Is it true that there is a lifetime sculptural portrait of Ivan the Terrible?

On the Internet there is information about the image of Tsar Ivan IV on the Baltic gun. We decided to check how true this statement is.

Publications with the heading like “the only lifetime sculptural image of Ivan the Terrible on a propaganda gun from Revel” is, for example, on Pikabu and in Livejournal. Posts where this information is given with clarifications “supposedly” or “alleged” is in public on VKontakte and on the site "Science and technology". As an illustration, the portrait of Ivan the Terrible on the gun penetrated and into print publications. In particular, he is in the textbook of Leonid Katsva "History of Russia" (2005), books "John IV Grozny" Gleb Blagoveshchensky (2010), "Tsar Ivan the Terrible" Leonty Lannik (2008), “The capture of Kazan and other wars of Ivan the Terrible” Valery Shambarova (2014), “Essays on the history of the Livonian War” by Vitaly Pensky (2017) and others, in some cases under the sign of question, sometimes without. Pen, for example, writes: "The likely lifetime portrait of Ivan the Terrible."

We are talking about a really existing subject - they squealed the “Revelsky Leo”, created by the master Karsten Middeldorp from Lubeck in 1559 for Livonia, which at that time fought with Russia. This squeak became the military trophy of the winners and now Store In the St. Petersburg Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering and Communications forces. The date of manufacture of the gun and the name of its creator are known from the German inscription on it:

He called me a lion
Revel's magistrate,
So that his enemies
I would defeat
Those who do not want to live in peace with him.
In 1559 he cast me Karsten
Middeldorp is true.

Torel (back wall) of the barrel is decorated with a pomed image of a person, in which some identify the king.

Russian artillery historian Alexei Lobin in his book "Artillery of Ivan the Terrible" tellsHow the theory arose about this identification. The compiler of the first guide to the artillery museum Nikolai Brandenburg at the end of the 19th century indicated that, most likely, this is a self -portrait of the foundry of Karsten Middeldorpa, with which it was Agree Researcher Luda Anting (1967). But archaeologist Kirill Shmelev in 2002 introduced The version that, most likely, the master portrayed Tsar Ivan the Terrible. She Mentioned And in the reference book about the 2004 museum, edited by Valery Krylov. This version I picked up Researcher Sergei Bogatyrev, who presented the detailed evidence in the 2010 article and is more concise in publications 2011. Lobin himself in 2013 He wrote In its blog: “My version is more careful. It depicts the "head of the Muscovite" - to talk about a sculptural resemblance to the appearance of Grozny is a few prematurely. "

Despite the fact that about 20 years have passed since the emergence of this theory, no more art critic or historian, except for these military researchers, Not discussing "Revelsky Leo" as a possible image of Ivan the Terrible (not counting one article with the objections of Bogatyrev, which will be discussed below).

What arguments bring Shmelev and Bogatyrov, identifying his head on a gun with the king? Shmelev Writesthat the headdress looks like Monomakh hat, and Barmas (wide precious grocery) are visible around the neck: “A man is depicted by an East European appearance, dressed in a hat with a fur roller -like edge. It is such hats that are characteristic of the images of the Muscovites on European engravings of the XVI - XVII centuries. <...> The hat has parameters that are quite close to the Monomakh hat - the headdress of Russian kings, details resembling bars are traced around the neck. Finally, the face of the depicted has a significant resemblance to the familiar king Ivan IV. The appearance of the formidable is known for several Western European engravings and a portrait from the National Museum in Copenhagen. ”

Bogatyrev Develops This version. He begins by describing the extensive Western European tradition of creating exotic fictional portraits of the Moscow sovereigns, the beginning of which in the first half of the 16th century, engraves Erhard Schyong and Augustine Hirschfogel laid by his images of Ivan the Terrible, Grand Duke Vasily III. It is known that the European creators of engraved portraits of Ivan IV used portraits of his father-of which the phrasilography of Hans Weigel Sr. (1563) with the image of Ivan IV, based, as the Bogatyrev, on the portrait of Vasily of the III work of Sheyon, is most famous. Bogatyrev writes that the founder Middeldorp also used the engraving of Sheyon, borrowing from her twisted mustache and a pattern on the collar. “But how Middeldorp differs from Schön is the amazing historical reliability of a ceremonial headdress,” writes Bogatyrev. - N.E. Brandenburg incorrectly interpreted a hat on the image of Middeldorp as an oriental turban. In fact, this is very early and in many aspects a unique image of the Monomakh hat. ” Further, Bogatyrev compares the image of this real regalia and a human hat with a gun. He also believes that the latter’s pattern of the latter is the royal bars, another important regalia of Russian rulers.

Thus, three groups of arguments can be distinguished: firstly, the gun is made by contemporaries and neighbors of Ivan the Terrible, secondly, there is a physiognomic similarity, and thirdly, attributes are read as “Russians”.

The fact that the gun was made in a neighboring state can really serve as an argument to the fact that its customers had a special interest in the Person of Ivan or in general in the “Muscovites”.

Now let's move on to the issue of physiognomic similarities, which is “striking” and instantly convinces the non -professional. Bogatyryov, by the way, does not insist on the similarity of the portrait. “Of course, it is tempting to consider this as a realistic portrait of Ivan the Terrible,” he writes, but since there is nothing to compare with, the researcher considers this image to be symbolic, imaginary, but really indisputable.

Indeed, there is almost no material for comparison. Our idea of ​​the appearance of Ivan the Terrible is largely formed by mass culture. The most plausible portrait, it would seem, can be called Parsun from the Copenhagen Museum - It was consideredthat it belongs to the group of tombstones, as well as a portrait of the son of Ivan, Fedor Ioannovich, and the commander Skopin-Shuisky. There is a Latin inscription on a paper sticker on the back that Parsun was donated by the king Fedor Alekseevich Danish ambassador Friedrich von Gabel in 1677. However, in 2004, this famous monument finally arrived at the temporary exhibition in Russia, to the Historical Museum, where he fell into the hands of our specialists. They studied it under a microscope and ConfidentThat painting, judging by the composition and technique, is certainly created in the latest time, at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, and the artist who did not own the professional skills of icon painting. Even a possible prototype was found - icon “John the Theologian in silence” (1560s) from the collection of the Tretyakov Gallery.

Ivan the Terrible never posed for portraits in the modern sense of the word (made from nature and as similar as possible), since such a genre in Rus' then only began to form - in the tombstones and parsuns mentioned above. True, European artists made images of Russian rulers - not from nature, but from the words of travelers, after a while. “Imagine: a person got to the embassy reception in the palace at which the king was present. Suppose a year later he returned to his country and told the artist how the ruler looks. And the master understood and painted, taking other people's impressions as a basis. Of course, there can be no talk of reliability here, especially about scientific physiognomic value, ” - tells Historian Elena Uthanova, who is looking for a barely noticeable portrait of Ivan on the binding of the first printed "Apostle".

So conditionally lifelled by Western European portraits since the time of the main Russian expert of engravings Dmitry Rovinsky Only two engravings are considered: Hans Weigel Sr. (1563) xylography and dependent on it (that is, made on its basis with changes to the author’s taste), a profile portrait from the book of Paul Oderbon (1585). The source of Weigel, MaybeThe portrait of Vasily III of the work of Schön was the above. By another Versions, Weigel made an engraved portrait earlier, and the attribution of the image of Vasily III Schön is erroneous, it is later.

Several engraved portraits of Ivan - Just copies portraits of Vasily with a new inscription. That is, not having an idea of ​​the appearance of his son, the artists were not shy to use the fictional image of the father (about the real appearance of Vasily III gives an idea The tombstone). Engravings with imaginary portraits of Ivan is the only thing that Middeldorp could see. The assumption of Bogatyrev that the foundry could go to Moscow and see near the king and the Monomakh hat with his own eyes seems to be an incredible stretch.

Thus, only a sculptural reconstruction on the skull remains, executed Academician Mikhail Gerasimov. She looks like an image from Parsun - perhaps because the academician used this visual source as an inspiration, not suspecting his inhority. And also because the icon “John in Silence” follows the ancient samples of the Scripture of the Lygs, who developed in Byzantium, and Ivan the Terrible on the female line was a descendant of the natives of this region that this region was that this region that Reflected In the bone structure of its skull. Surely the academician watched the tombstone of Vasily III. Gerasimov’s reconstruction is the most close image of the appearance of Ivan the Terrible, which we have. However, it should be borne in mind that today it cannot be regarded as iron evidence: modern scientists question some of the conclusions of the Soviet anthropologist and believe that sometimes his artistic decisions did not affect the bones, but the theory. For example, disputed The reconstruction of the appearance of Andrei Bogolyubsky, to which Gerasimov gave pronounced Mongoloid features.

A funny moment, if you have to appeal to this method of evidence: the head of the “Revelsky Leo” has a much greater similarity with another reconstruction of academician Gerasimov - the prince Yaroslav Wise (XI century), however, in this case, it is obvious that it is only a coincidence.

Now a little art history analysis. Human facial features on the “Revelsky Leo” are peculiar and may seem unique. However, from the point of view of an art critic, they are very typical. The author, the German founder Karsten Middeldorp, may have poured bells and guns well, but as a sculptor he was by no means virtuoso. His weakness as a portraitist, for example, is evidenced by the lower part of the face excessively put forward - this is a frequent anatomical error in bad sculptors. Despite the fact that Middeldorp worked in the middle of the 16th century, in the midst of the Renaissance, the work of this provincial German master demonstrates the features of a fairly naive stylization characteristic of Gothic art. The same manner of stylization of thin faces can be found, for example, at the earlier statues of the Strasbourg Cathedral.

Finally, the third group of arguments are images of the Monomakh and Barm cap. Bogatyrev Writes: “We can only guess where Middeldorp could get such detailed information about the real appearance of the Monomakh cap. One possible source could be his Revel customers. He could also learn about her from other German casters who visited Muscovy. Being often trained engineers and drawers, they could give a professional description of how Monomakh’s hat looked. ” Further, the researcher makes a very bold conclusion: “Based on the portrait of Middeldorp, we can confidently conclude that in the middle of the 16th century the Monomakh hat, in general, had the same appearance as today.”

However, a distinctive feature of the cap of Monomakh and other hats of the Russian kingdom over the centuries was the edge of the fur - this detail remains on the most fantasy European engravings. It seems strange that “trained engineers and drawers” ​​could miss such an important nuance when describing the royal hat. On the “Revelsky Leo”, undoubtedly, not fur: the framing of the headgear is depicted using lines that imitate the thin folds of the fabric torn and twisted around their axis. The way imitation of fur is portrayed in the metal can be viewed above, at the reconstruction of Prince Yaroslav the Wise.

A separate article Dedicated Criticism of Bogatyrev’s ideas about the Russian royal caps by historian Julia Igina, who considers the “Revel Leo” simply a sculptural image of Barbar of a semi -Tatar appearance, which in Europe represented the Muscovites. “The hat depicted on the portrait resembles a hat of Monomakh in the sense that the tulas of both consist of four sectors connected by the top. At the same time, the hat is hemispherical, and the hat on the portrait is ovoid. They differ in both hats and tops. ” She also emphasizes the absence of sables: “However, the most important thing is that the hat on the portrait is entwined with a chilma, which denies the interpretation of this image as a hats of Monomakh.”

The images of the Turks in the turban were also massively distributed in the European art of the Renaissance, and they were much more popular than images of Tatars and Muscovites. The interaction of Europe and the Ottoman Empire at that time was very active, so the Turks often appeared in European art. One of the peaks of fashion for such images Related with a period after 1529, when Ottoman Sreded Vienna.

The division of the headdress into sectors is also found in the eastern hats.

A specialist in Ottoman art, an employee of the State Museum of the East, Maria Kulland, shared her assessment with us. In her opinion, “on a specific Turkish headdress of this time, a hat (from the“ Revel Lion ”. - Approx. Ed.) Is not similar, including a jewelry from above. However, stylization is always possible - say, on the Russian gun of the XVII century called "New Persian" (1685, Master Martian Osipov) is also depicted a human figure on Vincrad (the protruding part. - Approx. Ed.), And a headdress there, but rather conditionally Persian. But the existence of this "new Persian" indicates the tradition of the premises of the "eastern" figure on guns, given that this is a Russian master and later time). " Also in the Kremlin there is an earlier trophy bronze gun "Pers", cast In 1619, master Mikhail Rotenberger in Poland and confirming the existence of such a tradition among German -speaking casters.

In addition, it is important that the Western European masters of that period were not at all interested in Monomakh’s cap and barmas as separate regalia, they never made their individual sketches or detailed images. They had no idea how important regalia for the Russian kingdom were caps and bams, and therefore captured only a common exotic appearance. The sudden interest of the provincial foundry of Middeldorp in the most realistic (as Bogatyrev believes) reproduction of the appearance of the Monomakh cap seems to be inexplicable and implausible.

So how summarizes In his article by Igina: “An attempt to see in this portrait the reliable image of Ivan the Terrible in the header of Monomakh is deprived of, in my opinion, all sorts of foundations. First of all, it is difficult to identify with the real Ivan the Terrible presented on the portrait of the elder, which, as A.N. Lobin noted, was 29 years old at the time of manufacture of the gun. <...> In any case, if we assume that the Terrible Moscow Tsar is depicted on the guns, then we are dealing not with reliable, but with his imaginary appearance. ”

Middeldorp could not personally see Ivan the Terrible, could not see his images made from nature, since they did not exist in principle. He really had the opportunity to use engravings depicting certain Muscovites, rulers of Vasily III or Ivan IV. However, in this case, his work is only a symbolic, fictional image of the enemy. At the same time, other elements of the gun finish and the text on it do not reinforce this theory. It is impossible to prove it with the help of any other iconographic analogues.

Photo on the cover: fotosergs.livejournal.com

Not true

What do our verdicts mean?

Read on the topic:

1. K. Shmelev. About the image of the "Muscovite" on the Revel's gun of the era of the Livonian War
2. S. Bogatyrev. Bronze Tsars. Ivan The Terrible and Fedor iVanovich in the Decor of Early Modern Guns
3. E. UHANOVA and others. The lifetime portrait of Ivan the Terrible: the visualization of the faded monument by natural science methods
4. A. Zhabreva. Russian costume in Western European engraving of the 16th century: truth and fiction
5. Is it true that Ivan the Terrible killed his son?