This article was published on the blog of 'It's History Podcasts': http://itshistorypodcasts.com/blog/2014/2/1/a-plot-against-the-russian-royal-familys-unlikely-aide-could-rasputin-be-killed#.UxEIsjnBGFJ
The Moika Palace, resplendent in yellow hues, stretches like a supine lion beside the river in St. Petersburg. The residence of the Yusopov family from 1830 to 1917, it was the site of a gruesome murder that continues to mystify and intrigue today, for the details of the night read like a vividly-imagined crime story. No definitive and coherent narrative exists; indeed, the only eyewitness accounts are those of the assassins themselves, and these are, of course, biased. They do, however, provide a starting point from which strands of fiction and truth can be separated and ordered.
The Moika Palace, resplendent in yellow hues, stretches like a supine lion beside the river in St. Petersburg. The residence of the Yusopov family from 1830 to 1917, it was the site of a gruesome murder that continues to mystify and intrigue today, for the details of the night read like a vividly-imagined crime story. No definitive and coherent narrative exists; indeed, the only eyewitness accounts are those of the assassins themselves, and these are, of course, biased. They do, however, provide a starting point from which strands of fiction and truth can be separated and ordered.
Grigori Rasputin’s
stratospheric rise to power – akin, perhaps, to Thomas Cromwell’s – transformed
him from an illiterate peasant to the trusted confidante of the Russian royal
family. This association was divisive, at times scandalous, and ultimately
destructive: his presence at court and sway over them – in particular the
Tsarina – contributed to increasing resentment towards the Romanovs in the
months preceding the February Revolution of 1917, and precipitated their
downfall. An enigmatic figure, much of Rasputin’s life is obscured by
conflicting accounts of his character and actions. He was portrayed by his
followers as a ‘starets’ or mystical ‘elder’, who possessed supernatural powers
to heal the heir to the throne. His critics, on the other hand, regarded him as
a licentious and decadent charlatan with a propensity for excessive drinking. He
was despised by many in the highest echelons of society, who believed that
their bête noire was corroding the popularity of the Romanov dynasty. In the
winter of 1916, this resentment became overwhelming.
Prince Felix Yusopov, heir to
a vast fortune and husband to the Tsar’s niece, arrived at Rasputin’s house in
the middle of the night of 16th December in order to escort him to
the Moika Palace. The invitation had been extended at an earlier date: the prince
had decided to entice Rasputin to his home by indicating that his beautiful
wife, Irina, would be present. In fact, Irina was staying in the Crimea with
his parents. Rasputin seemed to have taken particular care over his appearance
that evening, donning a silk shirt embroidered with cornflowers, velvet
breeches and polished boots. Even his unkempt, matted beard had been combed.
Yusopov led Rasputin outside, where a car driven by Dr. Stanislaus de Lazovert
was waiting to take them to the palace.
A basement in the east wing
had been specially prepared for the occasion. There was a convivial atmosphere:
the room was sumptuously furnished with a thick Persian carpet on the floor, and
a fire crackled in the background. A gramophone in the adjoining study played
‘Yankee Doodle’, and tempting cakes were laid out on the table. To avoid
suspicion, tea had been poured into cups to give the impression that a meal had
taken place there recently. The mise-en-scène was set. Unbeknown to Rasputin,
Yusopov and his fellow disaffected conspirators had laced the cakes with enough
cyanide ‘to kill several men instantly.’ These collaborators, who included the
Tsar’s cousin, Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich, and a forthright politician,
Vladimir Purishkevich, were waiting elsewhere for the deed to be executed. When
Rasputin enquired after Irina, he was informed that she would be joining them
shortly. Yuspov then proceeded to offer him the sweet pastries and poisoned
wine. At first, Rasputin declined, citing reasons of health: had he detected
that treachery was afoot? Eventually, however, he relented and sampled a few of
the delicacies. They had crossed the Rubicon: Yusopov’s work was complete.
Several hours later, the
poisoned wine and pastries had had no effect on Rasputin. One can only imagine
Yusopov’s disquiet as that inviolable gaze continued to bore into him with unnerving
intensity. Rasputin’s face is almost simian in photographs, with a feral,
hypnotic glint in his eyes suggesting a simmering madness. Yusopov recalled in
his memoirs: ‘Under Rasputin's heavy gaze, I felt all my self-possession
leaving me; an indescribable numbness came over me, [and] my head swam.’ In
desperation, Yusopov retreated upstairs to seek the counsel of the other men,
who were shocked at Rasputin’s apparent immunity to the poison. It was agreed
that Yusopov should go back armed with a revolver to put an end to the fiend,
for who could survive being shot?
Rasputin was observing a cabinet
inlaid with ebony in the corner of the room when Yusopov returned with the gun
concealed behind his back. He is reputed to have exclaimed, ‘Grigori Efimovich,
you would do better to look at the crucifix and pray to it,’ before shooting
him in the chest. With his silk shirt stained with blood, Rasputin lay dead
upon a bearskin rug. Yusopov informed the others of his success, but was ‘suddenly
filled with a vague misgiving; an irresistible impulse forced me to go down to
the basement.’ What followed next could be plucked straight from the pages of a
horror story. According to Yusopov, ‘Rasputin leapt to his feet, foaming at the
mouth. A wild roar echoed through the vaulted rooms, and his hands convulsively
thrashed the air. He rushed at me, trying to get at my throat, and sank his
fingers into my shoulder like steel claws. His eyes were bursting from their
sockets, blood oozed from his lips. And all the time he called me by name, in a
low raucous voice.’ Such claims should be taken with a pinch of salt, however:
it is important to note that Yusopov was seeking to justify his actions by
portraying Rasputin as a demonic monster from whom he had saved Russia.
As Rasputin attempted to
escape through the garden, Yusopov called for assistance from Purishkevich. The
latter seized a revolver and felled him with two shots. They bound his body and
drove to the Malaya Nevka River, where they cast it off a bridge into an
ice-hole. Two days later, a frozen corpse was dredged up, and, to the amazement
of onlookers, Rasputin’s arms were raised as though he had been struggling to
escape from his bonds. Some press reports even suggest that a few people rushed
to the site clutching pots and buckets, believing that the water surrounding
this individual might instill in them a measure of his mystical power.
Whilst the murderers’
accounts are compelling, they are flawed and inaccurate, and do not stand up to
close scrutiny. The autopsy carried out on the thawed corpse refutes many of
Yusopov’s exaggerated statements. It revealed that Rasputin had been hit three
times: once in the left side of his back, once in the left side of his chest,
and once at close range in his forehead. The pathologists confirmed this final
shot to be the cause of death, yet Purishkevich never mentioned firing a bullet
into Rasputin’s head from such a short distance. The final contradiction of
Yusopov’s testimony was the absence of poison in the body
As if the historian’s role is
not challenged enough by excavating the past for gems of truth amongst the
rubble of legend, let us now introduce Lieutenant Oswald Rayner to the list of
dramatis personae. There is considerable evidence that the British viewed the
situation in Russia as increasingly precarious and unstable: a mercurial
compound jeopardised by the oxygen of revolution. The ambassador at the time,
Sir George Buchanan, gave voice to these concerns in a meeting with the Tsar
himself, in which he implored him to make some concessions regarding the constitution.
‘If I were to see a friend walking through a wood on a dark night along a path
which I knew ended in a precipice, would it not be my duty, sir, to warn him of
his danger? And is it not equally my duty to warn Your Majesty of the abyss
that lies ahead of you?’
Rayner was a British officer
employed by the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in St. Petersburg. He was
also a contemporary of Felix Yuspov, for the two men had formed a close
relationship when studying together at Oxford. The British were worried that
Rasputin’s significant influence over the royal family would result in his
directing them to withdraw troops from the war. This would have been
catastrophic for the Allies. Russia’s conflict with Germany in the East
provided a crucial buffer, as it meant that the Germans could not concentrate
all their forces on one front. Rayner visited the Yusopov residence on several
occasions around the time of Rasputin’s death, leading some to suspect the SIS
of instigating the assassination. Was it Rayner who shot Rasputin in the head
with the precision of a trained killer? There were certainly persistent rumours
that he had somehow been involved; even the Tsar and his family became wary of
Buchanan and his supporters. The intelligence historian, Andrew Cook, uncovered
an incriminatory message sent by a British intelligence officer in the
aftermath of Rasputin’s death. If Rasputin is the ‘Dark Forces’ to which he
refers, then this memo is most damning indeed: ‘Although matters here have not
proceeded entirely to plan, our objective has clearly been achieved. Reaction
to the demise of “Dark Forces” has been well-received by all… Rayner is
attending to loose ends.’
Historians can dissect
documents and posit theories, but, ultimately, the true events of that night
will continue to elude them. Instead, they must sift through the pile of myths
and reach their own conclusion. Should Yusopov’s account take precedence over
others? Was the SIS complicit in the murder, or, indeed, can a different explanation
altogether be justified? The most compelling aspect of Rasputin’s story is the
aura of mystery surrounding his death: the truth has been swept away by time,
with only a few fragments of the past remaining, half-glimpsed through the
prism of the years.
Bibliography
Lost Splendour: The Amazing
Memoirs of the Man Who Killed Rasputin – Felix Yusopov
My Mission to Russia, and
Other Diplomatic Memories – Sir George Buchanan
How To Kill Rasputin: The
Life and Death of Grigori Rasputin –
Andrew Cook
No comments:
Post a Comment