Grigori Efimovich Rasputin (1869-1916)

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by sofajr

<...> and I have to say that Picul is not a reliable sourse as well Radzinsky, they have a lot of fiction in novels.

Sofajr,
Yes, Picul is not reliable sourse (it is fiction and he wrote about Imperial family from the Soviet point of view and in days of the USSR and rigid Soviet censorship), but Radzinsky is reliable sourse! Yes, he is a playwright, but he is a good historian too and he works with archives much. He well feels dramaturgy of real history also. Yes, he writes as the playwright, not as «an academic historian», but nobody could find even two or three large mistakes in his researches. Nobody! It is possible to find small concrete mistakes in Radzinsky's books, but it is no more, than in books of any another "an academic historian".
Boris

[lexi4]

I believe it was actually Anna Vyrubova who introduced Rasputin to Alexandra.

[Gita]

Does anyone know how exactly Grigori Rasputin managed to control and/or stop Alexei's bleeding? Many thanks.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by lexi4

I believe it was actually Anna Vyrubova who introduced Rasputin to Alexandra.

I thought it was Nikolasha and his wife and sister in law, the 'black plague' Montenegrin princesses, Militsa and Stana? (funny that later Nikolasha became one of Rasputin's most avid detractors after originally having been a partial supporter due to his wife)

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I thought it was Nikolasha and his wife and sister in law, the 'black plague' Montenegrin princesses, Militsa and Stana? (funny that later Nikolasha became one of Rasputin's most avid detractors after originally having been a partial supporter due to his wife)

It was. I have no idea where I got that idea.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Gita

Does anyone know how exactly Grigori Rasputin managed to control and/or stop Alexei's bleeding? Many thanks.

That is one of the greatest mysteries of all time. We can only speculate.

Lexi- I do think it was Anna V. who introduced him to Felix Y. Oh wait, she was in the group, but it was probably Munya Golovina. She (Golovina) had been obsessed with Felix's brother who died in a duel, and was a great supporter of Rasputin. Their visit had something to do with this situation, maybe channeling the brother, or something mystical? I'll have to check books and get back to you (but likely not tonight) If anyone else has this info please do share.

[Anna was Franziska]

Here is the Lost Splendor version, halfway through Chapter XV:


Lost Splendor - Felix Yussupov - Chapter XV

From Radzinsky's "The Rasputin File", page 109 (hardcover):

Ever since the duel, she(M. Golovina) was studying spiritualism in an attempt to speak with the one who had been killed (Felix's brother Nicholas)

This is what led up to Felix and Rasputin's first meeting. Whether she thought Rasputin could conjure the dead, I don't know for sure.

[lexi4]

Thank you Anna. And for the information. I didn't know about any of that. And I have that book.

[sofajr]

I am sorry if you Al bina took the comment on Tsarina on your account, it was directed to everybody. I rely on such dictionaries but I think that we have to use the modern name of Russian Empress, not old ones. why should we say Tsarina if there is equivalent Tsaritsa in russian.

and about sourses such as Picul and Radzinsky: they both may used a lot of documents, but they were specialists in creating novels - artistic, fiction and popular - they tried to present their point of view not the objective one. anyone have an opportunity to interpret document, but the main idea of a good historian is to present the impartial truth, not your own one.

[BorisRom]

Sofajr,
With due respect,
I don't know any historical research representing «an impartial truth», especially about Russia of XX century, especially about Nikolay II. The real history of Russia of XX century is the history of severe rigid fight. Believing people (faithful) consider, that it is fight of kind and evil forces (devil against God). Each author (historians too) has own position in this fight. «An impartial truth» in this case can look only as simple list of the facts and dates of events. However, each author chooses OWN number and sort of the facts. This choice is subjective too.
Certainly, the history in general (and history of Russia too) is not the "black-and-white" script of struggle and development. It is a wide spectrum of different forces and influences. But their "objective" description is impossible - perhaps, especially for Russian authors.
Please, name to me the book, in which Nicholas II (or/and Rasputin) would be described objectively?
Regards
Boris

[sofajr]

Dear Boris, I prefer my point of view to be based on documents and different sourses not on different author's opinions. You're absolutly right that there is no true sourse of Rasputin's life unfortunately. But I think we need read real historian's works, but not fictions.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by sofajr

Dear Boris, I prefer my point of view to be based on documents and different sourses not on different author's opinions. You're absolutly right that there is no true sourse of Rasputin's life unfortunately. But I think we need read real historian's works, but not fictions.

Sofajr,
I agree with you on this. Authors like Radzinsky are good for giving one the flavor of the times and the culture, but it is sometimes difficult to sort fact from fiction if sources are not provided. I guess what I am saying is each has its place and must be taken in context. I prefer the works of historians as well. But Boris does make a point, they have opinions too. The victor writes the history.
Lexi

[COUNTESS]

That is true, Lexi, but the many books about Rasputin, are not written by victors, but interested parties. Many, from letters that were sent among the protagonists at that time. Of course, it is difficult to judge from this time, what actually, happened in 1916, but historians try and piece things together, which is how we get history. That miracles happen, that I believe, too. I, personally, don't think any miracle occurred here.

[lexi4]

Good point Countess. I think most of what we do know about Rasputin comes from letters and memoirs.
I think Rasputin was a master manipulator especially where Alexandra is concerned.

[Russophile]

Lex, I belive you're right on concerning Alexandra. It doesn't take much for a person to scope out what you "want" what you "need" and you're not getting in your relationship or whatever to be able to think they can "fulfill" it if they are a manipulative sort. I think Rasputin used a combination of both, wanting to be a true starets and a man of God, but wanting to have the secutiry of the Tsar and his wife's "favor" to ensure you have a job/future.

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

... Each author (historians too) has own position in this fight. «An impartial truth» in this case can look only as simple list of the facts and dates of events. However, each author chooses OWN number and sort of the facts. This choice is subjective too.
Certainly, the history in general (and history of Russia too) is not the "black-and-white" script of struggle and development. It is a wide spectrum of different forces and influences. But their "objective" description is impossible - perhaps, especially for Russian authors.
Please, name to me the book, in which Nicholas II (or/and Rasputin) would be described objectively?
...

I am in full agreement with your views. I believe absolutely impartial narration of historical events does not exist. A particular historian or authour forms an opinion about a historical event or a person, sets an objective for his/her study or book, and then strives to find facts to substantiate his/her viewpoint. So it is not surprising that Pikul found an abundance of negative facts about the Staretz. Other historians/authours may find positive facts about Rasputin.

When it comes to Rasputin and manipulation, it has been my understanding that Rasputin contrived to make himself indispensable to Alexandra Fedorovna, specifically to her psychological and physical well-being, thereby ensuring the favour with Nicholas II.

[BorisRom]

Al Bina,
I’m glad, that we equally look at the problem of “an impartial narration of historical events”.
As to Rasputin … I think he not only “ contrived to make himself indispensable to Alexandra Fedorovna ”, but he really was needed to Alexandra Fedorovna (for Alexi at first - absolutely). I think, he really rescued Alexi in Spala (and some times else too).
Boris

[Avicenna]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Well Alexandra was a religious fanatic. No doubt about it. She was lonely, the Church offered her company. She felt alien, it gave her a home. She was frightened, it gave her security. One can understand her dependancy on her adopted faith.

Religious fanatic?

Well, certainly she sought spiritual guidance and help - sometimes from unorthodox mystics. One should not forget that prior to Rasputin a certain Philippe Nizier-Vachod was brought to the palace already in 1902, before the heir was born to the royal couple. IMO opinion Philippe was a forerunner of Rasputin, helping to encourage Alexandra in her faith, spiritual consciousness. One thing is evident for me her faith is an emotional one, possibly strengthened due to the fact that she had to convert from Lutheranism to Orthodox practice.

[lexi4]

True enough.
Source: The Fall of the Romanovs: Political Dreams and Personal Struggles
By Mark D. Steinberg, Vladimir M. Khrustalev

Alexandra also referred to Philippe Nizier-Vachod as "dear friend" just as she did Rasputin. Philippe Nizier-Vachod was brought into the palace in 1902. Of his friendship, Alexandra wrote to Nicholas: "How unbearable all would be without him. How life has changed since we know him."
And yes, her faith and thought processes were based on emotion. This is evident in her letters to Nicholas. She would advise him to follow his instincts instead of the words of his advisors believing that as God's anointed Tsar following his instincts would be tantamount for following God's will. She also believed that her instincts were give to her by God to share with Nicholas. To her, "strong feelings," as she sometimes called them, were the voice of God.

With Rasputin Alexandra believed that "God had given him more insight, wisdom and enlightenment than all of the tsar's advisors and experts."

These beliefs, held by both Nicholas and Alexandra, ultimately led to their downfall.

[Avicenna]

Originally Posted by lexi4

I believe it was actually Anna Vyrubova who introduced Rasputin to Alexandra.

"In terminating this inquiry I believe it necessary to repeat that Bishops Theofan and Hermogen contributed importantly to the introduction of Rasputin at Court. It was because of their recommendations that the Empress, in the beginning, received Rasputin cordially and confidently. Her sentiments towards him were fortified only by the reasons indicated in the course of this document."

Source: Written by Anna AlexandrovnaVyrubova in 1923

APPENDIX A
THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL FAMILY Statement of Vladimir Mikhailovich Rudnev, appointed by Minister of Justice Kerensky Special High Commissioner for Revision and Investigation of the actions of Ministers and other High Personages of the Imperial Government.

------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER XI same memoirs

"Rasputin, although very poor and humble and almost entirely illiterate, had acquired a great reputation as a preacher, and had especially attracted the attention of Bishop Theofan, a churchman of renown in St. Petersburg. Bishop Theofan introduced the Strannik to the wife of Grand Duke Nicholas, who immediately con. ceived a warm admiration for him, and began to speak to her friends of his marvelous piety and spiritual insight. At that time the Emperor was on very friendly terms with the Grand Duke Nicholas, or rather with his wife and her sister, two princesses of Montenegro who had married, not quite in conformity with the rules of the Orthodox Church, the brothers, Grand Dukes Nicholas and Peter. One of these sisters, Princess Melitza, Grand Duchess Peter, had something of a reputation as a mystic, and it was at her house that the Emperor and Empress met first Dr. Philippe and later Rasputin. In one of my first conversations with the Empress she told me this, and told me also how deeply the conversation of the Siberian peasant had interested both her husband and herself."

-----------------------

Not sure if I am allowed to do so many citation here. Please let me know, if I need to delete it. Thanks.