by the Jesuit Griffet, who was confessor in the Bastille for 9 years, in his “Traité des différentes sortes de preuves qui servent à établir la verité dans l’Histoire" (1769), where he gives the diary of Dujoncas, the royal lieutenant at the Bastille, and the list of the dead of the church of St. Paul. According to this diary, on September 19, 1698, a prisoner was delivered from the island of St. Margaret in a stretcher, whose name was unknown and whose face was constantly covered with a black velvet (not iron) mask».

However, I believe the simplest method of verification is epigraphic. In Fig. 9 shows " Prisoner in an iron mask in an anonymous engraving from the French Revolution"(same Wikipedia article). I decided to read the signature on the central character, fig. 10, slightly increasing the size of this fragment.

Rice. 10. My reading of the inscriptions on the image of the “Iron Mask”

I read the inscriptions on the wall above the prisoner's bunk, starting from the 4th row of stonework above the sheet. And gradually moving from one row to another, lower one: MASK OF THE TEMPLE OF MARA Rus' RURIK YAR THE SCYTHES MIMA OF THE WORLD MARA OF MOSCOW Rus' AND 35 ARKONA YAR. In other words, IMAGE OF A SCYTHIAN PRIEST OF THE TEMPLE OF THE RUSSIAN GODDESS MARA RURIK YAR WORLD MARA OF MOSCOW Rus' AND VELIKY NOVGOROD , which no longer corresponds to the inscriptions on the image of Anatoly, who was a mime (priest) of Rome (near Cairo), that is, the 30th Arkona Yar.

But the most interesting inscription is on a row of stonework at the level of the prisoner's head. On the left, its fragment is very small in size, and having enlarged it 15 times, I read the words as a continuation of the previous inscription: KHARAON YAR OF Rus' YAR OF RURIK TSAR, and then I read the inscription in large letters to the left of the head: PETRA ALEXEEVA, and to the right of the head - MIMA YARA.

So, the confirmation that the prisoner “Iron Mask” was Peter the Great is obvious. True, the question may arise - why? PETER ALEXEEV , but not PETER ALEXEEVICH ? But the tsar pretended to be the artisan Pyotr Mikhailov, and the people of the third estate were called something like the Bulgarians now: not Pyotr Alekseevich Mikhailov, but Pyotr Alekseev Mikhailov.

Thus, Dmitry Baida’s version found epigraphic confirmation.

Rice. 11. Urbanoglyph of Ankara from a height of 15 km

Did the Temple of Anatolia exist? To answer this question, it is necessary to consider the urban glyph of Ankara, that is, the view of this city from a certain height. To complete this task, you can turn to Google’s “Planet Earth” program. The view of the city from above is called an urbanoglyph. In this case, a screenshot with the urban glyph of Ankara is shown in Fig. eleven.

It should be noted that the image turned out to be low-contrast, which is explained by satellite photography through the entire thickness of the atmosphere. But even in this case, it is clear that on the left and above the inscriptions: “Ankara” the building blocks form the face of a mustachioed and bearded man in left profile. And to the left (west) of this person there are not entirely organized blocks of buildings, forming an area called “Yenimahalle”.

Rice. 12. Urbanoglyph of part of Ankara from a height of 8.5 km

I was just interested in these two objects. I isolated them from an altitude of 8.5 km and increased the contrast of the image. Now it is quite possible to read the inscriptions on it, fig. 15. However, it should be noted that the inscription: “Ankara” is gone completely, and only the last half of the inscription: “Yenimahalle” remains.

But you can understand that where no system was visible from a height of 15 km, now letters are visible from a height of 8.5 km. I read these letters on the decoding field, fig. 13. So, above the fragment of the word “Yenimahalle” I read the letter X of the word TEMPLE, and the letters “X” and “P” are superimposed on each other, forming a ligature. And just below I read the word ANATOLY, so that both read words form the desired phrase TEMPLE ANATOLIA . So such a temple really existed in Ankara.

However, the inscriptions of the Ankara urban glyph do not end there. The word “Anatolia” is superimposed with the digits of the number “ 20 ", and below you can read the words: YARA ARKONA. So Ankara was precisely the secondary Arkona of Yar No. 20. And even lower I read the words: YAR 33. In terms of our usual chronology, they form the date: 889 A.D. . Most likely, they indicate the date of construction of the Temple of Anatolia in Ankara.

It turns out that the name “Anatoly” is not the proper name of False Peter, but the name of the temple in which he was trained. By the way, S.A. Sall, having read my article, suggested that the name Anatoly is associated with Turkey, with its Anatolia. I found this assumption quite plausible. However, now, in the course of epigraphic analysis, it has become clear that this was the name of a specific temple in the city of Ankara, which is now the capital of the Turkish Republic. In other words, the assumption was made more concrete.

It is clear that it was not the Temple of Anatolia that received its name from the monastic name of False Peter, but, on the contrary, the monk and executor of the will of the Orange family received his agent code name from the name of this temple.

Rice. 13. My reading of the inscriptions on the urban glyph of Ankara

Discussion.

It is clear that such a historical act (more precisely, an atrocity) as the replacement of the Russian Tsar of the Romanov dynasty requires comprehensive consideration. I tried to make my contribution and, through epigraphic analysis, either confirm or refute the opinion of researchers both about the personality of Peter the Great in captivity, and about the personality of the False Peter. I think I was able to move in both directions.

First of all, it was possible to show that the prisoner of the Bastille (since 1698) under the name “Iron Mask” was indeed the Tsar of Moscow Peter Alekseevich Romanov. Now we can clarify the years of his life: he was born on May 30, 1672, and died not on January 28, 1725, but on November 19, 1703. - So the last Tsar of All Rus' (since 1682) lived not 53 years, but only 31 years.

Since the Grand Embassy began in March 1697, it is most likely that Peter was captured somewhere at the end of 1697, then he was transferred from prison to prison until he ended up in the Bastille on September 19, 1698. However, he could have been captured in 1898. He spent 5 years and exactly 1 month in the Bastille. So what we have before us is not just another “conspiracy” invention, but the West using the chance to replace the Tsar of Muscovy, who did not understand the danger of secretly visiting Western countries. Of course, if the visit had been official, replacing the tsar would have been much more difficult.

As for False Peter, it was possible to understand that he was not only a protege of Rome (moreover, the real one, near Cairo, and not the nominal one, in Italy), but also received the agent name “Anatoly” after the name of the Anatoly Temple in Ankara. If at the end of the embassy Peter was 26 years old, and Anatoly looked about 40 years old, then he was at least 14 years older than Peter, so the years of his life are as follows: he was born around 1658, and died on January 28, 1725, having lived 67 years, approximately twice as old as Peter.

The falsity of Anatoly as Peter is confirmed by five portraits, both in the form of canvases and in the form of a death mask and miniature. It turns out that the artists and sculptors knew very well who they were depicting, so the substitution of Peter was an open secret. And it turns out that with the accession of Anatoly, the Romanov dynasty was interrupted not only in the female line (for after arriving in Russia, Anatoly married a low-class Baltic woman), but also in the male line, for Anatoly was not Peter.

But it follows from this that the Romanov dynasty ended in 1703, having lasted only 90 years since 1613. This is a little more than Soviet power, which lasted from November 1917 to August 1991, that is, 77 years. But whose dynasty was established from 1703 to 1917, a period of 214 years, remains to be seen.

And from the fact that many of Anatoly’s portraits mention the temples of Mary Rurik, it follows that these temples successfully existed both in Europe and in the Ottoman Empire, and in Egypt back in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. AD so the real attack on the temples of Rurik could only begin after the accession of Anatoly to Rus', who became the persecutor of not only Russian Vedism, but also Russian Christian orthodoxy of the Byzantine model. Occupying the royal throne gave him the opportunity not only to attack Russian traditions and weaken the Russian people in an economic sense, but also to strengthen Western states at the expense of Russia.

Particular findings of this epigraphic research were the discovery of the Temple of Anatolia in Ankara and the identification of the number of Ankara as a secondary Arkona Yar. This was the twentieth Arkona Yar, which can be shown on the table by adding to it, Fig. 15.

Rice. 14. Updated Arkon numbering table

It can also be noted that the role of Ankara in the activities of Rome has not yet been sufficiently identified.

Conclusion.

It is possible that Peter’s Great Embassy to Western countries was prepared in advance by Lefort and other acquaintances of Peter, but as one of the possible scenarios and not at all with the goal of overthrowing the Tsar and replacing him with another person, but for involvement in Western politics. He had a lot of reasons not to come true. However, when it happened, and in a secret way, it was already possible to deal with these foreigners differently from what diplomatic protocol required. Most likely, other circumstances arose that made it easier for Peter to be captured. For example, the scattering of part of the retinue for various reasons: some to taverns, some to girls, some to doctors, some to resorts. And when, instead of 250 courtiers and guards, only about two dozen people from the retinue remained, the capture of the royal person became not too difficult. It is quite possible that Peter’s intractability and adherence to principles on political and religious issues pushed the monarchs who received him to take the most decisive actions. But for now this is only speculation.

And only one thing can be considered as a proven fact: Peter was imprisoned in the Bastille as an “Iron Mask,” and Anatoly began to commit outrages in Russia, which he declared an empire in the Western manner. Although the word “king” meant “tse Yar”, that is, “this is the messenger of the god Yar”, while “emperor” is simply “ruler”. But other details must be found out from other sources.

Literature.

1. Chudinov V.A. About St. Petersburg according to Sally's statements..
2. Vakolyuk Yarik. Nevsky Gate (2015). September 2, 2015.

Iron Mask - the most mysterious prisoner of the era of Louis XIV remained in history under this name. All that is reliably known about this man is the number under which he was registered in the Bastille (64489001). Presumably, he was born in the 40s of the 17th century. He was kept in different prisons. In 1698 he was finally placed in the Bastille, where he died.

Historical information

In fact, prisoner No. 64489001 did not wear an iron mask, but only a velvet mask. It was supposed to hide his identity from outsiders, but in no way serve as a means of torture (like an iron one). Even the guards themselves did not know what kind of criminal was wearing this mask. Its mystery gradually became the reason for the emergence of numerous legends and speculations.

The prisoner in the iron mask was first mentioned in the Secret Notes of the Persian Court, published in Amsterdam in 1745. The author of the notes indicates that under number 64489001 the illegitimate son of the royal Louis XIV and his beloved, the Duchess de La Vallière, was kept in the casemate. He bore the title of Count of Vermandois. In conclusion, he was caught for slapping his brother, the Grand Dauphin.

This version is absolutely untenable, since the real Count of Vermandois died at the age of 16 in 1683. Before that, he managed to take part in the war with Spain, so he simply did not have time for such a long imprisonment. Jesuit Griffe, who served as a confessor at the Bastille, recorded that the mysterious prisoner was first brought to the Bastille in 1698, and he died in 1703.

Elder brother or twin of Louis XIV

Later, Francois Voltaire suggested that the gentleman in the iron mask could be the half-brother of Louis XIV himself. The king did not need rivals, so he imprisoned his brother in the Bastille, having previously obliged him to wear a mask on his face. Obviously, all the mystery that surrounded this prisoner could be connected with this. Voltaire expressed this conjecture in his 1751 work “The Age of Louis XIV.”

Anne of Austria was considered infertile for a long time. Then she gave birth to an illegitimate son, after which the legitimate heir to the throne, Louis XIV, was born. The latter, having learned about the presence of an older brother, decided to end his life. In addition, there were rumors that Louis himself was not the king’s own son. This called into question his right to the crown.

Louis XIV could not execute the son of the French queen and his own brother, so he chose to imprison the unfortunate young man forever. Wearing a mask is a way to hide a secret that could cause a coup. History has not preserved the name of this supposed older brother.

There have also been speculations that the Iron Mask is actually the twin brother of Louis XIV. The appearance of male twins among the royal couple spontaneously gave rise to a lot of problems with the succession to the throne. One of the queen's sons had to be sacrificed in order to maintain stability in the country. The boy was raised secretly. Having matured, Louis XIV learned about his twin brother, who looked like him like a reflection in a mirror. Fearing for his crown, Louis ordered the elimination of his rival.

Ercole Mattioli

The fourth version was the assumption that the famous Italian adventurer Ercole Antonio Mattioli was hiding under the mask. In 1678, an agreement was concluded between him and Louis XIV: Mattioli undertook to persuade his overlord to give the king the fortress of Casale. The Italian successfully sold this state secret to several countries for a substantial reward. For this he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the French government.

General Bulond

The reason for the emergence of another version was the secret notes of Louis XIV. The French king kept encrypted diaries, which were deciphered several centuries later by the famous cryptographer Etienne Bazerie. It turned out that the masked prisoner could also be the French general Vivien de Bulonde, who covered himself and France with indelible shame in one of the battles of the Nine Years' War. This version, like all others, has not been proven 100%.

The real Peter I

Various historians and researchers, intrigued by the great mystery, continued to put forward all sorts of versions regarding the identity of the prisoner in the iron mask. Most historians came to the conclusion that it could have been one of the conspirators who dared to take aim at royal power. Among them: the Lorraine Armoise, the royal minister Fouquet, Cardinal Mazarin, etc.

Another version even concerned Russia. According to it, Peter I himself, and the true tsar, was imprisoned in the Bastille. In 1698 - precisely when prisoner No. 64489001 appeared in the Bastille - the Russian Tsar was allegedly replaced. Peter I was then carrying out a diplomatic mission (“Grand Embassy”) in Europe.

The true, Orthodox Russian Tsar, who sacredly revered traditions, went abroad. The European returned, dressed in a “basurman dress” and with a whole bunch of innovations wild for patriarchal Rus'. After this, they began to say that Peter the Great had been replaced abroad with an impostor. This substitution was later associated with the Iron Mask. It is still not known who actually wore it.

The truth about the man in the iron mask

Who among us doesn't like detective stories? An intriguing plot, mysterious characters and an absolutely unexpected solution to a seemingly insoluble problem. All this attracts the attention of fans of the detective genre.

However, unfortunately, most detective stories are short-lived, and only a few of them could last for centuries. One of them is the story of the “Iron Mask,” the dark secret of a prisoner doomed to wear the black mask on his face until the end of his days.

More than 300 years have passed since the time when the Unknown first appeared in one of the gloomy royal castles in a black velvet mask that covered his face (later popular rumor replaced velvet with iron). What versions have not been put forward about the man in the Iron Mask over the years.

According to one version, the king of England miraculously escaped execution was hidden under the mask. Another nominates the illegitimate son of Anne of Austria, mother of Louis XIV, for this unenviable role. There was also an assumption that the mysterious prisoner was the “king of the Parisian markets”, the Duke de Beaufort.

Each of these versions, as a rule, refutes the others, and none of them can withstand comparison of the facts known from historical documents. For many years, researchers have tried to find out the truth. For two centuries, an army of detectives and historians struggled to solve this mystery. And it would have remained unsolved if not for the Moscow scientist Yuri Borisovich Tatarinov. It was he who managed to shed light on the mysterious story of the prisoner in the Iron Mask.

Tatarinov began his investigation by selecting real facts. He had dozens of historical documents in his hands. Thanks to them, the scientist immediately rejected all “literary versions” and came to the conclusion that the search for the Iron Mask must be carried out among those prisoners who arrived in Paris on September 18, 1698 from the Mediterranean island of Sainte-Marguerite, accompanied by the new commandant of the Bastille.

At the beginning of the investigation, the Moscow scientist identified 8 “suspects,” but later 5 characters in the “detective story” disappeared for various reasons. The three most credible candidates for the role of the Iron Mask remain. This is Nicolas Fouquet, the former superintendent of finances of King Louis XIV, the mysterious “servant” Eustache Dauger and the minister of the Duke of Mantua, Count Mattioli. Now, out of three “suspects,” it was necessary to choose one - the one who had been hiding his face under a mask for many years.

The task was not an easy one, and the scientist first decided to find out the reasons and circumstances of the arrest of each of the three possible candidates for the role of the Iron Mask.

After studying many historical documents, the scientist learned:

Nicolas Fouquet, who became fantastically rich from trade and speculation, a rival of the “Sun King” himself, was caught in dirty tricks and, by order of the king, was arrested on September 5. Accused of financial fraud and sedition (Fronde conspiracy), Fouquet was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment. In January 1665, Fouquet crossed the threshold of the castle of the Pignerol fortress.

Next on the list was the mysterious “servant” Eustache Doget, who was brought to the castle on August 24, 1669. Eustache Doget was arrested by order of Louis XIV as having caused royal discontent. Together with the prisoner, an order came to keep this prisoner in complete secrecy in a special punishment cell with double doors, with one meal only. On pain of death, he was forbidden to talk even with the commandant about anything other than everyday needs, and to convey any news about himself. There is also a version that the name Eustache Doget is nothing more than a pseudonym, since the draft orders for his arrest and delivery to Pignerol were nameless.

The third prisoner of the Pignerol castle was the minister of the Duke of Mantua, Count Mattioli, who was delivered on May 2, 1679. Accused of revealing to the rulers of Austria, Spain and Venice the secret of a deal between the king and the duke for the sale of the border town of Casale, Mattioli was brought to the castle in strict secrecy. His face was hidden by a black velvet mask. This was the beginning of the prison journey of the three main “suspects”.

However, finding out the reasons and circumstances of the arrest of these three people, unfortunately, could not clarify anything. Then Yuri Borisovich decided to trace their further fate. And here Tatarinov discovered that the fates of these people intersected in a strange way.

1674, September - when one of Fouquet’s servants, a certain Monsieur Champagne, died, the commandant of the Saint-Mars fortress gave none other than the prisoner Estache Doget into the service of the ex-minister. At the same time, Saint-Mars warned Fouquet that no one except the ex-minister himself and his second servant La Riviera should communicate with Doget.

In January, Fouquet was sent a “personal message” from one of Louis XIV’s close associates, Louvois. “You will learn,” wrote Louvois, “the precautions mentioned by Saint-Mars, required by the king, which are taken to prevent Eustache Dauger from communicating with anyone other than you. The King expects you to make every effort, for you know why no one should know what he knows."

Fouquet agreed and as a reward received permission, signed by Louis, to meet his family. However, literally a week after receiving the letter, the ex-minister fell ill. 1680, March - a rumor spread about the unexpected death of the former intendant of finance. But no one has ever seen the documents - death certificates, autopsy and funeral certificates. (The date of Fouquet’s official death is considered to be March 23, 1680, but his body was given to relatives for burial only a year later, so no one could determine for sure whether it was Fouquet. Along with this, Colbert’s employees spread a legend that the ex-minister was allegedly released and died on the way to the capital in Chalon-on-Saône...

After the mysterious death of Fouquet, exactly a month later, according to documents, Count Mattioli died, and an unknown prisoner appears in one of the cells of the castle-prison, whose face is hidden under a black velvet mask. Fouquet's strange death also affected the fate of the third prisoner, Eustache Dauger. 1681, September - the former “servant” was transported in a closed stretcher to Fort Exile, located in the South-Western Alps (a rumor spread among the people at that time that Fouquet’s servants were released after his death).

Dauger spent six years at Fort Exile and in 1687, accompanied by Saint-Mars, was transferred to Sainte-Marguerite, to a cell specially prepared for him. 1698, September - the last move in Eustache Doge's life took place. Saint-Mars arrived with him at the Bastille as governor, replacing the deceased Besmo. 5 years later (November 19, 1703) Doge died. He was buried under a new fictitious name - Marscioli, similar to the name of the missing prisoner Pignerol Mattioli.

Perhaps Dauger could know a lot about Fouquet, in particular the secret of the events of March 23, 1680 - the time of Fouquet’s possible “transformation” into the “unknown” prisoner of Pignerol. In addition, Doge possessed, according to historians, his own secrets.

Having carefully analyzed (using the system analysis method) all the data obtained, the scientist built a matrix to solve this problem. Its lines were a chronological list of events taken from the “nodal” documents, and the columns were the prisoners of Pignerol. At the intersections of rows and columns - the correspondence of one of the heroes of the tragedy to the event described in the document. But, having conducted thought experiments with all the “undertrials,” Tatarinov was unable to come to any definite conclusion.

He was never able to reasonably put an “iron mask” on any of the “suspects”; At some crossroads, contradictions constantly appeared.

The “Mattioli – Iron Mask” version of the 16 most important documents did not touch upon 9 at all, and could not explain one.

The version regarding Dozhe did not intersect with four and could not explain one.

Fouquet's version passed over two documents in silence, did not explain one, and interpreted 5 documents with a stretch, that is, with certain assumptions. As a result, each version was given up. None of the “under investigation” approached.

Having made such a bleak conclusion, Yuri Borisovich was ready to admit defeat and agree with the skeptics who categorically declared that the 300-year-old secret would never be revealed. But suddenly an original thought struck him: what if the mask was worn by two or even three prisoners, one after the other?

Thus, the trio of “subjects” he chose, Fouquet – Mattioli – Dauger, was ideally suited to solving this problem. After the death of the first prisoner with a black mask on his face - Fouquet - it was put on Count Mattioli. However, a month later he also died. Then the mask was put on Doge, who, having sat next to Fouquet for many years, knew too much.

It was Doget who was the same mysterious prisoner who was brought to Paris in the “iron mask”. There, in solitary confinement in the Bastille, he lived out his last years. The “servant” paid with two decades of secret solitary confinement for knowing the secrets of Fouquet, whom he happened to serve in Pignerol.

This is how, thanks to the “identification matrix” invented by Yu.B. Tatarinov, the secret of the many faces of the Iron Mask was revealed. But then the question immediately arises: why hide Doge’s face under a mask? After all, it is known that until March 23, 1680, he did not wear it. The scientist explains it this way: the mask was originally required to hide a well-known face, and then to hide the fact that this person no longer exists.

However, having found the answer to one riddle, we immediately received another in return. Who is Fouquet's "mysterious servant" Eustache Doge? After all, if Doge is a pseudonym, then who is he really? And if Fouquet actually died on March 23, 1680 from a fatal illness, then is the Doget mask justified? Was there a need for a mask at all if Doget was a little-known person? After all, it is known that in Pignerol he did not wear a mask and walked freely with Fouquet around the castle grounds.

And at the same time, from the beginning of 1679, his exit from the cell was strictly prohibited. This man was subjected to a set of precautions that had never been used on any other prisoner. And again numerous versions started working. Who was not offered for this role!

The Englishman A. Barnes suggested that it could be Abbot Pregnani, a secret agent of Louis XIV, who was sent on a secret mission in March 1669 to Charles II of England and whose disappearance coincided with the date of Doge's arrest in Dunkirk. A historian from France, E. Lalois, suggested that the mysterious Iron Mask of the Bastille is a priest who witnessed the amorous adventures of the monarch with Madame Montespan. It was also suggested that Eustache Doger was none other than the twin brother of Louis XIV himself. And finally, lawyer P.-M. Dijol suggested that the little Moor Nabo, who was in the service of Queen Maria Theresa, became a prisoner of the Bastille. But none of these versions have yet found documentary evidence.

Thus, as a result of solving one riddle, historians received another, no less interesting. And now they have to find the answer to the question: who was hiding under the guise of the mysterious “servant” Eustache Doger? This mystery is still waiting for its researchers.