The House of Romanoff.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIX, Issue 20, 14 May 1913, Page 54

The House of Romanoff.

There in great resounding of church belts and guns in Ruma f-o-day (March 6th, says a correspondent in the “Daily Kcws’*). The Emperor of the Caars is Celebrating the three-hundredth anniversary of the accession of Mikhail Feodorojritch, the first Romanoff, to the Moscow Khrone. Students of history know tfie genealogical fiction which vitiates the tradition of the dynastic continuity of the Russian Imperial House. All the b'zara, beginning with Alexander I. (1801-1825), are the descendants ot

Paul 1., but Paul ’I., though the son of his mother, Catharine the Gxeat, was not the son of ’his father, Peter 111., and Peter 111. himself, thougli the nephew of his predecessor on the throne, Elizabeth, was neither a Romanoff nor even a Russian. He was the son of Elizabeth’s sister Anne, who had been married to a Prince of Holstein, and was therefore himself a Holstein. These are important facts from a dynastic point of view. Politically, however, they are immaterial, and are only mentioned here as a matter of historical curiosity. . Who, then, are (or were) the Romanoffs, and what was the part they played in -Russian history? They came to power ■in troublous times. The old Rurik dynasty having come to an end in 1598. six Czars, Including even a Pole -and a Catholic, were tried by the Boyar oligarchy in succession, but without success. The great desideratum was a Czar strong •enough to assert his authority over the people, yet willing enough to serve as a tool of the Boyars. -None of the six Czars just mentioned satisfied the two conditions, and the Boyars at last decided to exact from the future candidate only one qualification. Their choice’ accordingly fell upon the

‘■young and silly" (as he was attested by liis proposers) son of the Metropolitan Philaretus, Mik’hail. The choice was exceedingly lucky, for both the new C-zar and his two successors proved exceedingly pious men, with no taste or capacity for State -affairs, and the Boyars did pretty much as they wanted. The peasantry was attached to the soil; its ■repeated risings were suppressed in torrents of blood; Oukraine was annexed on the pretext of being saved from Polish domination; and a new criminal code, the most barbarous Russia ever -had, was issued. But then came Peter I. and took liis revenge, die, -too. was no friend of the people, wham he riveted still more firmly to’ the servile yoke, but neither was lie a friend of the Boyars, whose power he soon curbed with an iron hand. Peter, ■was the true successor of Ivan the Terrible in the work of establishing the autocracy of the Czardom, and he was also like him in character, wild and cruel; Ulis own and only son Alexis suffered death at his hands after long torture in prison. But Peter was a genius. He forced Russia into new paths, and deti/rihined her foreign policy for centuries to come, as' the embodiment of her endeavour to reach the warm -sea. ■Who were his successors? A whole phalanx of figures, men, women, and even children, pass before our eyes, one more unlovely than the other, with one sole exception. There was Catharine 1., Peter’s widow, a German woman of low •birth and loose morality, drinking •heavily from morning till night, and unable even to sign her name. There was Peter 11., -the son of the murdered Alexis, a vicious boy of thirteen, who soon died.’ Then there was a niece of Peter the Great, another German who did not know a word of Russian, -a certain Duchess of Courland who ruled the Empire through 0115 of her favourites, also a German of low birth, named Bnhren. Then we catch a glimpse of a one-year-old infant, Ivan Antonovitch, ■who was soon deposed, -thrown into the Schlusselburg fortress, and there eventually put to death by order of Catharine •11. Then we see Elizabeth, the prenuptial daughter of Peter the Great and Catharine, ascending the throne with the help of the palace guards ami scandalously lazying away on the throne for twenty years. Then we oee the above-mentioned Peter 111., an imbecile ■and drunkard, reigning for five months, and then deposed and murdered by courtiers acting on behalf of his" highly gifted and cultured wife, Catharine IT., who now ascended tile throne. This was the second remarkable figure on the Russian throne—a Messalina, it is true, and to this day remembered with execration by the people of Oukraine whom she deprivisl of their personal liberties, •but withal a genius in statecraft. 'Her successor, however. Paul, of obscure parentage, was a lunatic and also had to 'be ‘■removed.’’ In this case it ■was 'his own son, Alexander 1., with ■whose knowledge and permi-sion the dark deed was accomplished. That, however. was the. turnjng-poiint in -the history I>f the Russian 'throne. Alexander I. was an attractive personality, though tie turned afterwards a mystic. Nicholas T. was n ruthless despot, lint his personal character • was blameler's. Alexander IT. was -animated with good..intentions, but he lacked decision, and this proved the tragedy of his life and death.

On the other hand, liis son, Alexander 111., was an autocrat to the tips of his fingers and of great power of will, while the present Czar combines the chief traits of his two predecessors.

Three hundred years are a large span of time, but the historian’s eye discerns buit few bright spots in the long record of the- reigns which fill them.