Identification and Evaluation of Two Sources
This investigation will explore the question: Who killed Grigori Rasputin? Rasputin had become a friend, an advisor, and a healer to the Romanov family in St Petersburg.[1],[2] He gained increasing power after Nicholas II was at the fronts of the war, leaving his wife Alexandra in charge reciting anything that Rasputin told her to say. However, his power was only short lived as many wanted him dead and, he died in the final days of 1916.[3]
This unique account has exceptional value through its origin as it shows a first handed account of how the killer himself murdered Rasputin. As it comes from the murderer, historian, Greg King, argues, that Yusupov wanted to make himself seem heroic and boast about his actions, which is evident as he states that he is ‘saving’ Russia by killing Rasputin, possibly making the entire memoir an exaggeration.[4],[5] The purpose of these journals is for Felix Yusupov to immortalise himself in a sense as many will read about his account of killing Rasputin and hence he will continue to live. This journal comes to a great value as it allows us insight into a higher class member's perspective on Rasputin and his emotions towards him. On the contrary, it also poses as a limitation on account of the fact that this piece of writing is prone to exaggerations to shine a better and more heroic light onto Yusupov. The content of the piece contains a recital of the events that took place on the night of the 29th of December 1916. We learn that Rasputin, whom the prince lured into his basement, survived cyanide attacks and a gunshot before being shot multiple times and then thrown into a river. This account provides excellent value as we are given an account from the person who has allegedly committed the crime and the days leading up to the event, however it is questionable whether this representation is entirely accurate. Yusupov also fails to mention the role of his co-conspirators to make him seem like the lone attacker.
Rasputin: Bullet Wound in Forehead [28]Reflection
History Standard Level Investigation
To what extent did Grigory Rasputin influence Russia’s government in 1916?
Word Count: 2061
Section A
Massie, Robert K. 2000. Nicholas and Alexandra: The Story of the Love That Ended an Empire. New York: Ballantine Books.
Nicholas and Alexandra, written by Robert Massie, details the life and death of the last of the Romanovs, originally published in 1967. It includes an analysis of Rasputin’s character, particularly in relation to the Romanovs. Massie was an American historian who specialized in Russian history. The source was helpful to my investigation because it contained substantial information surrounding the relationship between the royals and Rasputin, and the executive state of affairs in 1916.
The source was written by a professional historian, suggesting it provides accurate and impartial information. It provides multiple perspectives regarding the events and people mentioned in the book, offering nuanced information. Furthermore, its detail indicates that the research in writing it was extensive. As it was published in 1967, Massie benefitted from hindsight.
The book’s biggest limitation is that it focuses primarily on the royal family, rather than on Rasputin. Thus, the information about him isn’t as detailed as that about the Emperors.
Additionally, knowledge surrounding the Romanovs has been largely hidden or destroyed by the royal court or even Alexandra herself, who notoriously attempted to lead a private life1. Hence a substantial part of the book is historiographical, and thus subject to argument. The presentation of interpretations as facts made cross-referencing information with other sources especially necessary.
The book was written by an American during the Cold War, making access to Eastern sources likely limited. Moreover, although Massie had the benefit of hindsight, his book might not include more recent information. Nevertheless, the book is useful to this investigation as it emphasizes Alexandra’s susceptibility to manipulation from Rasputin, and analyzes the monk’s relationship to the Romanovs.
Smith, Douglas. 2016. Rasputin: The Biography. London: Pan Macmillan UK.
The second source is entitled Rasputin by Douglas Smith. It is a biographical book about the life of Grigory Rasputin, from his birth in 1869 to the death of the royal family. It thus focuses on Rasputin, as opposed to the first source, which focuses predominantly on the royal family.
It was originally published in 2016 by Pan Macmillan UK. Douglas Smith is an American historian and translator who specializes in Russian history. The purpose of the book is to analyze the character of Rasputin, as well as his relations with the Romanovs. This book is relevant to my investigation mainly because of its extensive detail used in describing Rasputin’s rise to and fall from power between 1905 and 1916.
As the source was written by a professional historian, it is impartial. It was published recently, meaning that the author not only had the benefit of hindsight, but also had access to more sources in researching, thereby making the book thorough. Its value is heightened by the fact that Douglas Smith is also a Russian translator, suggesting his research is nuanced.
The source is expositorical, however, as there is an absence of information on Rasputin available, much of what is presented is the author’s personal conclusions, theories, or hypotheses, thus making this work inherently more subjective. Even so, the author clarifies facts from opinion to the reader throughout the book.
Section B
November 1st, 1905 marked a significant date in Russian history, as it was the first time the Romanovs met a main contributor to their downfall: Grigory Rasputin. The monk’s role in the Tsar’s family quickly became that of a healer and advisor2. His influence on the royals only grew with time. It was a major concern, causing his assassination in 1916. During that year, however, his influence over the Tsar and Tsaritsa had already enabled him to attain substantial influence within the government, a power which was exacerbated by the Tsar's absence from the palace.
Rasputin was introduced to Nicholas by a member of his family. The Tsar was immediately impressed, writing in his journal that he had met “a man of God”3. The monk was also well-liked by the children4. Although he had no political power, his immediate friendliness with the royals indicates the close relationship between them that would follow, and, by extension, his future government influence. Nevertheless, in 1905, the family was most impressed with Rasputin’s seemingly magical5 impact on Alexei’s health condition.
The Tsarevich’s hemophilia was concerning to the royal couple, because prior to his birth, their main priority had been producing an heir6. When Alexei’s condition became known, his family feared an early death7. The boy’s health reportedly improved anytime Rasputin visited8, unlike with any medics. Rasputin’s apparent healing abilities thus made the royal family dependent on him. He was so indispensable to the Romanovs, that in later years, with rumors of affiliations to an alleged sex cult9 circulating around him, the family remained firm in their support for the monk. These abilities therefore
allowed him to maintain a close and influential relationship with the Romanovs, giving him leverage over them.
Alexandra was particularly fond of Rasputin10. Throughout the years they knew each other, they developed a close friendship. The Empress was particularly impressionable, with a tendency to believe in divinity11, reinforced by her son’s (temporary) healing. Alexei’s health therefore predisposed her to trust Rasputin. The Tsaritsa also believed that her husband had divine right to rule over the people of Russia12, who were indebted to him13. These beliefs made her generally unpopular14. Rasputin seemed to be one of the only people to share her perspective15. Alexandra found solace in Rasputin’s sympathy, making her especially inclined to listen to his advice. She thus began to confide in him for religious guidance16 as well, gradually shifting his role from a healer to a vital advisor of the family.
Eventually, she began listening to his political input, replacing or firing officials at his request17. In the late 1900s, two consecutive ministers, neither of whom were fond of the monk, began suffering declining reputations as a result of Rasputin informing the Empress18. One of them wrote a negative report on the monk, ruining the former’s relations with Alexandra19. The timing of these events suggests Rasputin’s involvement in the dwindling of both ministers’ careers. Likely having realized this influence, Rasputin began replacing church officials. In 1914, when the exarch of Georgia died, the tsar received a list of suitable replacements, but Rasputin suggested to the Empress that they promote Pitirim – a former archbishop known for exemplifying opposing values to the church20. Rasputin, sympathetic towards marginalized groups21, upon discovering that Pitirim had once defended heretics, gained an interest22. The monk obtained this promotion through a suggestion, despite the latter’s qualities. His power over the Empress therefore gave him significant involvement in state and church affairs. These events happened before 1916, establishing his presence in the royal court through Alexandra, which only grew stronger with the Tsar’s absence from the throne.
In 1915, when Nicholas left the palace for the warfront, Alexandra held executive power. While there were reasons such as Alexandra’s lack of popularity due to her German heritage23 and Russia’s failure in World War I (WWI), it was largely due to Nicholas’ vacancy that the monk’s involvement in government affairs rose tremendously. As early as January 1916, Alexandra appointed Boris Stürmer, a “puppet of Rasputin”24, as premier. Later that year, the military adviser was replaced through Rasputin and the Empress’ insistence. In October, Alexandra countermanded an order of a minister without consulting Nicholas, because Rasputin “said it was absolutely necessary”25. This replacement of ministers continued throughout the year, with them being appointed based on their worship of Rasputin rather than skill in their respective fields26. The increased consultation with the monk as a result of Nicholas’ absence, shown in the letters exchanged between Alexandra and Nicholas, provided Rasputin with a clear opportunity to increase his power, which he took. Through his influence on Alexandra, Rasputin began the continuous replacement of court officials with his worshipers, thus expanding his overall status. His importance in political decisions during 1916 clearly illustrates his power over the royal family and by extension, the Russian government of the time.
Although Rasputin possessed a significant amount of power, he was not a political figure; the vast majority of this influence was a result of his power over Alexandra. The tsar wouldn’t consider his demands, because Nicholas valued the monk as a healer. In fact, he himself requested Nicholas dismiss a minister three times in 1916, but the latter was not removed27. Were the tsar less naive, Rasputin’s power might have suffered since it lay with Alexandra, who had no official authority. Both Nicholas and Alexandra were extremely impressionable28 however, which proved to be very helpful to Rasputin.
Even through this chain of influence, Rasputin was never involved in lawmaking. He had significant power over the royals, as evidenced mainly through the promotion of his friends and followers into positions of power, however they never passed important regulations or reforms. This lack of political decisions was due in part to the wartime economy put in place29, which directed every branch of the government almost exclusively to the war effort. Additionally, the Tsar had to be consulted for each proposal30, prolonging the process even further. Had the war not been as delayed, the ministers appointed by Rasputin could have been involved in significant decisions. However, as Rasputin died shortly before the end of WWI31, this indirect power over lawmaking never came to fruition. The war therefore simultaneously acted as a means by which he could tremendously expand his influence, and an important obstacle to his involvement in the making of policies.
Throughout Rasputin’s friendship with the Romanovs, they were dependent on him due to his abilities to aid in alleviating the tsarevich’s hemophilia. This dependency developed into a close relationship and the level of confidence vested in him grew as he became an informal adviser of the royal family. Rasputin’s power over them, as well as his involvement in government affairs, reached its peak during the Tsar’s absence in 1915-1916. At this time, Rasputin gained promotions for his followers unlike ever before. Nevertheless, his appointed ministers were unable to draft any major decisions because of the wartime economy. Rasputin therefore undeniably had connections, social influence, and a significance to the royal palace, however he was unable to acquire effective power. In other words, while he could theoretically influence laws due to his many connections within the government itself, these connections never became useful to him.
Section C
Although interpretation comprises much of history, and history itself is presented through different perspectives and thus cannot be fully objective, Rasputin is a particularly controversial and elusive character. Little is known about him, and most primary sources come either from his ardent followers, or from his fiercest enemies. Secondary sources ultimately draw conclusions based on these contradicting primary accounts of Rasputin and his character.
A problem I faced was contradicting primary and secondary sources. Nowadays, there seems to be added sympathy for the Romanovs – they were canonized in 2000 by the Russian Orthodox Church32 – although they were unsuitable leaders. This sympathy stems perhaps from a dislike of communism, and one of its results is increased animosity against Rasputin (as he is widely regarded as one of the reasons for the Romanovs’ downfall), which might result in a dramatized account of events, making Rasputin seem more powerful than he was. In other words, Rasputin is easily vilified considering the Romanovs were the last royal family before the Communist Revolution.
One of my main challenges while gathering research for my essay was my inability to access Russian sources, as I do not speak the language, as it meant I had to rely entirely on translations or sources in English. This lack of access hindered my investigation by blocking me from analyzing many sources written at the time, which have yet to be translated. An example of such a source is a memoir by Maria Rasputin – his daughter, which details her father’s life, likely through a personal lens.
My investigation aids in understanding how indirect influences on political decisions may lead to the erosion of entire state structures. Rasputin acts as an example of how good governance should avoid personal relationships to sway it professionally. Alternatively, Rasputin may be used as an example on how it can be efficient to exploit any naivete of people in power as a means of individual gain. Although, as mentioned above, Rasputin was unable to pass laws, these implications are evidenced in the very possibility of him having such a deep degree of involvement in government affairs were it not for the long duration of the war.
Bibliography
Fuhrmann, Joseph T. Rasputin: The Untold Story. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013. Gatrell, Peter. “Organization of War Economies (Russian Empire),” 1914-1918-online. International
Encyclopedia of the First World War. December 18, 2014. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/organization_of_war_economies_russian_empir e.
Massie, Robert K. Nicholas and Alexandra: The Story of the Love That Ended an Empire. New York: Ballantine Books, 2000.
Newman, Sarah. “Alexandra and Rasputin: Has the role of Alexandra and Rasputin in the downfall of the Romanovs been exaggerated out of all proportion?” The Historian 108 (Winter 2010): 11-13.
Pares, Bernard. “Review: Rasputin and the Empress: Authors of the Russian Collapse.” Foreign Affairs 6, no. 1 (October 1927): 140-154. JSTOR.
Pares, Bernard. “On the Appointment of Stürmer as Foreign Minister (July, 1916).” The Slavonic and East European Review 14, no. 41 (January 1936): 272-274. JSTOR.
Podbolotov, Sergei. “Monarchists Against Their Monarch: The Rightists' Criticism of Tsar Nicholas II.” Russian History 31, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 105-120. JSTOR.
Smith, Douglas. Rasputin: The Biography. London: Pan Macmillan UK, 2016.
The New York Times. “Nicholas II And Family Canonized For 'Passion'.” New York Times. August 15,
2000.
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/15/world/nicholas-ii-and-family-canonized-for-passion.html. Warth, Robert. “Before Rasputin: Piety and the Occult at the Court of Nicholas II.” The Historian 47, no.
3 (May 1985): 323-337. JSTOR.
