Tsar Martyr Nicholas II
One of the things which interests me with the typical presentation of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II in so-called democratic nations (like the United States) is how much of the description comes from, and supports, the accusations of the Soviets. The meme always discusses how he was a “weak man,” and “not fit to rule anything.” However, how are the judgments being made? Through the lens of Prometheus? In this way, Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II, a man who loved God and whose life was about that love for God, must be and is rejected in the West. He represents everything the modern West cannot stand: he is the refutation of the call to power. The words of the Akathist to Tsar Martyr Nicholas II beautifully portray this. Let me recite some of the words which move me the most.
The Creator of angels did send thee to the Russian land as an angel of meekness and instructor to thy people, as He did choose thee after the example of His Only Begotten Son to be a sacrifice of redemption for the sins of the people.
What beautiful sentiments. The glory of the Tsar was in his meekness, in his humility. He did not want power, he did not seek it out. This, as C.S. Lewis points out in several places in The Chronicles of Narnia, is what best represents those who are worthy of leadership. Those who seek to be in a position of authority are unworthy – power is not something to take for oneself. This is the problem of the modern humanistic state: it looks at everything in purely materialistic terms. It cannot understand the power of meekness, the glory of the lowly – but as Christ says, blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
And we, marveling at the Providence of the Almighty towards thee, cry out with contrition:
Rejoice, O likeness of Christ.
Rejoice, sacrifice of whole burnt offering.
Rejoice, adornment of the Tsar’s of Russia.
Rejoice, thou who gavest an example of meekness and forgiveness to all.
Rejoice, true hope of the offended.
Rejoice, unshakable foundation of faith.
Rejoice, O Nicholas, God crowned Tsar and great passion bearer.
Tsar-Martyr Nicholas willingly endured the passion for the sake of his people; he was born on the feast of Job, and Job remained the mantle under which his life was to be lived. He provides to us the example of Christ’s royalty: someone who loved his people so much, he would die for them. Which leaders who seek after their own power would do that?
The power of the Most High did overshadow thee, O God crowned Nicholas, who didst fight back to enlighten the West in its false wisdom, that the world might cry out to God: Alleluia.
Comments are closed.
This may all be true, but didn’t he have quite a few people killed for legitimate criticisms of his regime? It’s not something I’ve studied, so I don’t really know how to separate the Soviet propaganda from reality.
Mickey,
Tsar Martyr Nicholas II was a man who loved God and his people; he was actively involved in the work for the betterment of his people — doing things which were unusual by any emperor. He was, like all of us, imperfect — and some of the things of his age he fell for, but as a whole he went beyond those extremes. He was actively involved in the peace movement of the day, indeed, one of the chief workers for peace (as with the Pope) in Europe. He directly engaged his people, often at his own great expense (look to what his family did for those involved with TB). There was, to be sure, a lot of power in Russia, and you will hear of the police sometimes going overboard (as with all regimes) but that wasn’t his own interest/action.
Interesting enough, there were reported miracles around the death of him and his family — bullets bouncing off of Alexei, for example, someone who had to worry about cuts throughout his life, couldn’t be killed by guns!
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/nicholas_ii_e.htm has a good portrait of him.
Nicholas II was a weakling who allowed his wife and his wife’s guru, Rasputin, to corrupt Russian governmental politics. Making him a “saint” is exactly the same as rewarding the lack of heroic sanctity of Pius XII. If you want to see what a real saint in a position of power looks like, here’s one:
http://emperorcharles.org/English/steps.shtml
He actually tried to STOP World War I, while Nicholas Romanov presided over immeasurable butchery.
Digby
Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II was actively engaged in the peace movement, indeed, establishing the ideas which led to the United Nations. This “he was a weakling” meme says much, imo. As for Rasputin, the story is far more complex than again the communists have made it out to be; there were reasons why she was interested in him (after all, he seemed to help Alexei at one point), but to call him her guru is too far, since she remained Orthodox and was not as firmly united with him as we are led to believe.
I have grave difficulties with the glorification of Nicholas Romanov to the point where I have needed to absent myself from visits to certain Orthodox ceremonies both here and in Russia.
Bloody Nicholas claimed to rule as dictator of Russia by Divine Right. Under his tyrancial rule, the people of Russia suffered under his Secret Police, the Jews under his anti-semitic pogroms, the Poles under his enslavement of them, the workers in the actions of Bloody Sunday and in his violent repression to any act of worker organization.
Peace so a man can rule as a brutal dictator is no peace. I do not condone his extralegal killing nor the murder of his family. However, in a fair trial, he likely should have been convicted of capital offenses.
Kurt,
That has been the accusation, but the full records demonstrate a different man than the soviet propaganda. He was given as much a black legend around him as many others, like Pope Pius. Again, if one looked beyond the Western rhetoric and myth created for him, which often was the case used to trumpet a utopian ideal of democracy, things look quite different. Was he a perfect man? By no means. Same with so many other saints. But, as with martyrs, his death itself, which was religious in nature, his death worked to fulfill him in Christ.
Henry,
Can you clarify what is false Soviet propaganda?
Did Nicholas Romanov not claim to rule as dictator of Russia by Divine Right?
Did the people of Russia not suffer under his Secret Police?
Did the Jews not suffer under his anti-semitic pogroms?
Were the Poles not denied their legitimate freedom by him?
Were the workers, in the actions of Bloody Sunday and in his violent repression to any act of worker organization, not oppressed by him?
Kurt,
He did not declare himself dictator. Indeed, dictatorships are a different thing than emperors/kings. A dictatorship always looks for humanity for justification. He didn’t “claim” authority of rule, either, he was invested with it. And indeed, God does invest rule upon men/women throughout history.
Did people suffer under St Augustine’s correction of the Donatists? Did people suffer under St Jerome’s campaign against the Origenists? Did people suffer in Russia? Yes, people did suffer, but often the relationship between Nicholas and the police was not there — indeed, they often went over and against the Tsar many times. The system was not was many in the West see. And the police we see in that day were common to what was all over Europe. Of course, it doesn’t justify, but — again, saints are not manifestations of perfection, but something in their sainthood serves as an example in Christ. And for Nicholas, his love, devotion, his own personal work for the betterment of his people in a time of strife, his willingness to sacrifice himself and all claims of authority — is something you don’t see in most.
Your claims about Tsar Nicholas II and the Jews: I want to see what he himself did, and where you see within him any semite sensibilities (I would also recommend Hannah Arnedt’s work on anti-semitism to make sure not all things “done to Jews” is seem as anti-semite).
I am not one who believes in the necessity of nationalism.
The Tsar was not involved with “Bloody Sunday.” He didn’t even know of the march! When he learned it, he wrote: “A painful day. Serious disorders took place in Petersburg when the workers tried to come to the Winter Palace. The troops have been forced to fire in several parts of the city and there are many killed and wounded. Lord, how painful and sad this is.” Indeed, the people involved in the bloodshed were those doing the acts of terrorism, true acts of terrorism; while the state might have acted as any state does, it is to be understood that Nicholas himself desired to work for the betterment of his people and when confronted, worked to give them what they wanted!
Beyond this, it would take a whole book to discuss the whole points, and much of the propaganda which has been raised, listening to one side of history. It’s not my point to focus on such debates — it is to focus on the man himself, who was humble and meek, who sought the betterment of his people, who loved them, suffered dearly for them, gave up his life for them (he could have left Russia easily, he didn’t). That is where whatever was imperfect was perfected — that is where he showed true glory, when he willingly humbled himself as far as he could.
Henry
Would you consider Louis XVI a king-martyr? If not, how would you distinguish his case from that of Nicholas II?
Liam,
I think it is possible, but there are many distinguishing features which do differentiate the two, and which make Tsar Martyr Nicholas II (and his family, esp. St Elizabeth — a veritable great saint and not just a martyr) from earlier examples. One of course was the role of Nicholas II within Orthodoxy which was of a higher position, and more direct an assault on it, after he had already abdicated. Indeed, in his lifetime, his promotion of the faith was strong, and his promotion for peace was associated with it. He could have escaped (as I said) but he saw his duty to take to the passion to the end — a passion which does have miracles associated with it (and again, in the actual case, was clearly aimed at Nicholas in relation to Christianity and not just because of his former position as Tsar). I would also say as a man, Nicholas’ humility (which people do not appreciate) help connect him to the death.
Louis XVI was attended to the scaffold by a non-juring priest who obviously considered that his king was dying as much for the cause of protecting the Catholic Church in France as for maintaining the ancien regime system.
I think that ever since the days of the promiscuous and politicized saint-making of John Paul II the standards for canonization in the Roman Catholic Church have sunk very low indeed. As I said above, the Emperor Karl is a much more likely candidate than Nicholas Romanov, Pio Nono or Pius XII.
To respond to the anti-Semitic pogroms of Nicholas II by saying “no one is perfect”, is like excusing Hitler. These pogroms are fact, not propaganda. Most of my grandmother’s family perished in one, and much of my grandfather’s family was killed by another, as they left the temple in Kiev in 1905. The fact of the matter, by statement of many who were there, is that Nicholas not only didn’t try to stop the slaughter of whole villages of Jews, but encouraged it. He forced them to live in a ghetto (the Pale), denied them educations, and prohibited them from many occupations. Rasputin, on the other hand, not only never killed anyone, but never even harmed anyone, and was vilified for trying to help the Jews and peasants gain equal rights. To this end, he encouraged the appointment to the Duma of certain men who would be more equitable in the treatment of ALL Russians.
I think Henry is raising at least a few good points here (or perhaps I am interpreting him!):
(1) If we judge people in the past by the standards of our own day, then we damn everybody (or almost everybody, barring a few saints). St. Thomas More did indeed burn heretics. He was convinced he was doing God’s will. I think More was a great man, a great saint. But he was wrong on certain things, attitudes that were very common in his day.
(2) and what about those attitudes prevailing in our day that future generations might judge us for? Presidents who use powerful weapons of war to kill people through a computer screen thousands of miles away? The fact that billions of our fellow human beings live in abject poverty while a few of us are comfortable? There are many ways to judge.
With regard to Morning’s Minion and Henry’s comments about judging Nicholas by the standards of our own day, I believe that “Thou shalt not kill” has been around for quite some time. And even in the tsar’s own time, there were diplomats, notably in England, who commented on the extreme anti-Semitism of Russia. Anti-Semitism and the rampant murder of whole towns of Jews was not the accepted norm of the day everywhere. Should we accept ethnic cleansing today because some third world countries don’t know any better? Or should we not judge it because it’s the accepted norm today… or simply doesn’t affect you personally?
Not because I am convinced of the virtues of Nicholas Romanov, but because I am convinced of the virtues of Henry Karlson, I’m recommending we simply leave this topic alone.
I cannot speak to Nicholas’s responsibility regarding the pograms which are of course a fact of late 19th century Russian history. Other than that, he reminds me of two English kings: St. Edward the Confessor and Henry VI (who might have been declared a saint had not England gone protestant). Both were relatively weak leaders, and probably not who their countries needed at the time, because they were not decisive enough.
Zak, “decisiveness” IS one of the hallmarks of “heroic sanctity.” The “saint” knows right from wrong and ACTS upon that knowledge. Again, I say that Emperor Karl is of an entirely different calibre of human being than Nicholas Romanov, Louis XVI and Pius XII.
More, by the way, at least wondered aloud whether his burning of “heretics” was constructive; however, it WAS his “duty” as Henry VIII’s chancellor. Pity he didn’t resign his chancellorship over that, rather than over the question of the divorce, which the papacy should have allowed–as it had allowed that of Louis XII of France–for purely practical reasons.