Customer Reviews

Imperial Legend: The Disappearance of Czar Alexander I

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Why should an American reader care about Tsar Alexander I (1777-1825)? If you are of Polish descent, you might want to learn more about why in 1818 Alexander gave a constitution and some autonomy to Poland. If history is your thing, you cannot but notice the man whose generals and whose frozen land drove Napoleon Bonaparte out of Moscow and back across the Niemen river, ultimately to Waterloo. Members of the Russian Orthodox religion will want to know about a man who (in another identity) became a canonized saint.

A Romanov tsar a saint? It is a stretch, but there is a long tradition ("the Legend") that the Tsar was driven by guilt to run away from his responsibilities. According to the Legend, Alexander I felt guilt for complicity in his father's 1801 assassination which had made him the Autocrat of all the Russias, He did not die in 1825. Nor did he abdicate. He just "disappeared." Perhaps he fled to Palestine on the yacht of a British aristocrat. Perhaps he reappeared in Siberia eleven years later as one Feodor Kuzmich. Perhaps the Tsar lived on in the new identity until 1864 when he died in the odor of sanctity. But not precisely "orthodox "sanctity. For he was not known to attend liturgies or to make regular confessions of sin.

Alexis Troubetzkoy's IMPERIAL LEGEND:THE MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCE OF TSAR ALEXANDER I is a good read. As soothing and smooth as a lullaby, the book introduces important aspects of 19th century Russian history and tells the story of two men: Alexander Romanov and Feodor Kuzmich. It is clear that generations of Russians and some international scholars believe that there is probable evidence that the two men were one. But what of those eleven blank years between the official death of the Tsar near the Caucasus and the appearance of the mysterious Kuzmich in Siberia? Troubetzkoy might want to make those missing years the subject of a follow-on book.

The book has arresting photographs or portraits of the principals and a compact bibliography. Future editions might usefully include a map of the areas discussed.

IMPERIAL LEGEND amply rewards a leisurely read.

Author Alexis Troubetzkoy's "Imperial Legened" explores the possibility that Russian Tsar Alexander I faked his own death in 1825 in order to shed the burden of the crown after twenty-five years of rule. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that this is more than historical speculation, even though all of it is circumstantial. The first half of the book is dedicated to a retelling of Alexander's reign, which featured spectacular successes (the defeat of Napolean) and personal torment (guilt over his own complicity in his father's murder). The picture that emerges is of a (relatively) enlightened Russian monarch who would very much have preferred not to be the king.

The book goes on to recount the life of the mysterious Siberian vagabond that many Russians, including descendents of the Romanov dynasty, have come to believe WAS Alexander. If so, he shed the Imperial life about as completely as anyone ever could. Once again, the evidence is far from conclusive, but still compelling. Troubetzkoy is a good storyteller, and his narrative is highly readable.

Overall, "Imperial Legend" is a good historical mystery that should be enjoyed by history buffs with an interest in Imperial Russia.

In "Imperial Legend", the reader is introduced to the mystery surrounding the death of Alexander I in a tiny backwater town of southern Russia in 1825. Troubetzkoy argues that Alexander I, who was continually wracked by guilt for his involvement in the death of his father, staged his own death so that he could renounce the crown and retire to a place where he could come to terms with his conscience. The author presents evidence that a starets (wandering holy man) by the name of Feodor Kuzmich, who mysteriously appeared in Siberia in 1836, was none other than Alexander himself. As Troubetzkoy tells us, this alleged connection between Alexander and Kuzmich has come to be known as the Imperial Legend.

The first part of the book is devoted to a brief biography of Alexander I and touches upon his relationship with his father Paul I and his grandmother Catherine the Great, both of whom exerted a profound influence on the young man's personality. Equally important, Troubetzkoy provides a detailed account of the night when his father was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Alexander and was murdered in the process. Although Alexander apparently did not have any direct involvement in this coup, he was forever traumatized by what he considered to be a patricide. The second part of the book considers the scant information that is known about the starets Feodor Kuzmich as well as all of the mysterious circumstances and coincidences that add fuel to the Imperial Legend.

The book is written in a clear and engaging style that gave me an enjoyable reading experience from start to finish. Although a number of editing errors were found in the text, these did not detract from the continuity of the story. Since Alexander's guilt over his father's death is the major assumption underlying the Imperial Legend, I felt that Troubetzkoy could have done a better job in emphasizing the relationship between father and son. As Troubetzkoy describes it, Alexander's father was a boorish neurotic who did not spend much time with his son and who harbored feelings of resentment against him. Now what kind of son would feel guilt over the loss of a father like that?

I felt that most of the evidence linking Alexander and Feodor Kuzmich cited in this book was circumstantial and of a speculatory nature. The reader is presented with a variety of first- and second-hand accounts that can no longer be substantiated today. According to the book, only scant material evidence still exists that can show the two men were one in the same, with the rest of the evidence having mysteriously disappeared over the course of time (if in fact they existed at all).

Nevertheless, popular belief and all of the mysterious circumstances that were reported to have happened serve to make the Imperial Legend an intriguing bit of history. Troubetzkoy stated that one of his major motivations in writing this book was to generate interest in the Imperial Legend in the hopes of raising funds needed to open the crypt of Alexander I in St. Petersburg. I truly hope that Mr. Troubetzkoy succeeds in his task, because regardless of what is found in the crypt, his findings will be a significant addition to Russian history.

Yes, this is a very serious work, with more detail than average
readers will be able to absorb, but the author puts those
details together to make an interesting story.
The story is that one of the czars of Russia, Alexanader I, who
ruled in the early 19th century, did not really die at age 48,
while staying in southern Russia for the health of his wife.
The "Legend," which according to the author is wide-spread in
Russia to this day, and was widely accepted through the 1800s,
is that the Czar was so unhappy and depressed, he wanted to withdraw from his ruling position and live the simple life of
a peasant.
He asserts that the legend is true, and that the Czar disappeared, with the knowledge and connivance of his family
and its highest advisors, and that he appeared many years later
as a lone spiritualist, devoted to the church and "ordinary"
people.
The author, who descends from a princely royal family himself,
says he heard the legend from childhood, and that one of his
ancestors was part of Russian history in that period, has done
a lot of thinking, and much work, on this subject. He says the
basis for the legend, and the actual disappearance of the czar,
is that Alexander participated in a palace coup that displaced
his father, Czar Paul I, and that as part of the coup, the
rebels killed Alexander's father, and that Alexander suffered
from guilt thereafter, which led to his depression and unhappiness with his life.
That part of the story seems to be factual, and it is well-
documented, as is much of the story.
However, the conclusions, about the voluntary disappearance
of Czar Alexander, and his reappearance years later as a religious figure, is, at bottom, based on conjecture. And this
is where "scholarship" fails the author. However much he
speculates, he is still left with speculation, and no quantity
of rumor and theory, over however many years, changes that one
fact: there is no fact available to support the theory propounded here.
So, in a sense, it is an interesting story, with much fact,
but the reader has to accept that much of the conclusion is
not based on fact at all. The author does not try to disguise
his methods and theories, and he honestly presents his conclusions for what they are: speculation, with the hope and
expectation that he will be proven correct.
The writer hopes proper authorities in Russia will permit scientific testing, through DNA analysis, of the remains of

the body in the tomb of Alexander I, the body of the lowly
religious figure presumed to be the real czar, and that of a
known member of the royal family whose linage can be traced to
the family of the czars of Russia.
The author, for example, puts considerable emphasis on the
fact that there are inconsistencies in the reports of the condition of the body following the death in 1825, and doctors
present at the autopsy made different notes on some aspects of
that work, and the fact that the royal family at the time did
not permit public viewing of the body, etc., but considering
the time, when medical science was still comparatively primitive, and the fact that the death occured in a very distant, out-of-the-way area of rural Russia, and none of the doctors available were experienced in autopsy procedures, the
inconsistencies cited are not very formitable. Many of the
author's conclusions in favor of his theory are based on similar
thin facts, such as the fact that there are writings of the time
based on theory and legend. The fact that someone wrote something down in 1825, or shortly thereafter, doesn't make that
writing true; writing down a rumor doesn't make it true, whatever the time frame.
As noted above, the author is not trying to cover up his methods, so we appreciate his honesty and earnestness in presenting his theories, but we have to realize, as stated,
his conclusions are based on theory and conjecture, not fact.
But there is a mystery here, and the author suggests it can
be solved once and for all by Russian authorities by testing
and analysis, so he makes a good case for those further procedures.
The results of those tests would be very interesting, indeed.
Interesting reading for the serious student of that part of
history, as long as the distinction between fact and theory
is properly maintained at all times.

Rarely have I read a book so beautifully written and as well and thoughtfully researched as I have with Imperial Legend. A long-time student of Russian history and a writer in the field, I can promise the reader an exhilerating treat with Troubetskoi's work.

Tsar Alexander I of the Russian Empire (1777-1825[?]) was a man with issues. While he was also revered as "Alexander the Blessed" this appellation refers mostly to the first half of his notable reign, (chiefly due to his having defeated Napoleon Bonaparte in 1812-13), and an era when many reforms came to pass in an often barbaric Russia. During the second half of his rule, Alexander became a mystic and a man who was much out of touch with the common people. (If you'd like to read all about Alexander I's preeminent phase, read Tolstoy's fictional War and Peace.)

In this superb work, Troubetzkoy follows up on a renowned legend which, if true, has Alexander faking his own death to escape the burdens of the throne as well as his own personal demons, only to become a "starets," a wandering and prophetic monk of a sort [Rasputin, of later years, was also a starets, albeit a generally evil one] by the name of Feodor Kuzmich. The highly revered Kuzmich died in 1864, not long after Tsar Alexander II (son of Nicholas I) emancipated the Russian serfs.

The legend is that Alexander I traveled the lengthy sojourn from St. Petersburg to a small port city in southern Russia with the purported objective of allowing his wife's health to improve in these milder seaside climes. (Alexander himself had supposedly been plagued throughout his life with the mental specter of his involvement with the murder of his father, the inept and demented Tsar Paul I.) While traveling around this insignificant port region, he supposedly caught malaria or a similar disease and died; however, there remains a noteworthy amount of evidence that he didn't die at all but in fact conspired with a few family members and close associates to escape by boat, only to turn up much later in Siberia as the mysterious starets.

Troubetzkoy's knowledge and research of the legend is both significant and remarkably credible -- this is not your typical conspiracy theory book. Since it was written well after the fall of the Soviet Union the author enjoyed full access to mountains of old records and to key locations across Russia.

As an avid student (a very old one) of Russian history I found this book quite fascinating and well-written. But even for those who are not great history fans this work reads as smoothly as a compelling novel and is a classic illustration that truth is indeed stranger than fiction. The book is also nicely supported by a section of highly relevant black-and-white illustrations and photographs.

Highly recommended to anyone who enjoys a good story.

In "Imperial Legend", Alexis Troubetskoy recounts the tradition that Czar Alexander I did not die in November of 1825 as recorded, but faked his death and mysteriously vanished to reappear as a poor holy man ("staretz") in Siberia until his real death in 1864. Trubetskoy proposes to prove it true.

Generally well-written, style relaxed but not inappropriately so, and illustrated with contemporary pictures of the principals and places involved. Some maps would have helped. Unfortunately the footnoting is in an unusual form, difficult to follow, and when traced it cites sources only for direct quotes, and leaves the general assertions undocumented.

Some could use substantiation. Apparently, Alexander's death was witnessed by almost a dozen people who had been meeting with him regularly during the month of his illness, including his wife, with whom he was on good terms, and four doctors who had attended him for years. Could the Czar have deceived so many intimates? And if his wife and doctors and others were "in on it", could so many have carried so hot a secret for decades to their graves? And there is no chapter on the venue of the story (where and how it began, and who perpetrated it), only a few tangential references scattered throughout the text.

Still, Turbetskoy's proposal that the remains of the Czar and staretz be examined with modern technologies is sound: the Romanov dynasty will never be restored, so the question of succession is moot, and the current government has no reason to object.

In short, an enthralling and thoroughly-researched retelling of the old legend, but no sort of case for its veracity.

This book has haunted me ever since I first read it last year.
I have wanted to write something of the "legend" and how, of
all things, there is a tie to George Armstrong Custer, who died
at the Battle of the Little Big Horn in 1876. Read this book, you'll find your imagination running wild!

I have a BA in History--so it takes a lot to impress me!