|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| Nicholas and AlexandraBy Robert K. Massie, Antheum, 1967, 613 pages It isn’t too often that you read history and can almost pinpoint the exact reasons why events turned out the way they did. And, since I imagine as soon as most readers realize that this isn’t a music review but actual, real-live history, there probably won’t be many reading this, I will bore you with as many details as I can of this fascinating and tragic story! As soon as most Americans begin a book about Russian history or even a Russian novel (even by a master like Tolstoy), their eyes begin to glaze over because they don’t know who they are reading about, can’t decipher the unfamiliar names, and the book soon ends up in their graveyard of unread books. The reason for this is simple - Russian stories are confusing because of their unusual names and unknown cities. For example, every Russian has three names: · Men have their first name; the name of the father with ‘vich’ added (which means “son of”); and the family name. · Women have their first name; the name of their father with ‘evna’ or ‘ovna’ (which means “daughter of”) and their family name. The other reason is that cities’ names were changed many times as soon as a new rule took over, (i.e., St. Petersburg became Leningrad then returned to St. Petersburg). So it is with Russian history - rich, bloody turbulence sprayed across a vast countryside. Robert K. Massie’s biography of Nicholas and Alexandra has all of this told through the fulcrum of a family’s life. By
the first chapter you can tell how well a writer can write history.
Obviously, a fine historian can be a lousy storyteller; however,
Massie’s rendition is superb. He
combines the pageantry of the Royals without the fluff, the violence without the
gore, and the mood without an opinion, and combines it all into a biography that
spans approximately 25 years of Tsar Nicholas II’s reign, Before
you can understand the full tragedy of His
madness didn’t stop with outsiders, but included his own family - he even
killed his oldest son. When he
eventually died, a regent (the ruling guardian over the crown prince) reigned
for five years before he was subsequently murdered.
Innumerable wanna-bes then vied for the throne. Eventually, on Thus the Romanov Dynasty had been in place for almost 300 years at the time of Nicholas II’s reign. The Romanov’s were the only ruling family the Russian people had ever known. The
second aspect to understand is that Nicholas II was a kind, gentle man.
He had been well educated, but was not too smart.
He hadn’t even been born first in line, resulting in his father’s not
preparing him fully for being Tsar. As
fate would have it, this gentle man who fought to marry for love, who adored his
five children, who loved his country immeasurably, became Tsar of all Nicholas’s
reign was not that volatile until after his son was born.
The reason for this - after four daughters, his son (the heir to the
throne) was born a hemophiliac, i.e., a bleeder (which was subsequently passed
down through the bloodline of Queen As a result of this, Nicholas and Alexandra (but mainly Alexandra) began to rely on a starets (a holy-peasant man) named Gregory Rasputin. This reliance didn’t come suddenly but over a couple of years. Mysteriously and unexplainably, the Tsaravich (the heir), when battling a severe case of bleeding, would take a sudden turn for the better whenever Rasputin was involved. This reliance upon Rasputin became overwhelming after several near-death situations. Alexandra became convinced (guess who convinced her?) that Rasputin was vital to the boy’s life. So she turned a blind eye to anyone’s questions about Rasputin’s morals. To her he was holy, righteous and pious, while to others he was a drunken, raucous, party animal who had amazing stamina and could carry on for days on end, yet sober up immediately when called by the Tsarista. When cabinet members voiced dislike for Rasputin, it was soon after that they were “released” from duty. Time and time again, Rasputin wielded his power of suggestion to Alexandra and she would suggest to her husband that, “Our friend believes it is best. . .” This pattern became more deadly when Nicholas felt the obligation to be at the front during World War I. His absence left a vacuum that Alexandra stepped into - and so did Rasputin. He became hated and despised. And so did she. Time after time the Tsar was informed of what was going on, but something always happened that diminished the report’s urgency. Eventually and as history has told us, a rebellion occurred and Nicholas’s abdication was requested; his son was to take the throne at age 12 along with a regent. Nicholas accepted (for the sake of Russia), but when he realized that this would mean he and Alexandra must leave the country and his son stay, Nicholas then abdicated for his son as well. This left his younger brother Michael next in line. Another strange twist to all of this is Michael then abdicated and, with the sweep of a pen, eliminated 300 years of Romanov reign. Ironically enough, at the time of Nicholas’s abdication, those in the government who had rebelled were not wishing to set up a republic; indeed, they had every wish and desire for the Romanov dynasty to continue. They were only trying to change the issue that had been causing the people such acrimony and grief - namely his wife’s role in the government. Of course, life for everyone only gets worse. Rasputin met his infamous end, but the Tsar and his family were made state prisoners due to political instability. Most of the time they were treated well and impressed their guards greatly. It wasn’t until the November Revolution (or Bolshevik Revolution) that the decision was made to massacre the entire family. Massie is masterful in his command of Russian history. He supplies three aspects that are vital when telling a story (especially a potentially confusing one): maps, pictures, and a family tree. Incredibly enough, at the beginning of the book he provides a short, almost play-like list of the “players” for the reader to familiarize themselves with the book’s important players. Do not misunderstand me - this is not a man who spits out thrillers each year. This is a man who took years out of his life researching, compiling, and writing this story. In 1980 he won a Pulitzer Prize for Peter the Great. What a tragedy! I left this book feeling great sadness despite knowing the end. (It was just like every time I read Romeo and Juliet - I keep hoping the end is different - but it isn’t.) Life doesn’t always happen cleanly or happily. Yet I couldn’t help wonder what if. What if there had been no Rasputin? What if the heir hadn’t been born hemophiliac? What if Nicholas II hadn’t abdicated for his son? What if. . .history would have been a lot different with just some small changes. ninetyandnine.com ã 2002, Nita K. Curry -------- Nita K. Curry is just a pen name for |
|
|
