Robert K. Massie - Nicholas and Alexandra

Robert K. Massie

NICHOLAS

AND

ALEXANDRA

Copyright 1967

To Suzanne

"I have a firm, an absolute conviction that the fate of Russiathat my own fate and that of my familyis in the hands of God who has placed me where I am. Whatever may happen to me, I shall bow to His will with the consciousness of never having had any thought other than that of serving the country which He has entrusted to me."

NICHOLAS II

"After all, the nursery was the center of all Russia's troubles."

SIR BERNARD PARES

"The Empress refused to surrender to fate. She talked incessantly of the ignorance of the physicians.... She turned towards religion, and her prayers were tainted with a certain hysteria. The stage was ready for the appearance of a miracle worker...."

GRAND DUKE ALEXANDER

"The illness of the Tsarevich cast its shadow over the whole of the concluding period of Tsar Nicholas II's reign and alone can explain it. Without appearing to be, it was one of the main causes of his fall, for it made possible the phenomenon of Rasputin and resulted in the fatal isolation of the sovereigns who lived in a world apart, wholly absorbed in a tragic anxiety which had to be concealed from all eyes."

PIERRE GILLIARD, Tutor of Tsarevich Alexis

"Without Rasputin, there could have been no Lenin."

ALEXANDER KERENSKY

Introduction

The writing of this book is the result, like most things in life, of a circumstance of Fate. Since the day, now over ten years ago, that my wife and I discovered that our son had hemophilia, I have tried to learn how other families dealt with the problems raised by this unique disease. In time, this led to curiosity about the response of the parents of the boy who was the most famous hemophiliac of all, the Tsarevich Alexis, the only son and heir of Nicholas II, last Tsar of all the Russias.

What I discovered was both fascinating and frustrating. There was general agreement that the child's hemophilia had been a significant factor in the lives of the parents, Tsar Nicholas and Empress Alexandra, and thereby in the fall of Imperial Russia. Thus, in the most comprehensive political study of the period, The Fall of the Russian Monarchy, Sir Bernard Pares declares categorically: "On August 12, 1904... took place the event which more than anything else determined the whole later course of Russian history. On that day was at last born the heir to the throne, long expected and fervently prayed for." What Pares is saying, and what is scarcely disputed by anyone, is that in an effort to deal with the agonies hemophilia inflicted on her son, the distraught mother turned to Gregory Rasputin, the remarkable Siberian mystagogue. Thereafter, Rasputin's presence near the throne his influence on the Empress and, through her, on the government of Russiabrought about or at least helped to speed the fall of the dynasty.

This was fascinating. But it was frustrating to discover that even those who attached the greatest significance to the effect of the disease on events did not explain, either in human or in medical terms, exactly what happened. This seemed a serious gap affecting larger areas than the one which first attracted my interest. If the illness of

this boy and the aid given him by Rasputin had, in fact, brought down the ancient Romanov dynasty and led to the Russian Revolution with all its awesome consequences, why had there never been an attempt to decipher and interpret these episodes of grim suffering and dramatic healing? As for Rasputin, who has not heard something of this extraordinary man and his garish murder? But who knows precisely what he did to help the Tsarevich? In both historical and human terms, this seemed to me enormously important, for only by understanding the basis of this relationship does the rest of the story become coherent.

I have read the diaries, letters and memoirs left by the men and women who were intimately involved in this great drama. In the letters from Nicholas and Alexandra to each other and from the Tsar to his mother, scattered through the books by Imperial relatives, intimate friends of the Empress, ladies-in-waiting, court officials, government ministers and foreign ambassadors, there is a wealth of fragmented information. But it has never been collected and assembled. In this book, my purpose has been to weave together from all the threads, and interpret in the light of modern medicine and psychiatry and of the common experience which all families affected by hemophilia necessarily share, an account of one family whose struggle with the disease was to have momentous consequences for the entire world.

If at first my interest was primarily in tracing the role of hemophilia, I soon found it expanding to include the rich panorama of the reign of Nicholas II, his role as tsar, his place in history, and the glittering epoch over which he presided. In reading and conversation, I discovered that, despite the passage of fifty years, people still react strongly to Nicholas. A few, mostly Russian migrs who see in him the symbol of an age now fading beyond recall, revere and even idolize him; by some members of the Russian Orthodox Church, he and all his martyred family are regarded as un-canonized saints.

On the opposite side, there still are those who for political or other reasons continue to insist that Nicholas was "Bloody Nicholas." Most commonly, he is described as shallow, weak, stupida one-dimensional figure presiding feebly over the last days of a corrupt and crumbling system. This, certainly, is the prevailing public image of the last Tsar.

Historians admit that Nicholas was a "good man"the historical evidence of personal charm, gentleness, love of family, deep religious faith and strong Russian patriotism is too overwhelming to be denied but they argue that personal factors are irrelevant; what matters is that Nicholas was a bad tsar. The virtues which we admire in private life and profess in our religion become secondary qualities in our

rulers. The test of greatness in tsars or presidents is not in their private lives or even in their good intentions, but in their deeds.

By this standard, one has to agree: Nicholas was not a great tsar. Historically, the great leaders of the Russian peopleIvan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Lenin and Stalinhave been those who by sheer force and terror have thrust the backward nation forward. Until perhaps the present day, Russians have stood in awe of the ruthless man who wielded the whip and drove them forward. Peter, who broke his enemies on the rack and hanged them in Red Square, who had his son tortured to death, is Peter the Great. But Nicholas, whose hand was lighter than that of any tsar before him, is "Bloody Nicholas." In human terms, this is irony rich and dramatic, the more so because Nicholas knew what he was called.

In terms of accomplishment, it may be unfair to compare Nicholas II with his towering ancestors. No one can say how well they would have managed under the cascade of disasters which broke upon Nicholas. Perhaps a more equitable and revealing comparison might be made between Nicholas II and his contemporaries on the thrones of Europe: King Edward VII and King George V, Kaiser William II and Emperor Franz Joseph. Was there among this group one who could better have ridden the storm which Nicholas had to face? History itself provided part of the answer: the same catastrophic war which helped drive Nicholas off his throne also toppled the emperors of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

A comparison with the two kings of England, Edward VII and George V, Nicholas's uncle and first cousin, only deepens the irony. For if Nicholas had not been instructed from childhood that constitutions were anathema, he would have made an excellent constitutional monarch. He was at least as intelligent as any European monarch in his day or ours: his qualities and tastes were surprisingly similar to those of King George V, whom physically he so much resembled. In England, where a sovereign needed only to be a good man in order to be a good king, Nicholas II would have made an admirable monarch.