Intrigue and controversy surround the role of Grigorii Efimovich Rasputin in the final years of the Tsarist Empire and the rule of Nicholas II in particular.

Rasputin's ability to control the dangerous condition that afflicted young Alexei convinced Alexandra of his holiness, wisdom and ultimately his political judgement. This was retained despite the constant and growing complaints that soon contributed to Rasputin’s foul reputation. Alexandra, and to a lesser extent Nicholas, chose to ignore or deny Rasputin's womanising and alcohol abuse even when presented with facts. This because of the irrefutable certainty that they felt that Rasputin was the only man in Russia that could protect the Tsaravich from terrible pain and inevitable early death; this was enough to secure for Rasputin his place as confident of the Imperial family. This was especially true of the Tsarina. Nicholas, despite his more reserved approach to Rasputin, deferred to his wife on many issues. It was through his wife that Nicholas gradually allowed Rasputin to influence some ministerial appointments. It was this apparent influence over the absolute source of power in Russia that fuelled the jealousy against Rasputin.

It was the growing belief in Rasputin’s abilities to aid the Tsaravich, and his apparent ability to help the Tsarina’s own severe bouts of depression, that in turn led Nicholas to ignore the warnings that Rasputin’s behaviour would damage the image of the monarchy. Nicholas’s complete dedication to and even fear of his wife's outbursts, led to Rasputin becoming an integral part of their lives and to an extent their decision making.

 

Rasputin’s apparent position of power and influence antagonised both those inside and outside of the court. Yet it is this perception of control and influence over Russian politics that must be disputed. In reality, Rasputin’s influence was marginal; he had no real or sustained influence over Russian Imperial politics.  However, in an Imperial court system where sole power rested with an absolute monarch, political intrigues were just as important as imperial policy; being close to the font of power was seen as crucial in the game of power politics. It was this area of influence that made Rasputin appear both powerful and a threat. To criticise Rasputin left the accuser open to loss of their position in the court; the one area Rasputin could exercise power, making or breaking political careers and patronage.

The Tsar plainly did not approve all of Rasputin’s decisions or heed all of his advice, but to a certain extent Rasputin, could influence Nicholas, normally under pressure form the Tsarina. Rasputin’s advice on appointments was not given purely on the basis of merit; some appointments were made because they reinforced Rasputin’s position at the court, as Rasputin sought to use his powers of patronage to build up his own power base within the court. This is certainly the case with the appointment of Beletsky as the deputy Minister of Internal Affairs. Beletsky, after discussions with Rasputin, had been able to convince Anna Vyroubova, a close friend of the Tsarina, of his devotion to Rasputin. Shortly afterwards the Tsarina was persuaded to secure his appointment, although this was not an everyday event, there were numerous examples of Rasputin’s growing powers of patronage amongst other ministerial appointments.

Rasputin’s influence was not confined to political appointments. He was able to convince Nicholas to appoint the eccentric, illiterate monk, Varnava, who lacked any formal qualifications, to the position of protégé of the archbishop of Tobolsk and even more extraordinary, he secured the position of Piltrim as his own ecclesiastical protégé. Piltrim was a well known homosexual, under suspicion for embezzling ecclesiastical property, and gave support to the sectarian khlysty group, a sect that despite its claims to be Christian followed practices far removed from Russian orthodox practice. Despite these concerns, Rasputin, with the help of Vyroubova, obtained for Piltrim the position of exarch of Georgia, and later the position of archbishop of Petrograd. The real significance of this last position was that it made him the senior archbishop of the Russian church. This naturally provoked a huge outcry not only because of Piltrim’s patent unsuitability for the role, but crucially because it was evidence of Rasputin’s growing ambitions. It was this episode that represented the high point of Rasputin’s position of influence within the Russian court, but the low point for the court in terms of its prestige and image nationally. Russia at the time was a very religious nation and one that relied heavily on the guidance of its church. Rasputin, despite the fact that some inside the church felt him to be a staret, or holy man, was clearly bringing the church into disrepute and by the connection the Royal Family; the two central institutions in the autocratic Russian state.

If loyalty to Rasputin helped you obtain a position, disloyalty would almost certainly cost you a position. Rasputin's behaviour out of palace circles was getting more unorthodox, as his self-confidence in his patronage and sense of his own invulnerability grew. It was this increasing arrogance and extremes of behaviour that prompted a report to be drawn up detailing his actions, which would be forwarded to the Tsar. The report was produced by an Assistant of Internal Affairs, Djunkovsky, and contained a damning account of Rasputin's behaviour.

The Tsar was outraged ordered Rasputin to return to his hometown of Pokrovskoe in Siberia. However, when the report was passed on to Alexandra, not only did she disagree with her husband’s actions, but responded by immediately demanded Djunkovsky's dismissal. It is indicative of Nicholas’s weakness that he agreed to comply with the Tsarina’s demand, as he did with most of his wife’s requests, and in the process lost another loyal servant. This is an example of the Tsarina's almost unlimited support of Rasputin, but further to that indicated that anyone attacking Rasputin would be seen to be attacking the dynasty. These examples were not alone, there were numerous examples of attempts to discredit Rasputin, leading to his accuser being dismissed from office and persons entirely dependent on his goodwill put in their place.

It wasn’t just political and religious appointments that Rasputin was able to influence. In absolutist Tsarist Russia the Tsar was all-powerful and was, in effect, the law. Petitioning the monarch directly was an extremely important way of gaining legal judgements in ones favour. The extent and significance of petitioning can be seen by the fact that over seventy thousand were made a year. As Rasputin had the ear of the Tsar and especially the Tsarina, he was in a powerful position to exert influence on behalf of petitioners. By 1915, Rasputin’s alleged ability to secure favourable outcomes for petitioners had enhanced his status, apparent influence and power, to the extent that hundreds of people queuing outside his house to seek his support.

 

In these two areas Rasputin clearly exercised considerable influence, ultimately through the good offices of the Tsarina, without being ever formally appointed to any official post. Rasputin had succeeded in become the most important religious figure in the country, this taken together with the extraordinary appointments he made, were profoundly undermining the faith of ordinary Russians in the church, one of the central pillars of Russian society. His few supporters inside the church grew increasingly disenchanted, while the Russian public grew increasingly disturbed at the authority he exercised in the church. The damage was not confined to the status of the church, as the close relationship between Russian Royal family and Rasputin meant that they to suffered damage to their status.

However, while these issues were serious, they were do not explain the ultimate collapse of the Russian royal dynasty or royal autocratic control of Russia. Rasputin’s real power was limited, as several attempts to affect national policy in pre-war years demonstrates. Firstly, he tried without success to persuade Prime Minister Kokovtsov, to abolish the government monopoly on the sale of liquor. Secondly, he implored Nicholas to avert Russian military action from the crisis in the Balkans in 1913 a view that the Tsar agreed with, despite the fact the majority of his advisors urged military intervention. However, it appears that the decision was influenced by other factors rather Rasputin’s advice at the time. The most striking examples of Rasputin’s inability to move beyond quite restricted areas of influence was when the war was declared, and when Nicholas took direct command of the army in 1915. Rasputin had constantly urged Nicholas to stay out of the war, warning it would bring the end of imperial Russia. This prophetic advice to the Tsar carried little weight on the decisions ultimately made.  Rasputin, who was recovering from an assassination attempt when war was declared, maintained that if he could have spoken to the Tsar in person that he could have kept Russia out of the war and the terrible consequences it caused for the nation and the Royal family. However, the truth was that his influence only went so far and extended into certain areas of domestic policy rather than foreign policy.

 Although Rasputin’s advice on military and foreign policy was ignored, he was in constant contact with the Tsarina after war was declared, and she herself forwarded his advice to the Tsar. The Tsarina believed that because God had sent Rasputin to them that the Almighty was fighting for Russia. She was convinced that she and Rasputin were giving him the strength he lacked. A view that it can be argued defined Rasputin's relationship with the Tsarina.

Rasputin’s place as informal member of the Imperial family was guaranteed by his ability to treat Alexei. As one historian put it "The more successful he was at treating Tsaravich, the more directly dependant the emperor and empress of all the Russia’s would become upon Rasputin". By 1916, he was without doubt the most talked about figure in Russia, and to some apparently the most powerful after the Tsar himself. To some extent this was true, if only in the sense that he was able to make or break certain ministers, influence church appointments and secure favourable outcomes for petitioners. It was at the centre of Russian society, the court, that the paranoia created by half truth, rumour, together with concerns about influence, position and patronage, that explains the controversy that Rasputin caused. A situation fuelled by Rasputin’s womanising, alcoholism and excessive behaviour generally. It was this closed world of the court that spread lies about him being a German spy and lover of the Tsarina. In an environment where few realistic political alternatives to the Royal family existed and where self-interest was placed first and foremost, Rasputin was allowed to influence and exacerbate the lack of political judgement that already existed within the court.

It is clear that Rasputin made a contribution to the fall of the dynasty. He alienated people who could have advised the Tsar and Tsarina better and encouraged the disastrous influence of Alexandra by advocating the most imprudent ministerial appointments. He involved the imperial couple with people they should have never been close to and allowed himself to be used by the most devious of political hustlers. That Rasputin should have enjoyed the confidence of the couple in ultimate control of the nation was enough to destroy their credibility in the eyes of many. Rasputin has been described by many historians as the main factor behind the fall of Imperial Russia, which is simply untrue. Rasputin had a damaging effect on the running of the Russian Church and a significant role in the appointment of ministers, but not much else when it came to the everyday running of Russia, via his influence over the Tsarina. But Rasputin’s most serious impact was the fear and antagonism that he provoked through the perception that he was in a position to influence Royal policy on a much broader basis than he actually could. Rasputin, ultimately was just another symbol of a society a system in real decline. The hatred felt towards him by many sections of society was derived from a wider anxiety felt by the ordinary Russians who were looking for someone to blame for the state of their country, and in their ignorance Rasputin was the obvious choice.

Ultimately, Rasputin was merely another influential courtier, not a politician. His political knowledge was limited, naive and had little impact. The route of whatever influence he could exert was the confidence the Tsarina had in him. To her he could do no wrong, and every word he spoke was from God and therefore was, in effect, God’s word. This was the real source of his power and as long as it was maintained, Rasputin’s position within the court was secure, and influence over certain areas of decision making and royal patronage significant. Even if the Tsar did not respond in the same way, the influence of his wife was the deciding factor.

 

The ultimate downfall of the Romanov dynasty however, had less to do with Rasputin than other factors. One of the most apparent was the detrimental effect of war on Russian society, which helped to spark the revolution. Perhaps, if any one individual must bear the blame for the end of 300 years of Romanov rule, then it must be Tsar Nicholas II, himself. An absolute monarchy places huge responsibilities on one individual, responsibilities that demand that either that individual rule in person or recognise that changed circumstances demand a new system of government. Nicholas lacked both of these abilities. A kind and sensitive man at heart, Nicholas lacked the talents necessary to be the absolute ruler of such a huge and diverse empire. Nicholas relied heavily on the advice, but was very poor at selecting whom to take it from; surrounded as he was by a system and a multitude of advisors who essentially tended to put personal interest before national ones. As a result he prevaricated and was indecisive, a situation that undermined much of the natural respect his position could command.

It’s also important to mention the influential involvement of the Duma (parliament), and the contribution they made to the political process. Prior to 1905 Russia was an absolute monarchy, with the government appointed by and acting on the decisions of the Tsar. This all changed following the revolution of 1905, when the Duma was installed as part of a reluctant royal compromise to secure wider political support. For many in the establishment, the Duma was a highly disagreeable institution forced on the monarchy at a moment of temporary weakness. Consequently, they sought to undermine it and the threat of democracy that it represented at every opportunity 

 

The Duma’s relationship with Nicholas was very strained; as time went on they sought more powers as aspirations for a more democratic state grew, in common with many other autocratic states across Europe. Nicholas resisted, unable to accept any serious reduction in what he assumed to be his historic, and God given royal as head of the Russian State and people. Previous incarnations of the Duma had been, as one historian puts it, the “thorn in the imperial flesh”. The growing tensions between the political aspirations the new middle classes represented in the Duma and those of a highly conservative Tsar were most frequently displayed over Nicholas’s retention of powers to select ministers for the government.  The Duma used the influence that the  ‘German’ Tsarina and the 'Peasant' Rasputin were able to exert over these decisions to further undermine the position of the Tsar. This increased polarisation of politics meant that consensus became ever harder to reach and the fault lines between the two sides became ever more entrenched.

Nicholas’ increasingly represented a Russia that was now out of step with the aspirations of its small, but growing middle and urbanised working classes. Modernisation and industrialisation was still on a small scale, most of Russia was still rural and inhabited by highly conservative peasant farmers. Nicholas and the imperial court struggled to maintain its hold on a huge and diverse society. In the end the tensions that ran as fault lines throughout Russian society, and Nicholas’s inability to play any real power in producing solutions to meet the various and often conflicting aspirations of Russian society increasingly exposed his weakness as a leader. Caught in the headlights of these pressures, Nicholas proved unable to weld a together a coalition able to preserve conservatism or create a system under effective leaders that could manage social, political and economic change. The ministers that he did appoint, such as Stolypin, proved completely unable to meet these challenges.

---