Edvard RadzinskyReseñas

Did not finish it. Did not grab me

This book was a much a memoir of the author as it was a biography of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Written shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, Radzinsky includes details he collected through decades of interviewing those with memories of pre-revolutionary Russia and especially those connected with the murder of the tsar and his family. These details and memories are what set this book apart from other histories which cover similar territory. However, I disliked the author's habit of including things like Nicholas II's internal thoughts and motivations without documentation, which gave parts of the narrative a novel-like feeling. An interesting read, although one written before some of the more recent discoveries concerning the Romanov graves.

4289 Alexander II The Last Great Tsar, by Edvard Radzinsky Translated by Antonina W. Bouis (read 24 Mar 2007) Tsar Alexander II was born in Moscow on 17 Apr 1818, succeeded his father Nicholas I in 1855, and was assassinated on 1 Mar 1881 (O.S.). The book has no footnotes, but has a 10-page bibliography--all Russian sources and books. It is not badly put together, but is a little patchy and jumpy. Alexander II was the Great Liberator in that he freed the serfs in 1861, but became quite reactionary till 1880 when he was looking toward granting a Constitution. 1880 is also the year he married his mistress--four months after his wife died. This book was OK but not as attention-holding as I expected.

Íme, a gáláns XVIII. század… suhognak a tafotaszoknyák a bálteremben, porzik a rizsportól a sok csinos paróka, de a háttérben már ott várakozik doktor Guillotin, hogy elvágja a mondat végét. Radzinszkij egy nagyobbacska és három kisregény segítségével végigkorzózik velünk a korszakon:
1.) Először egy drámaian szenvedélyes történetben bemutatja nekünk Erzsébetet, aki vagy az orosz trón várományosa, vagy a legügyesebb imposztor, aki valaha élt. De vajon méltó ellenfele lehet Katalin cárnőnek, aki maga is a cselszövők gyöngye, és egyben a legnagyobb manipulátorok egyike, aki valaha koronát viselt a fején?
2.) Megtekinthetjük a nagy nőcsábászt, Casanovát, akiért eljön a legrémesebb szörnyeteg, aki a nőcsábászokért eljöhet: az öregedés.
3.) Látjuk Mozartot és barátját, van Swieten bárót, aki úgy dönt, kihozza pártfogoltjából a lehető legtöbbet. És hogy lehet a művészből a legtöbbet kihozni? Hát úgy, hogy biztosítjuk számára a szenvedés lehetőségét.
4.) És ott állunk a vérpadon Sanson, a párizsi főhóhér mellett, aki rögtönzött történelemleckét ad nekünk a forradalom természetéről. És egyben az emberi természetről is, ami sajna olyan, hogy néha még a hóhér számít a humanizmus őrlángjának.

Radzinszkij számára a történelem csak alapanyag – a nevek és az események nagy vonalakban stimmelnek, de meglehetős szabadsággal kezeli őket. Számára ugyanis nem a tények betű szerinti igazsága a lényeg, hanem az, amit el akartak rejteni mögöttük. Nevezhetjük ezt pletykának, szófia beszédnek, vagy akár mítosznak, de Radzinszkij számára ez a mese üzemanyaga. A rejtély, amit úgy tár fel, hogy azért bőven maradnak benne homályos pontok – mert ugye a tökéletesen feltárt rejtély már nem rejtélyes, sokkal inkább unalmas. A látszólagos homályt pedig csak erősíti a nyelv, amit használ: a lüktető, pulzáló, szaggatott szöveg, ami magán viseli a drámaíró kézjegyét.

Kellemes olvasmány. Ha nem is hisszük minden szavát, de isszuk.

Azt már a Boney M óta tudjuk, hogy ó, ezek az oroszok, és hogy ez a Raszputyin még a többi orosznál is óbb. Radzinszkij kötete arra törekszik, hogy megismertesse velünk a világtörténelem e páratlan figuráját, kissé mélyebben, mint ahogy azt a legendás popzenekar dalszövege* tette. Első észrevételem ezzel a könyvvel kapcsolatban az volt, hogy a szerző csak ebben a műben annyi felkiáltójelet használt el, mint a komplett angolszász történészszakma Gibbontól egészen napjainkig – bevallom, ez kicsit gyanakvóvá is tett. Nézetem szerint ugyanis a felkiáltójelek és a Caps Lock segítségével nyomatékosított szavak ("AZ ÜGY") nem kifejezetten történelmi szakmunkákba valóak.

Radzinszkij könyve valahol az objektív ismeretterjesztő monográfia és a szubjektív vélemény határán kötéltáncol, és nehezen tudom eldönteni, melyikhez áll közelebb. Egyfelől szemre ez a kötet tárgyszerű, mert elképesztő mennyiségű citátumot használ fel mindenféle korabeli visszaemlékezésből illetve ügynöki jelentésből** – ám egy közös van valamennyi idézetben: kivétel nélkül mindegyik elfogult. Vagy így, vagy úgy. Motoszkált is bennem a kisördög, hogy ha Raszputyinról gyökeresen eltérő profilképet akarunk alkotni, akkor azt is megtehetnénk, csak éppen más értelmű idézeteket kéne beleollózni a szövegbe – biztos olyanok is akadnak a róla szóló visszaemlékezések tengerében. Meg egyáltalán: úgy általában véve Radzinszkij túl erősen sugalmazza a saját hipotéziseit – gyakran úgy, hogy azokat nem támasztja alá kellőképpen tényekkel, illetve visszakereshető forrásokkal.

Ami miatt mégis azt mondom, hogy ezt a könyvet érdemes elolvasni, az a korszak atmoszférájának érzékelteltetése. Mert akár elfogadom Radzinszkij elméletét, akár nem, azt meg kell hagyni, hogy Raszputyin pályafutása tényleg nehezen magyarázható a szokásos sémák szerint, és innentől kezdve ha igaza van a szerzőnek, ha nem, hipotézise végtére is megérdemli a figyelmet. Van ez a muzsik, aki valahonnan a szibériai őserdőből odakeveredik Szentpétervárra, becsámpázik a felséges cár felséges színe elé, és az ujja köré csavarja őt. Hogy lehet ez? A híres hipnotikus tekintet az oka? Vagy az egyéb X-aktákba illő varázslatok – például hogy kézrátétellel gyógyítja a trónörökös vérzékenységét? Vagy egyszerűen arról van szó, hogy Miklós cár és felesége túlságosan beleszédültek az orosz néplélek tanulmányozásába, meg a misztikumba, és túl sok Müller Pétert olvastak, amit aztán egy minden hájjal megkent szélhámos sikerrel ki is aknázott? Ki tudja. Az biztos, hogy a Radzinszkij által felvázolt/megálmodott Raszputyin izgalmas alak: egy igazi jurogyivij, egy „szent őrült”, olyasvalaki, aki a gazdag orosz szektahagyományból emelkedett ki, és hiszi, hogy a bűnbánat bűn nélkül nem ér semmit – imáink csak akkor találják meg Istent, ha először a lehető legmélyebbre bukunk a szégyenbe és a piszokba. És nem mellesleg példátlanul karizmatikus személyiség, aki ezen hitét képes átsugározni környezetére – köztük a cári családra, így olyan magas polcra emelkedik, amire muzsik még sosem az orosz történelemben. Csak hát – mint az köztudott – magasról lehet a legnagyobbat esni.

Ráadásul Radzinszkij az önmagában is erős történet mögé magabiztosan szövi oda a korszak világvége-hangulatát: a Duma és a cár közti folyton növekvő feszültséget, a liberálisok, forradalmárok és reakciósok állandó küzdelmét, a forrongó Moszkvát és Szentpétervárt, ahol nemsokára történni fog valami… valami, ami romba dönti majd az egész birodalmat. A szerző az apokalipszis ezen ígéretét jól érezhetően összeköti Raszputyin hihetetlen felemelkedésével és szörnyűséges bukásával – persze hogy a két esemény valóban így össze volna nőve, azon lehet vitatkozni, de az biztos, hogy a könyvnek jól áll ez az analógia.

* Amúgy az megvan, hogy a Boney M frontemberét, Bobby Farrell-t egy szentpétervári hotelszobában találták holtan – abban a városban, ahol Raszputyin is oly sok bajt kavart? (Csak ha valakit vonzanak az összeesküvés-elméletek.)
** Az „elképesztő” ebben a kontextusban azt takarja, hogy túl sokat is. Új információt ugyanis egy idő után ezek a kiragadott szövegek nem közölnek.

I expected this book to be more of a biograph of Rasputin, and it definitely had those elements, but to me felt more like an examination of the Russian royal family and where he fit in. It was definitely in-depth if you have no knowledge of the tsars and political players of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Edvard Radzinsky has taken advantage of perestroika and glasnost to rummage around in previously secret Russian state files and come up with some pretty interesting aspects of the life of the man he calls “the last great Tsar”. He’s also a playwright; hence the book has a lot of dramatic, novelistic qualities. And he’s also a Russia, with an appreciation for the stereotypes of national character.


Either a lot of Russian history was suppressed by the Soviet Union or Radzinsky is consciously writing for a foreign audience, because the first third of the book is a primer on Russian history that I think a normal Russian reader would be expected to know. It a nice elementary introduction and explains a lot to me. When he finally gets to his subject, it’s almost as if his style changes; sentences and paragraphs become more sophisticated.


Alexander II was the one who freed the serfs. This had an opposite effect to what you might expect; conservatives hated him, of course, but the liberal faction didn’t like him very much either. (Radzinsky explains this by theorizing that Alexander II didn’t give the serfs enough freedom; I wonder if it were also a “Nixon in China” thing, where liberals got upset because someone had co-opted their program). At any rate, shortly after the serfs were freed Alexander II began to suffer assassination attempts, until the final successful one in 1881.


Conservatives and religious leaders were also scandalized by Alexander II’s sex life. The Tsar, of course, was expected to mess around with ladies-in-waiting and serving maids now and then, but Alexander’s critics felt he carried this to excess (especially since the Tsarina had the reputation of being a secular saint). The final straw was when the Tsarina died of tuberculosis, Alexander married his long-time mistress Ekaterina Dolgorukaya and legitimized their children. It was one thing to have a mistress, but it horribly offended the nobility to marry her. (One of the ironies here is that the Romanov dynasty, by this time, was almost 100% German due to the tradition of Tsars and Tsareviches marrying minor German princesses. Ekaterina Dolgorukaya, on the other hand, was the first Russia to marry a Tsar since the 15th century).


This is where Radzinsky begins to spin a conspiracy theory. His proposal is that the conservatives (Radzinsky usually calls them “retrogrades”) essentially cooperated with the radical assassins – not directly, but by deliberately ignoring evidence of assassination attempts. Radzinsky has just enough evidence here to be intriguing. It certainly looks like the radicals had some sort of inside information on the Tsar’s plans, and that the secret police, despite having immense powers, showed stunning incompetence in dealing with the plots. In December, 1879, assassins had exact information on the route of the Tsar’s train and the car he was in, tunneled under the tracks from a convenient house, and detonated a cache of dynamite as the train went by. (What saved the Tsar here was that there were two trains, a baggage train and a passenger train; the baggage train normally went first but a minor accident had delayed it slightly and the Tsar’s train was now ahead. The bomb was detonated under the correct car but the wrong train). A short time afterward the radicals managed to smuggle 250 pounds of dynamite into the Winter Palace, which turned out to be not quite enough to collapse the State Dining room when detonated in the cellar two floors below. The final attack involved a suicide bomber who managed to get close enough to the Tsar to detonate, while the Tsar was inspecting the damage done by yet another bombing a few minutes earlier that killed one of his guards.


This resulted in Tsar Alexander III, who corresponded to everybody’s idea of what a Tsar should be. He was 6’5” tall, strong enough to twist a horseshoe with his bare hands, had the brains of that same horseshoe, and was firmly under the control of the conservatives. Radzinsky makes the interesting point that the previously inefficient secret police sudden became very effective, quickly arresting all the surviving radicals.


Radzinsky draws attention to an interesting coincidence – and speculates it might not be a coincidence at all. For the final, successful plot, the radicals operated out of a small apartment building in Moscow. Their next-door neighbor was Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Dostoyevsky, off course, had been on the scaffold waiting to be hanged for belonging to a subversive group when his sentence was commuted (by Alexander II’s father, Tsar Nicholas I) to exile in Siberia (resulting in Notes from the Underground and Dostoyevsky’s religious conversion). Did Dostoyevsky have any contact with the plotters? He had a stroke, ostensibly while trying to move some heavy furniture, while police were searching the apartment next door. Radzinsky speculates perhaps Dostoyevsky was expecting his own apartment to be searched and the stroke was actually brought on by his possession of incriminating papers.


Well written and a nice introduction to the Russian history of the time, as well as the character of Alexander II. I forgive Radzinsky for a little Russian chauvinism (I never realized the Russians invented the electric light before).
½

Fasci-nating. A great read by a Russian author who undoubtedly brings Russian sensitivities to his subject. No wonder the autocracy was toppled in 1917. The political setup was Obscurantism City. It's half a wonder R wasn t done in earlier than 1916 -- a harbinger of the fast approaching end as it turned out.

After a few chapters, I'm just not enjoying it. I can't tell if it is the narrative style or the translation but it is hard to follow and rather rambling. My list to read is long so I'm letting this one go.

Un texte simple mais une approche inintéressante, peut être trop peu documentée?½

How do you make a story suspenseful when everyone knows how it ends? Mr. Radzinsky solved this problem in The Last Tsar by writing a historical-detective tale. The death of Russia’s last tsar, along with that of his family, is told largely through actual documents: diaries and letters of the tsar and his wife, and painstakingly uncovered reports from the Soviet archives. In addition, there are interviews with people who contacted Mr. Radzinsky after he began publishing articles in Russia about the tsar’s execution.

The Soviet state was highly secretive and paranoid, and the details of the tsar’s death had been buried. So the public record on the execution was skeletal: the world knew the family had been killed, but that was about it. Mr. Radzinsky builds the story slowly, so that even on the last pages of this 400-page book the reader still learns new, fascinating details.

I was intrigued with the Soviet Union when I was younger. I spent six weeks in 1979 traveling through the western part of Russia; I could speak Russian at the time. I have studied Russian and Soviet history, but my attention when I read about the Russian revolution was always on the Bolsheviks. I had never read about this event from the tsar’s point of view.

What becomes clear is that the tsar and his wife were detached from reality. They traveled between their palaces, took trips on the royal yacht, and held balls. They lived in a dream world that they thought would never end, even though the warnings couldn’t have been clearer. The French Revolution was an obvious cautionary tale, but closer to home, Nicholas’ grandfather had been assassinated in 1881, and in 1905 there was a mini-Russian revolution. But because Nicholas and Alexandra were so oblivious in their dream world, they never stopped fighting the prospect of a constitution and a constituent assembly.

The tsaritsa was the worst. All she could think of was getting her son on the throne. The disaster of her relationship with Rasputin was her desperate attempt to keep the hemophiliac heir well enough to rule one day. In addition, she wanted him to have absolute power.

When the tsar and his family were arrested and sent to Siberia (Tobolsk), it’s hard to believe how thoroughly they were abandoned. It appears that no one tried to rescue them. It also seems that they could have escaped and didn’t, in part because there was no one who cared enough about them to help, and also because the tsar felt he belonged to Russia and couldn’t leave her. Not to mention their faith: God was on their side and whatever happened was His will.

If you’re interested in details about how the tsar lived you’ll have to look elsewhere. You also won’t learn much about the Soviet revolution—other than the fascinating detail that the Bolsheviks were close to losing power in 1918; they were almost defeated in the civil war that erupted after the Revolution. The executions took place a day or two before the White Russians took the town where the royal family had been held captive.
This isn’t an easy book, but if you like history it’s definitely worth the read.

The only reason for the fewer stars is the translation from Russian to english is stilted and often leaves the subject matter dry and impersonal. Reads like a text book too often. Otherwise, a great look into a man accused of being a manipulator, but may in fact have been manipulated by yet another ambitious behind the throne female, taking a fall for things he never did. You decide.

Biographie du moine Raspoutine qui a joué un rôle important dans la chute des Romanov.

L'auteur a eu accès à des archives inédites qui jettent une lumière différente sur le personnage. Pourtant, malgré toute cette lumière, il me semble qu'on n'arrive qu'à percevoir l'ombre de Raspoutine. Parce qu'il était presque illettré, il n'a laissé aucun écrit qui permettrait de savoir ce qu'il pensait, s'il était sincère dans sa foi, s'il savait qu'il menait la famille impériale à sa perte, s'il n'était qu'avide de pouvoir... Il n'empêche qu'avec la multiplicité des éclairages de différentes sources parmi ses proches, l'ombre est bien définie et fascinante.½

Alexander II regeerde over Rusland toen de Romanov-dynastie op haar hoogtepunt verkeerde en het enorme land zich uitstrekte van Alaska tot aan Bulgarije. Hij was autocratisch, geïsoleerd en onvoorstelbaar rijk, maar ook een man van de wereld met oog voor de toekomst, die de geschiedenis een andere wending probeerde te geven door zijn land de vrijheid te schenken. Veel mensen beschouwen hem als de Abraham Lincoln van Rusland.
Alexanders hervormingen, zoals de afschaffing van lijfeigenschap in Rusland, vormden de inspiratiebron voor radicalen, die de veranderingen echter niet ver genoeg vonden gaan en opriepen tot revolutie. Ze bedienden zich van een nieuw wapen dat uiteindelijk een plaag voor de hele wereld zou worden: terroristische bomaanslagen. Alexander overleefde een aantal moordaanslagen, maar omdat hij geen andere manier zag om de radicalen tevreden te stellen, bracht hij zichzelf ten slotte doelbewust in gevaar, nog éénmaal, voor het laatst.
In de bedreven handen van Edvard Radzinsky wordt Alexander II een rijke en fascinerende geschiedenis over het hoogtepunt en de ondergang van de Romanov-dynastie.

Когда читаешь Радзинского, не покидает чувство, что смотришь голливудский исторический фильм: в череде фактов и событий подчеркиваются/выбираются те, которые развлекают. И даже если факты не подкорректированы, то все равно не оставляет ощущение какой-то исторической попсы. До этой книги я Радзинского только слушала, а теперь вот почитала. Наличествует чувство напрасно потраченного времени

Excellent! Covers both the life of the tzar and political environment of that time. Good coverage of Russia's underground movement, and People's Will in particular. I read other historical works by Radzinsky and seems that every subsequent work gets better.

Great book, really presents Rasputin in a new light, all his shortcomings and craziness notwithstanding. The only gripe I have with this book - which also applies to other Radzinsky's historical books I read - is that often he presents his theories as something that is proven, even though most of the times they are just interesting suggestions.½

This book is not so much about life of Nicholas II as about his death. The first half of the book is just a prologue to the events and people surrounding his death - which take the whole second half. It is interesting and intriguing and well researched but I had different expectations. I expected it to be a study of Nicholas II life in the context of political environment and events - and there were so many important events. It's all has been mentioned but very briefly, without going into details. Much more emphasize has been put on personality of Nicholas II, and especially his relationship with Alix. Which is all good and interesting but not enough.½

Relying too much on unchecked rumours, but useful as a popular introduction to the life of this monster.

well done

2487 The Last Tsar: The Life and Death of Nicholas II, by Edvard Radzinsky translated from the Russian by Marian Schwartz (read 24 Jan 1993) The author is a playwright who has spent 25 years researching Nicholas II. The book spends a great deal of time on what happened at Ekaterinberg, and lists in its bibliography those fascinating books: The Riddle of Anna Anderson (read by me 24 Oct 1983), The Hunt for the Czar (read 16 Oct 1980), and The File on the Czar (read 16 Jan 1977). This book is a thrown together book, but I believe a little more carefully done than the last two above mentioned. The author seems to believe the whole family perished at Ekaterinberg, but does tell of a F. G. Semyonov, who believed he was Alexei, and does not reject Anna Anderson absolutely. However, because of the rather disjointed way this book is put together it was not as absorbing as other books I have read in this area.

The author's writing style was rather jarring but otherwise, this Russian writer's meticulous research into the life and times of Nicholas II and the tragic end of him and his family was superb.

This is an excellent book about Russian history and the Romanov family.

Gave up on this book after 60 pages. Radzinsky didn't always write it in chronological order, making it confusing. In addition, he would frequently insert himself into it by giving theories and opinions about events. He may have had support for his comments, but offered none to the reader. Too bad it was so badly written, because I was really looking forward to learning about the Tsar. I'll try another book in the future and hope for better.