Nicholas II Orthodoxy. Emperor Nicholas II as an Orthodox sovereign

The future Emperor of All Russia Nicholas II was born on May 6 (19), 1868, on the day of the holy righteous Job the Long-Suffering. He was the eldest son of Emperor Alexander III and his wife Empress Maria Feodorovna. The upbringing he received under the guidance of his father was strict, almost harsh. “I need normal, healthy Russian children” - this was the demand the Emperor put forward to the educators of his children. And such an upbringing could only be Orthodox in spirit. Even as a small child, the Heir Tsarevich showed special love for God and His Church. He received a very good education at home - he knew several languages, studied Russian and world history, was deeply versed in military affairs, and was a widely erudite person. Emperor Alexander III had a program of comprehensive preparation of the Heir for the performance of royal duties, but these plans were not destined to be fully realized...

Empress Alexandra Feodorovna (Princess Alice Victoria Elena Louise Beatrice) was born on May 25 (June 7), 1872 in Darmstadt, the capital of a small German duchy, by that time already forcibly incorporated into the German Empire. Alice's father was Grand Duke Ludwig of Hesse-Darmstadt, and her mother was Princess Alice of England, the third daughter of Queen Victoria. In her infancy, Princess Alice - at home she was called Alix - was a cheerful, lively child, receiving the nickname "Sunny" (Sunny) for this. The children of the Hessian couple - and there were seven of them - were brought up in deeply patriarchal traditions. Their life passed according to the rules strictly established by their mother; not a single minute should pass without doing anything. The children's clothing and food were very simple. The girls lit the fireplaces themselves and cleaned their rooms. From childhood, their mother tried to instill in them qualities based on a deeply Christian approach to life.

Alix suffered her first grief at the age of six - her mother died of diphtheria at the age of thirty-five. After the tragedy she experienced, little Alix became withdrawn, alienated, and began to avoid strangers; She calmed down only in the family circle. After the death of her daughter, Queen Victoria transferred her love to her children, especially her youngest, Alix. Her upbringing and education from now on took place under the control of her grandmother.

The first meeting of the sixteen-year-old Heir Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich and the very young Princess Alice took place in 1884, when her older sister, the future Martyr Elizabeth, married Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, the Tsarevich’s uncle. A strong friendship began between the young people, which then turned into deep and growing love. When in 1889, having reached adulthood, the Heir turned to his parents with a request to bless him for marriage with Princess Alice, his father refused, citing the Heir’s youth as the reason for the refusal. I had to submit to my father's will. In 1894, seeing the unshakable determination of his son, who was usually soft and even timid in communicating with his father, Emperor Alexander III gave his blessing to the marriage. The only obstacle remained the transition to Orthodoxy - according to Russian laws, the bride of the Heir to the Russian throne must be Orthodox. A Protestant by upbringing, Alice was convinced of the truth of her confession and was at first embarrassed by the need to change her religion.

The joy of mutual love was overshadowed by a sharp deterioration in the health of his father, Emperor Alexander III. A trip to Crimea in the fall of 1894 did not bring him relief; a serious illness inexorably took away his strength...

On October 20, Emperor Alexander III died. The next day, in the palace church of the Livadia Palace, Princess Alice was united to Orthodoxy through Confirmation, receiving the name Alexandra Feodorovna.

Despite the mourning for his father, it was decided not to postpone the wedding, but it took place in the most modest atmosphere on November 14, 1894. The days of family happiness that followed soon gave way for the new Emperor to the need to assume the entire burden of governing the Russian Empire.

The early death of Alexander III did not allow him to fully complete the preparation of the Heir to fulfill the duties of a monarch. He was not yet fully introduced to the highest state affairs; after his accession to the throne, he had to learn a lot from the reports of his ministers.

However, the character of Nikolai Alexandrovich, who was twenty-six years old at the time of his accession, and his worldview by this time were completely determined.

Persons standing close to the court noted his lively mind - he always quickly grasped the essence of the questions presented to him, his excellent memory, especially for faces, and the nobility of his way of thinking. But the Tsarevich was overshadowed by the powerful figure of Alexander III. Nikolai Alexandrovich, with his gentleness, tact in his manners, and modest manners, gave many the impression of a man who had not inherited the strong will of his father.

The guidance for Emperor Nicholas II was his father’s political testament: “I bequeath to you to love everything that serves the good, honor and dignity of Russia. Protect autocracy, bearing in mind that you are responsible for the fate of your subjects before the Throne of the Most High. Let faith in God and the holiness of your royal duty be the basis of your life. Be strong and courageous, never show weakness. Listen to everyone, there is nothing shameful in this, but listen to yourself and your conscience.”

From the very beginning of his reign as a Russian power, Emperor Nicholas II treated the duties of a monarch as a sacred duty. The Emperor deeply believed that for the hundred million Russian people, tsarist power was and remains sacred. He always had the idea that the Tsar and Queen should be closer to the people, see them more often and trust them more.

The year 1896 was marked by coronation celebrations in Moscow. A royal crowning is the most important event in the life of a monarch, especially when he is imbued with deep faith in his calling. The Sacrament of Confirmation was performed over the royal couple - as a sign that just as there is no higher, so there is no more difficult on earth royal power, there is no burden heavier than royal service, the Lord... will give strength to our kings (1 Sam. 2:10). From that moment the Emperor felt himself to be a true Anointed One of God. Betrothed to Russia since childhood, he seemed to have married her on that day.

To the great sorrow of the Tsar, the celebrations in Moscow were overshadowed by the disaster on the Khodynka Field: a stampede occurred in the crowd awaiting royal gifts, in which many people died. Having become the supreme ruler of a huge empire, in whose hands the entire legislative, executive and judicial power was practically concentrated, Nikolai Alexandrovich took upon himself enormous historical and moral responsibility for everything that happened in the state entrusted to him. And the Sovereign considered one of his most important duties to be the preservation of the Orthodox faith, according to the word of the Holy Scripture: “the king... made a covenant before the Lord - to follow the Lord and keep His commandments and His revelations and His statutes with all my heart and with all my soul” (2 Kings .23, 3). A year after the wedding, on November 3, 1895, the first daughter, Grand Duchess Olga, was born; she was followed by the birth of three daughters, full of health and life, who were the joy of their parents, the Grand Duchesses Tatiana (May 29, 1897), Maria (June 14, 1899) and Anastasia (June 5, 1901). But this joy was not without an admixture of bitterness - the cherished desire of the Royal couple was the birth of an Heir, so that the Lord would add days to the days of the king, extend his years for generations and generations (Ps. 60:7).

The long-awaited event took place on August 12, 1904, a year after the Royal Family’s pilgrimage to Sarov, for the celebration of the glorification of St. Seraphim. It seemed that a new bright streak was beginning in their family life. But a few weeks after the birth of Tsarevich Alexy, it turned out that he had hemophilia. The child’s life hung in the balance all the time: the slightest bleeding could cost him his life. The mother's suffering was especially intense...

Deep and sincere religiosity distinguished the Imperial couple from representatives of the then aristocracy. From the very beginning, the upbringing of the children of the Imperial Family was imbued with the spirit of the Orthodox faith. All its members lived in accordance with the traditions of Orthodox piety. Mandatory attendance at divine services on Sundays and holidays, and fasting during fasting were an integral part of the life of the Russian tsars, for the tsar trusts in the Lord and will not be shaken in the goodness of the Most High (Ps. 20:8).

However, the personal religiosity of Sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich, and especially his wife, was undoubtedly something more than simple adherence to traditions. The royal couple not only visit churches and monasteries during their numerous trips, venerate miraculous icons and relics of saints, but also make pilgrimages, as they did in 1903 during the glorification of St. Seraphim of Sarov. Brief services in court churches no longer satisfied the Emperor and Empress. Services were held especially for them in the Tsarskoe Selo Feodorovsky Cathedral, built in the style of the 16th century. Here Empress Alexandra prayed in front of a lectern with open liturgical books, carefully following the progress of the church service.

The Emperor paid great attention to the needs of the Orthodox Church throughout his reign. Like all Russian emperors, Nicholas II generously donated to the construction of new churches, including outside Russia. During the years of his reign, the number of parish churches in Russia increased by more than 10 thousand, and more than 250 new monasteries were opened. The emperor himself participated in the laying of new churches and other church celebrations. The personal piety of the Sovereign was also manifested in the fact that during the years of his reign more saints were canonized than in the two previous centuries, when only 5 saints were glorified. During the last reign, St. Theodosius of Chernigov (1896), St. Seraphim of Sarov (1903), Holy Princess Anna Kashinskaya (restoration of veneration in 1909), St. Joasaph of Belgorod (1911), St. Hermogenes of Moscow (1913), Saint Pitirim of Tambov (1914), Saint John of Tobolsk (1916). At the same time, the Emperor was forced to show special persistence, seeking the canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov, Saints Joasaph of Belgorod and John of Tobolsk. Emperor Nicholas II highly revered the holy righteous father John of Kronstadt. After his blessed death, the king ordered a nationwide prayerful commemoration of the deceased on the day of his repose.

During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, the traditional synodal system of governing the Church was preserved, but it was under him that the church hierarchy had the opportunity not only to widely discuss, but also to practically prepare for the convening of a Local Council.

The desire to introduce Christian religious and moral principles of one’s worldview into public life has always distinguished the foreign policy of Emperor Nicholas II. Back in 1898, he approached the governments of Europe with a proposal to convene a conference to discuss issues of maintaining peace and reducing armaments. The consequence of this was the peace conferences in The Hague in 1889 and 1907. Their decisions have not lost their significance to this day.

But, despite the Tsar’s sincere desire for the First World, during his reign Russia had to participate in two bloody wars, which led to internal unrest. In 1904, without declaring war, Japan began military operations against Russia - the revolutionary turmoil of 1905 became the consequence of this difficult war for Russia. The Tsar perceived the unrest in the country as a great personal sorrow...

Few people communicated with the Emperor informally. And everyone who knew his family life first-hand noted the amazing simplicity, mutual love and agreement of all members of this closely knit family. Its center was Alexey Nikolaevich, all attachments, all hopes were focused on him. The children were full of respect and consideration towards their mother. When the Empress was unwell, the daughters were arranged to take turns on duty with their mother, and the one who was on duty that day remained with her indefinitely. The children's relationship with the Emperor was touching - he was for them at the same time a king, a father and a comrade; their feelings changed depending on the circumstances, moving from almost religious worship to complete trust and the most cordial friendship.

A circumstance that constantly darkened the life of the Imperial family was the incurable illness of the Heir. Attacks of hemophilia, during which the child experienced severe suffering, were repeated several times. In September 1912, as a result of a careless movement, internal bleeding occurred, and the situation was so serious that they feared for the life of the Tsarevich. Prayers for his recovery were served in all churches in Russia. The nature of the illness was a state secret, and parents often had to hide their feelings while participating in the normal routine of palace life. The Empress understood well that medicine was powerless here. But nothing is impossible for God! Being a deep believer, she devoted herself wholeheartedly to fervent prayer in the hope of a miraculous healing. Sometimes, when the child was healthy, it seemed to her that her prayer had been answered, but the attacks were repeated again, and this filled the mother’s soul with endless sorrow. She was ready to believe anyone who was able to help her grief, to somehow alleviate the suffering of her son - and the Tsarevich’s illness opened the doors to the palace to those people who were recommended to the Royal Family as healers and prayer books. Among them, the peasant Grigory Rasputin appears in the palace, who was destined to play his role in the life of the Royal Family, and in the fate of the entire country - but he had no right to claim this role. People who sincerely loved the Royal Family tried to somehow limit Rasputin’s influence; Among them were the Holy Martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth, the Holy Martyr Metropolitan Vladimir... In 1913, all of Russia solemnly celebrated the three-hundredth anniversary of the House of Romanov. After the February celebrations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, in the spring, the Royal Family completes a tour of ancient Central Russian cities, the history of which is connected with the events of the early 17th century. The Tsar was greatly impressed by the sincere manifestations of the people's devotion - and the population of the country in those years was rapidly increasing: in a multitude of people there is greatness to the king (Proverbs 14:28).

Russia was at the peak of glory and power at this time: industry was developing at an unprecedented pace, the army and navy were becoming more and more powerful, agrarian reform was being successfully implemented - about this time we can say in the words of Scripture: the superiority of the country as a whole is a king who cares about the country ( Eccl. 5, 8). It seemed that all internal problems would be successfully resolved in the near future.

But this was not destined to come true: the First World War was brewing. Using the murder of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne by a terrorist as a pretext, Austria attacked Serbia. Emperor Nicholas II considered it his Christian duty to stand up for the Orthodox Serbian brothers...

On July 19 (August 1), 1914, Germany declared war on Russia, which soon became pan-European. In August 1914, the need to help its ally France led Russia to launch an overly hasty offensive in East Prussia, which resulted in a heavy defeat. By the fall it became clear that there was no imminent end to hostilities in sight. However, since the beginning of the war, internal divisions have subsided in the country on a wave of patriotism. Even the most difficult issues became solvable - the Tsar’s long-planned ban on the sale of alcoholic beverages for the entire duration of the war was implemented. His conviction of the usefulness of this measure was stronger than all economic considerations.

The Emperor regularly travels to Headquarters, visiting various sectors of his huge army, dressing stations, military hospitals, rear factories - in a word, everything that played a role in the conduct of this grandiose war. The Empress devoted herself to the wounded from the very beginning. Having completed courses for sisters of mercy, together with her eldest daughters - Grand Duchesses Olga and Tatiana - she spent several hours a day caring for the wounded in her Tsarskoe Selo infirmary, remembering that the Lord requires us to love works of mercy (Mic. 6, 8).

On August 22, 1915, the Emperor left for Mogilev to take command of all Russian armed forces. From the beginning of the war, the Emperor considered his tenure as Supreme Commander-in-Chief as the fulfillment of a moral and national duty to God and the people: he appointed paths for them and sat at their head and lived as a king in the circle of soldiers, as a comforter to those who mourn (Job 29, 25). However, the Emperor always provided leading military specialists with broad initiative in resolving all military-strategic and operational-tactical issues.

From that day on, the Emperor was constantly at Headquarters, and the Heir was often with him. About once a month the Emperor came to Tsarskoe Selo for several days. All important decisions were made by him, but at the same time he instructed the Empress to maintain relations with the ministers and keep him informed of what was happening in the capital. The Empress was the person closest to him, on whom he could always rely. Alexandra Feodorovna herself took up politics not out of personal ambition and thirst for power, as they wrote about it then. Her only desire was to be useful to the Emperor in difficult times and to help him with her advice. Every day she sent detailed letters and reports to Headquarters, which was well known to the ministers.

The Emperor spent January and February 1917 in Tsarskoye Selo. He felt that the political situation was becoming more and more tense, but continued to hope that a sense of patriotism would still prevail and retained faith in the army, whose position had improved significantly. This raised hopes for the success of the great spring offensive, which would deal a decisive blow to Germany. But forces hostile to the sovereign also understood this well.

On February 22, the Emperor left for Headquarters - this moment served as a signal for the enemies of order. They managed to sow panic in the capital because of the impending famine, because during the famine they will get angry and blaspheme their king and their God (Isa. 8:21). The next day, unrest began in Petrograd caused by interruptions in the supply of bread; they soon developed into a strike under political slogans - “Down with war”, “Down with autocracy”. Attempts to disperse the demonstrators were unsuccessful. Meanwhile, debates were going on in the Duma with sharp criticism of the government - but first of all these were attacks against the Tsar. The deputies claiming to be representatives of the people seemed to have forgotten the instruction of the supreme apostle: Honor everyone, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king (1 Pet. 2:17).

On February 25, Headquarters received a message about unrest in the capital. Having learned about the state of affairs, the Emperor sends troops to Petrograd to maintain order, and then he himself goes to Tsarskoe Selo. His decision was obviously caused by both the desire to be in the center of events to make quick decisions if necessary, and concern for his family. This departure from Headquarters turned out to be fatal. 150 versts from Petrograd, the Tsar's train was stopped - the next station, Lyuban, was in the hands of the rebels. We had to go through the Dno station, but even here the path was closed. On the evening of March 1, the Emperor arrived in Pskov, at the headquarters of the commander of the Northern Front, General N.V. Ruzsky.

There was complete anarchy in the capital. But the Tsar and the army command believed that the Duma controlled the situation; in telephone conversations with the Chairman of the State Duma M.V. Rodzianko, the Emperor agreed to all concessions if the Duma could restore order in the country. The answer was: it's too late. Was this really the case? After all, only Petrograd and the surrounding area were covered by the revolution, and the authority of the Tsar among the people and in the army was still great. The Duma's response confronted the Tsar with a choice: abdication or an attempt to march on Petrograd with troops loyal to him - the latter meant civil war while the external enemy was within Russian borders.

Everyone around the Emperor also convinced him that renunciation was the only way out. The commanders of the fronts especially insisted on this, whose demands were supported by the Chief of the General Staff M.V. Alekseev - fear and trembling and murmuring against the kings occurred in the army (3 Ezra 15, 33). And after long and painful reflection, the Emperor made a hard-won decision: to abdicate both for himself and for the Heir, due to his incurable illness, in favor of his brother, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich. The Emperor left supreme power and command as a Tsar, as a warrior, as a soldier, not forgetting his high duty until the last minute. His Manifesto is an act of the highest nobility and dignity.

On March 8, the commissioners of the Provisional Government, having arrived in Mogilev, announced through General Alekseev the arrest of the Sovereign and the need to proceed to Tsarskoye Selo. For the last time, he addressed his troops, calling on them to be loyal to the Provisional Government, the very one that arrested him, to fulfill their duty to the Motherland until complete victory. The farewell order to the troops, which expressed the nobility of the Tsar’s soul, his love for the army, and faith in it, was hidden from the people by the Provisional Government, which banned its publication. The new rulers, some overcoming others, neglected their king (3 Ezra 15, 16) - they, of course, were afraid that the army would hear the noble speech of their Emperor and Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

In the life of Emperor Nicholas II there were two periods of unequal duration and spiritual significance - the time of his reign and the time of his imprisonment, if the first of them gives the right to talk about him as an Orthodox ruler who fulfilled his royal duties as a sacred duty to God, about the Sovereign , remembering the words of the Holy Scripture: Thou hast chosen me as a king for Thy people (Wisdom 9:7), then the second period is the way of the cross of ascension to the heights of holiness, the path to the Russian Golgotha...

Born on the day of remembrance of the holy righteous Job the Long-Suffering, the Tsar accepted his cross just like the biblical righteous man, and endured all the trials sent down to him firmly, meekly and without a shadow of a murmur. It is this long-suffering that is revealed with particular clarity in the story of the last days of the Emperor. From the moment of abdication, it is not so much external events as the internal spiritual state of the Sovereign that attracts attention. The sovereign, having made, as it seemed to him, the only correct decision, nevertheless experienced severe mental anguish. “If I am an obstacle to the happiness of Russia and all the social forces now at the head of it ask me to leave the throne and hand it over to my son and brother, then I am ready to do this, I am even ready to give not only my kingdom, but also my life for the Motherland. I think no one doubts this from those who know me,” the Emperor said to General D.N. Dubensky.

On the very day of the abdication, March 2, the same General Shubensky recorded the words of the Minister of the Imperial Court, Count V.B. Fredericks: “The Emperor is deeply sad that he is considered an obstacle to the happiness of Russia, that they found it necessary to ask him to leave the throne. He was worried about the thought of his family, which remained alone in Tsarskoe Selo, the children were sick. The Emperor is suffering terribly, but he is the kind of person who will never show his grief in public.” Nikolai Alexandrovich is also reserved in his personal diary. Only at the very end of the entry for this day does his inner feeling break through: “My renunciation is needed. The point is that in the name of saving Russia and keeping the army at the front calm, you need to decide to take this step. I agreed. A draft Manifesto was sent from Headquarters. In the evening, Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I spoke and gave them the signed and revised Manifesto. At one o'clock in the morning I left Pskov with a heavy feeling of what I had experienced. There is treason and cowardice and deceit all around!”

The Provisional Government announced the arrest of Emperor Nicholas II and his August wife and their detention in Tsarskoe Selo. The arrest of the Emperor and Empress did not have the slightest legal basis or reason.

When the unrest that began in Petrograd spread to Tsarskoe Selo, part of the troops rebelled, and a huge crowd of rioters - more than 10 thousand people - moved towards the Alexander Palace. The Empress that day, February 28, almost did not leave the room of the sick children. She was informed that all measures would be taken to ensure the safety of the palace. But the crowd was already very close - a sentry was killed just 500 steps from the palace fence. At this moment, Alexandra Feodorovna shows determination and extraordinary courage - together with Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna, she bypasses the ranks of soldiers loyal to her, who have taken up defense around the palace and are ready for battle. She convinces them to come to an agreement with the rebels and not shed blood. Fortunately, at this moment prudence prevailed. The Empress spent the following days in terrible anxiety about the fate of the Emperor - only rumors of abdication reached her. It was only on March 3 that she received a short note from him. The Empress’s experiences during these days were vividly described by an eyewitness, Archpriest Afanasy Belyaev, who served a prayer service in the palace: “The Empress, dressed as a nurse, stood next to the Heir’s bed. Several thin wax candles were lit in front of the icon. The prayer service began... Oh, what a terrible, unexpected grief befell the Royal Family! The news came out that the Tsar, who was returning from Headquarters to his family, was arrested and even possibly abdicated the throne... One can imagine the situation in which the helpless Tsarina, a mother with her five seriously ill children, found herself! Having suppressed the weakness of a woman and all her bodily ailments, heroically, selflessly, devoting herself to caring for the sick, [with] complete trust in the help of the Queen of Heaven, she decided first of all to pray before the miraculous icon of the Sign of the Mother of God. Hotly, on her knees, with tears, the Earthly Queen asked for help and intercession from the Queen of Heaven. Having venerated the icon and walked under it, she asked to bring the icon to the beds of the sick, so that all the sick children could immediately venerate the Miraculous Image. When we took the icon out of the palace, the palace was already cordoned off by troops, and everyone in it was arrested.”

On March 9, the Emperor, who had been arrested the day before, was transported to Tsarskoe Selo, where the whole family was eagerly awaiting him. An almost five-month period of indefinite stay in Tsarskoe Selo began. The days passed in a measured manner - with regular services, shared meals, walks, reading and communication with family. However, at the same time, the life of the prisoners was subjected to petty restrictions - A.F. Kerensky announced to the Emperor that he should live separately and see the Empress only at the table, and speak only in Russian. The guard soldiers made rude remarks to him; access to the palace for persons close to the Royal Family was prohibited. One day, soldiers even took away a toy gun from the Heir under the pretext of a ban on carrying weapons.

Father Afanasy Belyaev, who regularly performed divine services in the Alexander Palace during this period, left his testimonies about the spiritual life of the Tsarskoe Selo prisoners. This is how the Good Friday Matins service took place in the palace on March 30, 1917. “The service was reverent and touching... Their Majesties listened to the entire service while standing. Folding lecterns were placed in front of them, on which the Gospels lay, so that they could follow the reading. Everyone stood until the end of the service and left through the common hall to their rooms. You have to see for yourself and be so close to understand and see how the former royal family fervently, in the Orthodox manner, often on their knees, prays to God. With what humility, meekness, and humility, having completely surrendered themselves to the will of God, they stand behind the divine service.”

The next day the whole family went to confession. This is what the rooms of the royal children looked like, in which the Sacrament of Confession was performed: “What amazingly Christian decorated rooms. Each princess has a real iconostasis in the corner of the room, filled with many icons of different sizes depicting especially revered saints. In front of the iconostasis is a folding lectern, covered with a shroud in the form of a towel; prayer books and liturgical books, as well as the Holy Gospel and a cross are placed on it. The decoration of the rooms and all their furnishings represent an innocent, pure, immaculate childhood, ignorant of everyday dirt. To listen to prayers before confession, all four children were in the same room...”

“The impression [from the confession] was this: God grant that all children would be as morally high as the children of the former Tsar. Such kindness, humility, obedience to the parental will, unconditional devotion to the will of God, purity of thoughts and complete ignorance of earthly dirt - passionate and sinful, writes Father Afanasy, - I was amazed, and I was absolutely perplexed: is it necessary to remind me as a confessor about sins, perhaps unknown to them, and how to incite them to repent of the sins known to me.”

Kindness and peace of mind did not leave the Empress even in these most difficult days after the abdication of the Emperor. These are the words of consolation she addresses in a letter to cornet S.V. Markov: “You are not alone, do not be afraid to live. The Lord will hear our prayers and will help, comfort and strengthen you. Do not lose your faith, pure, childish, remain as small when you become big. It is hard and difficult to live, but ahead there is Light and joy, silence and reward, all suffering and torment. Go straight your way, don’t look to the right or left, and if you don’t see a stone and fall, don’t be afraid and don’t lose heart. Get up again and move forward. It hurts, it’s hard on the soul, but grief cleanses us. Remember the life and suffering of the Savior, and your life will seem to you not as black as you thought. We have the same goal, we all strive to get there, let us help each other find the way. Christ is with you, do not be afraid."

In the palace Church or in the former royal chambers, Father Athanasius regularly celebrated the all-night vigil and Divine Liturgy, which were always attended by all members of the Imperial family. After the Day of the Holy Trinity, alarming messages appeared more and more often in the diary of Father Afanasy - he noted the growing irritation of the guards, sometimes reaching the point of rudeness towards the Royal Family. The spiritual state of the members of the Royal Family does not go unnoticed by him - yes, they all suffered, he notes, but along with the suffering their patience and prayer increased. In their suffering they acquired true humility - according to the word of the prophet: Say to the king and queen: humble yourself... for the crown of your glory has fallen from your head (Jer. 13:18).

“...Now the humble servant of God Nicholas, like a meek lamb, kind to all his enemies, not remembering insults, praying earnestly for the prosperity of Russia, believing deeply in its glorious future, kneeling, looking at the cross and the Gospel... expresses to the Heavenly Father the innermost secrets of his long-suffering life and, throwing himself into the dust before the greatness of the Heavenly King, tearfully asks for forgiveness for his voluntary and involuntary sins,” we read in the diary of Father Afanasy Belyaev.

Meanwhile, serious changes were brewing in the lives of the Royal prisoners. The Provisional Government appointed a commission to investigate the activities of the Emperor, but despite all efforts to discover at least something discrediting the Tsar, nothing was found - the Tsar was innocent. When his innocence was proven and it became obvious that there was no crime behind him, the Provisional Government, instead of releasing the Tsar and his August wife, decided to remove the prisoners from Tsarskoye Selo. On the night of August 1, they were sent to Tobolsk - this was done allegedly in view of possible unrest, the first victim of which could be the Royal Family. In fact, by doing so, the family was doomed to the cross, because at that time the days of the Provisional Government itself were numbered.

On July 30, the day before the departure of the Royal Family to Tobolsk, the last Divine Liturgy was served in the royal chambers; for the last time, the former owners of their home gathered to pray fervently, asking with tears, kneeling on their knees, the Lord for help and intercession from all troubles and misfortunes, and at the same time realizing that they were embarking on the path outlined by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself for all Christians: They will lay their hands on you and persecute you, handing you over to prison, and bringing you before the rulers for My name’s sake (Luke 21:12). The entire Royal family and their already very few servants prayed at this liturgy.

On August 6, the royal prisoners arrived in Tobolsk. The first weeks of the Royal Family's stay in Tobolsk were perhaps the calmest during the entire period of their imprisonment. On September 8, the day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the prisoners were allowed to go to church for the first time. Subsequently, this consolation extremely rarely fell to their lot. One of the greatest hardships during my life in Tobolsk was the almost complete absence of any news. The letters arrived with a huge delay. As for newspapers, we had to be content with a local leaflet, printed on wrapping paper and giving only old telegrams several days late, and even those most often appeared here in a distorted and truncated form. The Emperor watched with alarm the events unfolding in Russia. He understood that the country was rapidly heading towards destruction.

Kornilov suggested that Kerensky send troops to Petrograd to put an end to the Bolshevik agitation, which was becoming more and more threatening day by day. The Tsar’s sadness was immeasurable when the Provisional Government rejected this last attempt to save the Motherland. He understood perfectly well that this was the only way to avoid an imminent disaster. The Emperor repents of his abdication. “After all, he made this decision only in the hope that those who wanted to remove him would still be able to continue the war with honor and would not ruin the cause of saving Russia. He was afraid then that his refusal to sign the renunciation would lead to civil war in the sight of the enemy. The Tsar did not want even a drop of Russian blood to be shed because of him... It was painful for the Emperor to now see the futility of his sacrifice and realize that, having in mind then only the good of his homeland, he had harmed it with his renunciation,” recalls P . Gilliard, tutor of Tsarevich Alexei.

Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks had already come to power in Petrograd - a period had begun about which the Emperor wrote in his diary: “much worse and more shameful than the events of the Time of Troubles.” The news of the October revolution reached Tobolsk on November 15. The soldiers guarding the governor's house warmed up to the Royal Family, and several months passed after the Bolshevik coup before the change in power began to affect the situation of the prisoners. In Tobolsk, a “soldiers’ committee” was formed, which, striving in every possible way for self-affirmation, demonstrated its power over the Sovereign - they either force him to take off his shoulder straps, or destroy the ice slide built for the Tsar’s children: he mocks the kings, according to the word of the prophet Habakkuk (Hab. 1 , 10). On March 1, 1918, “Nikolai Romanov and his family were transferred to soldiers’ rations.”

The letters and diaries of members of the Imperial Family testify to the deep experience of the tragedy that unfolded before their eyes. But this tragedy does not deprive the Royal prisoners of fortitude, faith and hope for God’s help.

“It’s incredibly difficult, sad, hurtful, ashamed, but don’t lose faith in God’s mercy. He will not leave his homeland to perish. We must endure all these humiliations, disgusting things, horrors with humility (since we are unable to help). And He will save, long-suffering and abundantly merciful - He will not be angry to the end... Without faith it would be impossible to live...

How happy I am that we are not abroad, but with her [the Motherland] we are going through everything. Just as you want to share everything with your beloved sick person, experience everything and watch over him with love and excitement, so it is with your Motherland. I felt like her mother for too long to lose this feeling - we are one, and share grief and happiness. She hurt us, offended us, slandered us... but we still love her deeply and want to see her recovery, like a sick child with bad but also good qualities, and our homeland...

I firmly believe that the time of suffering is passing, that the sun will again shine over the long-suffering Motherland. After all, the Lord is merciful - he will save the Motherland...” - wrote the Empress.

The suffering of the country and people cannot be meaningless - the Royal Passion-Bearers firmly believe in this: “When will all this end? Whenever God pleases. Be patient, dear country, and you will receive a crown of glory, a reward for all your suffering... Spring will come and bring joy, and dry the tears and blood shed in streams over the poor Motherland...

There is still a lot of hard work ahead - it hurts, there is so much bloodshed, it hurts terribly! But the truth must finally win...

How can you live if there is no hope? You must be cheerful, and then the Lord will give you peace of mind. It’s painful, annoying, insulting, ashamed, you suffer, everything hurts, it’s punctured, but there is silence in your soul, calm faith and love for God, who will not abandon His own and will hear the prayers of the zealous and will have mercy and save...

How long will our unfortunate Motherland be tormented and torn apart by external and internal enemies? Sometimes it seems that you can’t endure it anymore, you don’t even know what to hope for, what to wish for? But still, no one like God! May His holy will be done!”

Consolation and meekness in enduring sorrows are given to the Royal prisoners by prayer, reading spiritual books, worship, and Communion: “...The Lord God gave unexpected joy and consolation, allowing us to partake of the Holy Mysteries of Christ, for the cleansing of sins and eternal life. Bright jubilation and love fill the soul.”

In suffering and trials, spiritual knowledge, knowledge of oneself, one’s soul, increases. Striving for eternal life helps to endure suffering and gives great consolation: “...Everything that I love suffers, there is no counting of all the dirt and suffering, and the Lord does not allow despondency: He protects from despair, gives strength, confidence in a bright future yet in this world."

In March it became known that a separate peace with Germany had been concluded in Brest. The Emperor did not hide his attitude towards him: “This is such a shame for Russia and it is “tantamount to suicide.” When there was a rumor that the Germans were demanding that the Bolsheviks hand over the Royal Family to them, the Empress declared: “I prefer to die in Russia than to be saved by the Germans.” The first Bolshevik detachment arrived in Tobolsk on Tuesday, April 22. Commissioner Yakovlev inspects the house and gets acquainted with the prisoners. A few days later, he reports that he must take the Emperor away, assuring that nothing bad will happen to him. Assuming that they wanted to send him to Moscow to sign a separate peace with Germany, the Sovereign, who under no circumstances abandoned his high spiritual nobility (remember the Message of the Prophet Jeremiah: king, show your courage - Epistle Jer. 1, 58), firmly said : “I’d rather let my hand be cut off than sign this shameful agreement.”

The heir was ill at that time, and it was impossible to carry him. Despite fear for her sick son, the Empress decides to follow her husband; Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna also went with them. Only on May 7, family members remaining in Tobolsk received news from Yekaterinburg: the Sovereign, Empress and Maria Nikolaevna were imprisoned in Ipatiev’s house. When the Heir's health improved, the remaining members of the Royal Family from Tobolsk were also taken to Yekaterinburg and imprisoned in the same house, but most of the people close to the family were not allowed to see them.

There is much less evidence left about the Yekaterinburg period of imprisonment of the Royal Family. Almost no letters. Basically, this period is known only from brief entries in the Emperor’s diary and the testimony of witnesses in the case of the murder of the Royal Family. Particularly valuable is the testimony of Archpriest John Storozhev, who performed the last services in the Ipatiev House. Father John served mass there twice on Sundays; the first time was on May 20 (June 2), 1918: “... the deacon spoke the petitions of the litanies, and I sang. Two female voices (I think Tatyana Nikolaevna and one of them) sang along with me, sometimes in a low bass voice and Nikolai Alexandrovich... They prayed very hard...”

“Nikolai Alexandrovich was dressed in a khaki tunic, the same trousers, and high boots. On his chest is an officer's St. George's Cross. There were no shoulder straps... [He] impressed me with his firm gait, his calmness and especially his manner of looking intently and firmly into the eyes...” wrote Father John.

Many portraits of members of the Royal Family have been preserved - from beautiful portraits of A. N. Serov to later photographs taken in captivity. From them one can get an idea of ​​the appearance of the Sovereign, Empress, Tsarevich and Princesses - but in the descriptions of many persons who saw them during their lifetime, special attention is usually paid to the eyes. “He looked at me with such lively eyes...” Father John Storozhev said about the Heir. Probably, this impression can most accurately be conveyed in the words of the Wise Solomon: “In the bright gaze of the king there is life, and his favor is like a cloud with the latter rain...” In the Church Slavonic text this sounds even more expressive: “in the light of life the son of kings” (Proverbs .16, 15).

Living conditions in the “special purpose house” were much more difficult than in Tobolsk. The guard consisted of 12 soldiers who lived in close proximity to the prisoners and ate with them at the same table. Commissar Avdeev, an inveterate drunkard, worked every day together with his subordinates in inventing new humiliations for the prisoners. I had to put up with hardships, endure bullying and obey the demands of these rude people - among the guards were former criminals. As soon as the Emperor and Empress arrived at Ipatiev’s house, they were subjected to a humiliating and rude search. The Royal couple and the Princesses had to sleep on the floor, without beds. During lunch, a family of seven was given only five spoons; The guards sitting at the same table smoked, brazenly blew smoke into the faces of the prisoners, and rudely took food from them.

A walk in the garden was allowed once a day, at first for 15-20 minutes, and then no more than five. The behavior of the guards was completely indecent - they were even on duty near the door to the toilet, and they did not allow the doors to be locked. The guards wrote obscene words and made indecent images on the walls.

Only Doctor Evgeny Botkin remained with the Royal Family, who surrounded the prisoners with care and acted as a mediator between them and the commissars, trying to protect them from the rudeness of the guards, and several tried and true servants: Anna Demidova, I. S. Kharitonov, A. E. Trupp and the boy Lenya Sednev.

The faith of the prisoners supported their courage and gave them strength and patience in suffering. They all understood the possibility of a speedy end. Even the Tsarevich somehow escaped the phrase: “If they kill, just don’t torture...” The Empress and the Grand Duchesses often sang church hymns, which their guards listened to against their will. In almost complete isolation from the outside world, surrounded by rude and cruel guards, the prisoners of the Ipatiev House display amazing nobility and clarity of spirit.

In one of Olga Nikolaevna’s letters there are the following lines: “Father asks to tell all those who remained devoted to him, and those on whom they may have influence, that they do not take revenge for him, since he has forgiven everyone and is praying for everyone, and so that they do not avenge themselves, and so that they remember that the evil that is now in the world will be even stronger, but that it is not evil that will defeat evil, but only love.”

Even the rude guards gradually softened in their interactions with the prisoners. They were surprised by their simplicity, they were captivated by their dignified spiritual clarity, and they soon felt the superiority of those whom they thought to keep in their power. Even Commissar Avdeev himself relented. This change did not escape the eyes of the Bolshevik authorities. Avdeev was removed and replaced by Yurovsky, the guards were replaced by Austro-German prisoners and people chosen from among the executioners of the “extraordinary emergency” - the “special purpose house” became, as it were, its department. The life of its inhabitants turned into continuous martyrdom.

On July 1 (14), 1918, Father John Storozhev performed the last divine service in the Ipatiev House. The tragic hours were approaching... Preparations for the execution were being made in the strictest secrecy from the prisoners of the Ipatiev House.

On the night of July 16-17, around the beginning of three, Yurovsky woke up the Royal Family. They were told that there was unrest in the city and therefore it was necessary to move to a safe place. About forty minutes later, when everyone had dressed and gathered, Yurovsky and the prisoners went down to the first floor and led them to a semi-basement room with one barred window. Everyone was outwardly calm. The Emperor carried Alexei Nikolaevich in his arms, the others had pillows and other small things in their hands. At the request of the Empress, two chairs were brought into the room, and pillows brought by the Grand Duchesses and Anna Demidova were placed on them. The Empress and Alexei Nikolaevich sat on the chairs. The Emperor stood in the center next to the Heir. The remaining family members and servants settled in different parts of the room and prepared to wait for a long time - they were already accustomed to night alarms and various types of movements. Meanwhile, armed men were already crowded in the next room, waiting for the killer’s signal. At that moment, Yurovsky came very close to the Emperor and said: “Nikolai Alexandrovich, according to the resolution of the Ural Regional Council, you and your family will be shot.” This phrase was so unexpected for the Tsar that he turned towards the family, stretching out his hands to them, then, as if wanting to ask again, he turned to the commandant, saying: “What? What?" The Empress and Olga Nikolaevna wanted to cross themselves. But at that moment Yurovsky shot at the Sovereign with a revolver almost point-blank several times, and he immediately fell. Almost simultaneously, everyone else started shooting - everyone knew their victim in advance.

Those already lying on the floor were finished off with shots and bayonet blows. When it seemed that everything was over, Alexei Nikolaevich suddenly groaned weakly - he was shot several more times. The picture was terrible: eleven bodies lay on the floor in streams of blood. After making sure that their victims were dead, the killers began to remove their jewelry. Then the dead were taken out into the yard, where a truck was already standing ready - the noise of its engine was supposed to drown out the shots in the basement. Even before sunrise, the bodies were taken to the forest in the vicinity of the village of Koptyaki. For three days the killers tried to hide their crime...

Most of the evidence speaks of the prisoners of the Ipatiev House as suffering people, but deeply religious, undoubtedly submissive to the will of God. Despite the bullying and insults, they led a decent family life in Ipatiev’s house, trying to brighten up the depressing situation with mutual communication, prayer, reading and feasible activities. “The Emperor and Empress believed that they were dying as martyrs for their homeland,” writes one of the witnesses to their life in captivity, the Heir’s teacher, Pierre Gilliard, “they died as martyrs for humanity. Their true greatness stemmed not from their kingship, but from the amazing moral height to which they gradually rose. They became an ideal force. And in their very humiliation they were a striking manifestation of that amazing clarity of soul, against which all violence and all rage are powerless and which triumphs in death itself.”

Along with the Imperial family, their servants who followed their masters into exile were also shot. These, in addition to those shot along with the Imperial family by Doctor E. S. Botkin, the Empress's room girl A. S. Demidova, the court cook I. M. Kharitonov and footman A. E. Trupp, included those killed in various places and in different months of 1918 of the year, Adjutant General I. L. Tatishchev, Marshal Prince V. A. Dolgorukov, “uncle” of the Heir K. G. Nagorny, children's footman I. D. Sednev, maid of honor of the Empress A. V. Gendrikova and goflektress E. A. Schneider .

Soon after the execution of the Emperor was announced, His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon blessed the archpastors and pastors to perform memorial services for him. His Holiness himself on July 8 (21), 1918, during a service in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow, said: “The other day a terrible thing happened: the former Sovereign Nikolai Alexandrovich was shot... We must, obeying the teachings of the word of God, condemn this matter, otherwise the blood of the executed man will fall and on us, and not just on those who committed it. We know that he, having abdicated the throne, did so with the good of Russia in mind and out of love for her. After his abdication, he could have found security and a relatively quiet life abroad, but he did not do this, wanting to suffer with Russia. He did nothing to improve his situation and resignedly resigned himself to fate.”

The veneration of the Royal Family, begun by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in the funeral prayer and word at the memorial service in the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow for the murdered Emperor three days after the Yekaterinburg murder, continued - despite the prevailing ideology - throughout several decades of the Soviet period of our history.

Many clergy and laity secretly offered prayers to God for the repose of the murdered sufferers, members of the Royal Family. In recent years, in many houses in the red corner one could see photographs of the Royal Family, and icons depicting the Royal Martyrs began to circulate in large numbers. Prayers addressed to them, literary, cinematic and musical works were compiled, reflecting the suffering and martyrdom of the Royal Family. The Synodal Commission for the Canonization of Saints received appeals from ruling bishops, clergy and laity in support of the canonization of the Royal Family - some of these appeals had thousands of signatures. By the time of the glorification of the Royal Martyrs, a huge amount of evidence had accumulated about their gracious help - about the healing of the sick, the unification of separated families, the protection of church property from schismatics, about the streaming of myrrh from icons with images of Emperor Nicholas and the Royal Martyrs, about the fragrance and the appearance of blood stains on the icon faces of the Royal Martyrs colors.

One of the first witnessed miracles was the deliverance during the civil war of hundreds of Cossacks surrounded by red troops in impenetrable swamps. At the call of the priest Father Elijah, in unanimity the Cossacks addressed a prayer appeal to the Tsar-Martyr, the Sovereign of Russia - and incredibly escaped the encirclement.

In Serbia in 1925, a case was described when an elderly woman, whose two sons died in the war and the third was missing, had a dream vision of Emperor Nicholas, who reported that the third son was alive and in Russia - in a few months the son returned home.

In October 1991, two women went to pick cranberries and got lost in an impassable swamp. Night was approaching, and the swamp could easily drag in unwary travelers. But one of them remembered the description of the miraculous deliverance of a detachment of Cossacks - and, following their example, she began to fervently pray for help to the Royal Martyrs: “Murdered Royal Martyrs, save us, servant of God Eugene and Love!” Suddenly, in the darkness, the women saw a glowing branch from a tree; Grasping it, they got out to a dry place, and then went out into a wide clearing, along which they reached the village. It is noteworthy that the second woman, who also testified to this miracle, was at that time still a person far from the Church.

A high school student from the city of Podolsk, Marina, an Orthodox Christian who especially reveres the Royal Family, was spared from a hooligan attack by the miraculous intercession of the Royal children. The attackers, three young men, wanted to drag her into a car, take her away and dishonor her, but suddenly they fled in horror. Later they admitted that they saw the Imperial children who stood up for the girl. This happened on the eve of the Feast of the Entry of the Blessed Virgin Mary into the Temple in 1997. Subsequently, it became known that the young people repented and radically changed their lives.

Dane Jan-Michael was an alcoholic and drug addict for sixteen years, and became addicted to these vices from an early youth. On the advice of good friends, in 1995 he went on a pilgrimage to the historical places of Russia; He also ended up in Tsarskoe Selo. At the Divine Liturgy in the house church, where the Royal Martyrs once prayed, he turned to them with an ardent plea for help - and felt that the Lord was delivering him from sinful passion. On July 17, 1999, he converted to the Orthodox faith with the name Nicholas in honor of the holy Martyr Tsar.

On May 15, 1998, Moscow doctor Oleg Belchenko received an icon of the Martyr Tsar as a gift, in front of which he prayed almost every day, and in September he began to notice small blood-colored spots on the icon. Oleg brought the icon to the Sretensky Monastery; During the prayer service, all those praying felt a strong fragrance from the icon. The icon was transferred to the altar, where it remained for three weeks, and the fragrance did not stop. Later, the icon visited several Moscow churches and monasteries; the flow of myrrh from this image was repeatedly witnessed, witnessed by hundreds of parishioners. In 1999, 87-year-old Alexander Mikhailovich was miraculously healed of blindness near the myrrh-streaming icon of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II: a complex eye operation did not help much, but when he venerated the myrrh-streaming icon with fervent prayer, and the priest serving the prayer service covered his face with a towel with marks peace, healing came - vision returned. The myrrh-streaming icon visited a number of dioceses - Ivanovo, Vladimir, Kostroma, Odessa... Everywhere where the icon visited, numerous cases of its myrrh-streaming were witnessed, and two parishioners of Odessa churches reported healing from leg disease after praying before the icon. The Tulchin-Bratslav diocese reported cases of grace-filled help through prayers before this miraculous icon: the servant of God Nina was healed of severe hepatitis, parishioner Olga received healing of a broken collarbone, and the servant of God Lyudmila was healed of a severe lesion of the pancreas.

During the Anniversary Council of Bishops, parishioners of the church being built in Moscow in honor of St. Andrei Rublev gathered for joint prayer to the Royal Martyrs: one of the chapels of the future church is planned to be consecrated in honor of the new martyrs. While reading the akathist, the worshipers felt a strong fragrance emanating from the books. This fragrance continued for several days.

Many Christians now turn to the Royal Passion-Bearers with prayer for strengthening the family and raising children in faith and piety, for preserving their purity and chastity - after all, during the persecution, the Imperial family was especially united and carried the indestructible Orthodox faith through all the sorrows and suffering.

The memory of the holy passion-bearers Emperor Nicholas, Empress Alexandra, their children - Alexy, Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia is celebrated on the day of their murder, July 4 (17), and on the day of the conciliar memory of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia, January 25 (February 7), if this the day coincides with Sunday, and if it does not coincide, then on the nearest Sunday after January 25 (February 7).

The last Russian autocrat was a deeply religious Orthodox Christian who viewed his political activities as religious service. Almost everyone who came into close contact with the Emperor noted this fact as obvious. He felt responsible for the country given to him by Providence, although he soberly understood that he was not sufficiently prepared to rule a great country.

“Sandro, what am I going to do! - he exclaimed pathetically after the death of Alexander III, turning to his cousin Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich. — What will happen to Russia now? I am not yet prepared to be a King! I can't run an empire." Recalling this scene, the Grand Duke, however, paid tribute to the moral qualities of the character of his autocratic cousin, emphasizing that he possessed all the qualities that were valuable for an ordinary citizen, but which were fatal for the monarch - “he could never understand that the ruler of the country must suppress purely human feelings in himself.” No matter how we feel about the recognition of the Grand Duke, it is necessary to immediately emphasize that the conviction of the religiosity of his mission forced the emperor to “overcome himself,” hoping for Divine help in resolving political issues. The Tsar always took his service unusually seriously, trying to be the Sovereign of all his subjects and not wanting to associate himself with any one class or group of people. It was for this reason that he disliked it so much and tried in every possible way to overcome the “mediastinum” - the existing gap between the autocrat and the “common people”. This abyss was made up of the bureaucracy and the intelligentsia. Convinced of the deep love of the “common people,” the Tsar believed that all sedition was a consequence of the propaganda of the power-hungry intelligentsia, which was striving to replace the bureaucracy that had already achieved its goals. Prince N.D. Zhevakhov, Comrade of the last Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, wrote about the desire of Nicholas II to destroy the mediastinum and get closer to the people. According to General A. A. Mosolov, who spent many years at the Court, “the Emperor felt the mediastinum, but denied it in his soul.”
Nicholas II consoled himself with the thought that autocracy, based on a religious foundation, could not be shaken as long as faith in the Sovereign was maintained as an anointed one, whose heart was in the hands of God. Taking this point of view, one cannot help but recognize Nicholas II as a man of religious integrity (since religiosity is always something integral, according to the philosopher I. A. Ilyin, which has the ability to internally unite a person and give him spiritual “totality”). Thus, Nicholas II can well be called a religiously “total” person, convinced of his religious rights.
Surprisingly, the revolutionary upheavals of the early 20th century did not convince Nicholas II of the devotion of the common people to him. The revolution made less of an impression on him than the ceremonial meetings prepared by the authorities during trips around the country or the (mostly) inspired loyal addresses in his name. It is significant that even L.N. Tolstoy pointed out to the Tsar the danger of trusting public manifestations of people’s love. (“You are probably misled about the love of the people for the autocracy and its representative by the fact that, everywhere, when you meet in Moscow and other cities, crowds of people shouting “Hurray” run after you. Do not believe that this is an expression devotion to you is a crowd of curious people who will run in the same way after any unusual sight”). Tolstoy wrote about the police in disguise and about the herded peasants who stood behind the troops as the Tsar's train passed along the railway.
If a great moralist can be accused of outright bias, then General A. A. Kireev, devoted to the autocratic principle and a person close to the Imperial Family, cannot. In 1904, he wrote in his diary a story about how a cab driver passing by the house of Peter the Great remarked without embarrassment: “Here, master, if only we now had such a king, otherwise the present fool! (not a fool and not a fool). Where can he cope? This is a terrible symptom,” the general concluded on his own behalf.
Of course, there were other examples opposite to those given. It is enough to mention the canonization celebrations in the summer of 1903, which took place in Sarov. “The desire to enter into close proximity with the people, in addition to intermediaries, prompted the Emperor to decide to attend the Sarov celebrations. God-loving Orthodox people gathered there from all over Russia.” Up to 150 thousand pilgrims gathered in Sarov from all over Russia. “The crowd was fanatical and with special devotion to the tsar,” V. G. Korolenko, who obviously did not sympathize with the emperor, recalled the celebrations. But the point was that the mood of the crowd could easily change: it depended on the circumstances of the place and time.
Less than two years passed, and the First Revolution showed examples of the amazing metamorphosis of the “common people” - from outward piety to outright blasphemy. The already mentioned General Kireev anxiously recorded in his diary the facts of the “disbaptism” of men, wondering where their religiosity had gone in the past revolutionary years. “The Russian people are undoubtedly religious,” wrote Kireev, “but when they see that the Church gives them a stone instead of bread, demands from them forms, “fungi”, reads prayers incomprehensible to the common people, when they tell them about fantastic miracles, all this will solemnly collapse before the first skillful test, before the first irony, even crudely impudent, he either switches to another faith (Tolstoy, Redstock) that speaks to his heart, or becomes a beast again. Look how the Christian fragile, thin shell easily falls off our men.”
What Kireyev, who knew and loved the Church, noticed and noted, of course, could not pass by the Emperor. However, perceiving the negative phenomena of the revolutionary time as “alluvial,” “temporary,” and “accidental,” Nicholas II did not seek to make generalizations that spoke of the growing process of desacralization of the autocracy and its bearer. The reason for this is clear: “the Tsar’s faith was undoubtedly supported and strengthened by the concept instilled from childhood that the Russian Tsar is God’s anointed. Weakening religious feeling would thus be tantamount to debunking one’s own position.”
To admit that the religious foundation of power was very fragile meant for the emperor to raise the question of the future of the monarchical idea - in the form in which it was formed during the 18th-19th centuries. Psychologically, he could not decide to do this: it is no coincidence that after the defeat of the revolution of 1905 and until the next revolution of 1917, Nicholas II never ceased to hope that someday he would have the opportunity to return to the pre-revolutionary order and restore a full-blooded autocracy. This dream was based not on a thirst for absolute power (power for power’s sake), but on an understanding of one’s political responsibility as responsibility for the completeness of the “inheritance” received from one’s ancestors, which must be passed on “without flaws” to the heirs.
Political expediency, which came into conflict with political, fundamentally religious, upbringing - this is the vicious circle in which the emperor was forced to remain throughout his entire life and for his reluctance, often mistaken for inability, to get out of it, he paid with his own life and reputation . “The sovereign, with his undeserved suffering on the path of life, resembled the long-suffering Job, on whose memorial day he was born, being a deeply religious person, he looked at the fulfillment of his duty in relation to the Motherland as a religious service,” wrote General V.N., who revered him, about Nicholas II. Voeikov (emphasis added - S.F.).
From this attitude towards himself, towards his service (almost “priestly” and in any case “sacred”), it seems, his attitude towards the Church also followed. In this sense, Nicholas II was the successor of the church line of Russian emperors. However, unlike most of his predecessors, the last autocrat was a mystically minded person who believed in Rock and fate. The story told to the French Ambassador to Russia M. Paleologue by the Minister of Foreign Affairs S. D. Sazonov is symbolic. The essence of the conversation boiled down to the fact that in a conversation with P. A. Stolypin, the Emperor allegedly told him about his deep confidence in his own doom for terrible trials, comparing himself to Job the Long-Suffering. The feeling of doom, taken by some as absolute submission to fate and praised, by others as weakness of character, was noted by many contemporaries of Nicholas II.
But not all contemporaries tried to analyze the religious views of the autocrat when the revolution had not yet drawn its line under the centuries-old Russian Empire. One of those who asked this question was General Kireev, who was seriously worried that the religious views of the queen, “shared, of course, by the king, could lead us to death. This is some kind of mixture of boundless absolutism, the general believed, based, affirmed on theological mysticism! In this case, any concept of responsibility disappears. Everything that we do is done correctly, legally, for L etat c’est moi, then, since others (our people, Russia) have departed from God, God punishes us [for] her sins. We, therefore, are not guilty, we have nothing to do with it, our orders, our actions are all good, correct, and if God does not bless them, then we are not to blame!! It’s terrible!” .
Kireev's pathos is understandable, but his logic is not entirely clear. For any thoughtful contemporary who was interested in the nature of power in Russia, it was clear that the autocrat always viewed the state through the prism of his own religiously colored “I.” The concept of responsibility for him existed only as a commentary on the idea of ​​religious service. Consequently, the problem lay mainly in the monarch’s religious approach to the failure that occurred in his state activities. In the conditions of the flaring up revolution, the views described by Kireev, of course, could not evoke sympathy among his contemporaries, but they are indicative of their “totality” and from this side are quite worthy of mention.
Speaking about the religiosity of the last Russian Emperor, one cannot fail to mention that it was during his reign that more ascetics of faith and piety were canonized than in any previous one. Moreover, in the “case” of canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov, Nicholas II was directly involved. Let us remember: during the four reigns of the 19th century, 7 saints were glorified, and the celebration of Sts. to the saints of Volyn. And during the reign of Nicholas II, the following saints were glorified: Theodosius of Uglitsky (1896); Job, abbot of Pochaev (1902); Seraphim, Sarov Wonderworker (1903); Joasaph of Belgorod (1911); Ermogen, Patriarch of Moscow (1913); Pitirim, St. Tambovsky (1914); John, St. Tobolsky (1916). In addition, in 1897, in the Diocese of Riga, the celebration of the memory of the Hieromartyr Isidore and the 72 Orthodox martyrs who suffered with him was established (as locally revered saints), and in 1909, the celebration of the memory of St. Anna Kashinskaya.
The “canonization activity” shown by the Holy Synod in the era of Nicholas II is sometimes explained by researchers as an ideological campaign carried out by the authorities with the aim of sacralizing the autocracy: “theoretically, this campaign should have contributed to the rapprochement of the autocracy with popular religious culture and weakened the reaction of the masses to failures in the internal and external politics". Such conclusions categorically cannot be supported - the authorities, of course, could derive political benefits from the glorifications carried out, but they could never calculate in advance their (canonizations) influence on domestic and foreign policy. As evidence we can cite, on the one hand, the Sarov celebrations of 1903, and on the other, the scandalous history of the glorification of St. John of Tobolsk, overshadowed by the defiant behavior of Grigory Rasputin's friend, Bishop of Tobolsk Varnava (Nakropin). In both the first and second cases, the Emperor insisted on glorification. But from the above it did not at all follow that these saints were canonized only at the whim of the authorities.
The ascetics glorified by the Church enjoyed the glory of saints long before the members of the Holy Synod signed the corresponding definition. This especially applies to St., who has been revered all over Russia since the mid-19th century. Seraphim of Sarov. Therefore, one should not confuse the fact of glorification and synodal traditions associated with the preparation and conduct of canonization. Emperor Nicholas II, by virtue of his “ktitor” position in the Church, became a voluntary or involuntary hostage of these traditions. It is no coincidence that during the period of preparation for the glorification of St. Seraphim of Sarov, in a conversation with the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K.P. Pobedonostsev, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna remarked to him: “The Emperor can do anything,” and during the First World War she even wrote to her husband that he was “the head and patron of the Church.”
The combination of the concepts “head” and “patron” is very characteristic. The confusion in terms is not accidental. It would not be a gross mistake to assume that when using the word “head” the Empress meant not the administrative, but the “anointed” rights of the autocrat. From this angle, apparently, it is worth considering the actions of Nicholas II in the “canonization” issue. In fact: it is not political advantage to explain the fact that in 1911 the emperor personally set the date for the canonization of St. Joasaph of Belgorod, thereby violating the prerogatives of the Holy Synod? Indeed, “the role of a humble Christian, addressed to the holy elders, meant for the king a connection with the people and embodied the national people’s spirit.” By facilitating canonizations, participating in them, or simply welcoming them, the Emperor demonstrated his deep connection with the people, for he believed that this connection was possible only in the unity of faith, which he, as the Supreme Ktitor, must in every possible way support and encourage.
The problem was precisely that, wanting to be an Orthodox Tsar in the spirit of Alexei Mikhailovich, whom he revered, Nicholas II had power in the Church, granted to him - with the legacy of the kingdom - by the unloved Emperor Peter the Great, which he did not want (or, more precisely, did not know how) to give. The contradiction between religious dream and political reality can be considered not only a derivative of the abnormal church-state relations that existed in Russia, but also the personal drama of the last autocrat.
A unique way out of this contradiction was the apocryphal tales associated with the life of Nicholas II, in which one can find interesting (from a psychological point of view) interpretations of his mystical sentiments, as well as an “answer” to the question of why the Emperor never convened a Local Council of the Russian Church. The “apocrypha” reported that the Emperor knew his fate in advance and was prepared for what happened after the fall of the autocracy.
Some post factum memoirists saw the source of this knowledge in the predictions of the monk Abel, a famous soothsayer of the 18th-first quarter of the 19th centuries. The monk at one time predicted the death of Empress Catherine II, the violent death of her son Paul I, the fire of Moscow and much more. A legend has survived (now very popular), according to which Abel, at the request of Emperor Paul I, made a prediction about the future of the Romanov dynasty. The emperor kept this prediction sealed in the Gatchina Palace, bequeathing it to be opened 100 years after his death. Paul I was killed on the night of March 12, 1801, therefore, his descendant Nicholas II had to read the predictions. "Apocrypha" reports this. The casket with predictions, according to the memoirs of the chamberlain of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna M. F. Goeringer, was opened by Nicholas II on March 12, 1901, after which, allegedly, he “began to remember 1918 as a fatal year for him personally and for the dynasty.” . Similar information can be found in the article of a certain A. D. Khmelevsky - “The Mysterious in the Life of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II”, and in the work of P. N. Shabelsky Bork, who repeated Khmelevsky’s information. We can say that the stories became a kind of response to numerous reproaches from contemporaries who accused Nicholas II of weak character and lack of initiative.
However, among the “apocrypha” there were also those that said that the emperor received knowledge of his future fate by reading the letter of St. Seraphim of Sarov. The elder, according to legend, wrote specifically to the king who would “specially” pray for him! It turned out that the saint foresaw his own canonization in advance and even prepared for it! This alone is alarming and makes one doubt the truth of the message. But there are other reasons for doubt - at the beginning of the 20th century, the great saint was credited with a prediction that the first half of the reign of Nicholas II would be difficult, but the second would be bright and serene. It is obvious to any unbiased person that St. Seraphim could not make political predictions, especially those tied to certain dates and names. Manipulating them is further evidence of the bias of those who wanted to lay a religious foundation for any social problems.
So, the letter was allegedly handed over to the autocrat on the days of the Sarov celebrations - July 20, 1903. “What was in the letter remained a secret,” the memoirist reports, “one can only assume that the holy seer clearly saw everything that was coming, and therefore protected him from any mistake, and warned about upcoming terrible events, strengthening the belief that all this would not happen by chance, but by the predestination of the Eternal Heavenly Council, so that in difficult moments of difficult trials the Emperor would not lose heart and carry his heavy martyr’s cross to the end.” It is characteristic that such views have been especially popularized recently, and the more complex the issue raised, the stronger the myth-making. When examining the religious views of the last autocrat and his relationship to the Church, it is easier to give a diagram than to admit the complexity of the problem and its ambiguity. It is no coincidence that in the recently compiled “Life of St. Abel the Prophet”, Nicholas II is compared to the Son of God, just as He was betrayed by His people.
The creation of the image of the holy king is complemented by unconfirmed information about how Nicholas II wanted to resolve the church issue by accepting the burden of Patriarchal service. Information about this can be found on the pages of the book by S. A. Nilus “On the Bank of God’s River. Notes of the Orthodox" and in the memoirs of Prince Zhevakhov (in his memoirs the prince also included an article by a certain B. Pototsky, containing material about the desire of Nicholas II to take monastic vows). According to Nilus, during the days of the Russian-Japanese War, when the question of the need to head the Church became relevant, the Emperor himself proposed to the members of the Holy Synod to restore the patriarchate, offering himself to the hierarchs as the High Hierarch. Unusually surprised by the proposal, the bishops remained silent. “From that time on, none of the members of the then highest church administration had access to the Tsarev’s heart. He, according to the duties of their service, continued, as needed, to receive them at his place, gave them awards, insignia, but an impenetrable wall was established between them and His heart, and they no longer had faith in His heart...” Nilus ghostly hints that this story has its source in Vl. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), however, he still prefers not to name him. And this is understandable: Metropolitan Anthony himself never spoke about what happened, even in exile.
Another apocrypha, given by Zhevakhov from the words of B. Pototsky, is somewhat different from the message of Nilus. Its essence is that in the winter of 1904-1905. The royal couple came to the chambers of Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of the capital. This was seen by a certain student of the Theological Academy (whose name, of course, was not given). The story of the visit was explained simply: the Emperor came to ask the Metropolitan for his blessing to abdicate the throne in favor of Tsarevich Alexei, who had been born shortly before. He himself allegedly wanted to become a monk. “The Metropolitan refused the Sovereign’s blessing for this decision, pointing out the inadmissibility of basing his personal salvation on abandoning his royal duty, which God had indicated to him, without extreme necessity, otherwise his people would be exposed to dangers and various accidents that may be associated with the era of the regency during the minority of the Heir ". The next story described by Zhevakhov completely repeats the story given by Nilus. So, the problem of the subsequent reluctance of the Sovereign to assist in the election of the Patriarch receives a psychological explanation. As Nilus wrote, “the hierarchs looked for theirs in the patriarchate, and not in God, and their house was left empty to them.”
But such an answer clearly cannot satisfy anyone who is trying to impartially understand why the Council was not convened before 1917 and why church-state relations were never changed until the collapse of the empire. You can’t explain the autocrat’s reluctance only by personal resentment! Moreover, the election of the Patriarch is only the “front” side of the church problem. Over the 200 synodal years, many other issues had accumulated that required resolution. The emperor could not help but understand this. To think otherwise means to recognize Nicholas II as a person who was not aware of the pressing challenges of the time and, therefore, indirectly contribute to the establishment of the old myth about his incompetence and political selfishness.
In addition, the “apocrypha” that tells us about the emperor’s desire to become a Patriarch or simply take monastic vows cannot be confirmed by independent sources or even direct evidence. By the way, there is no confirmation of the fact that Nicholas II in the winter of 1904-1905. went to Metropolitan Anthony for a blessing, no, either, but every step of the emperor was recorded in Camerfourier’s journals. And in the diaries of the autocrat there is only a brief message that on December 28, 1904, Metropolitan Anthony had breakfast with the royal family. No meetings in the Lavra have been recorded.
Of course, it is possible to assume that Nicholas II dreamed of taking monastic vows and retiring from business - after all, “he was, first of all, a God-seeker, a man who devoted himself completely to the will of God, a deeply religious Christian of high spiritual mood,” but it is absolutely impossible to build political conclusions on these assumptions . The emperor understood, like any statesman, what could be reformed and what could not be reformed, not least on the basis of political practice. This circumstance should not be ignored.
However, one important conclusion must be drawn from the “apocrypha”. The last Russian autocrat had no closeness with the Orthodox hierarchy, which he perceived for the most part as “spiritual officials.” It is obvious that the reasons for such a perception arose from the entire abnormal (from the canonical point of view) structure of church government. As noted by Rev. A. Schmemann, the sharpness of Peter’s reform “is not in its canonical side, but in the psychology from which it grows. Through the establishment of the Synod, the Church became one of the state departments, and until 1901, its members in their oath called the emperor “the Ultimate Judge of this Spiritual College,” and all his decisions were made “by the authority given by the Tsar’s Majesty,” “by decree of His Imperial Majesty.” . On February 23, 1901, K.P. Pobedonostsev made a report to the emperor, “and from that moment the nightmare oath was silently buried in the Synod Archives.”
This oath was a nightmare not only for the hierarchs, it had a detrimental effect on the autocrats’ perception of their church role. It is here that one should look for the roots of all anti-canonical actions of even the most religious Russian autocrats (for example, Paul I). For both the “right” and the “left” at the beginning of the 20th century, the Orthodox Church was perceived as a department of Orthodox confession, a department of spiritual affairs, and the clergy as executors of demands without real authority. This was explained in different ways. For such extreme rightists as Prince Zhevakhov - because the Russian people had increased religious demands; for others, for example, for S.P. Melgunov, by the fact that there was no genuine freedom of conscience in Russia. In both cases, there was only one ascertaining part.
For Emperor Nicholas II, as well as for his contemporaries, the caste isolation of the clergy and its complete dependence on secular authorities were not a secret. But, having become accustomed to this state of affairs, it was difficult to convince oneself that the Church could independently, without a state crutch, restore the canonical system of government and correct the old synodal system. Noted prot. A. Schmemann, the psychological side of Peter’s reform became an obstacle for Emperor Nicholas II. This is the root of the misunderstanding that existed between the autocrat and the Orthodox hierarchs, which was especially evident during the First Russian Revolution.

The future Emperor received a very good education at home. As a child, by the will of his father, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich, he was brought up in the Spartan spirit. His first teacher, A.P. Ollengren, recalled the words of Alexander Alexandrovich: “Neither I nor the Grand Duchess want to make them (i.e., sons) greenhouse flowers. They should pray well to God, study, play, and be naughty in moderation. Teach well, don’t give in to habits, ask to the fullest extent of the law, don’t encourage laziness in particular. If there is anything, then contact me directly, and I know what needs to be done. I repeat that I don’t need porcelain. I need normal Russian children. They'll fight, please. But the prover gets the first whip. This is my very first requirement.”

Apparently, this educational program was carried out conscientiously and largely bore fruit. In many ways, but not in all. While undergoing a special home education course, Nikolai never showed any zeal or curiosity in his studies. Teachers were forbidden to “ask to the fullest extent,” and the student himself did not ask anything, but was immensely bored. K.P. Pobedonostsev recalls this boredom. The future Emperor himself writes about this same boredom in his diary. To prepare him for this particular field, classes in political history were introduced into his school curriculum. However, politics brought upon him, in his own words, “hibernation,” and in the future those around him could not avoid the impression that this type of activity was stoically tolerated by him, but deeply alien to his natural inclinations. Many memoirists write about this. Political issues, especially those requiring responsible decisions, disharmoniously invaded his inner world like an annoying foreign body.
Having completed his home education by taking courses in military and legal sciences, the future Emperor retained a special disposition towards military service throughout his life.
The environment in which he felt confident, calm and complacent was, first of all, a narrow family circle, as well as the environment of military people. The atmosphere of naturalness was given to him by meetings several times a day with the same people from the retinue, convoy, security officers, who would not say anything unpleasant or unexpected, and would not lead to the need to immediately resolve a difficult issue and make a responsible decision. Characterizing the level of development of the Sovereign, S. Yu. Witte wrote that “Emperor Nicholas II, in our time, has the secondary education of a guards colonel from a good family.”
Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II loved military affairs, and among military people he felt freer. This inclination, combined with the conviction instilled in him by his upbringing to introduce the Christian religious and moral principles of his worldview into state life, determined the Emperor’s very unique implementation of what seemed to him a particularly important military policy.
As early as 1898, he approached the governments of Europe with a proposal to convene a conference to discuss the most effective methods of ensuring the preservation of world peace and establishing limits to the growth of armaments. As a result of this appeal, the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 took place, the decisions of which are largely valid to this day.
Russia came to the war with Japan unprepared. This is exactly what Japan took advantage of when it started the war in January 1904. Society was filled with unjustified optimism, looking at the war as an episode. This episode was not given much importance, and in relation to the Japanese, the contemptuous “macaque” never left their lips. At the beginning of the war, the Tsar definitely expresses his opinion that the war will be short-lived, of course, victorious and will not in any way affect the internal situation in the country, which is completely stable. Having stopped all other activities, the Emperor traveled extensively around the country, inspected troops, participated in the consecration of warships and generously distributed icons and crosses to soldiers and officers. In the war, Russia lost 400 thousand killed, wounded and prisoners. Material losses were also significant. It should be said that after this war, the Sovereign’s view of the possibility of Russia’s involvement in a new war underwent a general change.
Before the First World War, the Tsar’s mood was divided between the desire to preserve peace with all his might and the underestimation of the danger of the coming war. Of course, one cannot trust the letter of the statements of Minister of War B.A. Sukhomlinov, but to a certain extent, his words probably reflected reality when he said at the end of 1912: “Sovereign and I, we believe in the army and we know that only one good thing will come from the war for us.” V.N. Kokovtsov in his memoirs writes about the influence of “militantly-patriotic” ministers on the Sovereign: “This part of the ministers essentially had the Sovereign on their side. And not because the Emperor was aggressive. In essence, he was deeply peace-loving, but he liked the elevated mood of nationalist-style ministers. He was satisfied with their songs of praise on the topic of the people's boundless devotion to him, his indestructible power, the colossal rise in his well-being, which only needed a wider release of money for productive needs. We also liked the assurances that Germany was only intimidating with its preparations and would never decide on an armed conflict with us and would be all the more compliant the more clearly we let it understand that we are not afraid of it and are boldly following our national road. Arguments of this kind were often willingly listened to by the Emperor and found a sympathetic response in his soul.”
Having suffered greatly from the failures of the Russian army in the first year of the war, the Emperor considered it morally necessary to take responsibility for the conduct of the war and assumed supreme command on August 23, 1915. From the very beginning, the Emperor viewed his tenure as Supreme Commander-in-Chief as the fulfillment of his moral and national duty to God and the people, giving leading military specialists broad initiative in resolving the entire range of military-strategic and operational-tactical issues. At the same time, the Sovereign categorically rejected objections to his decision from those advisers who believed that leading the army during a period of severe military defeats could shake the political authority of the Sovereign and contribute to the decline in the prestige of state power in general.
Objectively, the Russo-Japanese War, as well as the First World War subsequently, caused internal revolts in the Empire. But the Emperor, depressed by the progress of the war in the east, according to the testimony of people close to him, looked rather indifferently at these unrest, not attaching much importance to them, and kept saying that they covered only a small part of the country and could not have much significance. The Emperor repeatedly expressed out loud the idea that the labor issue was close to his heart. And this was manifested in the consistent support and development of social legislation in the direction of protecting and expanding the rights of workers and limiting the privileges of entrepreneurs throughout his reign. With his personal participation in resolving this issue, he wanted to bring calm to the working environment. The events of January 9, 1905, which occurred as a result of the adventuristic activities of the priest Georgy Gapon, the incompetent actions of the Minister of Internal Affairs, Prince P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky and a number of senior officials of the St. Petersburg military and police departments, came as a complete surprise to the Sovereign, who was absent at that time in capital. Deeply affected by the tragedy of January 9 and trying to help the families of the victims of this tragedy, the Emperor was presented by the political opposition as the main culprit of the events that took place, which largely distorted society’s understanding of the Emperor’s attitude to the labor issue.
The use by opposition circles of the events of January 9, 1905 to undermine the moral and political prestige of the Sovereign in the eyes of Russian society can be compared with their similar actions in 1896, when, during the coronation celebrations, due to the fault of the Moscow police authorities, who did not properly control the placement of the people on Khodynka field, a stampede occurred, leading to numerous casualties. Meanwhile, distinguished by impartial characteristics towards the Sovereign S.Yu. Witte described the Khodynka events and the attitude of Emperor Nicholas II towards them in the following way: “Usually after the coronation there is a huge celebration for the people, and these people are given various gifts from the Sovereign, mostly and even almost exclusively edible, i.e. the people are fed and treated in the name of the Sovereign Emperor. Then, on this huge square, located outside of Moscow, but now near the city itself, all kinds of entertainment are held for the people; Usually the Tsar also comes to see how his people are having fun and being treated.
On the day when everyone was supposed to arrive there, the Emperor was supposed to arrive at noon...
Driving there, getting into the carriage, I suddenly found out that on the Khodynka field, where the folk festival was supposed to take place, a catastrophe occurred in the morning, a terrible stampede of people occurred, and about two thousand people were killed and maimed. When I arrived at the place, I didn’t notice anything special, as if no special disaster had happened, because they had managed to clean everything up in the morning, and there were no visible traces of the disaster; nothing caught the eye, and where there might have been any signs of a disaster, it was all disguised and smoothed out. But of course, everyone who came (a huge gazebo for visitors was built for this occasion) felt and understood that a great misfortune had happened, and were in this mood.
...Soon the Grand Dukes and the Emperor arrived, and, to my surprise, the festivities were not canceled, but continued according to the program... in general, everything took place as if there had been no catastrophe. Only on the Emperor’s face could one notice some sadness and a painful expression. It seems to me that if the Emperor had then been left to his own inclination, then, in all likelihood, he would have canceled these festivities and instead would have performed a solemn service on the field. But, apparently, the Emperor was given bad advice...”
In 1905, the Tsar, under the pressure of prevailing circumstances, was forced to create a State Duma with limited legislative rights. After the ceremonial reception of the Duma in the Winter Palace, the Empress Mother said: “They looked at us as if they were their enemies, and I could not take my eyes off some of the types, so much so did their faces breathe with some kind of incomprehensible hatred against us all.” The Dumas of the first and second convocations did not last long, revealing their extreme opposition to the Autocrat and the Government and a complete inability for realistic legislative creativity. For the Sovereign, the Duma was a source of constant irritation and injured pride.
At the risk of giving a general assessment of how the Emperor made certain state decisions, we encounter great difficulty. The fact is that the evidence of contemporaries, regardless of their likes and dislikes, is very contradictory. Apparently, this ambiguity is objectively due to certain character traits of the Sovereign. The Emperor testifies about himself: “I love to listen to different opinions and do not immediately reject what they tell me, even though it was very painful for me to hear judgments that shatter the best dreams of my whole life, but believe me that I will not make a decision with which my conscience is not reconciled.” It is hardly appropriate to doubt the sincerity of this self-assessment. However, the facts showed that the decision-making of the Sovereign was often associated with painful emotional experiences, filled with deep contradictions. The overwhelming majority of witnesses, close and distant people, in one way or another confirm the impression of duality that the Emperor produced. There are many examples of such inconsistency. Thus, having appointed by his decree the chairman of the Department of Economy in 1905, the Emperor annulled this decree two days later. To smooth out the awkwardness of the situation, he utters the following words: “You don’t know that it cost me to destroy my signature on the decree... My late father told me more than once that my signature should never be changed, unless I had the opportunity to see for myself that I made a mistake or acted rashly and thoughtlessly. Regarding your appointment, I was confident that I was acting not only completely fairly, but also for the benefit of the State, and meanwhile I was forced to refuse and destroy the signature. I will never forget this...” These words were accompanied by gestures intended to reveal an extreme degree of affection.”
In January 1914, when the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Finance were dismissed from office at the same time, two rescripts opposing each other appeared on the columns of the same official body. One of them announces the dismissal as a concession to the insistent request of the person being dismissed due to his ill health (in fact, there were no ill health or requests for dismissal). At the same time, the dismissed person is elevated to the dignity of count, thanked for his impeccable service and for the services rendered to the Fatherland; a neighboring rescript appointing a new minister declares the activities of his predecessor extremely unsatisfactory. V.N. Kokovtsov recalls the farewell audience that followed these decrees: “The painful moments when the picture of the entire past, the difficult position of the Sovereign among all sorts of influences of irresponsible people, the dependence of sometimes major events on random phenomena, will never be erased from my memory. The Emperor... quickly came up to meet me, gave me his hand and, without letting go of his hand, stood silently, looking me straight in the eyes... I don’t undertake to determine how long this painful silence lasted, but it ended with The Emperor, still holding my hand, took the handkerchief out of his pocket with his left hand, and tears simply flowed from his eyes.”
This duality and external inconsistency affected the relationship between the Sovereign and P.A. Stolypin. Here is the testimony of the Empress-Mother, who knew her son’s character well, in the midst of one of the government crises: “If Stolypin insists on his own, then I do not doubt for a minute that the Emperor, after much hesitation, will end up giving in... He is too proud and he is going through the crisis he has created together with the Empress, without even showing to those around him that he is worried and is looking for an outcome. And yet, having made the decision that Stolypin demands, the Tsar will deeply and for a long time feel the full weight of the decision that he will make under the pressure of circumstances... And the further, the more and more the Tsar’s dissatisfaction with Stolypin will grow, and I I’m almost sure that now poor Stolypin will win the case, but not for long, and we will soon see him out of work, and this is a great pity both for the Emperor and for all of Russia.” This was said in the spring of 1911. About six months later P.A. Stolypin was killed in Kyiv. The circumstances of his death have been described many times, as well as the cold attitude of the Court towards him at that time is also known.
The ambiguity that observers note in the Sovereign’s behavior is largely explained by a feeling of powerlessness under the pressure of inexorable circumstances, in particular due to dramatic events in family life. The words of the Emperor, uttered by him while reflecting on the hopeless situation in the First Duma, are full of hidden meaning: “It happens that even the most hopeless illness goes away by some miracle, although there are hardly miracles in such matters.”
This passive hope in a miracle, in the fact that everything will somehow work out on its own, on the one hand, corresponded to that trait of his character that can be called optimism, but on the other hand, it betrayed his hidden fatalism. Six months before the start of the World War, the Emperor, feeling the proximity and inevitability of a catastrophe, said detachedly: “Everything is God’s will.”
Giving from a Christian position this or that assessment of a statesman, we must not forget that this assessment should not at all concern the form of government or the function that a specific person has in a given state mechanism. Only the extent to which a statesman in his given function was able to embody Christian ideals of the good in his activities can be assessed. It is quite natural that in scientific and popular literature we encounter polar opposite views on Emperor Nicholas II as a statesman. However, the entire range of different opinions boils down to at least one general statement: the main tendency of the reign of Nicholas II is protection. All life writers also agree that this tendency was instilled in the Emperor by his teacher K.P. Pobedonostsev, in whom “the fiery passion for the Autocracy, in whose defense he spoke talentedly and ardently, never faded.”
To understand the initial views of Nicholas II on state activities, it makes sense to trace the main provisions of K.P. Pobedonostsev on this issue. They were presented in his “Moscow Collection” (1896).
Parliamentary government is “the great lie of our time,” wrote Pobedonostsev. “History testifies that the most significant, fruitful for the people and lasting measures and transformations came from the central will of statesmen, or from a minority enlightened by a high idea and deep knowledge; On the contrary, with the expansion of the elective principle, there was a devaluation of state thought and a vulgarization of opinion among the mass of voters.”
The evil of parliamentary rule by K.P. Pobedonostsev sees the fact that the elections do not result in the selection of the best, but only “the most ambitious and impudent.” The electoral struggle is especially dangerous in multinational states: “The unlimited monarchy managed to eliminate or reconcile all such demands and impulses - and not only by force, but by equalizing rights and relations under one authority. But democracy cannot cope with them, and the instincts of nationalism serve as a corrosive element for it: each tribe sends representatives from its area - not of the state and people's ideas, but representatives of tribal instincts, tribal irritation, tribal hatred - both to the dominant tribe and to others tribes, and to an institution connecting all parts of the State.”
“Instead of the unlimited power of the monarch, we get the unlimited power of parliament, with the difference that in the person of the monarch we can imagine the unity of rational will; but in parliament there is none, because here everything depends on chance, since the will of parliament is determined by the majority... This state irresistibly leads to anarchy, from which society is saved only by dictatorship, i.e. restoration of a single will and a single power in the government.”
All these thoughts were well known and close to the Emperor from his youth. He deeply, following Pobedonostsev, believed that for the hundred million Russian people the Tsarist power was and remains sacred. The idea of ​​a good people, opposed to a hostile intelligentsia, always lived in him.
At the same time, throughout his reign, the Emperor was forced to take into account the opinions of such statesmen who, like S.Yu. Witte and P.A. Stolypin recognized the inevitability of the coexistence of the monarchy in Russia with representative bodies of legislative power. Having gone against his convictions in 1905 to sign the Manifesto on October 17, which actually limited the power of the Autocratic Sovereign, the Emperor never tried to repeal this legislative act, and at the same time, the 12-year period of existence of the State Duma in Russia did not convince the Sovereign of the need for statehood for the country parliamentary type.
Along with the views drawn from traditions, upbringing, and the lessons of Pobedonostsev, the Sovereign Emperor owed much of his beliefs regarding the meaning and significance of Autocracy in Russia to the influence of the Empress. Along with the uniquely understood Orthodoxy in the refraction of an exalted soul, constantly looking for a miracle, Alexandra Feodorovna internalized and accepted as a political dogma the belief in the indestructibility and immutability of the Russian Autocracy, which is inseparable from the existence of Russia and its people. The Tsar must draw his strength and tranquility from his unshakable faith in the people's love. Under the influence of Alexandra Feodorovna’s energetically charged conviction, the Emperor strengthened himself in the absolutist idea, especially during periods of calm internal life in Russia. Political complications forced him to reckon with them and from time to time take the path of concessions to living real life. Such concessions were unpleasant and organically alien to his reigning wife. In her understanding, the Emperor remained above the law. He has the power to express any desire, because, as if by definition, it is always for the benefit of the country and the people. Any condemnation of the Sovereign, any criticism of his actions is unacceptable, for it must be remembered that he is God’s Anointed One. The uncertainty of the very concept of Autocracy, its confusion with the concept of Absolutism, almost dogmatization of the need for the Royal charisma in the Church - all this was not alien to both the Emperor himself and many in the society around him. Not to mention the common people with the semi-folklore idea of ​​the Tsar-Father that existed among them, even among the highest dignitaries one could find sentiments and views more characteristic of the 16th or 18th centuries than of the 20th century. It is not surprising that with such views on Autocratic power at the Court, favoritism could not be avoided. One of the failed protégés of the Empress, fleet lieutenant V.V. Mochulsky said that among his military comrades there was a simple idea that you can ask for anything, and that the Sovereign and Empress can resolve absolutely anything if only they want it.
The belief in “nationality” was somehow especially connected with the belief in Autocracy. The understanding of “nationality” at the beginning of the 20th century is illustrated by G. Rasputin’s suggestions to the Empress: The Tsar and Queen should be closer to the people (obviously, in the person of the “elder”), see them more often and trust them more, because they will not deceive the one they honor almost equal to God Himself, and will always tell the real truth, unlike ministers and officials who do not care about people’s tears and needs. The Tsar himself spoke out more than once in the spirit that there could be no doubt about the great love of the people for him. The people grieve only because they are not close enough and often see him. These words were spoken completely sincerely, in front of the closest people. How far they were from reality will be revealed in the tragic days of the regicide in Yekaterinburg. “At the crowd, at what is commonly called “the people,” V.N. reports about these July days of 1918. Kokovtsov, - this news made an impression that I did not expect. On the day the news was published, I did not see the slightest glimmer of pity or compassion anywhere. The news was read loudly, with grins, mockery and the most ruthless comments... Some kind of senseless callousness, some kind of boasting of bloodthirstiness.”
According to the same man devoted to the Emperor, the Emperor “believed that he was leading Russia to a bright future, that all the trials and tribulations sent by fate were fleeting and in any case transient, and that even if he personally was destined to endure the greatest difficulties, then The reign of his dearly beloved son will be brighter and more cloudless... Until the very moment of his renunciation, this faith did not leave him.”
If this optimism was indeed one of the contradictory aspects of the Tsar’s character, it could brighten up the very disconsolate days of his reign. Looking at this time from a distance of almost a century, it is worth asking yourself: who in the current historical conditions could have done more and better?
However, no matter how contradictory the nature of the state activities of Emperor Nicholas II may seem, its main religious and moral result should be recognized as the fact that the reign of this Sovereign was a very significant, albeit historically belated attempt to introduce the ideals of the Orthodox worldview into the state life of Russia. The failure that befell the Emperor on this path became not only his personal tragedy, but also served as the prologue to Russia’s greatest historical drama. It is possible to correlate this tragedy of Emperor Nicholas II as a statesman with the possibility of his canonization as a passion-bearer only in the context of his death, the religious understanding of which should be the basis for discussing the issue of canonization of the Sovereign.

In we publish the answers of an Orthodox Englishman, who has no Russian roots, to the questions of his many acquaintances from Russia, Holland, Great Britain, France and the USA about the holy Passion-Bearers and especially about the holy Emperor Nicholas II and his role in Russian and world history. These questions were asked especially often in 2013, when the 95th anniversary of the Yekaterinburg tragedy was celebrated. At the same time, Father Andrei Phillips formulated the answers. One cannot agree with all of the author’s conclusions, but they are certainly interesting, if only because he, being an Englishman, knows Russian history so well.

– Why are rumors about Tsar Nicholas so widespread? II and harsh criticism against him?

– To correctly understand Tsar Nicholas II, you must be Orthodox. It is not enough to be a secular person or nominal Orthodox, or semi-Orthodox, or to perceive Orthodoxy as a hobby, while maintaining the same Soviet or Western (which is essentially the same thing) cultural baggage. One must be consciously Orthodox, Orthodox in essence, culture and worldview.

Tsar Nicholas II acted and reacted in an Orthodox manner

In other words, to understand Nicholas II, you need to have the spiritual integrity that he had. Tsar Nicholas was deeply and consistently Orthodox in his spiritual, moral, political, economic and social views. His Orthodox soul looked at the world with Orthodox eyes, he acted and reacted in an Orthodox way.

– Why do professional historians treat him so negatively?

– Western historians, like Soviet ones, have a negative attitude towards him, because they think in a secular way. Recently I read the book “Crimea” by the British historian Orlando Figes, a specialist on Russia. This is an interesting book about the Crimean War, with many details and facts, written as befits a serious scholar. However, the author by default approaches events with purely Western secular standards: if the reigning Tsar Nicholas I at that time was not a Westernizer, then he must have been a religious fanatic who intended to conquer the Ottoman Empire. With his love for detail, Fidges loses sight of the most important thing: what the Crimean War was for Russia. With Western eyes, he sees only imperialist goals, which he attributes to Russia. What motivates him to do this is his worldview as a secular Westerner.

Figes does not understand that the parts of the Ottoman Empire that Nicholas I was interested in were lands where Orthodox Christian populations had suffered under Islamic oppression for centuries. The Crimean War was not a colonial, imperialist war by Russia to advance into the territory of the Ottoman Empire and exploit it, unlike the wars waged by the Western powers to advance into and enslave Asia and Africa. In the case of Russia, it was a struggle for freedom from oppression - essentially an anti-colonial and anti-imperialist war. The goal was the liberation of Orthodox lands and peoples from oppression, and not the conquest of someone else's empire. As for the accusations of Nicholas I of “religious fanaticism,” in the eyes of secularists, any sincere Christian is a religious fanatic! This is explained by the fact that there is no spiritual dimension in the consciousness of these people. They are unable to see beyond their secular cultural environment and do not go beyond established thinking.

– It turns out that it is because of their secular worldview that Western historians call Nicholas II “weak” and “incapable”?

The myth of the “weakness” of Nicholas II as a ruler is Western political propaganda, invented at that time and still repeated today

- Yes. This is Western political propaganda, invented at that time and repeated to this day. Western historians are trained and funded by the Western "establishment" and fail to see the broader picture. Serious post-Soviet historians have already refuted these accusations against the Tsar, fabricated by the West, which Soviet communists gleefully repeated to justify the destruction of the Tsar's empire. They write that the Tsarevich was “unable” to rule, but the whole point is that at the very beginning he simply was not ready to become king, since his father, Tsar Alexander III, died suddenly and relatively young. But Nikolai quickly learned and became “capable.”

Another favorite accusation of Nicholas II is that he allegedly started wars: the Japanese-Russian War, called the “Russian-Japanese”, and the Kaiser’s War, called the First World War. This is not true. The Tsar was at that time the only world leader who wanted disarmament and did not want war. As for the war against Japanese aggression, it was the Japanese themselves, armed, sponsored and incited by the USA and Great Britain, who started the Japanese-Russian War. Without warning, they attacked the Russian fleet in Port Arthur, whose name is so similar to Pearl Harbor. And, as we know, the Austro-Hungarians, spurred on by the Kaiser, who was looking for any reason to start a war, unleashed.

It was Nicholas II in 1899 who was the first in world history to call on the rulers of states for disarmament and universal peace

Let us remember that it was Tsar Nicholas II in The Hague in 1899 who was the first in world history to call on the rulers of states for disarmament and universal peace - he saw that Western Europe was ready to explode like a powder keg. He was a moral and spiritual leader, the only ruler in the world at that time who did not have narrow, nationalistic interests. On the contrary, being God’s anointed one, he had in his heart the universal task of all Orthodox Christianity - to bring all humanity created by God to Christ. Otherwise, why did he make such sacrifices for Serbia? He was a man of unusually strong will, as noted, for example, by the French President Emile Loubet. All the forces of hell rallied to destroy the king. They would not have done this if the king was weak.

– You say that Nikolai II is a deeply Orthodox person. But there’s very little Russian blood in him, isn’t there?

– Forgive me, but this statement contains a nationalist assumption that one must be of “Russian blood” in order to be considered Orthodox, to belong to universal Christianity. I think that the tsar was one 128th Russian by blood. So what? The sister of Nicholas II answered this question perfectly more than fifty years ago. In a 1960 interview with Greek journalist Ian Worres, Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna (1882–1960) said: “Did the British call King George VI a German? There was not a drop of English blood in him... Blood is not the main thing. The main thing is the country in which you grew up, the faith in which you were raised, the language in which you speak and think.”

– Today some Russians portray Nicholas II "redeemer". Do you agree with this?

- Of course not! There is only one redeemer - the Savior Jesus Christ. However, it can be said that the sacrifice of the Tsar, his family, servants and tens of millions of other people killed in Russia by the Soviet regime and the Nazis was redemptive. Rus' was “crucified” for the sins of the world. Indeed, the suffering of the Russian Orthodox in their blood and tears was redemptive. It is also true that all Christians are called to be saved by living in Christ the Redeemer. It is interesting that some pious, but not very educated Russians, who call Tsar Nicholas “redeemer”, call Grigory Rasputin a saint.

– Is Nikolai’s personality significant? II today? Orthodox Christians form a small minority among other Christians. Even if Nicholas II is of particular importance to all Orthodox Christians, it will still be little compared to all Christians.

– Of course, we Christians are a minority. According to statistics, of the 7 billion people living on our planet, only 2.2 billion are Christians - that’s 32%. And Orthodox Christians make up only 10% of all Christians, that is, only 3.2% are Orthodox in the world, or approximately every 33rd inhabitant of the Earth. But if we look at these statistics from a theological point of view, what do we see? For Orthodox Christians, non-Orthodox Christians are former Orthodox Christians who have fallen away from the Church, unwittingly brought into heterodoxy by their leaders for a variety of political reasons and for the sake of worldly well-being. We can understand Catholics as Catholicized Orthodox Christians, and Protestants as Catholics who have been denounced. We, unworthy Orthodox Christians, are like a little leaven that leavens the whole dough (see: Gal. 5:9).

Without the Church, light and warmth do not spread from the Holy Spirit to the whole world. Here you are outside the Sun, but you still feel the warmth and light emanating from it - also 90% of Christians who are outside the Church still know about its action. For example, almost all of them confess the Holy Trinity and Christ as the Son of God. Why? Thanks to the Church, which established these teachings many centuries ago. Such is the grace present in the Church and flowing from it. If we understand this, then we will understand the significance for us of the Orthodox emperor, the last spiritual successor of Emperor Constantine the Great - Tsar Nicholas II. His dethronement and murder completely changed the course of church history, and the same can be said about his recent glorification.

– If this is so, then why was the king overthrown and killed?

– Christians are always persecuted in the world, as the Lord told His disciples. Pre-revolutionary Russia lived by the Orthodox faith. However, the faith was rejected by much of the pro-Western ruling elite, the aristocracy and many members of the expanding middle class. The revolution was the result of a loss of faith.

Most of the upper class in Russia wanted power, just as the rich merchants and middle class in France wanted power and caused the French Revolution. Having acquired wealth, they wanted to rise to the next level of the hierarchy of values ​​- the level of power. In Russia, such a thirst for power, which came from the West, was based on blind worship of the West and hatred of one’s country. We see this from the very beginning in the example of such figures as A. Kurbsky, Peter I, Catherine II and Westerners like P. Chaadaev.

The decline of faith also poisoned the “white movement,” which was divided due to the lack of a common strengthening faith in the Orthodox kingdom. In general, the Russian ruling elite was deprived of an Orthodox identity, which was replaced by various surrogates: a bizarre mixture of mysticism, occultism, Freemasonry, socialism and the search for “truth” in esoteric religions. By the way, these surrogates continued to live in the Parisian emigration, where various figures distinguished themselves by their adherence to theosophy, anthroposophy, Sophianism, name-worship and other very bizarre and spiritually dangerous false teachings.

They had so little love for Russia that as a result they broke away from the Russian Church, but still justified themselves! The poet Sergei Bekhteev (1879–1954) had strong words to say about this in his 1922 poem “Remember, Know,” comparing the privileged position of emigration in Paris with the situation of people in crucified Russia:

And again their hearts are filled with intrigue,
And again there is betrayal and lies on the lips,
And writes life into the chapter of the last book
Vile betrayal of arrogant nobles.

These representatives of the upper classes (although not all were traitors) were financed by the West from the very beginning. The West believed that as soon as its values: parliamentary democracy, republicanism and constitutional monarchy were implanted in Russia, it would become another bourgeois Western country. For the same reason, the Russian Church needed to be “Protestantized,” that is, spiritually neutralized, deprived of power, which the West tried to do with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other Local Churches that fell under its rule after 1917, when they lost the patronage of Russia. This was a consequence of the West's conceit that its model could become universal. This idea is inherent in Western elites today; they are trying to impose their model called the “new world order” on the whole world.

The Tsar - God's anointed, the last defender of the Church on earth - had to be removed because he was holding back the West from seizing power in the world

The Tsar - God's anointed, the last defender of the Church on earth - had to be removed because he was holding back the West from seizing power in the world. However, in their incompetence, the aristocratic revolutionaries of February 1917 soon lost control of the situation, and within a few months power passed from them to the lower ranks - to the criminal Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks set a course for mass violence and genocide, for the “Red Terror”, similar to the terror in France five generations earlier, but with much more brutal technologies of the 20th century.

Then the ideological formula of the Orthodox empire was also distorted. Let me remind you that it sounded like this: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” But it was maliciously interpreted as follows: “obscurantism, tyranny, nationalism.” Godless communists deformed this ideology even further, so that it turned into “centralized communism, totalitarian dictatorship, national Bolshevism.” What did the original ideological triad mean? It meant: “(full, embodied) true Christianity, spiritual independence (from the powers of this world) and love for the people of God.” As we said above, this ideology was the spiritual, moral, political, economic and social program of Orthodoxy.

– Social program? But the revolution occurred because there were a lot of poor people and there was merciless exploitation of the poor by super-rich aristocrats, and the tsar was at the head of this aristocracy.

– No, it was the aristocracy that opposed the tsar and the people. The Tsar himself donated generously from his wealth and imposed high taxes on the rich under the remarkable Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, who did so much for land reform. Unfortunately, the Tsar's social justice program was one of the reasons why the aristocrats came to hate the Tsar. The king and the people were united. Both were betrayed by the pro-Western elite. This is already evidenced by the murder of Rasputin, which was preparation for the revolution. The peasants rightly saw this as a betrayal of the people by the nobility.

– What was the role of the Jews?

– There is a conspiracy theory that supposedly Jews alone are to blame for everything bad that has happened and is happening in Russia (and in the world in general). This contradicts the words of Christ.

Indeed, most of the Bolsheviks were Jews, but the Jews who participated in the preparation of the Russian Revolution were, first of all, apostates, atheists like K. Marx, and not believers, practicing Jews. The Jews who participated in the revolution worked hand in hand with and depended on non-Jewish atheists such as the American banker P. Morgan, as well as the Russians and many others.

Satan does not give preference to any one particular nation, but uses for his own purposes everyone who is ready to submit to him

We know that Britain organized, supported by France and financed by the USA, that V. Lenin was sent to Russia and sponsored by the Kaiser and that the masses who fought in the Red Army were Russian. None of them were Jewish. Some people, captivated by racist myths, simply refuse to face the truth: the revolution was the work of Satan, who is ready to use any nation, any of us - Jews, Russians, non-Russians, to achieve his destructive plans... Satan does not give preference to any one specific nation, but uses for his own purposes everyone who is ready to subordinate their free will to him to establish a “new world order”, where he will be the sole ruler of fallen humanity.

– There are Russophobes who believe that the Soviet Union was the successor to Tsarist Russia. Is this true in your opinion?

– Undoubtedly, there is continuity... of Western Russophobia! Look, for example, at issues of The Times between 1862 and 2012. You will see 150 years of xenophobia. It is true that many in the West were Russophobes long before the advent of the Soviet Union. In every nation there are such narrow-minded people - simply nationalists who believe that any nation other than their own should be denigrated, no matter what its political system is and no matter how this system changes. We saw this in the recent Iraq War. We see this today in news reports where the peoples of Syria, Iran and North Korea are accused of all their sins. We do not take such prejudices seriously.

Let's return to the question of continuity. After a period of complete nightmare that began in 1917, continuity actually appeared. This happened after in June 1941. Stalin realized that he could win the war only with the blessing of the Church; he remembered the past victories of Orthodox Russia, won, for example, under the holy princes and Demetrius Donskoy. He realized that any victory can be achieved only together with his “brothers and sisters,” that is, the people, and not with “comrades” and communist ideology. Geography does not change, so there is continuity in Russian history.

The Soviet period was a deviation from history, a departure from Russia's national destiny, especially in the first bloody period after the revolution...

We know (and Churchill expressed this very clearly in his book “The World Crisis of 1916–1918”) that in 1917 Russia was on the eve of victory

What would have happened if the revolution had not happened? We know (and W. Churchill expressed this very clearly in his book “The World Crisis of 1916–1918”) that Russia was on the eve of victory in 1917. That is why the revolutionaries then rushed to take action. They had a narrow loophole through which they could operate before the great offensive of 1917 began.

If there had been no revolution, Russia would have defeated the Austro-Hungarians, whose multinational and largely Slavic army was still on the verge of mutiny and collapse. Russia would then push the Germans, or most likely their Prussian commanders, back into Berlin. In any case, the situation would be similar to 1945, but with one important exception. The exception is that the Tsarist army in 1917–1918 would have liberated Central and Eastern Europe without conquering it, as happened in 1944–1945. And she would liberate Berlin, just as she liberated Paris in 1814 - peacefully and nobly, without the mistakes made by the Red Army.

– What would happen then?

– The liberation of Berlin and therefore Germany from Prussian militarism would undoubtedly lead to the disarmament and division of Germany into parts, to its restoration as it was before 1871 - a country of culture, music, poetry and traditions. This would be the end of O. Bismarck's Second Reich, which was a revival of the First Reich of the militant heretic Charlemagne and led to A. Hitler's Third Reich.

If Russia had won, it would have led to the disparagement of the Prussian/German government, and the Kaiser would obviously have been exiled to some small island, just like Napoleon was in his day. But there would be no humiliation of the German peoples - the result of the Treaty of Versailles, which directly led to the horrors of fascism and World War II. By the way, this also led to the “Fourth Reich” of the current European Union.

– Wouldn’t France, Britain and the USA oppose the relations between victorious Russia and Berlin?

The Allies did not want to see Russia as a winner. They only wanted to use her as "cannon fodder"

– France and Britain, stuck in their blood-soaked trenches or perhaps having reached the French and Belgian borders with Germany by that time, would not have been able to prevent this, because a victory over the Kaiser’s Germany would have been primarily a victory for Russia. And the United States would never have entered the war if Russia had not been withdrawn from it first - partly thanks to US funding of the revolutionaries. That's why the Allies did everything to eliminate Russia from the war: they did not want to see Russia as a winner. They only wanted to use it as “cannon fodder” to tire Germany out and prepare for its defeat at the hands of the Allies - and they would finish Germany off and capture it unhindered.

– Would the Russian armies have left Berlin and Eastern Europe soon after 1918?

- Yes, sure. Here is another difference from Stalin, for whom “autocracy” - the second element of the ideology of the Orthodox Empire - was deformed into “totalitarianism”, meaning occupation, suppression and enslavement through terror. After the fall of the German and Austro-Hungarian empires, freedom would have come for Eastern Europe with the movement of populations to border territories and the establishment of new states without minorities: these would have been reunited Poland and the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Transcarpathian Rus, Romania, Hungary and so on. . A demilitarized zone would be created throughout Eastern and Central Europe.

This would be Eastern Europe with reasonable and secure borders

It would be an Eastern Europe with reasonable and secure borders, and the mistake of creating conglomerate states like the future (now former) Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia would be avoided. By the way, about Yugoslavia: Tsar Nicholas established the Balkan Union back in 1912 to prevent subsequent Balkan wars. Of course, he failed due to the intrigues of the German princeling (“Tsar”) Ferdinand in Bulgaria and the nationalist intrigues in Serbia and Montenegro. We can imagine that after the First World War, from which Russia emerged victorious, such a customs union, established with clear boundaries, could become permanent. This union, with the participation of Greece and Romania, could finally establish peace in the Balkans, and Russia would be the guarantor of its freedom.

– What would be the fate of the Ottoman Empire?

– The Allies already agreed in 1916 that Russia would be allowed to liberate Constantinople and control the Black Sea. Russia could have achieved this 60 years earlier, thereby preventing the massacres committed by the Turks in Bulgaria and Asia Minor, if France and Great Britain had not defeated Russia in the Crimean War. (Remember that Tsar Nicholas I was buried with a silver cross depicting the “Aghia Sophia” - the Church of the Wisdom of God, “so that in Heaven he would not forget to pray for his brothers in the East”). Christian Europe would be freed from the Ottoman yoke.

The Armenians and Greeks of Asia Minor would also be protected, and the Kurds would have their own state. Moreover, Orthodox Palestine and a large part of present-day Syria and Jordan would come under the protection of Russia. There wouldn't be any of these constant wars in the Middle East. Perhaps the current situation in Iraq and Iran could also have been avoided. The consequences would be colossal. Can we imagine a Russian-controlled Jerusalem? Even Napoleon noted that “he who rules Palestine rules the whole world.” Today this is known to Israel and the United States.

– What would be the consequences for Asia?

Saint Nicholas II was destined to “cut a window to Asia”

– Peter I “cut a window to Europe.” Saint Nicholas II was destined to “open a window to Asia.” Despite the fact that the holy king was actively building churches in Western Europe and the Americas, he had little interest in the Catholic-Protestant West, including America and Australia, because the West itself had and still has only limited interest in the Church. In the West, both then and now, the potential for the growth of Orthodoxy is low. In fact, today only a small part of the world's population lives in the Western world, despite the fact that it occupies a large area.

Tsar Nicholas' goal to serve Christ was thus more associated with Asia, especially Buddhist Asia. His Russian Empire was populated by former Buddhists who had converted to Christ, and the Tsar knew that Buddhism, like Confucianism, was not a religion but a philosophy. Buddhists called him “white Tara” (White King). There were relations with Tibet, where he was called “Chakravartin” (King of Peace), Mongolia, China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan - countries with great development potential. He also thought about Afghanistan, India and Siam (Thailand). King Rama V of Siam visited Russia in 1897, and the Tsar prevented Siam from becoming a French colony. It was an influence that would extend to Laos, Vietnam and Indonesia. The people living in these countries today make up almost half of the world's population.

In Africa, home today to almost a seventh of the world's population, the holy king had diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, which he successfully defended from colonization by Italy. The Emperor also intervened for the sake of the interests of the Moroccans, as well as the Boers in South Africa. Nicholas II's strong disgust at what the British did to the Boers is well known - and they simply killed them in concentration camps. We have reason to assert that the tsar thought something similar about the colonial policy of France and Belgium in Africa. The emperor was also respected by Muslims, who called him "Al-Padishah", that is, "The Great King". In general, Eastern civilizations, which recognized the sacred, respected the “White Tsar” much more than bourgeois Western civilizations.

It is important that the Soviet Union later also opposed the cruelty of Western colonial policies in Africa. There is also continuity here. Today, Russian Orthodox missions already operate in Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, India and Pakistan, and there are parishes in Africa. I think that today's BRICS group, consisting of rapidly developing states, is an example of what Russia could achieve 90 years ago as a member of a group of independent countries. No wonder the last Maharaja of the Sikh Empire, Duleep Singh (d. 1893), asked Tsar Alexander III to free India from exploitation and oppression by Britain.

– So, Asia could become a colony of Russia?

- No, definitely not a colony. Imperial Russia was against colonialist policies and imperialism. It is enough to compare the Russian advance into Siberia, which was largely peaceful, and the European advance into the Americas, which was accompanied by genocide. There were completely different attitudes towards the same peoples (Native Americans are mostly close relatives of Siberians). Of course, in Siberia and Russian America (Alaska) there were Russian exploitative traders and drunken fur trappers who behaved in the same way as cowboys towards the local population. We know this from the lives of Saints Stephen of Great Perm and Macarius of Altai, as well as from the lives of missionaries in eastern Russia and Siberia. But such things were the exception rather than the rule, and no genocide took place.

– All this is very good, but we are now talking about what could happen. And these are just hypothetical assumptions.

Yes, these are hypotheticals, but hypotheses can give us a vision of the future

– Yes, hypothetical assumptions, but hypotheses can give us a vision of the future. We can view the last 95 years as a hole, as a catastrophic deviation from the course of world history with tragic consequences that cost the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The world lost its balance after the fall of the bastion - Christian Russia, carried out by transnational capital with the aim of creating a “unipolar world”. This "unipolarity" is just a code for a new world order led by a single government - a world anti-Christian tyranny.

If only we realize this, then we can pick up where we left off in 1918 and bring together the remnants of Orthodox civilization throughout the world. No matter how dire the current situation may be, there is always hope that comes from repentance.

– What could be the result of this repentance?

– A new Orthodox empire with a center in Russia and a spiritual capital in Yekaterinburg, the center of repentance. Thus, it would be possible to restore balance to this tragic, out-of-balance world.

“Then you can probably be accused of being overly optimistic.”

– Look at what has happened recently, since the celebration of the millennium of the Baptism of Rus' in 1988. The situation in the world has changed, even transformed - and all this thanks to the repentance of enough people from the former Soviet Union to change the whole world. The last 25 years have witnessed a revolution - the only true, spiritual revolution: a return to the Church. Taking into account the historical miracle that we have already seen (and this seemed to us, born amid the nuclear threats of the Cold War, only ridiculous dreams - we remember the spiritually gloomy 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s), why don't we imagine these possibilities discussed above in the future?

In 1914, the world entered a tunnel, and during the Cold War we lived in complete darkness. Today we are still in this tunnel, but there are already glimpses of light ahead. Is this the light at the end of the tunnel? Let us remember the words of the Gospel: “All things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27). Yes, humanly speaking, the above is very optimistic, and there is no guarantee for anything. But the alternative to the above is an apocalypse. There is little time left, and we must hurry. Let this be a warning and a call to us all.

The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the life of the state

By the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian Orthodox Church had passed a difficult and thorny path, sharing all the joys and sorrows of the people. The Church stood at the very origins of the creation of the Russian state, and it is safe to say that Russia, as an independent and distinctive nation, was born by adopting Christianity.

His Eminence Demetrius, Archbishop of Kherson, wrote: “ Where does everything that is best in our Fatherland come from, what do we rightly value more now, what is pleasant for us to reflect on, what is gratifying and comforting to see around us? From the Orthodox faith, which our Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir brought to us. We cannot help but rejoice at the almost immense greatness of our native land. Who is the first culprit? The Holy Orthodox Faith.

She united the disparate Slavic tribes, destroyed their tribal differences and formed a unanimous Russian people. Who has preserved and preserved our nationality for so many centuries, after so many coups, in the midst of so many enemies encroaching on it? Holy Orthodox Faith.

She purified, sanctified and strengthened our love for the Fatherland, giving it the highest meaning in love for faith and the Church. She inspired the heroes of the Don and Nevsky, the Avraamievs and the Hermogenes, the Minins and the Pozharskys. She breathed and breathes into our warriors unshakable courage in armor and sanctifies

the very battle for the Fatherland as a holy feat for the faith of Christ».

From the very beginning, the Church was a true “lamp of the Russian land.” Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called, holy Princess Olga, holy princes Boris and Gleb, holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir, holy noble Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky - they stood and strengthened the Russian Land. The peculiarity of the Russian Orthodox Church was that each of its ascetics became the spiritual helmsman of the people and the Fatherland. Princes, metropolitans, simple monks and rootless people of God were equally revered by the people for their love for Christ the Savior. Eldership was a special phenomenon in the life of the Russian Church.

One merchant, healed of gambling passion by Elder Ambrose of Optina, wrote about eldership: “Over the years I have thought a lot about aging. You, sir, of course, know that such a phenomenon does not exist anywhere except Russia. I think it was generated by the special disposition of the soul of the Russian person, who needs a wise adviser, not vested with any other power than the power given by selfless and selfless service to God and people. The elder is close to the people, accessible, but at the same time surrounded by the mystery of his involvement in everything heavenly, and this mystery is great...”

Orthodox saints did not strive for external showiness; at first glance, they were the most ordinary, simple people, no different from the rest. The person who came to them felt not depression and fear, but undivided love and joy. The very first seconds of communication with the ascetics revealed all the greatness and purity of their souls, the greatness of the power given to them by God and at the same time, deep humility before the will of God. Orthodox ascetics, in a princely crown, in a bishop's mitre, in a monastic hood, or in beggar's rags, were genuine lamps; thousands of sufferers flocked to them, bringing them their sorrows and joys.

The healed merchant we have already quoted wrote about Elder Ambrose of Optina: “ Sometimes I hear: what’s special about Father Ambrose? He did not perform any such feats of spirit, was not a hermit, did not fast for forty days, and did not put chains on himself. Yes, that's all true. And yet he is a real ascetic, and his feat is in some ways more difficult than others.<...>He took upon himself the work of elderhood - continuous service to people, spiritual communication with them, and took upon himself the unbearable burden of human passions»?

The role of the Russian Church in the life of the state was special. The head of state - the Grand Duke, the Tsar - ruled the earthly life of his subjects. His care and concern extended to the body of the Russian land. The spirit of Russia, the spiritual life of the Russian people were nourished by the Russian Church.

The Church was present in the life of a Russian person from birth to death. The church baptized, crowned, anointed, unctioned, blessed, and performed funeral services. Many church hierarchs were advisers to the Russian Sovereigns. The Church supported the Kings in their good endeavors, restrained them from bad deeds, and strengthened them in moments of weakness and despondency. For a long time, Ivan the Terrible had the priest Sylvester as his adviser; in moments of anger, he humbly listened to the denunciations of St. Basil; Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich constantly consulted with Patriarch Nikon; Emperor Paul I decisively blocked the path of Freemasonry in Russia, dreamed of the universal triumph of the Orthodox Church, which was not the last reason for his martyrdom; Emperor Alexander I visited the Valaam elders, and, quite likely, took secret tonsure under the name of elder Theodore Kozmich; Emperor Alexander III died in the arms of the righteous John of Kronstadt.

Already at the very beginning of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, the process of healing “deep spiritual wounds” began. At the personal initiative of the Tsar, St. Seraphim of Sarov was canonized. His canonization marked the beginning of the glorification of many Russian saints. Among them are St. Joasaph of Belgorod, Holy Blessed Princess Anna Kashinskaya, Hieromartyr Hermogenes, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'...

But relations between Church and state were not always idyllic. Ivan the Terrible, believing the slander of his enemies, imprisoned Metropolitan Philip, where he died. Patriarch Job changed his opinions several times regarding the impostor of Grishka Otrepiev and the death of Tsarevich Dimitri, supporting either Boris Godunov or the impostor. Alexei Mikhailovich imprisoned his closest assistant and adviser, Patriarch Nikon.

Emperor Peter the Great dealt a heavy blow to the Russian Church by abolishing the patriarchate. The point was not only that the essentially Protestant form of government prevailed, when the monarch was also the head of the Church, but that the hierarchy of power was violated. The earthly church has become, in fact, one of the state institutions.

The Synodal system, of course, could not change the mystical essence of the Orthodox Church, but it did great harm to its conciliar principle. Until the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, various people found themselves at the head of the Holy Synod, sometimes completely alien to Orthodoxy and even hostile to it, such as, for example, I.I. Melissino. The 18th century, with its admiration for Western customs, gave birth to a layer of Russian nobility that was far from Orthodoxy.

And in this case, it was a great happiness for the Orthodox Church that the Russian Monarchs, from Emperor Paul I to Emperor Nicholas II, were people of deep faith. It was the position of the supreme power, its attitude towards the Orthodox Church that returned spiritual meaning to the Synodal system.

In accordance with the laws of the Russian Empire, the Emperor " is the supreme custodian and defender of the tenets of the prevailing faith. In governing the church people, autocratic power acts through the Holy Governing Synod, established by it».

Nevertheless, the violation of the symphony of the authorities could not but lead to negative phenomena both in the Church and in the state. As for the Church, by the beginning of the 20th century it was affected by the processes of a new historical era, characteristic of the entire Russian society. Theological seminaries are increasingly being attended by the children of rural priests, as well as representatives of other classes, merchants and townspeople. At the same time, the number of graduates taking priestly orders decreases from year to year.

With the growth of capitalist relations in the village, peasant life is secularized, which leads to a decrease in the authority of the village priest. Peasants leaving for the cities bring revolutionary godless ideas from them to the countryside, which is also facilitated by the zemstvo school, which, as a rule, is anti-church. At the same time, in the Church itself there are trends of politicization, an increasing desire of its representatives to participate in the political life of society, which negatively affected intra-church life. Politicization has even affected some of the highest hierarchs of the church. The politicization of the Church was a very negative and dangerous phenomenon in the church life of Russia.

Emperor Nicholas II and the Orthodox Church

As we have already written, Emperor Nicholas II, being an Orthodox Christian, took the concerns and needs of the Church very close to his heart. Most importantly, the Emperor understood the need to restore the symphony of authorities.“ Nicholas II, - says Metropolitan John (Sychev), - Like no other of his crowned predecessors, he understood the vital need to restore the conciliar unity of Russian life.

Knowing history well, he understood perfectly well that neither the nobility, nor the bureaucracy, nor the zemstvo government bodies could become a support for the Tsar in his desire to “humble everyone into love.” First, those deep spiritual wounds that prevent the restoration of the former ideological unity of the people, the unity of their moral and religious ideals, their national self-awareness and sense of duty must be healed. The only force capable of this was the Orthodox Church.

And the Emperor quite rightly decided that first the conciliar principles should be restored in church life, and then, relying on its powerful spiritual support, in the social and state sphere».

The reign of Nicholas II well confirms this opinion of Metropolitan John. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian Orthodox Church had: more than 100 bishops, over 50 thousand parish churches, about 100 thousand white clergy, including priests and deacons, 1000 monasteries, 50 thousand monastics. However, as Father Georgy Mitrofanov rightly writes, there were clearly not enough parishes and clergy. There was an even greater shortage of higher theological educational institutions.

Already at the very beginning of the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, the process of healing “deep spiritual wounds” began. At the personal initiative of the Tsar, St. Seraphim of Sarov was canonized. His canonization marked the beginning of the glorification of many Russian saints. Among them are Saint Joasaph of Belgorod, Holy Blessed Princess Anna Kashinskaya, Hieromartyr Hermogenes, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', Saint John of Tobolsk, Venerable Euphrosyne of Polotsk. During the reign of Nicholas II, more saints were glorified than during all previous reigns.

At the same time, many churches and monasteries were built. The number of churches, for example, increased by 10 thousand, amounting to 57 thousand by 1917, and the number of monasteries by more than 250 (by 1917 there were 1025). The Tsar and his Family were an example of piety and deep faith. The Tsar and Empress donated personal funds for the construction of churches, attended church services every day, observed fasts, regularly partook of the Holy Mysteries of Christ, and reverently worshiped shrines - holy relics and miraculous icons. Nicholas II helped spiritual and educational missionary activities among the Tatars of the Kazan diocese, where the first ten students were supported at his expense; Orthodox Mission in Japan; the Palestinian Orthodox Society was supported with royal money; Temples were built in the Holy Land.

The king acted in this way not out of political calculation, but out of deep religious convictions. What profound meaning are filled with the words of his resolutions on the canonization of saints! Thus, the Emperor wrote about the Venerable Anna Kashinskaya: “ Throughout her life she was an example of a Christian wife and mother, distinguished by Christian love for the poor and unfortunate, showing sincere piety, courageously enduring all kinds of trials».

On the glorification of St. John of Tobolsk: “I accept the proposals of the Holy Synod with tenderness and with a greater sense of joy that I believe in the intercession of St. John of Tobolsk in this time of trial for Orthodox Rus'.”

The glorification of Saint Seraphim of Sarov in July 1903 was the last striking example of the unity of the Tsar, the Church and the People.“ Throughout the province, recalled General A.A. Mosolov, - and especially starting from the border of the province, huge lines of people stretched for dozens of miles. They said that in addition to the surrounding residents, about 150,000 people arrived in Sarov from all over Russia. The arrival in Sarov was surprisingly solemn. Bells ringing, many clergy, crowds of people around the Emperor. Vespers. The next day, the actual rite of glorification lasted four and a half hours. It is surprising that no one complained of fatigue; even the Empress stood almost the entire service, only occasionally sitting down.

They carried the shrine containing the relics of the already canonized Seraphim three times around the church. The Emperor did not take turns; the rest carried it in turn.<...>On the day of our departure, Their Majesties visited the monastery of the saint and the bathhouse located near it.<...>Governor V.F. von der Launitz received instructions from the Emperor not to interfere with the people on the royal path. This was difficult to organize and troops were called in. The soldiers held each other's hands to leave a clear path for the Emperor and the spiritual procession. A prayer service was served in the bathhouse, after which the Emperor, with his retinue, but without the clergy, went back to the monastery, from which a plank descent was built, in some places on rather high trestles.

The governor expressed fears that the crowd, wanting to see the Tsar closer, would break through the thin chain of soldiers and flood the highway. At this time, the Emperor, without warning anyone, turned sharply to the right, passed a chain of soldiers and headed up the mountain. Obviously, he wanted to return along the boardwalk and thus allow a large number of people to see him up close. His Majesty moved slowly, repeating to the crowd: “Move aside, brothers.” The Tsar was allowed forward, but the crowd slowly thickened behind him, only Launitz and I stayed behind the Tsar.

We had to walk more and more slowly, everyone wanted to see, and, if possible, touch their Monarch.<...>Our small group of three people became increasingly crowded, and finally we stopped completely. The men started shouting: “Don’t strain,” and we again moved forward a few steps.<...>At this time, the crowd piled in front, and he involuntarily sat down on Launitz’s and my crossed arms. We lifted him onto our shoulders. The people saw the Tsar, and there was a thunderous “Hurray!”"».

Upon leaving Sarov, Bishop Innocent addressed the Emperor with a touching speech: “ Most pious Sovereign! The Russian people, gathered for the great triumph of God's mercy, revealed in the Sarov monastery, experienced significant days of close communion with You: the Orthodox Tsar was on pilgrimage with His people in the holy monastery. And the people saw how their Tsar Father visited the holy places of Sarov on foot, how He carried on His shoulders the holy relics of the newly-minted Sarov Wonderworker; the people saw how the Tsar and Queen prayed to the saint of God together with him, on their knees and with tears.<...>Together with the Sarov desert, the entire Russian land makes a deep bow to its Tsar».

Then, during the Sarov celebrations, Nicholas II was given a letter from St. Seraphim, which he wrote shortly before his death and asked a believing woman, E.I. Motovilov, hand it over to the Tsar who will come to Sarov “to pray especially for me.” “What was written in the letter remained a mystery. One can only assume that the holy seer clearly saw everything that was to come, and therefore protected from any mistake and warned about future events, strengthening the belief that all this was not happening by chance, but according to the predestination of the Eternal Heavenly Council, so that in difficult moments of trials the Sovereign did not lose heart and carried his heavy martyr’s cross to the end.”

N.L. Chichagova wrote that when “ The Emperor read the letter, having already returned to the abbot's building, he cried bitterly. The courtiers consoled him, saying that although Father Seraphim was a saint, he could be wrong, but the Emperor cried inconsolably».

The Sarov events had a huge impact on Nicholas II. Their most important consequence was the Tsar’s awareness of the era he was going through, as the threshold of the coming Apocalypse. Nicholas II clearly realized that the Apocalypse could be postponed not through human efforts, but, first of all, through the spiritual rebirth of society, its return to the Christian worldview and way of life.

In this regard, the Tsar strengthened himself even more in Orthodoxy, began to attach even more importance to the Orthodox Church, and paid even more attention to its problems.

Meanwhile, despite the general spiritual uplift during the Sarov celebrations, Nicholas II did not find synodal support in recognizing the need to glorify St. Seraphim. The Holy Synod, even on the eve of canonization, was in doubt about its expediency.

A personal resolution from the Sovereign was needed: “Glorify immediately!” for the glorification to take place. The same applies to the glorification of St. Joasaph of Belgorod. The Synod wanted to postpone his glorification, but Nicholas II himself set this date. By the will of the Sovereign, John of Tobolsk was also glorified. It must be admitted, writes a modern researcher, “that The Tsar walked ahead of the Synod in glorifying the saints».

This also demonstrated the King’s awareness of the impending Apocalypse. The glorification of the righteous, according to the Tsar, was supposed to save the Russia of the future.

Most of his contemporaries did not understand this, considering the Tsar’s piety and his reverent attitude towards shrines to be a manifestation of retrogradeness and hypocrisy. What a contrast to the deeply Orthodox view of contemporary events of Nicholas II are the statements of many educated contemporaries of those years! Let's give one of them. The statement of Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich most clearly reveals the huge gulf separating the Tsar and educated society.

In 1905, during the outbreak of war with Japan, the Grand Duke wrote: “ The departing regiments were blessed with the icon of St. Seraphim of Sarov, who was recently canonized by the Synod. The unfamiliar features of his face had a very depressing effect on the soldiers. If it was necessary to involve God and the saints in the criminal Far Eastern massacre, then Niki and his bishops should not have abandoned the faithful and familiar Nicholas the Pleasant, who was with the Russian Empire for all three hundred years of battles. By the end of the Russo-Japanese War, I felt downright disgusted with the very name of Seraphim of Sarov. Although he led a righteous life, he was a complete failure in inspiring Russian soldiers.».

The main thing in these words of Alexander Mikhailovich is his deep hostility towards Saint Seraphim of Sarov. The reasons for this hostility are unclear, since the explanations given by the Grand Duke are absolutely unconvincing. Firstly, from the many photographs and evidence from the time of the Russian-Japanese War, it does not at all follow that the Emperor blessed the troops with the icon of St. Seraphim. The Tsar blessed the soldiers with the icon of the Savior. Secondly, it is completely unclear how Alexander Mikhailovich knew that Seraphim of Sarov “had a depressing effect on the soldiers”? It seems that all these speculations of the Grand Duke reflect his rejection of the very canonization of St. Seraphim of Sarov, a misunderstanding of the Tsar’s church policy.

The spiritual crisis of Russian society at the beginning of the 20th century also affected the Church. Some hierarchs increasingly began to interfere in worldly matters, sought to free themselves from the tutelage of the state and inevitably found themselves involved in politics. Reformers, liberals and even revolutionaries began to appear in the ranks of the clergy (Gapon is a prime example of this). Theological academies and seminaries are increasingly producing not clergymen, but revolutionaries. The reason for this was not only the “corruption” of young listeners, but often the inability or unwillingness of the leaders of theological schools to fight for the souls of future priests.

The desire of some part of the clergy to keep up with the times, their partial politicization, led, on the contrary, to a loss of authority and impoverishment of trust in the priesthood. Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov) believed that many Orthodox priests and hierarchs at the beginning of the 20th century ceased to be “salt” and could not “salt” others. Without denying the striking examples among the clergy, Metropolitan Benjamin stated with regret that “for the most part we became “doers of demands,” and not burning lamps.”

These words of the Metropolitan completely coincide with the opinion of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, who in a conversation with Prince Zhevakhov said: “ The distance you speak of between pastors and flock hurts me so much. The clergy not only does not understand church-state tasks, but does not even understand the people's faith, does not know the people's needs and requirements. Especially bishops. I know a lot of people; but they are all somehow strange, very little educated, with great ambition.

These are some kind of spiritual dignitaries; but ministers of the Church cannot and should not be dignitaries. The people follow not the dignitaries, but the righteous. They absolutely do not know how to bind either the intelligentsia or the common people to themselves. Their influence does not affect anything, and yet the Russian people are so receptive. I cannot see this as a legacy of historical reasons. Previously, the Church was not at enmity with the state; Hierarchs used to help the state and were much closer to the people than now»?

By the beginning of the revolution of 1905, the Church, like the whole society, was subject to doubts and hesitations.

Negative tendencies were brewing in it, which fully manifested themselves during the revolution...