Re: The Empress Alexandra Fights Back #3

Ruud/Stepanov state:

What the Okhrana did not then [1915] know and would never discover, surprisingly enough, was that truly secret groups modeled on Masonry but having no link to it had taken form by this time as meeting places for dedicated liberals at the very highest levels.  Created wholly outside the Masonic organizational framework to serve a purely political purpose, these symposia convened to debate liberal policy plans in the homes of its members.  They kept no record or membership lists.  N. V. Nekrasov, a member of the left wing of the Constitutional Democratic party and a close ally of Miliukov, is credited with starting this unique organization.  Rejecting ritual and admitting women, it grew to become a network of very small local and provincial lodges under a grand council, whose national congress framed broad policy resolutions but placed no obligation on individual members to accept them as required.  Its purpose was to hold democrats and liberals together to act in concert with Miliukov, who, it so happened, rejected repeated offers to join.  Only some three hundred people belonged to this intimate liberal fellowship by the time of the February revolution in 1917, not one of them an Okhranka informer.  [Ref: Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, Fontanka 16, The Tsar's Secret Police, (1999),  p. 221] 
 
Ruud/Stepanov also explain that not only did the Okhranka:

...remain in the dark about the existence of the liberal "Masonic" organization led by Nekrasov, but it also failed to penetrate the inner councils of the main liberal parties, the Kadets, the Octobrists, and the Party of Popular Freedom. The ability of the Okhranka to send dozens of undetected secret agents into the ranks of the Social Democrats and the Socialist Revolutionaries contrasts sharply with it anaemic effort to place observes among the liberal's leadership.

To plant spies among the inner group of party leaders proved impossible.  The leaders of Russian liberalism had been well acquainted with one another for years.  No agent could get close to them and none would think of informing the police about confidential meetings and conversations with colleagues.  [Ref: Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, Fontanka 16, The Tsar's Secret Police, (1999),  pp. 222-223] 

According to Ruud/Stepanov the only one agent was able to penetrate liberal circle in Moscow, the Austrian national, I. I. Drilikh who was on the staff of the liberal newspaper, Russian World.  Apparently Drilikh reported directly to the head of the Moscow Okhranka [1914] A. P. Martynov.  However Ruud/Stepanov insists that these efforts to penetrate the liberals ended in inaccurate appraisals of the liberal movement.

Ruud/Stepanov point to the Okhranka warning in September 1914 as proof that the Okhranka was misinformed about the nature of the liberal movement.  The Okhranka reported that the:

…lull in revolutionary activity was only because of a temporary rallying to the cause of the nation against the common enemy.  The leadership of a renewed opposition would be the same as over the past decade.  It would center on the left-wing of the Kadets…  [Ref: Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, Fontanka 16, The Tsar's Secret Police, (1999),  p. 223] 
 
That is actually what did happen by the Spring of 1915.  The past decade in the above quote refers to the year 1906 when, Stolypin, who was trying his hardest to reach a compromise with the liberals that would enable him to form a stronger and more progressive government and silence the far right’s suspicions of the liberals had asked Miliukov repeatedly to publicly denounce terrorism.

Ascher tells us that Miliukov at first refused to publish such a statement because he:

…could not speak for the entire party, which for reasons of “political tactics”[the Kadet left-wing] refused to condemn revolutionary terror…Stolypin then appealed to Miliukov not as the leader of a Duma faction but as a contributor to Rech, a paper with close ties to the Kadets, “Write an article denouncing assassinations, I will be satisfied with that.”  Miliukov still demurred…Finally he agreed to run an article on the condition the he would not sign it.  Stolypin accepted the condition…Miliukov then added another condition.  He would have to secure the agreement of the other Kadet leaders…  [Ref: Abraham Ascher, P. A. Stolypin, (2001), p. 177]

Miliukov’s rejection of Stolypin’s proposal which would have reinstated the legitimacy of the Kadet party which they desperately needed after their disastrous Vyborg debacle, proved to the Prime Minister that:

…the liberals still banked on a popular upheaval to bring them to power.  It seemed...that the Kadets could not sever their ties, however tenuous, to the revolutionaries.  [Ref: Abraham Ascher, P. A. Stolypin, (2001), p. 177]

Knowing this history makes the Okhranka warning in September 1914 more creditable than Ruud/Stepanov would like us to believe.  It also makes me wonder about the author’s statement that the greatest malfunction of the Okhranka was it’s failure:

…in not recognizing that the autocracy could and should have worked with the liberals to modernize the political structure of the Russian Empire.   [Ref: Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, Fontanka 16, The Tsar's Secret Police, (1999),  p. 223] 

That is exactly what the painful decade from 1904 to 1914 had been all about.  The liberal’s disinclination to co-operate and work with the government had only grown more adamant over the course of that decade and other than their brief honeymoon after the outbreak of the war, the liberals hardened themselves into the infamous Progressive Bloc that absolutely refused to work with the government and sought every means at it’s disposal to discredit and humiliate it.     
 
Even without their links to the terrorist organizations on the left which they never disavowed, their ability to harm the government was in some ways far greater than any act of terrorism.  If there is such a thing as passive terrorism, liberals such as Miliukov and Guchkov were masters the trade. 
 
Again the Okhranka 1914 warning rings true, that the:

…lull in revolutionary activity was only because of a temporary rallying to the cause of the nation against the common enemy.  The leadership of a renewed opposition would be the same as over the past decade.  It would center on the left-wing of the Kadets…  [Ref: Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, Fontanka 16, The Tsar's Secret Police, (1999),  p. 223] 

Well anyway I will hopefully have Sept 1915 posted by late this weekend....
     

Helen do you think that Alix credited Stana's claim to be Philippe's medium?  

I have no specific information on this. Didn't Mr Philippe Vachot lose favour gradually after Alix's false pregnancy/miscarriage in 1902? I'm doubtful whether Alix welcomed the idea that Stana thought herself a 'medium', even a medium of a man who was perhaps looked on less favourably than a couple of years earlier. 

I think that Maurice Paléologue’s December 1914 pen portrait of a half crazed Byzantine Consort’s dependence on an almighty degenerate monk is so far off the mark that we can safely considerate it a complete fiction. 

I don't have a clear picture as to how close Paleologue was to the Empress...did he know her personally, or only through the Emperor?  I agree that he was wrong in his assessment of her...to say the least!...but was it complete fiction, or a badly-formed hypothesis?

I first came across this thread in May of 2007 and in the almost two years since then griffh you have done a great job with this thread.  The amount of information here is mind-blowing and I cannot even imagine the amount of time & energy you have put into this.  I also think, like others here, that all of this would make an amazing book and I know that I would certainly buy it. 

Thanks for all your hard work,
-Duke of NJ

Also I just have a quick question, I don't mean to get off topic but I don't understand why Nicholas and the Kaiser had such a hard time accepting their uncle Edward's involvement in Masonry.  In various movies and books about this period and about these royals denouncement of Edward VII's Masonry is quite prominent (like the scene in Edward the King when the Tsar and the Kaiser meet and the Kaiser denounces Edward's masonry and his band of female spies to the Tsar), what did the Tsar and the Kaiser hate about Masonry? The secrecy? 

-Duke of NJ

Hey sorry I missed my weekend posting but Janet Ashton's book arrived and I am about half way through it.  I just could not put it down the entire weekend and am reading it slowly because I do not want to miss a detail.  I think that it is so much more than an historic novel.  It is so filled with accurate details and wonderfully clear descriptions of all the characters such the Empress' sisters other than Ella.  I loved Janet’s ability to capture the boisterous, unrestricted joy of Alix childhood and of that comfortable family joy that Lili Dehn once referred to as having been Alix’s Coburg heritage.  I love the descriptions of Nicky’s gentle, deeply religious nature.  I also love the way Janet and intertwined political, religious and secual aspects of the Empress' life and presented them in an informed and fair manner.  Bless Janet for creating a true-to-live picture of Alix.  As Greg King put it so perfectly: "one feels Alexandra's voice in each sentence."  I also agree with Fuhrmman with all my heart that Janet's book is: "one of the publishing events of the season."    

The other aspect of the book I so enjoyed was Janet's clearly developed ability to read photographs.  I gleaned this from the way she writes her descriptions of individuals and their motivations.  In the 19th century children were taught to read paintings by asking questions about every aspect of the painting.  Why are the ladies sitting in a pasture?  Why are their dresses those colors?  Why are their distant clouds gathering on the horizon?  What are they eating at their picnic?  Why is the lady in the center of the group holding a pear?  etc. 

Reading paintings is clearly a lost art but one that Janet has perfected and been able to transfer to photographs and this art is part of what gives her work that wonder late 19th—early twentieth century sensibility. 

Helen do you think that Alix credited Stana's claim to be Philippe's medium? 

I have no specific information on this. Didn't Mr Philippe Vachot lose favour gradually after Alix's false pregnancy/miscarriage in 1902? I'm doubtful whether Alix welcomed the idea that Stana thought herself a 'medium', even a medium of a man who was perhaps looked on less favourably than a couple of years earlier. 

That is an excellant point Helen.  As I recall Vachot did disgrace himself with Alix's false pregnancy and that spelled the end of his influence at Court. 

Also I just have a quick question, I don't mean to get off topic but I don't understand why Nicholas and the Kaiser had such a hard time accepting their uncle Edward's involvement in Masonry.  In various movies and books about this period and about these royals denouncement of Edward VII's Masonry is quite prominent (like the scene in Edward the King when the Tsar and the Kaiser meet and the Kaiser denounces Edward's masonry and his band of female spies to the Tsar), what did the Tsar and the Kaiser hate about Masonry? The secrecy? 

-Duke of NJ

I think the authors Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov can answer your interesting question about the Masons and why Nicholas and Wilhelm did not take warmly to the idea that their Uncle Bertie was allegedly a Mason.

Ruud/Stepanov explained that there were several Masons among the Decembrists whose failed coup in 1825 against Tsar Alexander I.  As a result every Russian Ruler up to Nicholas II had declared themselves against the Masons.  However a change came on March 4, 1906 in the form of a new legislation:

…that permitted individual, non-governmental societies to exist, so long as each had first been examined, approved, and registered by local authorities.

Similarly, only months earlier, P. N. Durnovo, the minister of the interior, had responded to alarms voiced by Foreign Minister Lamsdorff about the “spreading influence in the West of Masonry” by rejecting his proposal for an investigation of the influence of Masonry on international relations, although Durnovo’s main objection to such a study, no doubt, was its unwieldiness.

Notable among those who sought unsuccessfully to revive Masonry in Russia at that point was a liberal professor of juridical history, M. M. Kovalevsky, who returned to Russia in 1905 after fifteen years of self-exile in France.  Having joined the Masons in Paris because of their international connections and their dedication to social and moral betterment, Kovalevsky hoped to foster liberal change at home by prodding like-minded individuals to organize Russian lodges.  One eminently desirable liberal he vainly tried to recruit for the endeavor was Paul Miliukov, the future leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party.

No figures are available on the precise number of Masonic lodges that actually existed in Russia from 1906 to 1917, but very few appear to have won approval from local authorities.   [Ref: Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, Fontanka 16, (1999), pp. 215-216]

The authors go on to explain in detail the Okhranka’s campaign against the Masons’ promoted by various Minister’s of the Interior, Heads of the Police, and Heads of the Special Section and some members of the Higher Clergy from 1906 – 1912.  By 1910 Kurlov, the current Minister of the Interior, commissioned a gold metal honor student from an elite lyceum in St. Petersburg, V. K. Alexeev, to gather evidence of any conspiratorial activity of the Masons.   

Ruud/Stepanov state that the newly appointed Director of the Police, S. P. Beletsky read the Alexeev reports in the Okhranka file in 1912 and:

…dismissed the conspiracy findings as baseless.  When the Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaievitch, the army commander, subsequently asked him to inquire into Masonic influence on the officers of the guard’s regiments in St. Petersburg, Beletsky again found no evidence of subversion by Masons and this time characterized the members in Russia as mere “occultist.” 

Taking just the opposite stand was a secret Okhranka circular in 1915 to the heads of all agents in the field.  It emphatically warned that new efforts to subvert the state, church, and monarchy were under way through the organization of Masonic lodges disguised as merely occult, philosophical, scientific, and graphological organizations.  [Ref: Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, Fontanka 16, (1999), pp. 220-221]

I hope the information helps answer your question and if not, as least give you some historic context as to the Russian government’s view of Mason’s and a glimpse into their history in Russia.       

I think that Maurice Paléologue’s December 1914 pen portrait of a half crazed Byzantine Consort’s dependence on an almighty degenerate monk is so far off the mark that we can safely considerate it a complete fiction.  

I don't have a clear picture as to how close Paleologue was to the Empress...did he know her personally, or only through the Emperor?  I agree that he was wrong in his assessment of her...to say the least!...but was it complete fiction, or a badly-formed hypothesis?

Historyfan I missed responding to your post earlier, forgive me.  

In response I went to Wikipedia to see just what they had to say about the man and I found an article in French that tells us more or less the same account of Paléologue’s background as the Ambassador [the same claims often repeated by the Ambassador himself],  The article also includes the various posts he held.  It starts off by telling us that Maurice was born:

Né à Paris, le 13 janvier 1859.

Descendant de la lignée d’empereurs de Byzance et Constantinople, Maurice Paléologue entra au ministère des Affaires étrangères en 1880. Après avoir été secrétaire d’ambassade successivement à Tanger, à Pékin et à Rome, il fit un passage par le cabinet du ministre avant d’être nommé ministre plénipotentiaire en 1901 puis se vit confier entre 1907 et 1912 la légation de Sofia.

En janvier 1914, il fut nommé ambassadeur à Saint-Pétersbourg. À ce poste, il devait jouer un rôle de premier plan dans les négociations liées au premier conflit mondial. Remplacé après la chute du régime tsariste, il occupa encore, avant de se retirer des affaires publiques, les fonctions de secrétaire général du ministère des Affaires étrangères dans le cabinet Millerand.

Wikipedia also includes a biography of Paléologue translated from Rumanian historian, N. Djuvara’s book, The Orient and the Occident, that includes additional information about Paléologue’s origins.  

Paléologue was born in Paris as the son of Alexandru Paleologu, a Wallachian Romanian revolutionary who had fled to France after attempting to assassinate Prince Gheorghe Bibescu during the 1848 Wallachian revolution; Alexandru was one of three illegitimate children of Elisabeta Văcărescu of the Văcărescu family of boyars - he and his siblings were later adopted by Zoe Văcărescu, Elisabeta's mother, who gave the children her maiden name Paleologu.  The name became Paléologue in French language spellings; the family's relation to the Palaiologos Byzantines is doubtful (Alexandru's ancestors first claimed it at the end of the 17th century).  

After graduating in Law, Maurice Paléologue obtained an office at the French Foreign Ministry in 1880, and moved on to become Embassy Secretary at Tangiers, in the Morocco Protectorate, then in Beijing (Qing China), and later in Italy. A Minister Plenipotentiary in 1901, he represented France in Bulgaria (1907-1912) and Imperial Russia (1914), and moved on to become General Secretary of the Foreign Ministry in the Alexandre Millerand cabinet.

At the same time, Paléologue published essays and novels, and wrote contributions for the Revue des deux mondes. He also wrote several works on the history of Russia in the wake of World War I, which included an intimate portrait of the last Tsaritsa Alexandra Fyodorovna (he had been present at meetings between her and Grigori Rasputin, among others). He was called on to give his testimony during the Dreyfus Affair, and left important notes on the topic.

Paléologue was elected a member of the Académie française in 1928. He died in Paris [1944] a few months after the city's liberation during World War II.

[Ref: Neagu Djuvara, Între Orient şi Occident. Ţările române la începutul epocii moderne, Humanitas, Bucharest, 1995, pp. 131-132]

Though Djuvara tore some of Paléologue’s Byzantine luster away, still and all Djuvara’s portrait does reveal an accomplished diplomat who was versed in foreign affairs.  Clearly Djuvara suggests here that the Ambassador’s portrait of the Empress was accurate as it had come from his personal knowledge of her.  We know, however, and as we shall continue to learn, that Paléologue’s information came from a hostile Court Society and continuously caused him to misjudge her motives and actions.  He built his portrait of the young Empress on the basis of malicious court gossip which is understandable as his heroine was more than likely the Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna Sr.   He had any number of “Court Informants” and I am sure that Madame Narishkin-Kuratkin numbered among them given the number of times that she appears at one of his dinners or at a dinner to which he has been invited.  I also say this because of the number of times Alix explains to Nicky how received she was after helping Zizi to see things correctly. 

I don’t happen to believe that the Empress ever succeeded in changing a single negative opinion of Zizi’s and that she was leaked many things to the Ambassador.  I think another informant was the francophile, Princess Paley who had so many axes to grind.  And then, as I stated before there was a long line of embittered members of the Russian Court who claimed an intimacy they did not possess and who clearly mislead the Ambassador. 

These are not opinions, as we shall see, and actually have already seen.  I will provide proof of my remarks.  The problem with Paléologue, not unlike Radzinsky, is that his gift as an outstanding writer, eventually works against his objectivity as an historian. 

I am sure that Paléologue hid his disapproval of the Empress with great diplomacy and feigned a sympathy that was never real.  I say this because of the Empress and Tsar’s repeated attempts to obtain the man’s opinion during stressing times.  They sent Ania twice to the Grand Duke Paul’s dinners to obtain the Ambassador’s views on issues that were of great concern to them at the time.  Then there is the tenor of the various audiences when the Tsar showered the Ambassador was favors of comfort and informality. 

I am sure that Alix’s interest in the exiled Empress Eugenie of France was something that certainly made her comfortable with the French Ambassador who would eventually write a book of his collective visits with the exiled Empress. 

I can’t help but feel that the Tsar and Empress had a great deal more trust and sympathy for the Ambassador than he had for them.  Having said that please know that I am diligently working on completing the Sept 1915 themes....and may I say God Bless Fuhrmann for not only his incredible scholarship but for his care in finding and providing all the correspondence.  Not wanting in anyway to interfere with copyright issues I have continued to use my Duckworth and Botley Head books.  However I have included the Empress' telegrams from Fuhrmann. 

I also want to say that I am just about finished with "The German Woman," and find it so moving and the thing that strikes me is how carefully Janet must have reasoned over all of the issues that she presents is such a fair light.  I usually pencil a book into oblivion as I make marginal notes but with this book I just have not wanted to stop long enough so many of my impression have slipped by in the process.  However I think one of the most original observations that has stayed with me is Janet's wonderful insight that Nicky and Alix were two generations younger than the Crowned Heads of Europe and that their generation of Rulers did not really catch up with them until 1911 to 1914, with the accession of Georgie and May on the throne of England and Missy and Ferdinand on the throne of Roumania.

   

Hey sorry I missed my weekend posting but Janet Ashton's book arrived and I am about half way through it.  I just could not put it down the entire weekend and am reading it slowly because I do not want to miss a detail.  I think that it is so much more than an historic novel.  It is so filled with accurate details and wonderfully clear descriptions of all the characters such the Empress' sisters other than Ella.  I loved Janet’s ability to capture the boisterous, unrestricted joy of Alix childhood and of that comfortable family joy that Lili Dehn once referred to as having been Alix’s Coburg heritage. 

One hears so much that is sad about Nicholas and Alexandra, always with the emphasis on Alexei and his illness, that I particularly wanted to bring out the atmosphere of her early married life, before the troubles began, when I think the atmosphere in the family was quite different and they were rather more outgoing towards the world. People who knew Alix in those days recalled her as somewhat tomboyish and sporty, rather than the sad, sofa-bound lady of legend, and I wanted that to come out.

I love the descriptions of Nicky’s gentle, deeply religious nature.  I also love the way Janet and intertwined political, religious and secual aspects of the Empress' life and presented them in an informed and fair manner.  Bless Janet for creating a true-to-live picture of Alix.  As Greg King put it so perfectly: "one feels Alexandra's voice in each sentence."  I also agree with Fuhrmman with all my heart that Janet's book is: "one of the publishing events of the season." 

Well, of course, back when I first wrote this I relied on Joe F's books (both the Wartime Correspondence and Rasputin) very much, and hugely admired his common-sense approach to the topics. And at that point, in 2002, I was first getting to know Greg, who was writing Fate of the Romanovs so we discussed a great deal about the personalities and family interactions of the Romanov family, though even he did not know then about The German Woman. Greg has been the single greatest source of encouragement to me, the person who first persuaded me to write history and to expose it to the world (history was my degree subject - to Masters level - but nothing in the course I chose led me to want to write more or do further research at that point) and who has critiqued nearly every word I have ever written and shared a great deal of his own material with me in addition to entrusting me with his own unpublished work. He introduced me to Joe in 2004, for the pupose of my helping out with a manuscript Joe is still working on, and I now find myself in the rather unreal position of knowing that a much older and more experienced historian who was a great influence on me also admires my work in turn.  Seriously, it's been quite a revelation to me!

The other aspect of the book I so enjoyed was Janet's clearly developed ability to read photographs.  I gleaned this from the way she writes her descriptions of individuals and their motivations.  In the 19th century children were taught to read paintings by asking questions about every aspect of the painting.  Why are the ladies sitting in a pasture?  Why are their dresses those colors?  Why are their distant clouds gathering on the horizon?  What are they eating at their picnic?  Why is the lady in the center of the group holding a pear?  etc. 

Reading paintings is clearly a lost art but one that Janet has perfected and been able to transfer to photographs and this art is part of what gives her work that wonder late 19th—early twentieth century sensibility. 

Your assessment is very kind, and I suppose I had never thought of it in those terms! But I do pay a great deal of attention to photographs and have always been obsessed by clothes, for one thing......

 

I think the authors Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov can answer your interesting question about the Masons and why Nicholas and Wilhelm did not take warmly to the idea that their Uncle Bertie was allegedly a Mason.

Ruud/Stepanov explained that there were several Masons among the Decembrists whose failed coup in 1825 against Tsar Alexander I.  As a result every Russian Ruler up to Nicholas II had declared themselves against the Masons.  However a change came on March 4, 1906 in the form of a new legislation:

…that permitted individual, non-governmental societies to exist, so long as each had first been examined, approved, and registered by local authorities.

Similarly, only months earlier, P. N. Durnovo, the minister of the interior, had responded to alarms voiced by Foreign Minister Lamsdorff about the “spreading influence in the West of Masonry” by rejecting his proposal for an investigation of the influence of Masonry on international relations, although Durnovo’s main objection to such a study, no doubt, was its unwieldiness.

Notable among those who sought unsuccessfully to revive Masonry in Russia at that point was a liberal professor of juridical history, M. M. Kovalevsky, who returned to Russia in 1905 after fifteen years of self-exile in France.  Having joined the Masons in Paris because of their international connections and their dedication to social and moral betterment, Kovalevsky hoped to foster liberal change at home by prodding like-minded individuals to organize Russian lodges.  One eminently desirable liberal he vainly tried to recruit for the endeavor was Paul Miliukov, the future leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party.

  

There were also Masonic influences on the French revolution, and right-wing governments have tended always to look on them with suspicion: theses organisations were illegal in a lot of Catholic countries.
What is interesting as far Nicholas is concerned is that Philippe Vachod was a member not of a Masonic lodge but of a Martinist Order, a para-masonic organization which was neverthless supposed to be ardently Catholic and rather right-wing in stance. One of the stories about their friendship holds that he initiated Nicholas himself, as well as Nikolai Mikhailovich and possibly Nikolasha as well. And one of the tactics used by Philippe's enemies in attempting to drive a wedge between them was to assure N that Philippe was a Mason.

Janet, thank you so much for sharing such wonderful details about writing your book, The German Woman and your close association with Greg and Joe.  I also thought it was wonderful that you credited Bob and Rob and complimented their remarkable website.    

When Greg and Penny were still contributing to the website, Greg made some very encouraging remarks to one of the contributors about not being afraid to write and how he had started.  He seems to be very humble and generous.  

And I was always intrigued and enjoyed Penny’s constant sharing of new "arrivals" for her library.  I particularly remember this eerie photograph she had come across of rolled up objects on the floor of basement that looked like they could possibly be bodies.  Of course I was sure that the room could not be a basement, but Dr. Cullen, who is another really greatly generous man, corrected me right away.  It was so hard trying to keep up but one learned a great deal.  

Speaking of Joe F., I have got to get his book on Rasputin as it is referred to often in the Complete Correspondence.  

Just to say that I have slowed way down now that I am on the last 40 pages of your book as I don't want the end to come for many reasons.  

I read Russian history like my mother reads the Greek Myths.  She never tires reading the classical tragedies because she never lost her hope the they will end differently.  No matter how many times she read the same myth, her hope was never diminished.  

I have done the same thing all of my life with Russian history.  I keep hoping that the end will change and I suppose in some manner this keeps me from becoming depressed.  Someway or other I always find something to hope for.  So I have slowed way down as I savor the last forty pages and hope for a brighter ending.    

I think the way you handle Ania and Alix’s relationship, and your character analysis of Ania is the best analysis I have ever read.  I have had as much trouble understanding Ania as I have with Ella but I really feel that you have found the real Ania and revealed that her loyalty to the Empress and Tsar remained in tact in spite of her flirtations, constant boredom and demand for attention.   Radzinsky and so many others have tried to portray her as a villain and a dissimulating intriguer but they all fail to come up with a motive.  Her disinterestedness is an Achilles Heel that always ends up crippling even their most persuasive theories.  

I have been thinking a great deal about Rasputin and wondering what his concept of loyalty was.  I keep coming back to Nelipa’s description of Rasputin being seen getting into the Grand Duke Peter’s car in 1910 in an attempt to avoid Stolypin’s arrest warrant before fleeing back to his Siberian village.  

I can understand Rasputin’s continuing relations with the Nikolaevichi in 1910 on the basis of his consistently charitable view of those who at times attacked him, such as his forgiving remarks about Purishkevich.  However my question about Rasputin’s concept of loyalty comes from pondering how he could continue to maintain a relationship with a family that had spent the last two years slandering the Empress.  It also begs the question as to when and why Rasputin became so frightened of Nikolasha.  Certainly in 1910 if Rasputin had felt about Nikolasha the way he did by the Fall of 1914, he would never have gotten in that car.  

I found your description of Alix’ compassionate posture towards Ella very helpful; and I felt that Alix could forgive Ella’s hostility over Rasputin and her overbearing manner in general because of the difference love played in both sister’s lives.  You make it so clear that Alix knew love was something that happens to an individual, while Ella’s concept of love was something you have to do.  I just could not help but feel that Alix was protective of Ella because of her sister’s meager exposure to love.  

I also loved the temperate view that you brought to Alix and Minnie's relationship and how, in spite of Minnie's bitter tongue, there was a shared love and concern that never ended.  

Certainly Xenia did not share such sentiments in exile but Olga appears to have maintained tender memories of Alix all of her long life.  

The individual that scares my socks off, however, is Victoria Battenburg.  There is something so untamed about her.  

And I am grateful for a much clearer picture of Irene.  When I think of Irene, the picture that always comes first to thought is Spala in 1912 and the sturdy Irene in her ankle length, no-nonsense walking skirt standing next to a very fragile Alix in her swept back brimmed Napoleonic hat and gracious trailing gown.  Were they by a tennis court?  

I was just about to include Princess Cantacuzène’s flattering portrait of Stana as an apology for having been so sarcastic about her occult interests and claims.  However I felt that would not be necessary after reading Alix's remarks about Stana.

I think that the portrait of Alix and Nicky’s daughters really brings the girls to life and gives them such individuality.  I am so grateful that you have given Tatiana credit for the amazing accomplishments she gave to the War Relief with the success of her War Refugee Committee.  Clearly Olga’s role as one of the Vice Presidents of her mother’s committee fits with Olga’s lack of skill in that department of life.  

The other thing that I am so very grateful for was the picture of Alix as a “liberated” woman of her time.  I don’t mean to say I am suggesting that she was or would have promoted women’s rights in the way Madame Miliukov did.  She was more in the mold of her grandmother, Queen Victoria, who worked within the conventions of her period and by not scaring conservative women in the way that the Suffragette movement tended to do, was still able to advance the well being and influence of women in general and find ways to promote and protect them.  

Now that the Woman’s movement had lost a great deal of it’s militant edginess, there is an increased amount of information coming forth about similar conventional women reformers who contributed significantly to improving the status of women.   I can’t help but feel that you have properly credited Alix as one of these women and certainly pointed to the influence of Miss Jackson.  I also loved that point you made that it was often these very qualities that inspired the discomfort and fear that some men felt in her presence.

I wanted to add a note about Mrs. Eddy.  I did some research a few years ago at the Christian Science Mother Church Archives, just before it opened the Mary Baker Eddy Library.  I was able to study the material they had on the wife of a British business man who was listed in the Christian Science Journal from 1907-1917 in St. Petersburg as a Christian Science Practitioner.  I was amazed that she lists a telephone number but then I am constantly amazed by the technical advances of that period. 

I think her name was Mrs. Wallach or something like that.  Well anyway the archives have her unpublished memoirs of her stay in Russia which I read.  I don’t know the Mother Church’s policy now, but at the time they did not allow one to take notes or copy the information. 

However I was so intrigued that I did manage to remember most everything I read.  Among the information that the Practitioner offered was the fact that one of her patients was Baron Fredericks and his wife and daughter.  Madame Wallach appeared to have been as concerned about the influence of Rasputin as the rest of St. Petersburg was during the later part of the Great War and as I recall she urged Baron Fredericks to use his influence to get rid of the Strannik.  I must try and find out more about this and contact the new archives dept. 

But given just what I can remember about Madame Wallach’s attitude towards Rasputin, I am sure Madame Wallach would have been stunned by Princess Catherine Radziwill’s description of the semi-literate muzhik in her sadly confused book, Rasputin And The Russian Revolution, in which she states that Grigorii:

…had succeeded in inspiring in his adepts a faith in his won person and in his power to save their souls akin to that which is to be met with in England and in America among the sect of Christian Scientists, and he very rapidly became a kind of Russian Mrs. Eddy.  [Ref: Princess Catherine Radziwill, Rasputin And The Russian Revolution, (1917), p. 34]

Well anyway, thank you again for sharing so many wonderful details about your writing of The German Woman.  It is such a treat and delight for us all.  Thank you agian.       



 
 



 

Janet, thank you so much for sharing such wonderful details about writing your book, The German Woman and your close association with Greg and Joe.  I also thought it was wonderful that you credited Bob and Rob and complimented their remarkable website.

I used to use the online books here at lot when I was writing - because of course with fiction one doesn't need a page reference!       And I remember writing to Bob ca. 2001 and suggesting he could add a discussion board - I seriously doubt that my email caused it to happen, but I remember how important that sort of interaction seemed to me then, before I had contacts of my own in the field, and can imagine the role it plays to others now. When it stays civilised!

I think the way you handle Ania and Alix’s relationship, and your character analysis of Ania is the best analysis I have ever read.  I have had as much trouble understanding Ania as I have with Ella but I really feel that you have found the real Ania and revealed that her loyalty to the Empress and Tsar remained in tact in spite of her flirtations, constant boredom and demand for attention.   Radzinsky and so many others have tried to portray her as a villain and a dissimulating intriguer but they all fail to come up with a motive.  Her disinterestedness is an Achilles Heel that always ends up crippling even their most persuasive theories.

People tend with Ania either to portray her as the ideal friend, a la Massie, who would sit in "unspoken affection" with Alexandra - or they envisage her - as Radzinsy does - as someone with a secret. But I think that taking her face value - as a spolit and often irritating woman who Alexandra mocked sometimes quite sharply but appreciated in spite of everything for her simplicity and straightforward desire for affection - is less melodramatic. I think I make Alix say of Ania: "All her faults as well as her virtues come from nothing more than this desire to be loved, and that is so different from the rest of our charming aristocracy." The affection between them often stretched very thin, but I think that A knew she was at bottom lucky (if that's the right word) in her situation to have a friend who had no desire for money or real power. It's a shame she didn't find one who was less thoughtless or more intelligent as well!

I have been thinking a great deal about Rasputin and wondering what his concept of loyalty was.  I keep coming back to Nelipa’s description of Rasputin being seen getting into the Grand Duke Peter’s car in 1910 in an attempt to avoid Stolypin’s arrest warrant before fleeing back to his Siberian village.  

I can understand Rasputin’s continuing relations with the Nikolaevichi in 1910 on the basis of his consistently charitable view of those who at times attacked him, such as his forgiving remarks about Purishkevich.  However my question about Rasputin’s concept of loyalty comes from pondering how he could continue to maintain a relationship with a family that had spent the last two years slandering the Empress.  It also begs the question as to when and why Rasputin became so frightened of Nikolasha.  Certainly in 1910 if Rasputin had felt about Nikolasha the way he did by the Fall of 1914, he would never have gotten in that car.

I am inclined to see him as very human. I can't help feeling that Rasputin was happy to help if he could, and enjoyed the feelings lof power as well, but that his patience with N and A had its limits - and rightly so. It seems to me that they made demands on him that placed him in danger, though he too consented in this. I always think of his desapir in the last days of his life when Ania called him: "What else do they want from me!" Haven't they already had everything!" As far as Nikolasha is concerned, I suppose he would take any sign of an extended hand in moments of desperation, especially the hand of a former friend.

I found your description of Alix’ compassionate posture towards Ella very helpful; and I felt that Alix could forgive Ella’s hostility over Rasputin and her overbearing manner in general because of the difference love played in both sister’s lives.  You make it so clear that Alix knew love was something that happens to an individual, while Ella’s concept of love was something you have to do.  I just could not help but feel that Alix was protective of Ella because of her sister’s meager exposure to love.  

There was a lot of jealousy there - a very primal, sisterly relationship, I think! It seems to me that Ella felt she had a right - both as an elder sister and as someone married to the all-knowing Serge - to tell N and A what to do. The tone of her 1901 letter to Nicholas in which she chides him for being weak takes my breath away. To her own brother she could joke about being bossy and call herself "Aunt Fuus", but this humour was rather absent from her relationship with N and A. Alexandra's relationship with her and to a far lesser degree with Victoria was always charcaterised by that element of, "You can't tell me what to do any more - I'm grown up now too!!" And in some ways that's sad - because perhaps real gaping chams between them were overlooked and seen as nothing more than family squabbles.....

Griffh has probably provided the best review I've ever read of any book, and I absolutely must read this book now!!

Janet, you ended your book in such a transcendent manner.  One does not think of the impending assassination as being able to rob Alix of anything that she truly valued.  I could not help but feel, as tragic a loss as it was and especially for the children who really never got a chance to have lives, that for those who believe life goes on after death, it was almost a comfort that the entire family made their transition together.  The way the children had been raised, I couldn’t imagine the anguish of having to adjust alone to the agonies that a hostile new world order had in store for them.       

I used to use the online books here at lot when I was writing - because of course with fiction one doesn't need a page reference!       And I remember writing to Bob ca. 2001 and suggesting he could add a discussion board - I seriously doubt that my email caused it to happen, but I remember how important that sort of interaction seemed to me then, before I had contacts of my own in the field, and can imagine the role it plays to others now. When it stays civilised!

I am sure that your email must have influenced Bob and Rob.  It is a dazzling forum for me and I have been so blessed by the brilliant blend of individuals that contribute. 

The affection between them [Alix and Ania] often stretched very thin, but I think that A knew she was at bottom lucky (if that's the right word) in her situation to have a friend who had no desire for money or real power. It's a shame she didn't find one who was less thoughtless or more intelligent as well!

I absolutely agree.  I wish there was more information available about Ania’s Tolstoy mother.  I can’t even find her mentioned in the Tolstoy family book.  I am sure she is there but as of yet I have not found her. 

I have always felt that Ania would not have gained such an intimate place had Princess Orbellini maintained her health and had she lived.  It appears that Orbellini was one of the few people who Alix accepted the unguarded truth from and the Princess appears to have been an intelligent and well respected woman.  One can only wonder what Paléologue’s response would have been if it had been Princess Orbellini who was sent to interview the French Ambassador at the Grand Duke Paul’s instead of Ania.   I wonder if Princess Orbellini’s letters are in the State Archives and if her family has maintained an archive? 

I am inclined to see him [Rasputin] as very human. I can't help feeling that Rasputin was happy to help if he could, and enjoyed the feelings lof power as well, but that his patience with N and A had its limits - and rightly so. It seems to me that they made demands on him that placed him in danger, though he too consented in this. I always think of his desapir in the last days of his life when Ania called him: "What else do they want from me!" Haven't they already had everything!" As far as Nikolasha is concerned, I suppose he would take any sign of an extended hand in moments of desperation, especially the hand of a former friend.

I completely agree with you and I hadn't finished your book when I wrote my comments.  When I got to that part of the book I remember being moved by his remarks. 

I still wonder when the Nikolaevichi actually withdrew that "extended hand" to Rasputin.  Perhaps the theatrical Nikolasha's rebuke to Rasputin was an invention after all.
 
Nikolasha’s answer to Rodzianko's inquiry as to the veracity of his rebuke to Rasputin tends to imply something along these lines. 

Rodzianko relates that during a conversation with Nikolasha, at the:

…mention of Rasputin I repeated to him the latest Petrograd gossip.  The story ran that Rasputin wanted to go to the Stavka and sent a telegram to that effect, but that Nicolai Nicolaevitch had replied: "Come--and be hanged."  On my asking whether this was true, the Grand Duke laughed and said, "Well, not exactly."  [Ref: M. V. Rodzianko, The Reign of Rasputin, (1927), p. 118] 

There was a lot of jealousy there - a very primal, sisterly relationship, I think! It seems to me that Ella felt she had a right - both as an elder sister and as someone married to the all-knowing Serge - to tell N and A what to do. The tone of her 1901 letter to Nicholas in which she chides him for being weak takes my breath away. To her own brother she could joke about being bossy and call herself "Aunt Fuus", but this humour was rather absent from her relationship with N and A. Alexandra's relationship with her and to a far lesser degree with Victoria was always charcaterised by that element of, "You can't tell me what to do any more - I'm grown up now too!!" And in some ways that's sad - because perhaps real gaping chams between them were overlooked and seen as nothing more than family squabbles.....

And "You can't tell me what to do any more - I'm your Empress!"   

I think that this dispute over authority was one of the things that Queen Victoria foresaw might occur between the sisters and I believe the Queen feared that this would cause deep-seated friction eventually between them.  I believe the Queen had witnessed similar friction tear apart some of the German ruling houses. 

I also cannot completely rule out Ella’s desire to maintain the upper hand when she sought recognition as an Abbess which Nicholas thankfully did not bestow on her.  One could only imagine the tone of those letters!!! 

   

Griffh has probably provided the best review I've ever read of any book, and I absolutely must read this book now!!

I hope that I do have a part in promoting Janet's remarkable work.  Well back to the job at hand….the Sept. 1915 correspondence.   

Janet, you ended your book in such a transcendent manner.  One does not think of the impending assassination as being able to rob Alix of anything that she truly valued. 

Potentially that end would have been the hardest bit of all to write. But that line - her very own words - just made it so obvious to me how it should end......

I still wonder when the Nikolaevichi actually withdrew that "extended hand" to Rasputin.  Perhaps the theatrical Nikolasha's rebuke to Rasputin was an invention after all.
 
Nikolasha’s answer to Rodzianko's inquiry as to the veracity of his rebuke to Rasputin tends to imply something along these lines. 

Rodzianko relates that during a conversation with Nikolasha, at the:

…mention of Rasputin I repeated to him the latest Petrograd gossip.  The story ran that Rasputin wanted to go to the Stavka and sent a telegram to that effect, but that Nicolai Nicolaevitch had replied: "Come--and be hanged."  On my asking whether this was true, the Grand Duke laughed and said, "Well, not exactly."  [Ref: M. V. Rodzianko, The Reign of Rasputin, (1927), p. 118] 

This is  a very interesting observation!

I think that this dispute over authority was one of the things that Queen Victoria foresaw might occur between the sisters and I believe the Queen feared that this would cause deep-seated friction eventually between them.  I believe the Queen had witnessed similar friction tear apart some of the German ruling houses. 

I also cannot completely rule out Ella’s desire to maintain the upper hand when she sought recognition as an Abbess which Nicholas thankfully did not bestow on her.  One could only imagine the tone of those letters!!! 

  

It also occurs to me that Alix found the authority of Victoria (her sister, not her grandmother) rather easier to accept because V - in addition to being the beloved elder sister they all looked up to - had obvious faults: she was garrulous and plain and even rather gauche. Ella, on the other hand, was seen by her admirers as almost a perfect being: beautiful and good in every way. Having a sister like that dictate to you would create a rebellious mood in anyone!