Imperial Legend : The Disappearance of Czar Alexander I

by Alexis S Troubetzkoy

Release Date: 12 February, 2002

Edition: Hardcover

Price:

More Info

The conqueror of Napoleon was conquered by his conscience

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

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

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

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

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

Serious

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

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